Arminian News... A Topalian 6 editorials

[change of direction from previous notorious policy when the ADL actively supported the Turkish position]

Algemeiner

Oct 28 2019

Top Jewish Civil Rights Group Endorses US Congressional Resolution to Recognize Genocide of Armenians by Turkey

                                 

A leading US-based Jewish civil rights group publicly endorsed on Monday a bipartisan House of Representatives resolution that recognizes the systematic genocide of the Armenians at the hands of Ottoman Turkey more than a century ago.

In a statement, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) affirmed that H Res 296 — introduced into the House of Representatives in April — was a “historic Congressional resolution…long overdue,” praising it as “an important step toward raising awareness and educating the American public about the horrific

 genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire against Armenians during the early part of the 1900s.”

More than 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered by Turkey between 1915-23, in a killing campaign that formed the basis for the subsequent legal definition of “genocide.”

“The 20th century saw the worst episodes of genocide in recorded human history, beginning with the Armenian Genocide, through the Holocaust and all the way to the atrocities in Bosnia and Rwanda,” ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt said in the statement.

EurasiaNet.org

Oct 28 2019

Is the U.S. going to recognize the Armenian genocide?

Amid a spat with Turkey, the momentum appears to be on the side of those seeking formal American recognition. But some supporters wonder if this is the right time.

Joshua Kucera 

   

After a decades-long campaign to get the U.S. to formally recognize the Armenian genocide, is this finally the moment?

The U.S. House of Representatives has scheduled a vote for this week on a resolution to formally acknowledge the genocide, fast-tracked as a result of Turkey’s military operation in northern Syria. It will be the first such vote in more than 30 years, and appears more likely to succeed than any previous effort. 

While it is nearly universally acknowledged that the Ottoman Empire committed a genocide against Armenians starting in 1915, Turkey has vigorously opposed labeling the events as such. During the Cold War, Ankara was one of the U.S.’s closest allies and it has in the past been able to use its clout in Washington to block any attempts at formal genocide recognition.

But U.S.-Turkey ties have degraded badly in recent years, and have hit a nadir in recent weeks as Turkey has undertaken a military operation in northern Syria against the U.S.’s erstwhile Kurdish allies there. 

Analysts and activists in Washington believe that Turkey’s influence there is no longer strong enough to withstand this latest drive for genocide recognition.

“Ankara has seen its base of advocates and apologists on Capitol Hill steadily erode over the past two decades,” Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America, one of the leading Armenian-American lobbying groups, told Eurasianet. “You can draw a line from Turkey’s refusal to allow a northern front in the 2003 Iraq war to [Turkish President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan’s assault against peaceful American protesters at Sheridan Circle in 2017, his recent S-400 purchase, and the current bipartisan outrage over the attack on America’s Kurdish allies in Syria.

An anti-Turkey coalition among U.S. lawmakers has been growing, Hamparian said, which he described as “hawks, legislators who prioritize international religious freedom, the U.S.-Israel alliance, basic human rights, and many other priorities.”

Turkey “likely has made enough enemies” for the resolution to pass, said Alan Makovsky, a senior fellow at the Washington think tank Center for American Progress who studies Turkey. “Traditionally, the administration lobbies against it, warning that it would seriously corrode U.S.-Turkish relations. Given the current deterioration of bilateral relations … I doubt the administration would try to make that argument. Were it inclined to do so, it would likely fall on deaf ears in Congress,” Makovsky told Eurasianet. 

“This would seem to be the opportune time” for the House to pass a genocide recognition resolution, Makovsky added.

There could also be action from the White House: President Trump’s advisers gave him a range of options to respond to Turkey’s military actions, one of which was that he could recognize the Armenian genocide, a White House adviser told Newsweek. 

Although many of the House bill’s sponsors are longtime advocates of genocide recognition, some have promoted the issue now as a means of punishing Turkey for its operation in Syria. 

