CAMBRIDGE, Mass.—Boston’s top chefs will headline a benefit for Armenian Heritage Park’s ongoing care on May 21 at the Royal Sonesta Hotel in Cambridge.

The star-studded culinary line-up includes chefs Ana Sortun (Oleana, Sofra, and Sarma), Andrew Hebert (Trade), Andrew Yeo and Nathan Kibarian (The Ritz-Carlton), Brian Dandro (ArtBar and Royal Sonesta Hotel), Brian Poe (Poe’s Kitchen at the Rattlesnake, Tip Tap Room and Estelle’s), Dante de Magistris (il Casale and Dante), Gerard Tice (Parkers, Omni Parker House), Jeffrey P. Fournier (51 Lincoln and Waban Kitchen), Jody Adams (Rialto and Trade), Julia Brant (North 26, Millennium Bostonian Hotel), Seta Dakessian (Seta’s) and  Vicki Lee Boyajian and Jason Reed (Vicki Lee’s).

Armenian Heritage Park on the Greenway

In keeping with a key theme of the Park to celebrate the immigrant experience, the evening showcases our collective culinary heritage. Each chef will prepare and present a signature dish inspired by a parent, grandparent or mentor.

The benefit brings together supporters and friends of Armenian Heritage Park to meet, mingle, and enjoy delicious tastings and wine to the music of the John Baboian Trio.

Boston celebrity Bob Lobel is Master of  Ceremonies.

The benefit is made possible thanks to the extraordinary generosity and commitment of the Royal Sonesta Hotel, each chef and the enthusiastic Benefit Committee dedicated to the Park and the evening’s success.

One of the desserts will be in tribute to M. Sanzian, the Armenian-French chef who, on the occasion of the opening of the Parker House in 1856, created the Boston Crème Pie, now recognized as Massachusetts’ Official Dessert.

In late March, the abstract sculpture, the split dodecahedron, will reconfigure at Armenian Heritage Park on the Greenway in celebration of the immigrant experience and in commemoration of all who were pulled away from their country of origin and came to these shores, establishing themselves in new and different ways and making contributions to American life and culture. This evening is in tribute to that.

To receive an invitation to the Chefs Party for Our Park, please email info@ArmenianHeritagePark.org.

Special for the Armenian Weekly

Much ink has been spilled on the atrocities the Armenians witnessed during World War I. As the centennial of the Great War approaches, Turkey and Armenia are preparing to commemorate the victorious Gallipoli Campaign and the still-denied Armenian Genocide, respectively. The harsh years of the war installed dreadful images of brutal massacres and deportations in the collective memory of the Armenian nation. Yet, little is known, or at least remembered, of the heroic acts of the Armenian Legion (or the Legion d’Orient, as it was known), which served under the flags of French and British troops and spearheaded the victory of the Allied forces in the Levant.

Volunteers from Tomarza fighting in the Armenian Legion. Photo taken in Cyprus.

In the following article, I provide an overview of the history of the Armenian Legion, from its establishment to the heroic Battle of Arara. I first describe the important contributions of the Armenian troops in the Levantine campaigns conducted by the Entente forces; second, analyze its formation in light of the geo-political negotiations among the Entente powers; and third, examine the motivations, the enthusiasm, and the mindset of the volunteers in view of the advancing the Russian/Armenian coalition forces, on the one hand, and the ongoing destruction of the Ottoman/Cilician Armenians, on the other.

According to Guevork Gotikian’s article, “La Legion d’Orient et le Mandat Français en Cilicie (1916-1921),” the history of the Armenian Legion can be divided into three main periods: The constitutive stages of the Legion were undertaken from September 1915 to November 1916; its organizational efforts were made from November 1916 to October 1918;and the period of disillusion, desperation and distrust spanned October 1918 to September 1920.This last period falls outside of the scope of this article, as it occurred after the Battle of Arara.

The formation of the Armenian Legion cannot be understood unless one returns to the massacres and deportations of the Cilician Armenians initiated in the summer of 1915. The history of the formation of the Legion is interwoven with the heroic acts of self-defense in the Musa Dagh (Djebel Moussa) region in August 1915. During the black days of that summer, when the Armenians of Cilicia were being dragged from their homeland, the inhabitants of the Musa Dagh region took up arms as an alternative to the certain death that awaited them. The heroic resistance was ended and approximately 4,000 Armenians were rescued when the French Warship, the Guichen, miraculously appeared on the coastline on Sept. 12, 1915, and saved the Djebelis from extermination. The history of the Legion d’Orient begins with the subsequent arrival and encampment of the deportees at Port Said in Egypt.

After the disastrous campaign at Gallipoli (April 1915-January 1916), the Entente Powers were in a search of a new front to outflank the Ottoman forces and knock them out of the war. The plans for conquering Constantinople turned out to be a complete fiasco, and came at a great price. Thus, the military maneuvers and operations upon a new territory were considered to be crucial by the British and French authorities. Furthermore, although France and Britain were military allies at the time, and were together fighting the Ottoman Empire, which was on the side of the Central Powers (Austria, Germany, and Bulgaria), there was acute competition over control of the Levant. The former intended to expand its control and colonize Cilicia and Lebanon, yet it feared the presence of British troops, which outnumbered French forces in the Levant and had the high hand in taking control of the region. In order to compensate for this deficit, the French authorities deemed it necessary to form additional fighting units to counter-balance British forces in the Levant. The utilization of the Armenian deportees—mostly from Musa Dagh—were thus settled at Port Said as a counter-balancing measure.

The idea to form an Armenian unit surfaced in the early months of 1915. In February and March of that year, Mikael Varantian proposed the formation of a 15,000-20,000-strong unit—comprised of Armenian volunteers from the U.S. and the Balkans—to the Russian, British, and French ambassadors in Sofia, Bulgaria, on behalf of the ARF Western Bureau. After receiving military training in Cyprus, the force would land on Cilician territories and continue the war against the Ottomans. Despite the approval of the Russian and British ambassadors, the French refused it.

The usage of the Egyptian-Armenians as fighting units was likelythe result of efforts by the Armenian National Delegation, which was formed in Egypt and led by Boghos Nubar Pasha. Nubar Pasha was relentless in his attempts to secure significant amounts of provisions, arms, and munitions for the Cilician Armenians, in view of the initiated destruction in Cilicia. The Allied forces at the time were not able to send additional troops to bolster the quasi-resistance of the Cilician Armenians, since they had focused most of their military strength on the Gallipoli campaign.

In a dispatch sent to the All-Armenian Catholicos of Etchmiadzin on July 27, 1915, Nubar Pasha wrote that “by the time we wait for Constantinople to fall and the landing of allied forces on Cilician territories afterwards, no Armenians will be left in Cilicia. Therefore, it is a matter of life and death for us, to prevent the destruction and deportations of Cilician Armenians at all cost.” Yet by the time General Maxwell, the commander of British troops in Egypt, proposed the formation of an Armenian unit at Port Said on Sept. 19, 1915, it was too late. This time it was Boghos Nubar Pasha who refused the proposal, as he thought it would only serve to stimulate the Muslims of Egypt and stir anti-Armenian sentiments. It should be noted, however, that the formation of an Egyptian-Armenian unit comprised of volunteers from France and the United States was first suggested to Maxwell on July 20, 1915by the Armenian National Security Council of Egypt, in view of the growing enthusiasm of both the local Armenians and the deportees to participate in the war. They saw it as the perfect opportunity to avenge their historical enemy.

The decision to establish this Armenian unit and incorporate it into the Legion d’Orient of the French Army, came only in 1916, when the disastrous outcome of the Gallipoli campaign was obvious to the Entente Powers. This time, it was General Clayton, the director of the Intelligence Office at Cairo, who suggested the formation of a unit based in Cyprus (and under the French flag) to Paul Camban, the French ambassador in London. The proposal was approved by the Armenian National Delegation under Boghos Nubar Pasha. What led the Delegation to accept the proposal was the news of victory by the Russian army on the eastern front, together with seven Armenian voluntary units. The formation of additional Armenian units was thus seen, at least by the Armenian side, as being a counterpart to the Russian-Armenian battalions, which would attack the Ottoman Empire mainly from the southern part of Cilicia. The Delegation approved the proposal on the condition that the prospective Armenian Legion fight only in Cilicia and be exempt from participating on other fronts. For the Entente side, especially the French, the Armenian Legion would counter-balance the British troops in the Levant and facilitate the Entente forces’ move into Ottoman territory from the south, as an alternative to Gallipoli.

The zeal of the Armenian deportees at Port Said to fight had a two-fold psychological element: They wanted to avenge the enemy that was responsible for the death of their loved ones in Western Armenia and Cilicia, and at the same time they were eager to be a part of the final victory against the Turkish-German forces. Thus, on the one hand, they felt anger/revenge/mourning, and on the other conquest/triumph/enthusiasm/motivation. This preceded the formation of the Legion and played an important role in the successful operations of the Armenian recruits.

On Sept. 21, 1916, General Pierre Roques, the French Minister of War at the time, dispatched a team led, by General Ferdinand Romieu, to investigate the military prospects in Cairo and Alexandria, and look into the possibility of establishing an Armenian military camp in Cyprus. The team was tasked with recording the first association of 500 men, comprised of the refugees at Port Said and the Armenian POWs interned at a camp near Bombay. It would also look into the possibility of including Syrians and other Ottoman subjects who were ready and willing to fight the Ottoman forces. The team was supposed to complete its task by October 1916.

On Nov. 15, 1916, the Legion was finally formed. Against the demands of the Armenian National Delegation, it was first called the Legion d’Orient as a precautionary measure and as a disguise against possible reprisals from the Muslims and in view of its potential to include those Christian Syrians who showed a preparedness to fight the Turks. However, it was clear that the Legion was destined for the Armenians especially. Hence the Egyptian Armenians, the Djebelis, and the Armenian POWs came to form the first battalion of the Legion d’Orient.

However, despite the official declaration by the French authorities on the Legion’s formation, the judicial status of the Armenian soldiers was still ambiguous by October 1917. They were deemed auxiliary forces, and were not yet completely incorporated in the French army. In addition, whereas Article 3 of the Legion’s authorizing French document stated that “special instruction will fix their allocations which would be in principle equivalent to that of the regular French soldier,” the Armenian soldiers receive neither familial allocations, nor any other benefits.

After successful negotiations, the British authorities gave their approval on the establishment of a military camp in Cyprus. Although the British were suspicious of French propaganda in the region, especially in Syria, the high commissioner of Cyprus, Sir John Clausen, gave his approval for the camp. General Romieu decided to establish it in Monarga, 24 km. north of Famagusta, and far from Turkish or Greek elements, to prevent clashes. A certain number of men from Djebel Moussa with physical aptitude were engaged in the building of the camp. General Romieu had given numerous tasks to the men to keep the best, as far as physical aptitude and military discipline were concerned. Thus, in December 1917, from a total of 182 recruits, 54 were called off, namely the 30%. The camp was ready to welcome recruits by Jan. 1, 1917.

The camp had three major sections, because of the lack water in one place. The first camp was located at the center, was built by the Djebelis, and was called Camp Souédié. The second was in the north and was called Monarga, since it covered the town of Monarga, emptied from its civil population. This was reserved for the officers, the bureaus, the generals, and the canteen of the 2^nd battalion. The third camp was nameless and was referred to as“the camp of the new well,” as it was a close to a well that was dug in the spring of 1917 to satisfy the water demands of the Legionnaires. It was essentially comprised of the Syrians. The scarcity of water was a problem for the whole Legion. The choice of Cyprus came with a clear purpose: The congregation of an Armenian force near Alexandretta, which was a point of junction and communication between the Caucuses, Mesopotamia, Syria, and the Levant, threatened the significant communication lines of the Ottoman forces. General Romieu, who was familiar with the “Oriental mentality,” took command of the Legion.

The expenses of the Legion were paid for by the French government. As for the military leadership, the command was assumed by French generals and officers, who chose Armenian adjutants among the Legionnaires. The junior officer staff was mainly made up of Armenians, including experienced officers such as Jim Chankalian (U.S.), John Shishmanian (U.S.), Sarkiss Boghossian (Ottoman Army), among others. Some of these Armenian officers, had already a high reputation as captains, sergeants etc. in foreign armies.

Those who wanted to join the Legion had to first meet the conditions: Ifa candidate’s physical aptitude was deemed acceptable, he then had to pass a medical test. Medical centers varied according to the candidate’s location. For those coming from France and the U.S., they had to pass by the medical centers in La Havre, Bordeaux, or Marseille. After passing the medical tests, he had to procure an official document from the Armenian committees operating in his country or the French government justifying his honest intent for serving in the Legion. The volunteers who came from America were to have an official paper from Mihran Sevalsky, who represented the Armenian National Delegation in the U.S. Those coming from the Orient were required to procure the document either from the French embassy at Port Said in Egypt or the Legion’s commanding office in Cyprus. Those who were unfit had the choice of returning to their home country or being sent to France to work in the war factories or to perform agricultural labor.

