Obama, Putin, think tanks, Azeri gas, Israelis

This was first published in the July 4, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Survey: Obama most, Putin least popular among world’s leaders

America's president is by far the world's most popular leader, according to surveys that were conducted in 20 countries and involved more than 19,000 respondents.

President Barack Obama had the confidence of more than 60 percent of respondents, followed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and German chancellor Angela Merkel with 40 percent each, the only other world leaders whose admirers outnumbered their detractors in the period between April and June of this year, when the studies were conducted.

In the countries surveyed, Mr. Obama enjoyed the least confidence in Palestine, Pakistan, Egypt, Iraq, and Russia, with Turkey's public opinion evenly divided.

Meanwhile, Russian premier Vladimir Putin and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad suffered from the worst negative ratings, at 50 and 49 percent of respondents respectively.

Mr. Putin was most popular in India (65 percent), China (64), and Ukraine (57). And Mr. Ahmadinejad enjoyed the most support in Pakistan (75), Palestine (57), and Nigeria (50).

When calculating worldwide averages, figures from the leaders' own countries were excluded, but both Mr. Putin and Mr. Obama had the confidence of their own publics, at 82 and 62 percent respectively.

DC think tanks: Armenia, ex-USSR backsliding on democracy

Democratic decline in Central Europe and Eurasia was widespread in 2008, according to the Nations in Transit publication released by the Washington-based Freedom House on June 30. Freedom House researchers determined that democracy in 18 of 29 countries studied suffered setbacks.

Among the former Soviet states, Georgia and Ukraine were described as "hybrid regimes" with both democratic and authoritarian tendencies, and Armenia and Moldova as "semi-consolidated authoritarian regimes."

Kyrgyzstan and Russia joined Belarus, Azerbaijan, and other Central Asian countries in a group that Freedom House calls "consolidated authoritarian states." The report singled out "petro-state Azerbaijan," which "recorded the most significant declines" in terms of democratic development.

The researchers determined that perceived democratic gains made in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan following the so-called Rose and Tulip revolutions in 2003 and 2005 were fully reversed by 2008.

Freedom House also criticized international monitors "that issued positive statements about elections in 2008 that were clearly flawed, such as those in Azerbaijan and Armenia."

Another study, released the same day by the Washington-based Brookings Institution and the World Bank, looked at evolution of democracy, governance, and corruption in 212 countries and territories between 1998 and 2008.

According to Worldwide Governance Indicators, Armenia has been backsliding in one of the six categories studied, "voice and accountability," reflecting problematic handling of elections.

Varying degrees of progress were noted in five other areas studied, including political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption.

Russia clinches Azerbaijan gas supplies

Ilham Aliyev and Dmitry Medvedev in Baku on June 29, 2009. ITAR-TASS

On June 29 Russian president Dmitry Medvedev paid a previously unscheduled three-hour visit to Azerbaijan, whose leader agreed to begin to sell natural gas to Russia, news agencies reported.

The initial supplies would be a modest 500 million cubic meters in 2010, but Russia expects the volumes to increase as more Azerbaijani natural gas becomes available for export in 2013. Azerbaijan already exports natural gas to Georgia, Turkey, and Greece.

The move was seen by analysts as a Russian success in a diplomatic tug-of-war, as Moscow seeks to maintain its dominance as Europe's main natural-gas supplier. As part of that effort, Russia has been trying to secure natural gas purchase contracts from Central Asian producers.

A reflection of Russian interest was the high price it is willing to pay Azerbaijan for the supplies - $350 for a thousand cubic meters (tcm); by contrast, Azerbaijani gas is sold to Turkey for $120 per tcm.

Earlier this year, European Union pledged funds to facilitate a gas pipeline that would bring it Central Asian gas, including some from Azerbaijan, while bypassing Russia. The so-called Nabucco pipeline also enjoys strong support from the United States, but has been hampered by a lack of commitment by Turkmenistan and transit issues with Turkey.

Also this week, the prime minister of Sweden, the EU's incoming president, indicated a postponement in funding for the Eastern Partnership program, citing economic difficulties. The program includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine.

Israel, Azerbaijan to step up military cooperation

An Israeli company will launch production of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in Azerbaijan, and the two countries will cooperate in other military areas, including satellite technology, Azerbaijani news agencies reported. The deals were reportedly finalized as Israeli President Shimon Peres visited Azerbaijan on June 28-29.

Since the opening of the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline in 2006, Azerbaijan became one of the largest crude-oil suppliers to Israel. Israel has in turn emerged as a major arms supplier to Azerbaijan. Supplies have already including artillery systems, communications equipment, and UAVs.

Although Azerbaijan continues to threaten a military confrontation with Armenia, and during his visit Mr. Peres reportedly promised that Israel and the Jewish Diaspora "will do all [they] can to support Azerbaijan's territorial integrity," there was no immediate reaction from Armenia.

Mr. Peres' visit took place despite open opposition expressed by senior Iranian officials. And street protests in Baku were quickly dispersed by police. Still, according to the Islam.ru news service, officials decided not to hoist flags of the visiting leader's country around Baku, as they customarily do, apparently wary of incidents.

Coming up: Horserace diplomacy?

On July 6–8, President Barack Obama will visit Russia for talks that are likely to focus on Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea, but might also include discussion of Caucasus concerns.

On July 18, the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents may hold another meeting in Moscow, as both are expected to attend an annual horserace sponsored by the Russian president.

And on July 20–24, Vice President Joe Biden plans to travel to Ukraine and Georgia.

Armenians targeted in Ukraine incident

The knifing death of Sergei Bondarenko (pictured) was followed by anti-Armenian reprisals in a small Ukrainain town. Photo from Marganets.in.ua

A drunken argument deteriorated into a fight that left a local young man dead in the small town of Marganets in Ukraine's Dnepropetrovsk province.

Alla Arakelova, a lawyer for the Ukrainian-Armenian community, told Ukraine's TSN television that the June 29 incident was followed by acts of reprisal against ethnic Armenian families that forced them to flee Marganets for nearby towns. Special police forces along with Ukraine's police chief arrived in Marganets to calm the tensions.

According to TV reports, many of the local residents demanded that ethnic Armenians - all of whom are reportedly Ukrainian citizens - be expelled and the town mayor promised to check if anyone became a Marganets resident "illegally."

Armenians reportedly began to settle in the small mining town after the 1988 earthquake, while both Armenia and Ukraine were still part of USSR, but more arrived from Armenia in subsequent years, with the community numbering 50 families.

Since the Soviet collapse, ethnic Armenians along with other natives of Caucasus and Central Asia have emigrated in large numbers to Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus; in recent years they have increasingly been targeted in xenophobic attacks.

According to reports in Russian media, almost exactly a year earlier, on June 13, 2008, a similar drunken squabble in an Armenian-owned café in the small town of Verkhneuralsk in Russia's Chelyabinsk province resulted in massive fight that left an ethnic Russian dead and several others injured.

Gagik Mkhitarian, a Chelyabinsk representative for the Union of Armenians of Russia, was quoted at the time as saying that an initial fight was followed by vandalism against Armenian-owned businesses and several Armenian families leaving the town for fear of attacks. - E.S.

Obama aid request, Lavrov in DC, Davutoglu and Knesset news

This was first published in May 9, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Obama’s Armenia aid request: less than Congress, more than Bush

In his first budget proposal to Congress detailed on May 7, President Barack Obama largely continued George W. Bush's policy of requesting a reduction in U.S. assistance to Armenia.

The Obama administration requested $30 million in aid to Armenia in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget, down from $48 million allocated by Congress in 2009 and $58 million in 2008. However, the request is larger than the $24 million requested by the Bush administration in January 2008 before that amount was doubled by congressional appropriators.

