Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian policy)

[londontsi]

Re: Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian polic

Listen to the attitude of the Marzbed towards enviornmentalists

[Armanen]

Re: Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian polic

Tigranakert

Unless you have actual evidence, that the West is inciting coloured revolutions in Southern Caucasian and ploting to take over Armenia. Stop whining like an old women and wallowing in self pity. As the negative and pessimistic, doomsayer mentality in Armenia (exemplified by your good self) is the result of Armenia's socio-economic circumstances and it's poltical problems with it's Turkic neighbours, not the West.

There is ample evidence to show Western financing of the color revolutions in the post-Soviet states. Do not act like you are unaware of this info, which has been presented on this site multiple times and I know you have been here long enough to have read them at least once!

It's odd that you and bell, two foreigners, think you know more about Armenian mentality, history, culture, language, and people, than Armenians themselves. Come down from your self-constructed perch of Armenology.

[Armanen]

Re: Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian polic

Tigranakert

Agitating against and projecting things on to the West is can only serve to isolate Armenia. Which is far from desirable, since Armenia is a small independent state with a large diaspora and in order to survive. It must be a outward looking and adaptable nation. Not insular, ultra-nationalist and xenophobic.

Londontsi is right in thinking that their needs to be greater focus on civil and social development. As no small part of the problem with the states in the region is that they are excessively dominated by their security/military complexes and a aggressive, tribal outlook, which perpetuates thier hostility to one another.

Some Emerson for you:

The West is killing itself, Armenia doesn't need to lift a finger.

[Armanen]

Re: Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian polic

These CIA douches wont rule armenia again. Even if by some magical power they would, they'll be taken care of like in 1999. Armenia is not Georgia.

Amen to that brother!

[Mher]

Re: Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian polic

BBC's Overview of Armenia


One of the earliest Christian civilisations, its first churches were founded in the fourth century. In later centuries, it frequently oscillated between Byzantine, Persian, Mongol or Turkish control, as well as periods of independence.

Its rich cultural and architectural heritage combines elements from different traditions. The Armenian language is part of the Indo-European family, but its alphabet is unique.

Divided between the Persians and Ottomans in the 16th century, eastern Armenian territories became part of the Russian Empire in the early 19th century, while the rest stayed within the Ottoman Empire.
Republic Square in Yerevan, with Council of Ministers building (r)
Republic Square in Yerevan

Between 1915 and 1917, hundreds of thousands of ethnic Armenians died at the hands of government troops in the Ottoman Empire.

Yerevan wants Turkey, and the world, to recognize the deaths as genocide, and some countries have done so.

However, Turkey says that there was no genocide and that the dead were victims of World War I, and that ethnic Turks also suffered in the conflict.

The governments of the two countries agreed to normalise relations in October 2009, although Turkey has said opening the border will depend on progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.

An independent Republic of Armenia was proclaimed at the end of the first world war but was short-lived, lasting only until the beginning of the 1920s when the Bolsheviks incorporated it into the Soviet Union.

When Soviet rule collapsed in 1991, Armenia regained independence but retained a Russian military base at Gyumri.

In the mid-1990s the government embarked on an economic reform programme which brought some stability and growth. The country became a member of the Council of Europe in 2001.

Unemployment and poverty remain widespread. Armenia's economic problems are aggravated by a trade blockade imposed by neighbouring Turkey and Azerbaijan since the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Despite these problems, Armenia's economy experienced several years of double-digit growth before a sharp downturn set in in 2008.

The conflict over the predominantly Armenian-populated region in Azerbaijan overshadowed Armenia's return to independence.

Full-scale war broke out the same year as ethnic Armenians in Karabakh fought for independence, supported by troops and resources from Armenia proper. A ceasefire in place since 1994 has failed to deliver any lasting solution.

Armenia receives most of its gas supply from Russia and, like some other republics of the former Soviet Union, has had to face sharp price rises. Russian gas arrives via a pipeline running through Georgia.

Armenia has a huge diaspora and has always experienced waves of emigration, but the exodus of recent years has caused real alarm. It is estimated that Armenia has lost up to a quarter of its population since independence, as young families seek what they hope will be a better life abroad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1108052.stm

[Mos]

Re: Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian polic

^^^^

Neo-con tool.

[Mher]

Re: Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian polic

Washington Post Blinded by Love Affair with Bryza


BY ARA KHACHATOURIAN

The Washington Post’s editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, has taken a page out of the Aliyev propaganda manual in his Sunday piece about US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Matthew Bryza and how the Armenian lobby (special interests) is blocking Bryza’s appointment, despite his alleged qualifications for the job.

Of late, official Baku in its framing of the Karabakh conflict, has opted to compare the national wealth of both countries as an indication that Azerbaijan is a force to be reckoned with, often whitewashing the entrenched Western oil interests that have been lurking in Azerbaijan since its independence 20 year ago.

