Author: Harut Sassounian

Why Turkey Accepted Jordan’s Demand To Revise Their Free Trade Agreement?

Before the recent turmoil in relations between Turkey and several countries in the Middle East, Europe and the United States, Syria and Jordan had signed a Free Trade Agreement and visa-free travel with Turkey hoping to benefit from its growing economy.

Relations between Syria and Turkey quickly deteriorated starting in 2011 when Turkey supported Islamic Jihadists undermining the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Earlier this year, going a step further, Turkey brazenly invaded Northern Syria, occupying the town of Afrin and announcing the intention to expand its invasion.

Consequently, the mutual trade agreement and visa-free travel between Turkey and Syria were cancelled. Recently, Jordan suspended its own trade agreement with Turkey, after warning repeatedly that it was one-sided and benefited Turkey much more than Jordan. Turkish exports to Jordan in 2016 amounted to $710 million, whereas Jordan’s exports to Turkey totaled only $102 million.

Jordan pledged to reactivate the agreement if Turkey agreed to certain revisions, including “the Turkish side’s consent to protection measures Jordan will design to protect local industries, increasing Turkish technical assistance to Jordan as stipulated by the FTA [Free Trade Agreement], and reconsidering the ‘strict’ rules of origin specifications applied by Turkey,” according to The Jordan Times.

Surprisingly, Turkey consented to renegotiate the Free Trade Agreement which was signed in 2011. This was a departure from Turkey’s usual aggressive tactic to threaten and bully both friends and opponents to submit to its wishes.

The government of Jordan should be commended for its tough stand in defense of its interests, despite the fact that, in recent months, several developments had strengthened Turkey-Jordan relations. Both countries vehemently criticized Pres. Trump’s recent decision to relocate the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. On Feb. 21, the two countries also signed a military cooperation agreement. Furthermore, Turkey had agreed to “exempt 500 Jordanian goods from customs duties,” according to the Al-Monitor news website.

Prof. Pinar Tremblay, in an Al-Monitor article analyzed the four factors that would impact the renegotiation of the Turkish-Jordanian trade agreement.

The first obstacle is the displeasure of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt with Turkey for supporting their antagonist Qatar. Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman went as far as calling Turkey a member of the “Triangle of Evil” along with Islamic militants and Iran! The anti-Turkish posture of Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt puts pressure on Jordan to be more cautious in its relations with Turkey. The reason Turkey is trying to accommodate Jordan is to break out of its isolation from major Sunni Arab countries.

The second obstacle is most Sunni leaders’ hostility towards Iran. This antagonism spills over the resentment of Turkey by Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt due to persistent Turkish relations with Iran. Turkey is trying to boost its relations with Jordan, because of its need for allies in the Arab world. In recent years, Turkish President Erdogan has aspired to become the leader of Sunni Muslims rivaling Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s two holy sanctuaries: Mecca and Medina.

The third obstacle is Saudi Arabia’s desire to spread its influence over the Arab world opposing Turkish expansionist policies. That is why Saudi Arabia and Turkey are competing for the friendship of the Kingdom of Jordan, among others. Tremblay reported that “at the end of December, Turkey acquired a 99-year lease from Sudan for Suakin Island, increasing Turkey’s presence in the Red Sea. This move has unnerved the countries that identify themselves as ‘the Arab Anti-Terror Quartet’ (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain). Turkey’s relations with African nations are flourishing. Not everyone is happy about such developments, and this could cause problems for Turkish-Jordanian relations.”

Prof. Tremblay described the fourth challenge as financial: “Turkey wants Jordanian markets but faces roadblocks posed by Gulf countries. Since March 2016, Turkey and Jordan have been trying to plan, without success, a maritime route between Turkish ports (Iskenderun) and Jordan’s port of Aqaba to reach out to Gulf markets. Yet without political compromises, economic cooperation does not seem sustainable in the region. Turkish Airlines restarted direct flights March 19 between Istanbul and Aqaba. Intriguingly, also in March, the Saudi crown prince was in Cairo discussing the proposed multibillion-dollar King Salman Bridge to link Egypt and Saudi Arabia through the entrance of the Gulf of Aqaba; some see this as a reaction to the Aqaba flights and the maritime route project. During his March 12 visit to the Jordanian capital of Amman, the UAE foreign minister reportedly promised to help Jordan with its various economic challenges and establish stronger regional ties. Turkey believes these developments are behind Jordan’s suspension of the free trade agreement. Jordanian business people and analysts concur that the UAE and Saudi Arabia had a hand in the suspension decision.”

