Tweet
ARMENIAN REPORTER
PO Box 129
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: 1-201-226-1995
Fax: 1-201-226-1660
Web: http://www.armenianreporteronline.com
Email: [email protected]
February 10, 2007 -- From the front section
1. Turkish officials in Washington to block Armenian Genocide resolution
2. Administration wants aid to cut aid to Armenia and ex-USSR;
Congress yet to weigh in on proposal
3. My Turkishness in revolt
4. Georgia between Azerbaijan and Turkey: What can Armenia offer?
5. Letter: An Armenian who revolutionized sports medicine (by Peter Balakian)
6. The human face of migration
7. Editorial: Time to reinvent "Turkishness"
************************* **************************************************
1. Turkish officials in Washington to block Armenian Genocide resolution
* Turkey's foreign minister, MPs, and Armed Forces chief are arriving
this week and next
by Emil Sanamyan (Washington Editor)
WASHINGTON -- Following the introduction of a draft congressional
resolution on the Armenian Genocide on January 31, senior Turkish
officials launched a series of visits to Washington to tout Turkey's
importance, while warning that U.S.-Turkish cooperation would be
"harmed" if a resolution affirming the U.S. record on the Genocide is
adopted.
Turkey's Foreign Minister ABDULLAH GUL confirmed that the Genocide
resolution, along with Turkey's concerns over Iraq, has dominated his
agenda in Washington. Turkey is seeking to prevent a vote on House
Resolution 106, which has already won support from about 170 House
members.
Speaking at Washington's National Press Club on Tuesday, Mr. Gul
argued that Turkey is of such importance to the United States that
America should not risk aggravating its relations by affirming the
Armenian Genocide.
Asked by the ARMENIAN REPORTER why Turkey's warnings should be taken
seriously when its relations have survived similar resolutions adopted
by over a dozen other countries, Mr. Gul hinted that the U.S. is more
vulnerable to Turkey than Canada or European countries that have
recognized the Genocide. He specifically pointed to Iraq and
Afghanistan as areas where the U.S. needs Turkey's support.
* Bush administration opposes the resolution
On February 5 and 6, Mr.Gul met with Vice President DICK CHENEY,
President Bush's National Security Advisor STEPHEN HADLEY and
Secretary of State CONDOLEEZZA RICE. Administration officials have
pledged to work against the resolution.
According to sources close to Congress at least one House member
received a telephone call from Undersecretary of Defense **Eric
Edelman.** A former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Mr. Edelman resigned
his position in 2005 after repeated anti-Semitic comments made against
him in the Turkish media. He was reportedly calling to oppose the
resolution.
"We are working harder than usual [to prevent the vote]," Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State MATT BRYZA was quoted as saying by the
Associated Press. Echoing comments made by Turkish officials on the
issue, Mr. Bryza argued that "a congressional resolution would be a
tremendous blow to our bilateral relationship."
A State Department transcript of the February 1 meeting with Turkish
journalists cited Mr. Bryza as referring to the Armenian Genocide as
"so-called." But speaking with the RFE/RL Armenian Service on February
7, Mr. Bryza said that the administration "do[es] not deny the mass
killings and forced exile of up to 1.5 million Armenians."
DAN FRIED, Assistant Secretary of State and Mr. Bryza's manager at the
State Department, told the TURKISH DAILY NEWS that while the
administration will oppose the resolution, "If a resolution does pass
. . . I hope that our Turkish friends will understand that it's not
the position of the U.S. administration, and our interests, Turkey's
interests and America's interests, will still bring us together."
Mr. Fried also added, in reference to the Genocide, "Honest countries,
free countries need to seriously look at these dark spots [of
history], and no matter how painful it is, they need to confront
them."
* Turkey lobbying U.S. Congress, seeks Jewish support
On February 7, Mr. Gul was due to meet House Majority leader STENY
HOYER (D-Md.), Foreign Affairs Committee chair TOM LANTOS (D-Calif.),
and other key members of Congress.
Turkish media reported that the House Speaker NANCY PELOSI declined to
meet Mr. Gul. It is up to the Speaker whether a vote on the resolution
takes place, and Ms. Pelosi, a longtime supporter of affirmation, has
previously expressed support for the resolution.
Turkish and Azerbaijani reports suggested that the Turkish foreign
minister will be specifically lobbying Reps. JOHN MURTHA (D-Pa.) and
RAHM EMANUEL (D-Ill.) to weigh in with Speaker Pelosi.
The Azerbaijani Press Agency (APA) further claimed that Turkey was
supported by three Jewish-American organizations. It cited an unnamed
leader of one of the Jewish organizations as telling Turkish
journalists that "[Rep.] Emanuel should be persuaded of the importance
of preventing the bill. Nancy [Pelosi] always follows Emanuel's
advice."
The Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA) reported that on Monday night Mr.
Gul met with representatives of a number of Jewish-American
organizations and asked them for assistance in opposition to the
Armenian Genocide resolution. JTA did not say if any such assistance
was promised.
Reached by the ARMENIAN REPORTER, the American-Israeli Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) spokeswoman JENNIFER CANNATA said that the
organization had no formal comment on the Genocide resolution. The
American Jewish Committee (AJC), whose representatives that took part
in the meeting with Mr. Gul, could not provide comment at press time.
Starting this week, about a dozen Turkish members of parliament will
follow Mr. Gul to lobby the U.S. Congress and the public against the
Armenian Genocide resolution.
Next week, chief of staff of the Turkish Armed Forces Gen. Yasar
Buyukanit will arrive to try to mend the bilateral military relations
severely damaged as a result of the Iraq war.
* A correction
This newspaper reported last week (Feb. 3) that Rep. Lantos (D-Calif.)
had cosigned a letter to the Turkish government condemning Hrant
Dink's assassination and calling for reform in Turkey. Sources
familiar with the matter have since told the REPORTER that while Rep.
Lantos' staff initially indicated that he would cosign the letter, in
the end he did not.
******************************************** *******************************
2. Administration wants aid to cut aid to Armenia and ex-USSR;
Congress yet to weigh in on proposal
by Emil Sanamyan
Special to the ARMENIAN REPORTER
WASHINGTON -- The Bush Administration has proposed a significant cut
in annual assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union,
including Armenia -- a cut which, it claimed, "reflect[s] success
achieved in the region." The draft proposal would need to be approved
and is likely to be revised by both chambers of the U.S. Congress
before it can become law.
The budget request for the fiscal year 2008 (FY08) would reduce
overall assistance to the region to about $356 million from about $509
million expended in FY06.
The same proposal would reduce economic assistance to Armenia to $35
million from $69 million spent in FY06; to Azerbaijan to $18 million
from $34.2; and to Georgia to $50.5 million from $67.8. The
administration made no specific request for aid to Nagorno-Karabakh.
Congress has repeatedly reversed administration-proposed aid cuts to
Armenia in previous years. U.S. economic assistance to Armenia has
totaled over $1.6 billion since 1992. The U.S. Congress has also
provided over $30 million in aid to Nagorno-Karabakh.
[In December 2006, the United States began to provide Millennium
Challenge assistance to Armenia. This is a separate program, which
envisages $235 million in developmental aid over five years,
conditional on Armenia's democratic progress. The U.S. has a similar
program running in Georgia; Azerbaijan, however, was not found
eligible.]
The FY08 request also seeks more military assistance to Azerbaijan
than to Armenia, proposing $5.3 million and $3.3 million respectively
for the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military
Education and Training (IMET) programs.
* Armenian-American response
Washington-based Armenian-American organizations have taken issue both
with the proposed cut in aid and unequal levels of military assistance
to Armenia and Azerbaijan.
"This budget request . . . is simply unacceptable," said BRYAN
ARDOUNY, executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America. "We
will work with Congress to correct the glaring deficiencies in the
Administration's request," he added.
ARAM HAMPARIAN, executive director of the Armenian National Committee
of America (ANCA), similarly noted that "We look to our friends in
Congress . . . to substantially increase aid levels to Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh that reflect Armenia's growing partnership with U.S."
The U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC) "believes that
Congress will reject the Administration's call for reduction [in aid]
to Armenia," said executive director ROSS VARTIAN.
"USAPAC will work closely with Congress to increase Armenia's
bilateral allocation and reinstate military assistance parity. . . .
Congress will once again correct the Administration's exclusion of
Nagorno-Karabakh," Mr. Vartian predicted.
Citing the Azerbaijani president's war threats, Mr. Vartian argued
that "it is irresponsible for the U.S. to propose asymmetrical FMF and
IMET funding and also to continue the Caspian program." He added,
"This in effect enables Azerbaijan's destabilizing militarization."
The UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND is spending about $100 million in
Azerbaijan under the 10-year Caspian Guard (Security) program.
According to former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish, $30
million of that amount had been spent by the end of 2005 to upgrade
Azerbaijan's maritime, air, and ground capabilities.
*********************************** ****************************************
3. My Turkishness in revolt
by Taner Akçam
This essay was originally published as "Turklugumun Isyani" (The
revolt of my Turkishness) in the January 24 edition of the Turkish
daily RADIKAL. This English translation, approved by Mr. Akçam, is
being published exclusively in the ARMENIAN REPORTER by arrangement
with the author.
I am a Turk. Hrant was an Armenian. I write for AGOS. He was AGOS.