The request also suggested $3.45 million in military aid to Armenia and $4.9 million requested for Azerbaijan, an approach long criticized and repeatedly revised by Congress. Azerbaijan would also get $22.12 million in non-military aid, up from less than $19 million spent in 2008–9.

Congressional appropriators can significantly alter these figures later in the budget process.

Last March, co-chairs of the congressional Armenian caucus Reps. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) and Mark Kirk (R.-Ill.) already made their Armenia aid recommendations, including $70 million in economic and $5 million in military aid, and a further $10 million for Nagorno-Karabakh.

The administration also requested a total of more than $322 million in aid to Georgia. This includes $80 million in regular military and non-military aid for 2010, and the rest in 2009 supplemental assistance in furtherance of $1 billion in U.S. aid promised after Georgia's brief war with Russia.

Overall, while cutting other programs the administration requested an increase in foreign aid to a total of $36.5 billion, including more than $762 million for former Soviet republics and $1.4 billion in Millennium Challenge programs around the world.

As before, the bulk of foreign military funding will go to Israel ($2.775 billion) and Egypt ($1.3 billion). Afghanistan and Pakistan would get the biggest non-military aid packages, at $2.2 and $1.1 billion, respectively.

U.S., Russia say both want Caucasus stability, but disagree on Georgia

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of Russia met in Washington on May 7 to discuss a long list of issues on U.S.-Russia agenda. Mr. Lavrov was also received by President Barack Obama, who confirmed plans to visit Russia in July.

The meeting was preceded by a fresh row between Russia and U.S.-led NATO over the alliance's military exercise in Georgia that began this week, as well as NATO's expulsion of Russian diplomats amid allegations of spying.

At a joint press conference, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Lavrov both sought to emphasize areas of cooperation, including recently launched strategic arms reduction talks and Middle East priorities such talks with Iran and efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

Mr. Lavrov said the South Caucasus was among the issues discussed and that while the United States and Russia continued to "have obvious differences" they agreed on "need to do [their] best in order to achieve stability there."

The NATO exercise in Georgia went ahead despite reports of a mutiny in one of the Georgian military units, which the Tbilisi government claimed was attempted by military officers and former officials who had served under ex-President Eduard Shevardnadze (1992–2003).

Mr. Shevardnadze, who was ousted by current president Mikheil Saakashvili, has in recent months been criticizing his successor with increased frequency.

Following reports of mutiny, which the government said it was able to quickly diffuse by arresting dozens of suspects, opposition groups clashed with police for the first time since they launched a thus-far unsuccessful campaign to oust Mr. Saakashvili nearly a month ago.

On May 7, in a move long encouraged by the U.S. government, opposition parties issued a statement saying they were ready to meet with Mr. Saakashvili in a bid to avoid further confrontation.

Turkish government ideologue appointed foreign minister

Ahmet Davutoglu formally replaced Ali Babacan as Turkish foreign minister in a cabinet reshuffle announced on May 1. As top foreign policy advisor to Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Mr. Davutoglu has been credited with masterminding the Turkish foreign policy that has seen Ankara become more independent of Washington and improve relations with Russia, Iran, and Syria.

Prior to joining the government in 2003, Mr. Davutoglu, was a professor of international relations at several Istanbul universities. He was born in 1959 in central Turkish city of Konya.

Mr. Davutoglu has argued that better relations with neighbors would allow Turkey to play a more prominent and independent international role rather than serve as Cold War-style Western ally.

During a visit to Washington last October Mr. Davutoglu insisted that Turkey wants "to have best relations with Armenia," and "good relations" with Armenians everywhere in the Diaspora, and that he and his government "don't see Armenia as a threat; we don't see Armenians as enemies."

Israeli Knesset revisits Armenian Genocide

"We have a moral duty to remember the killing of Armenians," a spokesperson for the rightwing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, on May 6, Yediot Aharanot newspaper reported the same day.

But like his predecessors, Gilad Erdan relayed the government's opposition to commemoration of the Armenian Genocide in the Knesset, deferring to Turkey's position on the issue.

"Israel has never denied the terrible acts carried out against the Armenians," Mr. Erdan added. "And I am well aware of the intensity of the emotions given the number of victims and the suffering of the Armenian people."

The debate took place in the Knesset House Committee on the urging of veteran Knesset member Haim Oron who heads the small leftwing Meretz party and has championed the issue for years.

Interviewed by PanArmenian.Net, another supporter of Genocide affirmation in the Knesset Ze'ev Elkin suggested the time has not yet come for a formal decision by the Knesset. Since the last election, Mr. Elkin became the leader of the ruling coalition in the parliament. [See my earlier interview with him.]

Humanizing the other side: Interview with Alex Avakian

This was first publised the March 7, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Photographer Alexandra Avakian seeks to “humanize the other side”
She has worked in some of the world’s most violent places

Alexandra Avakian has been a National Geographic photographer since 1995. Armenia, Gaza, Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Muslims in the United States have been among her assignments. From 1988 to 1996 she worked for Life, Time, and the New York Times Magazine, covering conflicts in Africa, the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union, including the 1988 earthquake in Armenia and the war in Karabakh.

Ms. Avakian recently released a book, Windows of the Soul: My Journeys in the Muslim World, published by Focal Point / National Geographic. She completed it while she successfully battled breast cancer. The book includes a chapter on the former USSR, including a number of photos from Karabakh. She spoke about her work with Washington Editor Emil Sanamyan on February 13.

Professional roots

Armenian Reporter: What brought you to photography?

Alexandra Avakian: By the time I graduated from college, I was already very advanced, soon became a professional, and got my first paid job at Newsweek. And one of the most important reasons is my dad.

Ms. Avakian produces the November 1969 issue of Life magazine (“I just bought it on E-bay”) featuring the work of her father, the late Aram Avakian, a filmmaker best known for his 1969 film End of the Road. The article includes a picture of Ms. Avakian’s mother, actress Dorothy Tristan, and of Alexandra herself.

And the family’s artistic prominence by no means ends there. Aram’s brother George Avakian is a jazz music producer who was honored with a Grammy award on February 7.

Avakian: My dad taught me how to tell stories through pictures from the time I was very, very young. He sat me down on his lap as he was editing a movie, and he would say, “Here is where you cut the story and this is why.” And he would let me make the cut.

I would draw him a story on a blank strip of film that he would run through a Moviola, so that I could see the product. Photography was a way of expressing myself since the time I was very young.

By the time I finished college in 1983, I already had a portfolio of my work in Manhattan. And that was another thing, since I was born in New York City, I didn’t really have to go far to begin working for top magazines.

AR: And how did you end up going that far away from home?

Avakian: Already in college I was very fascinated by revolution and fights for freedom and how far people would go to be free. And it did not have anything to do with ideology.

I covered the Berlin Wall fall [in 1989] and ended up living in Moscow [from 1990 to 1992] during the fall of the Soviet Union, and I was fascinated with all these republics spinning away and what they were doing.

The other important thing that influenced my work deeply is my Armenian heritage. Like many Armenians, my family fled many terrible things, survived many horrors, and that led me to engage in world events and cover people’s suffering.

Learning what my family went through was the ultimate lesson in empathy for others. And working in regions my family had lived in was a way of reaching my ancestors and relatives who have passed and can no longer speak to me and tell me what it was like to live through these things. I felt the need to understand what human beings do to one another and why, and what it is like to be in the shoes of a refugee woman trying to escape with her children.

The strange and awful times in Armenia

AR: You went to Armenia following the earthquake in December 1988.…

Avakian: I did. We were on a family vacation in Egypt. And when I heard [the news] I felt I could never forgive myself if I did not get on the plane and go.

So, I went to the Soviet Embassy and there was an ethnic Armenian diplomat there. And I nagged him, “Please, I am an Armenian, I have got to go.” And he said, “You need an invitation [to go into USSR] but just go.”

