Armenian News

Divisions deepen in Armenia as country braces for MPs' trial
- Seven accused of usurping state power at March rally
- Police among 10 victims at 'vote-rigging' protest
Duncan Campbell in Yerevan
The Guardian,
Monday 15 December 2008

Armenia is bracing itself for one of the biggest trials in its short
history as an independent country, with a former foreign minister and
three MPs among seven charged in connection with mass protests in which
10 people died.

The case this week against Alexander Arzoumanian, the former foreign
minister, and six others charged with "usurpation of state power", is
the culmination of a political storm that has engulfed the former
Soviet republic since thousands took to the streets early this year
against the disputed presidential election result.

"There is a real atmosphere of fear now," said Melissa Brown, the wife
of Arzoumanian, who is in jail awaiting trial. "It is like Soviet
times," she said during a protest in Yerevan, the capital.

Brown, from Philadelphia, met Arzoumanian when he was Armenia's UN
ambassador in Washington. He later became the campaign manager for the
opposition leader and former president Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who lost
this year's election. The Arzoumanians' phones were tapped by police in
the run-up to the elections and their conversations were published in
the media and used to charge him with money-laundering.

"This is Watergate stuff," said Brown, who visits her husband twice a
month in prison. "It is not about one candidate against another, it is
about freedom and democracy."

Ter-Petrosyan's supporters, who blamed voting irregularities for the
election of President Serzh Sargsyan, began protesting in Freedom
Square in mid-February. By night, about 1,000 camped out in freezing
temperatures. By day, crowds of up to 50,000 - estimates vary wildly -
participated in rallies.

Tensions rose further during the last week of February, and on 1 March
police entered the square, claiming they were searching for ammunition.
There were running battles through the streets, culminating in the
police opening fire, with each side claiming that the other launched
the first missile. Ten people, including two police officers, were
killed.

The killings sent shockwaves through the country and the government
imposed strict media censorship for 20 days. While the
government-sanctioned television stations continued to broadcast news,
some newspapers ran blank pages until their publication was halted.

More than 70 protesters have already been jailed but it is the seven
awaiting trial this week who face the main charges.

Sargsyan claimed 52.8% of the vote, enough to avoid the run-off that
some international observers believe should have been held. The
bloodshed has obscured argument over vote-rigging.

"To me, it was like the death of my country," said Karine Asatryan,
editor of the A1+ website, which was closed down during the news
blackout. "It is nine months now and we still don't know what happened,
no one believes the police version of events. As for the trial, I am
sure they will all be found guilty unless there is international
pressure."

Gegham Vardanyan, a journalist with Internews, said that the issue of
elections remained unresolved. "Armenia has never had fair elections,
there has always been fraud, people don't believe you can change that."
As for the court case, "it is a political trial and what happens in it
will depend on the political process".

The police feel they have been unfairly portrayed in the media and that
little sympathy was shown for the dead officers. "The coverage has been
extremely negative, it has often added fuel to the fire," said Sayat
Shirinyan, the chief police spokesman. "As for what happened, I can't
provide a clear picture because there is a still an investigation to be
completed. After it happened, many saw me as the embodiment of the
whole situation. About half the country knows me [due to media
appearances] and I experienced some very tense looks, but that has
changed. There are still aftershocks but what happens in the future
depends on the authorities."

Avetik Ishkhanyan, the chairman of the Helsinki committee of Armenia, a
human rights body, said that the country faced many challenges.
"Armenia is not totalitarian but it is not democratic," he said. "There
is still limited freedom of expression. The television stations, both
public and private, are under the control of the authorities."

Armenia Denies Changes In Karabakh Peace Plan
By Tigran Avetisian

International mediators have made no changes in their proposed basic
principles of a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, Foreign Minister Eduard
Nalbandian said on Monday, denying his Azerbaijani counterpart's claims
to the contrary.

The so-called Madrid principles were formally put forward by the
mediators in November 2007 and are still being discussed by the
conflicting parties. Azerbaijan's Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov
said after talks with Nalbandian last week that the U.S, Russian and
French mediators have presented the conflicting parties with unspecified
`certain changes' in the framework peace accord.

`Claims that the Madrid principles were amended do not correspond to
reality. There is no such thing,' countered Nalbandian. He said the
three co-chairs of the OSCE's Minsk Group have only come up with
`technical proposals on various issues, points included in the Madrid
proposals.'

The co-chairs' met Mammadyarov and Nalbandian on the sidelines of last
week's annual OSCE meeting in Helsinki. The two ministers also held
brief talks with Foreign Ministers Sergei Lavrov of Russia and Bernard
Kouchner of France as well as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel
Fried. In a joint statement issued in the Finnish capital, Lavrov,
Kouchner and Fried urged the parties to cut a framework agreement on
Nagorno-Karabakh in the `coming months.'