Calling Armenia “oil-poor” Hiatt blames the Armenian lobby and Armenia for it’s current land-locked reality, failing to mention that Turkey and Azerbaijan shut their borders with Armenia in protest of the Karabakh war and continue to hold the Karabakh conflict resolution as a precondition for any “good neighborly” relations.

“And one reason peacemaking has failed is the dogmatism of some diaspora groups that can enjoy, from afar, the luxury (and fundraising magic) of sustained grievance. A fervent, at times even counterproductively so, diaspora is not unique — ask Cuba, Israel or Latvia — but it has been particularly debilitating for minuscule, resource-poor Armenia,” Hiatt points out in his ill-thought out piece to promote Bryza.

Hiatt also singles out the Armenian National Committee of America for mounting a campaign against Bryza, who the author deems highly qualified for the job. He cites a barrage of support Bryza has received from former State Department officials and numerous think-tanks, some of which are notorious in their support of neo-conservative agendas, which ultimately benefit the deep pockets of corporations with interests in countries like Azerbaijan.

The argument that Azerbaijan is rich and Armenia is poor, thus the Armenian lobby should shut up and let Bryza’s nomination go through is so circuitous in its logic that one wonders why Hiatt has taken on such a keen interest in promoting an ambassador, whose actions and statements call into question his qualifications to represent this country in Azerbaijan.

This is not the first time the Washington Post has blindly defended Bryza. Under Hiatt’s leadership, the paper’s editorials have reeked of one-sided support for Bryza and condemnation for those opposing him, especially the ANCA. Hiatt seems to harbor disdain, if not outright hatred for the group.

Hiatt treats the arguments against Bryza, as expressed by senators Barbara Boxer and Robert Menendez last year during his Senate nomination hearings as not making sense and essentially blames the two senators for holding Bryza’s fate hostage to what he calls “special interests groups” that are, in Hiatt’s mind, doing a disservice to Armenia by opposing Bryza’s nomination.

Hiatt conveniently brushes over some of the important concerns of the aforementioned senators and rightfully highlighted by the folks at the ANCA during Bryza’s nomination process. For example, the senators extensively questioned Bryza on his failure to act promptly and effectively when Azeri forces began destroying Armenian monuments in Djulfa. As ambassador, Bryza was barred from visiting Djulfa by Azeri authorities and, frankly, never really attempted to make another visit there. Nor, did he question the validity of this action during his so-called exemplary service as US ambassador.

Furthermore, Hiatt conveniently discounts Bryza’s entrenchment in Azeri political circles and his often blatant advocacy for the government, that even according to the State Department, continues to torture and stifle opposition forces and silence free expression by dissenting circles. The Washington Post editorial page editor couches the ANCA’s concerns over Bryza’s Turkish wife’s connections with the Aliyev regime as ethnically motivated.

He neglects to mention that Bryza’s wife, Zeyno Baran, has served on the editorial board of the Azeri Government funded “Azerbaijan Focus,” a journal published by the Center for Strategic Studies Under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan. She was joined on that board by Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, among other high-level Turkish/Azeri officials.

Hiatt asserts that Bryza is a beacon of democracy and peace building, yet his tepid response to Baku’s continued warmongering demonstrates that he does not want to ruffle his friends’ feathers and further contributes to Baku’s combative approach to the peace talks. In fact, during his year-long tenure as ambassador, Bryza has been known to cherry-pick incidents and comment on them, before the bodies tasked to address those issues have had an opportunity to assess the veracity for validity of events. By doing so, he has done more to advance official Baku’s propaganda than protect US interests in the country.

“The biggest losers in all this won’t be Americans or Azerbaijanis (who, by the way, enjoy about twice the per capita income of Armenians), but Armenians — poor, isolated and once again victims of a power play that has nothing to do with their well-being,” Hiatt concludes.

Hiatt’s concern for Armenia’s economic well being is touching. But to equate Bryza’s nomination with the end of Armenia’s economic woes is shortsighted at best and a cheap and uneducated conclusion for an editor of such a venerable publication.

http://asbarez.com/99874/washington-post-blinded-by-love-affair-with-bryza/

[Tigranakert]

Re: Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian polic

Anti-Armenian articles are not uncommon in the United States of America.


When special interests block national interest


The Washington Post
By Fred Hiatt, Monday, December 19, 2:10 AM

Barring a last-minute surprise in the U.S. Senate, the well-qualified diplomat President Obama sent to serve as ambassador to Azerbaijan will have to come home in less than a month.

In the great modern novel of Washington dysfunction, this is a small subplot. But the failing nomination of Matthew Bryza, out of public view and without so much as a committee vote, offers a vivid example of how the larger U.S. national interest can fall victim to special-interest jockeying and political accommodation.

Editor of The Post’s editorial page, Hiatt also writes a biweekly column and contributes to the PostPartisan blog.

This particular story begins not in Azerbaijan, an oil-rich, predominantly Muslim former Soviet republic on the Caspian Sea (population: 8 million), but with its neighbor and bitter rival: oil-poor, predominantly Christian Armenia (population: 3 million).