Tremblay concluded that “Turkey desperately needs to diversify its opportunities in foreign policy. Repeated mistakes and costly failures have significantly limited Turkish foreign policy options in the past. In the past decade, Turkey’s ambitions and rhetoric have not matched its capabilities and achievements. Yet in regard to the free trade agreement with Jordan, Ankara is not only determined but also well-organized. If Turkey can overcome the obstacles outlined, a free trade agreement revision would indeed be a win for Ankara.”

April 10, 2018
Turkey is Most Frequent Violator ofEuropean Convention on Human Rights

Veteran Turkish journalist Sedat Ergin wrote in Hurriyet newspaper that “Turkey is the champion of rights violations at the European Court of Human Rights” (ECHR). The European Court rules on cases when signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights violate its provisions.

Even though Turkey joined the Court in 1986, 27 years after its founding, it had more violations than all other member countries between 1959 and 2016.

The European Court had a total of 3,270 judgments on Turkey. Only in 73 cases, Turkey was found by the Court not to have made any violations. The remaining cases were settled in other ways. Since more than one article was violated in most cases, Turkey’s violations total 4,514.

The 2016 Annual Report of the European Court of Human Rights indicated that:

— The highest number of Turkish violations (832) was in the area of “right to a fair trial.”

— The 2nd highest category (707 violations) was “the right to freedom and security.” This latter category means that “Turkish citizens are frequently arrested using unlawful methods and that those arrests can easily turn into sentences,” according to Ergin.

— The 3rd highest category of violations (653) is the “right to property protection,” which means that many Turkish citizens are deprived of ownership of their properties.

— The 4th highest category (586) is the violation of “length of proceedings.”

— “Lack of effective investigation” comes in 5th place with 412 violations.

— “Inhuman or degrading treatment” is in 6th place with 314 violations.

— In 7th place is the “right to an effective remedy” (268 violations).

— “Freedom of Expression” comes in 8th place (265 violations).

— In 9th place are 133 violations of the “right to life — deprivation of life.”

— In 10th place are 100 violations of the “right to respect private and family life.”

Regarding Azerbaijan, from 2002 to 2016, the European Court of Human Rights had 122 judgments, of which 118 were found to be violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, far fewer than Turkey, since Baku joined the ECHR much later, in 2002. The remaining 4 cases were settled in other ways. Since some cases had more than one violation, Azerbaijan had a total of 224 rights violations.

— The highest number of violations (44) was the “right to a fair trial.”

— The 2nd highest violation (34) was the “right to liberty and security.”

— The 3rd highest violation (30) was the “protection of property.”

— The 4th highest violation (21) was the “right to free elections.”

— “Lack of effective investigation” was the 5th highest violation (17).

Armenia, on the other hand, which joined the European Convention on Human Rights at the same time as Azerbaijan (2002), had fewer violations. There were 75 judgments by the ECHR against Armenia between 2002 and 2016, of which 68 were violations. The remaining 7 cases were settled in other ways. Since some of cases had more than one violation, Armenia had a total of 119 violations.

— The highest number of violations (32) was the “right to a fair trial.”

— The 2nd highest number of violations (27) was the “right to liberty and security.”

— The 3rd highest number of violations (16) was the “protection of property.”

Neighboring Georgia had a slightly fewer violations than Armenia. It joined the European Convention on Human Rights in 1999. Between 1999 and 2016 the ECHR had 68 judgments on Georgia, of which 52 were violations. The remaining 16 cases were settled in other ways. Since some of the cases had more than one violation, Georgia had a total of 99 violations.

