Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Armenian Mirror-Spectator - 10/10/2009

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Armenian Mirror-Spectator - 10/10/2009

    The Armenian Mirror-Spectator
    755 Mount Auburn St.
    Watertown, MA 02472
    Tel: (617) 924-4420
    Fax: (617) 924-2887
    Web: http://www.mirrorspectator.com
    E-mail: [email protected]

    October 10, 2009


    1. Col. Moorad Mooradian, Longtime Mirror-Spectator Columnist, Dies
    2. ADL, Armenagan Members Meet with President Sargisian
    3. President Sargisian Meets With Diasporans in New York
    4. Foreign Minister of Armenia Speaks at Columbia University
    5. Election Commission Rules Against Krikorian
    6. Editorial: Let's Review Our Declarations=85
    7. Review: The Struggle towards Remembrance of the `Forgotten Genocide'
    8. Editorial: Rest in Peace, Moorad

    ****************************************** *******

    1. Col. Moorad Mooradian, Longtime Mirror-Spectator Columnist, Dies

    RICHMOND, Va. - Dr. Moorad Mooradian died on September 30.

    He was born in Rhode Island, graduated from Central High School, Rhode
    Island College and the University of Rhode Island.

    He received his PhD from George Mason University in Virginia. He was a
    four-time Fulbright Scholar to Armenia and established the first conflict
    resolution center in any former Soviet state, at Yerevan State University.

    He was a highly decorated, 30-year Army veteran who served in Vietnam. He
    had been a regular columnist for the Armenian Mirror-Spectator dating back
    to 1991. He had taught at George Mason University and Yerevan State
    University. In addition, he was an accomplished reporter and author,
    sought-after speaker and champion for Armenian causes both in America and
    Armenia. He was a longtime member of the Executive Committee of the Armenia
    Tree Project.

    Mooradian leaves his wife, Lillian; their four children, Paul, Martin and
    Gregory Mooradian and Natalie Hogan and their spouses; eight grandchildren
    and one great-grandchild. He also leaves two sisters, Anahith Boyajian and
    Beatrice Petricone, and an extended family of cousins, nieces and nephews.

    A requiem service was held on Sunday, October 4, at St. James Armenian
    Apostolic Church, Richmond. Interment was on Monday, October 5, at the
    Quantico National Cemetery, Triangle, Va.

    Another requiem service will be held on Sunday, October 11, at 1 p.m. in
    Providence, RI at Sts. Sahag & Mesrob Armenian Apostolic Church, 70
    Jefferson St.

    In lieu of flowers, donations may be sent to the Armenia Tree Project at
    their website: www.armeniatree.org or by phone in the Watertown, Mass.
    office.

    The family wishes to thank those who have expressed concern and support for
    him and his family during his illness.



    ************************************** ****************

    2. ADL, Armenagan Members Meet with President Sargisian

    YEREVAN - On October 1, before leaving for his tour of diaspora centers,
    President Serge Sargisian met with a delegation of the ADL and Armenagan
    Ramgavar members. The delegates were from the US, Canada, Europe, the Middle
    East and Armenia.

    The president said that for him it is very important the role ADL plays in
    the diaspora especially for the benefit of the Armenian communities in the
    sphere of culture, education and in Armenia-Diaspora relations. The
    president said he hoped that the meeting scheduled in Armenia would help
    solve the party's problems.

    Then the president spoke with his guests about improving Armenian-Turkish
    relations and answered to their questions. He said: `Your views about this
    question are very important for me. As you know, I decided to start an
    international trip because I am sure that in order to solve important
    problems for our people, it is important that the government know
    everybody's views. The views are different and I should listen all views
    and
    explain the fundamentals of the process.'

    The delegates thanked the president for the conversation. They said that
    this meeting and the conversation helped them understand consequences of the
    protocol, and wished him luck.



    ***************************************** *******

    3. President Sargisian Meets With Diasporans in New York



    By Taleen Babayan

    Mirror-Spectator Staff



    NEW YORK - Addressing a select group of people at the New York Palace Hotel,
    Serge Sargisian, President of the Republic of Armenia, once again insisted
    that the Armenian Genocide and Nagorno Karabagh issues would not be affected
    by the Armenian-Turkish protocols.