In January 1917, three Armenian delegates, Ardavast Hanemian, Stépan Sabahgulian, and Mihran Damadian—representing the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, the Hnchakian Party, and the Ramgavar Party, respectively—went to North America to organize the recruitment process. However, J. Jusserand, the ambassador of France in Washington, was against the recruitment efforts; he feared a diplomatic crisis given that the United States was still neutral. Although the U.S. entered the war on April 2, 1917, on behalf of the Entente powers, the problem remained; the U.S. government had declared war only on Germany, and was not hostile to the Ottoman government. General Roques therefore recommended that the recruiting campaign be carried out with extreme caution through the Armenian and Syrian committees, and without the involvement of consular agents, to avoid any diplomatic tensions or problems. In any case, the men were mostly recruited from America, Egypt, France, and Western Armenia. Eight men also reportedly came from Ethiopia.

Although in the preliminary negotiations, it was agreed that the Legion d’Orient (or as it later became known, the Armenian Legion)would participate in the battles waged only on the Cilician territories, by 1917 it had become clear that the soldiers were being trained to participate in the campaigns at the Palestinian front, where the French Army was very weak. The political intrigues among the Entente Powers thus affected the deployment and the actions of the Legion, and diverted it from its initial target—Cilicia. Insofar as the British troops outnumbered the French in the Levant, the Armenian forces trained in Cyprus constituted a significant reinforcement for the French. According to the Armenian National Delegation, the Armenian Legion would thus constitute the nucleus for a future Armenian Army, which would be established on the emancipated territories of Cilicia. The Legion was seen as the precursor of an autonomous Cilicia. However, as we have seen, the formation of the Legion pursued both military and subtle political interests.

Steps to form the Legion were technically taken in December 1916.By February 1917, a squad of 400-500 men, most of them deported from Djebel Moussa and dispersed at Port Said, were joined by dozens of local Egyptian Armenians. Together they constituted the 1^st and 3^rd companies of the Legion. Until July of the same year, when recruitment ended, 1,400 men had already been recruited. It was not until the end of July that the first group of Armenian-American recruits arrived. Four new companies, of which one mortar unit, were established by October. At the beginning of 1918, 1,700 men were already registered as official Legionnaires. The increase in the number of Armenian recruits can be explained by the repeated promises by the Entente powers of an autonomous Cilicia after the war. Yet, the Armenians were not aware of the already signed Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916, which stipulated the partition of the Ottoman Empire among the Entente Powers and excluded all minorities from the scene—hence obstructing the formation of an Armenian nation-state. The Armenian National Delegation did not realize that it was the victim of subtle political intrigue, and was being used by the French authorities as a counter-balancing force against the British. The aspirations of the Powers became clear in July 1917, when General Bailloud, the inspector-general of the French troops in Egypt, after his inspection of the Legion d’Orient, said in a declaration that a military expedition to the north of Syria was no longer envisaged, and that the Legion would be incorporated into a French expeditionary force and deployed to Palestine to fight alongside the British Army.

Numerous complaints on behalf of the Armenians followed, to the point where Georges Clemenceau intervened to assure Nubar Pasha that the French government had nothing to do with it, that the decision had been made by the French War Ministry. He assured Nubar Pasha that the government opposed the deployment of the Armenian Legion in Palestine, since this was a violation of the 1916 agreement. He continuously reminded the Legionnaires that they were pre-destined for northern Syria and Cilicia. The Armenian National Delegation was faced with a new dilemma: disband the Legion, which was contrary to Armenian interests, or conform to the new state of affairs. If the French authorities insisted on sending the Legion to Palestine, the only weapon that the Delegation possessed was the discouragement of further recruitments, starting on Oct. 1.How effective an Allied landing on Cilician territories could be was attested to by German field marshal, L. Hindenburg. He was surprised that the Entente Powers did not benefit from Cilicia—the Ottomans’ Achilles’ heel—as the region did not contain a significant concentration of Ottoman troops. Even Enver Pasha, the Ottoman War Minister, was worried the Allied powers would eventually identify the Turks’ weakness. However, as we have seen, that was not the case. The French were eager to pursue their interests rather than secure significant territories in northern Syria.

Disillusion with the French authorities proved detrimental to the military discipline of the Legion. From a squadron of 140 volunteers, at times only 70 consistently showed up for the military exercises. Some were hesitant to join, and others quit after finding lucrative jobs outside the camp. The British military authorities did not facilitate the task, either; they invited the soldiers to handle army supplies and gave them 1.5 francs per day. Incidentally, those who did join the military exercises did not receive a sufficient amount of food.

The military training beganat the end of 1916, and including shooting, self-defense, battle formations and tactics, and the utilization of the terrain in different military situations. “The best are the Armenians who were former soldiers in the Turkish Army, and were captured in Mesopotamia or have deserted it, followed by the Armenians from Djebel Moussa, and the ones coming from America, and finally the Syrians,” General Bailloud commented.

The legion was called upon for its first mission in the spring of 1918.It was to be sent to the battlefronts of Palestine and was to be incorporated into the French Detachment for Palestine-Syria (Détachment Français de Palestine-Syrie, or DFPS) under the command of Colonel Piépape. The Legion was used to perform minor sabotage campaigns and incursions on the Turkish coast, such as destroying the communication lines or blowing up supplies. In May 1918, the first two battalions were transported to the Ferry Camp of Egypt, near Ismailia. The 3^rd battalion, with the logistics company, stayed in Cyprus under the command of Chesnet. From July 10-13, the Legion d’Orient joined the French detachment at Mejdel in Palestine behind the British front.

The Battle of Arara

The Battle of Arara was part of the whole-scale military operations taking place in Palestine, where the German-Turkish alliance had strong fortifications and a significant number of troops. The Armenian Legion fought valiantly in this battle,with the hope of restoring a New Armenia.

The operations in Palestine were supervised by the general commander of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), General Allenby. With the aim of re-taking the offensive, the latter dispatched a force of 35,000 infantry and 400 artillery units to Palestine against the 8,000 infantry and 130 artillery units of the German-Ottoman forces. The British forces were reinforced by the French Detachment, which include the Armenian Legion. It was decided that the attack would commence on Sept. 19, 1918, at 4 a.m.

The general offensive began at the appointed hour. Facing the French troops, the 701^st, 702^nd, and 703^rd German battalions, commanded by General Van Oppen, were entrenched and held positions on the hill of Arara. They formed the most solid nucleus of the enemy army. A battalion from the Armenian Legion, commanded by General Romieu, marched and held positions on the right side of the French troops. The 2^nd Armenian battalion was kept on hold as reserves.

The day before the attack, the 1^st battalion had undertaken preparatory maneuvers. The next day, the 2^nd battalion won the rump 26 after five hours of heavy fighting, despite the constant shelling and artillery fire from German forces. The Legionnaires succeeded in capturing the first German defense line. Unwilling to come to terms with this strategic loss, the enemy resorted to counter-attacks. After five hours of battle, the German-Ottoman forces succumbed and began to retreat, giving way for the Legionnaires to capture the 2^nd and 3^rd German defense lines. The 1^st battalion succeeded in taking the summit of Arara.

In total, the French detachment captured 212 prisoners, which included 16 officers. The Armenian Legion lost 22 men, and saw 80 injured and four missing in action; of those killed in action, some were sergeants, captains, and corporals. Their sacrifice and the achievements of the Armenian Legion were truly essential for the success of the operation.

In a dispatch sent to the Armenian National Delegation on Oct. 21, 1918, General Allenby highly evaluated and praised the Armenian Legion and the valor they showed on the battlefield. “I am proud to have under my command a Legion of Armenians,” he wrote. “They performed very well, and had a grand role in securing our victory.” During the funeral of their fellow comrades, General Romieu, too, praised the achievements of the Armenian Legion, and the sacrifice of the martyrs, as well as the full commitment of the survivors.

Although the Legion did not come to represent the nucleus for a future Armenian army, as it was disbanded by the end of 1920, it demonstrated a spirit of devotion and patriotism. And although the political intrigues of the Entente Powers prevented the creation of an autonomous Cilicia, and brought about its acquisition by the European Powers, the legacy of the Armenian Legion continues to shine on the pages of Armenian and French history.

The history of the Armenian Legion, and its achievements under foreign flags, is about the people who attempted to come to grips with the destruction and devastation of their fellow Armenians. It is a story of their valor, honor, duty, and sacrifice. And it shows how hundreds of Armenians, from different social, cultural, and economic backgrounds, could unite for a greater cause and a noble purpose. Thus, as the centennial of the Armenian Genocide approaches, it is worth remembering the heroic acts of our volunteer units, who fought to keep the vision of an independent Armenia.

BOSTON, Mass. (A.W.)—The Governor’s Council rejected Gov. Deval Patrick’s nomination of attorney Joseph S. Berman to a Superior Court seat on March 5. Opposition to Berman stemmed from his leadership role in the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)—an organization that claims to fight discrimination but refuses to unambiguously recognize the Armenian Genocide—as well as the large amount of campaign contributions Berman had made in recent years, his inexperience in criminal court proceedings, and his representation of an inmate at Guantanamo Bay. Disappointed, Gov. Patrick reiterated that he believed Berman had the necessary qualifications for the position, and that he felt the Council’s decision was “unfair.”

Attorney Joseph Berman addresses the Governor’s Council on Feb. 26. (Photo by Nanore Barsoumian)

The opposition was led by Councilor Marilyn Devaney, a Democrat from Watertown, who time and again highlighted Berman’s leadership position in the ADL as a member of both its regional and national boards, and his failure to publicly speak against his organization like others had done when it became clear that the ADL had been lobbying Congress against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Berman needed the support of five out of the eight councilors, but the vote proved to be a tie. Councilors Robert Jubinville, Jennie Caissie, and Oliver Cipollini joined Devaney in opposing the nomination, while councilors Terrence Kennedy, Michael Albano, Christopher Iannella, and Eileen Duff voted for him.

Addressing the Council following the vote, Gov. Patrick said the Armenian Genocide is a historical fact that must neither be forgotten nor denied, according to the State House News Service. He added that Berman “acknowledges” the Armenian Genocide. As for the ADL, Gov. Patrick said the regional leadership had accomplished “too much good work for human rights in our community and beyond to cast every supporter aside,” adding, “We can be rigorous about evaluating prospective judges without attributing to them personally every view of a group to which they belong.”

Hearing and testimonies

On Feb. 26, a week before the vote, Berman faced a string of questions from the councilors, who also heard testimonies in support and opposition of the nomination.

Armenian American activist David Boyajian testified in opposition to Berman’s nomination. He spoke about Berman’s and the ADL’s credibility in light of the ADL’s stance towards the Armenian Genocide.

In his statement, Boyajian said, “Mr. Berman has been a member of the ADL for about 19 years, and an ADL National Commissioner since 2006. For 20 years and probably even longer, the ADL has

David Boyajian testifies before the Council on Feb. 26. (Photo by Nanore Barsoumian)

been denying the factuality of the Armenian Genocide committed by Turkey… The ADL consciously and deliberately went out of its way to engage in anti-human rights activities directed against a particular ethnic group, namely Armenian Americans, who have never given the ADL any reason to do so. All those years, surely the New England ADL, including Mr. Berman, knew what the ADL was doing. Did they speak out? No.”

Boyajian further noted how the ADL has worked with Turkey to defeat Armenian Genocide resolutions in the U.S. Congress, adding, “Can you imagine any genuine human rights organization such as Amnesty International actively working against recognition of a proven genocide?”

Boyajian listed the names of former ADL members in the organization’s leadership who took a stand and as a result were either fired or resigned. “Mr. Berman never did anything about this… This goes to the heart of what it means to be an honest person, a moral person, a credible person, and a judge,” said Boyajian.

During the Nov. 13 hearing, when Councilor Jubinville asked Berman why he did not resign from the ADL, his response was, “I wrote a resignation letter in my head but didn’t write it because of all the good things the ADL does.”

In response to Boyajian’s testimony, Councilor Kennedy said he believes Berman to be highly qualified, and in reference to the ADL issue, added, “I don’t think it’s inconsistent to recognize the Armenian holocaust and to vote for Mr. Berman at the same time. I think he was very clear in his testimony that he tried to get the policy changed at the national level. I didn’t agree with my colleagues who voted against him. Should I resign from this board because I don’t agree with them? I think not.”

Kennedy said he believed Berman was trying to change the ADL from the inside “I recognize that might not be enough for you, but it might be for me, if we accept his statement as true…”

On the other hand, Councilor Caissie revealed she remained troubled by Berman’s position vis-a-vis ADL’s stance on the Armenian Genocide. She said truthfulness and veracity were important

qualities in a judge.

(L-R) Councilors Duff, Devaney, and Iannella (Photo by Nanore Barsoumian)

“The issue of the ADL… goes to truthfulness in my mind in so far as when a nominee says that they led an ‘insurrection’ in a hotly political issue like that, and then they’re asked what they did, their answer under oath is that they ‘wrote a resignation letter in their head.’ [This] is not particularly persuasive for me or powerful or suggests a person of great conviction…” said Councilor Caissie.

In 2007, 12 Massachusetts municipalities cut ties with the ADL and its “No Place for Hate” Program, including Watertown, Belmont, Newton, Arlington, Northampton, Bedford, Lexington, Westwood, Medford, Needham, Newburyport, and Peabody, following broad-based community opposition as part of the “No Place for Denial” Campaign led by the Armenian National Committee (ANC) of Massachusetts.

Shortly after the ADL issued a “Statement on the Armenian Genocide,” stating that “The consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide.” Many found the statement inadequate, as the wording placed the issue of intent under question—a main factor in the 1948 UN Genocide Convention definition.