When asked if the diplomat in question was the current foreign minister of Armenia, Edward Nalbandian, who worked for the Soviet Embassy in Egypt at the time, Ms. Avakian says: “You are probably right, but that was a long time ago.”

“It is interesting how many people who became well-known Armenians I met over the years while at work,” she adds later. “I met Robert Kocharian while he was organizing a protest in the Stepanakert street in 1989. And Arkady Ghukasian and I worked side by side on the front line when he was a war reporter in 1992.”

So he gave me a visa and I went, and I landed in Moscow, and I could never have imagined myself in that place. I was wearing very light clothing and it was snowing. I could not get a hotel room because I did not have an invitation.

But I had already been working for Time and Life magazines a lot and by the time I arrived in Moscow, I had an assignment to cover the earthquake. I went to their [Moscow] bureau, not realizing at the time that my life would center on that bureau and the former USSR for the next four years.

It took me a while to get permission to get out to Armenia. In the meantime, I photographed children evacuated from Armenia to Moscow and camped out at government buildings there.

Eventually, I went to Armenia for a month and lived with Armenian doctors from MSF [Doctors without Borders] in a broken-down school in Leninakan, now Gyumri.

It was a strange and awful time.

When I first arrived our plane had to land in Georgia because of the weather – I think a plane had just crashed trying to land in Armenia – and we drove in.

The first place we stopped was Spitak, and there were these trenches for the coffins. It was extremely difficult. To see people suffer is difficult enough and that was in a country where I have roots.

I saw very moving and very surprising things. Like in a war, [in a major calamity] you see the seemingly weak become strong and strong become weak; I saw a lot of that. ¬ere were villages where people were looking after one another and villages where aid trucks were attacked.

After covering the earthquake area, Time magazine had me stay on to cover some of the skirmishes on the border with Azerbaijan [in early 1989]. It was in the Kapan area [in southern Armenia].

There were these villagers mostly with hunting rifles and some with Kalashnikovs patrolling the area. I stayed at the home of one of their grandmothers, who was a very classic Armenian lady.

And then, being based in Moscow, I kept coming back to Armenia. But I also went to the Baltic states, Central Asia, and to Georgia and covered the wars there. (In fact, my grandmother was an Armenian from Tbilisi, whereas my grandfather was from an Armenian village in northwestern Iran.)

AR: When did you cover the Karabakh war?

Avakian: I got out there five or six times during the war and afterward as well.

The first time I really covered Karabakh was for the New York Times with Bill Keller in August 1989. We arrived in Baku – it was still possible for me to do this in the Soviet period – and we went by train to Aghdam and then to Shushi and Stepanakert.

There was not an out-and-out war yet. Armenians and Azeris were fighting village to village. [The Soviet envoy] Arkady Volsky was still in [charge of Karabakh] and Soviet troops were very much there.

The next time I went in March 1992. Things got really intense by then. My Armenian colleagues in Yerevan discouraged me from going, but I again really felt like I had to go. In the end they gave me a bulletproof vest and a map. We took a small plane in that landed like this [makes a corkscrew motion].

AR: What did you see?

Avakian: It was bad. People were losing their minds because they were living underground [in bomb shelters] for so long. 158 or 159 Grad missiles landed on Stepanakert in one day. It was nuts.

It was also fascinating because I got permission to work at the front line in the trenches between Askeran and Aghdam. And it was as wild and out of control as wars get.

I went to one of the exchanges, where prisoners, civilians, as well as bodies were traded. And as we were driving away a shell flew right over the hood of the Armenian commander’s car we were in. ¬

They tried to kill us. And it was not the guys with whom the trade was done because their commander was actually a friend of the Armenian commander’s. And you could tell the shell came from another direction.

I could no longer cross the line to the Azeri side – it was impossible at that time. And in fact it was not possible for a while before and after. As a journalist you want to reach the other side but it was just not possible [because of my Armenian background].

Windows of the Soul is not about Armenia – that I will get to, perhaps when I do a book on the fall of Communism or something – but I decided to include Karabakh.

The last time I went to Karabakh was in 2003 when I did a story on Armenia for National Geographic.
I guess I have been to Armenia 15 times all together.

AR: And how did Armenia strike you that time?

Avakian: The previous time I went was in 1994, shortly after the cease-fire, so there was a big difference. But there were three things that were challenging for Armenia.

In Gyumri, there were still people living in a bad situation in makeshift housing. There were so many Armenian men going to work in Russia, leaving women and children alone. And something that former Soviet republics have difficulty focusing on with all the other problems – the environmental issues, like industrial waste.

But it was a much happier time and I really felt the country was really healing at that time.

Importance of mutual respect

AR: You worked in Iran – covering Ayatollah Khomeini’s funeral in 1988 and again later – and you worked with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Was it especially challenging for a woman?

Avakian: I had to wear extremely strict hijab (modest dress with head covering) in 1988. Now it is much looser, you can show more hair, but then it was really strict. It was never my role to challenge those mores at all. For me wearing a scarf was like having a passport. And when I wear it, I am treated with respect and people know that I respect their culture. And I am happy about that.

There is a chapter in the book about Muslim-Americans. I spent almost two years with them after the September 11 attacks. In one of the assignments, I photographed the Muslim population of Graterford prison in Pennsylvania – some 800 inmates, mostly African-Americans – they are mainstream Sunni Muslims and just a few Nation of Islam guys.

It was a maximum-security facility, a lot of [people] sentenced to life in prison. But when I went in, even though it is America, I went in full Islamic dress to show respect to the Muslim elders at the prison. I was coming to ask them if I could photograph their Friday prayers.

And they were very welcoming to me. Moreover, they protected me in this very dangerous facility, because when you are deep inside a prison like that there are no armed guards around.

World’s least frequented places

AR: What was the most dangerous place that you have been to?

Avakian: There are different levels of danger.

Living in Gaza, anything could happen any time. I was shot at by an Israeli sniper and beaten bloody by Hamas just doing my job. It was at the time of riots against Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian authority.

[In the latter case] I had to go the Hamas sheikh in the area that I lived in to complain, because I could not be beaten like that and continue living in that place. And the next day they ordered from the minarets that journalists are not to be attacked.

Somalia definitely was most dangerous in terms of going from place A to place B. You could not do it without bodyguards. ¬They could kill you for a can of coke, your sunglasses, or nothing. I was there for five months and people were dying from starvation all around and clans were fighting each other.

In the book there is a story about a 12-year-old boy trying to kill me. For nothing. His gun was practically as big as he was. And I yelled at him, “I could be your mother.” And other gunmen around actually took his gun away from him. It was a gamble, but it turned out OK.

AR: And how was southern Sudan? How did you even get in there?

Avakian: I was in Nairobi, Kenya, and wanted to cover Sudan, where the famine was getting worse. With a few journalist friends we rented a little plane, with Time magazine and Reuters splitting the costs.

We went and spent some time in Ayod, this tragic village with the Irish aid group Concern. ¬The people were starving to death there in large numbers. And the axle on the plane breaks as it hits a hole in the earthen landing strip on takeoff and we wait for another plane.

And then we fly to this other village, Yuai, to photograph the rebel chief and his guerilla fighters. The writers, including the Time correspondent, did their interviews and they said “we are done” straight after they finished their interview with the commander.

And the United Nations [people] said, “we are done too,” because they could not operate anymore with the front line getting so close. All the aid agencies left and I stayed along with two other journalists because I did not have my story yet. (In addition to starving civilians I needed to cover the rebels.)

I finally got out of there after being stranded with no way out after my work was done, when an aid plane dropped some bags of food and I jumped aboard. But all the people of that village were massacred a couple of weeks later if they were too weak to run. I can never forget them.

