Jun 12 2008

Ապաստանի հայցով գործը վերաբացվել է սղագրական սխալի պատճառով

 Տպել այս հոդվածը

14 responses so far

14 մեկնաբանություն

1. # «Արարատ» ՌԿ-ի մեկնաբանությունըգրել է 12 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 08:42

   Արտերկրում քաղաքական ապաստան փնտրող հայաստանցիների մասին այս և մի շարք այլ նմանատիպ հրապարակումներում նրանց Հայաստան վերադարձի հեռանկարը ներկայացվում է իբրև մի ծանր դժբախտություն. ընթերցողը պետք է եզրակացնի, թե Հայաստանը մի դժոխք է, ուր սարսափում են վերադառնալ այնտեղից հազիվ-հազ ճողոպրած մարդիկ։ Իրականում, թեև Հայաստանը ժողովրդագրական ծանր խնդիր ունի, բայց և այնպես իսկապես կարիք չունի հայրենիքից հրապարակայնորեն հրաժարվող, ավելին՝ հայրենիքն օտար դատական ատյաններում վարկաբեկող ու վատաբանող մարդկանց։

   ­­­ ԱՄՆ-ում անօրեն ներգաղթյալների վտարման դեպքերն ու դատական գործերը հազվադեպ չեն այլ էթնիկ խմբերի շրջանում: Նրանց մեջ անկասկած կլինեն նաև Արթուր Մկոյանի նման խոստումնալից երիտասարդներ: Սակայն, նման դեպքերի նկատմամբ լրատվամիջոցների այսպիսի համակարգված հետաքրքրություն չի նկատվում:

   Մասնավորապես, Սվետլանա Գրիգորյանի գործի մասին լուսաբանումը բավականին թռուցիկ և աղոտ է: Հնարավոր է` դա պայմանավորված է նաև նման դեպքերում անձի մասին տեղեկատվության գաղտնիության պահպանման սկզբունքով: Բայց և այնպես, սույն հրապարակումն առաջ է բերում մի շարք հարցադրումներ, որոնք առաջին հերթին ցանկանում ենք ուղղել ՀՀ համապատասխան պետական մարմիններին` կոչ անելով նրանց անպայմանորեն արձագանքել Հայաստանի Հանրապետության միջազգային վարկանիշը լրջորեն վնասող այս և նույնաբովանդակ հրապարակումներին:

   Առաջին, արդյո՞ք այս դեպքում ՀՀ համապատասխան մարմինները հարցում ստացել են ԱՄՆ ներգաղթի հարցերով պետական մարմիններից կամ դատարանից ապաստանի հայցադիմում ներկայացված տեղեկատվության իսկությունը ճշտելու համար:

   Երկրորդ, Հայաստանում ի՞նչ կազմակերպության նախագահ էր այնուամենայնիվ դարձել Սվետլանան, ի՞նչ լարվածություն էր ծագել այդ կազմակերպության ներսում, ինչպե՞ս է դա առնչվում նրա որդու սպանության գործին, արդյո՞ք մարդասպաններն այդ կազմակերպության անդամներն էին և այլն: Եվ հետո, եթե Հայաստանում Սվետլանային իրոք չէին հանդուրժում թուրք մայր ունենալու պատճառով, ինչպե՞ս «հանդուրժեցին» նրա` ինչ-որ կազմակերպության նախագահ դառնալը:

   Երրորդ, արդյոք սույն հրապարակումից և Սվետլանա Գրիգորյանի ԱՄՆ-ում հայտնվելու հանգամանքից հետևու՞մ է, որ Հայաստանում նրա որդու սպանության գործի հետաքննություն, դատավարություն և արդար դատավճիռ չի եղել, կամ որ դրանց արդյունքները չեն գոհացրել տուժողին:
   Եվ ընդնահրապես, եթե եղել է նման դժբախտ դեպք Հայաստանում, որքանո՞վ է այն հայտնի հանրությանը, ինչպե՞ս են դրան արձագանքել ՀՀ պետական մարմինները, հայաստանյան լրատվամիջոցները և հասարակական կազմակերպությունները:

   Մկոյանի գործի մասին նույնաբովանդակ հրապարակումները կարդացեք նաև «ՅուԷսԷյթդեյ»-ում և ստորև շարադրված մյուս աղբյուրներում:

   USAToday`
   Դպրոցն ավարտելուց հետո շրջանավարտին երկրից վտարում է սպասվում
   Մեկ շաբաթ հետո 17-ամյա Արթուր Մկոյանը կավարտի Ֆրեզնոյի Բուլարդի ավագ դպրոցը (Կալիֆոռնիա)` 4,0 բարձրագույն միավորով: Ավարտական միջոցառման ժամանակ նա է շրջանավարտների կողմից հրաժեշտի խոսք ասելու: Շարունակությունը ( USAToday )

   ­­­ Նաև` Newsvine ; CBS NEWS ; WIKIO ; KSEE 24 ; FOX News ; FOX6 News ; The Beaufort Gazette ; RushmoreDrive ; ArmyRanger.com ; Rational Review ; CBS47 TV ; USAToday ; KCRA.com ; The Daily Breeze ;The Mercury News ; SavannahNow ; LexixNexis News :

2. # Stepan Sargsyanգրել է 12 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 13:52

   The questions raised by the “Ararat” center are valid and important. Most likely, the immigration officers interviewing Svetlana Grigoryan have asked or will ask those very same questions. What’s interesting, or rather absurd, no evidence or proof is ever requested by the US immigration service from the applicant to substantiate claims of abuse, arrest, torture, etc.

   For example, if you claim that you were arrested, imprisoned, tortured and then released, you won’t really have to show any kind of documentation to prove it. Or those claiming they escaped Azerbaijan during the war, may simply say that they lost their passports. The US immigration service will never go back to the country of origin and request additional information or validate anything. As such, those applicants with the greater artistic capability of convincing the immigration officer will have a bigger chance of success. Or the individuals claiming they were part of Jehova’s Witness sect in Armenia and were tortured by the authorities will not be asked to provide any documentation that show which specific Jehova’s Witness group they belonged to, proof that they were arrested by the police, tortured, any police reports that show they were attacked, etc. In short, the whole immigration case is built on the veracity of the applicant’s story.

   What’s more, from anecdotal evidence, the immigration officers themselves are not knowledgeable about the internal affairs of the country from which the applicant has escaped. The officers’ knowledge of the internal situation is largely based on the stories by the applicants themselves. Hence, if all the applicants keep telling the same story, then it becomes a self-reinforcing corroboration of “witness” accounts, which constructs a non-existent domestic persecution by which all the asylum applicants appear to be affected. There can be many interpretations behind such a practice. For one, it is impractical for the US immigration services to substantiate the stories of all the applicants, whose numbers are in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, annually.

   Now, returning to the case of Svetlana. The “Ararat” center raised all the right questions. Most likely, no specific documents were asked of her to show which organization she belonged to, that she really was the head of that organization, any police reports, etc. Given that the immigration officers do not really know the level of tolerance of Armenians towards Turks within the Republic of Armenia, this story of being persecuted for having a Turkish mother seems highly probable to an uninformed officer, considering the Armenian Genocide. Turks killed Armenians, now Armenians hate and kill Turks, how logical. Therefore, the trick is to make the story outrageous, yet with some traits of credibility.

   For those who are really interested in knowing the truth about the degree of tolerance of RA and NKR Armenians towards Turks, I offer the following article from KarabakhOpen (http://www.karabakh-open.com/src/index.php?lang=ru&id=8&nid=11729). The story is in Russian, which briefly describes the life of an AZERI woman named Elmira, currently living in the Berdashen village of Arstakh. Note that this woman lived in Artsakh even during the Karabakh war, during which her son fought and died. Obviously, if the Artsakhtsis could tolerate an Azeri woman in their midst during a war with Azeris, no one was going to kill (if it really happened) Svetlana’s son, because his grandmother was Turkish.

   The biggest problem here is not the fact that Svetlana is willing to portray the modern RA society as a chauvinist bunch willing to kill people for their ethnic roots, but that this case will be used by Azerbaijan and Turkey against Armenia in their propaganda within the international organizations. Afterall, according to Svetlana’s story, Armenians would be slaying people for the same reason that Turks and Azeris do.