Armenia was expected to be a post-Soviet success story, given its clear national identity, proud culture and committed diaspora in the United States, France and elsewhere.

But the past 20 years have brought disappointment: a government that is democratic more in form than substance and a corrupt, under performing economy. Armenia is the 141st poorest country in the world, with a per capita income of $5,700.

One reason for the sub-par performance has been Armenia’s inability to settle grievances with neighboring Azerbaijan and Turkey. The cold peace has exacerbated the ill effects of being landlocked and left Armenia to the not-so-tender embraces of Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

And one reason peacemaking has failed is the dogmatism of some diaspora groups that can enjoy, from afar, the luxury (and fundraising magic) of sustained grievance. A fervent, at times even counterproductively so, diaspora is not unique — ask Cuba, Israel or Latvia — but it has been particularly debilitating for minuscule, resource-poor Armenia.

This is the context for the campaign against Bryza, deemed insufficiently hostile to Armenia’s enemies by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and two Democratic senators with Armenian American constituencies, Barbara Boxer (Calif.) and Robert Menendez (N.J.).

When Obama first nominated Bryza in 2010, Boxer and Menendez put a “hold” on his nomination, preventing a Senate vote. Obama sent Bryza to Baku with a recess appointment and renominated him in January. The two Democrats continued to oppose him — never mind his performance on the job. Consequently, the administration never pushed for him. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, never scheduled a hearing. Meanwhile, the administration pushed hard for ambassadorial appointments with Republican opponents.

Arguments against Bryza have included “his opposition to [U.S.] recognition of the Armenian genocide by Turkey” (Menendez), his ostensible failure to speak out forcefully against Azerbaijani aggression (Boxer) and supposed conflicts involving his Turkish-born, U.S. citizen wife, also a foreign policy expert (ANCA). Opponents said, though, that their opposition had “absolutely nothing to do with the ethnic origin of his wife,” as Menendez said.

Their doubts about Bryza are not widely shared. On the contrary, 36 foreign policy luminaries, including former undersecretaries of state Thomas Pickering and Nicholas Burns, released a letter last week calling Bryza an “exemplary” ambassador who has served “with distinction.”

“He has the right combination of everything — contacts, trust, strategic vision, operational ability, leadership — everything,” they wrote.

If Bryza had been soft on the human-rights-abusing Azerbaijani regime, as alleged, you would not expect to find among his supporters the heads of the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute — America’s premier democracy-promoting organizations. But all four signed the letter.

Nor does it make sense to blame a foreign service officer for Obama’s policy on genocide terminology, as Menendez did. “That is an argument to be hashed out with the U.S. Administration on the merits,” the letter points out. “But holding up a qualified career nominee who is already serving in a key position will not change U.S. policy, and does a disservice to U.S. interests in a critical region.”

Bryza has been promoting dialogue between the Azerbaijani regime and civil society; that will be set back. He’s been promoting reconciliation with Armenia, too. If Azerbaijan sees that the Armenia lobby, and two out of 100 senators, have veto power, the regime is unlikely to trust in the neutrality of the next envoy.

The biggest losers in all this won’t be Americans or Azerbaijanis (who, by the way, enjoy about twice the per capita income of Armenians), but Armenians — poor, isolated and once again victims of a power play that has nothing to do with their well-being.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/special-interests-blocking-bryzas-appointment/2011/12/16/gIQAmT0fzO_story.html

[Tigranakert]

Re: Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian polic

Armenians should be taught that the West / Europe/ US does not give a damn about human rights, democracy or justice. Another good example is how they not report massively on the extreme grave situation Egypt is in now, http://rt.com/news/egyptian-military...y-beating-079/ . As the military power is under American control, Egypt will not be bombed, Egypt will not be sanctioned, and Egypt will not be put under pressure by the West.

I respect and totally support human rights movements in Armenia, but not those who are under the control of Western countries, as their goal is not to improve "human rights", "democracy" or anything else, but their only goal is to influence domestic politics which most of the time have rather dramatic consequences for the country. I again state, Armenians have to support Armenians and foreign organisations should be banned in funding NGO's, or should report every dollar which they donate and the reason for every dollar spent should be accounted for, which is common in United States of America, other European countries and Israel.

[Tigranakert]

Re: Western-financed Armenian "human rights activists" (and their anti-Armenian polic

Army mustn’t be criticized for own benefit – RPA member

December 14, 2011 - 16:49 AMT
PanARMENIAN.Net - A member of ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) slammed recent attempts by certain NGOs and human right activists to criticize the army, thus weakening it. “The army is among the greatest achievements of our independent state, being the strongest and the most efficient one in the region,” Hovhannes Sahakyan stated at the forum titled Summary of 2011 Political Results. “Army mustn’t be criticized in pursuit of own goals, but rather as an attempt of a concerned person to achieve elimination of those troubling incidents,” the politician stressed. The forum was organized by the National Press Club jointly with U.S. National Democratic Institute (NDI).