Categories
South Caucasus News

Armenia’s leaders need to uphold the historical truth in the face of intimidation


Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and other top Armenian officials visit Tsitsernakaberd on April 24, 2024 (RA Prime Minister’s Office)

By Marc A. Mamigonian and Bedross Der Matossian

As scholars focused on the Armenian Genocide — its causes, implementation, repercussions and its denial — and with Armenian Studies more generally, we feel compelled to express our concerns about aspects of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s April 24, 2024, message on the occasion of the 109th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. We want to make it clear here that we do not represent any political groups nor take sides in the current contentious political climate in Armenia. We are writing as individuals with an interest in upholding the historical record and not on behalf of any institutions; the views presented here are our own. 

We will refer to and quote from the official English translation of this message posted online on the prime ministerial website. Readers can compare the 2024 message with those of 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 and 2023.  

While we duly recognize that the message begins by stating the prime minister’s intention to “commemorate the memory of 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide,” the aspects that are most concerning to us are the absence of any identification of the perpetrator of the Armenian Genocide; language that echoes long-standing denialist rhetoric implying that the victims of the Genocide were responsible for their deaths; and the implication that a collective post-genocidal “mental trauma” prevents Armenia or Armenians from perceiving reality.

It is important to note that Pashinyan’s message does not exist in a vacuum. It needs to be read within a larger context that includes the ethnic cleansing of all Armenians from Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023 (called genocidal by various analysts), following the 2020 44-day war launched by Azerbaijan with the entire military and logistical support of Turkey, and the 2022-2023 illegal blockade of Artsakh imposed by Azerbaijan with, again, the support of Turkey.

In short, at no time in recent history has the Armenian government been in a position of greater powerlessness vis-à-vis Turkey and Azerbaijan, “one nation, two states” who aggressively deploy denial of the Armenian Genocide and of other historical facts about Armenia and the region as part of their political arsenal. When Turkey and Azerbaijan are seeking to dictate Armenia’s future, it is no less important to them to dictate the past as well. The Armenian prime minister and other government leaders cannot acquiesce to Turkey and Azerbaijan’s false historical narratives, which are aimed at the elimination of Armenia as such.

Pashinyan’s 2024 commemoration message seems to mark a sea-change in terms of language and rhetoric and the advent of a disturbing self-censorship mode when it comes to naming the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. 

In 2019, Pashinyan mentioned that “[o]ne of the peculiarities of the Armenian Genocide is that the people subjected to the genocide were not only physically destroyed, but also deprived of the right to live in their homeland…the land on which Armenian culture and Armenian identity were formed and developed over thousands of years.”

In 2020, Pashinyan identified “Ottoman Turkey’s long-standing policy of Armenophobia [that] culminated in 1915 during the Young Turk government,” when “[d]ue to the Genocide that had been perpetrated at a state level for many years, Western Armenia was completely emptied of Armenians,” who were “deprived of the right to live in their historical homeland.”

In 2021, Pashinyan stated that “the first genocide of the 20th century was perpetrated by the Young Turk government in the Ottoman Empire. What happened in those days was described by the great powers as a crime against mankind and human civilization.”

In 2022, Pashinyan declared that “107 years ago, the Armenian people faced a ruthless tragedy, the genocide. The goal of Ottoman Turkey was to exterminate our ancestors.” 

In 2023, Pashinyan “commemorate[d] the 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide carried out by the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th century.”

In contrast, in 2024, there is no reference to a perpetrator. Instead, he states that “we commemorate the memory of 1.5 million victims of the Armenian Genocide, the Meds Yeghern, who were put to the sword in the Ottoman Empire since 1915 for being Armenians.”

In all statements from 2019-2023, he explicitly referred to the Armenian Genocide (Հայոց ցեղասպանության) or Meds Yeghern (Մեծ եղեռն) as a “crime.” This is, of course, entirely appropriate, since genocide is a crime and the Armenian term Meds Yeghern means “Great Crime.” 

In contrast, in 2024, the word “crime” seems to have been replaced with the word “tragedy.” A crime requires a perpetrator; a tragedy does not. Rhetorically, then, responsibility for the Armenian Genocide is shifted. But shifted to where?

It is worth remembering that today, even Turkey acknowledges the deaths of large numbers of Armenians during World War I. However, it refuses to assign responsibility to the Ottoman authorities who planned the Genocide and implemented it. Instead, the Turkish government and others who disseminate its denialist counterfactuals blame Armenians themselves for “rebelling” or “plotting with foreign powers,” even as they pay lip service to the “tragic” consequences. These are key elements of the denial of the Armenian Genocide.

