“Dear and blessed Armenians, villagers, when you return to the fatherland, as a gift, one by one, get your friend and relative a gun, get a gun and more guns. People, before all else, put the hope of your independence on yourself.”

This excerpt is from the most famous sermon in modern Armenian history. Its message, that Armenians must cease their hopeful reliance on foreign powers, is taught in textbooks throughout the Diaspora. The man behind the speech, Mkrtich Khrimian “Hayrik,” occupies an outsized role in the Armenian national memory. He is the fiery cleric who beseeched Armenians to defend themselves and became known as the father of the revolutionary movement. A rare figure of history who is beloved by most everyone, Khrimian is considered an “honorary Dashnak,” a founding member of the Armenakan party. His name was often invoked within the pages of the official publication of the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, all while simultaneously remaining a revered figure in the Armenian Church, respected for both his piety and devotion to his flock.

However, over the decades since his death, Khrimian’s legacy has been overtaken by the “Sermon on the Sword” mentioned above, which he first delivered in 1878 in the Armenian Cathedral in Kum Kapu. While the iron ladle metaphor he employed still resonates with contemporary audiences, Khrimian’s other myriad contributions to the development of the Armenian mind and the amelioration of the state of the villager have been left understudied. 

Aside from his role as a pioneer in encouraging self-reliance, Khrimian also dedicated much of his life to educating the rural Armenian. Though the majority of Armenians lived in the vulnerable and vital eastern regions of the Ottoman Empire—the Armenian fatherland—most resources were poured into developing the Armenian community in Istanbul. Khrimian was among the first to shift the focus from Istanbul to the eastern provinces to not only speak to the villager, but also to give the villager a voice. 

Khrimian published a combination of nine essays and books between 1855 and 1901. During that time, he also wrote articles for, while also acting as editor and publisher of, two periodicals, Artsvi Vaspurakan and Artsvik Tarono. Throughout these texts, certain themes arise which were vital for Khrimian including gender and the financial stability of the villager. 

However, one of the themes which was most frequently discussed and important to Khrimian was education and the enlightenment of the Armenian peasant. This essay will serve as an analysis of one of his seminal texts, Papik ev Tornik, as well as the Artsvi Vaspurakan publication as a sampling of his intellectual and literary output regarding his efforts to educate the rural Armenian population.

Long before he exhorted the carrying of arms as a solution to the critical plight of the Armenians, Khrimian entreated the value of education as a salvaging force. Within the first page of the introduction to Papik ev Tornik, Khrimian posed the following question directly to his reader asking, “What is the reason why even with all the good you have, you are always left deprived?” To this he answered, “Read Papik ev Tornik and you will learn that the only cause is ignorance…not knowing how to read, write, count and economize.” Khrimian frequently wrote that ignorance and lack of education were the root causes behind hardship. He also championed the idea that all Armenians, including women, should be educated; the education of the individual would lead to a more prosperous Armenian society within the Ottoman Empire.

Though Khrimian placed his emphasis on education, he did not advocate for formal education alone as the only avenue to escape ignorance. In the chapter of Papik ev Tornik titled, “Amelioration of the State of the Villager,” he extolled the intrinsic value of books, writing, “You know, grandson, every book is its own teacher for the reader. The authors have died, but the writing has remained alive. There are those kinds of books that are immortal, thousands of years can pass and they still speak to us.” This statement achieved two goals. Firstly, it worked to instill a respect within the Armenian peasant for reading; Khrimian’s statement posited the power of the book as a transmitter of knowledge which needed no mediator. Secondly, and more importantly, the statement gave the average rural Armenian a degree of agency over his education.

In the third issue of Artsvi Vaspurakan, printed in 1861, Khrimian argued for the need for Armenian public schools and challenged the popular belief that only the clergy needed to be educated, writing, “Who has decided for the Armenian people that they must suffer eternally in this dungeon of ignorance or hell? Is Christ’s able hand going to come back down to earth again and free them, perhaps?” The author answered his own cheeky rhetorical question by saying that the only solutions that would help the Armenians were public school and education. Here as well there was a connection between education and agency. Khrimian, despite being a cleric and soon-to-be Patriarch and eventually Catholicos, told his readers not to wait on God’s grace, but to free themselves from their dire situation through their education.

Aside from directly discussing the role and status of education in the development of the individual, many articles were themselves dedicated to educating the rural Armenian. One such example was the “Tesarank Hayreni Ashkharhats” series in Artsvi Vaspurakan which informed readers about different regions of the Armenian fatherland. This section provided the reader with important details oftentimes regarding either their surrounding regions or their own hometowns. 

For instance, in the first publication of 1858, Khrimian printed a piece on the monastery of Varag in Vaspurakan. The article provided extensive information on the region including weather, its surroundings, topography, physical features, indigenous crops and the monastery itself.

Examples like this abound throughout Artsvi Vaspurakan’s publication. In the third issue of 1859, an article was dedicated to the scientific explanation of earthquakes. The catalyst of this article emerged after an earthquake occurred in Erzurum which led to the spread of “terrible myths” about what caused it, the worst result of which was that the youth believed in these myths and showed no further interest in learning the correct cause and thus remained ignorant. This compelled the author to write an article explaining the scientific process behind earthquakes in order to dispel superstition. 

Lastly, Artsvi took up the mantle of educating its readership by engaging in pertinent contemporary discussions. One such example was a provocative and satirical piece on the debate of whether to use grabar (Classical Armenian) or the vernacular. The article, written by Khrimian’s student Garegin Sruandzeants, was styled as a tongue-in-cheek conversation between grabar and the vernacular themselves, each extolling its own virtue while insulting the other. After having already sparred for a number of pages, grabar responds to vernacular’s claim that its time has passed. Grabar exclaims, “հնացայ ու անցա՞յ, հըյ․․․անշնորհք, գիտե՞ս ով եմ ես․․․Քրիստոսի սուրբ Աւետարան ու շարական ինձմով են ծնած ու կնքուած,” to which the vernacular retorts simply: “Աստուած հոգիդ լուսաւորէ․” It was a rare example of satire and humor in the publication, but more importantly, it invited the reader to participate in the national discourse and a pivotal development which was occurring in their time. 

Khrimian’s image and legacy performed a specific role in the decades following his death, usually as the convenient and tidy embodiment of the nationalist and revolutionary movement which was brewing in the second half of the 19th century. Khrimian was undoubtedly a pivotal figure in the Armenian nationalist narrative and the revolutionary movement that came to fruition then. 

Yet, confining Mkrtich Khrimian’s historical legacy to a single speech precludes an objective study of the vast impact Khrimian had on the development of the Armenians of the eastern provinces, the social dynamic of the Armenian millet and the perceived role of millet representation within the Ottoman Empire. The current limited understanding of Khrimian can only be expanded through a holistic analysis of his work and publications. This approach removes Khrimian as solely a character in Armenian history and portrays him as a transmitter of social, political and intellectual change, as much informed by the many changes surrounding him as he, in turn, shaped them.  

Author information

Nora Bairamian

Nora is a graduate of Columbia University's Middle Eastern, South
Asian and African Studies department and she will begin her doctoral
studies at UCLA in the fall of 2020. Her thesis at Columbia was
titled, "Beyond the Iron Ladle: Education, Gender and Economic
Independence in the Work of Mkrtich Khrimean “Hayrik.” She also spent
several years living and working in Armenia.

|

The post The Legacy of Khrimian Hayrik: Education and Enlightenment appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

In early April 1917, the United States, besides declaring war on Germany, also ruptured its diplomatic relations with the Ottoman Empire. Immediately after this decision, German officials, along with Ottoman soldiers, surrounded the campus of the Syrian Protestant College (SPC) in Beirut. SPC closed its doors, and the Germans eagerly awaited a chance and Ottoman permission to occupy the campus. Eventually, the US did not declare war on the Ottoman Empire, and the campus was spared an occupation. But, at this period of uncertainty, SPC professors rushed to the library to burn and destroy all the Armenian books available. These books included the works of famous 19th century Armenian novelists, poets, historians and satirists such as Khachadour Apovian, Raffi, Rafael Badganian, Avedis Aharonian, Hovhannes Toumanian and many others. Perhaps this was the moment when these professors realized that at some point in Ottoman history, the mere possession of an Armenian book, regardless of its content, might be used as a pretext for intervention, occupation and even imprisonment. Thus, they had to burn them all.

Between 1885 and 1918, more than 230 Armenian students graduated from SPC. Most of these students studied medicine, pharmacy and nursing, and some of them read and discussed the books that were eventually burned. This article examines the story of the Armenian medical students at the SPC and highlights their exceptional and difficult roles played during the First World War.

By the end of the 19th century, receiving medical education at the SPC became a possibility for a large number of rich and poor Anatolian Armenians. Various internal and external factors were behind this influx of students from Anatolia to Beirut. Some of these factors included: official language change from Arabic to English in the SPC medical department in 1883; closure of the medical department of Central Turkey College in Aintab in 1888; improvement in transportation methods between Beirut and Adana; importance of medical status and the opening of missionary hospitals in Anatolia.

On July 11, 1883, the Board of Managers of the SPC voted to change the language of instruction in the medical department from Arabic to English, starting after the commencement of the academic year 1883-84. Daniel Bliss, the founding father of SPC, described this event as the most important step taken regarding the intellectual development of the College. According to Henry Jessup, an American Presbyterian missionary, the main reasons for this change were to keep up with the progress of science and allow non-Arab students such as Armenians, Greeks and Iranians who were discouraged by the Arabic language from entering the College and to give students the chance to learn English. Therefore, when English became the language of instruction, the door was opened to all students attending different American missionary schools, from various ethnicities, to come to Beirut and study medicine. Furthermore, with the establishment of the nursing school in 1905, Armenian women from Marash, Adana and Aintab attended SPC to improve their socio-economic status. Thus, before the outbreak of WWI, most of the Armenian students who came to the College had a bachelor’s degree, which they had received from an American missionary school in Anatolia.

On an intellectual level, students saw medical education as a means to achieve a prosperous professional career and a way to expand their horizons. The professionalization of medicine changed the perception of physicians not only among themselves but also in the eyes of the ordinary people. University certification and the usage of new medical tools such as the stethoscope raised the social standing of the physician and ensured public respect. Perhaps this might explain why there was an interest among Armenians to study medicine, not only in the Ottoman capital but also in Beirut, Paris, Pisa, Geneva and Saint Petersburg.

A few years before the advent of the First World War, Armenian students at the SPC experienced four significant events which had a tremendous impact on their life on-campus. These included the Young Turk revolution and the opening of the Ottoman Parliament, the establishment of the Armenian Student Union, the Adana Massacres of 1909 and the Italian-Turkish War of 1912. 

The 1908 Young Revolution put an end to the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II and, for a short period, created a euphoric atmosphere within the empire. Howard Bliss, president of SPC (1902-1920), described the revolution as “Lips unloosed after 30 years of censorship.” To celebrate the restoration of the Ottoman Constitution, students at the SPC participated in public gatherings and demonstrations. Just like in Istanbul, also in Beirut and other cities, people saluted each other as “brothers.” On July 31, 1908, at the Hamidian Garden in Beirut, Armenians participated in the parade and kissed the rifles of Ottoman soldiers as a sign of loyalty. And on the next day, they organized a large demonstration in front of the Surp Nishan church, where Muslim dignitaries also participated and spoke about the importance of “liberty, fraternity and equality.” 

Additionally, on the opening day of the Ottoman parliament, the whole student body marched to the Grand Serail in Beirut, where scores of citizens were assembled. With this promulgation, student societies at the SPC flourished, and the College started showing a tolerant attitude towards extracurricular activities, socio-economic and ideological discussions and writings. This permissive attitude allowed Armenian students to form a student union despite earlier faculty hesitancy and reservations owing to officiate wariness of Armenian political activity.

The Armenian Student Union, besides encouraging Armenian students to appreciate their history and language, also collaborated with other student unions to introduce reforms into the Ottoman Empire. Even though the College prohibited the discussion of partisan issues dealing with the political structure of the Ottoman Empire, nonetheless, the students managed to criticize the empire and the socio-political situation.

Dealing with topics on nationalism, patriotism, modernity and progress did not necessarily mean that the students wanted the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of nation-states. On the contrary, these students criticized the empire for improving it, and they were confident, particularly after the Young Turk revolution, that change was on its way. They emphasized Ottomanism as a means to create an egalitarian multinational state that recognizes the distinctions of its peoples. For Levon Levonian, instructor of Ottoman-Turkish at SPC, the removal of the Sultan’s autocratic rule, which suppressed and controlled political life, helped the people to realize that they are “Ottoman citizens” and should not rely on outsiders in language, education, commerce and technology. Levonian was confident that during this new era, different ethnic and national groups would establish closer relationships with each other, and the knowledge of the Ottoman language will be more widespread.

The euphoric dreams of Armenians were shattered in mid-April 1909 when the Adana massacres started. Reports from the province estimated that the massacres culminated in the death of perhaps 25,000 Armenians.

The massacres played a pivotal role in agitating Armenian students at the College. After all, most of these students had relatives living in the vilayet and had little information about them. On April 27, 1909, Vartan Topalian, Haigazun Varvarian, Boghos Seradarian, Nishan Baron Vartan and Karekin Vartabedian of the senior medical class, petitioned the faculty to be allowed to proceed to the vilayet of Adana to volunteer their services to aid victims of the massacres. The faculty voted “that these gentlemen be thanked for their loyal offer of help to those in distress and anxiety,” but permission was not granted. A few days later, another student, Benné Torossian, left the College against the advice of the president and without permission to take part in the relief work at Adana. As a consequence, the faculty asked the president to reprimand Mr. Torossian for his breach of discipline.

The only relief came to the Armenian students when they were informed that the College was preparing a medical commission to go to Adana. In response to the call of the American Red Cross committee at Beirut, a medical commission reached Adana on May 5, 1909. Dr. Harry Dorman, professor at the SPC, was in charge of the commission, which consisted of two students of the fourth-year medical class, Dr. Kamil Hilal, Dr. Fendi Zughaiyar and Miss MacDonald together with two German missionary sisters from the Johanniter Hospital of Beirut. The commission carried with them a complete set of surgical instruments, including sterilized dressings and sutures, as well as condensed milk, tinned soups and drugs. A few days later, Benné Torossian and Dr. Haigazun Dabanian joined the delegation. Dr. Dorman described the participation of Torossian and Dabanian as “deserving of special credit in coming to Adana at this time, for they knew that in so doing they ran the risk of government suspicion and arrest.”

If the Adana massacres affected the students psychologically and mentally, then the Italo-Turkish war of 1912 affected them physically. On February 24, 1912, two Italian military vessels bombarded the Beirut harbor and sank an Ottoman torpedo boat. The Ottomans were heavily beaten, and their naval presence at the Beirut harbor was annihilated. SPC students, faculty and even residents of Beirut were packed in safe locations, and the “American flag was placed upon the lightning-rod of the College tower.” Howard Bliss described the war as being unnecessarily barbarous. At that time, Bliss was unaware that the Italo-Turkish war was just the beginning, as an apocalyptic war was on its way.

On October 19, 1915, the Ottoman authorities in Beirut requested from the SPC faculty a list of the names of all the Armenian students enrolled at the College, and a “similar list including the names, occupations, and whereabouts of those Armenians, who were formerly enrolled as students but had graduated or had left the College.” Ironically, the Chief of Police added that the request was made “in order to protect the students and not for the purpose of molesting them in any way.” Requesting the names of students and organizing statistics was an essential task given by Talaat Pasha, the Minister of Interior, to all the provinces, including Beirut, in order to keep track of the deported and non-deported Armenians. Fortunately for some Armenian students, Howard Bliss and the faculty took a protective decision and refused to hand in the names of the former students and the nurses, and only accepted to submit the names of enrolled students who were under their “protection.” Bliss probably knew well that by handing the names and addresses of the alumni he would jeopardize their lives, particularly at a time of deportations. After all, Bliss was the one who extended sympathy to all the Armenian students, “who knew, or, worse, did not know, of the tragic fate of their dear ones.” While faculty discussions about the names were taking place, the deportation caravans were already on their way toward the Syrian desert. 

The SPC faculty had the leeway of rejecting some of the Ottoman demands, such as giving the information of Armenian medical alumni, mainly because of the medical services SPC doctors provided to the Ottoman army. With the outbreak of the war, the American Red Cross committee in Syria offered medical help to Jemal Pasha, Minister of Marine and Commander in Chief of the Fourth Ottoman Army. The pasha accepted the offer and “requested that an American field hospital be installed in the desert south of Beersheba to care for the wounded in the attack on the Suez Canal.” Dr. E. St. John Ward, Professor of Surgery at SPC, was chosen as director of the expedition, and Rev. George C. Doolittle of the American Mission, was appointed as associate director. The agreement with Jemal Pasha was that the relief expedition “should serve as a tent-hospital of 200 beds at Hafir el-Auja, a station on the Egyptian frontier, one day’s ride from Beersheba.” On January 17, 1915 in a special train provided by the Ottoman government, the members of the expedition left Beirut and headed safely to Hafir-el-Auja. Besides the director and the associate director, four sisters of the Kaiserswerth Mission, three graduate doctors and 16 senior medical students from the SPC, including six Armenian students, took part in the relief mission. The expedition carried with it a large number of fully equipped tents and a three months’ stock of medicines. The difficulties faced in conducting such a desert hospital were enormous. The water supply was inadequate. Transportation was entirely done by using camels, and sandstorms were frequent. However, the hospital impressed Jemal Pasha and took care of 220 Ottoman soldiers. After six weeks, the last of the wounded reached Jerusalem. With him, the members of the expedition returned to Beirut and organized themselves to show the pasha readiness for similar future work.

When the hostilities at Gallipoli began, Dr. Ward, who had just returned from the Suez expedition, did not wait much to travel to Istanbul with his team to assist the wounded and organize a 500-bed hospital with the American Red Cross. The medical missions sent by the SPC in January 1915 to the Suez Canal, and from May to September to Istanbul, together with the dental services of Dr. Dray to the Fourth Army, created a favorable situation with the Ottoman authorities and prepared the College to survive the war. Jemal Pasha not only kept the College open throughout the war but also furnished it with wheat and food supplies at the most challenging times. Not only the pasha benefited from the services of the trustworthy SPC medical alumni, but the College also had the advantage of bargaining with the pasha on various matters from food and protection to academic curriculum and student activities.

The medical profession during the war became so important that it gave Armenian doctors and nurses the power to survive the Genocide, cure diseases, and most importantly, bribe Ottoman officials to save a family member, a well-known Armenian intellectual or even thousands of deportees. However, it is not my intention to generalize that all these professionals had such an experience; more than 200 Armenian doctors, nurses and pharmacists either were killed during the Genocide or succumbed to the diseases they sought to treat. Nonetheless, many of those who survived were capable of doing so because, in certain situations and at different spaces, they became more valuable than the vast majority of the population. Thus, survival depended on the peculiar relationship between the medical and the national identity of the doctor in question. 

The conditions of the war and the deportations of Ottoman civilians created the ideal situations for the proliferation of diseases and the spread of epidemics. Historians argue that more Ottoman soldiers perished from the deadly effects of microbes and bacteria than from bullets and bombs. Malaria and typhus did not differentiate between civilians and soldiers.

Unburied corpses placed on the roads or thrown into the rivers (Tigris and Euphrates), became breeding grounds for disease and contaminated the water. Local villagers blamed the deportees for the crisis and complained to the Ottoman authorities. The authorities, who were worried about their troops, found in these epidemics an excuse to initiate new massacres in the desert camps.

Ideologically, Armenian doctors did not just face microbes on the battlefield or in hospitals but also became part of a community labeled as microbes. Young Turk leaders, who described themselves as “social physicians,” such as Drs. Nazim, Behaeddin Şakir, and Mehmet Reşit politicized medicine and medicalized the “Armenian Question.” Vahakn Dadrian argues that Young Turk doctors and medical personnel abused the medical profession as a tool of Genocide and planned medical murder. For the Young Turk leadership, the war provided an opportunity to solve the “Armenian Question” once and for all by implementing radical medical measures on the Armenian population. For example, Mehmet Reşit, Governor of Diyarbakir province 1915-1918, described Armenians as “a load of harmful microbes that had afflicted the body of the [Ottoman] fatherland.” Reşit fused the language of science and medicine with nationalist rhetoric and firmly believed that as a doctor, it was his duty to eradicate microbes (i.e., the Armenians), from the body (i.e., the Ottoman Empire).

After the end of the war, Bliss asked the SPC alumni to share with the College their war experience. A large number of Armenian students complied with the request and wrote back to the president about their dreadful experience. Most of them were traumatized by the Genocide and its impact on their families. For example, Hovsep Tatarian mentions that he was forced to join and serve in the Ottoman army for 16 months. He was sent to the Egyptian front where he lost his medical diploma, and presumably, Dr. Vahan Kalbian, who was in the Suez relief expedition, found it and sent it to the SPC. In August 1916, the British imprisoned Tatarian, but he was released and allowed to serve in the British army as a medical officer. After serving in the British military for a year, Tatarian traveled to London to continue his medical studies. Still, on his way back to Egypt, his boat was torpedoed, and fortunately, he was saved by the Japanese who took him to France. Similarly, Meguerditch Baghdassarian was taken as prisoner by the British in the Hejaz and interned at Heliopolis. There he was released on parole and put in charge of medical work at the POW camp.

On the other hand, some students expressed disgust and used Orientalist language to depict the empire as backward, chaotic, and barbarian. For example, Sarkis Semerjian indicates that only after the war did he feel powerful enough to describe his hatred of the Ottoman Empire. Additionally, Semerjian used cholera as a metaphor to suggest that the Young Turks were more dangerous than the illness itself. 

Hatred towards the Young Turks and the Ottoman regime was not just expressed by Armenian doctors who suffered during the war, but also by Syrian doctors like Amin Abu Fadel and others. Abu Fadel, while serving in Rayak, insisted on helping the Armenian refugees to control the Typhus epidemic, but according to him, none of the officials cared until it became uncontrollable. Like Armenag Markarian, who mentioned the death of his Armenian classmates, Abu Fadel also mentions in his letter the death of his Syrian classmates: Suleiman Salibi, Abdallah Sawaya, and Ali Alam el din. 

If Tatarian, Semerdjian and Abu Fadel were fortunate enough to survive the war and share their story, other doctors were not. Around 28 Armenian doctors and pharmacists died during the war—some such as Drs. Dikran Hallajian, Haroutyun Kavafian and Minas Yarmayan were deliberately murdered in the courtyard of the hospitals in which they served, while others, such as Drs. Benné Torossian and Armenag Markarian were hanged in public squares presumably for their political activities.