From violence to dialogue

Now, for many years I no longer cover open conflicts. By the time National Geographic first hired me in 1995 I felt I was really done. I had seen too many funerals and I felt lucky to be in one piece.

But before that, [covering conflicts] was my job and my calling. Starting with the Haitian uprising against Jean-Claude Duvalier in 1986 and through 1995, I was covering conflicts.

But I am still interested in revolutions and revolutionary societies are fascinating. And I love culture. I am always interested in covering the other side.

Iran, for example, is fascinating for all those reasons. It is a very old culture, by now also an old revolution and also a long-time enemy of the United States.

It is very interesting to go to the other side and capture the humanity of people. How they get up in the morning and have breakfast. How they dress. How they worship, whatever their religion. All these things humanize the other side and this is especially important in a post 9/11 world of deep misunderstandings. Because then I feel like there is a chance for dialogue.

AR: The recently elected President Barack Obama has been talking about the need for dialogue with the Muslim world. Having spent so much time in that world, what advice can you offer?

Avakian: I am not an advocate. I always try to cover both sides. I think that is my duty as a reporter. What I think I have learned is that all over the world people want to feed their families, they want freedom of speech and security, they want respect. ¬This is what all people share.

Now, looking back at the many conflict areas I covered it seems economics are at the root of many conflicts. People need to have an opportunity to make a living, to protect their families, and to build a decent life.

Alexandra Avakian is a senior member of the prestigious Contact Press Images, N.Y. photo agency. For Avakian’s National Geographic blog, book, gallery, bio and more visit:
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/photography/windowsofthesoul

Israeli elections and Armenia's friends

This was first published in February 21, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Armenia’s Israeli friends re-elected to Knesset
by Emil Sanamyan

Ze'ev Elkin, left, with Bibi Netanyahu during the election campaign

Washington, - Following general elections on February 10, the Israeli political scene remains deadlocked, with no one party or bloc enjoying a majority in the nation's Knesset.

Media reports suggest that former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the right-of-center Likud party is most likely to lead the next government, which might also include his main rival, outgoing foreign minister Tsipi Livni of the centrist Kadima party. On February 19 Mr. Netanyahu won the support of two right-wing parties that won the third and fifth largest shares of seats in the parliament.

Among those re-elected is co-chair of the Israel-Armenia parliamentary friendship group, Ze'ev Elkin, now with Likud. Mr. Elkin was elected to the Knesset in 2006 on the Kadima list, but left the party over its support for a Palestinian state. Last year, Mr. Elkin sought to raise the long-taboo subject of the Armenian Genocide in the Knesset. (See an interview with him in the April 12, 2008, issue of the Armenian Reporter.)

Also re-elected was Chaim Oron, veteran politician and leader of a small leftist Meretz party, who has long championed Armenian Genocide affirmation efforts.

Among those not re-elected was Yosef Shagal, a lobbyist for Azerbaijan who, following several public embarrassments, was dropped from the list of the Yisrael Beitenu party of Avigdor Lieberman.

Erdogan spars with Peres at Davos

This was first published in February 7, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Erdogan’s verbal assault pits Turkey against Israel
Armenian Genocide recognition seen as leverage
by Emil Sanamyan

Washington, - Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's public squabble with Israeli president Shimon Peres was welcomed in Turkey and the rest of the Middle East, but created anxiety in Israel and the United States.

During a January 29 panel discussion at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Mr. Erdogan became increasingly agitated as Mr. Peres defended the recent Israeli military action against Palestinians in Gaza. During his speech, the Israeli president raised his voice and pointed his finger at Mr. Erdogan, who had earlier condemned Israeli action as a "crime against humanity."

In response Mr. Erdogan angrily described Israeli leaders as murderers and sadists.

"When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill," he told Mr. Peres. "I know very well how you killed children on the beaches. Two of Israel's prime ministers personally told me that they felt happy when they [invaded] Gaza."

The Turkish leader condemned those present for applauding Mr. Peres and stormed out. The packed audience at the forum included a number of foreign officials, including Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to President Barack Obama.

"New World leader" who "humiliated the Zionists"

Thousands of Turks welcomed Mr. Erdogan as he arrived at Istanbul airport in the early hours of January 30. Waving Turkish and Palestinian flags, crowds held signs that read "welcome conqueror of Davos" and "a new world leader," according to the Jamestown Foundation's summary of Turkish TV and press reports.

"I only know that I'm responsible for protecting the honor of the Turkish Republic, the Turkish nation from A to Z," Mr. Erdogan said at the airport, the New York Times reported. "It was a matter of my country's respect and prestige. I couldn't have allowed anyone to hurt the prestige and especially the honor of my country."

Leader of Turkish ultra-nationalists Devlet Bahceli praised Mr. Erdogan, expressing hope that his assertive tone would also be reflected in dealing with Kurds and "relations with Armenians against the so-called genocide claims."

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad chimed in, welcoming the Turkish premier's demarche, saying it "humiliated the Zionists" and "disgraced" Israel, Press TV reported. One of the Iranian ayatollahs suggested that Mr. Erdogan deserved a Nobel Peace Prize for his activism.

But Artak Shakarian, an Armenian expert on Turkey, argued that Mr. Erdogan's rhetoric was meant in part to sideline Iran and position Turkey as the "leading defender of the Muslim world," Regnum news agency reported on February 2.

And Cengiz Candar, a Turkish expert on the Middle East, told Radikal newspaper that Turkey gained "moral leadership" in the region, even though the region's Arab leaders themselves appeared to be less than thrilled with Mr. Erdogan's rhetoric.

Victim of "biased" moderation

In a press conference after the panel and before departing Switzerland, Mr. Erdogan stressed that he condemned anti-Semitism and that he had no intention to sever Israel-Turkish ties.

Instead, Mr. Erdogan channeled his anger toward the panel's moderator, David Ignatius of the Washington Post, complaining that he had allocated less time to him than to Mr. Peres.

Several Turkish and Azerbaijani media outlets focused on Mr. Ignatius's ethnicity.

Azeri Press Agency (APA) ran a short story with the revealing headline, "Moderator of panel cutting Erdogan off is of Armenian origin." In tortured English APA alleged that "Ignatius [was] supporting so-called Armenian genocide did not want his nationality was on the agenda. He bewares of opinions casting shadow upon his objectivity."

One of the leading Turkish newspapers, Hurriyet, suggested that Mr. Ignatius was in cahoots with the "Armenian lobby" and described him as "Jewish American journalist of Armenian descent."

The latter description is not surprising since, according to a recent opinion poll, a significant portion of Turks believe that Armenians are of Jewish faith, and Turkish nationalists tend to target both Jews and Armenians.

(In reality, Mr. Ignatius is of Armenian descent and has written about it. His father Paul Ignatius, born Poghos Ignatosian to a family of immigrants from Kharpert, served as Secretary of the Navy in the late 1960s and was president of the Washington Post.)

Misunderstood "friend of Israel"

In aftermath of the incident both Turkish and Israeli officials were at pains to suggest that nothing extraordinary had happened.

Israel's ambassador to Turkey, Gabby Levy, was quoted on Turkish television as saying: "There can be a difference in opinion between close, friendly countries from time to time, and we, Turkey and Israel, especially have different views on Hamas and Iran."

Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League repeated the argument to the Jerusalem Post, saying cooperation would continue despite the "inappropriate harsh statement by the [Turkish] leadership." He told the New York Times that the league had not changed its opposition to the Armenian Genocide bill in Congress.

The Economist noted that "Israel has invariably chosen to turn a deaf ear to Turkey's occasionally fierce rhetoric for the sake of that strategic liaison," recalling that Mr. Erdogan called Israel a "terrorist state" back in 2004. Nevertheless, Turkey and Israel have continued to enjoy growing commercial ties, with more than half a million Israelis vacationing in Turkey last year.