Hrant, AGOS's Turkish writers, and AGOS itself risked everything for a
cause: to cease the hostility between Turks and Armenians; to bring
the resentment and hatred to an end. We wanted each group, each
nationality, to live together on the common ground of mutual respect.
Hrant and AGOS were a single flower blooming on the barren plains of
Turkey. That flower was destroyed, torn from the ground. Everyone
says "The bullet fired at Hrant hit Turkey." That's true, but we need
to ask ourselves in complete and transparent honesty: Who made the
target for that bullet? Who targeted Hrant so the bullet would find
its mark? Who held him fast so the shot wasn't wasted?
Hrant wasn't killed by a lone 17-year-old. He was murdered by those
who made him a target and held him in place.
Nor was he killed by a single bullet. It was the targeting, month by
month, that murdered him.
"I'm afraid," he said on January fifth "I'm very afraid, Taner. The
attacks on me and on AGOS are very systematic, They called me to the
Governor's office, where they started making threats. They said,
'We'll make you pay for everything you've been doing.' All the attacks
began after I was threatened."
"2007 is going to be a bad year, Taner," he continued. "They're not
going to ease off. We've been made into a horrible target. Between
the press, the politicians, and the lawyers, they've created this
atmosphere that's so poisonous, they've made us such an obscenity,
that we've become sitting ducks.
"They've opened up hunting season, Taner, and they've got us right
where they want us."
Hrant wasn't killed by a 17-year-old. He was murdered by those who
portrayed him as an enemy of Turkey, every single day in the press, to
that 17-year-old. He was murdered by those who dragged him to the
doors of the courthouse under Article 301. He was murdered by those
who aimed Article 301 during their open season on intellectuals, and
by those who didn't have the courage to change Article 301. Hrant was
murdered by those who called him to the Governor's office and then
threatened him instead of protecting him.
There's no point in shedding crocodile tears. Let us bow our heads
and look at our hands. Let us ponder how we will clean off the blood.
You organs of the press who have expressed shock over Hrant's death,
go read your back issues, look at what you wrote about Hrant. You
will see the murderer there. You, who used 301 as a weapon to hunt
intellectuals, see what you wrote about 301, look at the court
decisions. You will see the murderer there.
Dear government officials, spare us your crocodile tears. Tell us
what you plan to do to the Lieutenant Governor who called Hrant into
his office and, together with an official from the National
Intelligence Bureau, proceeded to threaten him. What do you intend to
do to them?
Hrant was portrayed as "the Armenian who insulted Turkishness." For
this, he was murdered. He was murdered because he said, "Turkey must
confront its history." The hands that pulled the trigger--or caused
it to be pulled--in 2007 are the same hands that shot all the Hrants
in 1915, the same hands that left all those Armenians to choke in the
desert.
Hrant's killers are sending us a message. They're saying "Yes! We
were behind 1915 and we'll do it again in 2007!" Hrant's murderers
believe they killed in the name of Turkishness, just like those who
killed all the Hrants in 1915.
For them, Turkishness is about committing murder. It means setting
someone up as the enemy and then targeting that person for
destruction.
Quite the contrary, the murderers are a black stain upon the brow of
Turkishness. It is they who have demeaned Turkish identity.
For this reason, we have stood up and we have decided to take
Turkishness out of the assassins' hands and we have shouted out, "We
are all Hrant! We are all Armenian!" We are the resounding cry of
Turkishness and Turkey. All of us--Turks, Kurds, Alevites,
secularists, and Muslims alike--shout out on behalf of everyone who
wants to take Turkishness away from these murderers.
Turkishness is a beautiful thing that should be respected instead of
left in the hands of murderers; so is Armenianness.
We can feel proud to be Turkish only if we can acknowledge the
murderer for who he is. That is what we are doing today. By
declaring, "We are all Armenians," we know that we honor Turkishness;
by identifying the true murderer, we create a Turkishness worth
claiming.
Today we declare to the world that murder has nothing to do with
Turkishness or Turkey. We are not going to leave Turkishness in the
hands of murderers. We will not allow Turkishness to be stained by
hate crimes towards Armenians. Either Turkishness belongs to the
murderers, or it belongs to us.
Turks cry out that the person who killed Hrant is a murderer. In the
wake of his death, Turkishness affirms that we are all Armenians.
This, I say, is what we also need to do for 1915.
If we can affirm that a real Turk is someone who can distance
Turkishness from the murder of Hrant Dink, then we ought to be able to
do the same thing for the events around 1915. Those who gather in a
protective circle around Hrant's murderer are the same people who
protected the murderers of 1915. Those who honored Talaat, Bahaettin
Sakir and Dr. Nzim yesterday are doing the same for Hrant's murderer
today.
If we can come out and declare Hrant's murder a "shameful act," then
we should be able to state the same, as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk did,
about the acts that occurred in 1915. Today, hundreds of thousands of
us condemn this murder by declaring "We are all Armenian." In 1915,
Turks, Kurds, Moslems and Alewites did the same. We have to choose,
not only for today but for yesterday as well.
Whose side are we on? Which "Turkishness" are we defending, the one
that defends the murderers or the one which condemns the murderous
acts? Do we stand with Kemal, the Mayor of Bogazliyan, who
annihilated Armenians in 1915, or with Abdullahzade Mehmet Efendi, the
Mufti of Bogazliyan, who bore witness against that mayor at the trial
which lead to his execution, stating "I fear the wrath of God"?
Are we going to represent the "Turkishness" that defended the crimes
of Talat, Enver, Bahaettin Sakir, Doctor Nzim, and Governor Resit of
Diyarbakir? Or will we oppose them in the name of a Turkishness that
condemns such horror?
We need to know that in 1915 we had Mazhar, the governor of Ankara;
Celal, the governor of Halep; Resit, the governor of Kastamonu; Cemal,
the lieutenant governor of Yozgat; Ali Faik, the mayor of Kütahya; and
Ali Fuat, the mayor of Der-Zor. And we had soldiers and army
commanders in 1915, men we can embrace with respect, for opposing what
happened: Vehip Pasha, Commander of the Third Army; Avni Pasha,
Commander of the Trabzon garrison; Colonel Vasfi; and Salim, Major
Commandant of the Yozgat post.
Trabzon has its share of murderers like Ögün Samast in 2007 and
Governor Cemal Azmi and Unionist "Yenibahçeli" Nail in 1915. But
those who opposed the crimes of 1915 and didn't hesitate to identify
the murderers in court included many citizens of Trabzon: Nuri, Chief
of Police; businessman, Ahmet Ali Bey; Customs Inspector Nesim Bey,
and parliamentarian Hafiz Mehmet Emin Bey,who testified, "I saw with
my own eyes that the Armenians were loaded onto boats and taken out
and drowned, but I couldn't do anything to stop it."
These are just a few of the dozens, hundreds, even thousands of people
who opposed the horrible acts committed.
We, Turks and Turkey, have a choice to make. We will affirm either
the Turkishness of murderers past and present, or the Turkishness of
those who cry out today, "We are all Armenian!" and who yesterday
declared, "We will not let our hands be stained with blood."
The whole world looks upon us with respect because they see us draw a
line between Turkishness and barbarism. Today we are building a wall
between murderers and Turkishness; we are Turks who know how to point
the finger at a murderer.
We must show the same courage in regard to the events of 1915. Hrant
wanted us to. When he said, "I love Turks and Turkey, and I consider
it a privilege to be living amongst Turks," that's what he was asking
for. We need to acknowledge the murderers of the Hrants of 1915, and
we need to draw a line between them and Turkishness. If we are going
to own up to this murder in 2007 then we need to do the same for those
of 1915.
That's what confronting one's history is about. Today, by saying to
Hrant's murderer, "You don't represent me as a Turk: you are simply a
murderer," we have begun the process of confronting and acknowledging
our history. We must do the same with the murderers of 1915 by
drawing a line between their acts and our Turkishness. We must
condemn these murderers as having smeared our brows with the dark
stain of their crimes. Then, and only then, can we Turks go about the
world with our heads held high.
I cry out in the name of Turkishness. I cry out as a Turk, as a
friend who lost Hrant, my beloved Armenian brother. Let's take back
Turkishness from the murderous hands of those who wish to smear us
with their dark deeds. Let's shout in one voice, "WE ARE ALL HRANT!
WE ARE ALL ARMENIANS!"
***
Taner Akçam, a professor at the University of Minnesota, is the author
of A SHAMEFUL ACT: THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND THE QUESTION OF TURKISH
RESPONSIBILITY. He recently became the subject of a formal complaint
under Turkey's Penal Code Article 301 -- the same crime of "insulting
Turkishness" for which Hrant Dink was tried and found guilty by the
Turkish judiciary.
************************************** *************************************
4. Georgia between Azerbaijan and Turkey: What can Armenia offer?
News Analysis by Emil Sanamyan
Special to the ARMENIAN REPORTER
EDITOR'S NOTE: Emil Sanamyan's article in the January 13 edition of
the ARMENIAN REPORTER ("Armenia and Georgia: Will the delicate embrace
survive a gas onslaught?") discussed the mutual importance of Armenia
and Georgia and described the recent and anticipated changes in
regional energy supply patterns. In the second installment of that
article, which follows, Mr. Sanamyan looks at the possible
implications of these changes.