    Echoing the tenor of a talk by Eduard Nalbandian, foreign minister of
    Armenia, delivered at Columbia University lastTuesday, Sargisian said that
    it is necessary to establish relations with Turkey without preconditions.

    A day after tense demonstrations in Paris, Sargisian was met with protestors
    outside the New York Palace Hotel, waving Armenian flags and holding signs
    that read `Don't Compromise Armenia's Future' and 'Genocide Is Not
    Negotiable.'

    Inside the hotel Sargisian met with some 50 leaders of the Armenian-American
    community, including representatives of the Armenian Democratic Liberal
    Party (ADL) Eastern District Committee, the Armenian General Benevolent
    Union, the Armenian Assembly of America, the Armenian National Committee of
    America, the Diocese of the Armenian Church of America and the Prelacy of
    the Armenian Church of America, in a conference-room setting.

    He spoke uninterrupted for close to half an hour, acknowledging the concerns
    of the diaspora, while stressing that relations between Turkey and Armenia
    should be normalized.

    `I do believe that staying enemies with Turkey for an eternity is not
    helpful or useful to us,' said Sargisian. `This is why I initiated the
    current phase of Armenian-Turkish negotiations.'

    Speaking about the events of 1915, Sargisian described Turkey as a country
    that `subjected us to Genocide, deprived us of our vital areas and 100 years
    since, has not only denied this reality but retained its hostile attitude
    and actions.'

    `There are grounds for pessimism and doubt,' he said. `On the other hand, we
    expect there will be a discussion on the merits of the protocols.'

    Addressing concerns about the provision in the protocols which calls for the
    establishment of a subcommittee of historians to review the Genocide,
    Sargisian insisted this approach would not strike a `blow to the campaign
    for the international recognition of the Genocide.'

    As to arguments that the protocols would force Armenia to relinquish all
    claims to historic Armenian lands in present-day Turkey, Sargisian said `we
    as a state cannot file territorial claims against another state.'

    `We're signing protocols on improving relations,' he said. `I don't think by
    establishing ties with Turkey, we would be shutting the door for our claims
    or demands.'

    In the second part of his address, Sargisian said that Armenia won Nagorno
    Karabagh on the battlefield and will continue fighting for its recognition
    in the international arena.

    `This process is being dealt with by the [Organization for Security and
    Cooperation in Europe] Minsk Group co-chairs,' he said. `We will opt for
    settlement only in one instance, and that is if we get what we have been
    seeking since 1988: Nagorno Karabagh cannot be part of Azerbaijan.'

    The Minsk Group was established by the Organization for Security and
    Cooperation in Europe in 1992 in order to negotiate between Armenia and
    Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabagh. Sargisian was expected to meet with
    Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev on October 8.

    `Indeed we are a small country, indeed our possibilities aren't as great as
    Turkey's, but we can't act from the position of the weak,' Sargisian
    said in
    the conclusion of his remarks. `Our salvation lies in having a strong and
    prosperous state, and we are all united around this common objective.'

    Sargisian then opened up the floor to questions and discussion. The
    president's staff announced that the question-and-answer session would be
    off-the-record. The discussion lasted for several hours.

    Sargisian was accompanied by former President of Karabagh Arkady
    Ghoukassian, Armenia's Ambassador to the US Tatoul Markarian, Armenia's
    Ambassador to the United Nations Garen Nazarian, Minister of Diaspora
    Hranoush Hakobyan and others.

    Said Bryan Ardouny, executive director of the Armenian Assembly, `President
    Sargisian addressed the concerns raised whether it was the concern that the
    protocols called for a joint historical commission to debate the Genocide or
    if the protocols would forfeit Nagorno Karabagh. The president addressed
    these concerns and made it very clear there are no preconditions. It was at
    times a passionate exchange from the participants. Sargisian listened to all
    comments and concerns and addressed them.'

    The representative of ADL Eastern District Committee was Vartan Ilandjian,
    vice chairman of New York Chapter; the representative of the Tekeyan
    Cultural Association Central Board of Directors was Antoine Bazarbashian.
    >From Canada, ADL Board members Hratch Torikian, Dr. Hrair Der Kevork and
    Barkev Nazaretian participated.



