Two Alerts: Aghtamar Once-off Church Service & National Geographic Magazine

Alert 1:

Message from

Rouben Galichian

Author and Hon. Doctor of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia

I strongly believe that celebrating the Mass in the Church of the Holy Cross in

Aghtamar should be boycotted by ALL Armenians and specially by our religious

leaders.

This is a slap on our face. Allow a mass to be celebrated in a museum (which

Aghtamar now is!), just by sticking a cross on it for the day and removing the next

day and claiming they are an open and free society. I was recently in Aghtamar

and there is no mention of the world "Armenian" anywhere on the signs and

descriptions. Before allowing a mass to be celebrated, the Turkish authorities

should change the signs on all Armenian monuments and the history books used

in the schools and clearly state that this, as well as most of the other churches in

the territory of modern Turkey, are Armenian.

This is simply a propaganda a ploy by Turkey, like all their other similar

"reconciliatory" gestures, and regretfully our authorities all over the world fall into

their trap and fail to use it to our advantage.

Alert 2:

National Geographic Magazine

August 2010 Edition, Vol 218 No 2

The New Silk Road, from page 54.

The latest edition of this otherwise respected magazine has an article on the

construction and geography of the new Baku-Tiblisi-Kars (BTK) railroad. It does

not include Armenia in its reporting but does make comments on the political

circumstances of this project.

Even then, it has decided to include a couple of pictures that I think convey a wrong

impression and contains one glaring error. It could only have come from a Turkic

propaganda source that was unchecked. It also in fairness mentions that Armenia

has been excluded in economic developments by the other countries in the South

Caucusus region.

I hope that the following extracts may drive you to write to the magazine in protest:

"The BTK railway is the result of an alliance between Turkey, Georgia and

Azerbaijan: neighboring Armenia has deliberately been left out of the party"

"But the Armenians then demanded that Turkey acknowledged that the 1915

massacres of its people constituted genocide which Turkey is loath to do. For

their part, the Turks began insisting on some resolution to the Nagorno-Karabagh

conflict. Since neither is likely to happen anytime soon, the deal - and the

opportunity for rapprochement - collapsed last spring."

[note the use of the word massacres]

"The optimists live in Georgia, the people who are complaining all the time live in

Armenia but the realists live in Azerbaijan (quote from a Turkic source)".

All the while mentioning that prosperity in Azerbaijan does not extend beyond central

Baku!

It you wish to write, you have to include your name, address and daytime phone number

sending the letter to:

email: ngsforum@ngm.com

post: National Geographic Magazine

PO Box 98199

Washington DC 20090-8199

If it helps, here is a letter that has already been sent:

The Editor

Where in earth did Brett Forrest get the idea that Armenia had imposed a condition

that Turkey should recognise the 1915 Armenian Genocide prior to the Zurich

agreement coming into force? ("The New Silk Road, August 2010, Vol 218 No 2).

The published text of the protocols, Armenian Government statements before and after

the agreement, interviews of the Armenian President, Armenian press releases, all

political commentaries and the public articles state exactly the opposite, that Armenia

wished to establish diplomatic relations without any pre-conditions on either side. A

series of governmental commission would then jointly discuss the issues that concern

the two sides.

Furthermore, the wording of your feature implies that the above condition was first voiced

by the Armenian government after which the Turks imposed their own condition, the

resolution of the Karabagh issue where the Karabaghis had exercised their right to

self-determination of their status. Pre-conditions are unilateral from one side, and from

newspaper reports arose after Azerbaijan imposed on Turkey to progress its own bilateral

conflict with Armenia.

Why did your reporter make such an erroneous point that could so easily have been

checked out using public sources? It would at least be a basic courtesy for the National

Geographic Magazine correct their record immediately.

I also note the subliminal message from juxtaposing in the last three pictures the image

of an old, unhappy Azeri displaced person with the happy wedding of a well-off looking

couple in Armenia and an image of your perception of truimphalism in Karabagh.

The 800,000 refugees that you mention also include Armenians fleeing in the opposite

to Armenia from Azerbaijani Sumgait and Baku pogroms against the Armenian

residents in that country.

This article is laden with political messages from unchecked sources that are unbecoming

your publication.

Yours sincerely