Those who testified in support of Berman included Woburn Superior Court Judge Bruce Henry who spoke positively about Berman’s demeanor and argued that criminal experience was not necessary for a Superior Court judge, as well as attorney Rodney Dowell, husband to Mass. Congresswoman Katherine Clark and Berman’s former law partner.

To note, during Berman’s first hearing, when the councilors asked whether Berman had contacted any of the politicians whose campaigns he had financially contributed to, Berman’s response was no. When further questioned, Berman revealed that he had in fact contacted Katherine Clark that morning and asked her to call councilors Albano and Jubinville. This revelation did not sit well with some who saw it as deception under oath, and was repeatedly noted during the Feb. 26 hearing, when Berman, in his own defense, attributed his initial response partly to a misunderstanding of the question, and partly to the fact that he had been friends with the Congresswoman since 1990, and saw her in that light.

Attorney Joseph Berman during the Feb. 26 hearing (Photo by Nanore Barsoumian)

In his testimony, Berman also revealed he had taken measures to gain more criminal law experience, including taking continuing-education classes and sitting in on court sessions. When the issue of his financial contributions to Democratic candidates surfaced, his contributions to charities were also noted, which far exceeded his political contributions. While the councilors commended his dedication to charity organizations, some voiced concerns regarding the political contributions, which they believed gave the impression—at least to the public—that Berman was in effect “purchasing” his Superior Court position, which could “diminish” both him as a judge and the judicial system.

Over 100 attorneys had signed a letter in support of Berman in the weeks leading to the hearing, including former Gov. William Weld, Attorney General candidate Warren Tolman, and former Attorney Generals James Shannon and Scott Harshbarger. However, some councilors noted that the letter was ineffective. Councilor Jubinville went further to say the letter might even be “counterproductive,” and noted that when he called some of the names on the list, they admitted not knowing Berman personally.

Berman was first questioned by the Governor’s Council on Nov. 13. The councilors were set to vote on the nominee on Nov. 20, however Gov. Patrick postponed the vote when it became apparent that five of the eight councilors would vote against Berman, noting, “I am going to work hard to get the votes. I have not had an opportunity to do that, and I am not ready today.” Gov. Patrick then withdrew his nomination, and resubmitted it on Feb. 12.

Note: Laura Boghosian, co-founder of the Coalition to Recognize the Armenian Genocide, submitted a letter to the councilors before the March 5 vote. Read her testimony here.

The campaign is a movement to recognize the outpouring of generosity by the American people.

GLENDALE, Calif.—The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) Western Region has launched a campaign, timed for the centennial of the Armenian Genocide, to honor Near East Relief, an organization that mobilized Americans and rescued hundreds of thousands of orphans and survivors of the genocide.

The campaign, called “America We Thank You: An Armenian Tribute to Near East Relief,” is a movement to recognize the outpouring of generosity by the American people in the immediate aftermath of the Armenian Genocide (1915-23), and to highlight the efforts of Near East Relief in rescuing and providing assistance to hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children who were victims of the genocide.

Countless Armenian Americans are descendants of those rescued by Near East Relief. ANCA-WR officials said the campaign is committed to promoting the Near East Relief’s groundbreaking ability to bring the American people together under one cause—the aid to refugees of the Armenian Genocide. Through various events and programs, “America We Thank You: An Armenian Tribute to Near East Relief” will mark the centennial of the Near East Relief’s efforts and express gratitude to the American people for establishing and continuing the tradition of being the most generous nation.

As news of the horrors of the Armenian Genocide poured into the U.S., President Woodrow Wilson in September 1915 urged Congress to act swiftly to provide assistance to the victims of the Ottoman-Turkish massacres of Armenians. This Congressionally mandated operation, which would later be dubbed Near East Relief, galvanized every segment of American society to rise up and provide assistance to the refugees of the genocide.

Near East Relief established and operated several orphanages in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere, including Armenia, to shelter and care for hundreds of thousands of orphans who escaped the horrors of the genocide. The campaign was entirely funded by the American people.

“As we, a community and a nation, look toward the centennial of the Armenian Genocide in 2015, we would be remiss to discount the crucial role Near East Relief played in salvaging the victims of the horrible tragedy, and by the same token, play a critical role in safeguarding the survival of the Armenian Nation,” said Vanna Kitsinian, Esq., co-chair of the “We Thank You America” effort.

“Through this campaign we want to say a collective ‘thank you’ to the American people for recognizing the plight of Armenians and mobilizing the entire nation. We thank you America,” added Hermineh Pakhanians, co-chair of the committee.

“As the largest and leading Armenian-American advocacy organization, the ANCA-WR is taking the lead to ensure that the current generation of Americans is well aware of its past humanitarian efforts and the role that the U.S. Congress and the White House played at the time of the genocide,” emphasized Nora Hovsepian, Esq., chair of the ANCA-WR.

In 2010, Keith David Watenpaugh, an associate professor and a historian at University of California at Davis, argued in an article published in the American Historical Review that the Armenian Genocide sparked the modern humanitarian movement and the original concept of “citizen philanthropy.”

“America We Thank You: An Armenian Tribute to Near East Relief” is planning to host its inaugural launch event next month.

Special for the Armenian Weekly

Genocide education remains a strong medium for showing students the importance of safeguarding and understanding not just their individual human rights but those that we share universally. According to research conducted by genocide scholar Samuel Totten, teachers strongly believe that genocide education provides opportunities for teaching about identity, moral theories, and character education.

As mentioned in Holocaust Education in Ontario Schools: An Antidote to Racism? (2000), Geoffrey Short’s findings show that genocide education will often not lead to anti-racist education unless teachers truly grasp its purpose and goals. Thus, in order to be delivered effectively, teachers require adequate professional development and continuous support. Without these conditions, it is easy for genocide education to become a survey course on genocides in history. Short goes on to cite denial of genocide as an important concern requiring attention in the classroom. “Clearly, if the Holocaust is to function as an effective antidote to racism it is essential to counteract Holocaust denial,” he says.

In The Emergence of Holocaust Education in American Schools (2008), Thomas Fallace discusses the “New York Times Debate” of the 1970’s in light of the emergence of Holocaust education curricula and of the New York City Board of Education’s recommendation that its study be made mandatory in all of its schools. Among the published letters, we see some denying the Holocaust and thus challenging Holocaust education. For instance, George Pape, president of the German-American Committee of Greater New York, claimed that there was no proof the Holocaust had really taken place; he also wrote that the curriculum would target innocent German Americans. Dr. M. T. Mehdi, the president of an Arab-American organization, claimed the curriculum was Zionist propaganda that was going to be promulgated at the city’s expense.

On July 13, 2005, the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) put forward a motion that sparked the development of the Grade 11 “Genocide and Crimes against Humanity” course and, on Dec. 14, 2005, it decided to integrate the Armenian Genocide into the high school-level history curriculum. Once the inclusion of the Armenian Genocide was clear and after the writing of the course had been completed in 2007, the government of Turkey began its usual offensive.

On Aug. 27, 2008, Ottawa’s Embassy Magazine reported on the issue in an article titled, “Turkey Decries Toronto School Board Genocide Course.” The author, Michelle Collins, reported that the Turkish Embassy had begun lobbying against the course together with the Council of Turkish Canadians (CTC). Both emphasized, as George Pape had in the 1970’s, that no such thing as an Armenian Genocide had ever taken place and that the TDSB’s new course would expose students to racism and discrimination.

But a Jan. 24, 2008 statement by the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) had set the record straight on the matter. “The assertion that teaching the truth about the Armenian past will be demeaning to Turkish students or Turkish people in general denigrates the intelligence of Canadians of Turkish descent and strikes us as disingenuous,” the IAGS stated in a letter to the school board. “Education in a democracy is built on historical critique and critical evaluation. When the history of U.S. slavery, British colonialism, German genocide of Jews and Roma, Mussolini’s fascism, Stalin’s purges, or Mao’s human rights crimes is taught, the descendents of the perpetrators’ nationalities (Americans, British, Germans, Italians, Russians, or Chinese) are not demeaned or persecuted by anyone.”

Although German-American organizations have realized the importance and benefits of understanding and acknowledging the past as a means to create a peaceful society, the government of Turkey has yet to do so; in the meantime, it influences Turkish communities abroad into parroting its position.

The 2013-14 academic year marks the sixth time the TDSB has offered the “Genocide and Crimes against Humanity” course. Since its implementation, the school board has also declared April as Genocide Awareness Month. Over the years, the course has become popular among students, teachers, and administrators alike. Registration numbers alone show this, as they demonstrate a consistent increase in enrolment from year to year. Facing History and Ourselves, a Massachusetts-based organization involved in developing the course, provides ongoing professional development and teacher support, ensuring teachers are confident and effective, and are meeting the goals and purpose of genocide education.

Despite all this, in 2014, the Federation of Turkish Canadian Associations (FTCA)—an organization similar to the CTC—released a petition requesting the removal of the Armenian Genocide module. It also asked for the removal of a section on the “genocide of Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontian Greeks” from the school board’s 2013 Genocide Awareness Month statement. These efforts are not limited to Canada; the Massachusetts Board of Education faced similar opposition in 1999. In that case, a lawsuit was launched (ultimately unsuccessful) by the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), claiming that the inclusion of the Armenian Genocide in the Massachusetts curriculum violated the rights of Turkish Americans. Similarly, just one month ago, the ATAA pursued genocide denial as the California State Assembly passed a resolution on teaching the Armenian Genocide.

A TDSB course proposal in 2008 in light of the denial campaign rings true: “Given the specific multi-cultural and multi-ethnic diversity within Toronto, we feel it is essential that students born within and outside Canada have the opportunity to explore in depth the causes and consequences of genocide and the lived realities of the aggressors, targets, bystanders, and resisters to these horrific acts of violence. A study of these experiences will help foster a sense of empathy for the targets of these violent acts and hopefully encourage students to understand the connections they have to their fellow human beings.” Here, the TDSB was providing a unique opportunity for promoting multiculturalism and diversity; conversely, the legal and educational structure of the government of Turkey—the very same government attempting to negatively influence the domestic affairs of another country—has suppressed knowledge of the Armenian Genocide.

Genocide denial often presents itself as one of the biggest challenges to the implementation of genocide education. Genocide scholar Gregory Stanton identifies denial as the last stage of the genocide process. It is a by-product of impunity and, if left unaddressed, can fuel future instances of mass violence. For this reason, genocide denial at the state level can be dangerous, and it is being practiced by the government of Turkey today. Since the establishment of its republic in 1923, successive governments have created an atmosphere of amnesia concerning Armenia and Armenians through the manipulation of geography, culture, and official history. These exercises in memory politics have then been pursued in all political, legal, and socio-cultural arenas and by a variety of government ministries from education to culture. The infamous Article 301 of the Turkish penal code stands as just one example that is often cited as problematic.

In the absence of justice, reconciliation, and social reform, denial fuels the cycle of genocide by leading the perpetrator state from a post-genocidal society to a pre-genocidal stage outlined under Stanton’s Eight Stages of Genocide (classification, symbolization, dehumanization, organization, polarization, preparation, extermination, denial). Denial allows genocide to transcend time and space, following victims and their offspring. Thus, genocide does not begin and end with physical destruction, nor do its effects remain constrained to borders. As mentioned above, people in California, Massachusetts, and Ontario have found themselves affected by campaigns being pursued far from the time and place of the physical violence.

By responding to and overcoming such challenges, societies demonstrate their dedication to creating safe spaces where new generations can learn and become the change. The TDSB expressed this well in its proposal to the Ontario Ministry of Education: “Democracy, justice, and the rule of law must be understood, claimed, and defended by each generation of citizens if we are to confront this demonstration of human evil. We believe that a full-credit course will engage students and allow them to study genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in a systematic and thoughtful way.” The “Genocide and Crimes against Humanity” course remains true to this rationale.

Moral philosopher Annette Baier states: “The reasons for recognizing obligations to future persons are closely connected with reasons for recognizing the rights of past persons.” If we cannot address the past, draw lessons, and start with respecting the rights of past persons, we cannot ensure the rights of persons in the future.

Raffi Sarkissian is the founder and chair of the Sara Corning Centre for Genocide Education (www.corningcentre.org). He is an educator, human rights advocate, public speaker, and poet. He holds a BA Hons. in history and a MEd from York University, and a BEd from Trent University. On Feb. 20, 2014, he presented a paper on “The Benefits and Challenges of Genocide Education” at Mount Royal University’s “Understanding Mass Atrocities” conference. This article is based on that paper.

Arshavir Shiragian’s The Legacy: Memoirs of an Armenian Patriot is now available for $3.99 on the Kindle, iTunes and Google Play stores

WATERTOWN, Mass.—The Hairenik Association has republished Arshavir Shiragian’s The Legacy: Memoirs of an Armenian Patriot as an e-Book. The Legacy can be downloaded for $3.99 on the Kindle, iTunes and Google Play stores (search for “Arshavir”). The book chronicles the extraordinary story of Arshavir Shiragian who embarked on an international man hunt to track down and assassinate the Turkish masterminds of the Armenian Genocide.

During World War I, the Ottoman Empire undertook a systematic extermination of its Armenian subjects from their historic homeland. Several of the key perpetrators fled to Europe as 1.5 million Armenians lay dead.