    ********************************* *********************

    4. Foreign Minister of Armenia Speaks at Columbia University

    *By Taleen Babayan**
    **Mirror-Spectator Staff***

    NEW YORK - In a lecture at New York's Columbia University on Tuesday,
    September 29, Armenia's Foreign Minister Dr. Eduard Nalbandian stressed that
    questions concerning the Nagorno-Karabagh issue and the Armenian Genocide
    would not be put in jeopardy by the Armenia-Turkey protocols, due to be
    signed this month.

    The 30-minute talk, which was open to the public, also highlighted in more
    general terms Armenia's foreign policy agenda and other regional
    difficulties the country faces.

    `The Caucasus region presents a hot spot with security threats and
    challenges,' said Nalbandian. `Interstate tensions have arisen because
    of
    closed borders and the economic blockade [on Armenia].'

    Nalbandian advocated the open-border policy with Turkey, saying it would
    bring security and stability to the region. Nalbandian said that if the
    protocols are ratified, Armenia would establish diplomatic relations with
    Turkey within a two-month time period, and subsequently create
    sub-commissions addressing issues such as consular affairs and
    transportation between the two countries.

    Another commission of international experts would be charged with opening up
    dialogue on the Armenian Genocide - a move that Nalbandian insisted would
    allow Armenia and Turkey to address the past without compromising the
    historical factuality of the 1915 Genocide.

    Nalbandian also emphasized Armenia's determination to find `a durable and
    just resolution of the Nagorno-Karabagh' question.

    `There are no preconditions, and the Nagorno-Karabagh settlement cannot be
    linked with Armenian-Turkey normalization,' Nalbandian said repeatedly.
    `This is separate, and any linkage between them will damage this process.'

    Turning to broader foreign policy concerns, Nalbandian said a key challenge
    is to strengthen relations in the Caucasus. `For Armenia, regional security
    is a priority,' he said. `Differences should be settled by peaceful means.'

    Nalbandian, who is on an official visit to the United States, said he
    recently met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss ways to
    further enhance cooperation between the United States and Armenia. He said
    that they have reached new levels of engagement with the Individual
    Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) between Armenia and NATO.

    A charged question-and-answer session followed Nalbandian's presentation,
    focusing mostly on the Armenia-Turkey protocols. Nalbandian said that only
    press statements released jointly by the parties involved in the
    Armenia-Turkey talks should be considered as official positions on the
    issue. He added that many rumors are circulating in the Armenian community
    to the detriment of the negotiation process.

    An announcement outlining the protocols was released on August 31 by the
    foreign ministers of Armenia, Turkey and Switzerland. Titled the `Protocol
    on the establishment of diplomatic relations' and the `Protocol on the
    development of bilateral relations,' the two documents must be signed and
    submitted to the parliaments of both countries for ratification before the
    process can move forward.

    `We shouldn't leave the burden of our problems on the coming generation,'
    Nalbandian said. `We need mutual cooperation and our common objective should
    be the shaping of a region that is safe and prosperous for all.'

    The September 29 lecture - titled `Armenian Foreign Policy: Challenges
    in
    the Region of the Caucasus' - was hosted by the Harriman Institute and
    Columbia University Armenian Society at the university's School of
    International and Public Affairs. The event drew Armenians representing a
    wide range of organizations, representatives of the Armenian and Turkish
    embassies, including Armenia's Ambassador to the US Tatoul Markarian,
    Armenia's Ambassador to the UN Garen Nazarian, and Turkey's Consul in New
    York Ayse Uzer, as well as Armenian and Turkish journalists.

    `It is critical to have a constructive dialogue about the
    protocols throughout the diaspora so that the voice of every Armenian can be
    heard,' said Nora Khanarian, a graduate student who is secretary of the
    Columbia University Armenian Society.

    `It is not only important for Armenia's leaders to come to diasporan
    communities and speak with them in open forums, it is imperative,' said
    William Bairamian, a graduate student who is a member of the Columbia
    University Armenian Society. `Armenia's leaders must recognize that the
    diaspora has been indispensable in Armenia's development since
    independence.'