But this time around, a number of Western commentators argued the unprecedented level of mutual rancor undermined Turkey's image as a pro-Western country. Anonymous figures in the Israeli government and Jewish-American groups sought to remind Turkey of potential repercussions.

List of possible punishments

According to the Jerusalem Post, the Israeli Defense Ministry was considering imposing restrictions on types of weapons systems Israel sold to Turkey.

"Just like we don't sell advanced military platforms to Jordan and Egypt [Arab states that signed peace agreements with Israel], we may decide not to sell to Turkey," the newspaper cited a senior defense official as saying.

It also cited a senior diplomatic official as saying that Turkey "lost all credibility as an honest broker" in negotiations between Israel and Syria. And, furthermore, that "there won't be any [Israeli] communication with Erdogan himself. He went too far, and we simply can't trust him again."

And "an official with a leading American Jewish organization" warned that "next time" Jews and Israelis "might not come to Turkey's aid or equivocate quite so much on the issue" of congressional resolutions on the Armenian Genocide.

Similarly, the Economist predicted on January 29, "if anti-Israeli rhetoric in Turkey persists, the Israeli lobby in the United states could hit back by backing a congressional resolution to call the mass killings by Turks of some 1m Armenians ‘genocide'."

The British newspaper further revealed, "the Israelis persuaded the Turks to cancel a proposed essay and drawing contest for schoolchildren to air their feelings of hatred towards Israel [over the war in Gaza].

"Israeli officials were apparently poised to respond by proposing a programme in Israeli schools for discussing the genocide of Armenians by Turks in the first world war."

Gaza, Gazprom and Turkish broadcasts

This was first published in January 10, 2009 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

World reacts to Israel’s attack on Gaza

A firefighter rinsing blood off Gaza street. Reuters photo

Foreign governments issued a mixed reaction Israel's massive assault on the Palestinian-populated Gaza Strip on December 27. More than ten days into the fighting an estimated 660 Palestinians and at least 10 Israelis died in the war.

While the United States endorsed Israel's actions as "defensive," European Union members struggled to present a unified position. French president Nicolas Sarkozy arrived in the region to seek an end to violence in an effort reminiscent to his diplomacy between Russia and Georgia last August.

In Armenia's neighborhood, only Georgia openly sided with Israel, blaming the violence on the Palestinians. Azerbaijan said it backed "Palestinians' aspirations" but stopped short of criticizing Israel; there were a number of anti-Israeli protests in Baku, some broken up by police.

Armenia limited itself to an expression of "concern" over the "tragic events" and a call for an end to violence. According to Armenian media reports, several dozen families from Armenia now living in southern Israeli, particularly the town of Beer Sheba, were affected by the conflict.

Russia called the fighting a "dangerous escalation" and demanded a halt to Israel's offensive.

Turkey's leaders condemned Israeli actions as a "crime against humanity" and there were numerous anti-Israeli protests throughout the country.

Iran threatened to retaliate and Iranian-backed Hezballah forces in Lebanon, which bloodied Israeli forces in the 2006 war, launched several rockets into northern Israel.

Israeli officials said the operation targeted the infrastructure of Gaza's Islamist governing party, which is blamed for attacks launched on Israel from Gaza. Palestinian militant groups say the attacks are in response to continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza.

The attack, which according to Israeli media has been planned for months, came shortly before a general election in Israel in which the ruling moderate coalition is facing a strong challenge from a more hawkish opposition. The Tel Aviv stock market initially gained more than 10 percent on news of war.

In 2005, Israeli forces pulled out from Gaza after a 38-year occupation. Since then the tempo of attacks on Israel from Gaza - mostly by means of rocket launchers and mortars - increased significantly, although a six-month cease-fire from June to December 2008 brought a temporary respite.

According to figures compiled by Canadians for Peace and Justice in the Middle East, 13 Israeli civilians died in rocket attacks from Gaza between 2004 and 2008 (none of the fatalities occurred during the cease-fire). In the same period, and before launching the current campaign, Israeli military strikes killed more than 1,000 Palestinians in Gaza.

Russia, Ukraine in fresh row over natural gas supplies

Charging Ukraine with siphoning off supplies transited through the country to European markets and leaving bills unpaid, the Russian government began to cut off supplies to the former Soviet republic.

The new dispute became public just days after Ukraine signed a charter on strategic partnership with the United States.

Georgia was due to sign a similar agreement with U.S. on January 9. Russian officials already criticized Tbilisi for halting the transit pipeline that supplies the breakaway republic of South Ossetia.

While Georgia began to switch to Azerbaijan-supplied gas, it still relies on Russian supplies. A potential cut in Russian supplies to Georgia would also threaten Armenia, which has relied on its gas reservoir to ride out past interruptions.

By January 7, countries without gas reservoirs or alternative sources of fuel, including Bosnia, Serbia, and Bulgaria, began to experience heating shortages. Other large recipients of Russian gas, including Germany and Turkey, were not immediately affected as Russia increased supplies to them via pipelines that bypass Ukraine.

European Union leaders met and demanded that Russia and Ukraine resolve their disputes to allow the resumption of supplies. Gazprom said on January 8 that it would resume supplies once international observers are deployed to monitor the supplies.

Turkey launches Kurdish-language TV station, plans one in Armenian

Kurdish women listed to shortwave radion near Turkish-Iranian border. AP

In a new public relations push targeting its largest ethnic minority, Turkish state television launched a 24-hour Kurdish-language station on January 1, Turkish and international news agencies reported.

The station TRT-6 is intended to compete with Denmark-based Roj TV, which can be viewed in Turkey via satellite and is sympathetic to Kurdish rebel forces known as the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Prior to the rise of satellite television, Turkey's Kurds relied on Armenia-based Kurdish-language radio.

For decades, Turkey refused to recognize Kurds as an ethnic group and prohibited public use of the Kurdish language. The government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan began to change that with TRT launching its first 30-minute Kurdish-language broadcasts in 2004.

Ahmet Turk, leader of the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party which boycotted TRT-6's launch, suggested that the move intended to strengthen the ruling party's electoral appeal among ethnic Kurds.

According to Turkish press reports carried by Regnum news agency, TRT will begin radio broadcasts in the Armenian language in February and is looking into launching an Armenian-language TV station by late 2009. Turkey would in turn permit TV broadcasts from Armenia.

Scout Tufankjan who photographed Obama and Gaza

Scout Tufankjian followed Obama for two years to create “an eyewitness record”
An interview with the American-Armenian photographer
by Emil Sanamyan
Published: Thursday January 01, 2009

February 23, 2008 in Austin, Texas: "Obama shaking hands" from Yes We Can: Barack Obama's History-Making Presidential Campaign. Scout Tufankjian

Washington, - Armenian-American photographer Scout Tufankjian just published Yes We Can: Barack Obama's History-Making Presidential Campaign (power­House/Melcher Media), which documents her two years covering the campaign. With the first print run of 50,000 sold out, her publisher is preparing a second printing.

A photographer with Polaris Images, Ms. Tufankjian previously worked for several years in the Middle East. She talked about her background and experiences to our Washington Editor Emil ­Sanamyan on December 23.

Family and school

Born in Whitman, Massachusetts, and brought up nearby in Scituate, just south of Boston, Scout Tufankjian went on to get her bachelor's degree in political studies from Yale University in 1998.

ST: My father's family is very typical Armenian. I have a great-grandfather from Harput. My grandmother is somewhat vague in terms where their family comes from. Although relatively recently we found out that her family is from Musaler, which we still need to do more research about because it kind of sounds too good to be true.

We lived too far away from an Armenian church to go on regular basis. As a kid I begged to go to Saturday school, but my parents could not take me because it was more than an hour away.

I lived in Massachusetts until I was eighteen. I went to college in Connecticut and then moved to New York about year and a half after graduating.