— The highest number of violations (20) was the “right to liberty and security.”

— The 2nd highest number of violations (17) was “inhuman or degrading treatment.”

— There was a tie for the 3rd highest violation (12 each) for “lack of effective investigation” and “right to a fair trial.”

In addition to the above-mentioned violations, Turkey and Azerbaijan have much more serious problems with the ECHR. Turkey decided to suspend the European Convention on Human Rights following the attempted coup of July 2016. However, some parts of the Convention cannot be suspended, such as the right to life, and the ban on torture and the inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.

Azerbaijan faces another serious problem with the ECHR which had ruled that prominent Azeri opposition politician Ilgar Mammadov should be released from jail. Azerbaijan has refused to comply with ECHR’s decision since 2014. The Committee of Ministers and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have adopted several resolutions urging Azerbaijan to release Mammadov. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe has initiated an unprecedented judicial review of Azerbaijan’s lack of compliance with the ECHR ruling. Further non-compliance by Azerbaijan could result in its expulsion from the Council of Europe!

April 3, 2018
How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

(Part 2)

Last week, I described Azerbaijan’s distortions of two of the four UN Security Council Resolutions adopted in 1993. I will now present the remaining two Resolutions:

Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 874, adopted October 14, 1993:

“Calls upon the parties concerned to make effective and permanent the cease-fire established as a result of the direct contacts undertaken with the assistance of the Government of the Russian Federation in support of the CSCE Minsk Group.”

“Expresses the conviction that all other pending questions arising from the conflict… should be settled expeditiously through peaceful negotiations in the context of the CSCE Minsk process.”

“Calls for the immediate implementation of the reciprocal and urgent steps provided for in the CSCE Minsk Group’s “Adjusted timetable”, including the withdrawal of forces from recently occupied territories and the removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation.”

“Calls on all parties to refrain from all violations of international humanitarian law and renews its call in resolutions 822 (1993) and 853 (1993) for unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts in all areas affected by the conflict.”

“Urges all States in the region to refrain from any hostile acts and from any interference or intervention which would lead to the widening of the conflict and undermine peace and security in the region.”

Azerbaijan has violated every one of the above clauses. In addition to the frequent violations of the mandated cease-fire, the Azerbaijani forces attacked Artsakh in April 2016, causing major damage to border towns and killing civilians. By cutting off the ears of elderly Armenian villagers and decapitating several Armenian soldiers, Azerbaijan’s armed forces committed a barbaric act and a war crime!

Excerpt from UN Security Council Resolution 884, adopted November 12, 1993:

“Calls upon the Government of Armenia to use its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with Resolutions 822 (1993), 853 (1993) and 874 (1993), and to ensure that the forces involved are not provided with the means to extend their military campaign further.”

Armenian officials usually neither respond to the Azeri accusations regarding the UN Security Council Resolutions nor try to set the record straight. The only exception was Pres. Serzh Sargsyan’s comprehensive speech at the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014.

Pres. Sargsyan stated: “While discussing the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement I cannot but address the four UN Security Council Resolutions, which were adopted during the war, that every so often are being exploited by the Azerbaijani authorities in order to justify their obstructive policy.”

“It is about those four Resolutions that demanded unconditionally as a matter of priority cessation of all military hostilities. Azerbaijan failed to comply. Azerbaijan’s own noncompliance with the fundamental demands of these Resolutions made impossible their full implementation. The Resolutions contained calls upon the parties to cease bombardments and air strikes targeting the peaceful civilian population, to refrain from violating the principles of the international humanitarian law but instead Azerbaijan continued its indiscriminate bombardments of the civilian population. Azerbaijan did not spare children, women and old persons thus gravely violating all legal and moral norms of the international humanitarian law.”

“Now Azerbaijan cynically refers to these Resolutions — refers selectively, pulling them out of context as a prerequisite for the settlement of the problem. The adequate interpretation of the UN Security Council Resolutions is not possible without correct understanding of the hierarchy of the demands set therein.”

