The <strong>Armenian</strong> <strong>Reporter</strong> | May 31, 2008NationalWashington briefingPresidentSerge Sargsiangreeting Reps.Adam Schiff andAllyson Schwartz.Photo: Photolure.Young Georgiansprotest theconduct ofparliamentaryelections. Photo:Photolure.by Emil SanamyanCongressionaldelegation in Armenia,regionReps. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.),Allyson Schwartz (D.-Penn.)and Wayne Gilchrest (R.-Md.)visited Baku on May 24–25 andYerevan on May 26–27, meetingwith Azerbaijani and <strong>Armenian</strong>presidents and other officials,their offices reported. The tripwas the first visit to Armenia bymembers of Congress since 2005and was organized through the adhoc House Democracy AssistanceCommission.Rep. Schiff, who representsthe cities of Glendale and Pasadena,with the largest proportionof <strong>Armenian</strong>-American voters inthe United States, told PresidentSerge Sargsian, “We consider Armeniaan important partner andally. Consequently, we wish to asfar as possible assist its politicaland economic progress.”In an interview with RFE/RL <strong>Armenian</strong>Service, Rep. Schiff saidthat he and other members were“concerned with the problems thatoccurred during the election [in Armenia],the violence that occurredafter the election.”“We are here to try to assess thesituation and talk with the <strong>Armenian</strong>government about how wecan help move the government furtherin the direction of democracy,”Rep. Schiff added.Rep. Schiff’s delegation alsomet with aides to Levon Ter-Petrossian, the opposition figureand former president, who focusedon the recent election campaignand its outcome.While in Baku, the members ofCongress heard criticisms of Armeniaand the <strong>Armenian</strong> diaspora,with few details reported.From Armenia the delegation flewon to Pakistan and Afghanistan.Georgian rulingparty election sweepwelcomed, protestedThe National Movement Party ledby President Mikheil Saakashviliswept the May 21 parliamentaryelection winning more than 110seats in the 150-seat legislature,according to preliminary resultsmade available via the Civil.genews portal.The remaining seats were won bythe Nine-party Opposition Alliance(about 16 seats) led by David Gamkrelidze,the Christian DemocraticParty of former TV anchor GiorgiTargamadze (8 seats), the LaborParty of populist politician ShalvaNatelashvili (6 seats), and the oppositionRepublican Party led byDavid Berdzenishvili (2 seats).Three of the seats in parliamentwent to ethnic <strong>Armenian</strong>s, as the <strong>Armenian</strong><strong>Reporter</strong> reported last week.The opposition alliance quicklycalled for annulment of results,pointing to electoral violations. Italso launched several well-attendedprotest rallies and vowed it wouldprevent the new parliament fromconvening.Western observers suggestedthat the government’s efforts tomeet democratic standards for electionswere “uneven and incomplete.”(The observers gave a more upbeatassessment of the presidential electionlast January calling it “democratic.”See this page in the January12, 2008 <strong>Armenian</strong> <strong>Reporter</strong>.)According to the observers therewere problems with vote count in16 percent of precincts inspected– about the same number asin Georgian, as well as <strong>Armenian</strong>,presidential polls earlier this year.Nevertheless, the U.S. State Departmentwas “encouraged” by what itthought were “improvements” inelection conduct compared to theprevious poll.Georgia has been possibly themost eager ally of the United Statein recent years, sending one of thelargest military contingents in supportof U.S.-led Iraq operations. fSarafian: Genocide deniers weaker today than everA full-length observational documentary,The Blue Book, which had itsU.S. premiere in Pasadena, Calif., onMay 29, tracks historian Ara Sarafianas he argues in the U.K. and Turkeyagainst the official Turkish denialof the <strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide. On May28, Vincent Lima asked Mr. Sarafianabout his work on the British ParliamentaryBlue Book on the <strong>Armenian</strong>Genocide and about his research andadvocacy work in Turkey and beyond.Mr. Sarafian is the director of theGomidas Institute (UK). (Mr. Lima,the editor of the <strong>Armenian</strong> <strong>Reporter</strong>,is a former director of the GomidasInstitute.)