In The Legacy, Shiragian recounts how he located and assassinated the men responsible for this crime against humanity. He describes how he tracked down and killed the Grand Vizier, Sayid Halim Pasha, in Rome. A few months later, Shiragian, together with Aram Yerganian, located and shot dead Jemal Azmi Pasha, the governor-general of Trebizond, and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir Bey, the mastermind of the Armenian Genocide.

Arshavir’s daughter, Sonia Shiragian, who completed the translation of the book in 1976 noted “It is important that authentic histories of all people be taught so that lies can never take over and distort reality and so that we know who we are and where we came from, in an effort to understand ourselves and not let history repeat itself.”

The book can be purchased via the following links:

Amazon Kindle: http://www.amazon.com/The-Legacy-Memoirs-Armenian-Patriot-ebook/dp/B00G9QZBGM

Apple iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/dk/book/arshavir-shiragian-legacy/id734978971?mt=11

Google Play:  https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Arshavir_Shiragian_Arshavir_Shiragian_The_Legacy?id=WQG-AQAAQBAJ&hl=en

On Feb. 9, Armen Aroyan, who has tailored more than 75 Armenian Heritage tours for more than 1,200 pilgrims to Historic Armenia, was honored for his achievements and dedication at a tribute organized and co-sponsored by the Ararat-Eskijian Museum (AEM) and the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR). The program took place at the Sheen Chapel on the grounds of the Ararat Home Nursing Facility in Mission Hills, Calif., and was followed by a dinner reception in the AEM.

Armen Aroyan

Martin Eskijian, chairman of the Ararat-Eskijian Museum, welcomed the audience of more than 220 enthusiastic attendees, and introduced the master of ceremonies, Bruce Roat, a Southern California Board member of NAASR. The Ani String Quartet then began with selections from Gomidas, Khatchaturian, and Berberian, including “Tzitzernak.”

Prof. Richard Hovannisian reviewed the history of the confiscation and redistribution of Armenian properties during and after the deportations and massacres. The Armenian Genocide, he said, was unique among the 20^th-century genocides as its survivors could not return to inhabit their historic homes; if they attempted, they were invariably arrested and sent back. Prior to the 1980’s, no non-Muslim could by law venture to the interior of Turkey, even if they were Turkish citizens of Istanbul. Hovannisian gave examples of how difficult it was for Armenians to visit eastern Turkey in the early 1980’s, when some travelers had their cameras and film as well as their luggage confiscated by Turkish security personnel, and finally had to leave.

Armen Aroyan’s first expedition into the interior of Turkey was in 1987 to Antep, his own ancestral land.

Armen Aroyan’s first expedition into the interior of Turkey was in 1987 to Antep, his own ancestral land. He dealt in a low-key manner with the Turkish inhabitants and won them over with his smile while he searched for remnants of old Armenian homes and churches. From that point on, he extended his scope by discovering the small villages that his pilgrims yearned to visit. More than anything, he enjoyed seeing the joy and pleasure in the eyes of the people he took there—the descendants of genocide survivors—as they experienced the life-altering event of walking where their parents and grandparents had once walked. Hovannisian ended his talk by thanking Aroyan for having enriched so many people’s lives.

The next presentation was an extensive slide show by Roupen Berberian, a four-time traveler with Aroyan, accompanied with his historical commentary. There was also coverage of Aroyan’s genealogy, family influences, and education in Cairo, Egypt, and his immigration to the United States, where he furthered his education in electrical engineering at the University of Souther California. Aroyan worked for McDonnell Douglas Aerospace for 25 years. He also guided many scholars, authors, religious leaders, and documentarians from different countries on their trips to Turkey.

Anne Elizabeth Redgate, a historian from Newcastle University in England, made the long trip specifically to be present on this occasion. She had traveled with Aroyan and commented on how he had fulfilled the realization of so many pilgrims’ dreams by taking them safely to the heart of historic Armenia. Redgate had studied Armenian history for a long time, but being given a chance to connect with the people and being “a beneficiary of Armen’s magic” meant a great deal to her.

Bruce Roat acknowledged the many messages of congratulations that were received from pilgrims who were not able to travel to the tribute event. He read three testimonials, one by Lucille Hamparian, and another from Jack Bournazian, who compared Aroyan to “an Armenian locksmith,” who “came into our lives and fitted a personal key for each of us, unlocking the door to our personal pasts.” In a third testimonial, Nancy Kolligian, a former chairman of NAASR, who has worked closely with Aroyan and Hovannisian in organizing several NAASR Armenian Heritage Tours, commended Aroyan for “the importance you have always placed in making each traveler feel special and complete in their personal quests.” She said her visit to Hussenig in historic Armenia was “one of the most memorable and emotional experiences in my life.”

Martin Eskijian presented Aroyan with an award of recognition from the Ararat-Eskijian Museum, a sculpture of an Armenian mother protecting her child during the deportation. The NAASR tribute was given by Southern California Board member Dr. Gregory Ketabgian, who presented Aroyan with a symbolic silver bowl designed by Michael Aram representing Noah’s Ark resting on top of Mt. Ararat. “Although British ships could not climb Mt. Ararat, Armen was symbolically able to do it with his vans,” Ketabgian said.

Aroyan thanked the organizers of the event and explained the “providential chain of events” that led to his passion for organizing tours through historic Armenia. He described some of the Armenians he had discovered still living in remote corners of the country. He was inspired by how they were initially reluctant but, after relaxing, were able to sing the sharagans, recite the Havadamk, the Armenian alphabet, and so on. He explained what he calls the “King Arshak phenomenon,” the transformation process he has witnessed in pilgrims “reminiscent of the legend of the forlorn, depressed, and subservient Armenian King Arshak II in captivity, who would miraculously regain his boldness and strength when he stepped on the soil brought from the homeland.”

Aroyan also thanked all of the pilgrims who travelled with him and emphasized that he had learned much from them and their family histories. “The pilgrims,” he said, “gave me the opportunity to see our homeland through their eyes, with the very wonder and awe of the first time—every time. Together, we turned a haunted memory into a tangible reality.”

He explained the importance to him of the poem “My Death” by Bedros Tourian, and recited the last two lines: “When from the world my memory fades away / That is the time when I indeed shall die!”

“First and foremost, last but not least, it is all about keeping the memory of our rich legacy alive and propagating it for future generations,” he concluded.

Rev. Kevork Terian of the Armenian Cilicia Evangelical Church of Pasadena ended the program with the benediction and wished Aroyan good health to “continue his sacred mission to create new memories for those yearning for their homeland, which was so unjustly taken away from them.”

The reception, prepared by Nora Nalbandian and Maggie Mangassarian Goschin, the director of the Ararat-Eskijian Museum as well as one of Armen Aroyan’s pilgrims, was a veritable cornucopia of Armenian dishes representing the different regions of historic Armenia. A varied selection of wine was donated by Paul Kalemkiarian of the Wine of the Month Club.

Armen Aroyan is in the process of publishing a two-volume collection of writings by and about his co-travelers and their experiences.

Special for the Armenian Weekly

The Armenian Relief Society’s (ARS) 2014 Youth Connect Program at New York University took place in front of a packed room on Sat., March 1. Divided into a morning and afternoon panel, with a keynote speaker in between, the program drew roughly 60 college students of Armenian descent, some traveling from as far as Michigan to attend.

A group photo of some of the participants and speakers. (Photo by Knar Bedian)

After an introduction from Silva Bedian of the ARS Eastern USA Board, the program was handed over to its director, Khatchig Mouradian, editor of the Armenian Weekly.

The morning panel was comprised of Talin Avakian, Raffi Khatchadourian, and Nancy Kricorian. Avakian, the first presenter, is a young filmmaker in the Boston area and a recent graduate of MassArt, who currently works as a videographer and editor at an ad agency. She screened an excerpt from her short film, “Demi Pointe,” which won the 2013 Boston International Film Festival’s “Indie Soul Best Picture Award.”

Following the screening, Avakian’s presentation centered on her experience growing up multiracial. She acknowledged the complications of growing up with a complex Armenian, African-American, and Native-American identity, but described it as “a great blessing.” She has maintained her ties to all three communities throughout her life, stating, “It’s no coincidence that I was born into three groups of oppressed people.” All aspects of her heritage influence her art, and her goal is to help all three groups through her passion for art and storytelling. Avakian’s stories focus particularly on themes of adolescence and youth psychology, and “Demi Pointe” is filmed from the point of view of a young girl. She explained how the “honest, vulnerable, curious” outlook of children informs their sense of reality and provides storylines and perspectives otherwise inaccessible to adults; her work aims to reconnect people with this side of themselves.

Nancy Kricorian during her presentation (Photo by Knar Bedian)

Raffi Khatchadourian, a journalist at The New Yorker, also began his career fascinated by art. A native of New York, he received a Watson Fellowship to study manuscript painting in Armenia as part of his art studies. Along the way, his interest in journalism grew, and he started at the New Yorker as a fact checker 10 years ago. In 2007, he published his first article, a profile of Adam Gadahn, an American who joined al Qaeda. The piece was later nominated for a National Magazine Award in profile writing. “Journalism is ultimately about dealing with unanswered questions,” Khatchadourian explained, and this has led him on many quests for answers, including living with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for two weeks in Iceland.

Journalism, Khatchadourian said, requires commitment, dedication, and a strong sense of right and wrong, as well as the confidence to challenge and test one’s convictions. While journalism suffers today from financial constraints and uncertainties about what form its future may take, Khatchadourian notes that it remains meritocratic, and offers many opportunities in its new forms.

The final presenter in the morning panel was novelist Nancy Kricorian, author of Zabelle, Dreams of Bread and Fire, and All the Light There Was. Having grown up in Watertown, Mass., as the granddaughter of a survivor of the Armenian Genocide, Kricorian’s works focus on a central question: How do people maintain their humanity in brutal conflicts? A life-long activist (ever since she joined an anti-vivisection society in the third grade) she has dedicated much of her time to peace activism with CODEPINK Women for Peace, and has also campaigned vigorously against Israel’s violations of international law. Most of the boycotts Kricorian has orchestrated have focused on Israeli companies such as SodaStream and Ahava, which source and produce their goods on occupied Palestinian territory. One of her recent campaigns focused on Scarlett Johansson’s choice to sever her ties with international charity Oxfam in order to remain a brand ambassador for SodaStream, whose factories are located in settlements that are considered in violation of international law. Kricorian’s work with such controversial issues sometimes has had unexpected results, such as when she briefly ended up on a Maryland list of “known terrorists” by mistake, through a misguided and discontinued intelligence-gathering program that was found to have been infiltrating peaceful organizations and arbitrarily designating their members as terrorists.

The afternoon panel (Photo by Knar Bedian)

After the morning panel, Mouradian delivered a keynote presentation about Islamized Armenians. A demographic whose existence has long been unacknowledged, Islamized Armenians were usually women and children who were forcibly converted to Islam when they were taken into Turkish, Kurdish, and Bedouin families during the Armenian Genocide. Forced to abandon their culture, language, and religion, many kept their Armenian identities a secret for decades, even generations, but this is beginning to change, especially in the wake of high-profile cases such as that of Sabiha Gokcen. The adopted daughter of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Gokcen was an orphan of the Armenian Genocide. Long revered as Turkey’s first female fighter pilot, Hrant Dink’s 2004 article in the newspaper Agos publicized her Armenian heritage and caused massive uproar in Turkish society. In the wake of Dink’s assassination, many people, including his attorney, Fethiye Cetin, began to examine their family histories and discovered that members of their own families had been “hidden Armenians.”

“Our understanding of ‘survivor’ is limited to our own grandparents,” said Mouradian, “[but] the only difference in [Islamized Armenians’] case is just chance.” Many of these Islamized Armenians were told that no other Armenians had survived the genocide in an effort to cement their isolation. Many live today in the very same villages in which their entire communities were massacred.”

The afternoon panel consisted of Alex Sardar, Kristi Rendahl, and Antranig Kasbarian. Sardar, the vice president of programs at Counterpart International, spoke first, focusing on his experiences living in Armenia for more than a decade and working on issues of citizen engagement. In Armenia, he said, “We don’t know who should be doing what, or how…we lack institutions.” The country’s lack of any collective or institutional memory of self-governance has made the establishment of such institutions very challenging. The government is personality driven, and leaders stay in power by convincing constituents that only they can protect them—what Sardar terms the “under siege mentality,” that allows leaders to create a sense of legitimacy through crisis. Compounding the problem is an impotent media sector and a disengaged citizenry that does not feel secure in their own nation. At the same time, he said, Armenia faces the “most dangerous” kind of emigration: the emerging middle class leaving the country in droves for a more secure future elsewhere.

The second afternoon panelist was Kristi Rendahl, an expert in the non-profit sector who worked in Armenia from 1997-2002. She currently works with the Center for Victims of Torture as an organizational development advisor, and is a monthly columnist for the Armenian Weekly. Rendahl, who was raised on a farm in North Dakota, originally visited Armenia with the Peace Corps, but stayed on for several years and founded the Armenian chapter of Habitat for Humanity. One of the biggest challenges facing Armenian society, according to Rendahl, is the lack of a functioning civil society. The very concept of non-profit work, she explained, is foreign to many Armenians. The Soviet legacy of mandatory volunteerism has clouded many Armenians’ understanding of what voluntary engagement looks like, and has diminished their sense of ownership of their communities and depleted social capital. Rendahl also cautions against bringing American assumptions to work in Armenia; one has to be ready to view issues through a new lens, and to know when to speak and when to listen. And ultimately, she advises, one must be accepting of incremental change.