AR: Your college degree was in political studies. Was the idea initially to go to law school, as with many Armenians, or do something else?

ST: No, my dad is a lawyer, so I never wanted to go to law school.

I always wanted to do journalism. What always attracted me to journalism is the idea of creating a record. I don't know if that perhaps comes from being Armenian. I remember spending a lot of my childhood telling my non-­Armenian friends about the Genocide that they never heard of.

The idea of creating a record of something you witness has been very important to me.

But since my school did not offer a journalism degree, I majored in political studies with a focus on ethnic conflict and nationalism in kind of an attempt to know more about what is going on in the world rather than simply learn journalistic skills. I thought I could best learn and train [to be a journalist] on the job, having learned about history in classroom.

AR: Did you get to write as a journalist?

ST: I did do some writing in college for a local newspaper, but I already knew I would be doing ­photography. I did school exchange in Northern Ireland, and when I was there, there were riots in the town that I was living in and I photographed them. So immediately I knew this is what I wanted to do.

That was still the predigital world and there was this idea that a ­photograph cannot be argued with (which unfortunately is no longer the case). Plus, I enjoyed photography so much more than writing. So it was 10 years ago that I began photography.

AR: And in 2002 you took some pictures in Armenia...

ST: I was there with my dad and that was just around the time I began working professionally in the Middle East. We spent about two weeks in Armenia and it was pretty great. We called my grandmother who was still alive at the time and she cried.


We had a great time and did touristy things like Lake Sevan, Geghard, Garni, and Khor Virap. But I think we spent most of our time eating.

I want to go back and see more of the country, photograph Lake Sevan. We never made it to Karabakh, which I want to do sometime as well.

Scout in Gaza

First published at www.reporter.am
From 2002 to 2006, Ms. ­Toufankjian worked in the West Bank and in Gaza, where she covered major stories, including the Second Intifada (the Palestinian uprising against Israeli control underway since 2000), Yasser Arafat's death in 2004, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and the Israeli incursion into Gaza in 2006.

ST: At times I would be the only foreign reporter working in Gaza, which is in a way a lot of responsibility.

Culturally, [Palestine] is kind of similar to the Armenian atmosphere, so the place felt familiar and I never felt that foreign there.

But one of the most important things you learn traveling the world is that people everywhere are basically the same. People want the same things. They want their kids to be happy, they want to stay healthy, and they want security.

So I did a lot of stories on life in Gaza and on regular families trying to get by in these crazy situations.

But I loved working [in Gaza] and my plan is to head back this year.

AR: Gaza has this image out of a "Mad Max" film, a very violent and dangerous place. Where did you live?

TS: Depending on the situation with electricity, I would stay at a hotel or rented residence in a relatively secure coastal part of Gaza City. Occasionally Israelis would shut down all power supplies - either by shelling or just cutting off the lines or gas supplies - so I had to live in a hotel with generators because I can do nothing without being able to charge my batteries and my computer.

During the [Israeli] withdrawal I stayed in an apartment in downtown Khan Younis, which is the second largest town in Gaza.

Gaza can be dangerous and certainly because of Israeli air power they can strike anywhere they want at any moment. Air strikes can come at any moment and considering how crowded and densely-populated Gaza is, they can be very devastating.

But not all of Gaza is dangerous at any time. Whenever there is an army incursion that specific area can be intensely dangerous, but even then, 10 blocks from there may be perfectly safe. It is possible if you are extremely careful to avoid the danger.

AR: Sorry for a stupid question, but are there any Armenians living in Gaza?

TS: I keep hearing about this one Armenian guy who sells little airplane bottles of alcohol - which is illegal in Gaza - for about $250 a bottle. I keep trying to track him down because it could make a great story, but because what he does is somewhat illegal I have had a hard time tracking him down.

There had been more families in the recent past, along with a church, but a lot of people had left for the [relatively safer] West Bank or Lebanon or somewhere in the West. A lot of people have left Gaza.

The Obama campaign


In December 2006 Ms. ­Tufankjian was offered an assignment: to photograph the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, doing a book presentation in Manchester, New Hampshire. She was initially reluctant to go, but having gone and met him, she decided to continue to cover the senator who soon after launched his presidential campaign.

AR: What did you know about Sen. Obama before you met him in New Hampshire and what struck you about him?

TS: I read an article about him in the New Yorker and I kind of knew he would be an important figure in American politics at some point. But I did not expect him to be that interesting or compelling. I was expecting just another boring political event that I have seen before.

What struck me about him was not just his personality - and he is definitely a great speaker and was interesting to listen to - but also how people responded to him. People in New Hampshire pride themselves on being cynical about politicians and not being particularly interested in what they have to say. But [at that event] people saw Obama and they were transfixed. They were fascinated by him. It felt like he was a rock star, people were so excited.

Obama seemed smart, young, and believable in a way that I found remarkable compared to most politicians you meet that look kind of alien and having no experience in dealing with real people in their lives. He seemed like a real person.

And for me personally it became a great opportunity to travel around the United States, which I had not done before, with almost all of my work having been abroad.

AR: When you started covering Barack Obama he was still below the radar of most media. But as time went on, the interest became intense. Was it difficult to keep your access to the campaign? Did they try to get rid of you because you were not affiliated with a major media outlet?

TS: It did get to that point eventually. But I have been lucky to get assignments [from publications] at key moments that allowed me to stay on [the campaign] plane.

I did a lot of work for Newsweek, filling in for their main photographer who could not be there for family reasons. In the last two weeks of the campaign, which is the time when I could have had real trouble staying on because access was tightened so much, I was able to work for Essence magazine.

And since I was there for so long, I think I was rewarded by the campaign for loyalty. But obviously they would not just give me access at the expense of their own coverage.

AR: At what point in the campaign does the Secret Service get involved? When do they decide that "Here, this guy is important, we have to protect him"?

TS: Obama got secret service protection in May 2007 before anyone else in the presidential campaign. And that is because there were actual threats against him.

What happened was that Dick Durbin, the senior senator from Illinois, made a request to the Senate that Obama be given Secret Service protection. And since the Senate found that necessary, Obama was given that protection. So the decision was not made by either the candidate or the Secret Service.

Candidates can of course themselves put in a request for protection. I remember Mitt Romney [a Republican hopeful] made requests for Secret Service protection throughout his primary campaign because he thought that made him look cool.

But for Obama security really kicked in after he won the [caucuses] in Iowa.

AR: How was your relationship with Obama himself?

TS: He treated me as his annoying little cousin. He would stick his hands in front of my camera, shake my shoulders, that kind of thing. He and I definitely developed some sort of a relationship.

AR: Did you ever get on his nerves? Maybe taking a picture that may have made him uncomfortable?

TS: Not really. The only times I was asked not to take pictures was when he was asleep on his [campaign] bus, just because the click might have woken him up.

He was pretty good about avoiding the camera. People kept asking whether we ever saw him smoking cigarettes and how come there were no pictures of him smoking. That is because none of us ever saw him smoke. The [campaign] would not have been able to ask us to not file the pictures or anything.

AR: But would Obama get a smoking room in a hotel?

TS: We [in the press pool] have been guessing that one his aides got a smoking room and [Obama] may have smoked in that room. We are not sure but that could have happened.

AR: You mentioned in another interview about your interest in things on the margins of the campaign. Did any Armenian things come up?

TS: One of his staffers in Iowa was Armenian, and there were couple of Armenian volunteers on the campaign. The campaign gave me "Armenian-Americans for Obama" stickers and I received e-mails about Obama's statements on Armenian issues, recognizing the Genocide, etc.

But there was never anyone with an Armenian-American sign or something, which I kept looking for to photograph.