Pashinyan echoes this rhetoric, asserting that “[t]his large-scale tragedy took place during the years of the World War I, and the Armenian people, who had no statehood, had lost their statehood centuries ago, and essentially had forgotten the tradition of statehood, became victims of geopolitical intrigues and false promises, lacking first of all a political mind capable of making the world and its rules understandable.”

While it is true that Armenians had lacked a state of their own since the 14th century, this is hardly the same as stating that all Armenians everywhere “had forgotten the tradition of statehood” or that they lacked “a political mind capable of making the world and its rules understandable.”

Moreover, responsibility for Armenian deaths does not lie with “geopolitical intrigues and false promises.” The responsibility lies with the Ottoman government. Armenians were not victimized because they were ignorant; they were victimized because they lacked power relative to an Ottoman state that planned their elimination.

Finally, while no one denies that the Armenian Genocide was an event that traumatized its survivors and, in widely varying ways, many of the descendants of those survivors, it is infantilizing and insulting to state that, as a result of the “mental trauma” of the Genocide, “we cannot correctly distinguish the realities and factors, historical processes and projected horizons.” Furthermore, if Armenians as a whole cannot distinguish political realities, is Pashinyan himself somehow exempt from this dubious condition?

If it is the belief at the highest levels of the government in Yerevan that the real threats posed by Turkey and Azerbaijan to Armenia’s existence can be diminished by incrementally incorporating aspects of denialist rhetoric (whether consciously, unconsciously or under the pressure of third parties) into even an April 24 commemoration message, we assert that this is both incompatible with the historical record as well as short-sighted politically. We urge Pashinyan and all of Armenia’s leadership to be strong in upholding the fundamental historical facts of the Armenian Genocide and to resist any efforts to employ language that suggests the guilt of the victims rather than the responsibility of the perpetrators.

Marc A. Mamigonian is the Director of Academic Affairs of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR), based in Belmont, MA. He is the co-author of Annotations to James Joyce’s Ulysses (Oxford University Press, 2022; with John N. Turner and Sam Slote), editor of the volume The Armenians of New England (2004), and co-editor with Mary Jane Rein and Thomas Kuehne of Documenting the Armenian Genocide: Essays in Honor of Taner Akçam (2024).

Bedross Der Matossian is a professor of Modern Middle East history and the Hymen Rosenberg Professor in Judaic Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. He is the author, editor and co-editor of seven books. His latest edited volume on Denial of Genocides in the Twentieth Century was published by the University of Nebraska Press (UNP) in 2023.

Author information

Guest Contributor

Guest Contributor

Guest contributions to the Armenian Weekly are informative articles or press releases written and submitted by members of the community.

|

The post Armenia’s leaders need to uphold the historical truth in the face of intimidation appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.


Categories
South Caucasus News

If Aliyev does not want to become an international aggressor, he should unblock the Lachin corridor. Rasmussen – ARMENPRESS


If Aliyev does not want to become an international aggressor, he should unblock the Lachin corridor. Rasmussen  ARMENPRESS

Categories
Audio Review - South Caucasus News

Biden Issues Executive Order to Temporarily Seal the Border to Asylum Seekers


  • Biden’s Executive Order
  • Trump’s Hard Line Resonates
  • A Surge in San Diego
  • Arizona Ballot Measure
  • Extremists Target Charities

The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to challenge the executive action in court.

Listen to this article · 7:42 min Learn more

Tuesday’s decision is a stark turnaround for President Biden, who came into office attacking Donald J. Trump for his efforts as president to restrict asylum.Credit…Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times

June 4, 2024Updated 12:40 p.m. ET

President Biden issued an executive order on Tuesday that prevents migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border when crossings surge, a dramatic election-year move to ease pressure on the immigration system and address a major concern among voters.

The order is the most restrictive border policy instituted by Mr. Biden, or any other modern Democrat, and echoes an effort in 2018 by President Donald J. Trump to cut off migration that was blocked in federal court.

The restrictions kick in once the seven-day average for daily crossings hits 2,500. Daily totals already exceed that number, which means that Mr. Biden’s executive order could go into effect right away, allowing border officers to return migrants across the border into Mexico or to their home countries within hours or days.

The border would reopen to asylum seekers only when the number of crossings falls significantly. The figure would have to stay below a daily average of 1,500 for seven days in a row. The border would reopen to migrants two weeks after that.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to challenge the executive action in court.

“The administration has left us little choice but to sue,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer at the A.C.L.U. who led the challenge against many of Mr. Trump’s policies. “It was unlawful under Trump and is no less illegal now.”