The morning panel

The final presenter of the program was Antranig Kasbarian, the executive director of the Tufenkian Foundation, whose work focuses on issues of social and economic development in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh. A former editor of the Armenian Weekly, Kasbarian also serves on the Central Committee of the ARF Eastern USA. Growing up in what he termed the “bubble” of the diaspora, involvement in Armenian affairs was divided into three spheres: cultural preservation, genocide recognition, and the push for an independent Armenia. Now that an independent Armenia does exist, a whole new set of challenges has presented itself, but these challenges have also vastly broadened the ways in which one can become involved with the country, and its culture and society. The important part, he stressed, is finding meaningful and sustainable forms of engagement.

This engagement forces many in the diaspora to shed the misconceptions they grew up with, such as the ideal of the “perfect Armenians,” or the myth of eventual total repatriation. What is important today, he said, is to progress beyond the Soviet-era expectation of top-down change, to grassroots movements that begin with citizens. This, he noted, is already beginning to emerge. One of its accompanying challenges is to learn how to resist co-opted nationalism, the leadership’s favorite stick with which to beat dissenting elements in Armenian society. Activists, Kasbarian advised, must trump the nationalist credentials of their fasco-nationalist detractors. One is no less Armenian for advocating for change, engagement, accountability, or human rights.

The student audience had a chance to interact with the panelists in the discussion sessions that followed the presentations and during the breaks. After the day’s closing remarks, the students and organizers attended dinner together for further discussion.

The Armenian Weekly March 2014 Magazine:
Armenia’s Foreign Policy in Focus

Writing after the first year of Serge Sarkisian’s presidency, I half-jokingly suggested that Armenia’s leader may have come under the influence of Buddhist “third way” philosophy, trying to find a balanced compromise path that would take him clear of the confrontational approaches of his two predecessors. Now, some years later, the third president’s years in power are likely to be remembered for three major failures in achieving compromise breakthroughs: the Turkish-Armenian protocols (officially declared dead of “exhaustion” in 2010), the EU association and free trade negotiations (killed last September), and the Custom’s Union/Eurasian integration process (fatally wounded by the Ukrainian crisis).

A scene from the funeral of slain Armenian soldier Gurgen Margaryan (Photo: Photolur)

Through each of these initiatives—dragged out over years—the president managed to annoy key constituencies: many in the Armenian Diaspora, Russia’s leadership and, most recently, the European bureaucrats and the pro-reform minded activists in Armenia. In all three cases, the initiatives came from Sarkisian—under varying degrees of duress—but were killed by circumstances that he could not really influence.

But even outside the realm of big politics, Sarkisian’s credibility has long been shot, his eloquently prepared speeches contrasting greatly with actual policies. Here is a listing of some of the more memorable foreign policy blunders of recent years that serve to illustrate Sarkisian-style policies in the Karabagh conflict—a subject in which Armenia has a greater say:

- In August 2012, several Armenian NGO groups circulated a letter warning that the Hungarian government had struck a deal with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and was about to transfer (read: release) the murderer of Armenian officer Gurgen Margaryan to Azerbaijan. Nothing is known to have been done by Armenia to prevent the extradition. Following the extradition, release, and hero-like treatment given to the murderer, Armenia severed diplomatic ties with Hungary and launched a legal complaint with the European Court of Human Rights. Sarkisian said that Armenia’s relations with third countries will henceforth depend on their attitude to the Budapest scandal. After many tough words, there was no accounting on what was, in fact, done. On the one-year anniversary of the extradition, the issue could have been completely ignored if Margaryan’s father had not attempted a suicide. In the meantime, Sarkisian went back to negotiating with Aliyev and even said that the latter’s “re-election” was good for Armenia.

The Stepanakert airport in disuse (Photo: Nanore Barsoumian/The Armenian Weekly)

- In June 2010, four Armenian soldiers were killed and as many were wounded in one of the single bloodiest episodes for the Armenian Army since the cease-fire on the Line of Contact with Azerbaijan. Sarkisian continued on his trip to Russia and Germany, and visited the wounded only two weeks later. Armenia initially refused to return the body of an Azerbaijani army serviceman who launched the kamikaze-style attack resulting in the deaths. Then, after Armenian civilian Manvel Saribekian was captured on the border and died in Azerbaijani prison, his body was exchanged for the one of the psycho, who was already declared a national hero. The “extradition” was brokered by the Russian Patriarch and Armenian Catholicos. Talks with Aliyev continued.

- Also in 2010, a new Stepanakert airport was built in Karabagh, the Armenian leadership declared its determination to begin direct passenger flights from Yerevan, and Sarkisian promised to become one of the first passengers. Now, more than three years later, with Azerbaijani threats to kill passengers mid-air and requests from the American, French and Russian Minsk Group diplomats to hold off, flights have yet to materialize. In effect, Armenia and Karabagh have surrendered full sovereignty over their airspace.

- On the matter of Karabagh’s status, Armenia’s official line has also undergone an unpleasant transformation. Under former president Robert Kocharian, Armenia ruled out any subordination of Karabagh to Azerbaijan and reserved the right for unilateral recognition of Karabagh in the absence of progress in negotiations. Today, the so-called Madrid Principles accepted by Sarkisian are a muddle of both self-determination and territorial integrity principles. With no resolution in sight, Armenia has made recognition of the Nagorno Karabagh Republic (NKR) conditional on fresh Azerbaijani military aggression. Remarkably, Sarkisian even described calls for recognition of NKR by some of his political opponents as “foolishness and treason.”

To be fair to Sarkisian, his domestic policies are a substantial improvement on both of his predecessors’. The political opponents are mostly left alone and the activists have enjoyed greater room to campaign. If one is to generalize, following Levon Ter-Petrossian’s tough-at-home, soft-abroad approach and Kocharian’s tough-at-home and tough-abroad approaches, Sarkisian is proving to be soft in both.

Armenia remains adrift and in dangerous waters. Vladimir Putin’s move into Crimea is a calamity that—unless it is somehow reversed—will lead to Western efforts to isolate Russia, with consequences for its remaining allies, Armenia among them. While Armenia may have few options when dealing with the world’s top players—Washington, Brussels and Moscow—the country should do better when it comes to defining objectives and following through on core security issues.

An earlier version of this article appeared in Armenian and Russian in the September 2013 issue of Analyticon, a Stepanakert-based magazine.

Special for The Armenian Weekly

I am a member of the Facebook group that the Repat Armenia Foundation maintains. I am, in fact, a fan of that organization, which provides assistance to Armenians who wish to move to the Homeland, whether in terms of technical or legal information, employment, or some guidance on housing. It’s the sort of function that one would have wished the state to perform, that one might have expected the Ministry of the Diaspora to take on, via Armenian embassies or otherwise. To be fair, we are talking about a big deal, highly resource-heavy in realization, and also ideologically and philosophically heavy in its own right.

The issue of moving to Armenia has been in focus in recent years, even celebrated, both because of the alarming numbers of emigrants from Armenia, and also because of the influx of Armenian refugees from Syria. The latter group has indeed been given some support both by the state and otherwise, but a significant part has moved on to a third country, or has returned to Syria.

The group on Facebook often discusses the sensitive issue of Armenia-diaspora relations, how the Republic and the Homeland may or may not be the same thing for all Armenians all the time, and, regardless of any such possible nuances, how we face the imperative of populating and working towards prosperity in Armenia and Artsakh (Karabagh). I am sure the reader can imagine the back-and-forth on these fronts.

I often find myself caught in the middle. On the one hand, I did make the conscious decision to live and work in Armenia, including taking on citizenship. On the other hand, I likewise consciously waited to take on that citizenship until I was too old to be carted off by the army. What I mean to say is that I do indeed wish to be a part of Armenia in a meaningful way, but there are practical considerations and day-to-day matters to take into consideration as well. I have felt for some time that moving to Armenia is like moving to any other country, with all the technical issues that entails, only with the additional motivation of national sentiments. But without any extreme, exclusive nationalism. At least in my case. I cannot speak for all the repats.

That term, I feel, is a little inaccurate. A “repat” or “repatriate” is one who returns to a homeland, a patria. My ancestral homeland is not Yerevan. There are a few cities and countries on the historical way back to Marash, in my case.

And yet, I wish for the Republic of Armenia to become the Homeland, don’t I? I suppose one should be glad to be referred to as a “repat” in that sense; it is a welcoming word. “Neopat” might be another option; both the patria and the “patriate” are new, after all, in many respects.

But what of former repats, those diasporans who made it over but somehow made their way back? I thought of a few acquaintances myself—“depats,” I’ve decided to call them (this word is apparently a versatile one)—each with a different story, and they did me the service of responding to my highly unscientific survey via e-mail. I asked them why they moved to Armenia in the first place, and then why they left. I asked them about their ties to Armenia today, and whether or not they would ever consider living there again—and what that would take.

“I wanted my two children to spend at least a part of their childhood living outside the United States,” Vincent said. “That would give them—and has given them—a more global outlook on life. My preference was to raise them, at least for a few years, in Armenia because it would establish and give substance to their Armenian identity, strengthen their Armenian language skills, give them a circle of Armenian and international friends and relatives.”

“I originally went to Armenia just after I finished my bachelor’s degree,” Dave responded, “as I was looking for something different to do. I didn’t want to start graduate school right away and couldn’t find a job that held my interest, so I signed up to volunteer for one year. However, I do not consider that my ‘move’ to Armenia. That was my ‘volunteering’ in Armenia. My move came after I completed my volunteer work and decided to stay. I made some great friends, enjoyed the life style, and wanted to stick around. I was also able to find a job that allowed me to transition from ‘volunteering’ to ‘working,’ which made the whole thing possible.”

Needless to say, the job situation was an essential element. And, in fact, changes in the job situation and family ties contributed to both Vincent and Dave heading back to the U.S. Neither of them considers their ties to Armenia cut off in the least, as friends, relatives, and visits attest. Whether or not they could ever move to Armenia again was a little difficult to clearly state, for different reasons, but both Vincent and Dave certainly wish they could spend more time in the country more regularly.

The third person who responded—Talin, originally from Canada—echoed the love of the lifestyle in Yerevan. But her pedigree stretches a bit farther back: “After my third trip I stopped counting. Instead, I decided that a couple of months in the summer were not enough, so I got a job teaching in Yerevan. Those years in Armenia were difficult; the winters were hard and like everyone else I survived without heat or running water for days, sometimes weeks. But the people, their will to survive and their generosity, more than compensated for all the necessities which we all lacked.”

Family and job security played a role in Talin heading back, too. But as I found when I e-mailed her, she is in fact returning to Armenia very soon, to stay. “My quality of life is better in Armenia. Intellectually, socially, and even physically! It is as simple as that. There seems to be more job opportunities as well. The one thing that has always been consistent in my life has been the fact that I love being in Armenia.”

I figure that Talin will consider herself a “rerepat” or maybe a “repeat” (I am just having fun with the word at this point).

As for me, nothing is dissuading me from wanting to live and work in Yerevan. But would I turn down a good job offer, a chance to gain experience (and, sure, more money), to broaden my horizons in another country? I deeply cherish the education I received abroad and feel that I am a better citizen of the Republic of Armenia for it. Returning to Armenia later still with even more experience to offer would sound enticing, but who would be in a position to guarantee that I would return at all, even with the best intentions? What if I fell in love with someone from Somalia tomorrow? On the other hand, I could get married to someone from Gyumri or Meghri, and settled down in Dilijan. Who’s to say?

Questions more to the point: How do I convince myself and those around me that things will get more stable in terms of the economy, politics and society, and human rights in Armenia? How do I convince the hundreds of thousands of Armenians who have left already? These are the more pressing issues that are at times secondary for members of an Armenian Diaspora community, as opposed to Armenian citizens of an Armenian state.

My three friends above had good experiences in the country, but surely a number of diasporans leave Armenia in a huff after facing those difficulties mentioned above, and some decide to just give up, or perhaps take a break.

I still maintain that moving to Armenia is not a romantic step to take, nor an achievement, but a serious calculation to be made, and that anybody who thinks and acts otherwise is being naïve. But I am sometimes myself made to wonder whether my own ideals and consequent efforts in Yerevan amount to anything at all. The only conclusion I can draw for myself, for now, is to try and trust that they will be worthwhile in a larger context. And to invite others to do the same.

Candidate with Deep Armenian-American Community Ties Determined to Win Race for Virginia’s 8th Congressional District Seat

MCLEAN, Va.—Nancy Najarian—a champion for Armenian-Americans, strong communities, quality jobs, and a world-class education for every child—has announced she is running for Virginia’s 8th Congressional District, represented for the past 24 years by now retiring Rep. Jim Moran D-Va. Committed to being a voice that will stand up for our community, Najarian has launched an aggressive fundraising campaign to meet the March 31st deadline—the first quarter of fundraising for a race that most likely will be decided in a June 10, 2014 primary. Nancy is positioning herself to be a strong contender in a very crowded field by raising early money from her supporters nationwide. Those committed to sending to the U.S. Congress a professional woman with strong ties to our community are urged to donate (bit.ly/PDLxtd) to Najarian for Congress campaign by March 31, 2014.