The First World War dramatically affected the lives of Armenian students and alumni affiliated with the SPC. Like other Ottoman citizens, the alumni served in the army, while the students had to bear the moral and psychological impacts of WWI in general and the Armenian Genocide in particular. Armenian physicians used the medical profession as a survival mechanism to overcome the difficulties of the Genocide and the war. They served in the Ottoman army at a time when their entire community was being labeled as “traitors.” Politically, the SPC preferred to sacrifice some of its archival collections and Armenian books, and even to expel its Armenian instructors to please Ottoman authorities or to prevent trouble. But at the same time, the safety of the students and the alumni was much more important than any military order. Bliss and his colleagues vehemently refused to give the list of Armenian students and alumni to protect them. In the end, the war altered not only student lives but also the very essence of identities. The multiethnic empire was destroyed, nation-states were created, and national divisions became apparent. 

In the early evening of June 26, 1923, a large congregation of doctors and pharmacists gathered in the upper foyer of West Hall, at the American University of Beirut, to witness the unveiling of a tablet inscribed with the names of thirty-two medical alumni who perished in the course of World War I. Seventeen of these medical professionals were Anatolian Armenians who had come to Beirut in the early 1880s to study medicine at the SPC. During the Lebanese civil strife, in 1976, the bronze memorial was moved to the university’s College Hall to protect it from damage and the possibility of theft – but it lay there for years, and eventually was lost. On November 1, 2012, a new tablet was constructed and permanently installed in its original location in commemoration of AUB medical doctors, pharmacists, and nurses who saved the College from closure during the war and sacrificed their lives for the well-being of others.

Author information

Hratch Kestenian

Hratch Kestenian is a Ph.D. candidate in history at the Graduate Center, City University of New York. A few years ago, at the American University of Beirut, he defended his master’s thesis entitled “A Portrait of Armenian Student Life at the Syrian Protestant College: 1885-1918.” At present, he is working on a socio-medical history of the late Ottoman Empire. His dissertation explores the story of tuberculosis in the Ottoman Empire during the period between the establishment of the Imperial Medical School in 1827 and the end of World War I. More specifically, he is interested in looking at how, with the centralization of government, medicine and disease acquired a new meaning.

|

The post Doctors, Disease, and Death: WWI and Armenians at the Syrian Protestant College appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Throughout history, there have been numerous examples where the state has used the symbol of the mother to further a national narrative. For instance in Pahlavi Iran, the shah connected motherhood with patriotism as a way to increase the citizen’s obedience to the state. The mother is a suitable archetype as it is she who shapes the child’s development and consequently the development of the nation’s future citizen. Thus the mother, in molding the citizen, holds the success of the nation in her hands. However, this association can be extended to stateless people as well. For stateless people, the image of the mother plays a critical role in defining a national identity when there is no functioning state delineating that narrative. For Armenians, the image of the mother has been invoked during the Zartonk period, the revolutionary movement, the Genocide and the Soviet era, each time depicting certain national aspirations, albeit in various capacities, and each time acting as a central figure in the development of Armenian national identity. 

Zartonk: The Mother as Student and Educator

The mid-19th century is popularly referred to as the Zartonk period of Armenian history. Translated literally to ‘awakening,’ Zartonk is considered the period when the modern national Armenian identity crystallized. A critical component of this societal transformation involved the mental and educational development of the Armenians. 

Mkrtich Khrimian Hayrik was one of the primary figures of this period. Though known for his role in stimulating nationalist sentiment, much of his life was dedicated to the enlightenment of the Armenian peasantry. Khrimian emphasized the importance of education by invoking the image of the Armenian mother. One example of this is in his book Papik ev Tornik, a tale of fiction where a village grandfather passes on important lessons to his grandson. However, in the final chapter, the grandfather addresses the whole village and discusses the education of women. 

In this chapter, Khrimian countered popular beliefs that educating women would be problematic by arguing that, actually, an uneducated woman was more dangerous for the family than an uneducated man. By using the image of the Armenian mother, he created a story that was familiar to the peasants and allowed him an entry-point with which to communicate his message. Since the mother is the child’s first teacher, it only behooves the community and, consequently the nation, that she be educated in order to produce educated citizens. Khrimian wrote,

Who is it who answers the curious child’s every question with a sweet and motherly tenderness? The mother.
When a child raises their eyes to the sky and sees luminous things and asks what is it, the mother answers it is the sun, the moon and the stars, God created them for us to give us light both day and night. 

Khrimian understood the relationship between the mother and the nation; the mother provides the child with his or her primary education and, as such, it is imperative that the mother herself be educated also.

The Armenian Revolutionary Movement: The Mother as Patriot 

The late 19th century marked the start of the Armenian revolutionary movement when early political organizations and leaders began spreading ideas of national liberation. In this case, the mother is used to embody both the spirit of the revolutionary and the unified attitude required of Armenians at the time. 

One of the most poignant and frequently used depictions of this is the mother as the stoic parent preparing her son for war. It is a jarring portrayal showing the mother, the ultimate symbol of love, encouraging her son to enter the battlefield while accepting the possibility of death in service of the Armenian nation. The imagery often weaves back and forth between tender maternal gestures and a solemn acceptance of a son’s impending death. This depiction of the mother is present in two well-known folk songs, “Aghasi’s Mother’s Song” and “The Soldier’s Mother’s Song.”

Raphael Patkanian was born in New Nakhijevan (Rostov-on-don, Russia) and came of age during the Zartonk period. Though he began his literary career writing poems of love, fun and youth, he quickly moved on to discuss ideas such as freedom from oppression and patriotism as he started dedicating himself to the enlightenment of the Armenian nation. His poem begins with a familiar scene of the mother watching her child sleep peacefully. 

Awake, my tender babe, open those radiant eyes…
That is enough [sleep], my sweet angel

She implores the child to wake and meet his destiny as a hero of the Armenian nation. She goes on to speak to the child as he sleeps, telling him:

With my own hands I have sewn a belt of gold thread
And from the belt I have hung a sword
That I myself have sharpened
How much will you sleep?
Take your death-bringing sword
Your Armenian nation is sobbing,
Its hands and feet, chained
Your brothers in bondage…
You will wipe the tears of the Armenian
And stop the cries and lamentations
– Awake, my babe

The mother Patkanian depicts is not beleaguered by sadness at the prospect of her son leaving for war. On the contrary, she is eager and impatient for him to rise and take his place as a national hero.

“Soldier’s Mother’s Song” was written by B.V. Natanian. The song is similarly formatted as Patkanian’s, with a mother speaking to her sleeping son. However, in Natanian’s poem, the imagery and lyrics are intensified.

The mother begins preparing the child for battle as trumpets of war ring in the background. The poem shows her juxtaposing the objects of his childhood with those of a soldier’s:

I have prepared your gun as I did your books when you’d go to school
Let me tie the sword to your waist
And a shield to your shoulder
Let the holy flag of your fatherland billow on your right arm
Instead of your book, here is your sword
Instead of your paper, the battlefield
Go die for your nation
And let your motherland live favorably

Yet the final stanzas of the poem provide the most visceral lines.

Go save your fatherland,
If not, why did I give birth to you?
For 20 years I nourished you,
Until you grew,
Your mother dies for you
And you go die for your nation…
It’s no bother if death finds you,
It is then that the nation is free.

Unlike Patkanian’s poem, the child’s death in exchange for the survival of the Armenian nation is explicitly mentioned. Not only does the mother acknowledge this possibility, but she welcomes the prospect of her child’s death if it means the Armenian nation will flourish. 

The titles of both poems center around the mother, despite the fact that it is the child who will be facing death. The poems are less about the soldier going to fight than they are about the mother, the symbol of what is needed of Armenians at the time: a wholehearted acceptance of the forthcoming difficulties and an understanding that she is necessary for the liberation of the Armenian people. In creating the image of a mother who is willing to give her child for this idea, Patkanian and Natanian tell the reader these are extraordinary times and Armenians must be willing to make extraordinary sacrifices.

The Armenian Genocide: The Mother as Survivor

A weary mother is sitting in the desert, surrounded by her tired and famished children. They have been taken from their homes and forced to take part in the brutal march. Now they sit in the desert as the mother slowly writes the letters of the Armenian alphabet in the sand in order to teach her children this revered code, the key to their history. With this frequently used example, motherhood becomes an exhortation to the ragged, almost lifeless, nation to survive.

Perhaps no other period in this study can be expressed as simply with familiar images of the mother. The photo of the mother carrying her child and whatever possessions she could manage on her back has been etched into the mind of most Armenians around the world. Here, as in the previous example, she is not remembered solely for her haggard and tortured appearance, but also because of her commitment to her child in spite of the horrifying reality she faced. 

The mother bears the dual burdens of national and familial survival. Her survival equates to the survival of the nation as only she could pass down the culture and mother tongue to the next generation. The mother’s obstinacy in keeping her family and culture alive served as a guide when there was barely a hope of a nation to maintain. 

Soviet Rule: The Mother as Defender

Armenian national sentiment was expected to regulate itself according to expectations of the Soviet system which frequently meant navigating through the often contradictory Soviet policy toward nationalism. Within this framework, Armenian leaders needed to temper nationalist thought to fit the Soviet mold. What emerged was the Armenian mother as a subtly subversive element who was prepared to protect her family and people. 

Soviet policy regarding the development of national identities rested on two contradictory policies. There was a degree of support in fostering a concept of the national identity, but only to prevent the fermentation of defensive nationalism. “National identity was systematically promoted at the sub-state level in the form of national republics with their own national elites, languages and cultures.” This policy collided with the second which involved the gradual integration of individual national identities under one dominant, Soviet identity. In this vein, the intelligentsia of the Armenian socialist republic needed to balance latent nationalism within the framework of the Soviet system. This led to an interesting model termed “Apricot socialism” by Maike Lehmann. 

Lehmann explains that the apricot, “the Armenian national fruit whose skin often samples the whole color spectrum between crimson red and light orange, serves as a metaphor for how people in Soviet Armenia imagined the rules and goals of the Soviet community.” He argues that Armenian committee members neither blindly followed Soviet edicts nor were impassioned revolutionaries battling for their national cause. They struck a balance between following Soviet dictates and subtly asserting their agency. Thus, Soviet Armenians often found themselves communicating nationalist sentiment in covert ways in order to maintain this tenuous balance. One such example is the Mother Armenia statue in Yerevan.

The Mother Armenia statue, which replaced the statue of Joseph Stalin in 1967, still stands today in Yerevan’s Victory Park. The original pedestal, which stood at the foot of the Stalin statue, was designed by Raphael Israyelyan and kept intact. The Mother Armenia statue was created by sculptor Ara Harutyunyan and stands at 72.2 feet. The depicted mother figure wears traditional garments similar to what had been found in an archaeological dig in the Ararat Valley. She is a towering figure equipped with both a shield and a sword. The sword is not raised fully and is lifted only to her torso. Initially, the sword was intended to be fully raised, but it was later decided that this might send an overly aggressive message to neighboring nations. As such, Harutyunyan decided Mother Armenia would carry the sword half-raised because “although we live in peace now, if need be, she will raise the sword fully.” 

The facial features of Mother Armenia are sharp and sedate. Though they were modeled after an Armenian woman named Jenya Muradyan, the features Harutyunyan crafted were actually much harsher and more striking than Muradyan’s more delicate, feminine features. According to the sculptor, his goal was to depict an ideal figure for Mother Armenia. “I sculpted a mighty, proud, powerful, resolute, female character who is ready to defend her children, her fatherland. That is Mother Armenia who is not afraid of the enemy.” Before all else, the priorities of Mother Armenia are her children and her fatherland. She is the preserver and defender of the Armenian family and Armenia itself and, according to Harutyunyan’s vision, she will protect both by whatever means. The Mother Armenia statue and its veiled images of national resoluteness served as a symbol to Soviet Armenians that though they were currently under imperial rule, nationalist sentiments remained, and fierce protectiveness brewed just below the surface. 

In the absence of a state apparatus to curate a national identity, a stateless people develops its own means to construct that concept. In order to do so, it adopts certain images and imbues them with nationalist meaning. This is evident in the dynamic portrayal of the mother throughout different stages of Armenian history. The depiction of the mother was used in Armenian popular discourse to convey important and prevalent messages of the period.

By associating the image of the mother with various national characteristics, the stateless people can intensify its message by combining this culturally accepted and revered figure with the contemporary national imperative. The mother’s education translates into the enlightenment of the nation, her willingness to sacrifice everything is an expression of the soldier’s grand duty, her survival signals the endurance of the nearly exterminated, her subtle strength is the disguised boldness of a subject nation within a sprawling empire. Though her character and what she symbolizes shifts over time, the image of the Armenian mother remains a fixture in the national narrative and is a pivotal figure in its evolution and development.

Author information

Nora Bairamian

Nora is a graduate of Columbia University's Middle Eastern, South
Asian and African Studies department and she will begin her doctoral
studies at UCLA in the fall of 2020. Her thesis at Columbia was
titled, "Beyond the Iron Ladle: Education, Gender and Economic
Independence in the Work of Mkrtich Khrimean “Hayrik.” She also spent
several years living and working in Armenia.

|

The post Motherhood and Armenian National Identity appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

The Great War caused unprecedented calamities throughout 1914-1918 and affected the lives of millions of people – combatants and civilians – both on battlefields and on home fronts, challenging humanity. The war that ensued on the Caucasus front in November 1914 triggered enormous population movements, accompanied by massacres, violent persecutions, rape, famine, and epidemics. These population movements were the result of war and the genocide organized and systematically implemented by the Ottoman Turkish government against its Armenian subjects.

By late summer 1915, hundreds of thousands of refugees – the majority of whom were Armenians – had crossed the Ottoman-Russian border and created an immense humanitarian crisis in Transcaucasia. Russian imperial government (both military and civil authorities), state-funded and public agencies such as the Tatiana Committee and the All-Russian Unions, as well as local Armenian committees such as the Armenian Benevolent Society and the Committee of Brotherly Aid, organized and coordinated the relief efforts on behalf of over 200,000 refugees crowded in Alexandropol (Gyumri), Etchmiadzin, Erivan (Yerevan), and Tiflis (Tbilisi), among others. To reach out to various communities in all parts of the vast empire and make the voices of refugees seeking shelter, food and warm clothes heard, the state and local relief organizations deployed the power of the printed press. A number of newspapers and periodicals in the Russian Empire placed appeals in their issues regularly to raise funds and help the refugees confront this emergency.   

The Bezhenets [Refugee] weekly newspaper was published in Moscow in 1915. It was entirely dedicated to the concerns and needs of refugees in the Russian Empire. In contrast to most of the contemporary periodicals, it did not offer illustrations and cartoons. Instead, it published full texts of the laws and regulations passed by the government to coordinate the life and movements of refugees. Moreover, the Bezhenets reported on the efforts of various relief committees, trying to focus the public’s attention on the urgent needs of the refugees and the importance of everyone’s participation in the assistance. For instance, the October 4, 1915 issue of the Bezhenets [figure 1] carried a column reporting on the relief efforts of the Moscow Armenian Committee, which had been sending monetary, medical assistance and clothes to the refugees in the Caucasus since October 1914. It described the committee’s substantial efforts on behalf of the Armenian refugees first in Alashkert (Eleşkirt), and later in Ashtarak and Etchmiadzin. By August 1915 the number of refugees was far exceeding the capacity of towns to shelter them, hence the condition of refugees was extremely critical. The column also included the address and the phone number of the committee’s Moscow office to encourage further donations and continuous support from Muscovites and the people of the empire. For the same purpose, each issue of the Bezhenets contained quite comprehensive lists of national relief committees – Armenian, Estonian, Jewish, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish – based in Moscow. Furthermore, the issues carried a segment “Rozyski bezhentsev” [Searching for Refugees] – a common practice among periodicals printed during the wartime – and aimed to help refugees find their lost family members. 

A periodical printed by the Moscow Armenian Committee starting from 1916, the Armeianskii Vestnik weekly focused entirely on the issues of displacement of and aid for the Armenian refugees in the Caucasus and the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire [figure 2]. Furthermore, in an effort to boost the fundraising the Armianskii Vestnik shed light on specific activities and operations conducted by the relief workers and volunteers.

Among the weekly’s extensively covered subjects was the rescue of abducted Armenian women and children from Muslim households and the initiative “one Armenian, one [piece of] gold,” which referred to the payment of one Ottoman lira (equal to 18 rubles) for one liberated Armenian. This initiative became very popular among the schoolchildren representing communities from various parts of imperial Russia. Numerous children sent envelopes with enclosed donations to “liberate” Armenians from “Kurdish captivity.” In her letter (handwritten in Armenian) addressed to the Armianskii vestik’s editor Hovhannes Amirov, second-grade student Varduhi Masumyan from Astrakhan explained that she “wanted to liberate five people and sent 90 rubles” for that purpose. Varduhi also requested to send her the names of those liberated, if possible [figure 3].

While the Bezhenets and Armianskii Vestnik focused overwhelmingly on refugees, the Iskry [Sparks] illustrated literary journal with cartoons, published weekly in Moscow from 1900 to 1917, reflected on international politics and on everyday life in the interior of the vast Russian Empire. From 1914 to 1917, Iskry actively reported on developments on war fronts and the situation in the rear. The November 1, 1915 issue of Iskry drew the attention of its readers to the Caucasus front of the Great War. The front page carried the picture of General Nikolai Iudenich – the commander of the Caucasus Army. The second page was dedicated to the condition of refugees in Transcaucasia [figure 4]. The article titled Armiane Bezhentsi [Armenian Refugees] lamented:

“The current war had incredible consequences for Turkish Armenians. After the Russian retreat from Van [July 1915], the unarmed Armenian population fearing new massacres by Turkish troops and Kurdish bands escaped to the Russian territories, went to Etchmiadzin, where by July 20th there were about 100,000 people outdoors – hungry, exhausted, and sick. The sudden arrival of such a huge mass of homeless people was unexpected. When they reached Etchmiadzin, only the medical and feeding squads of the Moscow Armenian Committee and Brotherly Aid Committee were there. Later on other Armenian organizations arrived in town. The total number of Armenian refugees that found refuge within the boundaries of Russia is 250,000.”

The article included three photographs of refugee children in Etchmiadzin. The first photo was taken at the No. 2 orphanage of the Moscow Armenian Committee, which was smaller and better funded, hence the children in that picture looked fully clothed and neat. The second and third photos depicted the orphans and their caretakers – the nurses and administrators – at the orphanage run by the Etchmiadzin Committee of Brotherly Aid. This orphanage had been under a lot of pressure because of the endless flow of refugees into Etchmiadzin and lack of necessary funds. Thus, the photos articulated the desperate condition of those tiny human beings – famished, covered in rags, lined up outside the building, waiting for their ration of meals. These at times graphic images and detailed reports aimed to awaken compassion and empathy among ordinary people of the vast empire towards the refugees in need of care and support. 

The Kaspii literary and political daily newspaper, published in Baku since the 1890s, also reported on the refugee movements at the Ottoman-Russian borderlines and their pressing needs for assistance in the Caucasus during the wartime. One of the headlines of the 21 May 1915 issue of Kaspii stated: “Today is the Armenian Refugees’ relief day,” [figure 5] and was dedicated to the fundraising campaign on behalf of the Armenian refugees in Transcaucasia.

While Russian imperial government assigned funds and organized the relief work for the Armenian refugees of the war and genocide, the extensive reporting on the condition and needs of refugees, the photographs of children and the orphanages, and the appeals to ordinary people for donations and support published in the periodicals throughout the empire played a significant role in raising awareness about and assisting the hundreds of thousands of refugees with food, medicine and warm clothes in such times of crisis.  

Author information

Asya Darbinyan

Dr. Asya Darbinyan completed her Ph.D. in History at the Strassler Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Clark University in December 2019 and is currently a Postdoctoral Fellow in Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Stockton University. Her research and teaching expertise stand at the intersection of Armenian history, the history of the Russian Empire, genocide, refugees, and humanitarian interventions, with a focus on the agency and actions of refugees in addressing their suffering and plight. Darbinyan was awarded multiple scholarships and grants: most recently, the Aurora Humanitarian Initiative’s Vartan Gregorian Scholarship to revise her dissertation and develop it into a book manuscript. Her book chapter “Humanitarian Crisis at the Ottoman-Russian Border: Russian Imperial Responses to Armenian Refugees of War and Genocide,” will appear in the edited volume Aid to Armenia: Humanitarianism and Intervention from the 1890s to the present in October 2020 (Manchester University Press).

|

The post Imperial Russia’s Newspapers and the Relief Campaign for Armenian Refugees appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

In honor of Mother’s Day, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Eastern Region compiled a list of 36 Armenian women who inspire and empower them in their daily lives – in Hai Tahd, at home and at work. The inaugural photo essay, now expanded into a series of articles, will cover the initial 36 women and several more. The dynamic women – past and present – that will be spotlighted in this series include revolutionaries, poets, authors, scientists and elected officials to name a few. Featuring these women of different decades and varying backgrounds, paints the story of the Armenian woman – strategic, fierce and resourceful. Many of them are legendary and although they faced circumstances of varying degrees, they are all united in the fact that they have contributed significantly to the Armenian nation, the Diaspora and the work of Hai Tahd.  

In light of the 102nd anniversary of the First Republic of Armenia, it is only right that our first chapter start with the story of Berjouhi Parseghian, Katarine Zalian-Manoukian and Varvara Sahakian.

Parseghian, Zalian-Manoukian and Sahakian were the first three women to serve as parliamentarians during the First Republic of Armenia in 1919. Still reeling from the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide, the collective dream of an Armenian nation-state was realized with a declaration on May 28, 1918. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation’s (ARF) herculean efforts despite layers of challenges allowed the First Republic to flourish.

Under the leadership of Aram Manougian, the man who is universally accepted as the father of the Republic of Armenia, the Republic was a well-organized democratic state that featured an unprecedented progressive constitution – an incredible feat considering the Republic had endured 600 years of subjugation. Long before many western nations, the Republic gave women the right to vote, created a multi-party parliament comprised of 80 members and elected three women parliamentarians.

The trifecta of female leaders – one a pedagogue and the two others physicians, all three humanitarians – served as parliamentarians, earning their right on this list of Armenian women who inspire. In 1918, when women in the US were only just advocating for the right to vote, these three women had taken on leadership roles and were involved in decisions that would not only shape the future of the Republic of Armenia, but also the Diaspora.

Berjouhi Parseghian, a teacher, writer and humanitarian, began her career as a teacher in Van and Giresun. In 1909, she married Sargis Barseghyan who served as the leader of the ARF in Constantinople. After he was executed as one of the intellectuals first targeted by the Ottoman Turks during the Genocide, she took their son and fled to Bulgaria. However, she soon resettled in Tbilisi and resumed teaching at St. Gayane Girl’s School and later at Mariamian-Hovnanian Girl’s School, both Armenian schools located in the capital of Tbilisi. 