“Now would be a good time for the United States to recognize the Armenian Genocide,” tweeted Ted

 Lieu, a Democratic representative from California, on October 14. “For too long, presidents like @realDonaldTrump were too afraid to acknowledge this historical truth out of respect for Turkey. Turkey no longer deserves our respect or our assistance.”

"I'm sure the government of Turkey is not happy with [plans to vote on an Armenian genocide resolution], but then again we're not happy with the government of Turkey," said Eliot Engel, a Democratic representative from New York and chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. 

The motives behind the current push have rubbed some the wrong way. “First you instrumentalize the victims. Then you instrumentalize their tragedy. Thanks, but no thanks,” tweeted Artyom Tonoyan, a scholar at the University of Minnesota who otherwise supports the genocide recognition, in response to Lieu’s tweet. 

John Evans, who was effectively fired from his job as U.S. ambassador to Armenia after calling the events of 1915 a genocide, has since become one of the U.S.’s leading advocates for formal U.S. government recognition. 

But now may not be the right time, he said. 

“Although it is high time the Armenian Genocide was universally recognized, to do so as a way of lashing out at Turkey seems to be inadvisable,” Evans, who made his controversial comments in 2005 and was subsequently prematurely recalled

 from his position in Yerevan, told Eurasianet. “Both because it instrumentalizes, or misuses, a serious issue; and because it is likely to cause a major backlash among the Turks, who are literally on the warpath just now.”

It’s not clear what Turkey’s reaction would be to the resolution’s passage. In 2010, the House Foreign Affairs Committee narrowly approved a similar resolution and Turkey withdrew its ambassador from Washington in protest. The resolution was never brought up for a vote in the full House. 

A letter to members of Congress dated October 25 that appeared to be from Turkey’s ambassador in Washington opposing the resolution has

 been circulated by Armenian groups (the Turkish embassy did not immediately respond to queries from Eurasianet about its authenticity). The letter complained that the resolution “solely

 reflects the biased Armenian narrative” and that it “would not be helpful to promote an atmosphere of reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia.”

The letter detailed the close economic ties between Turkey and the U.S., but it did not lay out any potential response to the resolution passing.

The letter also claimed that “Turkey has made important efforts in addressing its history and in seeking a common ground with Armenia.” Under Erdoğan, Turkey has in fact made several steps toward a more honest reckoning with what happened in 1915, though that momentum has stalled or reversed as part of a broader crackdown in the country. And a full recognition of the genocide remains a distant prospect at best. 

Several other countries around the world have passed genocide recognition resolutions, and Turkey has tended to view them as part of an anti-Turkey campaign rather than honest historical assessments. 

Many Armenians in Turkey believe the foreign resolutions do little to help the cause of Turkey’s own reckoning with its history. 

“Decisions in European parliaments did not help Turkey acknowledge [the genocide],” said Yetvart Danzikyan, the editor of the Istanbul Armenian newspaper Agos. “So I don’t think this effort [in the U.S.] will help Turkey acknowledge.

 On the contrary, Turkey has always reacted against efforts like this,” Danzikyan told Eurasianet.

“I have always maintained that the important thing is for the Turks themselves to come to terms with their history, not for others to do so,” said Evans, the former U.S. ambassador.

Joshua Kucera is the Turkey/Caucasus editor at Eurasianet, and author of The Bug Pit.

Panorama, Armenia

Oct 28 2019

Armenian FM explains his Artsakh remarks at BBC interview

Armenian Foreign Minister Zohrab Mnatsakanyan addressed on Monday criticism over his latest interview to BBC HardTalk's Stephen Sackur, in particular regarding the Artsakh conflict.

“Such a program can prompt domestic political debates in a democratic country and Armenia is no exception. On this occasion, I am pleased to reiterate that there is pluralism in the Republic of Armenia, there is criticism and support,” Mnatsakanyan told

 a joint news conference with Bulgaria’s Deputy Prime Minister, Foreign Minister Ekaterina Zakharieva in Yerevan.

