Armenian News...Armenian Revolutionary Federation...And more
armenianweekly.com
MANOYAN: WITHDRAWAL OF PROTOCOLS A WELCOME STEP,
BUT NOT ENOUGH
By Weekly Staff on February 16, 2015
YEREVAN (A.W.)--Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun
(ARF-D) Bureau member Giro Manoyan has called President Serge
Sarkisian's decision to withdraw the Turkey-Armenia accord from the
National Assembly a first step to completely neutralize the protocols,
however, he stressed that Armenia must take this further. "This is
a welcome step, but is not enough. It is necessary to completely
neutralize and recall the signatures," Manoyan told Yerkir.am, adding
that there has always been the possibility of withdrawing from the
protocols.
Giro Manoyan
According to Manoyan, Sarkisian mentioned the possibility of
withdrawing from the accord as early as September 2014, during
his speeches at the 5th Armenia-Diaspora Conference and UN General
Assembly.
He also noted that the ARF-D demanded the withdrawal of Armenia's
signature from the very beginning, when it was clear that Turkey was
not ready to establish relations with Armenia without preconditions.
ANCA issues statement
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Executive Director
Aram Hamparian released a statement stressing the importance of
withdrawing Armenia's signature from the Protocols. "Withdrawing
these flawed and failed Protocols from Parliament represents a step
in the right direction--one that needs to be followed immediately by
the next logical step of withdrawing Armenia's signature from these
Ankara-inspired accords," said Hamparian.
Aram Hamparian
"As we stressed in 2009--and as is painfully clear today--Armenia
should never have signed these one-sided agreements. Once in
place, despite Turkey's obvious lies and endless preconditions
and manipulations, this farce was allowed to continue for far too
long. Even through all of this, we remain encouraged that, despite
Ankara's efforts--through the Protocols and other instruments of
denial-- to downgrade the Armenian Genocide from an unpunished
international crime into a simple bilateral conflict, the Armenian
people--in our homeland and diaspora--remain united in our resolve
for a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian Genocide, "
concluded Hamparian.
Earlier today, Sarkisian sent a letter to the Chairman of the
National Assembly Galust Sahakyan, informing him about his decision
to withdraw the protocols from the National Assembly of Armenia,
reported Armenpress.
On April 23, 2009, an agreement of "mutual understanding," defined as
a "roadmap," had been agreed upon by Armenia and Turkey assuring the
world that mutually beneficial relations between them were forthcoming.
In the days leading to the signing of the proposals, Sarkisian made
a tour of several Armenian communities around the world, including
New York, Paris, Beirut, and Los Angeles, only to be met with scorn
and outrage.
Public outcry had virtually no swaying influence on the resolve of the
Armenian authorities, and Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian alongside
his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu signed the protocols in Zurich
on Oct. 10, 2009.
On April 22, 2010, only seven months after signing the accord,
Sarkisian made a statement, in which he made it clear that the
political majority in the National Assembly considered statements from
the Turkish side unacceptable, "specifically those by Prime Minister
[Recepy Tayyip] Erdogan, who has again made the ratification of the
Armenia-Turkey protocols by the Turkish parliament directly dependent
on a resolution over Nagorno-Karabagh."
arminfo.am
SOURCES OF TURKISH FOREIGN MINISTRY: WITHDRAWAL OF
By Weekly Staff on February 16, 2015
YEREVAN (A.W.)--Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun
(ARF-D) Bureau member Giro Manoyan has called President Serge
Sarkisian's decision to withdraw the Turkey-Armenia accord from the
National Assembly a first step to completely neutralize the protocols,
however, he stressed that Armenia must take this further. "This is
a welcome step, but is not enough. It is necessary to completely
neutralize and recall the signatures," Manoyan told Yerkir.am, adding
that there has always been the possibility of withdrawing from the
protocols.
Giro Manoyan
According to Manoyan, Sarkisian mentioned the possibility of
withdrawing from the accord as early as September 2014, during
his speeches at the 5th Armenia-Diaspora Conference and UN General
Assembly.
He also noted that the ARF-D demanded the withdrawal of Armenia's
signature from the very beginning, when it was clear that Turkey was
not ready to establish relations with Armenia without preconditions.
ANCA issues statement
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Executive Director
Aram Hamparian released a statement stressing the importance of
withdrawing Armenia's signature from the Protocols. "Withdrawing
these flawed and failed Protocols from Parliament represents a step
in the right direction--one that needs to be followed immediately by
the next logical step of withdrawing Armenia's signature from these
Ankara-inspired accords," said Hamparian.
Aram Hamparian
"As we stressed in 2009--and as is painfully clear today--Armenia
should never have signed these one-sided agreements. Once in
place, despite Turkey's obvious lies and endless preconditions
and manipulations, this farce was allowed to continue for far too
long. Even through all of this, we remain encouraged that, despite
Ankara's efforts--through the Protocols and other instruments of
denial-- to downgrade the Armenian Genocide from an unpunished
international crime into a simple bilateral conflict, the Armenian
people--in our homeland and diaspora--remain united in our resolve
for a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian Genocide, "
concluded Hamparian.