“The Resolutions inter alia request the restoration of economic, transport and energy links in the region (UN SC Resolution 853) and removal of all obstacles to communications and transportation (UN SC Resolution 874). It is no secret that Azerbaijan and Turkey imposed blockade on Nagorno Karabakh and the Republic of Armenia from the outset of the conflict. The Azerbaijani President in his statements even takes pride in this fact promising his own public that direction would remain the priority of Azerbaijan’s foreign policy.”

“The above mentioned UN Security Council Resolutions called upon Azerbaijan to establish direct contacts with Nagorno Karabakh. Azerbaijan refused to establish any direct contacts with Nagorno Karabakh, which was a legally equal party to the Cease-fire Agreement concluded in 1994 as well as a number of other international Agreements; moreover, Azerbaijan preaches hatred towards people it claims it wants to see as a part of their State.”

“None of the UN Security Council Resolutions identifies Armenia as a conflicting party. Our country is called upon only ‘to continue to exert its influence’ over the Nagorno Karabakh Armenians (UNSC Resolutions 853, 884) in order to cease the conflict. Armenia has fully complied, and due to its efforts a Cease-fire Agreement was concluded in 1994. All UN Security Council Resolutions recognize Nagorno Karabakh as a party to the conflict.”

“Azerbaijani authorities have failed to implement the fundamental demands of the Security Council Resolutions, including abiding and sticking by the humanitarian norms.”

“Incidentally, Azerbaijan has been gravely violating this demand every now and then. Azerbaijan’s cruel and inhumane treatment of the Armenian civilian prisoners of war regularly results in their deaths. Although, I think, one shall not be surprised about it because it is the same State that suppresses and exercises the most inhumane treatment of its own people. A clear proof of it was the decision of the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture to suspend its visit to Azerbaijan due to obstructions it encountered in the conduct of official Baku.”

“The Co-Chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group is the only specialized structure that has been dealing with the Nagorno Karabakh issue according to the mandate granted by the international community. While Azerbaijan is very well aware that it could not possibly deceive or misinform the Minsk Group, which is very-well immersed in the essence of the problem, it attempts to transpose the conflict settlement to other platforms trying to depict it as a territorial dispute or exploiting the factor of religious solidarity. That is ironic, since Armenia traditionally enjoys very warm relations with the Islamic nations both in the Arabic world or, for instance, with our immediate neighbor Iran.”

I would like to summarize my key points regarding Azerbaijan’s distortions of the four UN Security Resolutions:

1)    The UN Security Council Resolutions were adopted in 1993 during the height of the war between Artsakh/Armenia and Azerbaijan. These Resolutions reflect the conditions on the ground at the time. Since then, the situation has dramatically changed.
2)    Despite the cease-fire that was signed in 1994 between Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan, the latter keeps violating both the ceasefire and the UN Security Council Resolutions by its frequent attacks on both Artsakh and Armenia.
3)    Azerbaijan opposes Artsakh’s participation in the negotiations, thus violating the UN Security Council Resolutions.
4)    The Minsk Group co-chairs, composed of the United States, France, and Russia, are the official mediators of the Artsakh conflict, not the UN Security Council and not the UN General Assembly.
5)    In fact, when Azerbaijan brought the Artsakh issue to the UN General Assembly in 2008, all three Minsk Group co-chairs voted against it. Azerbaijan’s proposal was adopted by a small number of States. The overwhelming majority abstained.
6)    By blockading Artsakh, Azerbaijan is violating the four UN Security Council Resolutions.
7)    Importantly, Armenia is mentioned in the UN Security Council Resolutions, not as a party to the conflict, but only as an intermediary to persuade Artsakh Armenians to comply with these Resolutions. Azerbaijan’s President Heydar Aliyev acknowledged this fact during his speech to the Parliament on February 23, 2001: “Four resolutions have been adopted in the United Nations Security Council…. It is written in these four resolutions that the occupational army should leave occupied lands of Azerbaijan. But there is not a word “Armenia”, that is, there are no words “the Armenian armed forces”. But in one of resolutions it is written to demand from Armenia to exert influence on Mountainous Garabagh (Nagorno-Karabakh). In reality, it is an Armenian-Azerbaijan war. In reality, Armenia has made aggression against Azerbaijan. However, nobody recognizes Armenia as an aggressor in a document of any international organization….”