“I noticed that it caused quite a dynamic discussion in Armenia, which is only to be welcomed,” the FM said, adding he is grateful for different opinions, including for criticism.

Commenting on the his remarks over the Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) conflict made during the interview, the minister expressed hope everyone shares the position that the issue at the core of the conflict is the individual and collective rights of the people of Artsakh, including their right to self-determination, security of the Artsakh people and the status of Artsakh, which is the most important for Armenia.

“The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not about territorial dispute; it’s a matter of security and status for us. The primary concern for us is a human being with his individual and collective rights. Naturally, Artsakh, like Armenia, is a territory inhabited

 by Armenians. In order for it to remain a historic, Armenian territory, it is necessary to protect the Artsakh people’s security and right to self-determination today and in the future. We have been and remain the guarantor of Artsakh's security,” Zohrab Mnatsakanyan said, adding that this is the key point in the Artsakh issue which will continue to be strengthened by various formats and methods. 

Panorama, Armenia

Oct 28 2019

Armenia denounces Baku for derailing NK talks, calls on NAM member states to respect the peace process

“Armenia deplores the fact that Azerbaijan, the host country of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit and the current Chairman of the Movement, has once again opted for the abuse of its membership in the Movement by promoting misleading, extremely biased narratives on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the Outcome Document of the Summit,” Armenia’s foreign ministry reported on Monday in a press statement, reacting to the document adopted at the 18th NAM Summit of the Heads of State and Governments held in Baku.

“The authorities of Azerbaijan, who have perpetrated mass atrocities against the Armenians in Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh, who have been consistently conducting policies of intolerance and hatred, including by way of public glorification of convicted

 murderers of the Armenians, who have repeatedly attempted military aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh, bear direct and immediate responsibility for creating existential security risks for the people of Nagorno-Karabakh,” the statement released by the ministry press service said.

It next condemns the Azerbaijani leadership for “a lack of commitment to the peace process conducted under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs… by having opted to yet another forum-shopping exercise in an attempt to derail the ongoing negotiations.

“Armenia firmly supports the inalienable rights of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to freely determine their political status without limitation and coercion and to freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Armenia remains sole security guarantor of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh,” said the statement.

The statement next urges the member states of the Non-Aligned Movement to demonstrate responsibility and respect to the negotiations and to act in line with the spirit, the logic and the course of the peace process based on the norms and principles of international law, the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, including equal rights and self-determination of peoples as one of the key principles for the peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

EurasiaNet.org

Oct 28 2019

Armenia-Azerbaijan: Who’s the big defense spender? 

Azerbaijan spends six times more in dollar terms. But rival Armenia’s spending is far more painful at home. 

Sam Bhutia  

Decades into an intractable conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, plentiful oil has allowed Azerbaijan to spend lavishly on upgrading its military. Armenia’s struggle to compete, by contrast, is bleeding its budget. 

Between 2009 and 2018 Azerbaijan’s military spending totaled almost $24 billion, according to updated data from the Stockholm International and Peace Research Institute. Armenia spent slightly more than $4 billion in the same period.

 

As a share of government spending, however, Armenia spends far more. In 2018, according to SIPRI, 21 percent of Armenian government spending was directed toward the military, compared with about 11 percent in Azerbaijan. That is a significant drag in a country where close to 26 percent of people live in poverty. 

Russia, one of the largest arms exporters in the world, sells weapons to both sides in the conflict – though Armenia, as a member of the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization, gets a discount. In response, Azerbaijan has diversified, cozying up to unlikely allies such as Israel. 

According SIPRI, between 2014 and 2018, Azerbaijan was Israel’s second-largest buyer of defense equipment, taking home 17 percent of Israeli arms exports. In 2016, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev claimed his country had purchased $4.85 billion in Israeli armaments. The relationship is not one-sided: Azerbaijan’s exports to Israel totaled $1.3 billion in 2018 (mostly oil), just under 7 percent of Azerbaijan’s total.  