She accomplished some of her most admirable work while in exile in Paris for the Nansen International Office for Refugees, which was established in 1930 by the League of Nations and helped place refugees from the war torn areas during the period between 1930 and 1939. Parseghian focused her efforts on assisting Armenians displaced by the Armenian Genocide.

A woman of many talents, Parseghian’s literary contributions—Arpik, One Ring Chain and Days of Distress—were recognized by American anthologist Edward J. O’Brien.

More than anything, Parseghian believed in universal suffrage. As a public servant, she worked with members of the ARF to ensure that the constitution of the First Republic provided these opportunities for women. Alongside her fellow female colleagues in parliament, she helped provide orphans and refugees with the care they desperately needed.

Parseghian’s female counterpart in parliament was Katarine Zalian-Manougian—the wife of Aram Manougian, the leader of the First Republic of Armenia. The two met when she was working as a doctor at an orphanage in Yerevan. They were married in 1917, and a year later she gave birth to their only daughter Seda. In 1919 she was elected to the parliament where she served beside Parseghian and Sahakian.

Following her husband’s death and the Bolshevik takeover of Armenia, she fled to Krasnodar, Russia, and then later returned to Soviet Armenia in 1927 to fill the void of physicians in the country. She died in 1965—a devoted physician focused on orphans and migrants, a member of the ARF and the Health Committee of the Parliament of the Republic of Armenia.

Varvara Sahakian was the third female parliamentarian elected to serve during the First Republic of Armenia. Also a physician, Sahakian served as the speaker of the first convocation of the Parliament and was elected as the deputy of the second convocation.

During the February Revolutions, she was forced to flee on foot to Iran, Iraq and later to Lebanon. She witnessed several losses in her life; one son died due to the absence of necessary medicine and the other died in 1932. Her husband Avetik Sahakian was imprisoned and later died during the Sovietization of Armenia.

Despite her tragic life story, she was a leader in the development of educational programs and was involved in social service including the work of the Armenian Relief Society (ARS).

These women worked in partnership with the ARF in the governance of Armenia’s First Republic. They led lives filled with hope, fear and love for their country, their families and the people they served. As members of the inaugural parliament of the 1918 First Republic, they served alongside leaders who granted citizens universal suffrage, adopted more than 1,000 laws and legal documents and created laws relating to the inner and foreign policies of the Republic.

Berjouhi Parseghian, Katarine Zalian-Manoukian and Varvara Sahakian – we thank you for your service to the Armenian nation and people. As we reflect on May 28, may we remember our heroes whose task was accomplished albeit with enormous challenges. They not only led the First Republic, they instilled in the Armenian people a sense of hope amidst adversity. 

The ANCA Eastern Region invites you to continue to follow us on this journey of exploring the powerful women – past and present. 

Author information

ANCA-Eastern Region

The Armenian National Committee of America Eastern Region is part of the largest and most influential Armenian American grassroots organization, the ANCA. Working in coordination with the ANCA in Washington, DC, and a network of chapters and supporters throughout the Eastern United States, the ANCA-ER actively advances the concerns of the Armenian American community on a broad range of issues.

|

The post A Trifecta of Female Parliamentarians appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

The Genocide perpetrated against the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was both gender-oriented and age-oriented. While the Armenian male population was generally killed before or at the beginning of deportation, women and children, as well as being massacred, were also subjected to different forms of physical, sexual and psychological violence. Children and young women were also forcibly transferred and incorporated into the enemy group. They were stolen, bought and sold, taken into slavery (also sexual), adopted, placed in state orphanages, different Muslim households (often in the homes of those who had killed their family members) with all the devastating consequences such practices imply. Armenian women and young girls (often children) were often forcibly married.

The practice of forced transfer and Islamization of young Armenian women and children was recognized in several post-World War documents. Article 4 of the Mudros Armistice which ended the hostilities between the Ottoman Empire and the Allies called for “All Armenian interned persons and prisoners [are] to be collected in Constantinople and handed over unconditionally to the Allies.” 

Later, at the Peace Conference in Paris in 1919, the Allies established a “Commission on the Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties” to investigate, among other things, the violations of the laws and customs of war. Its non-exhaustive list of 32 charges also included the abduction of girls and women for the purpose of forced prostitution (No. 6). The Commission also proposed the establishment of an ad-hoc tribunal for the trial of these offences, the jurisdiction of which was to be derived from the relevant provisions incorporated in the forthcoming peace treaty with Turkey.

Most importantly, the issue was raised in the lengthy Article 142 of the Treaty of Sèvres, which partly reads: “…the Turkish Government undertakes to afford all the assistance in its power or in that of the Turkish authorities in the search for and deliverance of all persons, of whatever race or religion, who have disappeared, been carried off, interned or placed in captivity since November 1, 1914…”

Thus, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, a lot of individuals, as well as Armenian and international organizations became involved in the rescue of those Armenian transferee-survivors. Among them was the international post-war organization and predecessor of today’s United Nations—the League of Nations.  

The League of Nations and Traffic in Women and Children

The League of Nations established a network of agencies to deal with issues of world concern such as disarmament, minority and health issues, etc. On the humanitarian agenda of the organization was the international trafficking in women and children (or white slavery as it was called before). As a result of the work of some international womens’ organizations, the trafficking issue was inserted as Article 23c of the League of Nations’ Covenant, which reads in part:

“Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of international conventions existing or hereafter to be agreed upon, the Members of the League: …(c) will entrust the League with the general supervision over the execution of agreements with regard to the traffic in women and children, and the traffic in opium and other dangerous drugs.”

The two categories of women that the League of Nations dealt with in this article were “women who work abroad as prostitutes, and women dislocated because of various political and military circumstances.” Interestingly also, for most purposes the League classified women and children in the same category defining them as “requiring special treatment and extra protection.”

On the basis of Article 23c the League of Nations became involved in the issues of deported Armenian women and children in the Near East.
In June-August 1920, a pamphlet The Liberation of non-Mohammedan Women and Children in Turkey about the treatment of Christian women and children in Turkey during WWI was circulating in the League of Nations, having been received from the National Vigilance Association and International Bureau for the Suppression of the White Slave Traffic. Another application was made from the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. In her letter addressed to the League of Nations, suffragist Helena Swanwick (1864–1939) offered to create a special Commission of the League of Nations on the issue of the enslavement and dishonoring of women and children in the East as a result of the war.

The issue of the Traffic in Women and Children was considered by the 2nd Committee of the League of Nations. The Committee unanimously adopted two draft resolutions, the second one dealing more specifically with the case of the deportation of women and children that rose out of WWI, when some of the deported women, especially the Armenian women, but also Greek and Syrian women and women of other nationalities had been in captivity since 1915. The practice was described as “worse than slavery.”

As a result of these developments, on December 15, 1920 the Assembly of the League of Nations invited the Council “to constitute a Commission of Enquiry with a view to informing the Council as to the present situation in Armenia, in Asia Minor, in Turkey, and in the territories adjourning their countries regarding deported women and children.” The League nominated the three best qualified persons residing in the districts in question. It was decided to start the enquiry in “that part of the Turkish State at present under the jurisdiction of the Constantinople Government” and gradually extend it, working in close cooperation with the Allied High Commissioners in Constantinople. In addition, the member-state governments were obliged to provide every possible assistance and all relative information. Dr. William Kennedy, Emma Cushman and Madame Gaulis, who was later replaced by Karen Jeppe, were nominated as members of the Commission. The Commission opened its headquarters in Aleppo (Jeppe) and Constantinople (Kennedy and Cushman). 

The Aleppo Rescue Home

The Aleppo branch of the Enquiry Commission carried out the rescue and rehabilitation of the Armenians held in Muslim captivity in the French zone of occupation. According to Jeppe, 30,000 Armenians were in bondage in that region. The Aleppo Rescue Home or Reception House was situated in the northern outskirts of Aleppo. It was established first by the American Near East Relief organization in 1918 and then administered by the League of Nations. With the help of its agents and several stations established in different parts of the region (Djirablous, Ras al-Ayn, Mardin, Deir el-Zor, Hasitche, Rakka, Bab, Arabpounar, etc.), Jeppe was able to shelter in the Reception House thousands of Armenians rescued from Muslim captivity. 

The task of rescue was not an easy one. Nomadic people of the region were generally reluctant to free their Armenian captives. After a long passage of time, Armenian survivors were sometimes also reluctant to leave the Muslim “homes” because of children born to Muslim fathers, security concerns, fears about fleeing and the awareness that no Armenian was left alive. Others were afraid of admitting their Armenian identity because of fear of the repetition of 1915’s events or punishment.  

Little children were raised as Muslim and sometimes didn’t even know their real identity. However, there were many who, after hearing about the rescue missions, left their “prisons” willingly. 

Jeppe succeeded in liberating thousands of Armenians not only from Arab Bedouins, but from neighboring Turks and Kurds. Liberation or rescue was performed through negotiation, bribery, kidnapping or urging the Armenians to flee by themselves. Usually they were ransomed by their rescuers, at a rate of 0,50-2 Turkish gold (rarely the amount reached 10 Turkish gold) depending on the territory.

Liberated Armenians were admitted to the Reception Home where their details were registered and their names sent to newspapers, churches and Armenian unions in order to find their relatives. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the Reception House were taught different crafts in order to become self-supporting. New identity documents were obtained for the liberated Armenians and steps were undertaken to bring them back to Christianity.

As a League of Nations Commissioner (from March 1, 1922 to December 31, 1927), Karen Jeppe succeeded in rescuing 1,484 Armenians. Most of them also entered the Reception House, and others were rescued without being registered. 

In her words: “Sometimes, we have helped their relatives to find them, and the direct expenses having been covered by the relatives, the rescued did not enter our lists. In other cases the rescued found and joined their relatives, before they reached our home, and they too were not filed. I estimate the number of these rescues to exceed 200, so that the total of our rescued under the auspices of the League of Nations amounts 1700.”

After December 31, 1927 in her private capacity Karen Jeppe rescued another 180 Armenians.

The liberated Armenians were interviewed and each interview was registered in a notebook. Those surveys include a photograph of a rescued person and some biographical data (parents’ names, place of origin, age and date of admission to the Reception House). This was followed by a short life-story mainly about the 1915 events, captivity and rescue. The fate of the rescued Armenians was recorded on the back of the paper.

During the massacres of Diyarbekir her father was killed. She was exiled with her mother and one brother. In Veranshehir a Molla (a Turk religions chief) took her to his house while her mother and brother went with the caravan onwards. The Turk kept her many years, when she grew up, he, a man of sixty, married her. After a few days of her marriage she got crazy and the “Molla” put her out of doors. By the help of an Armenian Catholic priest she was sent to us. When we were asking her about her past history, she fell down in our office and her face got a wild appearance, her body began to shiver, the eyes being large opened, blood began to come out from her mouth and nose. After one hour when she was recovered by some remedies and gained her normal condition, we sent her to the Municipal Hospital of the town. 

Left 8/9/26. In the municipal hospital, Aleppo. Went to the hospital for an accouchement and never was found afterward. We do not know what became of her. 

In the beginning of the Great War his father was a soldier in the Turkish army; he never gave any news and never came back. Babo believes that he died.

The day of their deportation a Turk of the town came and took the mother with her child out of the caravan and brought them to his house. He immediately violated the woman and took afterwards Babo outside the town. From a bridge he threw Babo into the river in order to kill him. Babo did not die he fled into the mountains and kept hidden in the forests for several months eating only grasses. 

At his small age he had to go from village to village in order to earn his living. He became at last an assistant … driver and came in this way to know the way to Syria.

Once he met 2 Armenian boy of his age. They talked together and made their plan of escape. All of them had suffered much from the Turks. They fled and succeeded, we took them in.

Left for Beyrouth 20-7-28 Self-supporting 

The number of females over the age of 15 rescued from captivity was less than (463) the number of rescued males (591). According to Jeppe, the national feelings of Armenians, especially of Armenian boys, were quite strong, and they became powerful mainly at an age when they realized their true origin. The high number of rescued boys can be explained by different physical and mental factors. Of course, they were physically stronger and had better chances to survive the hardships of captivity and slavery, as well as when fleeing their Muslim homes. The young men also experienced the absence or relatively low level of socio-physiological bonds; they were usually mistreated and served as shepherds or slaves. For women, fleeing was a more difficult experience as sexual and physical violence, bondage in new families, children born of their new husbands and inability to leave their children were all factors that deterred and blocked their escape. There also was a fear of stigma which would prevent them from reintegrating into Armenian society. 

The interviews of the rescued Armenians revealed consistent stories of deportations, massacres, rapes, physical and sexual violence, forced transfer, followed by years of servitude, forced marriages, etc. These eyewitness testimonies represent and affirm the organizational pattern of the Armenian Genocide. The majority of accounts start with describing the fate of the Armenian male population in 1915 – how those conscripted to the Ottoman Army were later killed or worked to death in the working battalions and how the remainder were later collected and killed in their native towns or separated and massacred on the deportation routes. 

The stories of the arrests and massacres of Armenian intellectuals can also be found in the files. The deportation of the general Armenian population, consisting mainly of women and children, is mentioned in all accounts. The rescued Armenians describe how dreadfully they suffered on the roads under the burning sun, from hunger, thirst and exhaustion; many died from typhus, dysentery and other illnesses. Deportation caravans were constantly attacked by Turks, Kurds and Arabs who, after robbing deportees, killed or wounded most of the unfortunate people, violated women and children, threw them into the river or massacred them.

Many survivors were taken as slaves or servants; women and girls were forced into marriages. Guarding gendarmes collected beautiful girls from the caravans and sold them to Turks and Kurds or even gave them away as gifts. According to one account, a Sheik from Djebour bought 12 Armenian girls. Sometimes young Armenian women and children witnessed the slaughter of their family members later to be dragged into the house of the murderer and forced to live with him. 

A number of accounts also affirmed that the Turkish government collected Armenian children and distributed them in state-run orphanages. 

After enduring the sufferings and horrors of genocide, witnessing the massacre of their families and nation, being physically and sexually violated, many survivors suffered from some mental problems. Some women suffered from syphilis and miscarriages. According to Jeppe, out of the thousands of Armenian females she had come into contact with, all but one had been sexually abused.

Many Armenian women were willingly leaving their Muslim husbands and children to return to their Armenian roots. There were also those (very few) who returned to their Muslim husband, unable to endure the separation. Interestingly, some Armenian women fled with their children born to Muslims. 

The surveys also dwelled upon the ways the Armenians discovered their origins. Many survivors were too young at the time of deportation to remember anything about their families and identity, so relatives or surviving Armenians from the same district told them about their Armenian origins. Very often the following similar story is found in the accounts: Muslims often called him/her ‘giaur’/’giour’ and when interested about the meaning of the word, they found out about their Armenian origins. Very often the expression “Christian dog” appears in the accounts. A number of stories reveal that Armenian mothers when forced to marry Muslims told their children that they were Armenians and Christians.

A huge national campaign was launched after the Armenian Genocide, which the Aleppo Rescue Home joined. In this enterprise the crucial role of Armenian men should be highlighted, who despite the patriarchal nature of Armenian society and existing traditions, accepted back their abducted and violated wives or married other saved Armenian women. There were a lot of marriages among the inhabitants of the Rescue Home, and Jeppe made a great contribution to that.

The admission files of the Aleppo Rescue Home are some of the first eyewitness testimonies about the Armenian Genocide representing the horrible experiences of the Armenians. Although many Armenians were rescued, reclaimed and rehabilitated in the Aleppo Rescue Home, thousands of Islamized Armenians remained in Muslim households and institutions.

Author information

Edita Gzoyan

Edita Gzoyan is deputy scientific director at the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute Foundation. She received her Ph.D. in History from Yerevan State University, and an L.L.M. from the American University of Armenia, both in 2012. She is the author of The First Republic of Armenia and the League of Nations, and more than 40 articles. Dr. Gzoyan is Armenia country editor for Central and Eastern European Review and associate editor for International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies and Ts’eghaspanagitakan Handes.

|

The post Rescued and Saved: Armenian Genocide Survivors at Aleppo Reception Home appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Today, all around the world, Paris is known as the “City of Light” or the “City of Love,” but 80 years ago, for many inhabitants, Paris was a city of fear. The lights faded, and love became hatred on June 14, 1940, when Nazi soldiers entered the city that inspired so many poets, writers, philosophers and architects. French author Jules Renard once said: “Ajoutez deux lettres à Paris et c’est le paradis” (Add two letters to Paris, and it’s paradise). But on that fateful day, many people thought they were in hell.

Among the Parisians who witnessed the German occupation was Yervante Beurkdjian, an Armenian Christian who lived with his family in Colombes, in the northwestern suburbs of Paris. His wife was an Armenian woman named Elbis, and together they had a son named Alfred-François. Yervante was a kind and helpful man who worked really hard to provide for his family.

At the same time, Joseph and Hélène Goldhamer, who were originally Polish Jews, were living in the third arrondissement of Paris. After falling in love, they got married in the early twenties and opened a small children’s clothing store. Like all Jews who lived in Paris in 1940, the Goldhamers feared the worst, and the worst was about to happen.

In June 1941, a law prescribing the “Aryanization” of Jewish property came into effect, and just like that their business was given to an “Aryan” Frenchman who collaborated with the Germans. With no income, the couple left their apartment and moved into an attic in the same building.

The following year, on July 16, 1942, Joseph and Hélène miraculously escaped arrest during the massive roundup of Jews. All across the city, 13,152 Jews, including 4,115 children, were rounded up by the French police on orders of the Germans and were sent to the Auschwitz concentration camp. The Goldhamers had been lucky, but they knew it wouldn’t be long before the police or the Nazis found them.

Before the war, Yervante was a regular customer of the Goldhamers’ store, so he knew Joseph and Hélène. When he heard about their situation, he immediately listened to his heart. The Beurkdjians knew the terrible consequences of helping or harboring Jews, but as Armenians they also knew what it was like to be persecuted for who you are. So together, they made the decision to risk their own lives to save Joseph and Hélène. They told the Goldhamers to leave their little room and move in with them in Colombes. Yervante even helped the Jewish couple move to his home, while his 10 year-old son stood in the street ready to give the alert if any police truck or German vehicle appeared down the road.

The Beurkdjians were not wealthy, and their apartment was very small, but Yervante and Elbis gave the Goldhamers a room of their own and refused money for it. The Jewish couple stayed with the Armenian family for eight months until the spring of 1943, when the Nazis announced cruel punishments inflicted upon persons caught harboring Jews. In order to spare Yervante’s family further danger, Joseph and Hélène Goldhamer left the apartment in Colombes and managed to hide until the liberation of Paris in August 1944.

When the war was over, the two families reunited and remained very close friends. Joseph and Hélène later settled in Israel, but they never forgot the kindness of the Beurkdjian family. Decades went by, and memories faded, but one man remembered everything. It was Alfred-Francois Beurkdjian, Yervante’s son. In 1982, he managed to find Hélène Goldhamer, who was then 82 years-old, in an emotional moment. That same year, Yad Vashem recognized Yervante and Elbis Beurkdjian as Righteous Among the Nations.  

On July 5, 2012, in Paris, the “Association Nationale des Anciens Combattants et Résistants Arméniens” (ANACRA), which is the French Association of Armenian veterans, organized a beautiful ceremony to honor the memory and salute the courage of Yervante and Elbis Beurkdjian. The ceremony was attended by their son Alfred-Francois and by many members of the French-Armenian community.    

Yervante and Elbis Beurkdjian could have stood with the crowd and been spectators of these persecutions, but they stood alone and risked their lives to save the Goldhamers. In those days, many Parisians looked at Joseph and Hélène and saw two Jews. But Yervante and his wife just saw two human beings who needed help. In reality, they gave them more than help, they gave them hope. Eighty years ago, in the darkness of war and occupation, light and love were in a tiny apartment in Colombes.

Author information

John Dekhane

John Dekhane grew up in Paris before moving to the South of France. He works for a sport organization in Monaco. Since he was a child, he has always been interested in World War II with particular emphasis on American soldiers. In order to honor them, over the past years, he has located and purchased WWII U.S. artifacts in Europe and donated these items to more than a hundred museums in the United States.

|

The post Yervante and Elbis Beurkdjian, Armenian Heroes appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Continuing the search for authenticity, truth and the origins of the world, I had to stop and study Trebizond.

Trebizond comes from the word ‘Trapezous’, which in Greek means table – the table of abundance, characterizing the wealth accumulated due its intense commercial activities and its strategic significance on the road between Europe and Asia, West and East.

The city was founded in 756 BCE by Greek colonizers from Sinopi (Sinop), the metropolis of the Black Sea founded in the seventh century BCE from Greek colonizers originating from Miletos (Milet) on the Aegean coast of Asia Minor.

Trebizond was influenced by the ancient Armenian Kingdom of Urartu (ninth to sixth century BCE), which most probably traded with the Greek inhabitants, as suggested by the Urartian characteristics of the artifacts found in the area.    

Populations of the Black Sea area around Trebizond were converted to Christianity as early as the third century CE. 

Huge monastic complexes were founded, which served as libraries and centers of study, where culture and identity were preserved during times of danger. St. John Vazelon Greek Monastery was founded in 270 CE.

Close to Georgia, Trebizond was of great interest to the Georgian monarchy, who tried to sever it from the central authority of Constantinople during the Eastern Roman-Byzantine Empire. Queen Tamar of Georgia, related to the Comnenos family (the royal Byzantine dynasty of Trebizond), encouraged the formation of the Empire of Trebizond in 1204 CE, taking advantage of the siege of Constantinople by the Crusaders during the Fourth Crusade. 

This phenomenon is common in imperiums, where a central power (Constantinople) tries to dominate the periphery (in this case, Trebizond—a centripetal force). As peripheral powers like Trebizond develop, they try to secede and become independent and autonomous of the central power (in this case Constantinople—centrifugal force).

Trebizond eventually developed into a major center of commerce for produce from Asia, which was transported on ships sailing the Black Sea to the West. Marco Polo was among its visitors in 1295 CE; Trebizond served as a major port on the Silk Road. 

The Armenian population fled to Trebizond from the nearby ancient Armenian capital Ani, especially after the Mongol attacks of the thirteenth century CE.

Trebizond fell in 1461 CE, eight years after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 CE. It was a short prolongation of ideological and cultural Renaissance before the final Turkish conquest and halt of progress.

After the expansion of the Turks and the Islamization of the local Christian populations, Greeks took to the mountains, in order to gain some autonomy. The Greek aspirations for independence leading to the rebel war started from there, similar to the Armenians escaping to the mountains of Zeitun in Cilicia.