Mr. Biden’s move shows how drastically immigration politics have shifted in the United States. Polls suggest there is support in both parties for border measures once denounced by Democrats and championed by Mr. Trump as the number of people crossing into the country has reached record levels in recent years.

There would be limited exceptions, including for minors who cross the border alone, victims of human trafficking and those who use a Customs and Border Protection app to schedule an appointment with a border officer to request asylum.

But for the most part, the order suspends longtime guarantees that give anyone who steps onto U.S. soil the right to seek a safe haven. Typically, migrants claiming asylum are released into the United States to wait for court appearances, where they can plead their cases. A huge backlog means those cases can take years to come up.

The executive action mirrors a bipartisan bill that had some of the most significant border security restrictions Congress had considered in years. But Republicans thwarted the bill in February, saying it was not strong enough. Many of them, egged on by Mr. Trump, were loath to give Mr. Biden a legislative victory in an election year.

“Donald Trump begged them to vote ‘no’ because he was worried that more border enforcement would hurt him politically,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said in a statement on Tuesday. He added: “The American people want bipartisan solutions to border security — not cynical politics.”

The American Civil Liberties Union led the charge against the Trump administration’s attempt to block asylum in 2018, which resulted in the policy being stopped by federal courts. The group has signaled that it is ready to challenge any order that limits asylum at the border.

Immigration advocates and some progressive Democrats have expressed concern that Mr. Biden was abandoning his promise to rebuild the asylum system.

“By reviving Trump’s asylum ban, President Biden has undermined American values and abandoned our nation’s obligations to provide people fleeing persecution, violence, and authoritarianism with an opportunity to seek refuge in the U.S.,” said Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California.

Tuesday’s decision is a stark turnaround for Mr. Biden, who came into office attacking Mr. Trump for his efforts to restrict asylum. During a 2019 debate, Mr. Biden, then a candidate running against Mr. Trump for the first time, excoriated his rival’s policies.

“This is the first president in the history of the United States of America that anybody seeking asylum has to do it in another country,” Mr. Biden said at the time.

Mr. Trump tried several times to close the U.S. border to asylum seekers, succeeding only in 2020 when he used a Covid-era emergency rule to seal the border to most migrants.

In a call with reporters, Biden administration officials bristled the idea that the president’s executive order is comparable to Mr. Trump’s actions. They emphasized that Mr. Biden’s administration would only turn away asylum seekers during periods of surging crossings.

Immigration has proved to be a huge political vulnerability for Mr. Biden, reaching a crisis in December, when about 10,000 people a day were making their way into the United States.

Biden administration officials, panicked over those numbers, pressed Mexico to do more to curb migration. Mexican officials have since used charter flights and buses to move migrants deeper south and away from the United States.

The number of people crossing has plunged since then, though the numbers are still historically high. On Sunday, more than 3,500 people crossed without authorization, in line with the trends of recent weeks, according to a person with knowledge of the data.

Even with the executive order in place, migrants could still apply for other protections designed for those who can prove they will be tortured in their home country. But that screening has a much higher bar than asylum and as a result, administration officials said they do not expect many migrants to be screened into the United States.

People who cross illegally and do not qualify for those other protections would be subject to a five-year bar for entering the United States.

White House officials believe the order provides Mr. Biden an opportunity to take Republicans to task for dooming the bipartisan bill. That legislation also would have provided billions to the Department of Homeland Security for more border officers and immigration judges.

Mr. Biden cannot provide those resources through executive action. White House officials for weeks said they preferred legislation over presidential proclamation because it would more lasting and less exposed to a court challenge.

The order also comes with some political risks. Republicans have questioned why Mr. Biden did not take unilateral action at the border sooner. In January, he told reporters that he had “done all I can do” at the border and that he needed help from Congress.

“It’s window dressing. Everybody knows it,” Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, said of the president’s order at a news conference Tuesday morning. “If he was concerned about the border, he would have done this a long time ago.”

As Mr. Biden considered whether to take executive action in recent months, his administration has taken smaller steps to try to control those backlogs.

In May, the administration proposed a rule change that would allow officers to quickly identify people who are ineligible for asylum, such as those who have been convicted of serious crimes. Currently, they may be allowed to enter the country and wait months, or often years, for asylum proceedings. The proposal must go through a 30-day public comment period.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also issued a new policy in May instructing asylum officers to consider whether applicants could find refuge in their own countries before coming to the United States.


Categories
Selected Articles

Biden Issues Executive Order to Temporarily Seal the Border to Asylum Seekers


  • Biden’s Executive Order
  • Trump’s Hard Line Resonates
  • A Surge in San Diego
  • Arizona Ballot Measure
  • Extremists Target Charities

The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to challenge the executive action in court.