   Finally, it is the job of the RA foreign ministry to reply to this article and become involved within the court case in order to clear Armenia’s name. This is one case that directly impacts a whole set of Armenian-Turkish issues, ranging from the Genocide to the Hrant Dink slaying and other. If our diplomats do not react, I can assure you Turks and Azeris won’t hesitate. Yet, the article has been published on May 15th and all we hear from the foreign ministry is “dzayn barbaro hanapati”.

   Stepan Sargsyan
   Contributing Correspondent (Los Angeles),
   ARARAT Center for Strategic Research

3. # A. Nazarianգրել է 14 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 07:26

   First of all, the description “Turk” is used in Armenian to mean both “Turks” from Turkey and ethnic Azeri’s from Azerbeijan or even from Armenia. In almost all asylum cases involving citizens of mixed origin from Armenia or Azerbaijan, it is meant Azeri. In most translations, however, it’s just translated “Turk”. Depending on the case, it may have some significance as the interveiwing officer might think about a citizen of Turkey and not someone from a country which is in actual war with Armenia, despite the fragile cease-fire.
   Secondly, the authorities of the asylum countries are bound by international agreements concerning asylum to treat the information provided by the refugees as confidential. So, it is not generally possible to verify the stories that they tell as reason for asylum.
   Thirdly, such cases are very common for other countries and other minority groups as well. In those countries where the given minority group has a strong community, the asylum-seeker may get some help from members of the community and his/her case might get some publicity. It’s te same situation in almost all coutries of Europe, whether the case concerns an Armenian, a Serb, an Arab, an Afghan, a Somali or else.
   Thirdly, do the governments implicated in disreputable asylum cases really care about their name and reputation? Don’t believe it.
   Most of them are even secretly happy that by losing a part of their population among which many dissenters to richer countries, they will have less problems to face at home. Besides, most of the so-called asylum-seekers, if settled in those rich countries, will begin to send funds to their relatives back home or start business with the home country. So, economically too, “asylum” pays doubly for the implicated country.
   Misuse of the right of asylum is thus so widespread these days that the European countries have been sharpening their asylum laws for years. This has resulted to some reduction in the flow of refugees to the continent, but not as much as expected.
   The bitter fact however is that the countries from which people flee, in varying degrees, have a corrupt system of government and judiciary. The economy is a shambles and large segments of their popuations live below the subsistance line. As long as this situation continues, the abuse and misuse of the right of asylum is bound to continue worldwide.

   Yours respectfully,
   Arsen Nazarian
   The Hague

4. # Hagop Nalbandianգրել է 14 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 13:02

   I disagree with Arsen’s comments above. This assessment above grossly underestimates both the political opportunism of Armenia’s foes and the geopolitical context. Armenia is in disfavor in the west due to important economic (e.g. oil) and strategic concerns (e.g. NATO “alliance” and the perpetual compelled reaction of Anglo-American imperialism to counterbalance to Russian hegemony in Eurasia). Armenia’s asylum seekers are customarily much more amplified in the Western press due to this gelopolitical reality.

   Clearly the situation in the US especially is that Armenia’s image is tarnished to carry forth a political agenda.

   I wouldn’t be qualifed to make statements about the Russian press, by my impression is that the situation is reversed, where Armenia’s image is not systematically tarnished in a exaggerated manner to carry forth a political agenda.

5. # Bagraduniգրել է 16 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 08:04