WASHINGTON -- Following Georgia's decision in late December to buy
Russian gas at $235 per thousand cubic meters (tcm), twice the price
Georgia paid last year, local media and pundits discussed the
possibility of increasing the tariff on Russian gas supplies to
Armenia. In other words, Georgia would look to Armenia to subsidize,
at least in part, the Russian price hike.
Armenia will be paying $110/tcm of Russian gas through the end of
2008. In exchange Russia increased its control over Armenia's gas
transportation infrastructure.
Cory Welt, the deputy director for Eurasia at the Washington-based
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), who watches
Georgian politics closely, told the ARMENIAN REPORTER in December that
he "doesn't see how Georgians would allow the $110 gas to go to
Armenia, while they are paying $235.... This will pose a large problem
for Armenia."
Earlier this month, political commentator Soso Tsintsadze told the
Georgian newspaper SAKARTVELOS RESPUBLIKA that such a move was being
considered by the Georgian government. Currently, Georgia receives
100,000 tcm as a tariff for Russian gas supplies to Armenia
(equivalent to $23.5 million at the new price.)
But chairman of the Georgian Parliament's committee on economic policy
Niko Lekishvili ruled out such a step, reported Georgia's MESSENGER
daily on January 8. Lekishvili said that Georgia does not want to hurt
its relations with Armenia.
Higher tariffs for Armenia are just some and perhaps not the worst of
the potential consequences of the Russian price hike against Georgia.
* The Georgia-Turkey-Azerbaijan connection
Enter Azerbaijan and Turkey, which have offered Georgia gas supplies
at significantly lower prices than Russia is now asking. If Russia
conditions lower prices for its gas supplies to control of the
countries' strategic assets and Russia-friendly policies, should not
Azerbaijan and Turkey be expected to do the same?
CSIS's Welt called the recent preliminary agreements between
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on gas supplies a "step towards
consolidation of the Georgian-Azerbaijani partnership ... leaving
Armenia on the other side."
Since questions remain on how much gas Azerbaijan can in fact produce
for itself and for export, Georgia is BOTH driving a hard bargain on
Azerbaijan-initiated projects AND biding its time. But the partnership
is already beginning to bear fruit for Azerbaijan.
On January 13, transport officials from Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey
met in Tbilisi and agreed to go ahead with construction of the
Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Kars railroad that Azerbaijan initiated to, as the
Azeri president put it, make Armenia's future "even bleaker."
As part of the deal, Azerbaijan agreed to provide a virtually
interest-free (1 percent APR for 25 years) $220 million loan to
Georgia for the rehabilitation and construction of the Georgian
stretch of the railroad. (Georgia's Minister of Economic Development
Georgi Arveladze, however, put the estimate for the Georgia section at
$300 million.)
The construction of the 160-mile line is expected to begin by
September of this year and to be completed by 2010, with an estimated
total cost of $600 million.
On February 7, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev and Turkey's prime
minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan were in the Georgian capital for the
inauguration of its airport's new terminal. The terminal is
constructed by a Turkish company that has 15-year management rights
for the airport in Tbilisi, as well as the one in Batumi, in Georgia's
Black Sea province of Ajaria.
Azerbaijani officials have previously expressed interest in buying up
key infrastructure in Georgia's Black Sea ports of Poti and Batumi,
both heavily relied upon by Armenia.
These are just some examples of Turkish and Azerbaijani real and
potential economic expansion into Georgia, which will have
consequences for Armenia.
In addition to economics, there is the on-again, off-again issue of
the resettlement of Meskhetian Turks displaced from Central Asia into
the Armenian-populated Javakhk region, and the frequent discrimination
faced by ethnic Armenian citizens of Georgia.
In several official statements in recent months, Georgia has
explicitly endorsed Azerbaijan's claims on Karabakh, and the two
countries cooperated on having this view endorsed at the United
Nations' General Assembly.
There is also military cooperation between Georgia and Turkey and, to
a lesser extent, Azerbaijan. Turkey has paid for the renovation of
Georgia's main airforce base outside the ethnically Azeri-populated
town of Marneuli, along with some of Georgia's other military
programs. Georgia has in turn sold fighter jets to Azerbaijan.
* Opportunities for Armenia
What opportunities does Armenia have for positive engagement with
Georgia to deter future problems?
"Changes in gas supply patterns are a short-term issue," says Arthur
Martirosyan, Program Manager at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based
Civil Society and Conflict Management Group of the Mercy Corps.
"Long-term, both Armenia and Georgia are pursuing European integration
and this process creates important leverages for Armenia; both
countries are also members of the World Trade Organization (WTO)."
"For now, Georgia is not taking any practical anti-Armenian steps,"
Martirosyan notes. "But Armenia could potentially engage WTO, European
or even American venues to moderate any such steps that Georgia may be
pushed to undertake."
More locally, while Russia appears to have taken control of future
Iranian gas supplies to Armenia, there must be a way for Armenia to be
able to offer Georgia an alternative source of gas that would come
through Armenia rather than from or through Azerbaijan.
There is certainly a need for a stronger Armenian economic presence in
Georgia. This means Armenian -- including *diaspora* Armenian --
investments in Georgia. So far, the Cascade Bank and Grand Tobacco are
the only Armenian companies known to have invested in Georgia.
(Disclosure: Cascade Bank belongs to the Cafesjian Family Foundation,
which also owns this newspaper.)
Targeted economic investments in Tbilisi, Javakhk, and the Black Sea
ports would also mean strengthening the Armenian community in Georgia,
giving them the confidence to stay in Georgia and have their voices
heard in national politics.
"A democratic Georgia that shares European values provides an
important opportunity for a long-term alliance with Armenia," says
Martirosyan. "But such an alliance would require consistent
and-thought out engagement on the part of Armenia."
* * *
For photos, see www.armenianreporteronline.am
******************* ************************************************** ******
5. Letter: An Armenian who revolutionized sports medicine (by Peter Balakian)
Sir:
Maral Najarian's "Great Armenians: Our Unsung Heroes" piece (Dec. 2,
2006) notes a group of Armenian physicians who made pioneering
contributions to medicine. I would like to add to the list Dr. Gerard
Balakian (my father), who in 1965 revolutionized the field of sports
medicine with his invention of the first electrolyte replenishment
sports drink, "Sportade."
Alarmed by the growing number of deaths among athletes from heat
stroke, Dr. Balakian in 1965 began his research on electrolyte
replenishment, and shortly thereafter developed the first electrolyte
beverage, an isotonic, thirst-quenching beverage, which he trademarked
as Sportade. Sportade was designed to replenish minerals such as
potassium and sodium that are lost by athletes during physical
exertion. Shortly after the invention of Sportade, "Gatorade" was
developed, and soon Sportade and Gatorade were competing in the new
market for electrolyte beverages. Balakian was prescient in saying as
early as 1966: "Electrolyte drinks will revolutionize sport and daily
exercise and in 20 years will be in every in household in America."
By 1968, Balakian licensed Sportade to Becton-Dickinson, a
pharmaceutical medical supply company. Sportade became a sensation
during those years, and was used by college and professional athletic
teams nationwide including the New York Giants, Notre Dame, Stanford
University, and the New York Jets. Sportade was used at the Olympics
in 1968, and in 1969 it was the featured drink at the U.S. Tennis
Open; it was also used in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Europe. Dr.
Balakian lectured extensively at universities and medical forums
across American and spoke at the World Congress of Sports Medicine at
Oxford in 1970, on the Voice of America radio program, and on NBC
television. Balakian and Sportade received extensive media coverage in
the NEW YORK TIMES (including a feature in the Sunday TIMES of Oct. 8,
1967), NEWSWEEK, WORLD TENNIS MAGAZINE, SOFT DRINKS REVIEW, and NBC
television.
Very truly yours,
Peter Balakian
Hamilton, N.Y.
******************************************** *******************************
6. The human face of migration
Living in Armenia by Maria Titizian
Special to the ARMENIAN REPORTER
When Hagop Boghossian made the decision to migrate to Greece in 1998,
he didn't realize at the time the consequences of such a choice. [In
this essay, the name of the family portrayed has been changed.]
Boghossian's parents were originally from Greece and had repatriated
to Soviet Armenia in the late 1940s. With independence came freedom
and the ability to be mobile. And at the first opportunity, many like
Boghossian took the decision to go in search of a better life. But the
question was how to get there with his family? He found a way, but his
quest for a better life came with a heavy price.
Migration is not a new phenomenon for Armenia. Since independence
there has been a steady outflow of people from the republic. Estimated
figures range from 900,000 to a million Armenians having left the
country. This mass movement of people began in 1988 with the
earthquake in Spitak, which killed 25,000 (according to official
estimates) and left hundreds of thousands without shelter. This was
further compounded by the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which resulted
in hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons
(IDP's) within the republic; and then the USSR disintegrated under its
own weight. This was followed by the energy crisis, the blockade by
Turkey and Azerbaijan, and the collapse of the already destabilized
economy of Armenia.