Armenia, meanwhile, is increasingly dependent on

 its economic ties with Russia. In this South Caucasus arms race, an Azerbaijani petrodollar goes a lot farther than Armenia can hope to stretch a dram. 

Sam Bhutia is an economist specializing in the former Soviet Union.

The  Armenian Mirror-Spectator

OCTOBER 17, 2019

EDITORIAL

Sorry State of Istanbul Armenian Patriarchate

by Raffi Bedrosyan

Ever since the last Armenian Patriarch Mesrob Mutafyan fell ill with dementia but continued to live in a vegetative state in 2008, the seat of the Istanbul Patriarchate has been vacant. Archbishop Aram Atesyan, who got himself appointed as Acting Patriarch, devised several arrangements with the help of the Turkish government to delay the election of a new Patriarch and remained in power for the past 11 years. Patriarch Mutafyan passed away in March 2019 and now no more legal and illegal loopholes are left to avoid the Patriarchal election.

The Turkish government finally relented to have the Patriarchal election take place in December 2019, but also presented a further obstacle against a fair and democratic election process. It imposed a condition that ‘the only eligible candidates would have to be clergy in the employ of the Istanbul Armenian Patriarchate’, thereby eliminating at least ten other potential candidates who could have been eligible, based on the historically legitimate condition of eligibility applied in previous Patriarchal elections, which was to be born into an Armenian family from Turkey. 

It should be noted that two of the previously elected Istanbul Patriarchs were clergymen born in Turkey but serving the Armenian Church outside Turkey and not in the Istanbul Patriarchate.

The Electoral Commission of Istanbul Armenians, selected from Istanbul Armenian community leaders, charitable foundation directors and some clergy, assembled to decide whether to object to the Turkish government about the imposed eligibility condition, but after a very short debate and a few resignations of objectors, it conveniently decided to comply with the government condition and proceed to the election. Therefore, instead of having a healthy debate and new approaches on how to run the Patriarchate with worthy candidates from inside and outside Istanbul, the December election will be between two Istanbul Armenian clergymen, Archbishop Atesyan, the Acting Patriarch until recently, and Archbishop Mashalyan, newly elected as the caretaker clergyman to oversee the election.

Based on their past performances, both men appear to be completely subservient to the Turkish government, convinced that the best and only way to conduct the Patriarchate affairs is to act exactly as the state demands, without ever rocking the boat. This may perhaps be acceptable as a tactic of survival, but what is even less acceptable is how these candidates act as subservient to the Istanbul Armenian charitable foundation leaders. 

The Patriarchate has the right to exert moral authority over the charitable foundations. Instead, the charitable foundation leaders, who are supposed to run the affairs of the Armenian churches, schools and hospitals on behalf of the Armenian community, conduct themselves as the head of individual empires, not accountable to anyone. Some charitable

 foundations are quite wealthy as they have substantial revenues and income from significant real estate holdings, while others are only reliant on individual donations or fundraising dinners. The “haves” are supposed to help the “have-nots,” but this can only be done by having a strong and influential Patriarch, arbitrating among the charitable foundations and distributing the wealth for the common good of the entire community. 

But at present, the directors of the wealthy foundations keep the revenues to themselves and spend it as they see it fit. Although they are supposed to be elected, the Turkish government has not allowed elections for Armenian charitable foundations for many years, and these people just rule their empires, with no accountability. 

The director of Holy Trinity Church (Surp Yerrortutyun), which oversees numerous other churches and schools in Pera, kept on ruling for 39 years until he passed away recently, completely wasting the potential of the historic Tokatliyan Hotel which his foundations owns, renting it cheaply to his friends and associates. The director of the Holy Saviour Hospital (Surp Prgitch), sees himself as the spokesperson of the entire Armenian community and makes irresponsible statements to the Turkish media, as he did recently, saying that students

 at highly prestigious Armenian Getronagan School are being raised as “militants.”