    **************************** ************************

    5. Election Commission Rules Against Krikorian **

    *By Thomas C. Nash*
    *Special to the Mirror-Spectator*

    COLUMBUS, Ohio - The Ohio Elections Commission voted to reprimand David
    Krikorian on Thursday, October 1, for making false statements relating to a
    2008 congressional election campaign in which he alleged his opponent took
    `blood money' to deny the Armenian Genocide.

    Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican who represents Ohio's second district, filed
    false-claims charges against Krikorian in April, shortly after he announced
    he would run for the seat as a Democrat in 2010.

    In the 2008 election season, Krikorian, in some campaign literature, had
    accused Schmidt of taking `blood money' to `deny the genocide of Christian
    Armenians by Muslim Turks' as a co-chair of the Caucus on US Turkish
    Relations and Turkish Americans.

    Just before the election, candidate Krikorian, who then was running as an
    independent, wrote, `The people of Ohio's second district will, if they
    elect [Schmidt] on November 4th, condone her denial of the Genocide of 1.5
    million Christians. And, in so doing, be guilty of a crime against humanity
    as the cover-up is just as bad as the crime.'

    Krikorian's attorney, Mark Geragos, expressed concern after the October 1
    ruling that testimony supporting the allegations was not allowed at either
    the initial September 3 hearing or the follow-up, including that of FBI
    whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.

    Edmonds broke a Justice Department gag order imposed in 2002 to give a
    deposition for the case in August. Among the intercepted communications she
    says she translated during her stint working for the FBI in the immediate
    wake of 9/11, is proof of the Turkish government's illegal influence in
    Congress, the Department of Defense and the State Department - including
    efforts to block the Armenian Genocide resolution through bribery and
    blackmail.

    The commission, which during the hearing comprised of four Republicans and
    one Democrat, voted 5-0 to reprimanded Krikorian for making false
    statements.

    Some of the false-claims charges were dismissed. The claim that Krikorian
    falsely stated Schmidt took money from Turkish contributors was voted down
    3-2, while a claim that he falsely used Federal Elections Commission
    information was dismissed 4-1.

    Geragos said the decisions reflected the partisan nature of the panel.

    `It's obviously a political decision in that [Krikorian] is a Democrat
    and
    the three who voted against him are Republicans,' Geragos said.

    While Schmidt's attorney, Donald Brey, said his client had not sought fines
    or prosecution for Krikorian, which were also possibilities, he said he
    would expect Krikorian not to make such statements going forward.

    `It's one thing to say `I think she should have signed off on this
    resolution,' but it's not fair game to tell people she took money from
    the
    Turkish government,' Brey said. `They found that he lied about that. Voters
    have a right to know the truth.'

    Geragos said an appeal would likely be filed `in very short order.'

    `[Krikorian] didn't do anything except tell the truth in a federal election,
    where a state board has no business,' Geragos added.

    In addition to the appeal, another case stemming from Schmidt v. Krikorian
    may be brewing. Peter Musurlian, an Armenian filmmaker on hand to document
    the hearing on September 3 told the Cincinnati Enquirer he would file
    criminal charges against Brey for shoving him as he entered an elevator.

    Musurlian could not be reached on deadline.

    *************************************** **************

    6. Editorial: Let's Review Our Declarations=85

    *By Hagop Vartivarian***

    `If it should be in the interest of the Armenian people to shake the hand of
    the Turk one day, you must forget that that hand has been dipped in the
    blood of your father. Politics is not poetry. There aren't any permanent
    friends and permanent enemies when it comes to peoples. There are permanent
    interests and damages. As long as you cannot restrain your feelings, you
    can't become the leader of your people. You remain a poet-agitator. What
    is
    worse, you aren't the one who is pushing the crowd; rather, it is the crowd
    that is pulling you behind it.'
    - Ruben (Pasha) Ter Minassian

    The above quote pertaining to Armeno-Turkish interrelations reflects the
    judgment of one of the well-known figures of the Armenian Revolutionary
    Federation (ARF), particularly during his youth. This is the sober judgment
    of an Armenian activist, who had walked alongside Antranig, the incomparable
    Megerdich Avedisian and the great Mourad of Sebastia during the days when
    the Armenian people was subjected to genocide by the Ottoman Turks, Young
    Turks and Kemalist Turks.