Interview with Israeli MP Ze'ev Elkin

First published in April 12, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Knesset member says Azerbaijan shows greater interest than Armenians in Genocide debate

Ze’ev Elkin discusses Knesset debate

On March 26, members of Israel’s legislature voted to hold a first-ever parliamentary debate on the Armenian Genocide. The Knesset will revisit the issue again next month when it returns from recess.

On April 9 our Washington editor Emil Sanamyan spoke by telephone with one of the main supporters of the discussion, Knesset Member Ze’ev Elkin. What follows is the English translation of the interview, which was conducted in Russian.

Reporter: How did you become involved in the discussion of the Armenian Genocide?

Elkin: Prior to my move to Israel [from the Soviet Union in 1990], I had a number of opportunities to visit Yerevan, and I know both the city and had traveled through the country quite a bit as well. So the subject of the Genocide is not new for me.

After my election to the Knesset [in 2006], I asked to become the chair of the Israel-Armenian parliamentary friendship group. And I have also become involved in the Genocide issue.

There is a kind of a tradition in the Knesset, where every year one of the members tries to raise this subject.

In previous years such an effort was made by the late Yuri Shtern [former Soviet Jewish activist who was Knesset member between 1996 and 2007 and was Mr. Elkin’s predecessor as chair of the Armenia-Israel parliamentary friendship group].

And then the issue was taken up by Knesset Member Chaim Oron, whose brother Prof. Yair Auron has written on the Genocide and its denial.

Typically, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, working through the parliamentary majority, would block any debate out of concern for relations with Turkey.

So the problem was not so much about views of individual Knesset members. There are several examples of members supporting discussion while they were in opposition and then, while in the majority, deferring to the government and voting against discussion.

My objective was to win the support from coalition majority to have the issue added to the Knesset’s agenda for the first time ever. And at least in part I succeeded in that [on March 26] the coalition members voted unanimously to do so, making it a historic development.

Reporter: As a member of the Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Kadima Party were you under any pressure to defer to the party leadership and the government?

Elkin: We do have a tradition in the Knesset where members do sometimes vote in accordance with their personal views and not just in line with the party’s position. And I personally tend to vote quite independently on many issues. And I am in a kind of opposition to the prime minister on his approach toward negotiations with Palestinians.

On this particular issue, I did have discussions with the Foreign Minister [Tzipi Livni] and she was not particularly happy about the vote, but there was not any great deal of pressure from the party.

[On April 1] the governing coalition parties did manage [contrary to my wishes] to send the issue to the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and not the Education
and Culture Committee.

The reason for my position was that hearings in the former committee are frequently behind closed doors and this would not create the public resonance that I wish to achieve in Israel. And, secondly, members of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee are more likely to look at this issue through the prism of Israel’s relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan.

And since relations between Armenia and Israel are not all that developed, there is no Armenian ambassador here, and there is no great deal of economic links between the two countries, the decision on the motion is likely to be based on pragmatic considerations.

But at least formally there is not yet a final determination on which committee will look at the issue, since we have appealed the [April 1] decision and our appeal will be considered after the end of the parliamentary recess next month.

Reporter: According to Turkish media, Israeli president Shimon Peres has assured the chair of the Turkish parliament’s foreign relations committee Murat Mercan, who visited Israel earlier this week, that there is no need to worry about the Armenian Genocide discussion in the Knesset.

According to your observations, how much support does the initiative have in the Israeli parliament and what is the likelihood of its passage?

Elkin: I’ll put it this way: for nearly 20 years the [Armenian Genocide] issue could not even be added to the Knesset’s agenda, and [on March 26] the decision to do so was made unanimously, including by one cabinet member. [Editor’s note: In Israel cabinet members are also members of the Knesset.]

This was a surprising development for Israeli media, considering that in the past the Foreign Ministry would typically manage to block any debate.

So I would not try to predict a result. I am not certain that we will manage to win recognition in this round. And I am sure there will be an effort to postpone any discussion and there will be more pressure from the Foreign Ministry, which will be citing the importance of Turkey.

I am a realist and realize that there is no guarantee of a positive outcome. But I have to say that on the emotional level an overwhelming majority of the Knesset supports recognition. But when other factors get involved, the outcome becomes less certain. In the very least this would be a lesson, and if not this time around, then sometime in the future we will be successful.

Reporter: How would explain that the most vocal opposition to this issue came on behalf of Azerbaijan from Knesset member Yosef Shagal, who is a native of Baku,
and chairs the Azerbaijan friendship group? On the surface, at least, this issue has no relation to Azerbaijan.

Elkin: The issue does not in fact concern Azerbaijan directly. But the amount of attention given to this issue in the Azerbaijani media and by others on behalf of Azerbaijan has been quite extraordinary. I was swamped with letters of protest from Azerbaijan and a few from Azerbaijan natives living in Israel.

I have heard quite a bit from the Azerbaijani media – and I have to say that you are the first Armenian news outlet to contact me for an interview. Although I have seen
some reprints in Armenian websites from Israeli media, there were no direct inquiries.

Azerbaijan has great sensitivity to this subject since they view any discussion of the issue as an Armenian diplomatic success. And there has been great deal of pressure [from Azerbaijan] in the last several weeks especially on me as a member of the governing party.

At the same time, I have to note that there has not been any intense attention from the Armenian side – either from the diaspora or the government – to this issue. And this does not make things easier for me. The fact that both Turkey and Azerbaijan are intensively lobbying the Knesset, and there is no similar effort from the Armenian side, makes the challenge we have even more difficult.

Reporter: What kind of involvement from the Armenian side would you have liked to see?

Elkin: Well starting just with communication by supporters of this issue with members of the Knesset – all member e-mails are available on the web site http://www.knesset.gov.il, as are phone numbers. All parliament members pay attention to the public, even if that public is not part of their electorate.

Since there is not much of Armenian or Armenia-connected electorate in Israel, from that point of view, too, it makes more sense to support the Turkish or Azerbaijani position.

Like I said, I have been swamped by e-mails from Azerbaijan arguing against this initiative and I have not seen much activity from the Armenian side. And, if I, as one of the main proponents, have not felt any Armenian interest in this subject, then certainly neither had the 119 other Knesset members.

And on the official level, to this day there has been no reaction to the Knesset discussion from either the Armenian parliament or the Foreign Ministry. It is particularly surprising since I have seen coverage of the issue in the Armenian media, at least online.

[Editor’s note: Armenia’s ambassador to France Edward Nalbandian also serves as ambassador to Israel; while Aram Safarian, a former journalist and Foreign Ministry
official, elected to parliament last year on the Prosperous Armenia Party list, is Mr. Elkin’s Armenia counterpart. On April 10, the Head of the Jewish community of Armenia, Rimma Varzhapetyan-Feller, addressed an open letter to the Knesset, urging it to “demonstrate reasonableness and adopt the Resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide.]

Reporter: It seems every time the Armenian Genocide is discussed in any national parliament, there are threats from Turkey, and now also from Azerbaijan, that the interests of that country would be hurt. And in the case of discussions in Israel and even the United States, it is said that the Jewish communities in these countries would be negatively affected. Have you heard such rhetoric this time around?

Elkin: Not from the countries themselves, no. But such rhetoric has come from some of the leaders of the Azerbaijani Jewish community, and particularly those who have already emigrated from Azerbaijan, that somehow discussion of the Genocide would hurt the Jewish community in Azerbaijan.

I think this is very wrong and irresponsible of them. Azerbaijan’s Jewish community should not be held hostage to Israeli politics. This is akin to Soviet Union’s efforts to hold its Jewish citizens responsible for Israel’s policies, which was certainly absurd.

As to bilateral relations between Israel and Turkey, I certainly realize that they can potentially be negatively impacted considering Turkey’s position on the Armenian Genocide. I would certainly regret that since I have nothing against either Turkey, or Azerbaijan for that matter. And I do value Turkey’s importance as an ally, since Israel has very few allies to begin with.