While migration can contribute indirectly to the development of the
country of origin - through remittances sent back home, which thereby
reduce poverty or at least provide recipient families with sustenance
- it also poses serious challenges. For a developing country like
Armenia, which receives millions of dollars annually through outside
sources, this process makes it dependent on volatile and fluctuating
growth that can be short-lived - with potentially devastating impacts
on families. Unfortunately international migration today is poorly
managed and can eventually end up impairing the lives of millions of
people who dream of a better quality of life.
The Boghossian family had to make a very difficult choice. In order to
get to Greece, they would have to apply for visitor's visas, but the
two eldest daughters (ages 13 and 15 at the time) would have to be
left behind as a guarantee of their return. Therefore Hagop, his wife
and their 4-year-old son left for Greece assuming that they would
apply for permanent residence, get working papers, and bring over
their two daughters in a short time. The girls were temporarily left
behind in Yerevan with relatives.
This temporary separation lasted eight years.
This large-scale out-migration and its ensuing negative consequences
on the social fabric of Armenian society became one of the primary
concerns for the government. As a result, the State Department for
Migration and Refugees (DMR) was established by a governmental decree
in 1999. The creation of this department reflected the attitude that
there had to be some regulation put in place. Previously, the role of
the state in this area was limited mostly to reactionary measures and
the mitigation of negative consequences. With the establishment of the
DMR, the Armenian government is striving to implement a comprehensive
migration policy - starting from improvement of border management
systems and registration of migration flows, to re-admission and
re-integration programs, especially for those in high risk categories.
One of the primary mandates of this department is to keep the
population well informed about migration in general, including
providing information on rules of entry, residence, and employment in
destination countries. Lack of information has provided fertile ground
for illegal migration from Armenia to flourish.
A 2005 survey conducted by the Armenian Sociological Association
(ASA), titled "Trafficking and Labor Exploitation of Armenian
Migrants," found that although there was an improvement of awareness
among the population, a large number of people still lack proper
information regarding migration. One disturbing phenomenon persists:
almost two-thirds of the respondents didn't know that to secure a job
in Europe, Russia, or the Middle East, it is necessary to have
official documents or permits from the authorities. Only 44 percent of
those who had previously traveled abroad to find employment knew that
an official permit is needed, and only 18.l percent of the respondents
knew about the procedure of getting a working visa.
Another survey, "The Awareness of Population about Migration Related
Issues," implemented by the ASA for the International Organization on
Migration (IOM), showed that 37.3 percent of the population was not
aware that Republic of Armenia citizens could not go to any European
country without a visa. Only 10 percent thought they should get
official documentation to travel legally to a foreign country. The
rest thought that any way is acceptable, including opting for illegal
migration. Most were well aware that illegal migrants were often times
exploited by their employers, that they were working overtime, were
underpaid, their movements restricted and sometimes had their
passports taken away.
According to the IOM mission in Armenia, "Distorted perceptions and
insufficient information about the realities in the countries they are
trying to reach increases the need for migrants to have access to
information. Most migrants are unaware of the practical, legal, social
and economic consequences involved in moving to another country. This
lack of awareness puts migrants at risk and undermines orderly
migration."
The urgent need to make informed decisions is why it is so imperative
to ensure that people are aware of the dangers of illegal migration.
And this is where the Boghossian family fell through the cracks in the
information net. Had they been better informed, perhaps they would
have reconsidered the decisions they took, and those decisions would
not have affected their lives as they did.
Migration statistics collected by the National Statistical Service of
Armenia are based on the registration and departure of citizens -
hardly an effective method to gauge actual migration. As a metric, it
does not indicate accurately the number of short-term labor migrants
who go abroad, nor does it identify migration flows due to transparent
borders with CIS countries, with no actual registration procedures
being applied at land border crossing points. Therefore the current
migration related data available in Armenia is insufficient for
authorities to develop an effective and long-term state policy that
will help in the fight against illegal migration.
The different state agencies, such as border guards, passport, and
visa departments of the Ministry of Interior and customs department,
do not have a unified cohesive procedure to follow, and information is
therefore not being processed properly.
On a more positive note, DMR has taken steps to organize the return of
illegal immigrants to Armenia by instituting re-admission agreements
with several countries of destination. To prevent recurring migration,
the re-admission process will be complemented with re-integration
assistance programs for irregular migrants, rejected asylum seekers,
and trafficked victims. As long as unemployment and underemployment
persist in Armenia, people will believe that the grass is greener and
will want to venture out into the world in search of new life
opportunities. Therefore, it is equally important to create legal
opportunities for labor migration, to circumvent the existence of the
illegal migration that puts people at risk.
For the Boghossian family, though their entry into Greece was
initially legal, their status became illegal once they stayed beyond
the duration of their visitor's visa. They were left without any
status, working under the radar of the immigration authorities, until
they found a way to eventually obtain temporary residency. They were
caught in a trap: they had made a foray into the outside world - their
chance to achieve a perhaps illusory "better life" - but in the end,
they were denied the company of their children for many years.
During the eight years that the Boghossian girls were left behind,
they carried on with their education, ached for the comfort of their
lost family, graduated from university, fell in love, and moved on.
When the day finally came that Hagop was in a position to reunite his
family by bringing his daughters to Greece, the girls were torn and
confused. They had matured into young women, and now felt estranged
from their own parents and brother.
Nevertheless, they *did* eventually join their family in Greece this
past summer. I asked their aunt a few weeks ago how the girls were
adjusting to their new lives. She looked away from me and quietly
said, "One is working as a waitress in a banquet hall, and the younger
one is cleaning homes with her mother. This is how they're putting
their university educations to use. They miss Yerevan, they miss their
lives." We were both quiet until she turned and looked me in the eyes
and said, "I wonder sometimes if their sacrifice was worth it."
* * *
Maria Titizian is a writer living in Yerevan. Her column appears
regularly in the ARMENIAN REPORTER.
*************************************** ************************************
7. Editorial: Time to reinvent "Turkishness"
The murder of Hrant Dink, the courageous Turkish-Armenian editor and
activist who was assassinated in Istanbul on January 19, grabbed the
attention of the media and elected officials in the United States and
beyond.
The crime was condemned widely as a blow against freedom of expression
in Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan condemned it as "a bullet fired at
democracy and freedom of expression."
Practically everyone noted, however, that freedom of expression-and
specifically Hrant Dink-had been targeted by the state itself before
the assassin and the assassin's sponsors "fired at" them. Mr. Dink had
been prosecuted repeatedly under article 301 of Turkey's penal code
for speaking out about the Armenian Genocide. The provision makes
"insulting Turkishness" a crime.
The movement to repeal article 301 has gained steam inside and outside
Turkey, and rightly so. The state should protect free speech, not
persecute people for speaking. Unfortunately, as we reported last
week, the ruling party is unlikely to repeal this law anytime soon.
To focus exclusively on article 301 would be a mistake, however.
The murderers may well have decided to kill Mr. Dink even if there
were no law against "insulting Turkishness."
Powerful people and many of those who aspire to power in Turkey appear
to have a vested interest in enforcing a particular version of
Turkishness. That is an ongoing threat to all those who do not agree
with them.
Under article 66 of Turkey's constitution every citizen of Turkey is a
Turk. This can mean-and should mean-that the word "Turk" is not just
an ethnic term, but also a civic one, and that it encompasses every
ethnic group in Turkey. In practice, however, tens of millions of
Kurds-as well as Armenians, Greeks, and Jews-have their identity
denied and are second-class citizens at best.
Mr. Dink was killed not just for what he said but also for who he was.
He was a Turk, in the civic sense, who was an Armenian-an Armenian who
was not willing to keep his Armenianness under wraps, to be Armenian
only in private, quietly, cautiously.
As we have noted in this space before, he was an Armenian who refused
to know his place. For that he was murdered.
The murderers' action shocked and moved the conscience of a part of
Turkish society. Spontaneous vigils at the site of the crime
culminated in a 5-mile funeral procession that brought to the streets
100,000 Turks on a weekday morning and afternoon. Though the Turkish
nationalists are beginning to regroup, the Turkish media for three
weeks now have been immersed in introspective coverage about the
notion of Turkishness, free speech in Turkey, and Turkey's attitude
toward its Armenian citizens.
This outpouring represented a ray of hope at a dark and painful moment.
It was a reminder that Turkey is a diverse society, in which the
forces of hate and darkness - the fascists - have to contend with the
forces of enlightenment and comity. Hrant Dink was a shining beacon in
this struggle, and the slogan, "We are all Hrant Dink" is a tribute to
his insistence on building bridges while remaining true to the shared
history of Turkey's people of different ethnic origins.
Turkey must, of course, repeal its law against "insulting Turkishness"
and other provisions that suppress free speech. But in response to the
murder of Mr. Dink Turkish society must go well beyond that and amend
its very definition of "Turkishness."
Turkish society must come to understand that Turkey is just as much
the country of Mr. Dink and other Turkish-Armenians as it is the
country of his murderers. It must acknowledge Turkey as a multiethnic
nation built on the ruins of a multiethnic empire. This means
acknowledging the Armenian Genocide and dealing with whatever
consequences that entails. It means treating Armenians, Greeks, Jews,
Kurds, and other minorities as full citizens whose cultures and
institutions are protected, prized, and celebrated.