   I’m glad Hagop Nalbandian has pointed out the weaknesses in Arsen’s comments. Sweeping comments, such as Arsen’s, are bound to ignore specific situations and unintentionally distort the picture.
   So while what Arsen says may be true about the asylum situation in Europe IN GENERAL, clearly a distinction has to be made between refugees from FAILED STATES such as Somalia and Afghanistan and oil rich but authoritarian Arab and Middle Eastern, etc., countries (all of which, by the way, creations of western imperialism to some degree) and those from Armenia (or even Serbia) which has suffered so much from Ottoman and Turkish aggression in the past (Genocide, loss of strategic territory) and is in its current vulnerable and almost unviable (economically, geo-strategically, transport and regional-international communications) state, as a direct consequence (the essence and definition of the current Turkish-Azeri military threat and blockade!) of it.
   Add to these factors the Anglo-American policy, warped in the Disraelian “Great Game” anti-Russian mind-set of the Crimean war era, and what do you get? Armenia has to be squeezed as much as possible till its eyes and the Russian influence in the region are squirted out!
   This, in my view, is the specifics of the treatment Armenia gets in the west relative to its asylum seekers, which are almost entirely economic migrants with a insignificant minority of mixed race cases as red herring, and which are largely abused by these refugees in order to make a case for themselves and by the system in order to peddle their essentially anti-Armenian propaganda.
   While the Russian state treats these economic migrants very differently (welcoming them with open arms) with some economic benefit to both sides (absorption of Armenian ‘surplus’ labour force by the Russian economy resulting in monetary/currency inflows in to the Armenian economy) in view of the long term strategic and state interests of both Armenia and Russia this itself is a rather stupid and short sighted policy and clearly against the long term interests of both the Armenian and Russian peoples and states.
   A wiser Russian policy would be to invest huge amounts in Armenia (its “strategic ally”!) to develop the country’s economy and infrastructure, road and transport (including oil and especially gas from Iran) networks to make it an essential and indispensable North-South transit rout for Russia-Europe to counter the Anglo-American-Turkish East-West (Ankara-Baku) strategic pressure. That way Armenia, istead of being depopulated due to its unfavourable geopolitical position would even begin to absorb those who have left over the past few years and given enough economic and political impetus, even from the traditional Diaspora, rather like the Soviet times.
   Contributing Correspondent (London),
   ARARAT Center for Strategic Research

6. # A. Nazarianգրել է 17 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 20:58

   You guys miss the point of what I am saying and grossly mix the issues.
   I have tried to answer some of the questions raised in the main article based on my years of experience with refugees of various countries and my knowledge of asylum laws, and how is it that people, whether Armenian or other, misuse those laws.
   There are almost daily news in the local media throughout Europe of asylum-seekers being refused and being deported, regardless of their nationality or ethnic origin.

   What I am trying to say is that the refugee problem is basically a human issue and a worldwide recognized one. There are a number of international agreements in force about it and I assume Armenia too is a party to these agreements. It is not exclusive to Armenians and we should look to the matter in this perspective and not try to artificially find some international conspiracy behind it. What an Armenian “refugee” may say about his motives for asylum and the publicity that may be made about it can equally happen with an asylum-seeker from Turkey, Azerbaijan or any other “refugee producing” country.
   There are refugees and “refugees” from all Soviet republics, most Eastern European and almost all third world countries. Whatever you say or preach, a segment of the people will leave when the country is in war or has a repressive regime or other severe economic and social woes.

   As for the comments that in Russia things are otherwise as regards refugees, both Hagop and the contributing correspondent from London seem to either be unaware of the facts or knowingly distorting them to draw some irrelevant political conclusion. Who hasn’t read the news about the attacks almost every week on Armenian (and not only Armenian) immigrants in Russia. So far, numerous Armenians have died as a result and the authorities are accused of being too lax in prosecuting and punishing the culprits.
   But again, this has nothing to do with the fact that Russia and Armenia have strategic relationship in
   the region and that it should stay intact for the foreseeable future. This is another issue which has no
   relevance with the plight of the refugees worldwide and the attitude of their governments
   towards it.
   Confusing the issues rather than judging them on their own merit does not help sort out the problems and find solutions for them.