The Armenian population thrived along with the Greek one. Both were subjected to systematic persecution and genocide.

Most of the Armenian population was taken into boats in the Black Sea in 1915 and thrown overboard to drown.

Upon asking the locals about what happened to the Armenians, some stated in frustration and a certain degree of guilt that they did not know. Some stated they just left, while some denied angrily that no crime was committed. I asked them, “So then where are they? Where did they go?” No response.

Among the numerous Armenian monuments of Trebizond, the only one remaining is Surp Amenaprgich Vank (All Savior Monastery, also known as Kaymakli Monastery). It was most probably built on the site of an earlier Christian settlement around 1424 CE by Stepanos Shemsedin.

The monastic complex, which once preserved numerous Armenian manuscripts, was pillaged and destroyed by the Turks in 1461 CE.

The gorgeous frescoes, dating to the seventeenth-eighteenth century CE, still extant on the walls of the remaining small chapel, display various scenes, among them scenes from the Last Judgement. Precious khachkars carved on the walls of the small chapel can still be seen. 

The complex served as a concentration camp to prepare deportation to Syria during the 1915 Armenian Genocide. It was also used as a barn.

It is interesting to compare the architecture and function of Surp Amenaprgich Vank Armenian Monastery to Saint Sophia of Trebizond Greek Church, founded in the 13th century AD.

A brief Russian presence in 1916 after the Armenian Genocide, which ended shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the retreat of the Russian Army from the Southern Shore of the Black Sea, abandoning Russian imperialistic plans, further betrayed Greek and Armenian hopes for the end of oppression and persecution and led to further retaliation and the mass exodus of the remaining Greek and Armenian population in 1923.

In these challenging times of natural calamities and cultural/ideological stagnation, it is important to reconnect with our point of reference, our historical conscience and the masterpieces of art created in Asia Minor by Armenian and Greek masters, so that we can move on to the future with perspective, values and high standards. 

Author information

Dr. Anastasios Mavrakis

A native of Athens, Greece, Dr. Anastasios Mavrakis is a graduate of the University of Athens School of Medicine. He has completed residencies and research fellowships at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He's now a Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine at St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine. Dr. Mavrakis is fluent in Greek, English, Spanish, German and French and conversational in Turkish. He is interested in the preservation of historical memory and historical conscience and the photography of endangered monuments. A student of ancient Greek, Dr. Mavrakis also takes special interest in the study of the still surviving ancient civilizations of the Eastern Mediterranean basin and Mesopotamian-Armenian, Greek and Jewish.

|

The post Tales from Trebizond appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Harry Kizirian’s story began 95 years ago, on July 13, 1925, at 134 Chad Brown Street in Providence, Rhode Island. The first cry of this newborn baby was the sweetest sound to his parents’ ears. Harry was the only son of Toros and Hripsime Kizirian—two Armenian refugees who were forced to leave their beloved land. Before settling in Rhode Island, Harry’s mother was married and had many children, but her first husband and all her children were murdered in the Armenian Genocide. After all the pain, sorrow and suffering she endured, Harry’s birth was a gift of God and the promise of new life.  

Like most families, there were fantastic moments that became treasured memories, and there were tragic moments that changed everything. Harry was only 15 years-old when his father died. He became the man of the house and assumed his new responsibilities. While studying at Mount Pleasant High School, Harry worked at a meat packing plant and later got a small job at the Providence post office. Despite working hard to earn some money, he found the energy to play football and was an exceptional player. The day after his graduation from high school, Harry decided to join the US Marine Corps and rescue a world ravaged by war. He was only 19 years-old when he went overseas and prepared for what would be one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific war.

On April 1, 1945, Corporal Harry Kizirian and his fellow Marines were in landing crafts heading toward the island of Okinawa, Japan. The time had come to launch the largest amphibious landing in the Pacific Theater, and these men would be among the first assault wave. As they approached the shore, some Marines prayed, while others closed their eyes and pictured their loved ones at home. They knew that most of them would be killed or wounded on this Japanese island, but they were all willing to die for their country and put an end to this never-ending war.

During the Battle of Okinawa, Harry confronted Japanese troops with remarkable courage and incredible determination. Day after day, he saw horrendous injuries, heard harrowing screams, witnessed so many comrades die and felt indescribable sorrow, but nothing could stop this Marine.

On May 11, 1945, Harry was fighting against Japanese soldiers when he saw a unit of his platoon pinned down by heavy machine gunfire. Without hesitation, he attacked the enemy’s emplacement and allowed the trapped Marines to pursue their offensive. Badly wounded during this heroic action, Harry continued fighting until the Marines accomplished their mission. As soon as he recovered from his wounds, the 19 year-old Marine was back in action. On June 11, 1945, Harry was returning from a mission when, through smoke and dust, he noticed six stretcher-bearers and a wounded Marine trapped in enemy fire. Ignoring his own safety, he placed himself in the line of fire and single-handedly attacked the Japanese machine gun nest. Severely wounded in both legs and the abdomen, Harry kept fighting and killed the Japanese soldiers manning the machine gun. By his outstanding bravery, he enabled the stretcher-bearers to evacuate the wounded Marine. On another occasion, Harry was bombarded by the Japanese and blown into the air. He later recalled, “I wondered if I was ever going to get down again. I would have made a poor angel, you know. Angels without wings are as uncommon up there as a Marine without guts down here.”  

Thousands of miles away from his hometown of Providence, the forces of tyranny did everything they could to take Harry’s life and capture his soul, but Divine Providence led this Armenian American hero to save lives, escape death and return home. After serving 17 months overseas, Harry received discharge from the US Marine Corps on February 11, 1946. His courage and heroism in Japan made him one of the most decorated Marines of WWII and the most decorated serviceman from Rhode Island.

Harry never fully recovered from his terrible injuries, but like always, he kept moving forward. He eventually met and married the love of his life, Hazel Serabian. Together, they had five lovely children—Joanne, Thomas, Janice, Shakay and Richard. He then started a brilliant career in the Postal Service which led him to be appointed by President John F. Kennedy as the Postmaster of Providence in 1961. During his postmastership, Harry was the key individual in establishing the first automated post office in the United States, a system which inspired many countries around the world.

To honor this exceptional man, in 1996, the Post Office located at 24 Corliss Street in Providence was named after him. On that historical day, The Harry Kizirian Post Office became the first United States federal building named after an Armenian American. The area outside the post office and a school were also named after Harry.

Almost 18 years ago, on September 13, 2002, in Providence, Rhode Island, the heart of this Armenian American hero stopped beating, and the world lost an irreplaceable man. Harry Kizirian was a wonderful son, a loving husband, a devoted father, a proud Marine, a tremendous Postmaster, a loyal friend and an extraordinary human being who gave all of us a precious and priceless gift…freedom. Almost two decades later, his exploits, his courage, his selfless actions, his achievements and his life continue to resonate in our hearts.

Rest in peace Harry…and thank you!

Author information

John Dekhane

John Dekhane grew up in Paris before moving to the South of France. He works for a sport organization in Monaco. Since he was a child, he has always been interested in World War II with particular emphasis on American soldiers. In order to honor them, over the past years, he has located and purchased WWII U.S. artifacts in Europe and donated these items to more than a hundred museums in the United States.

|

The post Divine Providence appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

The term fedayee, derived from the Arabic word fedayeen that literally means “those who sacrifice,” perfectly describes the civilian men and women who voluntarily left their families and lives behind to form self-defense units in response to the pillage and murder of Armenians at the hands of Turkish forces, Kurdish gangs and the Hamidian guards during what is often referred to as the Hamidian massacres and later during the struggle for independence of the First Republic of Armenia. It was during this time and under the reign of Abdul Hamid II in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that the fedayees fought to gain autonomy, independence and fend off the oppressors, namely the Ottoman Turks; the struggle continued until the establishment of the First Republic of Armenia. 

The fedayees were the true backbone of the Armenian nation as they numbered in the thousands and led the national movement. They were instrumental throughout the Hamidian Massacres (1894-1896), Sasun Resistance (1894), Zeitun Rebellion (1895–1896) and the Defense of Van and Khanasor Expedition (1897) as well as the battalions that they heroically fought and won that resulted in an independent Armenia in 1918. 

For decades we’ve heard stories of famous fedayees—Arabo, Aghbiur Serop, Andranik and Kevork Chavoush to name a few. Lesser known, however, are the brave women who joined these men and thousands of others in the fight to safeguard Armenian civilians and their villages. 

Today, we celebrate five notable fedayee women—“Armenouhi” Khanum Ketenjian, “Lola” Hripsime Metsadurian Sassouni, Mariam Chilingirian, “Roubina” Sophie Areshian-Ohanjanian and “Sosse Mayrig” Vartanian. 

These five female fedayees represent the power of the Armenian nation and the Armenian woman. Their stories—equal parts heroic and tragic—must not be lost. 

“Armenouhi” Khanum Ketenjian was the daughter of a wealthy Armenian family and graduate of Euphrates College in Kharpert. She served as a Women’s Unit Commander in the Urfa Resistance in 1915 during World War I—a pivotal time in which the Armenian resistance had decided to fight to the death rather than yield to the Ottomans.

Her battalion of 30 female fighters, skilled in marksmanship, would tuck their long hair under woolen caps, dress in men’s clothing and arm themselves with poison pills that they could use to commit suicide in the event that they were captured alive. During the Urfa Resistance, a response to the genocidal actions of the Ottoman government, the fedayees under the guidance of Mgrdich Yotneghparian agreed that they would fight in defense of their beloved people.

Armenouhi was responsible for the killing of more than 20 Turkish gendarmes before she became a martyr herself. 

It was Armenouhi who approached the commander, Mgrdich, and presented her well-planned operation for attacking the Turkish guard house complete with a hand-drawn map. He gave her permission, underscoring the danger of falling into their hands alive, for women faced more than the mortal danger of death if they fell into the hands of Turks or Kurds.

After midnight, Armenouhi and her battalion opened fire on the guardhouse successfully killing most of the guards and burning it down. Insulted and ashamed that they had been successfully attacked by women, the commanding Turkish officer ordered that the women be captured alive. Once captured, the captain, in questioning Armenouhi, said that he knew her father Toros Ketenjian and would spare her life. He told her that the plight of the Armenians was hopeless and that soon they would destroy the Armenian Quarter. He promised that all the captured women’s lives would be spared, and they would be “married” off to the Turkish soldiers. But Armenouhi, who was unwavering in her beliefs, stated that she’d rather die than be kept alive to be the wife of a Turk.

Nonetheless, the captain proceeded to tell the women that they’d all be chosen by one of the officials to become the wife of one of the gendarmes. He ordered them to be stripped naked, their hands tied behind their backs in order to dehumanize, demean and subdue them. When it came time for them to strip Armenouhi naked, she demanded that her hands be untied so she could undress herself. When the captain gave his consent, one of the gendarmes untied her. As she unfastened the buttons on her jacket, she drew her weapon and shot the captain in the head, heart and stomach. In the ensuing chaos, the soldiers immediately shot and killed Armenouhi as well as the other women who were captured with her. She had successfully ended their plight as they had all taken an oath that they would not live if it was to be in captivity and in subservience to the Turks.

Next, we meet “Lola” Hripsime Metsadurian Sassouni, a notable fedayee and Armenian Relief Society (ARS) leader born in 1883 in Akn. Lola, the niece of Misak Metsarents, a well-known Armenian poet, got her start in national Armenian activities at a very young age. In 1910, just two years after her family moved to Constantinople, she entered the ranks of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) under the alias “Lola.” Committed to raising the standard of living for refugees and orphans, she organized women to do defense and relief work on behalf of these marginalized groups. In 1913, she became part of the Hamazasb military group. In 1916, she joined the fedayee group and assumed leadership of the orphanages.

Lola played an instrumental role in the victorious battle of Sardarabad in 1918. In 1920 she was imprisoned for her ideological beliefs. Shortly after her release, she moved to Iran where she continued to serve the public. On the heels of the independence of Armenia, she dedicated the rest of her life to the organization of the Armenian Red Cross, known today as the ARS. When she left her beloved Yerevan, she relocated to Paris, then Cairo, Aleppo and, finally, Beirut where she worked until her death for the ARS.

A true advocate of the marginalized, Lola established alongside Chavo Shant the “a plate of food” program during World War II, guided the establishment of clinics and hospitals and founded the Recovery Center of Chtaura in 1954. Lola pledged her whole life to bringing nutrition, education and health to the impoverished.

Another notable fedayee is Mariam Chilingirian. Similar to Lola, Mariam was a leader during the Urfa Resistance in 1915. Armed and dressed as a man, she led her female battalion to attack the Ottoman Turks. A true leader, she was known for uplifting the spirits of her fellow fighters.

During one particular fight when Harutuyn Rastgelenian was shot and killed, she braved enemy fire to drag his body inside a church and was shot in the leg by enemy bullets. Injured, arrested and later sentenced to death (then charged with 101 years in prison), Mariam was released in 1918 during the ceasefire.

“Roubina” Sophie Areshian-Ohanjanian, born in Tiflis in 1881 into the family of a landowner, was involved in the Armenian national liberation movement from a young age. At only 24 years old, she and her associates under the leadership of Kristapor Mikaelian, one of the founders of the ARF, organized, planned and implemented an attempt on the life of Sultan Abdul Hamid II—a sultan who had ordered the killing of thousands of Armenians.

As the group prepared for the assassination attempt, Mikaelian was killed in a test explosion. Though devastating, Roubina insisted that the assassination attempt be carried out. However, instead of throwing a bomb into the Sultan’s entourage where he and his group gathered every Friday, they placed a bomb at the exit. On July 21, 1905, Roubina and her squadron were responsible for the killing of dozens of high-ranking Turkish officials. The Sultan, however, survived because he had stayed behind in the mosque.

Following the failed attempt on the Sultan’s life, Roubina left for Europe. She returned to the Ottoman Empire once he was overthrown in 1908, ready to help her friends who had been arrested for their roles in the national liberation movement. She would go on to become the wife of the future Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia Hamo (Hamazasp) Ohanjanian. That same year, the Russian government convicted Ohanjanian in the alleged case of “the trial of Dashnaktsutyun” and was exiled to Siberia, where she joined him. In 1915, they returned to Armenia, and in 1921 after the fall of the First Republic of Armenia, they moved to Cairo where Roubina became an active member of the National Armenian Association for Education and the Arts, a group formed by her husband, which is today known as the Hamazkayin Armenian Educational and Cultural Society. After her husband’s death, Roubina moved to Canada. She died in 1971.

Last, but certainly not least, we turn our attention to Sosse Mayrig, who was born Sosse Vartanian in 1868. Sosse Mayrig’s life was full of the same zeal for her nation as the other female fedayees, but her life was also incredibly tragic. A wife at the age of 13 to the famous hajduk leader Serop Aghpur, she was given the name Mayrig, which means mother, by Serop’s battalion for her bravery and maternal concern for the Armenian youth.

Sosse Mayrig was a courageous fedayee in the battle of Babshen in 1898 and the battle of Sassoun against the Turkish battalion in 1894. It was during these battles that she not only witnessed the murder of her husband, son and brothers-in-law, but of countless other fedayees. During one of the battles against the Turkish forces, her husband fought valiantly for eight hours until he was shot. When his gun fell from his hands, Sosse Mayrig is said to have grabbed it and continued to fight the enemy. They severed Serop’s head and took Sosse Mayrig as a prisoner to Moush and imprisoned her in Paghesh prison.

In 1904, she moved to Van and then to the Caucasus. Before her death in 1953, she would live through the loss of her other son during the massacres in Erzeroum. Though her life was filled with tragic moments, Sosse Mayrig would ultimately witness her husband’s dream—a free, independent Republic of Armenia.

An inspiration to the nation, her remains were interred at the Yerablur military cemetery in Yerevan in 1998. She is celebrated as a national heroine.

Whether they are known by their names or their nom de guerres, Armenouhi, Lola, Mariam, Roubina and Sosse Mayrig were trailblazers—fedayees who fought for the whole Armenian nation including the youth and the marginalized. Like many women and mothers, they led households and families. Tasked with managing the daily life of a household, they raised children and took care of their communities. That included, most surprisingly, managing successful battalions of women in the fight to protect the Armenian nation. They played an integral role in the success of the liberation of the Armenian nation.

As we look at the current landscape of female leaders both in the US and Armenia, we marvel at the leadership that emerged from Armenia as early as the 1900s. Armenouhi, Lola, Mariam, Roubina and Sosse Mayrig are the fedayees whose names we know, but they led battalions of women whose names and stories we may never know. The bravery exhibited by these women is nothing short of true heroism. Their legacies, however, will be carried on by those who are inspired by the heroism of these incredible women.

We remain inspired and empowered.

Author information

ANCA-Eastern Region

The Armenian National Committee of America Eastern Region is part of the largest and most influential Armenian American grassroots organization, the ANCA. Working in coordination with the ANCA in Washington, DC, and a network of chapters and supporters throughout the Eastern United States, the ANCA-ER actively advances the concerns of the Armenian American community on a broad range of issues.

|

The post Beyond Motherhood: Female Fedayees appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

July 22 is the 60th anniversary of the death of Bodil Biørn, a Norwegian missionary who helped Armenians during three decades in three different countries. There is a commemorative plaque for her at Tsitsernakaberd in Yerevan, but she is less well known among Armenians than her male compatriot Fridtjof Nansen. 

Nansen has been hailed as a hero by Armenians for his work in favor of Armenian refugees after the Genocide, helping 300,000 stateless Armenians with so-called Nansen passports. When Nansen visited Soviet Armenia in 1925, he was warmly received by cheering Armenians and granted an honorary doctorate by Yerevan State University. The same year another Norwegian in Soviet Armenia, Bodil Biørn, was expelled from the country. 

Biørn was born in 1871 in the small town of Kragerø in the south of Norway. She came from a very rich family and could have led an easy and comfortable life. Instead she became a nurse and a midwife and travelled to a far-away country where she experienced extreme hardships. In 1905 she was sent by the Scandinavian Women Missionary Workers as a missionary nurse to Western Armenia, known among the missionaries as the “country of blood and tears.”

After two years in Mezereh, Biørn moved to Mush, where she worked in a polyclinic, an orphanage and a school. In 1915 she witnessed how the Armenians of Mush were deported and massacred. The children from the orphanage were locked in a barn which then was set on fire. She returned to Norway in 1917 together with a small Armenian boy whom she had adopted. She named him Fridtjof after Nansen. 

In 1922 Biørn was back in the region, this time working among Armenian refugees in Constantinople. One year later she moved again, to Soviet Armenia where she was in charge of the Lusayghpur orphanage in Alexandropol (today’s Gyumri), where the 33 boys under her care called her “Mother Katharine” (her second name). In 1925 she was expelled from the country by the Bolsheviks, who disliked Westerners in general and Christian missionaries and aid-workers in particular. 

This did not stop her from continuing her work for Armenians. In 1927 she moved to Aleppo where for seven years she did what she had done in several other places: cared for Armenian women and children. In 1934 she retired and returned to Norway. Until her death in 1960 she continued to bear witness concerning the injustices done to the Armenian people. During all the years she worked among Armenians she had her camera with her. Her photos constitute an important documentation of life before, during and after the genocide. 

Her legacy continues 60 years after her death. 

The house where Biørn was born is today the town hall of Kragerø. In front of it there is a commemorative stone that says that this house was once home to “a great Norwegian philanthropist” who “devoted her life to helping Armenian expatriates and orphans, survivors of the Armenian genocide.” The stone was unveiled in 2004 in the presence of the Armenian ambassador and representatives of the Armenian community in Aleppo. 

The town of Kragerø has not only cherished the memory of Bodil Biørn, but also established close contacts with the Republic of Armenia. Every year a delegation from the town visits Armenia and lays a wreath at Tsitsernakaberd on April 24. Different exchanges have also brought people together from Kragerø and Armenia. In April 2018 the town council made two decisions: to recognize the Armenian Genocide (something the parliament and government of Norway have not done) and to establish formal friendly relations with the city of Gyumri.

The woman who spent her early years in the building that is now the town hall of Kragerø would surely feel proud.

Author information

Dr. Svante Lundgren

Dr. Svante Lundgren is a researcher at Lund University, Sweden. He has published widely on Armenian and Assyrian issues. He acted as the narrator in the Armenian documentary film Map of Salvation (Փրկության քարտեզ, 2015).

|

The post A Norwegian Hero for the Armenians appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

In this empowerment series article, we meet Jeanne Parseghian, a French politician and member of the European Ecologie Les Verts (France’s Green Party). Parseghian was recently elected as mayor of Strasbourg, France. Born in Suresnes, Parseghian studied environmental law and really grew as a leader and change agent when she moved to Strasbourg in 2002 and volunteered at the Alsace Mammal Studies and Protection Group and the National Office for Hunting and Wildlife. 

Actually, Parseghian was a natural born leader, being the great-granddaughter of Sarkis Parseghian and Berjouhi Bardizbanian-Parseghian.

As we learned a few weeks ago, Berjouhi Parseghian was one of first three females elected to serve as a parliamentarian during the First Republic of Armenia in 1919. Berjouhi, Jeanne’s great-grandmother, was a teacher, writer and humanitarian and the wife of Sarkis Parseghian who served as the leader of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) in Constantinople. Sarkis was one of the first intellectuals arrested on April 24, 1915, the start of the Armenian Genocide. He was later deported and executed. Berjouhi eventually resettled in France with her son Armen, Jeanne’s grandfather.

The lineage of leadership is definitely remarkable as both of her great-grandparents were leaders who helped to bring about change. Known for her work helping refugees, Berjouhi believed in universal suffrage. As a public servant, she worked alongside members of the ARF to ensure that the constitution of the First Republic provided opportunities for women, not just men.

Much like her great-grandmother, Jeanne Parseghian has spent her career advocating for change – namely, environmental change. In 2016, she advocated for the removal of plastic trays in school cafeterias. In 2018, she quit serving on the executive council of the Eurométropole to protest the highway bypass project they were overseeing to the west of Strasbourg. She’s also worked on sustainable development projects with regard to nuclear power plants in the Alsace region.

While many of her projects involve her work in Strasbourg, Jeanne is very much committed to the Armenian nation. Immersed in the culture, she became proficient in the Armenian language and has worked on projects and initiatives in Armenia as well. These include sustainable tourism, sociocultural exchanges, and, in 2010, she advocated to combat waste. At home in Strasbourg, she created a branch of the SEVAK Association, named after the Armenian poet Paruyr Sevak. SEVAK’s purpose is to strengthen the socio-cultural ties between Europe and Armenia.

To that end, she was involved in the 2016 filming of Bernard Mangiante’s European Arte’s documentary “Voyage en Anatolie” (Voyage to Anatolia) which depicts the story of seven Armenians who return to their ancestral homes in modern-day Turkey.