************************************* **************************************
Please send your news to [email protected] and your letters to
[email protected]
(c) 2007 CS Media Enterprises LLC. All Rights Reserved
PO Box 129
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: 1-201-226-1995
Fax: 1-201-226-1660
Web: http://www.armenianreporteronline.com
Email: [email protected]
February 10, 2007 -- From the front section
1. Turkish officials in Washington to block Armenian Genocide resolution
2. Administration wants aid to cut aid to Armenia and ex-USSR;
Congress yet to weigh in on proposal
3. My Turkishness in revolt
4. Georgia between Azerbaijan and Turkey: What can Armenia offer?
5. Letter: An Armenian who revolutionized sports medicine (by Peter Balakian)
6. The human face of migration
7. Editorial: Time to reinvent "Turkishness"
************************* **************************************************
1. Turkish officials in Washington to block Armenian Genocide resolution
* Turkey's foreign minister, MPs, and Armed Forces chief are arriving
this week and next
by Emil Sanamyan (Washington Editor)
WASHINGTON -- Following the introduction of a draft congressional
resolution on the Armenian Genocide on January 31, senior Turkish
officials launched a series of visits to Washington to tout Turkey's
importance, while warning that U.S.-Turkish cooperation would be
"harmed" if a resolution affirming the U.S. record on the Genocide is
adopted.
Turkey's Foreign Minister ABDULLAH GUL confirmed that the Genocide
resolution, along with Turkey's concerns over Iraq, has dominated his
agenda in Washington. Turkey is seeking to prevent a vote on House
Resolution 106, which has already won support from about 170 House
members.
Speaking at Washington's National Press Club on Tuesday, Mr. Gul
argued that Turkey is of such importance to the United States that
America should not risk aggravating its relations by affirming the
Armenian Genocide.
Asked by the ARMENIAN REPORTER why Turkey's warnings should be taken
seriously when its relations have survived similar resolutions adopted
by over a dozen other countries, Mr. Gul hinted that the U.S. is more
vulnerable to Turkey than Canada or European countries that have
recognized the Genocide. He specifically pointed to Iraq and
Afghanistan as areas where the U.S. needs Turkey's support.
* Bush administration opposes the resolution
On February 5 and 6, Mr.Gul met with Vice President DICK CHENEY,
President Bush's National Security Advisor STEPHEN HADLEY and
Secretary of State CONDOLEEZZA RICE. Administration officials have
pledged to work against the resolution.
According to sources close to Congress at least one House member
received a telephone call from Undersecretary of Defense **Eric
Edelman.** A former U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Mr. Edelman resigned
his position in 2005 after repeated anti-Semitic comments made against
him in the Turkish media. He was reportedly calling to oppose the
resolution.
"We are working harder than usual [to prevent the vote]," Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State MATT BRYZA was quoted as saying by the
Associated Press. Echoing comments made by Turkish officials on the
issue, Mr. Bryza argued that "a congressional resolution would be a
tremendous blow to our bilateral relationship."
A State Department transcript of the February 1 meeting with Turkish
journalists cited Mr. Bryza as referring to the Armenian Genocide as
"so-called." But speaking with the RFE/RL Armenian Service on February
7, Mr. Bryza said that the administration "do[es] not deny the mass
killings and forced exile of up to 1.5 million Armenians."
DAN FRIED, Assistant Secretary of State and Mr. Bryza's manager at the
State Department, told the TURKISH DAILY NEWS that while the
administration will oppose the resolution, "If a resolution does pass
. . . I hope that our Turkish friends will understand that it's not
the position of the U.S. administration, and our interests, Turkey's
interests and America's interests, will still bring us together."
Mr. Fried also added, in reference to the Genocide, "Honest countries,
free countries need to seriously look at these dark spots [of
history], and no matter how painful it is, they need to confront
them."
* Turkey lobbying U.S. Congress, seeks Jewish support
On February 7, Mr. Gul was due to meet House Majority leader STENY
HOYER (D-Md.), Foreign Affairs Committee chair TOM LANTOS (D-Calif.),
and other key members of Congress.
Turkish media reported that the House Speaker NANCY PELOSI declined to
meet Mr. Gul. It is up to the Speaker whether a vote on the resolution
takes place, and Ms. Pelosi, a longtime supporter of affirmation, has
previously expressed support for the resolution.
Turkish and Azerbaijani reports suggested that the Turkish foreign
minister will be specifically lobbying Reps. JOHN MURTHA (D-Pa.) and
RAHM EMANUEL (D-Ill.) to weigh in with Speaker Pelosi.
The Azerbaijani Press Agency (APA) further claimed that Turkey was
supported by three Jewish-American organizations. It cited an unnamed
leader of one of the Jewish organizations as telling Turkish
journalists that "[Rep.] Emanuel should be persuaded of the importance
of preventing the bill. Nancy [Pelosi] always follows Emanuel's
advice."
The Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA) reported that on Monday night Mr.
Gul met with representatives of a number of Jewish-American
organizations and asked them for assistance in opposition to the
Armenian Genocide resolution. JTA did not say if any such assistance
was promised.
Reached by the ARMENIAN REPORTER, the American-Israeli Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) spokeswoman JENNIFER CANNATA said that the
organization had no formal comment on the Genocide resolution. The
American Jewish Committee (AJC), whose representatives that took part
in the meeting with Mr. Gul, could not provide comment at press time.
Starting this week, about a dozen Turkish members of parliament will
follow Mr. Gul to lobby the U.S. Congress and the public against the
Armenian Genocide resolution.
Next week, chief of staff of the Turkish Armed Forces Gen. Yasar
Buyukanit will arrive to try to mend the bilateral military relations
severely damaged as a result of the Iraq war.
* A correction
This newspaper reported last week (Feb. 3) that Rep. Lantos (D-Calif.)
had cosigned a letter to the Turkish government condemning Hrant
Dink's assassination and calling for reform in Turkey. Sources
familiar with the matter have since told the REPORTER that while Rep.
Lantos' staff initially indicated that he would cosign the letter, in
the end he did not.
******************************************** *******************************
2. Administration wants aid to cut aid to Armenia and ex-USSR;
Congress yet to weigh in on proposal
by Emil Sanamyan
Special to the ARMENIAN REPORTER
WASHINGTON -- The Bush Administration has proposed a significant cut
in annual assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union,
including Armenia -- a cut which, it claimed, "reflect[s] success
achieved in the region." The draft proposal would need to be approved
and is likely to be revised by both chambers of the U.S. Congress
before it can become law.
The budget request for the fiscal year 2008 (FY08) would reduce
overall assistance to the region to about $356 million from about $509
million expended in FY06.
The same proposal would reduce economic assistance to Armenia to $35
million from $69 million spent in FY06; to Azerbaijan to $18 million
from $34.2; and to Georgia to $50.5 million from $67.8. The
administration made no specific request for aid to Nagorno-Karabakh.
Congress has repeatedly reversed administration-proposed aid cuts to
Armenia in previous years. U.S. economic assistance to Armenia has
totaled over $1.6 billion since 1992. The U.S. Congress has also
provided over $30 million in aid to Nagorno-Karabakh.
[In December 2006, the United States began to provide Millennium
Challenge assistance to Armenia. This is a separate program, which
envisages $235 million in developmental aid over five years,
conditional on Armenia's democratic progress. The U.S. has a similar
program running in Georgia; Azerbaijan, however, was not found
eligible.]
The FY08 request also seeks more military assistance to Azerbaijan
than to Armenia, proposing $5.3 million and $3.3 million respectively
for the Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military
Education and Training (IMET) programs.
* Armenian-American response
Washington-based Armenian-American organizations have taken issue both
with the proposed cut in aid and unequal levels of military assistance
to Armenia and Azerbaijan.
"This budget request . . . is simply unacceptable," said BRYAN
ARDOUNY, executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America. "We
will work with Congress to correct the glaring deficiencies in the
Administration's request," he added.
ARAM HAMPARIAN, executive director of the Armenian National Committee
of America (ANCA), similarly noted that "We look to our friends in
Congress . . . to substantially increase aid levels to Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh that reflect Armenia's growing partnership with U.S."
The U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC) "believes that
Congress will reject the Administration's call for reduction [in aid]
to Armenia," said executive director ROSS VARTIAN.
"USAPAC will work closely with Congress to increase Armenia's
bilateral allocation and reinstate military assistance parity. . . .
Congress will once again correct the Administration's exclusion of
Nagorno-Karabakh," Mr. Vartian predicted.
Citing the Azerbaijani president's war threats, Mr. Vartian argued
that "it is irresponsible for the U.S. to propose asymmetrical FMF and
IMET funding and also to continue the Caspian program." He added,
"This in effect enables Azerbaijan's destabilizing militarization."
The UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND is spending about $100 million in
Azerbaijan under the 10-year Caspian Guard (Security) program.
According to former U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish, $30
million of that amount had been spent by the end of 2005 to upgrade
Azerbaijan's maritime, air, and ground capabilities.
*********************************** ****************************************
3. My Turkishness in revolt
by Taner Akçam
This essay was originally published as "Turklugumun Isyani" (The
revolt of my Turkishness) in the January 24 edition of the Turkish
daily RADIKAL. This English translation, approved by Mr. Akçam, is
being published exclusively in the ARMENIAN REPORTER by arrangement
with the author.
I am a Turk. Hrant was an Armenian. I write for AGOS. He was AGOS.