Nancy Najarian

The VA-8 district borders Washington, D.C., and includes the Cities of Arlington and Alexandria, home to the Alexandria-Gyumri Sister City Association and its annual Armenian Festival. The district also includes portions of Fairfax County, including parts of McLean and Falls Church, two military bases and the Pentagon. Raising significant funds will enable Najarian to place well in the first quarter, gain support from national women’s groups poised to support a competitive woman candidate, and position her to win the upcoming primary on June 10^th—a winner takes all primary. With a district that is strongly Democratic, the likelihood of Najarian winning the general election as a primary winner is high.

“I want to bring to the U.S. Congress a steady support for issues affecting the average Armenian-American family. These include empowering small business owners to build and sustain their businesses, supporting children’s welfare and women’s healthcare issues, ending paycheck inequality gaps, increasing public education initiatives and investment in STEM education, and moving a stalled Congress forward by finding solutions to problems so that we all can enjoy a brighter future,” said Nancy Najarian.

Born in Boston (Mass.), raised in Belmont, baptized and later married in the Armenian Apostolic Church, Nancy Najarian, her husband Mike Stimson and their two children have been residents of Northern Virginia since 1995. Najarian is proud of her Armenian heritage and commitment to uphold her roots as an Armenian mother, a wife, a professional and small business owner. She is the granddaughter of Genocide survivors, and was inspired by her parents’ values of an honest day’s work, playing by the rules, and giving back to the Armenian community. Her business acumen and personal drive derives from the models her parents set. Her father, K. George Najarian, built a successful business from the ground up, her mother went back to school and earned Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees to become an educator, and her stepmother, Dr. Carolann Najarian, has devoted her life to providing charitable medical care in Armenia and the U.S. In addition, her parents, involved early with the relief effort following the 1988 Armenian earthquake and later with support for the newly independent Armenian government and its people, were outstanding models of how to apply Nancy’s professional expertise and academic training to her ethnic roots.

At the height of the Azeri blockade of Armenia and during the armed conflict supporting Nagorno Karabagh’s right to self-determination, Najarian moved to the newly independent Republic of Armenia. In 1992 she taught English to aspiring Armenian MBA students in Yerevan. Later she created and co-managed the non-profit, Technical Assistance for the Republic of Armenia (TARA Inc.), helping struggling Armenian entrepreneurs start businesses and bringing Diasporan Armenian professionals to assist Armenian private sector organizations. Najarian was an early Board Member of the Armenian Assembly’s grassroots arm, ARAMAC, raising U.S. government awareness of the severe consequences of the energy blockade against the Armenian people and the economy. Additionally, Najarian is a charter member of the Cambridge-Yerevan Sister City Association, and after graduating with an M.S. focused on International Business and Trade, Najarian volunteered at the Armenian Embassy in Washington, D.C. for the Economic Attaché. As a volunteer fund-raiser, Najarian has raised funds for various Armenian organizations, was for years an active participant in the Armenian Network of America, and throughout her career has offered advice to aspiring Armenian Social entrepreneurs. She holds a Bachelor’s from NYU, and a Master’s from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in Washington, D.C.,

For more details about Nancy Najarian review her prospectus (http://eviewer.co/prospectus/najariancampaignguideam/index.html).

To help put an Armenian-American in U.S. Congress donate (bit.ly/PDLxtd) to the Najarian for Congress campaign.  Follow the campaign updates by joining the Twitter, Facebook and Google+ sites or by visiting Najarian for Congress website.

Special for The Armenian Weekly

“The people here today obviously care about Armenia,” an attendee said to us, speakers at the recent Armenian Relief Society Eastern Region Youth Connect Program. “But what do we say to those who ask why they should care about being Armenian now that they’re American?”

My great-grandmother Sena and I drank from the same well on the farm, our bodies irrigated by the same sweet, cold water.

The question wasn’t directed to me, not really. It was directed to my co-panelists, who both have Armenian roots and stories. Their responses included the word grandmother several times, and the word guilt, among other things.

When they were finished I said that I had something to add, though it wasn’t about guilt or an Armenian grandmother, since I’m not Armenian.

“That’s why you should feel guilty!” one of my co-panelists joked.

I told them how my dad has told me stories of my ancestors for years, over and over and over again, unwittingly creating what I’ve recently termed an “emotional bank account.” The account holds the riches of possibility and success, of knowing where those before you have been and how they got there. You can make withdrawals from an emotional bank account during the darkest of times, when you need to remember what can be overcome. And you can make deposits during the best of times, when you’ve clearly seen your value and what you have to offer.

My emotional bank account has been accruing interest for years. The principal amount was deposited by countless people before me, some of whom I’ve been lucky enough to learn about. Like my great-grandmother who migrated to the United States at age 19 and who in 1899, at the young age of 26, founded the farm where I grew up. In her journals she wrote about the homesteading experience in North Dakota:

“Buildings had been erected across the road from us during the summer and in the fall a family named Peterson moved in. They had five children. You could see them running around the prairie picking up things that they put into a big sack. In answer to my question about what they were picking, Mrs. Peterson explained that they had learned what people used for fuel out here. So the fuel problem was settled for the present anyway. None of the new settlers had any money. It usually took all they had to get started. The “buffalo chips” weren’t as bad as you think. We dignified the fuel with that name, but most of the dried chips were the calling cards of the range cattle that roamed over the prairies.”

There was another of my great-grandmothers who was a suffragette and who served in the New Hampshire state legislature for 19 terms, earning her the honor of being the longest serving woman legislator in the country. Gail Underwood Parker wrote about her in a book called Remarkable New Hampshire Women. In the chapter entitled Legendary Legislator she writes: “A movie ticket cost twenty-four cents and a year at Harvard University cost four hundred dollars in 1930 when Hilda Brungot first campaigned to represent the people of Berlin in the state legislature. … Her personality was always strong and she was not to be crossed. Tolerant of all races and religions, Hilda didn’t stand for any black or anti-Semitic jokes being told in her presence. Known as a bit of a rabble-rouser, she believed in absolute separation of church and state.”

“Politically, Hilda was respected on both sides of the aisle because she voted her conscience and her constituency and was willing to compromise only if it would help advance a cause she advocated. Some of her views were well ahead of her time, such as when she fought for labelling the contents of food products — in the 1940s. Also ahead of society were monthly “conscience raising” groups Hilda led at her home for women, counseling about the dangers of spousal abuse and encouraging self-sufficiency and self-confidence.”

My great-grandmother Sena and I drank from the same well on the farm, our bodies irrigated by the same sweet, cold water. My other great-grandmother Hilda left in her wake the legacy of advocacy for those who struggle to make their voices heard. My great-aunt May served as a missionary in Madagascar for some seven years, unable to leave the country during World War II. She taught me to keep playing the piano through my mistakes because people might be dancing to the music. My great-aunt Carrie still lived alone and baked bread at age 100. She lived to be 106 years old and in her 90s, she would take her guitar to the nursing home to “play for the old people.” Her home county in Minnesota was the namesake for the tiny North Dakota town where I was raised.

Not everyone has the luxury of knowing these riches. My great-uncle Junald must have known this when he painstakingly researched and published three editions of our family tree, even before the days of the Internet and word processing. My cousin George, a genealogist on the other side of my family, sent me a 30-foot roll of pages taped together so I could show my niece and nephew our connectedness with the many who’ve gone before us. My dad must know, too, or he’d stop repeating the stories.

These are precious gifts that I try not to take for granted. But whether or not one knows such personal stories matters less than our willingness to receive those within our ready grasp. Armenians share an enviable emotional bank account. It’s not one just filled with oppression and loss. It is also one filled with pride and resilience and solidarity and tolerance and faith. The account holds all that is needed for Armenians to take the next steps with confidence.

In fact, it holds all that is needed to inspire any who turn their heads to watch.

Another look at the Armeno-Turkish protocols, and where we stand today

The Armenian Weekly March 2014 Magazine:
Armenia’s Foreign Policy in Focus

IT SEEMS LIKE YESTERDAY when Armenians worldwide loudly condemned the protocols signed by Armenia and Turkey, which ostensibly sought to normalize relations between the two neighboring states.

A boy holds a poster that reads, “No to the Turkish preconditions,” during a demonstration organized by the ARF in Yerevan, in Jan. 2010. (Photo: Inna Mekhitarian-Hairenik/Armenian Weekly)

And yet, it is a fact that four years have passed, with the issue held in suspended animation, lacking parliamentary ratification from either side, despite the signature of both foreign ministers.

I have no desire to rehash the details of these protocols—a failed document from numerous standpoints. Suffice it to say that now, as then, the protocols jeopardize Armenia’s sovereignty and claims to justice by a) rendering the Armenian Genocide debatable; b) declaring null and void any Armenian territorial claims of Turkey; and c) implicitly authorizing Turkey to play a role in Armenia’s dispute with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabagh—all, presumably, for the sake of reopening the Armeno-Turkish border and restoring full diplomatic and economic relations.

What interests me now is why each country remains quiet on this matter, taking no appreciable steps toward resolution, nor even discussing the protocols, except when the question is raised by journalists. Such deafening silence cannot be incidental. Rather, it points to the protocols as a tactical, rather than strategic or fundamental, document. That is, Turkey and its allies, in all likelihood, saw a tactical opening in 2009, sized up the situation accordingly, and put forth a proposal that was a “win-win,” no matter how it ultimately fared. To wit:

—They likely saw President Serge Sarkisian’s regime for what it was (and is): a) a regime with tarnished legitimacy following the ugly 2008 presidential elections; b) a regime whose demonstrated reflexes in matters of diplomacy were passive, sluggish, and often conciliatory; and c) a regime that desperately sought to produce something new, such as an open border with Turkey, to demonstrate its openness internationally, and as a public relations remedy for its own underperforming economy.

—They asked for things fundamental (e.g., renunciation of territorial claims) in return for something that is tactical and reversible at any time (opening of borders). Moreover, the opening of borders was ballyhooed as an end in itself, an inherent good, when the all-important details (e.g., terms of trade, tariff regimes, export subsidies) had not been researched.

—Above all, the protocols enabled Turkey, Switzerland, the U.S., and others to claim that a “process” was underway, aiming to patch up the two nations’ differences. This thereby undermined Armenian advocacy for genocide recognition and related issues. It was not hard, after all, to label such advocacy as counterproductive, if they stood in the way of what seemed to be tangible progress.

So what now? From the looks of it, Turkey is not interested—at least not at this time—in advancing the protocols. Perhaps this is due, in part, to protests from Azerbaijan, which is concerned that an open border with Turkey could relieve pressure from its own blockade on Armenia’s eastern front. Or perhaps Turkey is biding its time, waiting for the next opportune moment to raise the matter again, for who knows what purpose. In any case, it has not been debated inside Turkey for many months now.

On Oct. 10, 2009, Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian (left) and his Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu sign the protocols. (Photo: Photolure)

The Armenian side, meanwhile, is trying to pretend the protocols never happened—almost like a bad dream or headache. When questioned by critics, government officials usually brush them off, to the effect of, “Why do you even raise this matter? Let sleeping dogs lie.” Unfortunately, the protocols are not something that can be wished away; unless President Sarkisian instructs his foreign minister to withdraw his signature, Turkey may revive the protocols process at any time, leaving Armenia in a situation where it would have to follow suit or say “no,” thus inviting outside scrutiny and pressure.

Much better would be a pro-active position, for example, withdrawing support for the protocols by citing Turkey’s own lack of sincerity in heating up then cooling down the issue. This, in fact, would simply follow through on Sarkisian’s own pronouncements in 2009-10, when, under a firestorm of diasporan criticism, he assured audiences that Armenia would withdraw if it sensed that Turkey was not promptly acting on its stated intentions. We are still waiting for this to materialize…

Meanwhile, it appears that “business-as-usual” is the order of the day, on this, the eve of the genocide centennial. Turkey continues to dart and weave like a trained boxer, sometimes friendly and sometimes hostile, sometimes alluding to dark pages of its past and the vague need for redress, at other times continuing its aggressive anti-Armenian rhetoric and posture, all the while firmly rooting its tactics in the culture of denial.

Armenia, meanwhile, seems timid, unfocused, and determined not to rock the boat. Even the formation of a government-sanctioned committee for the centennial, a seemingly welcome initiative, has thus far been a formality, organizing the usual conferences and seminars without an innovative edge in style or in substance. Carrying the agenda forward—from recognition to reparations and toward eventual restitution—seems, alas, to be left to the diaspora. This is truly unfortunate, for without Armenia’s leadership, our work in this area will remain pointed uphill.

There is still time, but the clock is ticking…

Special for The Armenian Weekly

For the past three years, Syrians have been terrorized by the ongoing conflict between the government and the various factions of the opposition. The destruction is staggering: 150,000 dead, 9 million displaced (refugees and IDPs), 3 million homes damaged, and half of the country’s infrastructure destroyed.

On March 8, the Martyrs of the Badr Brigade launched an offensive in the Meedan neighborhood of Aleppo. Later that evening, the brigade posted a Youtube video demonstrating the details of the operation.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“In response to the barrel attacks by the regime forces, we, the Martyrs of the Badr Brigade, will target the Syrian government bases in the Meedan and Suleymaniyeh neighborhoods,” said the leader of the brigade. “For their own protection, we urge civilians living near the Shabiha military bases to move out of those areas.”