Her focus now as Mayor will be on creating change at home in Strasbourg, which has the largest diplomatic presence in France, after Paris, with a seat on the European Parliament, the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights.

France held a second round of municipal elections in June, delayed because of the coronavirus pandemic, and in her first speech as Mayor, she pledged to address the challenges facing Strasbourg.

Jeanne will serve as Mayor of Strasbourg for six years, during which she will no doubt flourish as a leader and implement the change that she considers integral for future generations.

As Mayor Parseghian continues to flourish as a leader and change-agent, her life mirrors that of her great-grandparents who also dedicated their lives to the survival of the Armenian nation and the marginalized.

Many people speak of their families’ legacies and they, no doubt, live on through generations. But, what Jeanne has chosen to do with her life is a true testament to the legacy of the Parseghian family. She’s chosen to serve, to act and to create change.

Author information

ANCA-Eastern Region

The Armenian National Committee of America Eastern Region is part of the largest and most influential Armenian American grassroots organization, the ANCA. Working in coordination with the ANCA in Washington, DC, and a network of chapters and supporters throughout the Eastern United States, the ANCA-ER actively advances the concerns of the Armenian American community on a broad range of issues.

|

The post Beyond Motherhood: Jeanne Parseghian, A Legacy of Leadership appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

The collapse of the Soviet Union gave rise to many territorial problems for former Soviet territories, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict being one of the vivid ones. Exercising its right to self-determination based on Soviet law, on September 2, 1991 Nagorno-Karabakh adopted the declaration on the “Independence of Nagorno-Karabakh” later confirmed by a referendum. However, the newly-independent Azerbaijani Republic did not accept this. The Supreme Council of Azerbaijan adopted a declaration becoming the successor to the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic (ADR) that existed between May 28, 1918 and April 27, 1920. On October 18, 1991 the Azerbaijani Republic adopted a constitutional act on withdrawal from the USSR, defining the existence of the Soviet authority in Azerbaijan from 1920 to 1991 as an “annexation by the Soviet Russia,” an occupation of Azerbaijani territory and a forced shift of legal authority. Consequently, by denying the legal heritage of 1920-1991, the Azerbaijani Republic abandons all the political and legal decisions made in the period of April 27, 1920 and October, 18, 1991, including the decision to transfer Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Therefore, the status of Nagorno-Karabakh during the existence of ADR arises.

Status of Nagorno-Karabakh (1918-1920)

The status of Nagorno-Karabakh in 1918-1920, as well as the stance of the international community and international institutions, clearly refers to the fact that the land was never under the authority of ADR but was rather a separate politico-legal unit. 

Nagorno-Karabakh became a part of Tsarist Russia by the Gulistan Treaty of 1813, and its status was not disputed until the 1917 October Revolution. WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution created a new political-historical situation in Transcaucasia. On November 15, 1917, the Bolshevik government adopted a Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia, which among other provisions declared the right of secession and the formation of independent states within the territory of the Russian Empire. Taking advantage of this in sync with the establishment of Transcaucasia republics, on July 22, 1918 the First Congress of Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh declared the region a separate administrative unit. From 1918 to 1920 the legislative governance of Nagorno-Karabakh was carried out by the local Armenian Congress, which refused to comply with the English-forced supervision of ADR and demanded to wait until the final solution of the issue at the Paris Peace Conference.

During the Paris Peace Conference, the Supreme Council of Allied states when de facto recognizing the governments of the Republic of Armenia and ADR, clearly mentioned that the recognition did not imply the final definition of the borders and that the issue should be solved via the mutual agreement of the neighboring states. 

Article 92 of the Treaty of Sevres again stated that the frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan (and also Georgia) will be determined by direct agreements between the concerned states, and only in case of failure, the frontier line will be determined by the Principal Allied Powers.

The legal stance of the international community on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh was also expressed in the context of membership of Armenia and Azerbaijan in the League of Nations. The League of Nations was considered a legal platform to confirm and give a legal effect to the existence of states and the relations between them. This explains the aspirations of newborn states to become members of the League of Nations. 

Nagorno-Karabakh and the League of Nations 

Applications for membership to the League of Nations were made by the national delegations of Armenia and Azerbaijan to the Paris Peace Conference. It is noteworthy that as an ally Armenia had to become a chartered member of the League of Nations. However, when the League came into existence in January 1920, all the peace settlements except for the treaty with Ottoman Turkey had been concluded, and the signatory parties, aside from the defeated powers, became charter members of the organization. So, the Republic of Armenia had to apply for membership.

On September 25, 1920, the Armenian delegation informed the president of the League’s Council that because the Treaty of Sèvres gave final formulation to the recognition of the Republic of Armenia by the Allied Powers, the Armenian government was applying for membership. Application of the Azerbaijani delegation was made on November 1, 1920. However, at the time of the submission of the application the government of the Republic of Azerbaijan, which had issued the credentials to the delegation, was not actually in power; the Musavat Government of Azerbaijan was replaced by the Bolshevik one after the installation of a Soviet regime in Baku, and the Musavat government which made the application did not exercise authority over the whole territory of the country.

The membership issues were first discussed in the memorandum of the Secretary-General. The report on Armenia was basically positive in nature, indicating… 

“the historical, ethnic, and linguistic features of this old nationality, which had lost its statehood as a result of annexation by the Russian Empire. Armenia met the requirements of the Charter of the League of Nations, the state was fully shaped and recognized by the main allies and other governments; besides under the Article 88 of the Treaty of Sèvres the main allied states had de jure recognized Armenia as a sovereign and independent state. The Political division of the League of Nations referred to the Treaty of Sèvres as both de facto and de jure recognition of Armenia. Armenia was also recognized de jure by Argentine and, according to unofficial sources, by the United States.”

In regard to the application submitted by Azerbaijan, the memorandum stated that…

“the territory of the Republic, which occupied a superficial area of 40,000 sq. miles, had never formerly constituted a state. Rather, it had been part of Mongol or Persian territories and, since 1813, was incorporated into the Russian Empire. The name Azerbaijan chosen for the new republic was the same as that of a neighboring Persian province.”

Furthermore, the Secretary-General identified two legal issues: 

1. Whether the declaration of independence of the Republic of Azerbaijan in May 1918 and the recognition accorded by the Allied Powers in January 1920 was sufficient to constitute Azerbaijan de jure a “full self-governing State.” The republic was de facto recognized only by Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan, while the US refused to recognize Azerbaijan. 
2. If the Assembly established the status of Azerbaijan as a “fully self-governing state,” the second issue would arise as to whether the delegation which made the application possessed the necessary authority to represent the legitimate government of the country and whether that government could undertake international obligations and give guarantees required by membership.

The overall attitude of the report was clearly negative.

Related to the points raised in the report, it should be mentioned that the state called the ADR was never de jure recognized by any state, while the US even refused its consent to the de facto recognition of Azerbaijan. In Wilson’s opinion, the newly independent states that were part of the former Tsarist Russian Empire were components of the Russian issue and should not become independent, except for Poland, Finland and Armenia.

Beginning in 1918 de facto and already from April of 1920 de jure, there were two governments in the country: the Musavat government sheltered in Ganja (which shortly after April 1920 moved abroad) and the Bolshevik government in Baku. Both governments insisted upon their own lawful authority over the territory of Azerbaijan. From the perspective of the internal organization, one should mention the heavy influence of Turks in the country, as the Azerbaijani-Musavat government repeatedly tried to restore its authority with their help. This is why some historians, when speaking about the Turkish influence, question the strength of the Musavat government within the territory of Azerbaijan. 

When the Assembly of the League first convened in November 1920, the questions of membership were referred to the Fifth Committee, which distributed the applications for membership to three sub-committees to determine if the necessary documents were in order, whether the governments of the states were recognized de facto or de jure, whether they were freely elected, whether the states and their borders were stable, and whether the governments had serious attitudes towards their international obligations and the reduction of armaments. The cases of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia were referred to the third sub-committee, presided over by Fridtjof Nansen (Norway). 

The sub-committee report on Azerbaijan was unfavorable. It stated that the application was made by the government which had not been in power since April 27, 1920. The Musavat government had been forced to evacuate the capital and to take refuge in Ganja and it was difficult to ascertain what proportion of the country it actually held. The second government in Baku was Bolshevik. Although the sub-committee pointed out that the struggle between two rival governments was still in process, the superior strength of the Bolshevik side was deemed evident. The report also dwelled upon Azerbaijani territorial disputes with neighboring Armenia and Georgia. With Armenia the point of struggle was over Nagorno-Karabakh, Zangezur, and Nakhichevan; with Georgia it was over the region of Zaqatala. Despite some agreements concluded between the neighbors, the sub-committee assessed them as not far-reaching and the issue of stable state boundaries was deemed highly questionable.

The report on Armenia indicated that the government of the Republic of Armenia represented the nation fairly, even though it could not yet be described as properly stable. The territory of the republic could greatly expand when the vilayets of Van, Erzerum, and part of Trebizond were added. Although Armenia’s frontiers were not fixed definitively, Article 52 of the Treaty of Sèvres provided for their arbitration under the supervision of the President of the United States. The report about the borders referred only to the territories of Western Armenia, without touching upon the existing conflicts with neighboring states. As for the international recognition of the state, Argentina, Brazil and the USA had de jure recognized the Republic of Armenia. As was mentioned, Armenia had already been included in the list of signatories to the Charter of the League of Nations; it had also signed the document on the protection of minorities put forward by the League of Nations. In the preamble of this document it was clearly mentioned the main allied states recognized Armenia as a sovereign and independent state. The report laid special emphasis that the Armenian government genuinely wanted to respect its international obligations. Although the sub-committee seemed not to absolutely answer all questions, the report on Armenia was declared positive regarding membership. 

The sub-committee’s reports on Armenia and Azerbaijan were discussed by the Fifth Committee on December 1, 1920. There was a clear positive attitude to the admission of Armenia, even though the final decision was not being made at that time. 

Nansen, who presented the sub-committee’s report on Azerbaijan, expressed doubts on the possibility of accepting Azerbaijan; it didn’t appear to have a stable government whose authority extended over the whole of its territory and was not recognized de jure by any member-state. The next issue was the disputed territories with neighboring Armenia and Georgia, which made it impossible to define the borders of Azerbaijan. As a result of the discussions, the Committee adopted the following resolution:

Azerbaijan. The Committee decided that though the request of Azerbaijan to be admitted was in order, it was difficult to ascertain the exact limits of the territory within which the Government of Azerbaijan exercised its authority. Frontier disputes with the neighboring States did not permit an exact definition of the boundaries of Azerbaijan. The Committee decided that the provisions of the Covenant did not allow the admission of Azerbaijan to the League under present circumstances. 

Thus, the League of Nations not only confirmed the disputed status of Nagorno-Karabakh, but it was also the basis of its rejection of Azerbaijan’s membership. 

Concerning the rejection of its membership to the League, Azerbaijan bases its arguments on the legal observations of the Secretary-General in the above-mentioned memorandum where, allegedly, there is no reference to the disputed territories between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Moreover, it insists that the decision of the League was based solely on the lack of the sovereignty of the government. This policy is aimed at negating the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh was a disputed territory. However, Azerbaijani sources themselves prove the contrary. On December 7, 1920, the head of the Azerbaijani delegation in Paris, Topchibashev, in his letter to the chairperson of the Assembly of the League of Nations touched upon the reasons for the membership rejection. 

Concerning the first observation, the arguments of the Azerbaijani delegation were based on the unlawful seizure of power in Baku by the Bolsheviks. They even asked the League for help in fighting the Bolsheviks. As for the territories in dispute with neighboring states, the Azerbaijani delegation drew the League’s attention to the fact that after the WWI there were no newly independent states with clearly defined territories and this should not be used against a state to deprive it of its sovereign rights over its territories. “To protect its territorial integrity Azerbaijan entered into the armed conflict with Georgia for the Zaqatala region and with Armenia for Karabakh and Zangezur. These territories form part of Azerbaijan and are governed by the Azerbaijani government. Karabakh and Zangezur were handed to the Azerbaijani leadership by the former representatives of Allied states in the Caucasus. Any way these disputes are of interest not only to Azerbaijan but to neighboring states, that had started the struggle.” It was further mentioned that “Azerbaijan always thought that the disputes over borders with Armenia and Georgia constitute the internal affairs of the states and the governments should find ways out to solve them based on the mutual compromise. In case the matter of dispute is not solved via mutual agreement, the Azerbaijani delegation has no doubt that the Transcaucasian republics would refer it to the League of Nations.”

So, the claims of Azerbaijan that the territorial disputes did not affect the League’s rejection of Azerbaijan’s membership are contradicted by Azerbaijan’s own arguments.

Thus, between 1918 and 1920, Nagorno-Karabakh did not form a part of the ADR, which was clearly mentioned both during the de facto recognition of the ADR government during the Paris Peace Conference and in the arguments for the rejection of Azerbaijani membership in the League of Nations. The reasons for rejecting Azerbaijan’s membership in the League of Nations were openly based on two factors: a) the lack of sovereignty of Azerbaijan as of December 1, 1920, and b) the existence of the disputed territories of Nagorno-Karabakh and Zangezur with Armenia and of Zaqatala with Georgia. These are facts that, contrary to today’s historical revisionists, were accepted by the head of the Azerbaijani delegation. 

Author information

Edita Gzoyan

Edita Gzoyan is deputy scientific director at the Armenian Genocide Museum-Institute Foundation. She received her Ph.D. in History from Yerevan State University, and an L.L.M. from the American University of Armenia, both in 2012. She is the author of The First Republic of Armenia and the League of Nations, and more than 40 articles. Dr. Gzoyan is Armenia country editor for Central and Eastern European Review and associate editor for International Journal of Armenian Genocide Studies and Ts’eghaspanagitakan Handes.

|

The post The Issue of Nagorno-Karabakh in the League of Nations appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

The story of Peter Ovian begins in 1923 in Whitinsville, a small village in Massachusetts, and ends 20 years later in Dinozé, a small village in northeastern France. It starts with an adorable boy playing with his brothers and concludes with an admirable man buried by his brothers in arms.

Peter was the son of Ephraim and Zabelle Ovian, an Armenian couple who left their beloved country and settled in Whitinsville, Worcester County, Massachusetts. He grew up with two brothers, Edward and Leo, and a sister named Angel. Peter was a very special boy. He was big, strong and robust, which earned him the nickname “the Rock.” He also had a heart of gold. This gentle giant loved life, and above all, he loved his family.  

In 1943, Whitinsville was quiet and peaceful, but thousands of miles away, the forces of tyranny were destroying cities and nations like a tsunami. So Peter and his brother Leo decided to join the US Army and rescue a world in agony. Peter served as a Private with the 9th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Infantry Division, and was sent to France, while his brother Leo served as a Technical Sergeant with the 486th Bomber Group, 834th Squadron, 8th Air Force. Leo survived the war and later became a priest.

Like so many courageous Armenian Americans, Peter risked his life to liberate people he did not know living in unfamiliar towns. Day after day, French civilians throughout the countryside welcomed him with smiles, hugs and tears of happiness. In August of 1944, Peter was near Brest, a port city in Brittany. The Allies desperately needed to capture this port to ensure the delivery of an enormous amount of war material. It was estimated that by September, Allied troops would need 26-thousand tons of supplies each day. Peter knew the battle for Brest would be fierce and deadly as the Germans were well entrenched and partially made up of elite paratrooper forces. Led by an extraordinary sense of sacrifice, Peter fought with remarkable courage until a German bullet hit his stomach and threw him to the ground. Critically injured, he was transferred to a field hospital. Peter fought to stay alive, but on August 29, 1944, he died of his wounds. He was only 20 years old.

A few days later, Peter’s mom received the terrible news, and her entire world stopped. She had seen her baby’s first steps. She had seen her little boy become a man. She had seen her young man go off to war. Yet just like that, Peter was dead, and she would never see her son again. The pain was unbearable—a pain no mother should ever feel.

Peter was later buried among his brothers in arms at the Epinal American Cemetery in Dinozé, France (Plot B, Row 44, Grave 29). Established in October of 1944, this cemetery is the final resting place of 5,255 fallen heroes, including 14 pairs of brothers (who are buried side by side), two chaplains, four women and four Medal of Honor Recipients.

More than 75 years ago, so many Armenian Americans fought to liberate Europe from tyranny, and so many never returned home. T/4 Edward Yessian (buried at the Henri-Chapelle American Cemetery in Belgium), PFC Albert A. Melkonian (buried at the Florence American Cemetery in Italy), 2nd Lt Harry Kasbarian (buried at the Cambridge American Cemetery in England), 1st Lt Antrony J. Zakarian (buried at the Netherlands American Cemetery in the Netherlands)…These brave men, and so many others, are eternal reminders of the sacrifice made by Armenian Americans, and they must never be forgotten.

As a tribute to Peter “Rock” Ovian, a square in his hometown of Whitinsville was named after him. The “Ovian Square” is located at the intersection of Church Street and Cross Street—3,665 miles away from Dinozé, where this true Armenian American hero is resting in peace in a village that has become his home—a home where Peter is loved, honored and remembered.

Author information

John Dekhane

John Dekhane grew up in Paris before moving to the South of France. He works for a sport organization in Monaco. Since he was a child, he has always been interested in World War II with particular emphasis on American soldiers. In order to honor them, over the past years, he has located and purchased WWII U.S. artifacts in Europe and donated these items to more than a hundred museums in the United States.

|

The post Peter Ovian: A Son, A Rock, A Hero appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

I had just arrived in Artsakh in the summer of 1995, when I heard the distinctive sound of soldiers marching behind me.

As I turned around, a group of fresh-faced soldiers marched past me and toward the center of Stepanakert—Artsakh’s capital city. The soldiers appeared to be training for a chemical weapon attack. But their gas masks didn’t shock me. Instead, I was stunned by their apparent youth.

I’ve made dozens of trips to Artsakh since then, and I’ve observed a lot of progress in the country.

But after 25 years, there’s still been no improvement in Artsakh’s prospects for a just and lasting peace. Artsakh is still at war against an aggressor that denies Artsakh’s right to exist.

And so it is fitting that each year, the people of Artsakh publicly celebrate their existence, and commemorate another year of self-determination.

These photos show some of the scenes that I have observed, beginning in 1995, when I have joined the people of Artsakh in these commemorations of democracy.

Author information

Matthew Karanian

Matthew Karanian practices law in Pasadena, Calif. He is the author of ‘The Armenian Highland: Western Armenia and the First Armenian Republic of 1918’ (Stone Garden Press, 2019). For more information, visit www.historicarmeniabook.com

|

The post Celebrating Independence: Artsakh Then and Now appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

In this article we will be referring to the characteristics of internal armed conflict and provide a theoretical framework to better understand why Nagorno-Karabakh (N-K) resists a compromise solution and why official diplomacy or track I diplomacy has not been able to reach a mutually accepted agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Secondly, we will refer to the basic Madrid Principles that are still on the negotiating table to be used as a framework for negotiations and the rhetoric of ‘preparing populations for peace’ that first appeared in December 2018 as a Minsk Group (MG) recommendation to the parties after the Organization for Security and Peace in Europe (OSCE) Ministerial Council meeting in Milan. We will pinpoint the necessity of a multitrack approach to peace relying on interventions by different actors at different levels.

Internal conflict can be defined as conflict that occurs primarily within the borders of a given state. Internal conflict often takes place between the state and an ethnic minority group different from the dominant group. The potent effect of group separation and polarization is significant in the case of ethnic conflicts. Johan Galtung suggests that conflict can be viewed as a triangle, with contradiction (C), attitude (A) and behavior (B) at its vertices. Galtung’s model encompasses both symmetric and asymmetric conflicts. Here the contradiction refers to the underlying conflict situation which includes the actual perceived incompatibility of goals between the disputants. In an asymmetric conflict, as in the case of N-K, the contradiction is framed by the Armenians and Azerbaijanis, their interests and the clash of those interests between them. The clashing interests are at the core of the conflict structure. Similarly, in an asymmetric conflict, the contradiction is framed by both of the disputants, their relationship and the conflict of interest inherent in that relationship. Attitudes include the disputants’ perceptions and misperceptions of each other and of themselves. Attitude formation is undoubtedly the most important factor in conflict. These perceptions can be negative or positive, but in violent conflict as Hugh Miall, Oliver Ramsbotham and Tom Woodhouse explain, disputants ‘tend to develop demeaning stereotypes of each other, and attitudes are often influenced by emotions such as fear, anger, bitterness and hatred.’ Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk and William Zartman explain that attitudes are enduring dispositions, having three important dimensions; the cognitive, the affective and the behavioral. Behavior can include cooperation and coercion and relations indicating conciliation and hostility. This type of behavior is characterized by threats, coercion and destruction and purports to influence the adversary to change, modify or abandon a goal. According to Galtung the three components should be present together in a full conflict. Still, he sees conflict as a dynamic process in which structure, attitudes and behavior are constantly changing and influencing one another. Resolving a conflict apparently involves a set of dynamic changes that include a de-escalation of conflict behavior, a change in attitudes and transforming the relationships of clashing interests that compose the conflict structure.

William Zartman argues that the most striking characteristic of internal conflict is its asymmetry that is inherent in situations of unbalanced power between one party (government) which is strong and the other (separatists) which is weak. Zartman also argues that ‘perceived collective need that is denied is the basic condition for conflict.’ Denied needs can include a range of grievances from relief from political repression to redress for security and economic deprivation. Additionally, Zartman notes that need satisfaction ‘is a function of expectations, which are themselves manipulable.’ However, he reiterates that ‘conceptualizing conflict in general terms of needs is useful, for it points to the basic dimension of grievances, and hence of solutions.’ In this article we use the need theory to explain that negotiation deadlock occurs when either one or both of the disputants find that their basic needs of identity, security and recognition are not met. This has been the major difficulty associated with negotiating Armenian-Azerbaijani peace since 1992. Negotiation as conflict resolution strategy must aim to reach an agreement that satisfies the needs of both parties. 