   Sincerely,
   Arsen Nazarian
   The Hague

7. # Michael Lalpianգրել է 18 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 14:03

   A.Nazarian ironically points out, the situation of war,economic social woes and repression, (thereby classifying Armenia amongst repressive regimes of under developped countries such as, Somalia Iraq and Afghanistan???) as reasons for producing refugees…
   He also points out victims of Russian agression agaist Armenians…(as though this sort of agression is mainly directed towards Armenians alone… and occurs solely in Russia?)
   I also witnessed agression against Armenians in Holland, UK, as well as in USA… brawls amongst thugs…
   Does this mean these countries are out to get Armenians?
   However, the extensive use of the 17 year old’s situation and sad human story in the USA, is blown out of proportion to exploit and put more pressure on the Armenian Republic by portraying her as a non developped and repressive country… by Western interests !
   These powers are interested in Azeri OIL EXPLOITATION IN A SECURE ENVIRONMENT REGARDLESS OF JUSTICE OR HISTORY!
   Respectfully
   M.Lalpian

8. # A. Nazarianգրել է 20 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 17:40

   As I see it, the issue is becoming one of political agitation and even demagogy.
   The flow of refugees from former Soviet republics, among which Armenia, had began even before the dismemberment of the Soviet Union. This doesn’t put those republics among third world or under-developed countries, does it? But, to make the matters worse, the war broke out in the Caucasus and great numbers of refugees sought safe haven in Russia, Europe and other Western countries.
   The cause of population flight can thus be one or a combination of factors described earlier and Armenia is not the only country in the region suffering from those woes. I can agree, though that Armenia may be faring a bit better than her immediate neighbours under conditions of economic blockade.

   Michael is clearly misrepresenting my words when he says I point out to “Russian aggression against Armenians”. While stressing the importance of the strategic alliance of the Russian and Armenian states, I have pointed to the continuous assaults, already for years, on Armenian and non-Armenian immigrants in Russia. These are not isolated cases of some accidental “brawl among the thugs” as Michael would have it again in his own way. According to the reports, Russian ultranationalist groups are behind these acts, which go mostly unpunished. Surely, this doesn’t make Russia a favourite place for refugees and immigrants.

   It may very well be that by an unfortunate coincidence of events, the case of the 17 year old has received publicity out of all proportion. But, I can assure you this is but one out of many similar cases, which go unnoticed and there is not much that can be done about it. I have pointed out also the limitations of asylum laws. Even if the government of Armenia interfered in the case it would probably make the matters worse as it would create more publicity and stir the matter further.
   So, the best way to counter the negative propaganda seems to create conditions which would not induce people to leave their country, whether with real or fantasized stories to tell to others. Let’s hope Armenia is moving towards this direction.

   Sincerely,
   Arsen Nazarian

9. # Hagop Nalbandianգրել է 23 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 02:05

   Mr. Nazarian, I would rather you refrain from debasement and insult by mischaracterizing the critical commentary as “conspiracism,” as though there is a frivolous claim being made. There is an open and quite apparent anti-Armenian agenda in the west, particularly in the English speaking west and its overall pro-Turkish presses. Articles about Armenia are overwhelmingly negative and are alarmingly high in percentage. You rarely read anything positive about Armenia in general. The clear intent is the portrayal of Armenia as this pariah state that is akin to a Saddamite Iraq (or, perhaps more properly stated, a Bushite US?). This specific context of publicizing political asylums based on outlandish fantasies of persecution, things that cannot and have not occurred in Armenia, is merely a subset of the propaganda war incessantly being waged against Armenia. I would rather see you join the battle against minimizing this danger to Armenia and Armenians instead of wallowing in apologetics to a systems of misiniformation that is indefensible.

10. # Hagop Nalbandianգրել է 23 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 02:16

    The anti-Armenian attacks subsided once Putin’s government exposed the links to Zhirinovsky. He achieved this in two steps:

    1) He discredited and destroyed the image of “ultranationalist Zhirinovsky” by essentially forcing the televised broadcast of Zhirinovsky at his father’s grave, wearing the Jewish Yarmulka in Israel.

    2) He cracked down on these groups and did stop the violence.

    It is another western propagated myth that these “ultranationalist” still have free reign and were never punished.

11. # Michael Lalpianգրել է 23 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 12:29

    Pointing out “the contradictions and nuanced depictions about the intolerance and agression prevailing in Armenia by A. Nazarian” is considered to be political demagogy?
    From the ending of his comments one surmises the conditions are un-livable in Armenia…
    It seems so obvious that Mr. Nazarian aims at all costs to belittle Armenia.
    Otherwise why does’nt Mr. Nazarian point out the recent trend of returnees out-numbering emigrants?