Hrant, AGOS's Turkish writers, and AGOS itself risked everything for a
cause: to cease the hostility between Turks and Armenians; to bring
the resentment and hatred to an end. We wanted each group, each
nationality, to live together on the common ground of mutual respect.
Hrant and AGOS were a single flower blooming on the barren plains of
Turkey. That flower was destroyed, torn from the ground. Everyone
says "The bullet fired at Hrant hit Turkey." That's true, but we need
to ask ourselves in complete and transparent honesty: Who made the
target for that bullet? Who targeted Hrant so the bullet would find
its mark? Who held him fast so the shot wasn't wasted?
Hrant wasn't killed by a lone 17-year-old. He was murdered by those
who made him a target and held him in place.
Nor was he killed by a single bullet. It was the targeting, month by
month, that murdered him.
"I'm afraid," he said on January fifth "I'm very afraid, Taner. The
attacks on me and on AGOS are very systematic, They called me to the
Governor's office, where they started making threats. They said,
'We'll make you pay for everything you've been doing.' All the attacks
began after I was threatened."
"2007 is going to be a bad year, Taner," he continued. "They're not
going to ease off. We've been made into a horrible target. Between
the press, the politicians, and the lawyers, they've created this
atmosphere that's so poisonous, they've made us such an obscenity,
that we've become sitting ducks.
"They've opened up hunting season, Taner, and they've got us right
where they want us."
Hrant wasn't killed by a 17-year-old. He was murdered by those who
portrayed him as an enemy of Turkey, every single day in the press, to
that 17-year-old. He was murdered by those who dragged him to the
doors of the courthouse under Article 301. He was murdered by those
who aimed Article 301 during their open season on intellectuals, and
by those who didn't have the courage to change Article 301. Hrant was
murdered by those who called him to the Governor's office and then
threatened him instead of protecting him.
There's no point in shedding crocodile tears. Let us bow our heads
and look at our hands. Let us ponder how we will clean off the blood.
You organs of the press who have expressed shock over Hrant's death,
go read your back issues, look at what you wrote about Hrant. You
will see the murderer there. You, who used 301 as a weapon to hunt
intellectuals, see what you wrote about 301, look at the court
decisions. You will see the murderer there.
Dear government officials, spare us your crocodile tears. Tell us
what you plan to do to the Lieutenant Governor who called Hrant into
his office and, together with an official from the National
Intelligence Bureau, proceeded to threaten him. What do you intend to
do to them?
Hrant was portrayed as "the Armenian who insulted Turkishness." For
this, he was murdered. He was murdered because he said, "Turkey must
confront its history." The hands that pulled the trigger--or caused
it to be pulled--in 2007 are the same hands that shot all the Hrants
in 1915, the same hands that left all those Armenians to choke in the
desert.
Hrant's killers are sending us a message. They're saying "Yes! We
were behind 1915 and we'll do it again in 2007!" Hrant's murderers
believe they killed in the name of Turkishness, just like those who
killed all the Hrants in 1915.
For them, Turkishness is about committing murder. It means setting
someone up as the enemy and then targeting that person for
destruction.
Quite the contrary, the murderers are a black stain upon the brow of
Turkishness. It is they who have demeaned Turkish identity.
For this reason, we have stood up and we have decided to take
Turkishness out of the assassins' hands and we have shouted out, "We
are all Hrant! We are all Armenian!" We are the resounding cry of
Turkishness and Turkey. All of us--Turks, Kurds, Alevites,
secularists, and Muslims alike--shout out on behalf of everyone who
wants to take Turkishness away from these murderers.
Turkishness is a beautiful thing that should be respected instead of
left in the hands of murderers; so is Armenianness.
We can feel proud to be Turkish only if we can acknowledge the
murderer for who he is. That is what we are doing today. By
declaring, "We are all Armenians," we know that we honor Turkishness;
by identifying the true murderer, we create a Turkishness worth
claiming.
Today we declare to the world that murder has nothing to do with
Turkishness or Turkey. We are not going to leave Turkishness in the
hands of murderers. We will not allow Turkishness to be stained by
hate crimes towards Armenians. Either Turkishness belongs to the
murderers, or it belongs to us.
Turks cry out that the person who killed Hrant is a murderer. In the
wake of his death, Turkishness affirms that we are all Armenians.
This, I say, is what we also need to do for 1915.
If we can affirm that a real Turk is someone who can distance
Turkishness from the murder of Hrant Dink, then we ought to be able to
do the same thing for the events around 1915. Those who gather in a
protective circle around Hrant's murderer are the same people who
protected the murderers of 1915. Those who honored Talaat, Bahaettin
Sakir and Dr. Nzim yesterday are doing the same for Hrant's murderer
today.
If we can come out and declare Hrant's murder a "shameful act," then
we should be able to state the same, as Mustafa Kemal Ataturk did,
about the acts that occurred in 1915. Today, hundreds of thousands of
us condemn this murder by declaring "We are all Armenian." In 1915,
Turks, Kurds, Moslems and Alewites did the same. We have to choose,
not only for today but for yesterday as well.
Whose side are we on? Which "Turkishness" are we defending, the one
that defends the murderers or the one which condemns the murderous
acts? Do we stand with Kemal, the Mayor of Bogazliyan, who
annihilated Armenians in 1915, or with Abdullahzade Mehmet Efendi, the
Mufti of Bogazliyan, who bore witness against that mayor at the trial
which lead to his execution, stating "I fear the wrath of God"?
Are we going to represent the "Turkishness" that defended the crimes
of Talat, Enver, Bahaettin Sakir, Doctor Nzim, and Governor Resit of
Diyarbakir? Or will we oppose them in the name of a Turkishness that
condemns such horror?
We need to know that in 1915 we had Mazhar, the governor of Ankara;
Celal, the governor of Halep; Resit, the governor of Kastamonu; Cemal,
the lieutenant governor of Yozgat; Ali Faik, the mayor of Kütahya; and
Ali Fuat, the mayor of Der-Zor. And we had soldiers and army
commanders in 1915, men we can embrace with respect, for opposing what
happened: Vehip Pasha, Commander of the Third Army; Avni Pasha,
Commander of the Trabzon garrison; Colonel Vasfi; and Salim, Major
Commandant of the Yozgat post.
Trabzon has its share of murderers like Ögün Samast in 2007 and
Governor Cemal Azmi and Unionist "Yenibahçeli" Nail in 1915. But
those who opposed the crimes of 1915 and didn't hesitate to identify
the murderers in court included many citizens of Trabzon: Nuri, Chief
of Police; businessman, Ahmet Ali Bey; Customs Inspector Nesim Bey,
and parliamentarian Hafiz Mehmet Emin Bey,who testified, "I saw with
my own eyes that the Armenians were loaded onto boats and taken out
and drowned, but I couldn't do anything to stop it."
These are just a few of the dozens, hundreds, even thousands of people
who opposed the horrible acts committed.
We, Turks and Turkey, have a choice to make. We will affirm either
the Turkishness of murderers past and present, or the Turkishness of
those who cry out today, "We are all Armenian!" and who yesterday
declared, "We will not let our hands be stained with blood."
The whole world looks upon us with respect because they see us draw a
line between Turkishness and barbarism. Today we are building a wall
between murderers and Turkishness; we are Turks who know how to point
the finger at a murderer.
We must show the same courage in regard to the events of 1915. Hrant
wanted us to. When he said, "I love Turks and Turkey, and I consider
it a privilege to be living amongst Turks," that's what he was asking
for. We need to acknowledge the murderers of the Hrants of 1915, and
we need to draw a line between them and Turkishness. If we are going
to own up to this murder in 2007 then we need to do the same for those
of 1915.
That's what confronting one's history is about. Today, by saying to
Hrant's murderer, "You don't represent me as a Turk: you are simply a
murderer," we have begun the process of confronting and acknowledging
our history. We must do the same with the murderers of 1915 by
drawing a line between their acts and our Turkishness. We must
condemn these murderers as having smeared our brows with the dark
stain of their crimes. Then, and only then, can we Turks go about the
world with our heads held high.
I cry out in the name of Turkishness. I cry out as a Turk, as a
friend who lost Hrant, my beloved Armenian brother. Let's take back
Turkishness from the murderous hands of those who wish to smear us
with their dark deeds. Let's shout in one voice, "WE ARE ALL HRANT!
WE ARE ALL ARMENIANS!"
***
Taner Akçam, a professor at the University of Minnesota, is the author
of A SHAMEFUL ACT: THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AND THE QUESTION OF TURKISH
RESPONSIBILITY. He recently became the subject of a formal complaint
under Turkey's Penal Code Article 301 -- the same crime of "insulting
Turkishness" for which Hrant Dink was tried and found guilty by the
Turkish judiciary.
************************************** *************************************
4. Georgia between Azerbaijan and Turkey: What can Armenia offer?
News Analysis by Emil Sanamyan
Special to the ARMENIAN REPORTER
EDITOR'S NOTE: Emil Sanamyan's article in the January 13 edition of
the ARMENIAN REPORTER ("Armenia and Georgia: Will the delicate embrace
survive a gas onslaught?") discussed the mutual importance of Armenia
and Georgia and described the recent and anticipated changes in
regional energy supply patterns. In the second installment of that
article, which follows, Mr. Sanamyan looks at the possible
implications of these changes.