<strong>Armenian</strong> <strong>Reporter</strong>: In Blue Book,the documentary, we see you arguingforcefully for the authenticityof the British Parliamentary BlueBook that made the case for the<strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide back in 1916.Do you find that your scholarly andadvocacy work regarding the BlueBook has had an impact?Ara Sarafian: Yes, I think theBlue Book has had an impact, ashas my other documentary workon United States archives. Wheneverthe issue of the Blue Bookcomes up in the United Kingdom,the “Uncensored” or critical editionof the work is cited as the basisof discussion. (James Bryce andArnold Toynbee, The Treatment of<strong>Armenian</strong>s in the Ottoman Empire,1915–1916: Documents Presented toViscount Grey of Fallodon by ViscountBryce [Uncensored Edition], ed. andintro. Ara Sarafian.) Even in Turkeya number of scholars credit thecritical edition in their discussionsof the 1916 work.This work has also had an impactby forcing old-time deniers, mostnotably Sukru Elekdag and JustinMcCarthy, to make changesto their position. For example, theoriginal 1916 work omitted somenames of sources to safeguardthem because they were still in theOttoman Empire in 1916. This informationwas published in a separateconfidential key in 1916. Untilrecently, deniers ignored the existenceof the key and argued thatthe missing names were merely aruse to hide the poor sources underpinningthe 1916 work.Since the publication of the criticaledition in 2000, these deniershave “discovered” the confidentialkey, even though it has been availablesince 1916, including in librariesand archival collections cited bydeniers over the past 30 years. Theyhave been forced to change theirposition with this “discovery” becausethey could no longer simplydeny the existence of the confidentialkey to support their accusations.Now that they are forced toacknowledge the existence of theconfidential key, they insist thatthe content of the key supportstheir thesis. This is simply not trueand their position is now more precarious,even in their own ranks.The critical edition of the BlueBook has had a positive influenceon debates and it serves as a textbookcase of <strong>Armenian</strong> Genocidedenial.Deniers are having ahard time<strong>Reporter</strong>: As we can see in thedocumentary, you have long been afrequent traveler to Turkey, whereyou have done research as well aspublic speaking. Let me ask youfirst about your public engagements:Looking at various groupswithin Turkey – scholars, students,political activists of various stripes,the media, and the public at large– do you see any shift in attitudetoward the Genocide?Sarafian: Yes, I see a change inall of the groups you have mentioned.You only have to followTurkish newspapers or televisionprograms, or speak to students.The deniers are still there, but theyare having a hard time. Turkey is amuch more open society now andthis may paradoxically explain whythere is still a continuous stream ofanti-<strong>Armenian</strong> publications alongsidemore sensible ones in Turkishbookstores. This is not because thedeniers are strong but because theyare weaker today than ever. Theyneed to reinvigorate public supportfor their position.In my experience even someTurkish nationalists have shown aremarkable softening of their positiontoward <strong>Armenian</strong>s regarding1915, typically stating that “somethingterrible happened to <strong>Armenian</strong>sin 1915,” and that “<strong>Armenian</strong>shave a right to be angry,” butinvariably insisting that we shouldnot call all this “genocide.” To methis is a fundamental shift, which,when genuine, is an opening forreal dialogue; and if it is contrived,it is a more sophisticated form ofdenial that also needs to be understoodand addressed.<strong>Reporter</strong>: Do you find that yourarguments are disseminated fairlythrough the Turkish media? WhenI look at stories involving you, yourcritique of <strong>Armenian</strong> scholarsseems to get more play than yourarguments about the Genocide.Sarafian: I always make a pointof calling the events of 1915 a genocide,both to the print media andtelevision. Some Turkish journalsask me additional questions aboutthe Genocide and quoted me talkingabout the issue.Sometimes what is written inTurkish papers regarding what Ihave said is not correct, but moreoften it is correct. As a rule I submitmy interviews in writing sothat there is a record of what Iactually said. Regarding content,it is not surprising that Turkishjournalists ask me critical questionsabout <strong>Armenian</strong> historiography.The same is true for <strong>Armenian</strong>newspapers asking mequestions about Turkish historiography.For example, I have neverbeen asked about limitationsto the <strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide thesisby an <strong>Armenian</strong> newspaper, but Ihave been asked about limitationsto Ottoman archives.