    This is not the first time that the Armenian people have been forced to
    establish relations with the Turks. Generally familiar are the treaties of
    Batumi and Kars, and especially the shameful Treaty of Alexandropol, which
    were signed by the Dashnak authorities of the first Republic of Armenia and
    the Turkish government representatives in the early 1920s, with the former
    relinquishing territorial claims.

    It should also not be forgotten that the Dashnaks, having embraced the Young
    Turks in 1908, not only extended a helping hand to them, but also
    collaborated with them.

    Today, Armenia is facing a new political order in the otherwise explosive
    region of the Caucasus. On the east, there is the Karabagh independence
    movement against Azerbaijan; on the west, the blockade by Turkey. On the
    north, there is the prospect of Georgia's uncertain political future,
    coupled with the demands of the Javakhk Armenians for their rights; on the
    south, the rather hard-line position of the West with regard to Iran. These
    realities force the Armenian authorities to adopt a prudent stance,
    politically and militarily.

    Worthy of consideration also is the major world economic crisis and the
    gradually-increasing competitive struggle between the two superpowers Russia
    and the United States, which had created relatively warm relations following
    the cold war, from which the Armenian people undoubtedly derived benefit.

    With the creation of unusual economic and political conditions, it would be
    difficult for Armenia to continue its existence in a normal manner without
    being jolted. As it is, more than one third of our people have left the
    homeland. The financial assistance coming from the diaspora (traditional or
    the former Soviet republics) has greatly slowed down. The flow of money from
    Armenian organizations has also begun to diminish, again as a consequence of
    the world economic crisis. The allocations and various kinds of help from
    the United States and other friendly countries earmarked for Armenia are a
    fraction of what they were previously.

    Meanwhile, Azerbaijan is rapidly increasing its military capacity through
    revenues generated from the sale of its oil. In recent weeks, the United
    States renewed the otherwise super-strong Turkish army in the Middle East
    with modern military equipment worth approximately eight billion dollars.

    The Armenians living in the homeland experienced agonizing days this time
    last year, when South Ossetia was fighting for its independence prior to its
    seizure. With the closure of the northern border, Armenia had to depend upon
    Iran, which couldn't provide the Armenian people with the most fundamental
    daily foodstuffs, inasmuch as the nearest harbor was miles away.

    The initiative to cultivate new relations between Armenia and Turkey, with
    the prospect of creating a good neighborly situation, was surely made as a
    compulsory addition to this mosaic. The very next day after the declaration,
    not only the United States and the rest of the West but also Russia and even
    Syria hailed such an initiative.

    The development of such a relationship is not something, which has come
    about only now. Such initiatives existed during the administrations of the
    first president, Levon Ter-Petrosian, and the second president, Robert
    Kocharian. Attributing such an initiative to the current president Serge
    Sargisian and qualifying it as an act of betrayal toward Armenia and the
    Armenian people is not only inappropriate but also far from being honest.
    Again, it wouldn't be correct to also put the major share of responsibility
    for this on the shoulders of Edward Nalbandian, Armenia's Minister of
    Foreign Affairs, who is a respected diplomat having earned his present
    position through years of experience, because both the president of the
    republic and the foreign minister are supremely aware of their
    responsibility, especially during these difficult days, and are working
    together to secure national rights from Turkey in order to defend our
    borders and maintain our republic's sovereignty.

    With years of accumulated experience and, especially, being quite familiar
    with the feelings and just demands of our people both in the diaspora and
    the homeland, they shall cultivate Armeno-Turkish relations with utmost
    wisdom.
    We don't at all have the right to judge and evaluate the patriotism of our
    respected president and foreign minister. We don't have the right to put
    the
    patriotism of any national public servant on the balance scales and weigh
    it, least of all that of Mr. Serge Sargisian, who was the capable defense
    minister of the Republic of Armenia for many years. He has fought in the
    trenches during war, experienced life on the front and demonstrated the
    everyday patriotism of the Armenian soldier. He has secured not only the
    borders of our homeland but also the security zones of Artsakh and vicinity.

    Uproar over Armeno-Turkish relations and negotiations has been made in the
    diaspora largely by the ARF. This is so, despite the fact that the ARF of
    Armenia was a party to President Serge Sargisian's government during and
    after his election campaign. When the ARF wholeheartedly fought against
    Levon Ter-Petrosian's opposition movement in the past presidential
    elections, its intention was to secure a few ministerial posts in the
    administration.