According to Edward Azar, internal conflicts often involve a notion of identity, a concept of security and a feeling of well-being. Azar, in his theory of Protracted Social Conflict (PSC) emphasizes that PSCs are not merely interest-based but also involve many social, political and economic dimensions. He suggests that ‘the most useful unit of analysis in PSC situations is the identity group – racial, religious, ethnic, cultural and others.’ The relationship between identity groups and the state is at the core of the problem, what Azar calls the ‘disarticulation between state and society as a whole.’ Grievances or incompatible goals resulting from need deprivation are usually expressed collectively. Unlike interests, needs are ontological and non-negotiable, so that if conflict unfolds, it is likely to be intense, vicious and irrational, which was the case in the N-K conflict. Azar also identifies deprivation of human needs as the underlying sources of PSC and that failure to redress these grievances by the government ‘cultivates a niche of PSAC.’ In particular, Azar cites security needs, development needs, political access needs and identity needs (cultural and religious expression). Consistent with Azar’s theory, John Burton’s approach also focuses on the meeting of basic human needs like identity and security or ontological and biological drives for survival. As alluded to above, these needs are non-negotiable and cannot be compromised. Suppression and frustration of basic needs is considered as a primary source of conflict. Therefore, the third-party conflict resolution based on human needs theory, usually applied in a problem-solving workshop setting, is an analytical approach used to determine the overall nature of the conflict and to identify the actors, and then to facilitate movement of the disputants beyond stated positions or interests to the common ground of basic human needs. This type of approach apparently encompasses attitudes, interpersonal relationships and economic, political and social structures. Certainly, the aim of the process is to ‘rationally transform conflictual attitudes and situations.’ 

According to Stephen Ryan, inter-communal conflicts are often characterized by destructive processes that escalate with varying degrees of intensity throughout communities. These processes include heightened ethno-centrism, a decline in moderation, psychological distancing and a sharpening of territorial boundaries. The result is polarized communities where ethnic hatreds, fear and distrust are rife. In situations of ethno-territorial conflicts, infusing territory with symbolic and transcendental qualities makes it intangible and difficult to divide. Territory can have a tremendous impact on identity and way of life. What makes ethno-territorial conflicts difficult to resolve is that the underlying issues have certain characteristics, like their being intangible or over territory that has been infused with symbolic qualities. Such issues in turn lead to zero-sum proposals which hamper negotiations. This article suggests that resolving a territorial issue, like the N-K conflict, is not simply drawing the border between N-K and Azerbaijan, but resolving the symbolic and transcendent value of the territory which is endemic to the rivalry or historic animosity between the two nations. Ostensibly, adopting John A. Vasquez’s and Brandon Valeriano’s views are useful here because they emphasize that ‘unless the rivalry relationship is addressed, the vicious circle of conflict to which rivalries are prone will not be broken and the territorial dispute is unlikely to be settled.’

Within this context, in societies marked with fragmentation and miscommunication, diplomatic approaches to conflict resolution rarely yield lasting results and apparently must be supplemented by other approaches. Thus, it is crucial to look at internal conflicts within political and multidimensional frameworks that take into account social, economic and historical factors. It is also important to acknowledge that in ethnic conflict situations a multilevel approach must be pursued to involve many actors and institutions in the transformation process, and that each phase in the conflict may necessitate a different type of intervention by different actors or combination of actors.

In a fragmented society in which relationship is characterized by separation and alienation, and an enemy image is shaped, local communities become disempowered. When ethno-nationalists dominate in society, the civilian population becomes increasingly passive. In these situations humanitarian assistance by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), like Conciliation Resources, and international agencies become particularly important in the process of peace-building. It is crucial therefore to initiate longer-term approaches, including empowering embedded local actors, institutions and organizations to support the peace process that started in 1992 and invest more resources in peace-building. Indeed, according to Ronald J. Fisher, peace-building combines the classic meaning of social development to reduce inequity with a new interactive element designed to improve the relationship and de-escalate the hostility between the conflict parties, that is interactive conflict resolution (ICR). Changing the regional context, building coalitions in favor of conflict resolution and setting a multiple track of dialogue are also crucial to approach the peace process. Now we move to explore conflict transformation that leads to conflict resolution.

According to John Paul Lederach, conflict transformation should be responsive to real-life challenges, needs and realities. The key dimensions are changes in the personal, structural, relational and cultural aspects of the conflict, brought about over different time periods. Conflict transformation views peace as centered in the quality of relationships and the ways we structure our social, political, economic and cultural relationships. In thinking about structure, Lederach shapes the idea of the pyramid with top leadership and decision-makers at the top; leaders of social organizations, churches, journalists and the like in the middle; and grassroots community leaders at the bottom. A comprehensive peace process, therefore, should address complementary changes at all levels. Constructing a peace process in internal conflicts will require ‘an operative frame of reference that takes into consideration the legitimacy, uniqueness and interdependency of the needs and resources’ of the top level range and grassroots. Such an analytical framework is imperative to meet the needs of peace-building in N-K.

Sustainable peacemaking in divided and war torn societies requires ‘a broad palette of measures aimed on the one hand at eliminating socio-economic inequalities and on the other hand at building up political and social capacities that will enable those involved to cope with ethnic plurality.’ Within this context, dialogue projects can perform a bridge-building function and create new human and political capacities to solve problems. A dialogue process would shift naturally into negotiations on a political settlement. On the necessity of dialogue to transform ethnic conflicts, Harold Saunders writes: ‘no participant in dialogue will give up her or his identity, but each will recognize enough of the other’s valid human claims that he or she will act differently toward the other.’ It is crucial to create ‘the space for each community to express its historic identity and at the same time increase interdependence or relationship, mutual understanding and respect rather than exclusivity and threat.’ Certainly, the Armenians and Azerbaijanis need dialogue projects in which diverse participants introduce all the significant facets of the N-K conflict and think how to create not just a physical space but also a relational space in which participants would feel safe in opening up their deeper feelings and resentments. Therefore, a state-centered and official diplomacy approach is not large enough to include dialogue among citizens outside government as a significant instrument of conflict resolution. According to Saunders, a relational approach is needed because the relational approach is:

A cumulative, multilevel, open-ended process of continuous interaction engaging clusters of citizens in and out of government and the relationships they form to solve public problem in whole bodies politic across permeable borders. Conflict must often be dealt with at different levels of society where needs went unmet and that such a challenge could only be met by innovative instruments.          

On September 2, 1991 the Armenians of N-K declared de facto independence from Azerbaijan. The 1992-1994 war that followed pitted Azerbaijan’s armed forces against the Karabakh Armenian forces backed by the armed forces of Armenia. The war ended in May 1994 with a military victory of Karabakh Armenians but the ethno-territorial conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan was not solved. The victorious Karabakh army also took effective control over seven regions adjacent to N-K (Agdam, Fizuli, Gebrail, Zangelan, Kubatli, Kelbajar, Lachin) and established a security belt. Although the May 1994 ceasefire ended the war, peace has been elusive. Since the ceasefire, the conflicting parties have reviewed and rejected several potential peace plans in 1997, 1998 and 2001 proposed to them by the Co-Chairs (US, Russia and France) of the Minsk Group. During the OSCE Ministerial Summit in Madrid in 2007, a new peace plan called the Madrid Principles was presented to Armenia and Azerbaijan. These principles reflected a reasonable compromise based on the Helsinki Final Act principles of non-use of force, territorial integrity of states and the equal rights and self-determination of peoples. They included inter alia:

-Return of the occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh.

-An interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self-governance.

-A corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh.

-Future determination on the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh through a legally binding expression of will.

-The right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places or residence.

-International security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation.      

If Armenia and Azerbaijan appeared to accept the Madrid Principles, they understood them differently. The Armenian bottom line remained recognition of the right to self-determination for N-K, a secure land link between Armenia and N-K, and international security guarantees that prevent resumption of hostilities. Some politicians in Armenia and N-K argued that these Principles did not guarantee security for the region and were formulated without the participation of the Karabakh Leadership in the peace process. Obviously, Armenia would not negotiate an agreement that was unacceptable for the Karabakh Leadership. According to former President Serge Sarkisian, if an agreement was reached on self-determination that would eventually lead to the de jure secession of Karabakh from Azerbaijan, all other contested issues could be tackled. In such a trade-off, the occupied territories around N-K would be used as a bargaining chip to obtain a tangible guarantee for the security of Karabakh Armenians and to ensure that Azerbaijan accepted outright independence as N-K’s final status. According to the need theory, security, like identity and recognition, was a basic human need and an ontological drive for survival. Former Karabakh president Bako Sahakyan said that ‘the control over territories was not an end in itself for us, but was aimed at Karabakh’s security.’ 

Azerbaijan ruled out any procedure that would legalize N-K’s de facto independence. Baku’s bottom line remained the preservation of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and the return of the Azerbaijani refugees to their homes. Any deal in this context was negotiable. With regard to the Madrid Principles, Baku insisted that in order to achieve a fair settlement three crucial points should be reflected in the framework agreement: ‘The return of the Azerbaijanis of N-K prior to its final status determination; equal and mutual use of the Lachin land corridor that linked Armenia to N-K by both the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis; and most contentiously, that the determination of Karabakh’s final status could only be achieved within the framework of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.’ Apparently, the fundamental disagreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan on this last point means that the resolution of the conflict is uneasy. To break out of this deadlock, both parties must find ways to resolve the three main areas of disagreement that have been the fate of the seven adjacent regions which are under the effective control of the Karabakh forces, the mandate and composition of an international peacekeeping or observer mission that could buttress any political agreement and N-K’s ultimate status.  

In January 2010, the MG Co-Chairs sought a consensus text and presented updated Madrid Principles that envisaged a phased rather than package solution. The text did not differ fundamentally from the 2007 version. In mid-February, President Ilham Aliev confirmed that Azerbaijan accepted a framework agreement with some unspecified minor exceptions. Yet, in 2010, Aliev announced that Azerbaijan was able ‘at any moment to resolve the Karabakh problem by military means’ if the Karabakh forces would not withdraw from the adjacent territories.’ Armenia was less enthusiastic. Armenia desired to keep its leverage in that it wanted to leave the issue of return of the Azerbaijani internally displaced people to N-K unaddressed before the determination of N-K’s final status. Yerevan wanted stronger security guarantees that the population of N-K would have the right to self-determination, including formalizing secession from Azerbaijan and choosing independence. Thus far, all efforts to tackle the three issues failed. The problem has been that the three main areas of disagreement alluded to above are interdependent. Failure to look at each issue independently has hampered discussion of any of them.  

Given the 30-year deadlock in the N-K negotiations the risk of military escalation was far from gone. Indeed, in April 2016, hostilities along the line of contact developed into four days of fighting and resulted in more than 200 deaths. With a rising oil-driven economy and a wide array of hardware, Azerbaijan felt more confident about its diplomatic and military strength. Combined with frustration over possible solutions this translated into the April 2016 confrontation in N-K and later to the deadly 12-16 July 2020 clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan forces at the border area between Tavush and the Tovuz district in western Azerbaijan. What sparked the July escalation remained unclear. Each party accused the other of triggering the violence. Both sides used heavy weapons before it tapered off. The July clashes took a heavy toll on civilians on both sides of the border. While previous clashes had mostly taken place on the line of contact in N-K, the July fighting occurred on the internationally recognized border between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

In light of the Velvet Revolution and power transition in Armenia in 2018, a window of opportunity was created to break the negotiation deadlock and seek a potential solution. Armenian PM Nikol Pashinyan has sought to extend the ‘velvet brand’ to the negotiations with Azerbaijan by highlighting the need to include the Karabakh leadership in the talks. In January 2019, after a meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers Zohrab Mnatsakanyan and Elmar Mammadyarov in Paris, the MG Co-Chairs announced that the foreign ministers had agreed on the necessity of ‘preparing their populations for peace.’ A number of measures were taken to defuse the tension of recent years along the line of contact in N-K as well as along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. These included a sustained reduction in the number of ceasefire violations since 2017 and the establishment of ‘operative channels’ between the armed forces deployed along the line of contact and the ‘executive structures of Armenia and Azerbaijan.’ These measures were considered proactive strategies that could help avoid destructive escalation. Yet, according to the Armenian Defense Minister Davit Tonoyan, ‘after the relative suspension of the July 2020 actions the adversary’s ceasefire violations in the same direction increased nearly twice. We are hopeful that as a result of the appropriate actions of our military the halt will be preserved and will contribute to the negotiations process.’ But, Karabakh’s President Arayik Harutyunyan told the citizens of N-K to ‘be realistic and prepare for war’ because ‘Azerbaijan is not in the mood for negotiations. They shell Armenian positions, threaten to strike at the nuclear power plant, declare that Stepanakert and Artsakh should be Azerbaijani…what can we talk about here?’ Official positions aside, de-escalation and preparing for negotiations could reduce the intensity of the conflict and move it toward negotiations.

Within this context, it is important to note that in May 2019, Conciliation Resources convened a meeting of the Karabakh Contact Group (KCG) to discuss the implications of ‘preparing populations for peace’ for peace-building and contributing to the peace process as track II diplomacy. The KCG is a platform supported by the European Union (EU) to engage in open-ended dialogue and ‘joint analysis on key policy issues.’ According to one Azerbaijani participant, there was an implicit ‘window’ of around two years, within which Baku was hoping to see change. However, Azerbaijani impatience met a ‘gradualist Armenian approach.’ Rather than quick steps towards a mutually acceptable peace agreement, ‘preparing populations for peace’ was understood in Yerevan ‘more in terms of reducing enmity and opening channels.’ Armenia was skeptical of moving forward before the core security guarantees were provided and meaningfully addressed. For Karabakh Armenians, the prospect of ‘preparing populations for peace’ evoked long-standing dissatisfaction with being excluded from the negotiation process. According to one Karabakh Armenian participant, the idea was based on a ‘false, patronizing premise’ that obscures the hierarchies institutionalized by the peace process. The participants in the KCG agreed that the language of ‘preparing populations for peace’ unhelpfully portrayed populations as the ‘passive object of top-down policy making.’ The bottom-up approach was missing in reference to John Paul Lederach’s peace-building approach (the peace pyramid alluded to above). Reciprocal flow of information and influence between the political elites (negotiators) and society at the grassroots level was hardly met. Upwards influence into the track I process was needed despite the fact that civil society actors in Armenia, Azerbaijan and N-K could offer upward influence differently. Certainly there is the need to pursue the peace process at all different levels.   

What could be learned from the meeting of the KCG is that when participants from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Karabakh talk to each other constructively, they would be able to ‘clear their minds of anger and learn to listen to each other with some empathy, a capacity that might take a long time, patience and work to develop.’ From this perspective, the MG would need to ensure that Baku and Yerevan send and receive signals that strengthen collaborative problem-solving and create room for diplomatic maneuvering, rather than get in rigid bargaining behavior undertaken to prevent a loss of face.

We argued that in asymmetric internal conflicts state-centered or government-centered approaches to conflict resolution would yield limited or no outcome because the choice of conflict management modes and the chances of successful mediation were affected by the importance each disputant attached to the issues (like identity, security and recognition) of the conflict. From the N-K case, it becomes clear that peacemaking in protracted internal conflicts requires that efforts be pursued at different levels simultaneously because official negotiations alone are unlikely to provide for conflict transformation. Recognition of needs and dialogue are preconditions and for these to be met both parties have to be accepted as legitimate. Indeed, official negotiations often disintegrated because of a failure to involve representatives from the Karabakh leadership and from Azerbaijani inhabitants of N-K and address their needs. When asymmetry is reduced, negotiations may become successful. 

The MG led negotiations were undermined because both sides used it as a forum for publicity and point-scoring against each other. In addition, when initial agreements were reached at the top level they continually collapsed because the infrastructure for their implementation did not exist. No concessions and reciprocity were made because the negotiators were afraid of losing their hard-line constituencies. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that ‘the development of an active, multilayered and effective peace constituency could create an environment conducive to counterbalancing negotiating setbacks and keeping the formal process on track.’ It is equally important to identify a broader approach for addressing the issues of the conflict and reach a satisfactory settlement. Such an approach begins with the recognition that the middle range leaders hold particular potential for transformation. The middle-range has the potential to anchor issues within a set of relationships and pursue peace.

—

References:

Johan Galtung, Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization (London and New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 1996), P. 72.

Hugh Miall, Oliver Ramsbotham and Tom Woodhouse, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts (Cambridge and Oxford: Polity Press, 2003), P. 14.

Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk and William I. Zartman, ‘Introduction: The Nature of Conflict and Conflict Resolution’, in Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk and William I. Zartman (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution (London and New Delhi: SAGE, 2009), P. 8.

William I. Zartman, ‘Sources and Settlements of Ethnic Conflicts’, in Andreas Wimmer, Richard J. Goldstone, Donald L. Horowitz, Ulrike Joras and Conrad Schetter (eds.), Facing Conflicts, Toward a New Realism (Boulder and New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2004), p. 141.

Edward Azar, The Management of Protracted Social Conflict, Theory and Practice (England and Brookfield: Dartmouth Publishing Company, 1990), P.7.

John Burton, International Conflict Resolution, Theory and Practice (Boulder and Sussex: wheatsheaf Books and Lynne Reinner Publications, 1996).

J. B. Hill, ‘An Analysis of Conflict Resolution Techniques: from Problem Solving to Theory’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 26, No. 1: 1982, PP. 109-38.

Stephen Ryan, ‘Transforming Violent Inter-communal Conflict’, in Kumar Rupesinghe (ed.), Conflict Transformation (Palgrave: St Martin’s Press, 1995), P. 230. 

John A. Vasquez and Brandon Valeriano, ‘Territory as a Source of Conflict and Road to Peace’, in Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk and William I. Zartman (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution (London and New Delhi: SAGE, 2009), P. 197.

Ronald J. Fisher, ‘The Potential for Peacebuilding: Forging a Bridge from Peacekeeping to Peacebuilding’, Peace and Change, No. 18 (1993), PP. 247-66.

John Paul Lederach, The Little Book of Conflict Transformation (Intercourse: Good Books, 2003), P. 20.

John Paul Lederach, Building Peace, Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies (Washington DC: USIP Press, 1997), P. 60.

Norbert Ropers, “From Resolution to Transformation: Assessing the Role and Impact of Dialogue Projects’, in Andreas Wimmer, Richard J. Goldstone, Donald L. Horowitz, Ulrike Joras and Conrad Schetter (eds.), Facing Ethnic Conflicts, Toward a New Realism (Boulder and New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2004, 2004), P. 183.

Harold H. Saunders, A Public Peace Process: Sustainable Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1999), P. 82.

Harold H. Saunders, Politics is About Relationship: A Blueprint for the Citizens’ Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), PP. 7-8.

International Crisis Group (ICG), ‘Nagorno-Karabakh: Getting a Breakthrough’, Europe Briefing No. 55, 7 October 2009, P. 6.

Tracey German, Regional Cooperation in the South Caucasus: Good Neighbours or Distant Relatives? (London and New York: Ashgate, 2012), P. 69. 

‘Preparing Populations for Peace: Implications for Armenian-Azerbaijani Peace-building’, Conciliation Resources, Discussion Paper July 2019.

Conciliation Resources, ‘Preparing Populations for Peace: Implications for Armenian-Azerbaijani Peacebuilding,’ Discussion Paper, July 2019).

Harold H. Saunders, “Dialogue as a Process for Transforming Relationships,’ in Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk and William I. Zartman (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution (London and New Delhi: SAGE 2009), P. 379.

Kumar Rupesinghe, ‘Mediation in Internal Conflicts: Lessons from Sri Lanka,’ in Jacob Bercovitch (ed.), Resolving International Conflicts, Theory and Practice of Mediation (Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1996), PP. 163-6.

Author information

Ohannes Geukjian, PhD

Ohannes Geukjian is assistant professor of political studies and conflict resolution at the American University of Beirut. He was awarded the PhD in peace studies from the University of Bradford in the UK in 2005. He teaches Armenian-Turkish conflict, transnational politics, comparative politics, conflict and conflict management, and nationalism and international conflict. His research interests focus on nationalism, nation and state building, conflict management and conflict resolution, Middle East politics and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. He has published three books and numerous scholarly articles in refereed journals including Middle Eastern Studies, Nationalities Papers, Middle East Journal and the Maghreb Review. His forthcoming book on Russian intervention in Syria will be published by McGill University Press.

|

The post Stillborn Peace in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Limits of Official Diplomacy to Resolve the Conflict appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

On December 24, 1924, when the rest of the world was celebrating Christmas Eve, Charles and Mary Terzian, an Armenian couple living in Los Angeles, California, were celebrating the birth of twins—Samuel and Dorothy. 

Like most twins, Samuel and Dorothy shared a unique and mysterious bond. They were inseparable and understood each other without saying anything. During their childhood, the entire family settled in Akron, Ohio—the “Rubber Capital of the World.” This new location changed many things, but not the special relationship between Samuel and Dorothy. Just like in Los Angeles, they did everything together and were always there for each other, especially in February 1935 when their beloved father died.

Samuel was a kindhearted and cheerful teenager. He always had a smile on his face, lived every day to the fullest, and never lost his optimism. After attending South High School, Samuel worked for the Firestone Corporation, but in August 1943, the world was in agony, and freedom was in peril, so he decided to join the US Army. A few days later, when it came time to leave, Mary took her little boy in her arms and broke into tears. She knew that many young men would never return and couldn’t bear the thought of losing her only son.

As a proud member of the 60th Infantry Regiment, 9th Infantry Division, Samuel landed on Utah Beach on June 11, 1944 and took part in the Invasion of Normandy. In between battles, he often thought about his precious and irreplaceable sister. Dorothy was thousands of miles away, but he felt as if she were right by his side. A month after touching French soil, Samuel found himself in “Hedgerow Hell.” The particular nature of Normandy’s landscape, with its tall thick hedgerows and limited visibility, was ideally suited for German ambushes. On July 16, 1944, one of the American soldiers who suddenly fell to the ground was Samuel. Badly wounded by enemy fire, he was immediately taken to a field hospital. So many brave men died on that day, but Samuel survived.

Once recovered, this Armenian American hero returned to combat duty and participated at the Battle of Hürtgen Forest which took place in Germany between September 19, 1944 and December 16, 1944. There are no words strong enough to describe what happened in that forest. The fighting was so deadly that everyone called it “The Death Factory.” Some young soldiers were blown apart and died instantly, while others were critically wounded in a no man’s land, and spent hours, all alone, scared and in excruciating pain before dying. More than 30-thousand American soldiers were killed or wounded during the Battle of Hürtgen Forest.

On October 15, 1944, Samuel was in the heart of the forest between Zweifall and Vossenack. With every step he took, his senses had to remain sharp for unusual shapes and suspicious sounds. Danger was everywhere, and the enemy could be anywhere. On that fateful day, Samuel and his comrades were assigned the mission of destroying a heavily defended line of German bunkers. Samuel fought with remarkable courage and extraordinary determination, but during the assault, a German bullet struck his chest. His comrades rushed to his aid, but nothing could be done to save him. Born in the City of Angels, Samuel died in the Devil’s forest.

When his mother was informed that her 19-year-old son had died for freedom, she was devastated and so was Dorothy who lost her other half. Samuel didn’t have a brother, but he had many brothers-in-arms who loved him as much as he loved them. He was buried among his fallen comrades at the Henri-Chapelle American Cemetery in Belgium.