Earlier today, Sarkisian sent a letter to the Chairman of the
National Assembly Galust Sahakyan, informing him about his decision
to withdraw the protocols from the National Assembly of Armenia,
reported Armenpress.
On April 23, 2009, an agreement of "mutual understanding," defined as
a "roadmap," had been agreed upon by Armenia and Turkey assuring the
world that mutually beneficial relations between them were forthcoming.
In the days leading to the signing of the proposals, Sarkisian made
a tour of several Armenian communities around the world, including
New York, Paris, Beirut, and Los Angeles, only to be met with scorn
and outrage.
Public outcry had virtually no swaying influence on the resolve of the
Armenian authorities, and Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian alongside
his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu signed the protocols in Zurich
on Oct. 10, 2009.
On April 22, 2010, only seven months after signing the accord,
Sarkisian made a statement, in which he made it clear that the
political majority in the National Assembly considered statements from
the Turkish side unacceptable, "specifically those by Prime Minister
[Recepy Tayyip] Erdogan, who has again made the ratification of the
Armenia-Turkey protocols by the Turkish parliament directly dependent
on a resolution over Nagorno-Karabagh."
arminfo.am
SOURCES OF TURKISH FOREIGN MINISTRY: WITHDRAWAL OF
ARMENIAN-TURKISH PROTOCOLS IS A WRONG AND
UNSUCCESSFUL STEP
by Tatevik Shahunyan
Tuesday, February 17
Armenia has never demonstrated sincerity in normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations, Hurriyet has been told by a source in
the Turkish Foreign Ministry.
The source also condemns the Armenian President's withdrawal of the
Armenian-Turkish protocols on normalization of relations. "This is
a wrong and unsuccessful step", it said.
To note, on Feb 16 President Serzh Sargsyan addressed a letter to the
President of the RA National Assembly Galust Sahakyan, informing him
about his decision to recall the Armenian-Turkish Protocols from the RA
NA. The Armenian President's press service quotes Sargsyan as saying,
"It is already six years since the Armenia-Turkey Protocols were
signed. During the entire period, Armenia has always demonstrated
a consistent approach in bringing the protocols to life. However,
we have to state the lack of Turkish authorities' political will, the
distortion of the letter and spirit of the protocols and the continuous
stimulation of preconditions. Simultaneously, as the 100th anniversary
of the Armenian Genocide approaches, the policy of negationism and
historical revisionism is gaining new momentum. I have spoken many
times about the non-inexhaustibility of time, including from the
podium of the UN General Assembly in September 2014. I repent that
the Turkish leadership failed to listen to Armenia's exhortation.
Hence, I have made a decision to recall from the National Assembly
of the Republic of Armenia, the Protocol on the Establishment of
Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic
of Turkey and the Protocol on Development of Relations between the
Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey which were signed on
the 10th of October of 2009 in Zurich."
by Tatevik Shahunyan
Tuesday, February 17
Armenia has never demonstrated sincerity in normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations, Hurriyet has been told by a source in
the Turkish Foreign Ministry.
The source also condemns the Armenian President's withdrawal of the
Armenian-Turkish protocols on normalization of relations. "This is
a wrong and unsuccessful step", it said.
To note, on Feb 16 President Serzh Sargsyan addressed a letter to the
President of the RA National Assembly Galust Sahakyan, informing him
about his decision to recall the Armenian-Turkish Protocols from the RA
NA. The Armenian President's press service quotes Sargsyan as saying,
"It is already six years since the Armenia-Turkey Protocols were
signed. During the entire period, Armenia has always demonstrated
a consistent approach in bringing the protocols to life. However,
we have to state the lack of Turkish authorities' political will, the
distortion of the letter and spirit of the protocols and the continuous
stimulation of preconditions. Simultaneously, as the 100th anniversary
of the Armenian Genocide approaches, the policy of negationism and
historical revisionism is gaining new momentum. I have spoken many
times about the non-inexhaustibility of time, including from the
podium of the UN General Assembly in September 2014. I repent that
the Turkish leadership failed to listen to Armenia's exhortation.
Hence, I have made a decision to recall from the National Assembly
of the Republic of Armenia, the Protocol on the Establishment of
Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic
of Turkey and the Protocol on Development of Relations between the
Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey which were signed on
the 10th of October of 2009 in Zurich."
lragir.am
ARMENIA CHANGED THE TURKISH MECHANISM FUNCTIONING
ARMENIA CHANGED THE TURKISH MECHANISM FUNCTIONING
FOR FIVE YEARS
Siranuysh Papyan, Interviewer
Interview - 17 February 2015, 16:06
A few months ago Serzh Sargsyan sent the protocols to hell from the
UN floor, and he has now recalled them from the parliament.