    With the prospect of reinsuring its reputation, which it had slowly begun to
    lose, the ARF adopted this orientation. It did so to become the standard
    bearer of the Armenian Case, having already lost all hope of coming to power
    in the homeland and having given way to other political assemblies in the
    diaspora. Yes, the ARF came forth, considering this new development the best
    opportunity to achieve its goal. As it makes a new attempt at cheap
    demagoguery by rekindling the natural hidden feelings of the Armenian
    people, it once again is presenting itself as the competent party to the
    rights of the Armenian people and the enemy of the Turk. In the 21st century
    too, Ruben Pasha would have said, `Simply poetic politics!'

    On the contrary, the current leaders of such an organization enriched with
    years of experience should have adopted a different policy. These days, a
    greater level of seriousness was to be expected from an organization having
    experienced the extremes of Armenian life, having participated in the
    revolutionary movement, having gained a fair amount of political maturity
    during the years of the first Republic of Armenia, and having often been
    involved in the international political sphere.

    The street was not to be the venue of such a reaction to this new
    development in Armeno-Turkish relations. Solutions to the present situation
    will not be found in the streets of Yerevan, New York or Toronto, with a few
    hundred rank-and-file members hoisting protest banners. On the contrary, one
    would think that new sober-minded political figures, who have now joined the
    ARF bureau, should have sat down on a higher level with Armenian government
    leaders. Certainly every reasonable individual knows that there are other
    diplomatic ways to reach the president and discuss Armeno-Turkish relations.

    Fortunately, the ARF's effort to also hitch our other traditional political
    parties to its wagon failed, except for Toronto, where only a handful of
    misguided Ramgavars participated in the rally organized by it. It should be
    said that the silent majority of the Armenian Democratic Liberal Party's
    (Ramgavar) membership stays true to its orientation, maintaining its loyalty
    to and trust in Armenia's authorities on a permanent basis. This has always
    been our traditional direction. Furthermore, if certain Ramgavar circles are
    not expressing their protest against the ARF in public, they are simply
    following internal party discipline and stating their anger only in narrow
    circles. The same is the case with the Hunchaks too, who, despite the
    declaration of their supreme body, have not totally severed their ties with
    the Armenian authorities, whether in Armenia or the diaspora.

    However, apart from our three traditional political parties, it must be
    noted that today the Armenian Church carries an important weight and
    represents public opinion, at least in the diaspora. As it is, its Diocesan
    Primates don't share the ARF's opposition to the Protocols. The same goes
    for the Armenian General Benevolent Union, the Armenian Assembly and other
    new political groups, which support Armenia's president and government
    insofar as Armeno-Turkish relations are concerned, albeit with cautious
    optimism.

    Thus, it is not realistic to say that the Armenian Diaspora is totally
    opposed to the restart of Armeno-Turkish relations. There is no such thing.
    Today's new generation is reading world public opinion with regard to
    Armeno-Turkish dialogue, evaluating it and giving their opinion, one way or
    the other. We are dealing with a new generation that has emerged from
    Armenian ghettoes, is familiar with the world and possesses powerful reason
    and logic. Moreover, every leader in charge of this or that organization
    must be aware of this.

    In light of all this, it is expected, particularly at this historic time,
    that the leaders of our traditional political parties will rally around the
    Armenian government, flank our president and, with their political
    experience, engage in harmonious work with President Sargisian. The new
    situation is of concern to every Armenian, whether diasporan or native,
    whether in position of power, aspiring to power, or in the opposition. All
    programs presented to us should be confronted with our collective forces.

    To the credit of Armenia's president, he will very shortly visit the
    important centers of the diaspora and give extensive explanations to those
    with positions of responsibility in our community, as well as the general
    public. He is aware that it is the right of the Western Armenian segment of
    our people, which is scattered all over the world, to know the motive for
    negotiations by the current Armenian authorities and, particularly, if there
    are pre-conditions connected with the Armenian Genocide and/or other issues.
    In the final analysis, it is the president of the homeland of all Armenians
    who is coming to visit our communities and, as such, he deserves a
    respectful reception.