<strong>Reporter</strong>: I do not understandthe second parallel. In 1985 theTurkish prime minister announcedthat the Ottoman archives are openfor the scrutiny of scholars andthat any work on the <strong>Armenian</strong>Genocide must account for thesearchives. It is therefore wholly appropriateto ask you, as someonewho has worked in Ottoman archives,whether those archives aretruly open and what they show. Inany case, you have chosen to publishon the matter.On the other hand, why would anewspaper without an ax to grindask you about “limitations to the<strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide thesis”? Haveyou published an article about anyspecific limitation that has beenignored?Sarafian: I think the veracityof the Genocide is well established,but there are some important aspectsof the events of 1915 that canbe questioned. It depends on whatyou ask and how you ask it. For example,one could debate the role ofJemal Pasha and question whetherhe really was part of the so-calledCUP triumvirate that organizedthe Genocide. I have my seriousdoubts and the issue can be debated.Did Ottoman officials try todestroy every single <strong>Armenian</strong> inthe Ottoman Empire in 1915? Notnecessarily, and the issue can bedebated.<strong>Reporter</strong>: The attitude of <strong>Armenian</strong>scholars for many years hadbeen to avoid engaging debatesabout the veracity of the <strong>Armenian</strong>Genocide. The reasoning has gonesomething like this: people whodeny the genocide are not bona fidehistorians in search of the truth,but agents of the Turkish statewhose mission is to show that the<strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide is not settledhistorical fact. By debating them,we’re confirming that the Genocideis debatable. Do you accept this reasoningtoday?Sarafian: I think we can discernthe real deniers of the genocidefrom those who have genuinequestions to ask, even if they appearnaïve sometimes. It is our jobas scholars to debate such peoplein an appropriate way, in an appropriateforum. I have found thatmany Turks today are interested inthe genocide issue and are open tomeaningful discussion even if theymay not use the “G” word to start.When they recognize the awfultreatment and massacre of <strong>Armenian</strong>sin 1915, I think one can takethe conversation from there.“Scored an own goal”<strong>Reporter</strong>: You had a very publicexchange with Yusuf Halacoglu,the head of the THS, where you issuedpress releases and he grantedinterviews to CNN-Turk. You justattended a meeting in Oslo withJustin McCarthy and others. What,in your view, is to be gained fromthese encounters?Sarafian: When I had my exchangewith Halacoglu regarding acase study on Harput, the initiativecame from me, and I framed theproposal. It was a fair, manageableproposal and the Turkish mediagave it prominence by reportingon it. It was CNN-Turk which askedthe critical question to Halacogluregarding the Ottoman records atthe heart of my proposal, and Halacogluadmitted to a Turkish journalistthat the records I had askedto see did not exist (in Turkish archivestoday). I cannot overstressthe importance of this interview inTurkey.Similarly, one of the biggestnames in Turkish journalism,Mehmet Ali Birand, commentedon Halacoglu’s words regardingContinued on page m
The <strong>Armenian</strong> <strong>Reporter</strong> | May 31, 2008InternationalSarafian: Genocide deniers weaker today than evern Continued from page the non-availability of the recordsin question under the headline“We Scored an Own Goal.” Birandpointed out that while Turkishauthorities have argued about therichness of Ottoman archives relatedto the 1915 deportations, thecompleteness of Ottoman records,and the unwillingness of <strong>Armenian</strong>sto work there, we now have ascenario where an <strong>Armenian</strong> historianhas publicly asked to examinethese core records and he is toldthat they are unavailable. Birand’scolumn was carried in several majorTurkish newspapers.So what was gained? We learnedthat the Ottoman records are fundamentallylacking in some fundamentalrespects, we saw that thereare some decent Turkish journalists,and we allowed the <strong>Armenian</strong>issue to be discussed in a criticalway in Turkey. These are all positivedevelopments.Halacoglu then went on to state,in an interview to a Turkish newspaper,that I had pulled out ofthe Harput project because I wasafraid of the <strong>Armenian</strong> diaspora.That explanation was not truebecause I had not said any suchthing. The case study came to anend when Halacoglu stated thatthe relevant records, which he hadinitially agreed to use as the basisof the joint case study, were notavailable. I don’t think any <strong>Armenian</strong>newspaper asked me how thewhole affair ended, so Halacoglu’sexplanation was not refuted anywhere.