The vast majority of the inhabitants of the Meedan and Suleymaniyeh neighborhoods are Armenians. Not surprisingly, the March 8 attacks damaged homes of Syrian-Armenians in Aleppo. “Go to hell you stupid people,” reacted one Syrian-Armenian civilian on social media. She later told me that her home had been destroyed in these attacks.

The ‘apology’

A few days later, the leadership of the Lewaa Ahfad al-Moursaleen, another rebel group fighting against the Assad regime, sent a letter of apology to the Syrian-Armenian leadership in Aleppo.

The letter stated:

“We, the leadership of the Ahfad al-Moursaleen Brigade, apologize to our Armenian brothers for the mistake that took place yesterday in the Meedan neighborhood.

“We affirm that we are moving forward with our revolution against the tyrant and his supporters. The Kurds and the Armenians are our brothers. Their suffering is our suffering. We urge all of you to stand with the revolution.”

The ferocity of the Syrian conflict has left no room for objectivity. Every aspect of this conflict is analyzed and presented based on the vantage point of the beholder. For the Syrian government and its supporters, the Martyrs of the Badr Brigade or the Ahfad al-Moursaleen Brigade qualify as terrorist groups, whereas the opponents of the Syrian government hail them as freedom fighters.

But while subjectivity is the order of the day in Syria, the fact remains that the March 8 attacks failed to cause any damage to the Syrian regime bases. The attacks resulted in the damaging of homes and buildings belonging to Syrian-Armenian civilians. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, the attacks terrorized the Armenian community in Syria and, more importantly, the attacks constitute a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

But while violations of international humanitarian law and all norms of international law is a common feature of life in Syria these days, the ironic aspect of the March 8 attacks is that the buildings that were damaged were located across the street from the Karen Jeppe Armenian College. Karen Jeppe was the Danish missionary who took care of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide.

Whereas it took two days for “terrorists” in Syria to acknowledge their crimes and present an official apology to the Syrian-Armenian community, the Turkish government continues to pursue a policy of denial almost 100 years after the Armenian Genocide. If “terrorists” acknowledge their own crimes, then what does that say about the Turkish government?

The Armenian Weekly March 2014 Magazine:
Armenia’s Foreign Policy in Focus

Armenia has, since the rebirth of her independent state in 1991, pursued a forward-leaning policy to strengthen ties with the United States and NATO. Unfortunately, Armenia’s outreach and initiatives to bolster support and investment from the United States have largely not been reciprocated by the Obama Administration.

Kerry and Davutoglu address reporters after their meeting in Washington, D.C., on Nov. 18, 2013. (State Department Photo)

Strengthening ties with NATO

Armenia has been a member of NATO’s Partnership for Peace program since 1994 and currently has troops stationed as part of NATO forces in Afghanistan and Kosovo. Armenia also supported U.S.-led efforts in the Iraq war.

In June 2011, as countries were pulling out of Afghanistan, Armenia actually tripled its troop deployment there. Armenia has 4 times more troops in Afghanistan per capita than Turkey and 10 times more per capita than either Canada or France. In February of this year, Armenia pledged to keep its military contingent in Afghanistan even after NATO’s mission is concluded in order to support the U.S.-led alliance to train and assist the Afghan army. Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian stated that Armenia is committed to “continuous contribution to coalition efforts to establish lasting security in Afghanistan.”

Despite regional pressures related to Armenia’s relationship with NATO, Armenia’s First Deputy Defense Minister Davit Tonoyan, during a visit from U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas in December 2013, explained that “joining one or another economic bloc does not inhibit Armenia. On the contrary, our defense cooperation with the United States will develop and deepen further.” Farkas in turn thanked Armenia for being a “net exporter of security” and noted that “Armenia is a significant partner to the United States in many ways.”

It is important to note that after the 2008 Georgian-Russian war, Armenia was the first country to host NATO exercises in the Caucasus. Armenia announced then that it was going to increase its ties with NATO, and it has done so ever since.

Remaining an actor in the protocols farce

Perhaps the U.S.’s most significant initiative in the region has been its effort to end Turkey’s blockade of Armenia through the protocols. The protocols provided President Barack Obama the cover he needed to dodge his pledge to end U.S. complicity in Armenian Genocide denial. It was the excuse he used in his first April 24^th statement to not recognize the genocide, even though he assured Armenian Americans that his “view of that history has not changed.”

Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian with Armenian troops in Afghanistan in 2010 (Photo: official website of the Defense Ministry of Armenia)

Although there was strong opposition to the protocols within both Armenia and the diaspora, Armenian President Serge Sarkisian has continued to support this U.S.-led initiative, even though Turkey made it clear, within a day of its signing, that it had no intention of abiding by the agreement.

Now, more than four years later, Armenia still has not withdrawn its signature from the protocols—this, despite the fact that they are being used by Ankara to undermine legitimate Armenian claims, and have helped forces who wish to turn the Armenian Genocide from a crime to be internationally condemned into a simple bilateral disagreement between Turkey and Armenia.

The protocols have helped shield Turkey from outside pressure concerning the Armenian Genocide. As a result, Turkey has taken an even more aggressive posture against Armenia, including more vocally supporting Azerbaijan’s anti-Armenian policies, threatening to deport Armenians in Turkey, accusing Armenia of committing atrocities—allegedly the “greatest tragedy of the 20^th century”—in the Karabagh War, and demolishing a statue to Armenian-Turkish friendship, all of which have happened since the protocols were signed.

Despite Turkey making a mockery of the process and the U.S.’s unwillingness to pressure Turkey beyond the occasional empty rhetoric that the “ball is in Turkey’s court,” Armenia continues to keep its signature on the protocols. Armenia has made it clear that it has done so out of deference to foreign powers, such as the United States.

What has been the US response?

Armenia is small in size, but big in terms of America’s strategic interests in the world. It sits in the middle of Washington’s top foreign policy priorities—Iran, Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Syria—where it can play an important role. Although the second largest U.S. embassy in the world sits not in Baghdad or Berlin, but in Yerevan, the United States does not have much to show for its efforts to promote trade or investment or reciprocate Armenia’s efforts to strengthen the partnership.

Its signature diplomatic initiative in Armenia was the protocols, which garnered the intense attention of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama before Armenia and Turkey agreed to sign the accord. Since Turkey quickly made it clear that it was not going to abide by that agreement, the United States’ willingness to pour political capital into realizing the agreement dramatically decreased.

The U.S. has not made Turkey pay a price for its failure to ratify the protocols and end its blockade. Instead, it has rewarded Turkey by publicly saying it could have a role to play in the Karabakh peace process, whereas previous administrations made it clear that Turkey would only have a negative impact on the peace process. For instance, in November 2013 at a joint press conference with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, Secretary of State John Kerry discussed consultations with Turkey over Nagorno-Karabagh without even mentioning the protocols or Turkey’s need to end its blockade of Armenia. Davutoglu felt comfortable claiming, “Today I am happy to see that John and me and Turkey and the United States look to [Nagorno-Karabagh] from the same perspective.”

Not only did President Obama fail to honor his pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide, but his former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, questioned the veracity of the Armenian Genocide—a move no other former Secretary of State in recent memory has made. In addition, Obama’s Solicitor General filed a brief in opposition to a California statute that allowed for Armenian Genocide-era property claims to be brought in U.S. courts. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case and the California law was struck down, denying justice to Armenian Americans.

Even on issues that would not risk the unreasonable wrath of Turkey, and even though numerous Members of Congress and U.S. corporations (such as Microsoft, NASDAQ, and Fed Ex) have urged the administration to immediately negotiate a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with Armenia, the Obama Administration hasn’t pursued U.S. interests in promoting trade with Armenia.

After a near continuous four years of Armenia extending its hand towards NATO and continuing to support the failed U.S.-backed protocols with Turkey, Armenian Americans cannot point to any meaningful benefit to U.S.-Armenia relations or trade. In fact, as the examples above illustrate, there were actually steps that undermined a strengthening of the partnership. What did, it seems, finally get the attention of the Obama Administration was not Armenia’s continued support for the protocols and other U.S. policies, but rather Armenia’s decision to move toward Russia’s Custom’s Union. Soon after the United States announced an over $250 million investment by the U.S. firm ContourGlobal in hydroelectric power plants in Armenia.

The announcement of a major U.S. investment in Armenia is a welcome first step in promoting greater U.S.-Armenia ties. Despite the many regional challenges, most notably the hostile neighbors it faces in both Turkey and Azerbaijan, Armenia is determined to strengthen its ties with the United States and Europe. The United States should do more to strengthen this partnership. Doing so will provide the United States with greater options to pursue its interests and promote stability in a geostrategic region. Moreover, the Obama Administration should stop compromising our values as a country to placate the most radical elements in Turkey, especially when it concerns confronting Turkey’s state-sponsored denial of the Armenian Genocide, which is at the root of instability between Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. As Americans, we are, in our relations with Armenia and all nations, at our best when we align our policies with our values.

KESSAB, Syria (A.W.)—The predominantly Armenian-populated town of Kessab has been emptied after rebel forces attacked the region in a bid to control strategic points in the area.

Kessab

Kessab was under fire over the past several days from gunmen entering the region from the Turkish border. By March 22, most of the town’s population had taken refuge in Latakia.

According to reports, Kessab and its surrounding villages are now largely under the control of rebels.

“According to a military source, units of the armed forces have since morning been directing fatal strikes to the terrorist groups which infiltrated the border from Turkey in Kassab area, inflicting heavy losses upon them,” reported the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) on March 23.

Perched in the northwestern corner of Syria, near the border with Turkey, Kessab had, until very recently, evaded major battles between the army and rebels. Many Syrian Armenians had taken refuge there because of the relative calm in the area over the past three years.

Several Armenians unable to leave town

LATAKIA, Syria (A.W.)—Around 400 families from Kessab have taken refuge in Latakia following attacks on their town, while the fate of several individuals who have stayed behind remains unclear, the Armenian Weekly has learned.

Rebels in Kessab

“Many Armenian families are staying with relatives and friends, while others have sought refuge in the Armenian Church and the church’s hall,” said Syrian Armenian community activist Nerses Sarkissian during a phone interview with Weekly editor Khatchig Mouradian.

“The Aleppo Armenian Prelacy as well as the Red Crescent are providing relief and assistance to these families in Latakia,” Sarkissian added.

Rebels engage in robbery and desecration

Rebels who have entered Kessab are desecrating churches, pillaging houses, and destroying government buildings, Sarkissian told the Weekly. A few Syrian Armenians have been unable to leave Kessab, and their fate is unclear, he added.

Sarkissian underlined that the rebels came from the Turkish side of the border and are receiving support from the Turkish military. He noted that the injured among them are being transported back to Turkey to receive medical attention.

Assad ‘reassures’ Aram Catholicos

Syria’s ambassador to Lebanon visited Catholicos Aram I in Antelias on March 22, conveying to him Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s assurances that peace will be restored in Kessab.

A delegation of priests left Antelias for Latakia on March 23 to assess needs and express the Catholicosate’s solidarity with the displaced population of Kessab.

Turkey downs Syrian fighter jet

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed reports that the Turkish military had shot down Syrian fighter jet. The fighter jet crashed in Kessab. According to Ankara, it came under fire after crossing the Turkish border.

Meanwhile, clashes continued. “According to a military source, units of the armed forces have since morning been directing fatal strikes to the terrorist groups which infiltrated the border from Turkey in Kassab area, inflicting heavy losses upon them,” reported the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) on March 23.

Perched in the northwestern corner of Syria, near the border with Turkey, Kessab had, until very recently, evaded major battles between the army and rebels. Many Syrians had taken refuge there because of the relative calm in the area over the past three years.

KESSAB, SYRIA–The Armenian populated villages of Kesab (Kessab, Kasab), Syria were the target of three days of brutal cross-border attacks from Turkey by al-Qaeda affiliated armed bands, which have cost 80 lives and forced the civilian population of the area to flee for to neighboring hills, with many seeking safe-haven in the nearby cities of Latakia and Basit.

In a written statement, the Armenian National Committee—International, condemned the attacks and Turkey’s active role in aiding and abetting extremist groups in their targeted attacks against the Christian and minority populations in Syria. “For months, we have warned the international community of the imminent threat posed by extremist foreign fighters against the Christian minority population in Syria,” noted the ANC-I statement. “These vicious and unprompted attacks against the Armenian-populated town and villages of Kesab are the latest examples of this violence, actively encouraged by neighboring Turkey. We call upon all states with any influence in the Syrian conflict to use all available means to stop these attacks against the peaceful civilian population of Kesab, to allow them to return to their homes in safety and security. In the last one hundred years, this is the third time that the Armenians are being forced to leave Kesab and in all three cases, Turkey is the aggressor or on the side of the aggressors.”

According to news reports, the armed incursion began on Friday, March 21, 2014, at 5:45a.m., with rebels associated with Al-Qaeda’s al-Nusra Front, Sham al-Islam and Ansar al-Sham crossing the Turkish border and attacking the Armenian civilian population of Kesab. The attackers immediately seized two guard posts overlooking Kesab, including a strategic hill known as Observatory 45 and later took over the border crossing point with Turkey. Snipers targeted the civilian population and launched mortar attacks on the town and the surrounding villages.