After graduating from The University of Akron with a degree in education, Dorothy became an accomplished artist and a devoted art teacher. To honor the memory of her twin brother, Dorothy established the “Terzian Family Scholarship” at The University of Akron.

Like so many Armenian American heroes who gave their lives to defeat tyranny, Samuel died way too far from home and was far too young to die. He never got the chance to get married, become a parent or fulfill a dream, but his sacrifice enabled so many people to live these magical moments. Seventy-six years after his death, let us all take a moment to look at his face, his eyes, his smile, and imagine what Samuel endured in Europe. We can never thank him enough or repay the debt we owe him, but we can make sure his memory lives on, and ensure that future generations remember this brave young man.

Rest in peace Samuel, and rest assured that we will never forget you.

Author information

John Dekhane

John Dekhane grew up in Paris before moving to the South of France. He works for a sport organization in Monaco. Since he was a child, he has always been interested in World War II with particular emphasis on American soldiers. In order to honor them, over the past years, he has located and purchased WWII U.S. artifacts in Europe and donated these items to more than a hundred museums in the United States.

|

The post Too Young to Die appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

STEPANAKERT—Early this morning, I was awakened by distant thuds, sounding at regular intervals, as Artsakh’s capital once again felt the attack of Azerbaijani bombing raids. Fortunately, the attack was a brief one, but the message had been sent once more: Azerbaijan and its powerful friends are not going away anytime soon. Not this time.

As war continues to rage along Artsakh’s perimeter, Stepanakert has taken on the look and feel of a ghost-town. Half of its population has evacuated, while the other half spends its time either scurrying from place to place, avoiding broad daylight, or hunkered down in underground bunkers and basements. Those who have stayed are mostly needy, elderly or performing essential functions for our defense. And while our people’s demeanor is still tough and resilient, it is tempered by the realization that we’re in this alone, without powerful protectors or even mediators.

The city itself is fairly intact, but an extensive tour reveals quite a bit of damage—much of it well-planned. Indeed, from the first day it became clear that these air raids weren’t the usual Azeri slapdash affair. Important utilities and infrastructure were hit, throwing our defenses off-balance. Significant symbols like St. Ghazanchetsots and the Defense Ministry were targeted, as if to tell us that nothing is safe anymore. And interspersed were the regular bombings of civilian structures – city streets, storefronts, apartment buildings – in an apparent attempt to intimidate us. 

Overall, Armenian Armed Forces have performed heroically – withstanding the blitzkrieg of the combined Azeri, Turkish and mercenary forces, and holding our positions remarkably well. But as I toured various sites today, it became clear that the game-changer has been Turkey’s direct involvement. The scale and precision of operations are an order of magnitude better than what we’ve seen in past encounters. And the presence of sophisticated drones and aerial weaponry are changing the rules of warfare, causing substantial human losses never before seen. Everyone here firmly believes we can win a fair fight, but it seems this time that the odds have been tilted way out of balance.

Is there a positive end in sight? Not yet clear, unfortunately. For the moment, it appears that this life-or-death struggle will continue with most of the world simply watching, or at best offering lip-service. The OSCE Minsk Group—ostensibly in charge of a peace settlement—has shown itself to be weak, tentative, even impotent. Meanwhile, international public opinion—while becoming aroused of late—seems a weak counterbalance to Turkey’s zealous advances.

But above all, there is the oft-repeated question – sometimes shouted, sometimes whispered – namely, “Where are the Russians?” Armenia’s traditional guarantor, Russia has been noticeably cautious in its efforts to restrain Turkey thus far. Perhaps this is due to Russia’s weakened condition after years of US sanctions, recession and struggles to maintain influence elsewhere in its periphery. Perhaps it is also due to Russia’s reluctance to further complicate its ties with Turkey, with whom it already has proxy wars in Syria and in Libya. In any event, it seems that Russia’s ability to manage the Karabakh issue is now in jeopardy. For rather than operating as the hegemonic power in a post-Soviet space, it now must contend with a new, aggressive power—Turkey—that is poised to turn Karabakh into an interzonal conflict. 

Fortunately, it appears that Moscow is starting to wake up…albeit late. It now sees that Karabakh is not the end but actually the beginning of a new struggle for control of the Caucasus. As it consolidates this view, Moscow may indeed start showing teeth in the face of Turkey’s aggression. There are various signals indicating this may happen. But when? 

In the meantime, Artsakh’s Armenians have no choice but to go it alone, waging a fierce survival war that is not of their creation. And while the front-lines remain ablaze, Stepanakert will continue holding out gamely until better days finally emerge.

Author information

Antranig Kasbarian

Antranig Kasbarian is a former member of the ARF Central Committee, Eastern United States. Over the past 20 years, he has been a lecturer, activist and community leader; he has also worked regularly as a journalist, activist, and researcher in Nagorno-Karabakh. He is a former editor of the Armenian Weekly, and holds a Ph.D. in geography from Rutgers University. He joined the Tufenkian Foundation in 2003, launching its program in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabagh), and served as its executive director until 2015. He is currently the Director of Development of the Tufenkian Foundation, pursuing a range of charitable/strategic projects in Armenia and Artsakh.

|

The post Fighting to Survive: A View from Stepanakert appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has opened another battlefront thousands of miles away from Baku, in the pages of local and national newspapers and news sites in the US. Much like the Syrian mercenaries Baku recruited and deployed with the help of Turkish defense contractors to target Armenians, Azerbaijan’s US-based lobbyists are at the forefront of an “information warfare” that costs millions of dollars annually. 

One important aspect of the work of these lobbyists is to place, disseminate and promote anti-Armenian narratives. Their tactics have evolved into a relentless smear campaign through US media outlets, painting Armenia as a close ally of Iran that undermines Western policies and Armenians as intolerant and anti-Semitic. At the same time, Azerbaijan is depicted as a beacon of tolerance, an ally of Israel and a champion of religious rights.

Baku’s lobbyists continually push this narrative by placing articles in various media outlets, reaching out to editors with numerous “factsheets” and disseminating Baku-approved stories to contacts in positions of power. Many such propaganda pieces that are essentially commissioned by the Azerbaijani government appear in US media outlets without proper disclaimers, and therein loom the danger and deception.

Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings by Azerbaijan’s lobbyists show how they approach almost every major outlet from Bloomberg to CNN, the Washington Post, the Jerusalem Post, the New York Times, NBC, Al-Jazeera, San Francisco Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, Haaretz, USA Today, and Wall Street Journal; the list is almost interminably long. 

Over the past few weeks, numerous articles have discussed Azerbaijan’s war on Armenia; many have had a bias, some suspiciously so. It may be impossible to tell which are penned by Aliyev’s supporters and which are commissioned or disseminated by Baku’s agents here; but a few are (and will be) known because of FARA filings. 

From comments left under strikingly pro-Azerbaijani articles, it is clear that many readers have been frustrated and disheartened. Arguably, readers have a right to know whether the content they are consuming is either commissioned or part of a foreign government’s “information warfare.” Without proper disclaimers under articles received from embassies by way of lobbyists, editors risk tarnishing the credibility of the news outlets they represent and deliver a blow to the idea of journalistic integrity. A simple one-liner would suffice, such as, “This article was sent to us by [insert name of PR firm] on behalf of the Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the United States of America.” Editors uncomfortable with such disclaimers might reconsider running blatant propaganda pieces that essentially import the state-sponsored narrative of a country with one of the worst media freedom records.

To give readers a clearer idea of how Azerbaijan’s lobbyists place and disseminate narratives that support Baku’s propaganda campaign, I will take a close look at the activities of certain lobbyists employed by Aliyev’s government, by examining hundreds of pages of FARA filings available in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) online archives.

An ‘Information Warfare’

In an Aug. 25 article titled “Russia and Iran’s Dangerous Energy Gambit in the Caucasus” and published by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, human rights lawyer and national security analyst Irina Tsukerman embraces all the talking points put out by Baku. She refers to Artsakh as a “fake republic” and an “ersatz entity.” After a series of hypotheticals (like Russia and Armenia might join forces to bring “Russian biological weapons close to Azerbaijan”), she proceeds to advise Baku on how to handle pro-Armenian sentiment in the west.

“Azerbaijan should form a closer joint defense relationship with the US, benefiting from joint training and insights from experienced field operatives and officers. Additionally, greater resources need to be marshalled for information warfare and the political aspect of the battle being waged, including supporting professional media to counter disinformation, building personal and long-term relationships with public officials at all levels, and, most importantly, vigorously pursuing legislative and legal relief in US, European, and international bodies. Armenian officials responsible for human rights abuses should be sanctioned,” she writes (italics my own).

Since a large chunk of her article deals with the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which is active in DC, one might understand that Tsukerman is essentially encouraging a foreign government, Azerbaijan, to wage “information warfare” against a grassroots Armenian-American organization that promotes and advocates for the interests of and issues important to American citizens of Armenian origin. In other words, she is calling on Azerbaijan with its dismal media freedom record to export its relentless propaganda to the US.

In its 2020 report, Freedom House designated Azerbaijan as a “consolidated authoritarian regime” with a score of 10/100, observing that “Constitutional guarantees for press freedom are routinely and systematically violated, as the government works to maintain a tight grip on the information landscape. Defamation remains a criminal offense. Journalists and their relatives face harassment, violence and intimidation by authorities. Many have been detained or imprisoned on fabricated charges, while others face travel bans.” Armenia fared as “partly free,” with a score of 53/100. The report noted “Independent and investigative outlets operate relatively freely in Armenia, but their work is generally found online.” 

We may not know what motivates Tsukerman’s anti-Armenian rhetoric; she has no known ties to current lobbyists for Baku.

On Oct. 20, another one of Tsukerman’s articles, co-authored by Jason Epstein, was published by Newsweek. Tsukerman and Epstein “unite in [their] support of Sunni-majority Turkey’s Shi’a ally, Azerbaijan, an unabashedly pro-Western country, as it is unfairly smeared….” The article argues that the war is not about religion; it discusses Azerbaijan’s secularism, the Pope’s 2016 visit to Baku, religious minorities in Azerbaijan, and “Ashkenazi, Georgian and Mountain Jews.” 

“No wonder Iran, the largest Shi’a country in the world but with ethnic Azeris comprising of up to 30 percent of its population, feels threatened by a tolerant Azerbaijan’s continued geopolitical success and therefore supports Armenia,” write the authors. Tsukerman’s co-author Epstein is the president of Southfive Strategies, LLC and a former public relations consultant for the Turkish Embassy in Washington (2002 – 2007); he has “long considered [himself] both pro-Israel and pro-Turkey.” Among Southfive’s past clients are the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy in Baku, the Turkish Embassy in Washington and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ Washington office.

Epstein’s work with the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy, which is funded by the Azerbaijani government, began on Aug. 1, 2008, when Epstein registered as a foreign agent with the DOJ’s FARA unit for his work with the Academy. In describing his engagement with that entity, Epstein wrote, “Assisting the Academy in producing a policy conference in Azerbaijan on US-Azeri relations, as well as meetings with Azeri officials, business leaders, religious leaders, and media personalities.”

When asked whether Southfive would engage in political activities and what those activities might entail, Epstein responded, “Encouraging journalists to file stories on US-Azeri relations, based on their experiences at the conference and during various meetings.”

The disclaimer under the Newsweek article reads: “Jason Epstein is president of Southfive Strategies, LLC, an international public affairs consultancy. Irina Tsukerman is a New York-based human rights lawyer and national security/geopolitical analyst, the vice president of Timberwolf Phoenix, a media and security consultancy, and an adviser to the London-based International Justice Organization. The views expressed in this article are the writers’ own.”

There is no mention of Epstein’s past lobbying work for the governments of Azerbaijan and Turkey. A reader would have to independently research Southfive Strategies to learn that for years it had engaged in lobbying on behalf of Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Baku’s US Agents 

A FARA filing by the Podesta Group in 2013 details the extent of its outreach to US politicians, universities, think tanks, but also most major news outlets, including Bloomberg, Foreign Policy, CNN, Washington Post (and Times), EurasiaNet, Associated Press, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Jerusalem Post, Al-Jazeera, Los Angeles Times, NBC, New York Times and Haaretz. 

Just between June and December of 2017, Podesta received $260,735.56 for its work on behalf of the Azerbaijani Embassy in the U.S., according to a Department of Justice (DOJ) report. That year, Podesta was one of four companies registered with the DOJ for work on behalf of Azerbaijan that cost Baku $560,735.56. During a six-month period that same year, 16 companies worked on behalf of Turkey with a total (reported) price tag of $4,284,020.06. Meanwhile, during the six-month period, an Avedis Boyamian offered pro-bono policy consultation to Armenia; price tag: $0. This information is available in the DOJ report titled, “Report of the Attorney General to the Congress of the United States on the Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, for the six months ending December 31, 2017.”

Among the lobby groups that have represented Azerbaijan in the past couple of years are the Livingston Group (contract terminated on Oct. 13), Stellar Jay Communications, BGR Government Affairs, Sanitas International, Rasky Partners (click here for an earlier and more detailed contract, and here and here for samples of their media outreach), and Baker Donelson (contracted by BGR). Meanwhile, another lobbying firm, S-3 Group, which works on behalf of the Baku-based Investment Corporation owned by Seyidov Tural Oglu, has “create[d] and place[d] earned and digital media to further diplomacy between America and Azerbaijan,” according to a DOJ filing; for instance, S-3 sent out pro-Azerbaijan factsheets on Oct. 15.

To get an idea of the ties, experience and expertise some of these lobby groups retain, a quick glance at the rank and file of BGR Public Affairs will suffice. Among their team members are: former Governor of Mississippi Haley Barbour; former Policy Director at the Senate Finance Committee Matt Hoffmann; Former Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI); former Senior Executive Clandestine Service Officer with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Daniel Hoffman; former FBI man Tom Locke; former US Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker; former Director of Legislative Affairs for the National Security Council Mark Tavlarides; former senior USAID official Lester Munson;  a Frank Ahrens who can arrange “client interviews with Fox News, CNN, The Washington Post and major wire services”; and a Jeff Birnbaum who is a former “White House, congressional and tax reporter for the Wall Street Journal, a senior political correspondent for Time Magazine, Washington bureau chief for Fortune Magazine and a columnist for the Washington Post.” 

When Azerbaijan and Turkey pay millions to employ such lobbying firms, they are in effect buying ease of access to major national news services.

A ‘Stellar’ Case 

The case of one public relations firm employed by Baku might offer a glimpse into the Azeri lobbying efforts through pro-Azerbaijan articles in US media. The articles pushed on various editors deal with that general theme of “tolerant Azerbaijan” and “intolerant Armenia.” Whatever “information warfare” Tsukerman might have been alluding to in her article is displayed below.

At the center of the story is Jacob Kamaras, the former editor-in-chief of the Jewish National Syndicate (JNS), where pro-Azerbaijan and anti-Armenian articles have appeared in the past two years (for instance, Irina Tsukerman’s Oct. 12 article), including pieces that promote denial of the Armenian Genocide. Kamaras is the founder and chief of Stellar Jay Communications, which actively lobbied for the Azerbaijani Embassy in the US in 2020, and about which Julian Pecquet, founder and editor of the Foreign Lobby Report, has written. Note that Kamaras has filed a Fictitious Business Name Statement for his company with the DOJ.

Kamaras registered to lobby for the Azerbaijani Embassy on Jan. 31, 2020. The DOJ form informs that the registrant engages with Azerbaijan’s Ambassador Elin Suleymanov and “receives a $3,300 fee per project.” Kamaras’ principal mode of operation is through outreach to newspapers and editors, as noted in another DOJ file. Still another DOJ filing reveals that Kamaras, whose work for the Embassy entailed “media consulting and op-ed placement,” was paid $56,100 between Feb. 17 and July 10, 2020, presumably for 17 “projects.”

Among the papers Kamaras submitted to the DOJ are a number of emails he sent to news outlets, urging them to publish certain pro-Azerbaijan articles and offering certain pro-Azerbaijan talking points. There are 14 files (excluding the company’s registration) that span the first eight months of the year; the last disclosure is dated August 7.

Propaganda: Israel Should Ally with ‘Tolerant’ Azerbaijan

In the first email dated Feb. 12, addressed to the editors at the conservative CNSNews.com, Kamaras asks the news website to consider publishing an article by Maayan Hoffman, the news editor at The Jerusalem Post, titled, “A Jewish-Muslim paradigm for peace.” Hoffman argues that “Azerbaijan has pioneered a paradigm for warm Muslim ties with Israel, the nation Tehran repeatedly vows to wipe off the map… Israel only stands to benefit from having an ally like Azerbaijan on the border of arguably the Jewish state’s fiercest enemy.” She stresses that Jews live in Azerbaijan in “peace and prosperity” and details various developments in the benevolent attitude of Baku towards its Jewish minority population.

Kamaras’ email (like all his other emails discussed below) ends with a disclaimer noting that the email and its contents are sent by Stellar Jay Communications on behalf of the Azerbaijani Embassy. 

On Feb. 13, CNSNews published the story, slightly altering the headline to read, “Here’s What a Jewish-Muslim Paradigm for Peace Looks Like.” A brief bio of the author appeared below the article: “Maayan Hoffman is news editor and head of online content and strategy at The Jerusalem Post. She has been an American-Israeli international journalist for more than two decades.” There was no mention of Stellar Jay Communications or the Azerbaijani Embassy.

Propaganda: Armenia is Anti-Semitic

Kamaras’ second email dated March 9 is addressed to Rob Shimshock of CNSNews, containing yet another article, this time by Jesse Bogner and titled “The ‘old anti-Semitism’ is alive and well.” This piece alleges that there is “medieval-style anti-Semitism coming from Armenian organizations and commentators,” and that “[T]he ANCA’s recent rhetoric on Twitter represents the latest indicator of not only the anti-Semitism emanating from Armenia, one of the world’s oldest Christian nations, but also of the disturbing perpetuation of classical Christian anti-Semitism.” Of course, Bogner portrays Azerbaijan as a haven of tolerance. “By contrast, Armenia’s Muslim-majority neighbor has a deep relationship with Israel, no history of anti-Semitism, and a prosperous Jewish community of its own for more than two millennia,” he writes.

Apparently CNSNews did not publish Bogner’s article. On March 15, the piece was published on Bogner’s blog on The Times of Israel. Again, there was no mention of the Azerbaijani Embassy; just Bogner’s bio: “Jesse Bogner is an author and journalist. His memoir and social critique, The Egotist, has been translated into five languages. His work has been featured in The Daily Caller, MSN, The Daily Wire and The Huffington Post. His book of articles, Tikkunim (Corrections), was released in January 2018.”

It is outside the scope of this article to counter such propaganda. However, I will refer you to Yoav Loeff’s Jan. 27 article titled, “Armenia’s Antisemitism? The Truth Is Different,” in The Jerusalem Post, which he wrote coincidentally in response to a piece by Hoffman—the same Hoffman whose articles Kamaras disseminated on behalf of Azerbaijan’s Embassy. Loeff, who teaches Armenian history and culture at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is Jewish and has traveled to Armenia with other Jews and Israelis on many occasions, and stresses that he has “never heard a hint of antisemitic expression.”

“If there is some criticism, it is usually about Israel’s hesitation to recognize the Armenian genocide that was perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire…” he writes.

“Armenia’s small Jewish community never suffered antisemitism in their adopted homeland. Most of them left in the early 1990s, after the severe earthquake in the north of the country in 1988 and the collapse of the Soviet Union,” explains Loeff. He notes the dire economic situation following the earthquake and the Artsakh war and adds, “They did not leave because they faced any antisemitism; they left because they sought better life.”

Loeff also discusses the various ways in which Armenian government representatives had honored Holocaust victims, from Armenian President Armen Sarkissian’s attendance at the World Holocaust Forum in Jerusalem to the erection of a monument in Yerevan in memory of the victims of the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. “Unfortunately, there is no parallel such monument in Israel,” he adds.

Propaganda: Azerbaijan is a Friend to Israel

On March 13, Kamaras emailed The Jewish Voice editor Fern Sidman, offering him a piece by Hoffman, this time titled, “Could fighting coronavirus be the latest frontier in the Israel-Azerbaijan relationship?” Hoffman noted the presence of Azerbaijan’s Finance Minister Samir Shafirov at the AIPAC Policy Conference and quoted him to have said, “Cooperation with Israel is not limited to oil supply; we are interested in widening cooperation in defense and the transfer of technology.” Apparently Shafirov also read Azerbaijan’s first-lady-turned-vice-president Mehriban Aliyeva’s remarks praising Azerbaijani-Jewish ties in the US. The gist of the article was the importance of strengthening Azerbaijani-Israeli ties. The email closed with the usual disclaimer about Kamaras communicating on behalf of the Azerbaijani Embassy.

Hoffman’s piece was accepted and published without any mention of Kamaras’ firm or the Azerbaijani Embassy. However, some days later, NBC news published a piece highlighting Hoffman’s article as an example of “foreign governments… using American lobbyists to promote their efforts to fight the coronavirus outbreak and safeguard their countries’ reputations in the U.S. capital.” NBC goes on to point out that “The piece was written by Maayan Hoffman, identified as a Jerusalem Post news editor, but the published version makes no mention that the commentary was placed by Stellar Jay Communications, a lobbying firm representing the government of Azerbaijan, as a FARA filing shows.” 

NBC was right about foreign governments promoting their countries, safeguarding their reputations and “placing” op-eds in various papers. What NBC failed to understand is that this was not about the coronavirus, but part of an information war that ultimately feeds and bolsters the myth of the religiously tolerant Azerbaijan and the intolerant Armenia; and that is one of the key objectives of Baku, and by extension their US agents.

Propaganda: Armenia is a Friend to Iran

On April 23, Kamaras sent out another email to CNSNews with an article written by Bogner, who—in Kamaras’ words—“examines how the coronavirus is not stopping Iran from fueling conflict and undermining sanctions through its proxies. Specifically, he looks at Armenia’s role in empowering Iran economically.” The article, titled, “Coronavirus doesn’t stop Iran from fueling the fire of conflict,” accuses Iranian trucks of delivering fuel to “Nagorno-Karabakh, the Armenian-occupied region which several U.N. resolutions affirm as part of Azerbaijan,” charges Armenian banks of “enabling” Tehran, and faults “Democratic US lawmakers” for having a “pro-Armenian policy agenda.” 

The article ignores Azerbaijan’s ties with Iran, the fact that in 2019 Azerbaijan’s imports from Iran were worth US $452.63 million and exports at US $41.13 million, while Armenia’s imports from Iran were worth US $324.7 million and exports at US $83.84 million, according to the United Nations COMTRADE database. In other words, both countries maintain an economic relationship with their sanctioned neighbor.

Once again, Bogner’s piece did not appear in CNSNews and instead was published on his blog on the Times of Israel without any mention of the Azerbaijani Embassy or Jay Stellar Communications.