There may be an impression that the decision made on February 16
stemmed from the declaration made on January 29. In reality, Turkey's
steps did not let us alternatives. On the other hand, the anniversary
of the genocide accelerated some processes or produced the impression
that any step is automatically linked to April 24. Now let us have
a retrospective look and try to understand whether this step was
inevitable or not. I think national security and dignity are at stake.
In April 2010 it was clear that insurmountable obstacles have occurred
which forced the Armenian president to announce about suspending
the process of ratification of the protocols. During the next five
years Turkey did not take any essential step. Moreover, since Armenia
needed opening of the border, it used every pertinent and impertinent
occasion to remind about its pre-conditions. Turkey led the process
into an impasse, stereotypes were even more crystallized, lack of
understanding deepened, and lack of confidence aggravated.
How will the world react to this step?
The reaction depends on how its presentation to the world will look
like. In reality, this is one of the cases when Armenia has no reason
to worry. Moreover, if the "world" that you mentioned is surprised or
startled, it should recall the steps that it took to prevent this. The
impression was that everybody was fine with the suspended situation
except Armenia. This perceived satisfaction created a misunderstanding
that some process was going on between Armenia and Turkey, and the
sides should not have been disturbed. In reality, Turkey was using
the process to create an impression, and for Armenia the processes
moved not in the best direction. The passive role of the international
community and the tendency to tolerate Turkey's willfulness resulted
in a complicated process. This was the mistake and shortcoming of the
international centers of power. One of the illustrations was September
3 when "choice of civilization" and flexibility was expected from
Armenia in blockade and at war. It is difficult to tell what lessons
the "world" you mentioned has learned from all this and whether it
has learned anything or not.
When did the representatives of the countries and political
organizations standing behind Nalbandyan and Davutoghlu on 10 October
2009 last urge Turkey to fulfill its commitments? How often does the
EU bring up the issue of blockade of Armenia by a country aspiring
to the EU membership? When did the OSCE, the PACE, the CoE and other
organizations last condemn the blockade of Armenia by Turkey?
Unfortunately, all the answers to these questions have negative
answers. The international community left Armenia alone in
normalization of its relations with Turkey, and the bilateral format
failed because the relations between Turkey and Armenia had become
so bad that they needed a third party. Indeed, the United States was
trying to help but the issue of the Armenian-Turkish relations was
deemed secondary to other geopolitical developments, namely the Arab
spring, the civil war in Syria, the Iran-West relations, the rise
of the Islamic State, the Turkey-West controversies etc. Obviously,
there was no room for the problems of Armenia in this line.
How may Turkey react and what should our response be?
Turkey will try to blame the Armenian government indeed, describing it
as a step made in the context of the centenary of the genocide. There
may be an impression that Turkey was happy that Armenia took the lead
and suspended the process. I think it is the contrary. Turkey has a
reason for concerns because Armenia has changed the mechanism of the
Turkish denialism designed and functioning for over five years.
Now that the protocols actually do not exist, Turkey has frozen them,
and we have recalled them, what should the new model of normalization
of Armenian-Turkish relations be? What new projects can be proposed
by us or by them?
At this stage, it is hard to tell what form and content these
initiatives will acquire. One thing is clear - it is necessary to
learn lessons from the past process. It is advisable to refrain from
large-scale commitments in the future initiatives. The previous process
demonstrated that the Armenian-Turkish relations are complicated and
multifaceted. It is difficult to normalize relations with vows and
protocols. Turkey should mature for normalization, the government of
that country must have political will.
Siranuysh Papyan, Interviewer
Interview - 17 February 2015, 16:06
A few months ago Serzh Sargsyan sent the protocols to hell from the
UN floor, and he has now recalled them from the parliament.
There may be an impression that the decision made on February 16
stemmed from the declaration made on January 29. In reality, Turkey's
steps did not let us alternatives. On the other hand, the anniversary
of the genocide accelerated some processes or produced the impression
that any step is automatically linked to April 24. Now let us have
a retrospective look and try to understand whether this step was
inevitable or not. I think national security and dignity are at stake.
In April 2010 it was clear that insurmountable obstacles have occurred
which forced the Armenian president to announce about suspending
the process of ratification of the protocols. During the next five
years Turkey did not take any essential step. Moreover, since Armenia
needed opening of the border, it used every pertinent and impertinent
occasion to remind about its pre-conditions. Turkey led the process
into an impasse, stereotypes were even more crystallized, lack of
understanding deepened, and lack of confidence aggravated.
How will the world react to this step?