12. # Stepan Sargsyanգրել է 24 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 04:07

    Dear Arsen Nazarian,

    While in your earlier posts you advocate others to look to the matter in the perspective that the immigration/refugee issue is not exclusive to Armenians, it is your own omission of perspective and overall context that weakens your argument. The whole indignation over this and similar articles is due to the fact that the issue of refugees is not exclusive to Armenians only and certainly is not impelled by the fictional circumstances in their domestic countries that the supposed “refugees” in the articles proliferate. Yet it is Armenia that happens to be singled out and unfairly characterized as an authoritarian state inhabited by chauvinists.

    Considering 1) the ratio of Armenian immigrants to the total number of immigrants worldwide, 2) the ratio of Armenian immigrants in European/US to the total number of immigrants in European/US, 3) the fact that emmigration from Armenia has stopped, etc., the coincidental nature (using your word) of the publication of three separate cases of Armenian self-styled refugees in national newspapers in a matter of one month is simply a statistical impossibility. To express it technically, the sample is clearly biased. A closer examination of the articles in question dissuades one from perceiving this reporting as accidental.

    For example, the Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/15/immigration.familyandrelationships‏) starts with the heartwrenching story of the Armenian refugee, to which almost 1.5 page is devoted (anyone who lived in Armenia during Soviet times can attest to the fantastic nature of the farmer-doctor’s story being saluted by KGB agents in the streets). Yet no other refugee interviewed in the article describes the hardship and suffering that s/he went through. The correspondent also mentions how it was arranged for him to meet specifically these individuals, with their profile given to him in advance. I find it highly unlikely that in this time of turmoil in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere not a single Iraqi or Afghani refugee was selected to be interviewed for the article, while a lonely doctor from Armenia was right there on the spot waiting to be interviewed. Furthermore, three Armenian immigrants happened to accidentally be selected within a matter of a month for the publication of their profiles in authoritative newspapers.

    Mr. Nazarian, to quote you: “What an Armenian “refugee” may say about his motives for asylum and the publicity that may be made about it can equally happen with an asylum-seeker from Turkey, Azerbaijan or any other “refugee producing” country.” It is the absence of your asserted equality in reporting that makes coincidence highly unlikely. Add to these “coincidences” the factually hamstrung article “Negotiating a black hole”, the PACE assessments of Armenia’s insufficient progress in realizing PACE demands and the upcoming consideration of Armenia’s voting privilege and you will find an enticing perspective through which to view the above-mentioned publications. Of course, all of this could be sheer speculation, but until the truth behind these articles is revealed (if ever), the best any of us can do is to deliberate using these facts, which strongly suggest that the reporting is skewed towards depicting an unflattering image of Armenia.

    As far as the Russian coverage of Armenia goes, one should segregate between state and private media coverage. Some private news media in Russia is either directly owned/financed by the West or is owned/operated by Russian sympathizers of the West. This category is apt to follow their Western counterparts and is, therefore, unnecessary to further examine. On the other hand, the state media (this also includes the private media that has been taken over by the Kremlin or is being controlled by the government) has a surprisingly (though understandably) neutral coverage that is more often positive. Without going into too much detail, consider only 2 relatively recently made films (unfortunately the names escape me now). In the most recent film, which depicts the lives and the escape of Russian POW’s from a Nazi camp, the most positive and the main character is an Armenian, who organizes the plan of escape from the camp. In an earlier docudrama, which documents the actual events leading to the loss of a paratrooper battalion in the second Chechen war, has an Armenian character who is presented positively throughout the movie and chooses a heroic death over captivity by Chechens. Note that WW2, Chechen wars and other patriotic themes are currently under state patronage. In fact, the paratrooper movie was ordered and financed by the Russian Defense Ministry. Yet, the film did not portray a Georgian, Belorussian, Ukrainian or another nationaility, but an Armenian who is well liked and dies heroically.

