Monthly Archives: June 2013

THE TIME OF CONSTATATION – 2013-2

Ex re the re-edition of Grigor Beledian’s novels

Summary

Haroutiun L. Kurkjian
The present essay attempts to analyze several prose works of diasporan author Grigor Beledian. The th ree works presented here, his first novels, “Semer” (“Thresholds”), “Harvadze” (“The Blow”) and “Nshan” (“Mark”), have been republished recently in a single tome by publisher Sarkis Khachents (Printinfo) in Armenia.

The article first examines G. Beledian’s first two decades of literary production, both prose and poetry (free verse), with which the reading public, not only in Armenia but also in the diaspora, is often unfamiliar, and which has not been sufficiently studied, in order to reveal the maturation process of the author’s choice of themes and prose technique.

The study then addresses the three aforementioned novels.

In conjunction with the critique of the works itself, the study seeks to appraise the “Beledian phenomenon” in contemporary Armenian literature, especially in the Diaspora. In this context, it is necessary to note that in the Middle Eastern communities, literary creation, especially in prose, stagnated during the half century following their establishment, due to the overbearing dominance of traditional stereotypes and the social and cultural isolation inherent to such communities, rendering them incapable of partaking in the international literary movements of their era. In contrast, the first generation of Armenian Diaspora authors in Europe had achieved notable success in the same domain.

G. Beledian’s work in the form of novels, the outcome of a highly personal literary conception and language, bridges the gap between the traditional literary practices of the past referenced to above and the contemporary world, creating a series of literary murals of unprecedented expanse and depth, personal testimony from the collective past of those Middle-Eastern communities.

THE PROBLEM OF FRAGMENTATION IN THE FIRST REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA – 2013-2

Part one. The raising of political purpose about fragmentation’s overcoming and first steps of its implementation

Summary

Karen P. Hayrapetyan
Since the first days of formation of the Republic of Armenia, the authorities faced a number of problems arising from the fragmentation of the Armenian people that had to be solved. The task to solve the problem of fragmentation was first brought up for discussion by the authorities of the Republic of Armenia at the Second Congress of Western Armenians in February 1919. The main political tool for solving the national question was the strengthening of the Republic of Armenia. the rest of the Armenian territories must have been united around the Republic of Armenia. A number of important historical decisions have been taken by the authorities of the Republic of Armenia in order to solve the problem of fragmentation. The most important of these decisions was the declaration of United Armenia

THE PROCESS OF BAGRATUNIS’ GEORGIAN KINGDOM FORMATION – 2013-2

Part II: The shape of independent historical perspective of the all-Georgian Kingdom.

Summary

Arman S. Yeghiazaryan
In the 9th century the tendency of the spread of superiority of the Curopalacity of Kgharjk over Georgia was emphasized.

The main goal of curopalate of Kgharjk Atrnerseh Bagratuni was to achieve the dominant position among the South Caucasus Chalcedonians with the perspective to include them in a joint kingdom led by Kgharjian Bagratunis. At the same time Atrnerseh tried to seize the throne of Armenian King Smbat I, but failed

In the last years of Smbat I, the weakening of the Armenian kingdom led to broad perspectives for the Kingdom of Abkhazia and the Curopalacity of Kgharjk. The Abkhazats kingdom, which was far from the dynamic events of those times, became gradually stronger and took over Georgia after a couple of years.

During the reign of Atrnerseh in the Curopalacity of Kgharjk, there was one more reputable prince named Gurgen Bagratuni, who successfully withstood the Abkhazian king, conquered the lands neighboring his principality also spread the Chalcedonian faith in the Albanian kingdom.

 

HISTORY AND RIGHT – 2013-2

The poorness of Pierre Nora’s ”facts” against the law of criminalization of the Armenian Genocide’s denying

Summary

Armen Ts. Maruqyan

It is shown in the article that the arguments about the Jewish Shoah and unique nature of the “law of Geyso” of the eminent historian, founder and president of the organization “Freedom for history” Pierre Nora, who is involved in political manipulations against the acceptance of law of the criminalization of Armenian Genocide’s denying on January 23, 2012, are not able to stand against scientific criticism. If Nora is against “memorial laws”, then he must be also against “Law of Geyso”, in other case there is no difference between these two genocides.

As to the statement of Nora about the idea that the acceptance of “law of Geyso” was the moral duty of France, as that country had some role in the Jewish holocaust, then the policy of France after the I World War can prove that this country has the same moral duty also for the Armenian Genocide.

The point of view of Nora about the limitation of retroactive effect of laws only for Holocaust is directly contrary to the “United Nations’ Convention of November 26, 1968 about not to apply any the period of limitation over war crimes and crimes against humanity”. By this document the international law of not to apply the principle of time limitation for all cases without exception for the crimes, including the UN Convention on Genocide of 1948, was put into circulation.

To the misgivings of Nora to judge the past by the criteria of the present and to make the history of mankind become a history of genocides the author of the article indicated that, first, independently of the application of the definition of “genocide” the Armenian Genocide was qualified by the Entente powers, including France as a “crime against humanity”. Already in 1915 what happened with the Armenians was considered a crime, based on the Convention of Hague in 1899 about “laws and customs of war” and particularly, on the “spirit of the laws of humanity” of Martens’ reservation, that is, it was estimated to be a crime only based on the existing international legal norms.

In addition, in accordance with the United Nations Convention of 1948 about the “Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide”, to qualify a massacre as a genocide it is necessary to prove that the intention of the organizers of this crime has been to completely or partially destroy the group as such. It is shown in the article that this provision is equally applicable to both the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust cases.