Propaganda: Azerbaijan Champions Religious Freedom

Kamaras’ next email (May 6) was also to CNSNews, in which it becomes clear that Rob Shimshock (the recipient) did not respond to the lobbyist’s previous two emails (which also explains why Bogner’s pieces ended up on his blog). This time, Kamaras submits his own article titled “Azerbaijan’s postponed Formula 1 race transcends sports” about which he tells Shimshock, “I write that despite the event’s postponement this year, the annual Formula 1 auto race hosted by Muslim-majority Azerbaijan — particularly during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan — is a powerful display of religious freedom, especially in a world plagued by sectarian conflict and now by the invisible enemy of the coronavirus.”

What Kamaras fails to mention is that Freedom House gave Azerbaijan a score of 0 out 4 for religious freedom in its 2020 report, which noted, “The regime exercises control over religion through state-affiliated entities such as the Caucasus Muslim Board. Religious communities that attempt to operate independently face burdensome registration requirements, interference with the importation and distribution of printed religious materials, and arrest and harassment of religious leaders with international ties or a significant following.” In other words, the idea of a religiously tolerant Azerbaijan is a myth nurtured by Baku’s agents abroad.

In any case, at the end of the article submission, Kamaras includes his bio: “Jacob Kamaras, former editor in chief of the Jewish News Syndicate, is noted for his work on the Middle East and American politics. His writing has appeared in the Washington Times, Independent Journal Review, the American Spectator, and various Jewish and Israeli media.” It makes no mention of his role as a lobbyist on behalf of the Embassy of Azerbaijan to the US. However, the email does end with the usual disclaimer. 

CNSNews published the article on May 7, slightly altering the title to read, “Azerbaijan’s Grand Prix Transcends Sports, Speaks to Religious Freedom.” However, it added the following to Kamaras’ bio: “Jacob Kamaras is founder of Stellar Jay Communications, a PR firm representing Azerbaijan.” The next day, another lobbyist on behalf of Azerbaijan, Mark Tavlarides of the BGR Group, emailed the article out to relevant contacts, urging them to read it. 

Propaganda: Israel and Azerbaijan are Partners (and Trailblazers in the Understanding of Aging)

A few days later, Kamaras reached out to the editor of the Salinas Californian, Silas Lyons, with a story written by Diana Cohen Altman, former executive director of the Karabakh Foundation and a contributor to the JNS. Altman’s piece was about Azerbaijanis who live up to 120 years old in Lankaran. Altman discusses diet, genetics and clusters of very old people in Azerbaijan, as well as longevity in Ashkenazi Jewish populations. Quoted in the piece is a surgeon who is a member of the Azerbaijan-Israel Inter-Parliamentary Work Group. The piece concludes with yet another nod to Azerbaijani-Israeli friendship with these words: “Azerbaijan has fostered significant partnerships in the humanities and other disciplines, and the West is building an understanding of Azerbaijani culture and contributions. Amid the pandemic and in the coming years, the U.S. scientific community may look to Israel and Azerbaijan — who are partners in technical and other arenas — for breakthroughs in the understanding of aging.”

The piece did not appear in The Californian. Instead, it was published by The Jerusalem Post on June 4. The final paragraphs were altered a bit, and there was this addition: “The Azerbaijani superaging phenomenon may also be of particular interest to social scientists, given major societal changes during the past century. Consider this: Someone over the age of 100 might have witnessed what is now the Republic of Azerbaijan as a portion of the Russian Empire, a part of the early Azerbaijani Democratic Republic, and as an S.S.R. of the Soviet Union.” In effect, this addition attempts to insert a historical footnote in this article that on the surface appears to be about longevity.

Altman’s bio appears at the end of the piece: “Diana Cohen Altman, principal of Cultural Diplomacy Associates, L.L.C., and former executive director of the US cultural non-profit Karabakh Foundation, writes extensively about Azerbaijani cultural and civil-society topics.” It made no mention of the Embassy of Azerbaijan or Jay Stellar Communications. Also to note, Altman is still listed on the Karabakh Foundation’s website as its Executive Director.

Propaganda: Armenians are Intolerant, Anti-Semitic

On June 11, through Kamaras, Baku resorted again to charges of anti-Semitism as a desperate attempt to vilify Armenian Americans. An email informs that Kamaras’ own article appeared in BreakingIsraelNews (Israel365News.com), titled “Armenia’s Self-Defeating Campaign Against Christians.” The article ran as an op-ed. It decried Armenian-American opposition to evangelical pastor Rev. Johnnie Moore’s support of Azerbaijan and Trump’s Middle East policies, singled out Asbarez news for its coverage and bashed the ANCA, accusing it of anti-Semitic tweets. 

Although at the base of his email, Kamaras included his disclaimer—“This material is distributed by Stellar Jay Communications on behalf of the Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan to the United States of America…”—the published article made no mention of the author’s bio or of his work on behalf of the Azerbaijani Embassy. Readers were (and continue to be) misled into believing the piece was written by a concerned writer and not a paid agent of Azerbaijan’s propaganda campaign. The Azerbaijani news.az reprinted the article, also without any mention of Kamaras’ role as a foreign agent for Baku.

Propaganda: Armenia is an Occupier; Unreliable Partner; Aids Iran

On July 14, Kamaras approached The Washington Free Beacon with a list of Azerbaijani talking points on the escalation of violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan. “I wanted to share a few angles below that could help you provide broader context in any story, if you choose to pursue one. Should you want to set up a phone interview with the ambassador, please let me know and I’ll be happy to arrange it,” wrote Kamaras. The Beacon did not take him up on the offer. In fact their last report that even mentions Azerbaijan ran in January of this year. Nonetheless, it’s worth reviewing Kamaras’ talking points. 

Aside from highlighting some European support for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, Kamaras shared an article by none other than Bogner in American Thinker titled, “Democrats’ West Bank rhetoric rings hollow,” in which the author asks, “Where is the condemnation of Armenia’s occupation of the same percentage of internationally recognized Azerbaijani territory, in the Nagorno-Karabakh region?”; another article by Paul Miller in the JNS titled, “Beware of the sanctions busters,” accuses Armenia of “offering the [Iranian] mullahs one of their best escape routes from crippling American sanctions”; as well as Hoffman’s article in BreakingIsraelNews titled, “A Nation that is ‘Faithful’ to Iran Is no ‘Reliable Partner’” (one can glean the spirit of the article from the title). He also shared a July 7 article in Arab News by Iranian American journalist Adelle Nazarian, a foreign policy analyst with Breitbart News who was in Azerbaijan in 2019. In it, Nazarian argues that “Now is the time for US lawmakers to echo Europe’s support for territorial integrity. Hypocrisy should no longer be accepted.” 

Propaganda: Armenians are ‘Plagued by Extremist Ideologies’
(Like Nazism and Anti-Semitism)

On July 13, Kamaras emailed Fox News correspondent Hollie McKay, offering her the opportunity to interview Azerbaijan’s Ambassador to the US Elin Suleymanov. McKay had interviewed the Ambassador in March 2019. She did not interview the Ambassador in July, but Fox News did speak with him on Sept. 28, just as Azerbaijan launched its offensive. (On Oct. 4 McKay did report on the recruitment of Syrian fighters by Turkish defense contractors to fight in Azerbaijan).

In early August, Kamaras approached a number of news sites on behalf of Amb. Suleymanov. On Aug. 5, he emailed Mercury News asking them to publish an article penned by the Ambassador, titled “Hate crimes have no place under the California sun.” 

The Ambassador’s article centers on a scuffle between Armenian and Azerbaijani protesters in Los Angeles. He proceeds to highlight some statements from Jewish American groups regarding the incident and suddenly hurls allegations of anti-Semitism. “Both Armenia and the Armenian communities abroad have long been plagued by extremist ideologies, political violence and a complicated history with anti-Semitism, Nazi collaborators and Middle Eastern radicals,” he writes. 

Such broad charges are not only insulting to Armenians worldwide and Armenian Americans, many of whom fought the Nazis, but also warps history, erasing the sacrifices of many like the members of the Manouchian Group, one of the most active French resistance groups. Of course, this is coming from the representative of a government that wholeheartedly joins neighbor Turkey in its unashamed and continued denial of the genocide perpetrated by its Ottoman Turkish predecessor. 

Essentially, the Ambassador is relying on charges of anti-Semitism against Armenians to draw support for the Azerbaijani policies and claims against Artsakh. By doing so, he is using the very real presence and danger of anti-Semitism in the world as a tool to further Baku’s agenda and in the hopes of garnering Jewish American and Israeli sympathies. As Kamaras’ previous emails show, Baku’s tactics have at their core the manipulation of fears towards both Iran and anti-Semitism. 

The Ambassador’s article was presumably rejected by Mercury News, because on Aug. 6 Kamaras submitted the same piece to the San Francisco Chronicle. Three minutes later, he sent the piece to The Sacramento Bee; and a minute later to The Hill. The article was finally published in The Monterey County Herald on Aug. 12, despite its overt propagandizing and vilification of Armenians worldwide.

That is the last of Kamaras’ activities submitted to the DOJ.

A Glance at BGR

Other lobby groups, such as BGR, also heavily publicized pro-Azerbaijan viewpoints and articles, and reached out to various media outlets for interviews, or to offer talking points. For instance, the DOJ FARA registration unit received a copy of an email from Mark Tavlarides of the BGR Group, which shared an article by the same Nazarian, titled, “Azerbaijan: A Nation that Bears the Torch, and Burden, of Bringing Religious Freedom to its Less Tolerant Neighbours in the Region.”

“The author, Adelle Nazarian, visited Azerbaijan’s 5th World Forum on Intercultural Dialogue in Baku. Nazarian noted the insightful meetings and visits which left her ‘acutely aware of the sensitive nature of Azerbaijan’s position as a potential kingmaker for the cause of religious freedom and unity between the three Abrahamic faiths in the region.’ She expressed hope that religious freedom would also flourish in Azerbaijan’s neighbors in the region,” wrote Tavlarides in his email.

Tavlarides has on many occasions disseminated pro-Azerbaijan articles on behalf of the Embassy, such as a piece by Hoffman in the JNS, titled “Azerbaijani national hero provides a paradigm for Jewish-Muslim relations.” On numerous other instances, Tavlarides sent out the links to articles, official Azerbaijani statements, “resources,” factsheets (including an Oct. 5 email), press releases, the pro-Azerbaijan statements of various organizations and politicians, and tweets such as one sent out by Israel’s Ambassador to the US touting Azerbaijan as a beacon of religious tolerance, as well as another one by Luke Coffey, director of Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation, critical of Armenia and Armenians.

In a turn from the cynical to the absurd, Tavlarides also disseminated a link to an episode of the CBS show “Seal Team,” which depicts the fictional “support of elite US forces to help protect an Azerbaijani power plant from a potential attack by Armenian loyalists, Shiite militia, or foreign powers looking to reduce American influence in the region.” Tavlarides went on to stress that “The scene emphasizes the strategic role of Azerbaijan as ‘our only ally in the Caspian Sea and a deterrent to unaligned powers in the area.’”

Azerbaijan paid BGR $510,000 in 2019, $600,000 in 2018, and $490,000 in 2017.

The Case of Brenda Shaffer

In 2015, Till Bruckner of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) published a piece titled, “How to Build Yourself a Stealth Lobbyist, Azerbaijani Style.” The focus of the article is Brenda Shaffer, a visiting researcher and adjunct professor at Georgetown University, a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center, professor at the University of Haifa, and former head of the Caspian Studies Program at Harvard, which was funded by the Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce. Bruckner discusses Shaffer’s various activities and lays out her myriad connections with Azerbaijan’s lobbyists, including her role as adviser to the State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR).

According to Bruckner, Shaffer’s activities included testifying before the House of Representatives’ Committee on International Relations, contributing to various DC think tanks (including a panel discussion on Azerbaijan, hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, during which she reportedly praised the country’s “vibrant press”), and writing numerous op-eds for US and Israeli news outlets. She was often consulted on matters relating to Azerbaijan—whether by the media or US officials.

“Supported by an overseas regime and an assorted network of overt and undercover lobbyists, she used oil money to build her academic credentials, then in turn used those credentials to promote Azerbaijan’s agendas through Congressional testimony, dozens of newspaper op-eds and media appearances, countless think tank events, and even scholarly publications,” wrote Bruckner.

In a 2006 Harper’s Magazine piece titled “Academics for Hire,” journalist Ken Silverstein wrote, “Caspian watchers beware: the next time you see or hear an ‘independent’ American expert talking about how the region’s rulers are implementing bold reforms, check the expert’s credentials to see just how independent he or she truly is.”

After inquiries by Bruckner, some newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post added disclaimers under Shaffer’s articles, disclosing her roles and ties to SOCAR. Others did not.

Shaffer continues to publish op-eds on the subject. For instance, on Oct. 14, JNS ran a piece by Sean Savage titled, “How the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict could impact Israel’s regional strategic landscape.”

“Israel and Azerbaijan maintain a strategic alliance. It is not just about arms sales or oil, but a very deep strategic cooperation,” she told JNS, adding, “Israel has friendly ties with the Armenian people and is home to a vibrant Armenian community. On strategic issues, however, the two states are on different sides. Armenia has close cooperation with Iran, and much of the military supplies to Armenia today transit Iranian territory.”

Shaffer’s credentials were left as “a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.” The JNS piece was reprinted in multiple outlets.

Armenian Americans Fight Back

The ANCA, the Armenian Assembly and many concerned Armenian Americans have been vocal with their efforts to pressure lobbyists to back down and terminate their contracts, as Foreign Lobby’s Pecquet reports. “Already over the weekend, the Armenian diaspora bombarded the S-3 Group with more than a thousand emails with an identical message pressuring the Washington public affairs firm to stop representing a new client from Azerbaijan (Foreign Lobby Report was copied on the emails),” wrote Pecquet, adding, “The firm recently picked up a Baku-based company called Investment Corporation, LLC for $25,000 per month to ‘create and place earned and digital media to further diplomacy.’… The diaspora letter, which you can read in its entirety here, describes S-3’s client as a ‘thinly veiled front for the Government of Azerbaijan through a proxy shell corporation.’”

The Livingston Group terminated its contract with the government of Azerbaijan on Oct. 13. Pecquet notes that this came three months after the lobby group informed the DOJ that it was negotiating another contract with Baku. Pecquet also reported that DLA Piper, a lobby group working for the state-owned Azerbaijan Railways CJSC, terminated its contract on Oct. 19. DLA Piper was contracted to “provide the foreign principal with legal advice and assistance relating to U.S. sanctions on Iran that affect the transport of oil, gas, and other petrochemical products that originate in third countries and that transit through Iran.”

Meanwhile, the lobbying firm Mercury Public Affairs cut its ties with Turkey on Oct. 23, after pressure from the Armenian American community. The decision came following protests led by the ANCA and the Armenian Assembly outside the firm’s offices, as well as pressure from current clients like Los Angeles County, California State Assembly, and Los Angeles Community College District representatives, reported Politico.

“A lot of people have bought a lot of summer homes and fishing boats and put their grandkids through college by lying about Armenia and covering up for Azerbaijan,” ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian told Politico.

Hamparian said that BGR was next on the list.

Fact: Baku Aims to Vilify Armenians through US Media 

Some of the articles disseminated by these lobby groups employed by Azerbaijan cross-link with others written by authors like Bogner, desperately trying to paint Armenia as a threat like Iran, and Armenians as anti-Semites. Reading these articles, one might not even realize that there is a Jewish community in Armenia as well, and they too have spoken up (See Lara Setrakian’s article in Haaretz titled, “’I’m Jewish and Armenian. Israeli Weapons Are Killing My People”). Their existence is not weaponized in western media by either Armenians or the Armenian government.

In all this, it is clear that Azerbaijan’s smear campaign against Armenia relies on those two tales: Armenia is dangerous; and Armenians are intolerant and anti-Semitic. The basic calculations run something like this: Israel is good; Iran is bad; Armenia is to Azerbaijan what Iran is to Israel; therefore, Armenia must be bad, and Azerbaijan must be good; and furthermore, Israel and Azerbaijan must stand united, while Iran and Armenia are the enemy and must be sanctioned. These are the points that are being pushed by Baku’s lobbyists to elicit an unfavorable public perception of Armenia and Armenians. Their aim is to vilify Armenians worldwide. The sheer number of articles pushing this narrative is astounding. Some of them are paid for and disseminated by Azerbaijan’s lobbyists, and published without any disclaimers to highlight that fact. The propaganda is so blatant that one wonders how anyone—whether readers or editors—could take any of these pieces seriously.

However, the responsibility to vet and flag such articles falls squarely at the feet of editors. By publishing articles without the appropriate scrutiny and disclaimers, editors are complicit in the disinformation campaign and agents of Baku’s information war. Mercenaries and lobbyists are motivated by Aliyev’s petro-dollars. One can only hope that editors are driven by the pursuit of truth; and those who are not should consider sending their resumes to the Azerbaijani Embassy in DC.

Author’s note: I’d like to thank Khatchig Mouradian for his feedback. This article does not deal with the activities of lobby groups working on behalf of Turkey, or the financial contributions of Azerbaijan’s lobby groups to US politicians running for office, or other activities and outreach efforts (such as the Oct. 2 Zoom session with Amb. Suleymanov and congressional staff hosted by BGR), as they are outside the scope of this piece. Those interested can read more about Azerbaijan’s lobbying efforts at Opensecrets.org, a website that tracks developments in the shady lobbying world. 

Author information

Nanore Barsoumian

Nanore Barsoumian was the editor of the Armenian Weekly from 2014 to 2016. She served as assistant editor of the Armenian Weekly from 2010 to 2014. Her writings focus on human rights, politics, poverty, and environmental and gender issues. She has reported from Armenia, Nagorno-Karabagh, Javakhk and Turkey. She earned her B.A. degree in Political Science and English and her M.A. in Conflict Resolution from the University of Massachusetts (Boston).

| Twitter |

The post What’s Behind All the Pro-Azerbaijan Articles? appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

BERDZOR, Kashatagh Province, October 20—Dusk. Usually, this is a lovely time to drive through the Lachin Corridor—that vital patch of land linking Artsakh to Armenia. From the reddish hues of Syunik’s plateaus to the west, to the serpentine paths toward Shushi to the east; from the thinly lit houses dotting the hills around us, to the nearby rushing waters of the Aghavno River, this place has always been special…especially at dusk. This is due to the landscape, yes, but also to the experience it reveals. Over the past 17 years, dusk for me has marked the end of a hardworking day navigating Kashatagh’s rough terrain in the ongoing drive to resettle and develop this strategic borderland, one that ensures Artsakh’s precious security.

But on this occasion, dusk also carries an ominous uncertainty. For while I’ve experienced war before, war has never been like this. Now, war means not only snipers and ground troops, but long-range missiles that have already damaged the corridor’s main bridge, forcing us to drive slowly and carefully through off-roads leading to safety. It is a quiet ride, as we are cognizant of the ever-present threat of combat drones that could blow us to bits without warning, as they already did to some of our colleagues and compatriots. It is an eerie feeling, marked by a weird combination of urgency and trepidation. Like so many others here, I now feel I am in uncharted territory.

Fortunately, I am not alone. I am here accompanying my wife Maro, her colleague Nova, and Gor, a Defense Ministry liaison. We have been distributing food packages to our fighters, service personnel and civilians throughout the border regions. Among the four of us, I am possibly the least brave. Indeed, Maro had jumped at the opportunity to assist the region’s villagers, many of whom she knows personally and longs to help. Frankly, she is more worried about me catching coronavirus than any Azeri attack! Meanwhile Nova, already outraged by the atrocities committed on our civilians, seems ready to pounce on the first enemy he lays eyes on. But the real treat is Gor, who has regaled us with fresh stories of the heroic defense of Hadrut, Artsakh’s southern fortress, in which Armenians performed a stunning turnaround, driving Azeri attackers back down toward the Arax River.

Here is a feeling of courage-overcoming-despair, and it is all around us, reinforced by the striking personalities we’ve met during our day’s trek. Most striking was that of Dr. Lusine, head doctor at Ishkhanadzor’s clinic—since converted into a field hospital for our soldiers and the wounded. With her usual energy and forthrightness (plus a revolver on her person), she seemed tough and prepared for anything. And yet simultaneously, she expressed such warmth, courtesy and gratitude when we arrived with the needed assistance. Her demeanor reinforced the notion that Artsakhtsis, in times of peace, are the friendliest, most relaxed people. But in times of war they are ferocious and unsparing.

Dr. Lusine’s attitude seemed to reflect a larger tendency among people here. Even as rockets could be heard overhead, we almost never felt panic from those we met. Indeed, on the day we came, some villages were ordered to evacuate, and they did so, mostly in orderly fashion, guided calmly by the authorities, understanding that the move is meant to be temporary while we give wide berth to our fighters who are securing these areas.

Lest we forget, I should mention that Kashatagh’s people are a diverse lot, including settlers from myriad places – some from Armenia’s earthquake zone, others from Baku, some from elsewhere in Artsakh, and most recently, Armenians fleeing Syria. Knowing this diversity, I found it peculiarly appealing to see a “one for all, all for one” attitude on display. Also impressive is the degree of confidence people have shown in their authorities. It is further evidence that this is truly a people’s war, quite unlike the situation across the border. There, the elites of Baku and Ankara seem to need this war for their own cynical purposes, while showing contempt not only for us, but for their own people. Indeed, official Baku has kept most of its population in the dark, in an information blockade, while using young conscripts as cannon fodder, deploying them like waves of ants marching to near-certain death, and then refusing to pick up the dead bodies and bury them. The difference between the sides is stark indeed, marked by many “intangibles”—the subjective factors like fighting spirit, will to survive and knowledge of terrain—that have helped Armenians narrow the odds of a war that seems unwinnable on paper.

As our car gradually inches toward Goris on the other side of the corridor, we look back to see the southern skies light up in a fireworks display, as our air defenses shoot upward in search of the enemy drones that invade our airspace. And as we reach safety at last, we remark on our good fortune, thank our fighters for keeping us safe and vow to return again whenever the need arises. 

Author information

Antranig Kasbarian

Antranig Kasbarian is a former member of the ARF Central Committee, Eastern United States. Over the past 20 years, he has been a lecturer, activist and community leader; he has also worked regularly as a journalist, activist, and researcher in Nagorno-Karabakh. He is a former editor of the Armenian Weekly, and holds a Ph.D. in geography from Rutgers University. He joined the Tufenkian Foundation in 2003, launching its program in Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabagh), and served as its executive director until 2015. He is currently the Director of Development of the Tufenkian Foundation, pursuing a range of charitable/strategic projects in Armenia and Artsakh.

|

The post Securing Artsakh’s Borders: A Never-ending Task appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.