The reaction depends on how its presentation to the world will look
like. In reality, this is one of the cases when Armenia has no reason
to worry. Moreover, if the "world" that you mentioned is surprised or
startled, it should recall the steps that it took to prevent this. The
impression was that everybody was fine with the suspended situation
except Armenia. This perceived satisfaction created a misunderstanding
that some process was going on between Armenia and Turkey, and the
sides should not have been disturbed. In reality, Turkey was using
the process to create an impression, and for Armenia the processes
moved not in the best direction. The passive role of the international
community and the tendency to tolerate Turkey's willfulness resulted
in a complicated process. This was the mistake and shortcoming of the
international centers of power. One of the illustrations was September
3 when "choice of civilization" and flexibility was expected from
Armenia in blockade and at war. It is difficult to tell what lessons
the "world" you mentioned has learned from all this and whether it
has learned anything or not.
When did the representatives of the countries and political
organizations standing behind Nalbandyan and Davutoghlu on 10 October
2009 last urge Turkey to fulfill its commitments? How often does the
EU bring up the issue of blockade of Armenia by a country aspiring
to the EU membership? When did the OSCE, the PACE, the CoE and other
organizations last condemn the blockade of Armenia by Turkey?
Unfortunately, all the answers to these questions have negative
answers. The international community left Armenia alone in
normalization of its relations with Turkey, and the bilateral format
failed because the relations between Turkey and Armenia had become
so bad that they needed a third party. Indeed, the United States was
trying to help but the issue of the Armenian-Turkish relations was
deemed secondary to other geopolitical developments, namely the Arab
spring, the civil war in Syria, the Iran-West relations, the rise
of the Islamic State, the Turkey-West controversies etc. Obviously,
there was no room for the problems of Armenia in this line.
How may Turkey react and what should our response be?
Turkey will try to blame the Armenian government indeed, describing it
as a step made in the context of the centenary of the genocide. There
may be an impression that Turkey was happy that Armenia took the lead
and suspended the process. I think it is the contrary. Turkey has a
reason for concerns because Armenia has changed the mechanism of the
Turkish denialism designed and functioning for over five years.
Now that the protocols actually do not exist, Turkey has frozen them,
and we have recalled them, what should the new model of normalization
of Armenian-Turkish relations be? What new projects can be proposed
by us or by them?
At this stage, it is hard to tell what form and content these
initiatives will acquire. One thing is clear - it is necessary to
learn lessons from the past process. It is advisable to refrain from
large-scale commitments in the future initiatives. The previous process
demonstrated that the Armenian-Turkish relations are complicated and
multifaceted. It is difficult to normalize relations with vows and
protocols. Turkey should mature for normalization, the government of
that country must have political will.
tert.am
ARMENIA'S PRESIDENT MADE WELL-TIMED STEP - EXPERTS
17.02.15
Since gaining independence Armenia has been committed to its foreign
policy in terms of Armenia-Turkey rapprochement, with the exception
that the Armenian side has been gradually adopting a harder line on
its demands, Ruben Safrastyan, Director of the Institute of Oriental
Studies, Academy of Sciences of Armenia, told Tert.am.
"Armenia has always favored improvement of its relations with Turkey,
without any preconditions. Armenia is committed to its policy. This
principle remains in force, but new approaches have been shown, and
we are now discussing not only the problem of recognition, but that
of demands as well," Mr Safrastyan said.
He considers logical that Armenia has been pursuing a harder line
since 1999-2000. According to him, if Turkey had changed its policy,
Armenia would not have had to take such steps.
Most experts welcomed Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan's step.
However, they called it a belated step because the Armenian-Turkish
protocols have done their "dirty business" by raising Turkey's role.
Mr Safaryan disagrees with experts. According to him, Armenia's
president made a well-timed step.
"We have seen Turkey continues disregarding Armenia's 'no
preconditions' policy. On the other hand, Turkey has lately made
overtly impudent steps on the threshold of the Armenian Genocide
centennial. I mean their cheap trick involving the Battle of
Gallipoli. Under the circumstances such a step was to be expected
before April 24, but it was made even earlier, and I welcome it,"
Mr Safrastyan said.
The international community understands everything and has seen
Turkey has not changed its policy toward Armenia for years. So Turkish
propaganda may make use of this step to slander Armenia once again,
but it will not succeed.
Expert in Turkic studies Andranik Ispiryan told Tert.am that the
Armenians expected President Serzh Sargsyan to make that step.
"It was expected prior to April 24 because Turkey has not so far taken
any steps to Armenia-Turkey rapprochement. On the contrary, as the
Armenian Genocide centennial is nearing, Turkey has been following
a harder line in denying the Armenian Genocide, which has logically
led to the present situation," he said.
The withdrawal of the Armenian-Turkish protocols has not essentially
changed anything because the protocols had no legal force. However,
in terms of propaganda it created a situation for Turkey. It claims it
is extending its hand to Armenia, protocols were signed, but Armenia
does not respond.
"And Armenia's president is thus putting an end to this all," Mr
Ispiryan said.