<strong>Reporter</strong>: But the <strong>Armenian</strong><strong>Reporter</strong> ran an interview with you(March 10, 2007, p. A2) in whichyou announced that the affair hadended and you explained the circumstances.Sarafian: Perhaps I missed it. Idid not see any serious discussionabout what Halacoglu said and itssignificance. Is it conceivable thatrecords were not kept regardingthe deportation and settlement ofpeople in 1915, despite Ottomanlaws and regulations? What werethese laws and regulations? If suchrecords were kept, is it conceivablethat they all have gone missingfrom local and central archives? Dowe take Halacoglu’s word for anyof this? Are there avenues wherebysuch information can be checkedtoday independently of Halacoglu?After all, Halacoglu is the head ofthe Turkish Historical Society andnot the archives.Regarding the recent meeting inOslo, that was something different.It was a closed meeting to seeif there were any positive ways tomove ahead on the Turkish-<strong>Armenian</strong>issue. The advantage of suchmeetings is that one could be moreAra Sarafian in the new documentary, The Blue Blue. Photo courtesy: Ani Sounds.frank in discussions. If anythingsubstantial was decided, it wouldhave been made public, and I certainlywould have insisted on it.Genocide, in all itscomplexity<strong>Reporter</strong>: Turning to your researchin Turkey, you worked in Ottomanarchives in Istanbul in theearly 90s; you reported that in spiteof lots of trouble with access, thedocuments you studied “corroborateWestern accounts of the <strong>Armenian</strong>Genocide.” You have now beenback in Ottoman archives. What isyour current experience?Sarafian: I have not been backto Ottoman archives since beingreadmitted in 2006. It all has todo with funding, and I have nonefor working in Ottoman archives.However. I have kept up with publishedsources put out by the archivesthemselves (there is alwaysinteresting new material comingout), and I have been able to discussdevelopments with Turkishcolleagues. My understanding isthat Ottoman archives still corroboratethe <strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide,but there is a caveat to my answer.Ottoman records corroboratethe <strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide thesis inall of its complexities, some aspectsof which have been left outof discussions by mainstream <strong>Armenian</strong>sscholars. Just to give youan example: we know that mostdeportees were killed during thedeportations of 1915, wasted awayin Der Zor, or killed outright at theend of 1916. However, it is also truethat perhaps up to 200,000 <strong>Armenian</strong>swere sent to western Syria in1915. These convoys suffered a greatdeal from privations and disease,but they were not murdered as inDer Zor. As a consequence, many<strong>Armenian</strong>s survived 1915 in westernSyria and Jordan – though underawful conditions and with greatlosses. This episode of the <strong>Armenian</strong>Genocide, the deportations towestern Syria, has not been incorporatedinto conventional accountsof the Genocide itself.Such information about westernSyria, combined with what Ottomanarchives have to say, can beused to devastating effect by deniersof the Genocide. They can usesuch information to question thecredibility of the whole Genocidethesis.Only recently, Turkish PrimeMinister Recep Tayyip Erdoğanstated that <strong>Armenian</strong> deporteeswere given pocket money in 1915.Technically, that is true: that is,there were instances where somedeportees were given some moneyby some Ottoman authorities.This is even recorded in <strong>Armenian</strong>sources. See Vahram Dadrian’sTo the Desert: Pages from My Diary.However, it is also true thatsuch cases were not typical by anystretch of the imagination, andeven these caravans were liableto be robbed and massacred afterward.Just to illustrate the point further,a member of the Turkish HistoricalSociety stated that <strong>Armenian</strong>intellectuals who were arrestedand exiled from Constantinopleon April 24 were given money bythe Ottoman authorities. He impliedthat such treatment was anindication of how well these prisonerswere treated. He implied thatthese people could not have beenmassacred.Yet <strong>Armenian</strong> sources, to theircredit, also recorded that the April24 deportees were given somefunds by their captors. They alsonamed and stated that most ofthese people disappeared while instate custody. Ottoman Turkishsources do not give the names ofthe deportees and they certainlydo not say what happened to thesepeople.