One critical issue that the Patriarchate needs to address but has not done until now is the reality of the hidden Armenians, living in different regions of Turkey outside Istanbul. The Islamized hidden Armenians have started to return to their Armenian roots in recent years. Against all odds, risks and consequences, they seek an Armenian identity. At present, the Armenian Patriarchate, or rather the Acting Patriarch, does not recognize them as Armenians until they get baptized and become Christian. But the conditions for baptism are so onerous that few hidden Armenians choose to go through with the process. Moreover, the hidden Armenians are also prevented from being baptized elsewhere in Armenia or Europe, as we experienced during Project Rebirth trips to Armenia with

 several groups of hidden Armenians. It is my humble opinion that any hidden Armenian who wishes to return to Armenian roots, language and culture, has the right to do so, and should not be prevented from doing so. Religion should be considered as a personal choice that comes later.

Another critical issue that the Patriarchate needs to address but has ignored at present is the status of the hundreds of abandoned Armenian churches in the rest of Turkey outside Istanbul. There were more than 4,000 churches and schools left behind in Turkey after the 1915 Armenian Genocide. Although most of them have been destroyed, there are still hundreds intact, either used by the Turkish state, organizations or individuals for other purposes. It is Patriarchate’s right, indeed its duty, to take steps toward the return of these properties to the rightful owner, the Patriarchate. There are also six active Armenian churches still open in the rest of Turkey outside Istanbul, in Kayseri, Iskenderun, Hatay, Vakiflikoy,  and the largest of them all, in Diyarbakir, the Surp Giragos Church. The Patriarchate should appoint part-time or full-time clergy to these churches, even though there may not be a visible Christian Armenian community at present. These churches, and potentially new others, would act as magnets for the hidden Armenians to have the courage to come out, congregate and support one another.

The two Patriarchal candidates have not uttered a word about any of these critical issues. In fact, they have only praised themselves about what they have done in the past, but not shared any of their future plans and programs, if elected.  I think every Istanbul

 Armenian voter should think about these issues and demand how the candidates will deal with them. The Istanbul Patriarchate is not simply a church administrative center appointing clergymen or running a few churches for a community of 60,000 Armenians. There is immense responsibility and duty, not only limited to Istanbul but covering the entire country, to deal with remaining historic assets and emerging realities of hidden Armenians. I would therefore, urge the Istanbul Armenian voters to ask the following questions to the Patriarchal candidates:

What are your plans to take charge of the Istanbul Armenian charitable foundations, and fairly arbitrate among them for the benefit of the entire Armenian community?

What are your plans to accommodate and welcome the hidden Armenians who wish to join the Armenian community and return to their Armenian roots, including those who wish to convert to Christianity, and those who do not convert to Christianity?

What are your plans to start discussions with the Turkish government, organizations or individuals toward the return of Armenian churches and schools previously owned by the Patriarchate?

What are your plans to appoint clergymen outside Istanbul in the rest of Turkey in areas where there are emerging hidden Armenian communities such as Diyarbakir?

If the voters are not aware or interested in these issues, the candidates will not be interested in these issues, either. Instead of serving the voters and the Armenian community at large, they will serve their ‘masters’, the wealthy directors of the charitable

 foundations. Not much will change and the Istanbul Armenian community will continue to be treated as ‘flock’, not only in the religious sense but also in the literal sense as ‘sheep’.

(Raffi Bedrosyan is a civil engineer and concert pianist, living in Toronto, Canada. He has donated concert and CD proceedings to infrastructure projects in Armenia and Karabakh, in which he has also participated as an engineer.

 He helped organize the reconstruction of the Surp Giragos Diyarbakir/Dikranagerd Church and the first Armenian reclaim of church properties in Anatolia after 1915. He gave the first piano concert in the Surp Giragos Church since 1915.)