Azeris who continue to distort the four UN Security Council Resolutions should follow former President Heydar Aliyev’s statement and refrain from accusing Armenia of violating these Resolutions when in fact Azerbaijan is the one not complying with them.

March 27, 2018
How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

The Armenian National Committee of America, San Fernando Valley West chapter, held an all-day conference on March 17 on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Artsakh (Karabagh) liberation struggle. The conference was held at the Ferrahian Armenian High School in Encino, California. The speakers were: historian Garo Moumdjian, Ph.D, California Courier publisher Harut Sassounian, ANCA National Board Member Steven Dadaian, Esq., A.R.F. Western US Central Committee Member Levon Kirakosian, Esq., and A.R.F. Western US Central Committee Member Vache Thomassian, Esq.

Here are excerpts from Harut Sassounian’s remarks at the conference:

The United Nations Security Council adopted four Resolutions during the Artsakh (Karabagh) war in 1993 calling for the withdrawal of Armenian forces, cessation of all hostilities and urging a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

These four Resolutions are often cited by the Azerbaijani media which is under the strict control of the government of Azerbaijan. In the past 25 years, the Azeris have repeatedly condemned Armenia for not abiding by these UN Security Council Resolutions, and have made them a part of their continued propaganda war against Armenia.

However, Azerbaijan has distorted the contents and context of these Resolutions, trying to deceive the international public opinion. Azerbaijan itself has not complied with these Resolutions. When one side (Azerbaijan) violates these Resolutions, it cannot accuse the other side (Armenia) of not complying with them.

The UN Security Council is composed of 15 States: Five of them are permanent members who have a veto power (United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France) and 10 of them are rotating members. The UN Security Council is charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. UN member states are obligated to carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

It is particularly hypocritical of the Turkish government to blame Armenia for not complying with the four UN Security Council Resolutions, when Turkey itself has violated over 60 UN Security Resolutions adopted since Turkey’s invasion of Northern Cyprus in 1974.

Let us now review each of the four UN Security Council Resolutions which were adopted unanimously by all 15 member states. I have added my comments in bold letters at the end of some of the clauses of these four Resolutions:

Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 822, adopted April 30, 1993:

“Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable cease-fire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan.” Azerbaijan has violated the cease-fire for 25 years on a regular basis by continuously shooting across the borders of Artsakh and Armenia.

“Urges the parties concerned immediately to resume negotiations for the resolution of the conflict within the framework of the peace process of the Minsk Group of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution of the problem.” The Minsk Group of CSCE, subsequently renamed OSCE, is composed of three co-chairs: the United States, France and Russia which are the official mediators to help resolve the Artsakh conflict, not the United Nations Security Council!

“Calls for unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts in the region, in particular in all areas affected by the conflict in order to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population and reaffirms that all parties are bound to comply with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.” Despite this clause, Azerbaijan has tried to undermine the delivery of international humanitarian aid to the people of Artsakh.

Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 853, adopted July 29, 1993:

“Expressing once again its grave concern at the displacement of large numbers of civilians in the Azerbaijani Republic and at the serious humanitarian emergency in the region.” The reference to “the serious humanitarian emergency in the region” also applies to Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan.

“Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and all other States in the region.” This clause applies to both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

“Reaffirming also the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory.” Artsakh Armenians have the right to self-determination under international law and UN Protocols.

“Reiterates in the context of paragraphs 3 and 4 above its earlier calls for the restoration of economic, transport and energy links in the region.” This clause is violated by Azerbaijan and Turkey by their blockades of Armenia and Artsakh.