According to eyewitness accounts, the attackers crossed the Turkish border with Syria openly passing through Turkish military barracks. According to Turkish media reports, the attackers carried their injured back to Turkey for treatment in the town of Yayladagi.

Some 670 Armenian families, the majority of the population of Kesab, were evacuated by the local Armenian community leadership to safer areas in neighboring Basit and Latakia. Ten to fifteen families with relations too elderly to move were either unable to leave or chose to stay in their homes.

On Saturday, March 22, Syrian troops launched a counteroffensive in an attempt to regain the border crossing point, eye-witnesses and state media reported. However, on Sunday, March 23, the extremist groups once again entered the town of Kesab, took the remaining Armenian families hostage, desecrated the town’s three Armenian churches, pillaging local residences and occupying the town and surrounding villages.

Located in the northwestern corner of Syria, near the border with Turkey, Kesab had, until very recently evaded major battles in the Syrian conflict. The local Armenian population had increased in recently years with the city serving as safe-haven for those fleeing from the war-torn cities of Yacubiye, Rakka and Aleppo.

Assad Regime Protests Turkey’s Involvement to United Nations

The latest onslaught on Kesab has prompted Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government to protest to the United Nations that Turkey was providing cover to rebels crossing the border from its territory. In a message to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, Damascus demanded that the Security Council denounce what it called a terrorist attack on Syrian territory.

Syrian state television made reference to the fighting in a breaking news alert, saying the army was “tackling attempts by terrorist gangs to infiltrate from Turkish territory and attack border crossings in northern Latakia province.”

Turkey Downs Syrian Fighter Jet

On March 23, Turkey said its fighter jets shot down a Syrian jet after it crossed into Turkish airspace.

Syria denied that its jet had violated Turkish airspace and, according to Agence France-Presse, accused Turkey of “a flagrant act of aggression that is evidence of Erdoğan’s support for terrorist groups.” The MIG-23 jets were reportedly flying a support mission to assist ground forces repelling extremist fighters which had infiltrated from Turkey into Kesab.

“The international community should restrain Turkey to stop this and similar anti-Armenian operations and in general it antagonistic policy against Armenia and the Armenian people,” concludes the ANC International’s statement.

President Serge Sarkisian made a press statement concerning the events in Kessab at the World Forum Convention Center in The Hague. The President expressed his deep concern over the events in Kessab. “All of us perfectly remember the history of Kessab, which was unfortunately, full of hellish realities deportations in the last century,” said Sarkisian.

Serge Sarkisian (Photo: president.am)

The President of Armenia reminded that the first scourge was back in April 1909 when the Turkish armed detachments invaded Kessab. The Armenians took shelter on the heights of Karadouran and on the coast. After setting Kessab on fire and plundering it, Turks made their way to Karadouran, burned and looted the houses of that district. A French ship transported Armenians to Latakia. After living in Latakia for one year, the population returned to Kessab and reconstructed their houses.

Sarkisian also recalled another date, 1915, when the Kessab population was deported during the Armenian Genocide. Armenians of Kessab were exiled in two directions: to Der Zor and to Jordan. Thousands died en route, the majority of whom in the desert of Der Zor.

“The third deportation of Kessab Armenians today is a serious challenge to ethnic minority rights’ protection mechanisms of the 21st century. I think everyone should realize these sobering parallels,” underlined Sarkisian.

The president thanked the Syrian authorities for the steps being taken to protect the Armenians in Kessab at this difficult moment.

“I have already instructed the diplomatic missions at the UN Headquarters in New York and Geneva to raise the issue of ensuring the security of the Armenians in Kessab and their safe return to their permanent places of residence at venues dealing with human rights and ethnic minorities,” said Sarkisian.

Also on March 24, the president had a discussion about the situation with the Catholicos Aram I.

Sarkisian said that the Embassy of the Republic of Armenia in Syria will embark on a series of measures to support the Armenians of Kessab.

This article is the first in a two part series written by Armenian Weekly columnist Lalai Manjikian. Part II will be posted tomorrow, March 25.

It is that autumn season again in Montreal when fallen leaves brighten the city. Nothing burdens me right now, as I feel the earth’s cold moisture spread across my knees, staining my newly washed jeans. Instead, I form abstract clusters of yellow, red, and brown as I collect the leaves on the ground. This act soon becomes the free rearrangement of dampened earth colors on a grass canvas against the brisk November wind.

Time slows down only when I kneel on the earth’s surface in such close proximity to the humid grass. I am reminded of a gentle pace, the solid entrenchment, and the idea of a connection. My mind begins to trace a map of the roots and the routes that brought me here. I think of these journeys every time there is work to be done in my father’s urban garden miles away from his ancestral village of Karadouran near Kessab, Syria, where he learned to work and reap the land as a young boy.

An image from the author’s childhood in Kessab.

I watch as my father methodically turns the soil so that, come springtime, he can plant new roots. He works with a serene seriousness, unmistakably carrying the physical traits and movements of his own father of whom I have but a few distinct memories from my visits to Kessab as a child. These images of baboug, my grandfather Hovsep Manjikian, are beginning to fade, barely kept alive through photographs that still leave many things said, heard, or felt outside the frame.

Those childhood visits to Kessab left a lasting impression on me. I can recall the fragrances of boiled quince or grapes on burning wood, playing on the swing under the shade of vivacious grapevines, and long walks through the apple orchards. Most particularly, I remember how baboug would put his transistor radio up to his ear to listen to the news with the volume at its highest setting. Because he was hard of hearing, my father had sent him a hearing aid from Canada, but it still required full volume on the radio. After baboug passed away in 1994, my father inquired about that hearing aid, hoping that someone else in the village could make use of it. It then emerged that my grandfather had been buried with the hearing aid – a literal posthumous union of technology and body.

Baboug loved tomatoes. Watching him chew fresh tomatoes with such appetite has left an imprint in my mind. I remember how he would eat a simple dinner, consisting of a tomato and cucumber salad, toneer-ee hatz (village bread) and oghee (ouzo). The distinct scents of warm hatz and potent oghee filled the kitchen and veranda of the ancestral home. As he ate, small beads of sweat would trickle through the finely drawn gorges of his sun-kissed face. Why did he perspire, I wondered, despite the cool gentle breeze that rarely stopped blowing through the veranda?

The village of Karadouran is where, as an infant, I learned how to walk. A grainy photograph shows me in a red-and-white polka-dot dress. I was holding my older brother’s hand, as I practiced how to take one step at a time. Now I think back on that reality and I am comforted to know that my first steps in life were on land where thick roots grew deeply. Shortly after those first steps, I would be flung, like many Armenians, amid the unceasing flows and unfixed realities that living in the diaspora entails.

To this day, Kessab and its surrounding regions retain a significant Armenian population. A drive down a narrow, winding road through towering mountains leads to my father’s village of Karadouran, which is located close to the Mediterranean Sea. The previously untamed, mountainous backdrop is now being populated with modern villas alongside ancient stone houses.

The most valuable resource in the area is the fertile land. Villagers have subsisted mainly by selling their harvested produce from that land, initially with non-mechanized and rudimentary processes. Baboug worked on that land all his life, at first growing tobacco to fulfill the Syrian government agricultural quotas, and later harvesting and selling apples.

The author with Kalil nene.

Karadouran is also where my grandmother, Kalila Yaralian-Manjikian, lived until she quietly passed away on November 2011 at the age of 104.

I was fortunate to have visited Kessab in October 2007 to celebrate my grandmother’s 100^th birthday. As an adult, I was able to form new memories from listening to her wisdom, laughing with her, answering her questions, hearing her answer my own questions that I had about her life, and hugging her. I enjoyed her sense of humor and inquisitive mind first-hand. I was in the presence of a century lived, and Kalil nene inspired me profoundly with her strength and resilience.

She was unquestionably the doyenne of the village. Visitors, friends, and family, from near and far, would always make the mandatory stop to see Kalil nene, to receive her blessings, to answer her questions of what they were up to and where they were in their life—and this, until her very last days. Even outsiders were taken by her degree of lucidity and her life trajectory. Foreign filmmakers who managed to reach this remote area sought to preserve her and her words for posterity.

When I last saw her, I was amazed by her self-sufficiency and mobility at her advanced age. Her level of awareness, her intact memory that recalled the finest of details, her sharp and curious mind, and her wit were all remarkable. At times, she had critical words to offer and was very categorical about what she wanted. Most of the time, she would just voice her opinion and then let it go with a simple “Eh, took keedek” (you know best). She always knew the whereabouts and status of everyone in the village, and those who had gone abroad.

Named after the Biblical Galilee, Kalil nene was born in Karadouran in 1907. When she was about one year old, her family was forced to flee the village during the time of the Adana massacres. In 1915, her family was forced to flee again during the Armenian Genocide. They made their way to Damascus on foot and then joined a caravan to the Salt and Mahas regions in Jordan. It was in Mahas that Kalil nene’s father passed away.

In 1918, when the British army entered Jerusalem, her family relocated there. She bore a tattoo with a cross and the year 1918 as a memento of her time in Jerusalem.

Later in 1918, her family moved yet again, this time by train, to Port Said in Egypt to join other displaced Armenians from Kessab, Musa Dagh, and other regions. It was in Port Said where Kalil nene learned the Armenian alphabet.

At the beginning of 1919, the Armenians residing in Port Said began either to resettle in other regions or to return home. Kalil nene’s family was taken by train to Aleppo, Syria, where horse-drawn wagons took them to the region of Antioch. From there, they made their way back to Kessab, and then finally to Karadouran on foot. The Armenian population of Kessab that survived the mass killings and deportations was then able to begin rebuilding their destroyed homes and villages.

In 1927, Kalil nene married my grandfather. Over the next few decades, they raised three children while another World War ensued, and the Middle East experienced numerous upheavals. Life continued in rural Karadouran at its usual pace however, with small doses of modernity gradually infiltrating their everyday existence.

When Kalil nene turned 100 years old, one of her grandchildren asked her, “What is the secret to living so long?” She replied simply, “Lead a clean life.” There is a multitude of ways one can interpret this eloquent statement.

During her 100th birthday celebration, she refused all assistance. On her own, she climbed down the 10 stairs of her home, and then walked quite a distance from the car to reach the “honor table” in the restaurant where her birthday was held. Everyone watched admiringly as she took one solid step after another using her two wooden canes.

She was a member of the Armenian Relief Society for 80 years and received official recognition for it. She was also a supporter of Armenian schools in the Kessab region. She even attended the opening of a new school building not long before she passed away, having been a contributor to the funds for the school.

How did she live such a long and healthy life? Was it the clean mountain air, her genetic make-up, the years of arduous physical labour in the village, or the fact that she was a strict vegetarian and preferred to eat grains such as bulgur and lentils? Perhaps all of these factors, combined with her overall positive and healthy outlook on life and her sense of humor, contributed to her longevity.

Kalil nene witnessed the beginning of the unrest in Syria in early 2011, but she passed away before the crisis intensified. I wonder what nene’s reaction would have been had she continued to witness the bloodshed unfolding in Syria. She was fortunate to have avoided yet another – a third – forced displacement. Her death was timely in that sense. How do you displace elders who have spent a lifetime building their dwellings, stone by stone, day by day?

During the ongoing upheavals in Syria, countless citizens, including some Armenians, have bravely salvaged what they can and have sought to live a semblance of a “normal” life, given the difficult circumstances. Many have fled or may be forced to flee from their homes, which could deprive Aleppo, Damascus and Kessab of a rich historic Armenian presence. Those who are displaced may be forced to endure the challenges of establishing a new life, and the uncertainty of whether they can return home again. In the meantime, they will inevitably grow new roots wherever they find themselves.

As the crisis continues in Syria, indiscriminate killing and violation of human rights are becoming as accepted as breaking bread. Syrians of various cultural, religious, and political backgrounds face dispossession on far too many fronts – the loss is unimaginable. Amid this anguish, the story of the Armenian diaspora also continues to be written as long-standing communities suffer and bleed. Armenians are like nomads who are condemned or blessed to carry real and figurative pieces of their homes, in order to re-build new ones, amid the unrelenting movement of people around the globe by force or free will.

Despite being forcefully displaced twice, Kalil nene had still succeeded in returning to the ancestral land, where she was born and raised. She tirelessly worked that land and was buried there after reaching the milestone of a century. Life came full circle for her. Living within a diasporic reality—to be born and raised on, and to work and die on one’s ancestral land close to one’s roots—is indeed a rare gift.

Back in Montreal, time slows down again for me momentarily as I stare out at my father’s garden. I watch as the painted leaves are pushed by incessant whirlwinds across the fence into the neighboring yard. The autumn sun warms my face as I continue to contemplate my Kessab origins and daydream of visiting that land once again…

Lalai Manjikian holds a PhD in Communication Studies from McGill University (2013). She currently teaches in the Humanities department at Vanier College in Montreal. Lalai writes and teaches in the areas of human migration, refugee social exclusion and inclusion, the ethics of migration, media and migration, intercultural communication, and diaspora studies. She is the author of Collective Memory and Home in the Diaspora: The Armenian Community in Montreal (2008). Lalai writes a monthly column, titled “Scattered Beads” for the Armenian Weekly.