As regards Turkey's response, he said that, regrettably, Turkish
society and mass media do not properly present Turkey's responsibility
for Armenia-Turkey rapprochement.
"What is the meaning of the headline 'Sargsyan has buried
Armenian-Turkey rapprochement process' by one of the Turkish media
outlets? That is, they are once again trying to accuse the Armenian
side, turning a blind eye to the fact that it was Turkey that, after
signing the protocols, placed them on the furthest back burner."
PROTOCOLS
Tuesday, February 17th, 2015
Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic
ANKARA--Turkey's Foreign Ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic told reporters
Tuesday that Ankara remains committed to the protocols signed between
Turkey and Armenia purportedly aiming to normalize bilateral relations,
after Yerevan recently withdrew the 2008 protocols from parliament,
Hurriyet Daily News reports.
Bilgic told reporters yesterday that Yerevan has decided to withdraw
the Protocol on Establishing of Diplomatic Relations and the Protocol
on Developing Relations in order "to create a reason to accuse Turkey"
ahead of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
The Armenian government, and a majority of Armenians around the world,
regarded the protocols as unfair and a diplomatic ploy by Turkey,
due to the myriad conditions and concessions it demands of Armenia.
Meanwhile, the Turkish parliament itself has not ratified either of
the agreements.
Bilgic, however, called Armenians "incoherent and insincere" because
of the move, adding that "Turkey will remain loyal to regional
normalization process which is the fundamental goal of the protocols."
On Feb. 16, Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian announced that he has
asked the country's parliamentary speaker to withdraw his signature
from the protocols.
Sarkisian said in a statement that Armenia would not ratify the
agreement because of the "preconditions" that Turkey is putting in
place before it ratifies its side of the deal.
The agreement aimed to restore diplomatic ties between the countries
as well as reopen the common border, which Turkey closed in 1993.
Turkey holds off weapons deal for April 24 Authorities said Turkey will
postpone the selection a winner for a controversial, multibillion
dollar contract for the construction of an anti-missile defense
system until after April 24, the Hurriyet Daily News reported,
quoting senior officials.
A senior diplomat confirmed that Ankara first wants to see the U.S.
and French positions on the Armenian Genocide before awarding
a sizeable contract "to a bidder potentially from one of these
countries."
"We have agreed with the government leaders not to rush to a decision
any time soon," one defense procurement official said. "A decision
before April 24 is out of the question."
"How these countries observe the centennial of the events will be an
important input for our final decision," he said.
After Ankara selected a Chinese company in September 2013 to build
the air defense architecture and came under heavy pressure from its
Western allies for the decision, it also opened parallel negotiations
this summer with a European contender in the multibillion dollar
competition.
A defense industry source said he expected tough rivalry between
French and U.S. contenders in the second half of 2015. "Both of them
are surely aware that how their governments tackle the centennial
will be critical for success or failure," he said.
Tuesday, February 17th, 2015
Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic
ANKARA--Turkey's Foreign Ministry spokesman Tanju Bilgic told reporters
Tuesday that Ankara remains committed to the protocols signed between
Turkey and Armenia purportedly aiming to normalize bilateral relations,
after Yerevan recently withdrew the 2008 protocols from parliament,
Hurriyet Daily News reports.
Bilgic told reporters yesterday that Yerevan has decided to withdraw
the Protocol on Establishing of Diplomatic Relations and the Protocol
on Developing Relations in order "to create a reason to accuse Turkey"
ahead of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.
The Armenian government, and a majority of Armenians around the world,
regarded the protocols as unfair and a diplomatic ploy by Turkey,
due to the myriad conditions and concessions it demands of Armenia.
Meanwhile, the Turkish parliament itself has not ratified either of
the agreements.
Bilgic, however, called Armenians "incoherent and insincere" because
of the move, adding that "Turkey will remain loyal to regional
normalization process which is the fundamental goal of the protocols."
On Feb. 16, Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian announced that he has
asked the country's parliamentary speaker to withdraw his signature
from the protocols.
Sarkisian said in a statement that Armenia would not ratify the
agreement because of the "preconditions" that Turkey is putting in
place before it ratifies its side of the deal.
The agreement aimed to restore diplomatic ties between the countries
as well as reopen the common border, which Turkey closed in 1993.
Turkey holds off weapons deal for April 24 Authorities said Turkey will
postpone the selection a winner for a controversial, multibillion
dollar contract for the construction of an anti-missile defense
system until after April 24, the Hurriyet Daily News reported,
quoting senior officials.
A senior diplomat confirmed that Ankara first wants to see the U.S.
and French positions on the Armenian Genocide before awarding
a sizeable contract "to a bidder potentially from one of these
countries."
"We have agreed with the government leaders not to rush to a decision
any time soon," one defense procurement official said. "A decision
before April 24 is out of the question."