<strong>Reporter</strong>: I’m not sure I understandhow the fact that <strong>Armenian</strong>ssurvived in westernSyria and Jordan could be usedto undermine the Genocide thesis.Is there any controversy as towhether hundreds of thousandsof <strong>Armenian</strong>s survived the Genocide?Vahram Dadrian’s book, totake your example, was publishedin <strong>Armenian</strong> in the 1940s, no?These accounts are not secret. Theissue, perhaps, is that scholars ofthe early-twentieth-century historyof Asia Minor need to takeresponsibility for <strong>Armenian</strong>-languagesources.Access to archivesOn the subject of access to archives,what is the state of access to <strong>Armenian</strong>archives? Last week, thehead of the Turkish Historical Societycomplained about closed <strong>Armenian</strong>archives and said he hadoffered money to help <strong>Armenian</strong>sopen them. You characterized thisas a publicity stunt. At the sametime, however, you noted that thearchives of the Zoryan Instituteand the Jerusalem <strong>Armenian</strong> Patriarchateare not open. Could youdescribe your concerns?Sarafian: The Zoryan Institutecollected the private papers of individual<strong>Armenian</strong>s in the 1980s.It also microfilmed materials fromother archives. A few months backI was informed that these recordswere still not available for scrutiny,though the institute’s oral historyrecords have been digitized and areavailable by special request. Thiswas disappointing news to me becauseof the importance of all archivalcollections related to the Genocide,as well as my concern that theZoryan materials may well havedeteriorated. Certainly I expectedthe Zoryan people to afford moreattention to these records given ongoingdebates about the <strong>Armenian</strong>Genocide and the importance of<strong>Armenian</strong> sources. If nothing else,the institute could have classifiedparts of its collection in an ongoingprocess. These records have beenkept under lock-and-key for overtwo decades.In the case of the JerusalemPatriarchate’s archives, these areof immense interest because manykey records related to the genocideended up there. A few <strong>Armenian</strong>scholars (most notably Vahakn N.Dadrian and Richard G. Hovannisian)have used documents fromthese archives without disclosinginformation about their physicalcondition, or the fact that they arenot freely accessible. I have beentold that these materials are nowin very poor condition because ofneglect.I personally tried to gain accessto these archives twice in the 1990sand was simply told that no sucharchives existed.The current state of the Jerusalemarchives does not seem to be anactive concern amongst <strong>Armenian</strong>scholars. Perhaps they will showinterest when Turkish historiansbegin to make the Jerusalem archivesinto a political issue. I hopeno records have been lost throughneglect because the absence ofdocuments will only play into thehands of deniers.<strong>Reporter</strong>: You have been unsparingin your criticism of <strong>Armenian</strong>scholars. It is axiomatic thatto maintain high standards, scholarsmust criticize each other’s work.But we tend to see your critiques inthe Turkish press. Are the normalavenues of scholarly peer review– book reviews, monographs, arguingin conferences – not working in<strong>Armenian</strong> studies?Sarafian: I think you are exaggeratingwhen you say I have been“unsparing” in my criticism. In thepast 20 years I have reviewed orcommented on the works of <strong>Armenian</strong>scholars in <strong>Armenian</strong> Review,<strong>Armenian</strong> Forum, The <strong>Armenian</strong>Weekly, and Journal of the Societyfor <strong>Armenian</strong> Studies. In each caseI have tried to be balanced. WhereI have criticized, I have done so ingood faith, with argument, andwith the knowledge that the peopleconcerned can respond. In fact, Ihave welcomed such responses tomy reviews. This is how scholarshipworks.On the other hand, I have had<strong>Armenian</strong> scholars tell me I shouldnot criticize other <strong>Armenian</strong> scholars,“because Turks will use suchcriticism against us.” I reject suchstatements as a matter of course.I am against censorship, includingself-censorship, especially in academia.In recent years, I have also maderemarks in the Turkish press whenasked about scholarship and thepolitics surrounding scholarshiprelated to the <strong>Armenian</strong> Genocide.My comments have been criticalof some Turkish and <strong>Armenian</strong>authors and institutions. If I havebeen unfair to anyone, I am surethe appropriate people will respondto what I have said. I mighteven be shown to be mistaken, inwhich case I will take note and issuea retraction. That is all part ofthe scholarly process.