“Urges the parties concerned to refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution to the conflict, and pursue negotiations within the Minsk Group of the CSCE, as well as through direct contact between them, towards a final settlement.” The reference to “the parties concerned” and “direct contact between them,” implies Artsakh’s inclusion in the negotiations, as was the case earlier. Azerbaijan blocked Artsakh’s participation in the negotiations.

“Urges the Government of the Republic of Armenia to continue to exert its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with its resolution 822 (1993) and the present resolution, and the acceptance by this party of the proposal of the Minsk Group of the CSCE.” Armenia coordinates its negotiating position with the government of the Republic of Artsakh. However, Artsakh’s exclusion from the negotiations makes the task of coordination more difficult. Furthermore, Artsakh not being a recognized state and not a member of the UN is under no obligation to comply with any of these Resolutions.

“Urges States to refrain from the supply of any weapons and munitions which might lead to the intensification of the conflict or the continued occupation of territory.” This clause is violated by Turkey, Russia, Israel, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Pakistan, and several others, which have supplied billions of dollars of weaponry to Azerbaijan.

(Continued next week)

March 20, 2018
International Legal Expert Affirms Artsakh’s Right of Self-Deter mination

A colloquium was held on February 27, 2018, at the European Parliament in Brussels on the legal right of self-determination for Nagorno-Karabagh (Artsakh). It was hosted by European Parliament deputies Michèle Rivasi (Verts/A LE) and Lars Adaktusson (EPP); and co-organized by the Armenian Legal Center for Justice and Human Rights, Tufenkian Foundation, and the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy.

The speakers at the colloquium were: Dr. Alfred de Zayas, a UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Dr. Paul Williams, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law and co-founder of Public International Law & Policy Group; Dr. Sergey Markedonov, Associate Professor at Russian State University; Armine Aleksanyan, Deputy Foreign Minister of Artsakh Republic; and moderator Giro Manoyan, Board Member of the Armenian Legal Center for Justice and Human Rights.

Prof. Alfred de Zayas started his legal argument by quoting from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which stipulate that “All peoples have the right of self-determination.”

Furthermore, international legal expert de Zayas emphasized that according to the two UN Covenants, “duty bearers of the right of self-determination are all States parties to the Covenants, who are not merely prohibited from interfering with the exercise of the right, but ‘shall promote’ its realization proactively…. They must not only respect the right, but implement it. Moreover in modern international law, self-determination is an erga omnes [towards everyone] commitment stipulated in numerous articles of the UN Charter and in countless Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. The empowerment of peoples to enjoy human rights without discrimination and to exercise a degree of self-government is crucial for national and international stability. Otherwise, a significant potential for conflict remains.”

Significantly, Prof. de Zayas stressed: “Even though self-determination has emerged as a jus cogens [compelling law] right, superior to many other international law principles, including territorial integrity, it is not self-executing.” Among “legitimate claimants to the right of self-determination,” Prof. de Zayas included the Kurds, Sahraouis, Palestinians, Kashmiris, Igbos of Biafra, and Tamils of Sri Lanka. He also mentioned as examples “the Russian-Ukrainian entities of Lugansk and Donetsk, the Republic of Pridnestronia (Transnistria-Moldavia), the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh), Alkhazia, and Southern Ossetia… among peoples that have achieved self-determination through effective separation from State entities with which they had hitherto been associated, but their international status remains inchoate because of the political bickering among the great powers and consequent lack of international recognition.”

Prof. de Zayas added that people seeking self-determination “are entitled to the full protection of the International human rights treaty regime. A solution to the impasse can only be through peaceful negotiation, since the use of armed force against self-determination would violate numerous international treaties, including the UN Charter, the human rights Covenants, and the Geneva Red Cross Conventions.”

“If there is a compelling demand for separation,” de Zayas insisted, “it is most important to avoid the use of force, which would endanger local, regional and international stability and further erode the enjoyment of other human rights.” In addition, “The implementation of self-determination is not exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the State concerned, but is a legitimate concern of the international community.”