But I believe that in this case our moral responsibilities should trump any other considerations.

And Turkey will eventually have to resign itself to the fact that the parliament of Israel, like parliaments of other countries before it, will take a position on this issue.

Were Israel to do this in a clear cut way, this would also help push Turkey toward revising its position. As long as Turkey senses that it can, through pressure, influence countries such as Israel, [it is easier for Turkey to stick to its current position].

At the same time, since Armenia is not really engaging Israel all that much – be that bilaterally or through votes in the United Nations – this does not help Israel [take a position that it should].

In the end, the real issue is that both Turkey and Azerbaijan are engaging Israel more actively than does Armenia. One example of this is that Armenia does not even have a diplomatic representative in Israel, just an honorary consul.

So, one of my intentions is to contribute to expansion of relations between Israel and Armenia.

About Ze’ev Elkin

Mr. Elkin was elected to the Knesset on the ticket of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Kadima Party in 2006. In addition to several committee assignments, Mr. Elkin is co-chair of the Israel-Armenia inter-parliamentary friendship group.

Prior to his election Mr. Elkin taught at the University of Jerusalem and was an advisor to the director of the education department of Sokhnut, the Jewish Agency Of Israel, which assists and encourages Jews worldwide to settle Israel.

Mr. Elkin earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Jewish history at the Hebrew University, where he is completing a Ph.D.

Born in 1971 in Kharkov, Ukraine’s second-largest city, Mr. Elkin moved to Israel in 1990.

connect: http://www.knesset.gov.il
zelkin@knesset.gov.il
From the U.S.: 011-972-26-408-145

Briefly: Bush nominates Armenia, Caspian envoys; NATO summit stalls expansion; AKP vs. military in Turkey; Knesset committee to discuss Genocide

First published in April 5, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Bush nominates ambassador to Armenia, designates new Eurasia energy envoy

On March 28, the White House formally announced President George Bush’s intention to nominate Marie Yovanovitch, current the U.S. ambassador to the Kyrgyz Republic, as the U.S. ambassador to Armenia. (See the March 29, 2008, Armenian Reporter for background on Amb. Yovanovitch).

Upon receipt of the formal nomination, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), will schedule a hearing on the candidacy.

The president has also satisfied a request by Sen. Biden and the committee’s ranking member, Sen. Dick Lugar (R.-Ind.), made last October, to appoint a “special representative” dedicated to Caspian energy issues. On March 31, President Bush announced that the special envoy for the European Union, Boyden Gray, will also serve as special envoy for Eurasian energy to promote the U.S.-led efforts to channel Central Asian oil and gas to Europe while bypassing Russia and Iran.

Previously, U.S. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central and South Asia Steve Mann held that responsibility.

NATO allies stall U.S. push for Georgia, Ukraine membership

In spite of public lobbying by President Bush for NATO to begin immediate membership talks with Ukraine and Georgia, opposition from Germany and France effectively stalled the effort at the alliance summit held in Romania April 2–4, U.S. media reported.

The U.S. position that NATO should offer membership action plans (MAPs) to the two countries was backed by the United Kingdom, and Canada as well as new NATO members of Eastern Europe, but it was opposed by most Western European countries, with senior German and French officials citing their reluctance to aggravate relations with Russia.

However, in a compromise decision on April 3, NATO promised eventual membership for Georgia and Ukraine and said that it would review their applications for MAPs again in December.

Greece in turn had delayed a formal invitation to the Balkan state of Macedonia, in a long-running dispute over the country’s name, which is identical to that of one of the northern Greek provinces.

NATO countries agreed without controversy to invite Croatia and Albania to join the alliance. European countries also agreed to bolster the NATO forces in Afghanistan and endorse the U.S.-proposed European missile defense system to preempt a potential threat from Iran.

The missile defense issue is expected to be the focus of President Bush’s discussion in Russia, where he will meet President Vladimir Putin and President-elect Dmitry Medvedev this weekend.

Turkey’s high court to consider ban on ruling party

In a politically charged decision, the Turkish Constitutional Court agreed unanimously on March 31 to consider a ban on the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

If agreed to, the ban would also bar 71 of AKP’s senior members, including the country’s president and prime minister, from politics for a period of five years. Turkish analyst Cengiz Candar told the New York Times that the court’s decision was “not a legal act; it’s political.”

The case is likely to drag on for many months, and is expected to be used as a political leverage by the AKP government’s opponents.

The proposal was brought by the public prosecutor’s office, which along with the judiciary remain some of the last bastions of the secular-military establishment after the Islamist-leaning AKP swept the parliament last year and succeeded in getting one of its own elected as Turkey’s president.

The opponents argue that AKP is steering the country away from constitutionally mandated secularism and wants to impose Islamic laws; they particularly cite AKP’s effort to lift a ban on women wearing headscarves in universities. The indictment alleged in part that the ruling party was part of a U.S. conspiracy to install “moderate Islamic regimes.”

The Luxembourg-based European Court of Justice, meantime, decided to delist PKK – the Kurdish rebel group – from the European Union (EU) list of terrorist organization, citing lack of proper justification, Radio Netherlands reported on April 3. The EU is expected to appeal that decision.

Intermittent clashes between Turkish armed forces and the Kurdish rebels continue, with deadly fighting reported in the southeastern Sirnak province reported by Turkish officials on April 2.

----

Knesset committee sends Armenian Genocide motion to a closed-door committee over sponsors’ objections

The Rules Committee of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, voted 11 to 7 on April 1 to submit a motion on the discussion of the Armenian Genocide to the Knesset’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defense, the Russian-language Israeli news agency newsru.il reported.

According to Knesset member Ze’ev Elkin, who is with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Kadima party, a Rules Committee member Zahava Gal-On of the leftist Meretz party requested a revision of the ruling, which will be considered after the Knesset returns from recess on May 19.

The proponents of the discussion, including Mr. Elkin and the motion’s original sponsor Chaim Oron (also with Meretz), have called for the issue to be considered by the Education and Culture Committee, which holds open hearings.

The opponents prefer the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, since its hearings are typically held behind closed doors.

Knesset member Yosef Shagal, who led the opposition to the discussion, told the Azerbaijani Trend news agency that he expects the latter committee to “close this problem.” A native of Soviet Azerbaijan, Mr. Shagal is with Yisrael Beitanu party of Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Liberman.

The April 1 debate included a sharp polemic between Mr. Shagal and Mr. Elkin, himself an immigrant from Soviet Ukraine. Mr. Shagal called the measure “populist.” Mr. Elkin responded that Mr. Shagal’s late party colleague Yuri Shtern was also one of the measure’s proponents. In a followup Russian language response Mr. Shagal reportedly called Mr. Elkin a “goat” and threatened physical violence against him.

Mr. Elkin later said that he regretted that the debate turned ugly.

In a comment for newsru.il, Mr. Shagal argued that the Jewish community in “hot-headed” Azerbaijan may be threatened should the discussion on the Armenian Genocide
proceed any further. Citing the importance of the relationship with Turkey, successive Israeli governments have sought to avoid discussion of the issue.

On March 26, the Israeli Knesset voted for the first time in its history to discuss the Armenian Genocide, in a decision its proponents called “historic.” Following the vote, senior Israeli officials told the local daily Yediot Aharanot that the decision was “out of place and undesired.”

Meantime, an Azerbaijani Parliament member Fazil Gazanfaroglu drafted a resolution on “Israeli genocide policy against Palestinians since 1967” and threatened that it would be adopted should the Knesset recognize the Armenian genocide, the Azerbaijan Press Agency reported on April 2.

Anonymous Turkish officials appeared confident that there is not sufficient support in the Knesset for the measure to be adopted, Zaman newspaper reported on March 28.