"How these countries observe the centennial of the events will be an
important input for our final decision," he said.
After Ankara selected a Chinese company in September 2013 to build
the air defense architecture and came under heavy pressure from its
Western allies for the decision, it also opened parallel negotiations
this summer with a European contender in the multibillion dollar
competition.
A defense industry source said he expected tough rivalry between
French and U.S. contenders in the second half of 2015. "Both of them
are surely aware that how their governments tackle the centennial
will be critical for success or failure," he said.
ARMENIANS IN ANATOLIA WAIT FOR CLERGY
Vartan Estukyan
Vartan Estukyan
01.26.2015
Although there are Armenian churches in Diyarbakýr, Van and Kayseri,
regular mass cannot be held because religious clergy is not appointed
by the Patriarchate. There are no permanent religious officials in
churches in Turkey apart from the churches in Istanbul and the church
in Ýskenderun.
Although the Islamised Armenians in Anatolia face various difficulties
in retaining their identity, they continue to make an effort to return
to their roots and keep the culture of their forefathers alive. One of
the most significant obstacles they encounter is access to a church,
since most churches in Anatolia have been damaged. On the other hand,
although there are Armenian churches in Diyarbakýr, Van and Kayseri,
regular mass cannot be held because religious clergy is not appointed
by the Patriarchate.
At the moment, the only religious official who serves on a permanent
basis is Father Avedis Tabaþyan, the religious official of the Karasun
Manuk Church in Ýskenderun and the Surp Asdvadzadzin Church in Vakýflý
Koy. In addition to Tabaþyan, Father Krikor Damatyan and Deacon Artun
Damatyan visit churches across Anatolia in weeks following important
feasts and hold Badarak Mass with the local Armenian congregation.
Damatyan is actually a religious official of the Kadýkoy Church in
Istanbul, and is in Anatolia at the moment. However, the need for
permanent religious officials in Anatolia continues. Archbishop Ateþyan
responded to our question on the issue: "We cannot say that mass is
not held in Anatolia. Father Krikor Damatyan was in Elazýð last week,
and will be in Sivas this week. And Father Avedis Tabaþyan serves in
Ýskenderun." However, Anatolian Armenians believe that there should
be permanent religious officials at their churches.
Diyarbakýr is the centre
Armen Galustyan, the President of the Daron Muþ Armenians Solidarity
Social Tourism Association, criticized the Patriarchate and argued
that there should be a religious official in a church in Anatolia:
"Diyarbakýr has a very central location, it is only an hour's distance
to many cities in Anatolia. Not only Diyarbakýr, there could also be
a religious official in Van, but there should be a permanent religious
official at least in Diyarbakýr. And mass should be held at least twice
a month. There are Armenians living in many cities from Muþ to Batman
to Kayseri. These people have reverted to their identity, and they
want to keep it alive. The church is of paramount importance for that."
Galustyan also states that the church for him has a cultural rather
than religious significance: "For me the Church is my culture. I want
my funeral to be held there, I want to get married in church. But
no one in Istanbul cares about this. The community here will never
become active if a representative is not sent from Istanbul."
'No churches have been left standing!'
Hikmet Bakýrcý, a resident of Adýyaman, states that the Armenians
in Adýyaman attend mass held at the Syriac Church. Bakýrcý says
that the majority of the congregation attending mass at the Ancient
Syriac Church are Armenians, and that since there are no Armenian
churches in good conditions to hold service in surrounding cities,
they are forced to hold their religious ceremonies in other churches:
"All the Armenian churches in this area have been destroyed. The church
in the best condition in this area is in Diyarbakýr, but that is quite
a distance. We can only go there on religious feast. The only church
we can hold mass in Adýyaman is the Ancient Syriac Church. We hold
mass once every two weeks, and sometimes three times a month. 80%
of those who attend are Armenians."
'Armenians have become Syriacized'
The circumstances in Diyarbakýr are different. Melike Dara Gunal, a
resident of Diyarbakýr, says that Armenians in Anatolia were either
Islamised over time, or lost their beliefs, whereas some Diyarbakýr
Armenians have adapted to Syriac culture. "Most Diyarbakýr Armenians,
for social and political reasons, have become Islamised or lost
their beliefs. Therefore, the appointment of a permanent religious
official to the church would have no affect on that group. The number
of Christian Armenians is sadly no more than a few. And they have
been influenced by Syriac theology, and have adapted to the culture
of the Syriac Church."
Gunal adds that there are also some Armenians who want a permanent
religious official to be appointed to the Surp Giragos Church:
"Albeit a few, there are still some who want the appointment of a
religious official so that Christianity, a fundamental element of
Armenian culture, can be learned. The very few remaining Anatolian
Armenians are trying to keep their faith alive. However, the younger
generation of Armenians lose their identity, as they are detached from
the church; they either become Syriacized, Kurdified or Turkified. The
presence of a religious official is of great importance for the sake
of keeping Anatolian Armenians together."