    As a nation, we should equally share the responsibility for each success or
    failure, because we are living through difficult days in an unnatural
    environment.

    Also, our political parties should have the prudence to review their hastily
    released declarations, and soon they should present themselves to the
    Armenian people as more prudent, sober-minded and far-sighted traditional
    organizations.
    `If it should be in the interest of the Armenian people to shake the hand of
    the Turk one day, you must forget that that hand has been dipped in the
    blood of your father.'

    (Translated by Aris G. Sevag)

    ****************************************** **************

    7. Review: The Struggle towards Remembrance of the `Forgotten Genocide'

    *By Daphne Abeel *
    *Special to the Mirror-Spectator***

    *Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and the Century-Long Struggle for
    Justice. By Michael Bobelian. Simon & Schuster. 388 pp. 2009. ISBN
    978-1-4165-5725-8*

    Over the decades, many both inside and outside of the Armenian community
    have pondered the question: why did the Armenian Genocide become the
    `forgotten genocide?'

    In his new book, journalist and lawyer Michael Bobelian has set out to
    answer that question.

    By tracing the course of geopolitical events since World War I, he has
    highlighted and shaped what may be familiar material to set down a narrative
    that explains the virtual disappearance of the first genocide of the 20th
    century from an international scene where once everyone knew and recognized
    the plight of the `starving Armenians.'

    This is not simply a chronicle of the forgetting, but also of the gradual
    groundswell of effort, especially since the 50th anniversary of the events
    of 1915, in the Armenian community to achieve full recognition of the
    tragedy. Although widespread accounts of the Genocide in the international
    press and eyewitness accounts from many including US Ambassador to the
    Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau produced an outpouring of financial aid to
    and sympathy for Armenians, Bobelian illustrates that a pattern of neglect
    and marginalization of Armenian interests took hold after the promises of
    the Treaty of Sevres were vacated. The failure of that treaty to deliver the
    promise of an independent Armenia, and the consequent struggle between the
    emerging Soviet Union and Turkey for control of a weak and fledgling
    Armenian Republic, doomed Armenia and the Armenians to the sidelines of a
    geopolitical struggle that blanketed their cause.

    Bobelian's account pays tribute to many individual Armenians who fought
    tirelessly in their people's cause to achieve not only the moral recognition
    of the Armenian Genocide, but also the political reality of its statehood.
    Among them were Armen Garo, who in 1896 led the takeover of the Ottoman
    Bank; Avedis Aharonian, who represented the Armenian Republic in the
    post-World War I peace talks, and who signed the Treaty of Sevres in 1920;
    Krikor Zorab, an Armenian member of the Ottoman Parliament who was murdered
    in the early stages of the Genocide; Michael Minasian, who led the efforts
    in California in the 1960s to build a Genocide memorial; Van Z. Krikorian,
    who lobbied ceaselessly in the 1980s for the passage of a resolution in the
    US Congress to recognize the Genocide and Vartkes Yeghiayan, who filed the
    successful class-action lawsuit against the New York Life Insurance Company
    for the settlement of policies issued to Armenians during the period of the
    Genocide.

    There are also accounts of Armenians who chose violence to avenge wrongs, in
    particular of Soghomon Tehlirian, who assassinated Talaat Pasha in Berlin in
    1933. Bobelian provides an extended description of the assassination in 1973
    of two Turkish diplomats in California by Gourgen Yanikian. In his portrayal
    of Yanikian, he underlines how frustration and rage at the lack of justice
    can influence an individual's mental state.

    Bobelian also traces the interdependence between the United States and
    Turkey back to the efforts of Admiral Mark Bristol after World War I to
    defeat the Armenian mandate and to champion Turkey's interests in increased
    trade with the US and diplomatic relations with the new nation of Turkey
    formed under the leadership of Kemal Ataturk.

    With the absorption of Armenia into the Soviet Union, the Armenian cause
    faltered, and those who had escaped the Genocide found themselves in new
    countries, faced with the challenge of rebuilding their lives. Many tried to
    put the horrors of the Genocide behind them. Some individuals even changed
    their names, denying their Armenian identity.
    It was not until 1965 - the 50th anniversary of the Genocide - that the
    Armenian community began to unite in its efforts to achieve recognition.
    Since that time, memorials have been built, more than a handful of nations
    have recognized the Genocide, and yearly resolutions have been filed in the
    US Congress for recognition. But geopolitical interests have continued to
    trump moral concerns. With Turkey a member of NATO and a convenient base for
    US interests in the Middle East, the congressional resolution has been
    defeated every time up to the present.