WASHINGTON -- Following Georgia's decision in late December to buy
Russian gas at $235 per thousand cubic meters (tcm), twice the price
Georgia paid last year, local media and pundits discussed the
possibility of increasing the tariff on Russian gas supplies to
Armenia. In other words, Georgia would look to Armenia to subsidize,
at least in part, the Russian price hike.
Armenia will be paying $110/tcm of Russian gas through the end of
2008. In exchange Russia increased its control over Armenia's gas
transportation infrastructure.
Cory Welt, the deputy director for Eurasia at the Washington-based
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), who watches
Georgian politics closely, told the ARMENIAN REPORTER in December that
he "doesn't see how Georgians would allow the $110 gas to go to
Armenia, while they are paying $235.... This will pose a large problem
for Armenia."
Earlier this month, political commentator Soso Tsintsadze told the
Georgian newspaper SAKARTVELOS RESPUBLIKA that such a move was being
considered by the Georgian government. Currently, Georgia receives
100,000 tcm as a tariff for Russian gas supplies to Armenia
(equivalent to $23.5 million at the new price.)
But chairman of the Georgian Parliament's committee on economic policy
Niko Lekishvili ruled out such a step, reported Georgia's MESSENGER
daily on January 8. Lekishvili said that Georgia does not want to hurt
its relations with Armenia.
Higher tariffs for Armenia are just some and perhaps not the worst of
the potential consequences of the Russian price hike against Georgia.
* The Georgia-Turkey-Azerbaijan connection
Enter Azerbaijan and Turkey, which have offered Georgia gas supplies
at significantly lower prices than Russia is now asking. If Russia
conditions lower prices for its gas supplies to control of the
countries' strategic assets and Russia-friendly policies, should not
Azerbaijan and Turkey be expected to do the same?
CSIS's Welt called the recent preliminary agreements between
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on gas supplies a "step towards
consolidation of the Georgian-Azerbaijani partnership ... leaving
Armenia on the other side."
Since questions remain on how much gas Azerbaijan can in fact produce
for itself and for export, Georgia is BOTH driving a hard bargain on
Azerbaijan-initiated projects AND biding its time. But the partnership
is already beginning to bear fruit for Azerbaijan.
On January 13, transport officials from Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey
met in Tbilisi and agreed to go ahead with construction of the
Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Kars railroad that Azerbaijan initiated to, as the
Azeri president put it, make Armenia's future "even bleaker."
As part of the deal, Azerbaijan agreed to provide a virtually
interest-free (1 percent APR for 25 years) $220 million loan to
Georgia for the rehabilitation and construction of the Georgian
stretch of the railroad. (Georgia's Minister of Economic Development
Georgi Arveladze, however, put the estimate for the Georgia section at
$300 million.)
The construction of the 160-mile line is expected to begin by
September of this year and to be completed by 2010, with an estimated
total cost of $600 million.
On February 7, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev and Turkey's prime
minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan were in the Georgian capital for the
inauguration of its airport's new terminal. The terminal is
constructed by a Turkish company that has 15-year management rights
for the airport in Tbilisi, as well as the one in Batumi, in Georgia's
Black Sea province of Ajaria.
Azerbaijani officials have previously expressed interest in buying up
key infrastructure in Georgia's Black Sea ports of Poti and Batumi,
both heavily relied upon by Armenia.
These are just some examples of Turkish and Azerbaijani real and
potential economic expansion into Georgia, which will have
consequences for Armenia.
In addition to economics, there is the on-again, off-again issue of
the resettlement of Meskhetian Turks displaced from Central Asia into
the Armenian-populated Javakhk region, and the frequent discrimination
faced by ethnic Armenian citizens of Georgia.
In several official statements in recent months, Georgia has
explicitly endorsed Azerbaijan's claims on Karabakh, and the two
countries cooperated on having this view endorsed at the United
Nations' General Assembly.
There is also military cooperation between Georgia and Turkey and, to
a lesser extent, Azerbaijan. Turkey has paid for the renovation of
Georgia's main airforce base outside the ethnically Azeri-populated
town of Marneuli, along with some of Georgia's other military
programs. Georgia has in turn sold fighter jets to Azerbaijan.
* Opportunities for Armenia
What opportunities does Armenia have for positive engagement with
Georgia to deter future problems?
"Changes in gas supply patterns are a short-term issue," says Arthur
Martirosyan, Program Manager at the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based
Civil Society and Conflict Management Group of the Mercy Corps.
"Long-term, both Armenia and Georgia are pursuing European integration
and this process creates important leverages for Armenia; both
countries are also members of the World Trade Organization (WTO)."
"For now, Georgia is not taking any practical anti-Armenian steps,"
Martirosyan notes. "But Armenia could potentially engage WTO, European
or even American venues to moderate any such steps that Georgia may be
pushed to undertake."
More locally, while Russia appears to have taken control of future
Iranian gas supplies to Armenia, there must be a way for Armenia to be
able to offer Georgia an alternative source of gas that would come
through Armenia rather than from or through Azerbaijan.
There is certainly a need for a stronger Armenian economic presence in
Georgia. This means Armenian -- including *diaspora* Armenian --
investments in Georgia. So far, the Cascade Bank and Grand Tobacco are
the only Armenian companies known to have invested in Georgia.
(Disclosure: Cascade Bank belongs to the Cafesjian Family Foundation,
which also owns this newspaper.)
Targeted economic investments in Tbilisi, Javakhk, and the Black Sea
ports would also mean strengthening the Armenian community in Georgia,
giving them the confidence to stay in Georgia and have their voices
heard in national politics.
"A democratic Georgia that shares European values provides an
important opportunity for a long-term alliance with Armenia," says
Martirosyan. "But such an alliance would require consistent
and-thought out engagement on the part of Armenia."
* * *
For photos, see www.armenianreporteronline.am
******************* ************************************************** ******
5. Letter: An Armenian who revolutionized sports medicine (by Peter Balakian)
Sir:
Maral Najarian's "Great Armenians: Our Unsung Heroes" piece (Dec. 2,
2006) notes a group of Armenian physicians who made pioneering
contributions to medicine. I would like to add to the list Dr. Gerard
Balakian (my father), who in 1965 revolutionized the field of sports
medicine with his invention of the first electrolyte replenishment
sports drink, "Sportade."
Alarmed by the growing number of deaths among athletes from heat
stroke, Dr. Balakian in 1965 began his research on electrolyte
replenishment, and shortly thereafter developed the first electrolyte
beverage, an isotonic, thirst-quenching beverage, which he trademarked
as Sportade. Sportade was designed to replenish minerals such as
potassium and sodium that are lost by athletes during physical
exertion. Shortly after the invention of Sportade, "Gatorade" was
developed, and soon Sportade and Gatorade were competing in the new
market for electrolyte beverages. Balakian was prescient in saying as
early as 1966: "Electrolyte drinks will revolutionize sport and daily
exercise and in 20 years will be in every in household in America."
By 1968, Balakian licensed Sportade to Becton-Dickinson, a
pharmaceutical medical supply company. Sportade became a sensation
during those years, and was used by college and professional athletic
teams nationwide including the New York Giants, Notre Dame, Stanford
University, and the New York Jets. Sportade was used at the Olympics
in 1968, and in 1969 it was the featured drink at the U.S. Tennis
Open; it was also used in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Europe. Dr.
Balakian lectured extensively at universities and medical forums
across American and spoke at the World Congress of Sports Medicine at
Oxford in 1970, on the Voice of America radio program, and on NBC
television. Balakian and Sportade received extensive media coverage in
the NEW YORK TIMES (including a feature in the Sunday TIMES of Oct. 8,
1967), NEWSWEEK, WORLD TENNIS MAGAZINE, SOFT DRINKS REVIEW, and NBC
television.
Very truly yours,
Peter Balakian
Hamilton, N.Y.
******************************************** *******************************
6. The human face of migration
Living in Armenia by Maria Titizian
Special to the ARMENIAN REPORTER
When Hagop Boghossian made the decision to migrate to Greece in 1998,
he didn't realize at the time the consequences of such a choice. [In
this essay, the name of the family portrayed has been changed.]
Boghossian's parents were originally from Greece and had repatriated
to Soviet Armenia in the late 1940s. With independence came freedom
and the ability to be mobile. And at the first opportunity, many like
Boghossian took the decision to go in search of a better life. But the
question was how to get there with his family? He found a way, but his
quest for a better life came with a heavy price.
Migration is not a new phenomenon for Armenia. Since independence
there has been a steady outflow of people from the republic. Estimated
figures range from 900,000 to a million Armenians having left the
country. This mass movement of people began in 1988 with the
earthquake in Spitak, which killed 25,000 (according to official
estimates) and left hundreds of thousands without shelter. This was
further compounded by the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which resulted
in hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons
(IDP's) within the republic; and then the USSR disintegrated under its
own weight. This was followed by the energy crisis, the blockade by
Turkey and Azerbaijan, and the collapse of the already destabilized
economy of Armenia.