Although there are Armenian churches in Diyarbakýr, Van and Kayseri,
regular mass cannot be held because religious clergy is not appointed
by the Patriarchate. There are no permanent religious officials in
churches in Turkey apart from the churches in Istanbul and the church
in Ýskenderun.
Although the Islamised Armenians in Anatolia face various difficulties
in retaining their identity, they continue to make an effort to return
to their roots and keep the culture of their forefathers alive. One of
the most significant obstacles they encounter is access to a church,
since most churches in Anatolia have been damaged. On the other hand,
although there are Armenian churches in Diyarbakýr, Van and Kayseri,
regular mass cannot be held because religious clergy is not appointed
by the Patriarchate.
At the moment, the only religious official who serves on a permanent
basis is Father Avedis Tabaþyan, the religious official of the Karasun
Manuk Church in Ýskenderun and the Surp Asdvadzadzin Church in Vakýflý
Koy. In addition to Tabaþyan, Father Krikor Damatyan and Deacon Artun
Damatyan visit churches across Anatolia in weeks following important
feasts and hold Badarak Mass with the local Armenian congregation.
Damatyan is actually a religious official of the Kadýkoy Church in
Istanbul, and is in Anatolia at the moment. However, the need for
permanent religious officials in Anatolia continues. Archbishop Ateþyan
responded to our question on the issue: "We cannot say that mass is
not held in Anatolia. Father Krikor Damatyan was in Elazýð last week,
and will be in Sivas this week. And Father Avedis Tabaþyan serves in
Ýskenderun." However, Anatolian Armenians believe that there should
be permanent religious officials at their churches.
Diyarbakýr is the centre
Armen Galustyan, the President of the Daron Muþ Armenians Solidarity
Social Tourism Association, criticized the Patriarchate and argued
that there should be a religious official in a church in Anatolia:
"Diyarbakýr has a very central location, it is only an hour's distance
to many cities in Anatolia. Not only Diyarbakýr, there could also be
a religious official in Van, but there should be a permanent religious
official at least in Diyarbakýr. And mass should be held at least twice
a month. There are Armenians living in many cities from Muþ to Batman
to Kayseri. These people have reverted to their identity, and they
want to keep it alive. The church is of paramount importance for that."
Galustyan also states that the church for him has a cultural rather
than religious significance: "For me the Church is my culture. I want
my funeral to be held there, I want to get married in church. But
no one in Istanbul cares about this. The community here will never
become active if a representative is not sent from Istanbul."
'No churches have been left standing!'
Hikmet Bakýrcý, a resident of Adýyaman, states that the Armenians
in Adýyaman attend mass held at the Syriac Church. Bakýrcý says
that the majority of the congregation attending mass at the Ancient
Syriac Church are Armenians, and that since there are no Armenian
churches in good conditions to hold service in surrounding cities,
they are forced to hold their religious ceremonies in other churches:
"All the Armenian churches in this area have been destroyed. The church
in the best condition in this area is in Diyarbakýr, but that is quite
a distance. We can only go there on religious feast. The only church
we can hold mass in Adýyaman is the Ancient Syriac Church. We hold
mass once every two weeks, and sometimes three times a month. 80%
of those who attend are Armenians."
'Armenians have become Syriacized'
The circumstances in Diyarbakýr are different. Melike Dara Gunal, a
resident of Diyarbakýr, says that Armenians in Anatolia were either
Islamised over time, or lost their beliefs, whereas some Diyarbakýr
Armenians have adapted to Syriac culture. "Most Diyarbakýr Armenians,
for social and political reasons, have become Islamised or lost
their beliefs. Therefore, the appointment of a permanent religious
official to the church would have no affect on that group. The number
of Christian Armenians is sadly no more than a few. And they have
been influenced by Syriac theology, and have adapted to the culture
of the Syriac Church."
Gunal adds that there are also some Armenians who want a permanent
religious official to be appointed to the Surp Giragos Church:
"Albeit a few, there are still some who want the appointment of a
religious official so that Christianity, a fundamental element of
Armenian culture, can be learned. The very few remaining Anatolian
Armenians are trying to keep their faith alive. However, the younger
generation of Armenians lose their identity, as they are detached from
the church; they either become Syriacized, Kurdified or Turkified. The
presence of a religious official is of great importance for the sake
of keeping Anatolian Armenians together."
Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Feb 14 2015
A political war has started in Armenia
Armenian media report that Armenian citizens in the near future will
witness "sleaze, financial and criminal prosecution... A rat race, and
many other phenomena that have no connection with politics, but will
accompany further political events," referring to a campaign now being
initiated by President Serzh Sargsyan against the leader of the
Prosperous Armenia party, Gagik Tsarukyan.