Commentary
Turks' Apology for Armenian Genocide: Good First Step, but not Good Enough
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

The Armenian Genocide issue has been attracting ever-growing attention
despite the Turkish government's persistent attempts to suppress its discussion at
home and recognition abroad.

During the past week, two public appeals were issued on the Armenian
Genocide -- one by Turkish intellectuals and the other by prominent individuals in
Armenia.

The Turkish appeal was initiated by scholars Ahmet Insel, Baskin Oran, and
Cengiz Aktar, and journalist Ali Bayramoglu. Risking death threats by Turkish
extremists and possible legal action, they issued a personal apology for "the
Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians were subjected to in 1915." On
December 15, they set up an Internet site titled "We Apologize"
(www.ozurdiliyoruz.com) which quickly attracted the signatures of more than 3,000 Turks.

The Turkish petition stated: "My conscience does not accept the
insensitivity showed to and the denial of the Great Catastrophe that the Ottoman Armenians
were subjected to in 1915. I reject this injustice and for my share, I
empathize with the feelings and pain of my Armenian brothers. I apologize to them."
This apology was not only criticized by Turkish denialists, but also by some
Turks who felt the statement had not gone far enough. Aytekin Yildiz,
Coordinator of the Confrontation Association, stated: "It is a good starting point,
but not enough. Firstly, what do they mean by 'Great Catastrophe'? Let's name
it. It is genocide. Secondly, the state has to apologize." Historian Ayse Hur
said that Turkey "has to apologize on behalf of the perpetrators and for
itself, because it has legitimized their actions through the years." Another
prominent Turkish intellectual, who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons,
told Zaman newspaper that the Turkish state, rather than individuals, must do
the apologizing.

Turkish extremists, on the other hand, strongly condemned the signatories of
the apology for "betraying" the Turkish nation. Historian Cemalettin Taskiran
was quoted as stating: "This is the biggest betrayal that could be shown to
our forefathers". The campaign was set up to hurt the unity of the Turkish
nation and to prepare the way for Turkey's eventual recognition of Armenian claims
of genocide." Several Parliament Members representing MHP, a radical Turkish
political party, accused the signatories of "insulting" Turkey. More
seriously, 60 retired Turkish diplomats set up their own counter-website, describing
the "apology" campaign as "unfair, wrong and unfavorable for the national
interests."

The Turkish intellectuals' apology generated both positive and negative
reactions on Armenian websites. Some Armenians welcomed the apology as a good
first step, while others expressed concern that Turks would try to cover uptheir
responsibility for the Genocide by simply apologizing. Armenian critics
pointed out several shortcomings in the Turkish statement: First, the apology
avoided the term Armenian Genocide by referring to it as the "Great Catastrophe."
Second, it alluded to the year 1915 only, rather than 1915-1923. Third, the
apology was issued by individual Turks rather than the Turkish state. Even if the
apology emanated from Turkish officials, it could not be viewed as a
substitute for reparations and restitution.

This statement, however, serves the useful purpose of educating the Turkish
public that has been kept in the dark so long about the Armenian Genocide.
Rather than an Armenian-Turkish historical commission, what is needed is a purely
Turkish commission that would provide a forum for Turks to discuss and
discover the mass crimes of their forefathers.

By coincidence, around the time of the Turkish appeal, nearly 300 prominent
individuals from Armenia issued an open letter to Pres. Abdullah Gul asking
him to take the bold step of recognizing the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian
appeal, like its Turkish counterpart, does not go far enough. Rather than
recognition, the Armenian signatories should have sought justice for the crimes
committed against the Armenian nation.

Nonetheless, the Armenian letter accomplishes several useful objectives:
First, it debunks the oft-repeated Turkish lie that the genocide issue is raised
only by "radical Diaspora Armenians" rather than residents of Armenia. Second,
it strengthens the hand of Pres. Serzh Sargsyan in his discussions with
Turkish officials to show to them how strongly Armenians feel about the Genocide.
Third, even though the letter is addressed to the Turkish President, it also
sends an indirect message to Pres. Sargsyan not to accept normalization of
relations with Ankara, without the latter's recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
Despite their shortcomings, these two appeals may play a significant role in
future decision-making by the Obama administration. It is hoped that when
Turkey's lobbyists call on the White House to block U.S. acknowledgment of the
Armenian Genocide, Pres. Obama would reject their request and hear the voices of
thousands of Armenian and Turkish signatories who support reconciliation
based on truth and justice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~