<strong>Reporter</strong>: What are you workingon now? Any forthcoming publications?Sarafian: I am working full timeat the Gomidas Institute with severalpublications pending. My personalresearch focus right now is onthe forgotten or silenced <strong>Armenian</strong>sources on the Genocide, especiallythose related to the deportationsto western Syria in 1915–17. I hopeto integrate this issue into a broaderunderstanding of the Genocide,both for a better understanding ofthe Genocide itself, as well as topreclude the manipulation of suchinformation by deniers.<strong>Reporter</strong>: Thank you. fITS chair was ousted for acknowledging <strong>Armenian</strong> Genociden Continued from page Such concerns are not new. In theSpring 1995 issue of Holocaust andGenocide Studies, scholars RogerW. Smith, Erik Markusen, andRobert Jay Lifton exposed a longstandingarrangement by whichITS founding executive directorHeath Lowry served the Turkishgovernment in its campaign to discreditscholarship on the <strong>Armenian</strong>Genocide.A professor of history at the StateUniversity of New York at Binghamton,Mr. Quataert chaired theITS board of governors from 2001until December 13, 2006. In 1985, asan associate professor at the Universityof Houston, he was amongthe 69 Ottoman, Turkish, and MiddleEastern area scholars who petitionedagainst a House Joint Resolutionthat memorialized “the oneand one half million people of <strong>Armenian</strong>ancestry who were victimsof genocide perpetrated in Turkeybetween 1915 and 1923.”As he recalled the emerging Ottomanand Turkish area scholarshipof the 1980s from a vantagepoint twenty years later, Prof. Quataertwrote in his book review, “theauthors were not writing criticalhistory but polemics” and “manyof their works were directly sponsoredand published by the Turkishgovernment.” To date, said MESA,most of the scholarship in this areastill fails to adhere to the highestprofessional standards “and assuch serves neither the field of Ottoman-Turkishstudies nor the interestsof the Republic of Turkeyand its citizens.”Nevertheless, both Prof. Quataertin his review and MESA withits 2005 Academic Freedom Awardlauded the new wave of criticalthinking in this field – specificallymentioning a conference held atIstanbul’s Bilgi University “despiteofficial intimidation and publicharassment,” as Prof. Quataert recalled.Prominent among the organizersand presenters of that conferencewere members of the Workshopfor <strong>Armenian</strong>/Turkish Scholarship,including WATS co-founderFatma Müge Göçek, a sociologistat the University of Michigan.Prof. Göçek, who did not sign the“69 scholars” petition, said she wassurprised to learn from MESA’s letterthat she was still an ITS boardmember.“One problem at ITS seems to bethat neither the process throughwhich who gets invited from amongthe associate members to reviewthe grants, nor the proceedings ofthe Board meetings is shared withthe rest of the ITS body,” she wrotein an open letter to the other boardmembers. If Prof. Quataert “wasindeed punished in his capacity asthe Board chairman for what hewrote in his capacity as a researchscholar,” she added, “then I wouldregard that as an infringement onhis academic freedom.” Prof. Göçekconfirmed for the <strong>Armenian</strong> <strong>Reporter</strong>that in the wake of MESA’sletter, two ITS board members hadalready resigned and two more inaddition to herself were consideringwhether to do so.Addressing Prime MinisterErdoğan, MESA pointed out that“the attitude towards Dr. Quataertsharply contrasts with your government’srecent call to leave the debateregarding the events of 1915 to theindependent study and judgment ofscholars.” The organization called forProf. Quataert to be reinstated andITS endowment funds to be placed“in an irrevocable trust immune frompolitical interference and infringementof academic freedom.” f
- Page 1 and 2: At Eurovision,Armenia comesin fourt
- Page 3: Number 66May 31, 2008the armenianre
- Page 8 and 9: 6 The Armenian Reporter | May 24, 2
- Page 10 and 11: 8 The Armenian Reporter | May 24, 2
- Page 12 and 13: 10 The Armenian Reporter | May 24,
- Page 14 and 15: 12 The Armenian Reporter | May 24,
- Page 16 and 17: 14 The Armenian Reporter | May 24,
- Page 18 and 19: 16 The Armenian Reporter | May 24,
- Page 20 and 21: 18 The Armenian Reporter | May 31,
- Page 22 and 23: 20 The Armenian Reporter | May 31,
- Page 24 and 25: 22 The Armenian Reporter | May 31,
- Page 26 and 27: 24 The Armenian Reporter | May 31,
- Page 28: The Armenian Reporter | May 31, 200