Listen to this article · 7:42 min Learn more

Tuesday’s decision is a stark turnaround for President Biden, who came into office attacking Donald J. Trump for his efforts as president to restrict asylum.Credit…Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times

June 4, 2024Updated 12:40 p.m. ET

President Biden issued an executive order on Tuesday that prevents migrants from seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border when crossings surge, a dramatic election-year move to ease pressure on the immigration system and address a major concern among voters.

The order is the most restrictive border policy instituted by Mr. Biden, or any other modern Democrat, and echoes an effort in 2018 by President Donald J. Trump to cut off migration that was blocked in federal court.

The restrictions kick in once the seven-day average for daily crossings hits 2,500. Daily totals already exceed that number, which means that Mr. Biden’s executive order could go into effect right away, allowing border officers to return migrants across the border into Mexico or to their home countries within hours or days.

The border would reopen to asylum seekers only when the number of crossings falls significantly. The figure would have to stay below a daily average of 1,500 for seven days in a row. The border would reopen to migrants two weeks after that.

The American Civil Liberties Union said it planned to challenge the executive action in court.

“The administration has left us little choice but to sue,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer at the A.C.L.U. who led the challenge against many of Mr. Trump’s policies. “It was unlawful under Trump and is no less illegal now.”

Mr. Biden’s move shows how drastically immigration politics have shifted in the United States. Polls suggest there is support in both parties for border measures once denounced by Democrats and championed by Mr. Trump as the number of people crossing into the country has reached record levels in recent years.

There would be limited exceptions, including for minors who cross the border alone, victims of human trafficking and those who use a Customs and Border Protection app to schedule an appointment with a border officer to request asylum.

But for the most part, the order suspends longtime guarantees that give anyone who steps onto U.S. soil the right to seek a safe haven. Typically, migrants claiming asylum are released into the United States to wait for court appearances, where they can plead their cases. A huge backlog means those cases can take years to come up.

The executive action mirrors a bipartisan bill that had some of the most significant border security restrictions Congress had considered in years. But Republicans thwarted the bill in February, saying it was not strong enough. Many of them, egged on by Mr. Trump, were loath to give Mr. Biden a legislative victory in an election year.

“Donald Trump begged them to vote ‘no’ because he was worried that more border enforcement would hurt him politically,” Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said in a statement on Tuesday. He added: “The American people want bipartisan solutions to border security — not cynical politics.”

The American Civil Liberties Union led the charge against the Trump administration’s attempt to block asylum in 2018, which resulted in the policy being stopped by federal courts. The group has signaled that it is ready to challenge any order that limits asylum at the border.

Immigration advocates and some progressive Democrats have expressed concern that Mr. Biden was abandoning his promise to rebuild the asylum system.

“By reviving Trump’s asylum ban, President Biden has undermined American values and abandoned our nation’s obligations to provide people fleeing persecution, violence, and authoritarianism with an opportunity to seek refuge in the U.S.,” said Senator Alex Padilla, Democrat of California.

Tuesday’s decision is a stark turnaround for Mr. Biden, who came into office attacking Mr. Trump for his efforts to restrict asylum. During a 2019 debate, Mr. Biden, then a candidate running against Mr. Trump for the first time, excoriated his rival’s policies.

“This is the first president in the history of the United States of America that anybody seeking asylum has to do it in another country,” Mr. Biden said at the time.

Mr. Trump tried several times to close the U.S. border to asylum seekers, succeeding only in 2020 when he used a Covid-era emergency rule to seal the border to most migrants.

In a call with reporters, Biden administration officials bristled the idea that the president’s executive order is comparable to Mr. Trump’s actions. They emphasized that Mr. Biden’s administration would only turn away asylum seekers during periods of surging crossings.

Immigration has proved to be a huge political vulnerability for Mr. Biden, reaching a crisis in December, when about 10,000 people a day were making their way into the United States.

Biden administration officials, panicked over those numbers, pressed Mexico to do more to curb migration. Mexican officials have since used charter flights and buses to move migrants deeper south and away from the United States.

The number of people crossing has plunged since then, though the numbers are still historically high. On Sunday, more than 3,500 people crossed without authorization, in line with the trends of recent weeks, according to a person with knowledge of the data.

Even with the executive order in place, migrants could still apply for other protections designed for those who can prove they will be tortured in their home country. But that screening has a much higher bar than asylum and as a result, administration officials said they do not expect many migrants to be screened into the United States.

People who cross illegally and do not qualify for those other protections would be subject to a five-year bar for entering the United States.