    Still, Bobelian can point to some positive developments: the statements by
    such leading Turkish intellectuals such as Taner Akçam and novelist Orhan
    Pamuk that acknowledge the Genocide, the holding of a conference on Turkish
    soil to discuss the Genocide and a spate of newly-published and
    widely-distributed books that highlight the facts of the Genocide.

    He notes, `Few mainstream works other than Franz Werfel's Forty Days of Musa
    Dagh touched the subject.' [the Genocide]. In contrast to the Holocaust,
    which was written about by a host of talented eyewitness writers such as
    Primo Levi and Elie Wiesel, to name but two, the Genocide, for many decades,
    remained largely the province of amateur accounts, many of which were not
    translated from Armenian. Those who might have written more eloquently and
    persuasively were among the first victims of the Armenian Genocide - the
    intellectuals.

    Inevitably, Bobelian's book ends on a wistful and inconclusive note,
    `=85nearly a century after the survivors spent so much energy rebuilding
    their
    lives that they hardly had time to mourn, their children - the children of
    Armenia - are still waiting for justice to prevail.'

    Still, change is on the horizon. Turkey and Armenia are processing the
    opening of their borders, and while there is no provision that this be
    dependent on Turkey's recognition of the Genocide - and many in the Armenian
    Diaspora oppose this border opening - the seeds could be there for a greater
    flow of truthful information, and ultimate justice for the `forgotten
    Genocide.'

    Bobelian's account will stand as a useful analysis of the way in which
    national self-interests have triumphed over what is just and right. And it
    is possible that self-interest, for example Turkey's desire to become a
    member of the European Union, may one day coincide with justice and the
    acknowledgment of historical truth. The 100th anniversary, fast approaching
    in 2015, could be the defining moment.

    ***************************************** ******

    8. Editorial: Rest in Peace, Moorad

    In the months since Moorad Mooradian's health took a turn for the worse,
    his
    wife, Lillian, would call or e-mail once a week or once every two weeks to
    tell me when the next column would come.

    One of the few things in life Moorad could not do well was type. Therefore,
    Lillian would type each and every column, let him edit the column,
    incorporate those corrections and then send them off.

    For the past month, no such message came. As Lillian was always so
    meticulous when it came to sending the columns, I suspected the worst, yet
    still hoped for the best.

    It is with profound sadness that I know now there won't be any more columns
    by Moorad Mooradian, our longtime columnist, on page 19. Moorad and Harut
    Sassounian, together, have led us to have a terrific opinion page, one which
    I automatically designated `H&M' on the page map I would draw up every
    week.
    It has been a page to which many people turn first.

    Moorad was a charming man with a booming voice who was dedicated to his
    family and his country. This at-times conservative man had a tremendously
    open mind which could embrace opinions other than his own. In other words,
    if you could present a logical viewpoint to him, he could be convinced,
    without prejudice.

    He had the posture of someone who has served in the armed forces - which
    he
    did proudly for decades. He was a natural teacher, enriching the lives of
    students at West Point, George Mason and Yerevan State universities, as well
    as his readers in this paper and others.

    He was a man who was trained in the art of war, yet relished peace through
    conflict negotiation. Had he been healthier, he would have been writing up
    a
    storm about the Protocols.

    He and Lillian had a wonderful relationship, which after almost five decades
    of marriage, still seemed fresh, yet with the depth of ease that living
    together for such a long time creates.

    They were a lovely team together and had raised a loving family.

    It is fitting that his last column, which appeared in the July 18 edition,
    was about a group that he was passionate about: The Armenia Tree Project.

    Our condolences go to Lillian and their children, grandchildren and one
    great-grandchild, as well as to all those in Virginia, Rhode Island and
    Armenia, where they lived at various times and whose lives they touched.

    I feel privileged to have known Moorad. Our thoughts and prayers are with
    his family.

    - Alin K. Gregorian
Working...
X