Recall that Sargsyan described Tsarukyan as "evil in the political
sphere of Armenia, which it was time to eradicate," remembering missed
sessions of Parliament, and shadow economic activity, and rumors of
"creating professional criminal mechanisms."
In response, Gagik Tsarukyan has spoken about the error of the
authorities and Sargsyan himself both in foreign and in domestic
politics, blaming them for the severe socio-economic situation in the
country.
Simultaneously, Tsarukyan claimed that he would not fight Sargsyan
alone, and that evening he held talks with the leader of the Armenian
National Congress, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, in the presence of deputies
from PAP Naira Zohrabyan, Vartan Oskanyan, Stepan Margaryan and
members of the ANC Aram Manukyan and Levon Zurabyan.
In the near future he intends to meet with the leadership of the Heritage party.
Experts immediately drew attention to the fact that, immediately after
the speech by Sargsyan, ex-president Robert Kocharyan urgently
returned to Yerevan from Kiev.
Official representatives of Kocharian rejected this connection, but
they do not exclude the possibility that the second president of the
republic will soon make a statement regarding the attack by Sargsyan
on Tsarukyan.
nyut.am
TO TAKE OLIGARCHS AWAY TO MEAN HAVING 1-2 MPS AND
EMPTY CABINET - SOS GIMISHYAN
16.02.2015
There is no political fight in Armenia, there are just arrangements
behind the stage, chairman of the Christian-Democratic Revival party
Sos Gimishyan told the reporters on Monday. In his words there is no
mandate in the NA given without the consent of Serzh Sargsyan.
Referring to the statements as if PAP leader Gagik Tsarukyan is
avoiding paying taxes, Gimishyan stressed that al oligarchs do so. "It
sounds strange that the authorities voice this issue as there are
many people among them who avoid paying taxes," he said.
Gimishyan said his wish is to see only political figures in the field.
"If the oligarchs are taken away from the NA, just one-two MPs will
stay there and the cabinet will be empty," he stressed, adding that
the change of power is a must here but without blows.
"I consider Gagik Tsarukyan quite successful economic figure but not
political one. I hope it is not order from outside and no Maidan will
take place here. I think it will not last long, but I would like to
be mistaken and this political fight be just," he said.
PAP MP Michael Melkumyan said that their team was not going to enter
the field of personal offences. "These processes must enter civilized
field. Is Gagik Tsarukyan guilty that no investments are being made
in Armenia, or that the unemployment rate is high," he said, adding
that the PAP was opposition but wanted to make the changed gradually
without blows, but the recent developments accelerated the process.
"We have chosen the path of snap elections. One thing was not taken
into consideration - the people are ignored. The people mobilized over
non-governmental forces, over Gagik Tsarukyan. The authorities saw
that there is no corridor for reaching arrangement over Constitutional
changes which resulted in the created situation," he said.
The PAP MP said that the people are by their side. Asked whether
Armenia's second president Robert Kocharyan is engaged in the process,
Melkumyan said, "Robert Kocharyan is periodically coming up with his
concerns and observations. He is concerned with the situation in the
country but I cannot say whether he is in the process or not."
16.02.2015
There is no political fight in Armenia, there are just arrangements
behind the stage, chairman of the Christian-Democratic Revival party
Sos Gimishyan told the reporters on Monday. In his words there is no
mandate in the NA given without the consent of Serzh Sargsyan.
Referring to the statements as if PAP leader Gagik Tsarukyan is
avoiding paying taxes, Gimishyan stressed that al oligarchs do so. "It
sounds strange that the authorities voice this issue as there are
many people among them who avoid paying taxes," he said.
Gimishyan said his wish is to see only political figures in the field.
"If the oligarchs are taken away from the NA, just one-two MPs will
stay there and the cabinet will be empty," he stressed, adding that
the change of power is a must here but without blows.
"I consider Gagik Tsarukyan quite successful economic figure but not
political one. I hope it is not order from outside and no Maidan will
take place here. I think it will not last long, but I would like to
be mistaken and this political fight be just," he said.
PAP MP Michael Melkumyan said that their team was not going to enter
the field of personal offences. "These processes must enter civilized
field. Is Gagik Tsarukyan guilty that no investments are being made
in Armenia, or that the unemployment rate is high," he said, adding
that the PAP was opposition but wanted to make the changed gradually
without blows, but the recent developments accelerated the process.
"We have chosen the path of snap elections. One thing was not taken
into consideration - the people are ignored. The people mobilized over
non-governmental forces, over Gagik Tsarukyan. The authorities saw
that there is no corridor for reaching arrangement over Constitutional
changes which resulted in the created situation," he said.
The PAP MP said that the people are by their side. Asked whether
Armenia's second president Robert Kocharyan is engaged in the process,
Melkumyan said, "Robert Kocharyan is periodically coming up with his
concerns and observations. He is concerned with the situation in the
country but I cannot say whether he is in the process or not."
No comments:
Post a Comment