While migration can contribute indirectly to the development of the
country of origin - through remittances sent back home, which thereby
reduce poverty or at least provide recipient families with sustenance
- it also poses serious challenges. For a developing country like
Armenia, which receives millions of dollars annually through outside
sources, this process makes it dependent on volatile and fluctuating
growth that can be short-lived - with potentially devastating impacts
on families. Unfortunately international migration today is poorly
managed and can eventually end up impairing the lives of millions of
people who dream of a better quality of life.
The Boghossian family had to make a very difficult choice. In order to
get to Greece, they would have to apply for visitor's visas, but the
two eldest daughters (ages 13 and 15 at the time) would have to be
left behind as a guarantee of their return. Therefore Hagop, his wife
and their 4-year-old son left for Greece assuming that they would
apply for permanent residence, get working papers, and bring over
their two daughters in a short time. The girls were temporarily left
behind in Yerevan with relatives.
This temporary separation lasted eight years.
This large-scale out-migration and its ensuing negative consequences
on the social fabric of Armenian society became one of the primary
concerns for the government. As a result, the State Department for
Migration and Refugees (DMR) was established by a governmental decree
in 1999. The creation of this department reflected the attitude that
there had to be some regulation put in place. Previously, the role of
the state in this area was limited mostly to reactionary measures and
the mitigation of negative consequences. With the establishment of the
DMR, the Armenian government is striving to implement a comprehensive
migration policy - starting from improvement of border management
systems and registration of migration flows, to re-admission and
re-integration programs, especially for those in high risk categories.
One of the primary mandates of this department is to keep the
population well informed about migration in general, including
providing information on rules of entry, residence, and employment in
destination countries. Lack of information has provided fertile ground
for illegal migration from Armenia to flourish.
A 2005 survey conducted by the Armenian Sociological Association
(ASA), titled "Trafficking and Labor Exploitation of Armenian
Migrants," found that although there was an improvement of awareness
among the population, a large number of people still lack proper
information regarding migration. One disturbing phenomenon persists:
almost two-thirds of the respondents didn't know that to secure a job
in Europe, Russia, or the Middle East, it is necessary to have
official documents or permits from the authorities. Only 44 percent of
those who had previously traveled abroad to find employment knew that
an official permit is needed, and only 18.l percent of the respondents
knew about the procedure of getting a working visa.
Another survey, "The Awareness of Population about Migration Related
Issues," implemented by the ASA for the International Organization on
Migration (IOM), showed that 37.3 percent of the population was not
aware that Republic of Armenia citizens could not go to any European
country without a visa. Only 10 percent thought they should get
official documentation to travel legally to a foreign country. The
rest thought that any way is acceptable, including opting for illegal
migration. Most were well aware that illegal migrants were often times
exploited by their employers, that they were working overtime, were
underpaid, their movements restricted and sometimes had their
passports taken away.
According to the IOM mission in Armenia, "Distorted perceptions and
insufficient information about the realities in the countries they are
trying to reach increases the need for migrants to have access to
information. Most migrants are unaware of the practical, legal, social
and economic consequences involved in moving to another country. This
lack of awareness puts migrants at risk and undermines orderly
migration."
The urgent need to make informed decisions is why it is so imperative
to ensure that people are aware of the dangers of illegal migration.
And this is where the Boghossian family fell through the cracks in the
information net. Had they been better informed, perhaps they would
have reconsidered the decisions they took, and those decisions would
not have affected their lives as they did.
Migration statistics collected by the National Statistical Service of
Armenia are based on the registration and departure of citizens -
hardly an effective method to gauge actual migration. As a metric, it
does not indicate accurately the number of short-term labor migrants
who go abroad, nor does it identify migration flows due to transparent
borders with CIS countries, with no actual registration procedures
being applied at land border crossing points. Therefore the current
migration related data available in Armenia is insufficient for
authorities to develop an effective and long-term state policy that
will help in the fight against illegal migration.
The different state agencies, such as border guards, passport, and
visa departments of the Ministry of Interior and customs department,
do not have a unified cohesive procedure to follow, and information is
therefore not being processed properly.
On a more positive note, DMR has taken steps to organize the return of
illegal immigrants to Armenia by instituting re-admission agreements
with several countries of destination. To prevent recurring migration,
the re-admission process will be complemented with re-integration
assistance programs for irregular migrants, rejected asylum seekers,
and trafficked victims. As long as unemployment and underemployment
persist in Armenia, people will believe that the grass is greener and
will want to venture out into the world in search of new life
opportunities. Therefore, it is equally important to create legal
opportunities for labor migration, to circumvent the existence of the
illegal migration that puts people at risk.
For the Boghossian family, though their entry into Greece was
initially legal, their status became illegal once they stayed beyond
the duration of their visitor's visa. They were left without any
status, working under the radar of the immigration authorities, until
they found a way to eventually obtain temporary residency. They were
caught in a trap: they had made a foray into the outside world - their
chance to achieve a perhaps illusory "better life" - but in the end,
they were denied the company of their children for many years.
During the eight years that the Boghossian girls were left behind,
they carried on with their education, ached for the comfort of their
lost family, graduated from university, fell in love, and moved on.
When the day finally came that Hagop was in a position to reunite his
family by bringing his daughters to Greece, the girls were torn and
confused. They had matured into young women, and now felt estranged
from their own parents and brother.
Nevertheless, they *did* eventually join their family in Greece this
past summer. I asked their aunt a few weeks ago how the girls were
adjusting to their new lives. She looked away from me and quietly
said, "One is working as a waitress in a banquet hall, and the younger
one is cleaning homes with her mother. This is how they're putting
their university educations to use. They miss Yerevan, they miss their
lives." We were both quiet until she turned and looked me in the eyes
and said, "I wonder sometimes if their sacrifice was worth it."
* * *
Maria Titizian is a writer living in Yerevan. Her column appears
regularly in the ARMENIAN REPORTER.
*************************************** ************************************
7. Editorial: Time to reinvent "Turkishness"
The murder of Hrant Dink, the courageous Turkish-Armenian editor and
activist who was assassinated in Istanbul on January 19, grabbed the
attention of the media and elected officials in the United States and
beyond.
The crime was condemned widely as a blow against freedom of expression
in Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan condemned it as "a bullet fired at
democracy and freedom of expression."
Practically everyone noted, however, that freedom of expression-and
specifically Hrant Dink-had been targeted by the state itself before
the assassin and the assassin's sponsors "fired at" them. Mr. Dink had
been prosecuted repeatedly under article 301 of Turkey's penal code
for speaking out about the Armenian Genocide. The provision makes
"insulting Turkishness" a crime.
The movement to repeal article 301 has gained steam inside and outside
Turkey, and rightly so. The state should protect free speech, not
persecute people for speaking. Unfortunately, as we reported last
week, the ruling party is unlikely to repeal this law anytime soon.
To focus exclusively on article 301 would be a mistake, however.
The murderers may well have decided to kill Mr. Dink even if there
were no law against "insulting Turkishness."
Powerful people and many of those who aspire to power in Turkey appear
to have a vested interest in enforcing a particular version of
Turkishness. That is an ongoing threat to all those who do not agree
with them.
Under article 66 of Turkey's constitution every citizen of Turkey is a
Turk. This can mean-and should mean-that the word "Turk" is not just
an ethnic term, but also a civic one, and that it encompasses every
ethnic group in Turkey. In practice, however, tens of millions of
Kurds-as well as Armenians, Greeks, and Jews-have their identity
denied and are second-class citizens at best.
Mr. Dink was killed not just for what he said but also for who he was.
He was a Turk, in the civic sense, who was an Armenian-an Armenian who
was not willing to keep his Armenianness under wraps, to be Armenian
only in private, quietly, cautiously.
As we have noted in this space before, he was an Armenian who refused
to know his place. For that he was murdered.
The murderers' action shocked and moved the conscience of a part of
Turkish society. Spontaneous vigils at the site of the crime
culminated in a 5-mile funeral procession that brought to the streets
100,000 Turks on a weekday morning and afternoon. Though the Turkish
nationalists are beginning to regroup, the Turkish media for three
weeks now have been immersed in introspective coverage about the
notion of Turkishness, free speech in Turkey, and Turkey's attitude
toward its Armenian citizens.
This outpouring represented a ray of hope at a dark and painful moment.
It was a reminder that Turkey is a diverse society, in which the
forces of hate and darkness - the fascists - have to contend with the
forces of enlightenment and comity. Hrant Dink was a shining beacon in
this struggle, and the slogan, "We are all Hrant Dink" is a tribute to
his insistence on building bridges while remaining true to the shared
history of Turkey's people of different ethnic origins.
Turkey must, of course, repeal its law against "insulting Turkishness"
and other provisions that suppress free speech. But in response to the
murder of Mr. Dink Turkish society must go well beyond that and amend
its very definition of "Turkishness."
Turkish society must come to understand that Turkey is just as much
the country of Mr. Dink and other Turkish-Armenians as it is the
country of his murderers. It must acknowledge Turkey as a multiethnic
nation built on the ruins of a multiethnic empire. This means
acknowledging the Armenian Genocide and dealing with whatever
consequences that entails. It means treating Armenians, Greeks, Jews,
Kurds, and other minorities as full citizens whose cultures and
institutions are protected, prized, and celebrated.
************************************* **************************************
Please send your news to [email protected] and your letters to
[email protected]
(c) 2007 CS Media Enterprises LLC. All Rights Reserved