White House officials believe the order provides Mr. Biden an opportunity to take Republicans to task for dooming the bipartisan bill. That legislation also would have provided billions to the Department of Homeland Security for more border officers and immigration judges.

Mr. Biden cannot provide those resources through executive action. White House officials for weeks said they preferred legislation over presidential proclamation because it would more lasting and less exposed to a court challenge.

The order also comes with some political risks. Republicans have questioned why Mr. Biden did not take unilateral action at the border sooner. In January, he told reporters that he had “done all I can do” at the border and that he needed help from Congress.

“It’s window dressing. Everybody knows it,” Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, said of the president’s order at a news conference Tuesday morning. “If he was concerned about the border, he would have done this a long time ago.”

As Mr. Biden considered whether to take executive action in recent months, his administration has taken smaller steps to try to control those backlogs.

In May, the administration proposed a rule change that would allow officers to quickly identify people who are ineligible for asylum, such as those who have been convicted of serious crimes. Currently, they may be allowed to enter the country and wait months, or often years, for asylum proceedings. The proposal must go through a 30-day public comment period.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also issued a new policy in May instructing asylum officers to consider whether applicants could find refuge in their own countries before coming to the United States.


Categories
South Caucasus News

President Ilham Aliyev was presented “Caspian Energy” magazine – APA


President Ilham Aliyev was presented “Caspian Energy” magazine  APA

Categories
(@mikenov) / Twitter

@mikenov: Biden Issues Executive Order to Temporarily Seal the Border to Asylum Seekers – The New York Times nytimes.com/2024/06/04/us/…



Categories
South Caucasus News

Буду учится в морской академии на грузинском языке — Мирослава из Украины


17-летняя Мирослава из Харькова. После начала полномасштабной войны скрывалась на станции метро в течении двух недель. После переехала на три месяца во Львов вместе с членами семьи. В конце концов им пришлось покинуть страну. Мирослава продолжила обучение онлайн в харьковской школе, прежде всего потому, что в отличие от батумской школы, в харьковской гарантировано дают аттестат. […]

Categories
South Caucasus News

Stubb, Pashinyan discuss regional dynamics in South Caucasus – 1Lurer


Stubb, Pashinyan discuss regional dynamics in South Caucasus  1Lurer

Categories
Selected Articles

Fauci says ‘levels of vitriol’ in House hearing ‘really quite unfortunate’


faucianthony_060324gn12_w.jpg?w=1280

Skip to content

Former White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci said the “levels of vitriol” in the county and in Congress, particularly Tuesday’s incident with Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), is “really quite unfortunate.”

Facui joined CNN’s Kaitlan Collins to discuss his Monday testimony before the House Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. He was the face of the Trump administration’s COVID-19 response while leading the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

“I have testified literally hundreds of times over the last 40 years over Congress, and there’s always been differences of opinion, differences of ideology, criticisms and things like that,” Fauci said.

“But the level of vitriol that we see now, just in the country in general, but actually played out during this hearing, was really quite unfortunate. Because the purpose of hearings [is] to try and figure out how we can do better so that next time, if and when we are faced with a pandemic, we’d be better prepared and we could benefit,” he continued.

Fauci testified before the committee Monday for the first time since retiring. He said his goal is to help leaders identify mistakes that were made during the COVID-19 pandemic and correct them for the future.

“That’s not what we saw today, as shown by the clip you showed with Marjorie Taylor Greene,” Fauci said. “I mean, that was nothing about trying to do better, unfortunately.”

During the hearing, Greene refused to recognize him as a doctor, referring to him instead as “Mr. Fauci.” She questioned Fauci on why the American people “deserve to be abused” by him and said, “You’re not ‘Dr.,” you’re ‘Mr. Fauci’ in my few minutes.”

Fauci told the committee and Collins that he and his family still receive death threats for his role in the nation’s response to the pandemic. He said there’s a pattern with the threats, whether it’s Fox News or “somebody in the Congress” that alleges he is responsible for widespread death from COVID-19.

“So, that’s the reason why I’m still getting death threats, when you have performances like that unusual performance by Marjorie Taylor Greene in today’s hearing,” he said. “Those are the kinds of things that drive up the death threats, because there are a segment of the population out there that believe that kind of nonsense.”

Tags Anthony Fauci COVID COVID-19 pandemic House Oversight and Accountability Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Kaitlan Collins Marjorie Taylor Greene

Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Categories
South Caucasus News

Armenian delegation in the Slovenian Parliament reaffirms commitment to establishing peace in the region – ARMENPRESS


Armenian delegation in the Slovenian Parliament reaffirms commitment to establishing peace in the region  ARMENPRESS