    Mr. Nazarian, the coverage of the murders of Armenians in Russia cannot be used to assess the subjectivity of the Russian news media. For one, these murders were not covered as extensively in the Russian media as they were in Armenian articles. The Russian media accentuated the fact that the victims (along with Uzbeks and other foreigners) had foreign origin, in general, and did not get fixated on their Armenian nationality. The coverages were not accompanied by fictional tales of Armenian refugees who escape their barbaric regimes to find refuge in the hospitable embrace of Russia (replace Russia with US, Britain, etc). In addition, a trial was recently being held in Russia, which found one such murderer of a Russian Armenian guilty of murder. Finally, while you mention the suggested ties of ultranationalists to these murders, you forget to mention the Azeri connection, which is actually documented. In fact, the latest Armenian fatality in Russia was due to 2 Azeri farmers working in Russia. In either case, the Russian state and media coverage have nothing to do with these murders. With the same success we can point to the numerous deaths of Los Angeles Armenians at the hands of Mexican and other gangs. Yet, I am not sure what will the gang shootings alone tell us about the subjectivity of LA newspapers. The death occurs, the media covers. The discussion here surrounds more the tone, the timing and the frequency of the coverage than the actual event.

    Lastly, the involvement of the foreign ministry in the trial will invite more publicity to the case. However, a well-planned PR campaign will use that very publicity to debunk the myths about Armenia currently in wide circulation. Svetlana’s inability to prove that she was persecuted because of her Turkish geneology will only discredit any further fantasies on this theme.

    People will always migrate, it’s their nature. The prosperous Britain and France maintain high standards of living and domecratic governance. Yet, there are plenty Englishmen and Frenchmen in the US. However, I doubt that either the British or the French embassies would sit idly as their countries were being disparaged. When France was lambasted for refusing to join the Iraq bandwagon in 2003, the French ambassador was giving lectures and organizing meetings US. These included not only formal meetings of high level officials, but grassroot level events with college students (e.g. UCLA) to try to repair the image of France. I have yet to see the Armenian embassy issue even a press release surrounding this case.

    Stepan Sargsyan
    Contributing Correspondent (Los Angeles)
    “ARARAT” Center for Strategic Research

13. # Bagradգրել է 26 Հունիս 2008թ.-ին, ժամը 03:32

    Well said Stepan. I agree wholeheartedly with all the points that you have covered so convincingly. I hope this debate, and Mr Stepan Sargsyan’s able and comprehensive coverage of all the salient angles, will help us all to distinguish between political refugees/asylum seekers from authoritarian/failed states, and economic migrants. I hope we can all agree that the overwhelming majority, if not all, of those who left Armenia after its independence, are clearly from the latter category, despite the fantastic and outlandish stories that they come up with when applying for asylum in the west.

    On the other hand there are thousands and thousands of asylum seekers from tens of failed and authoritarian states. That the Anglo American media should so disproportionately focus on the Armenians (moreover at a time when the trend has actually stopped!) and, exploiting it, specifically paint an untrue picture of Armenia as a failed authoritarian state (remember we started from the premise that Armenian asylum seekers are almost all economic migrants) is, in my view, a classical definition of disinformation/propaganda. At the very least that possibility should not be ruled out, nor their possible sinister objectives, whether by our activists and intellectuals or, more importantly, by our state and foreign ministry apparatus which should formulate and enact appropriate counter measures.

    On this point let me share with you the latest on the Guardian story, “negotiating a black hole”. It turns out that the writer, Mr Alexandros Petersen who works for the Institute of International and Strategic Studies (IISS), allegedly has stated to one of our Embassy officials here, “confidentially and off the record”, that he is Greek and sympathetic to Armenians but, apologetically, that he works for British Petroleum as a researcher and they pay him well for his researches and this sort of articles! There you have it! So I wasn’t too far out when I suggested in my letter to the Guardian editor that Mr Petersen must have been drunk in Baku when he wrote his piece – alright maybe not in Baku but drunk anyway on account of BP in Baku or London!

14. # child cribsգրել է 27 Դեկտեմբեր 2011թ.-ին, ժամը 13:17

    ԱՐՏՄԱՄՈՒԼԻ ՏԵՍՈՒԹՅՈՒՆ…

    19…