Prof. de Zayas explained that the principal of territorial integrity is only valid in the case of an external attack: “The principle is not intended for internal application, because this would automatically cancel out the jus cogens [compelling law] right of self-determination. Every single exercise of the right of self-determination that results in secession has entailed an adjustment to the territorial integrity of the previous State entity. There are too many precedents to count.”

There should be no discrimination among people who seek self-determination, according to Prof. de Zayas: “The independence of the former Soviet republics and the secession of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia created important precedents for the implementation of self-determination. These precedents cannot be ignored when modern self-determination disputes arise. It is not possible to say yes to the self-determination of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, but then say no to the self-determination of the people of Abkhazia, Southern Ossetia or Nagorno Karabagh. All these peoples have the same human rights and must not be discriminated against. As in the case of the successful claimants, these peoples also unilaterally declared independence. There is no justification whatever to deny them recognition by applying self-determination selectively and making frivolous distinctions that have no base in law or justice.”

For those who juxtapose the principle of territorial integrity to self-determination, Prof. de Zayas countered: “The principle of territorial integrity is not sufficient justification to perpetuate situations of internal conflict that may fester and erupt in civil war, thus threatening regional and international peace and security.”

Finally, Prof. de Zayas suggested that “In order to ensure sustainable internal and external peace in the twenty-first century, the international community must react to early warning signs and establish conflict-prevention mechanisms. Facilitating dialog between peoples and organizing referenda in a timely fashion are tools to ensure the peaceful evolution of national and international relations. Inclusion of all stakeholders must be the rule, not the exception. In conclusion, let us celebrate the implementation of self-determination of peoples as an expression of democracy, as indeed democracy is a form of self-determination.”

March 13, 2018
Terminated Armenia-Turkey Protocols Should be a Lesson for Armenia’s Leaders

Finally, the Armenian President officially declared null and void the infamous Armenia-Turkey Protocols during a meeting of the National Security Council last week. Pres. Sargsyan had made several announcements since 2009, warning that he would remove the Protocols from the Parliament’s agenda unless Turkey ratified them shortly. Pres. Sargsyan’s most recent such warning was made last September during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, stating that he would declare the Protocols null and void before the Spring of 2018.

The Protocols were signed by Armenia’s Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on October 10, 2009, in Zurich, Switzerland. Also present at the signing ceremony were the Foreign Ministers of Russia, France, Switzerland, U.S. Secretary of State, and high-ranking officials of the European Union.

The lengthy text of the Protocols called for the opening of the borders between Armenia and Turkey, and establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The Protocols also included many other unrelated matters, such as recognizing the existing Armenian-Turkish border, and the establishment of a historic commission to examine problems between the two countries, meaning the Armenian Genocide.

As a result, there was a worldwide outcry against adoption of the Protocols with protests both in Armenia and many Diasporan communities. Shortly before the signing of the Protocols on October 10, 2009, Pres. Sargsyan embarked on a worldwide tour of major Armenian communities in Paris, New York, Los Angeles,

Beirut, and Rostov-on-Don (Russia) ostensibly to listen to their concerns regarding the Protocols. However, it was clear from his remarks at these meetings that he had made up his mind to go ahead with the Protocols, and the intent of the tour was to persuade Diaspora Armenians to give up their objections. During his visits overseas, Pres. Sargsyan was greeted with angry protests and confrontations making his propaganda tour a failure.

During Pres. Sargsyan’s stop in Los Angeles on October 4, 2009, he met with leaders of 60 Armenian organizations with the overwhelming majority criticizing the pending Protocols, while thousands of Armenians demonstrated outside the hotel where the meeting was taking place.

In my remarks at that meeting, I cautioned Pres. Sargsyan that Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan’s President, by objecting to the Protocols would block their eventual ratification by Turkey. Ironically, such an outcome would mean that Azerbaijan’s President, not Armenian’s President, would be inadvertently defending Armenia’s interests.

It was clear to many Armenians, both inside and outside of Armenia, that Turkey had no intention of opening its mutual border. The Protocols were a Turkish ploy to pressure Armenia to make territorial concessions to Azerbaijan on Karabagh (Artsakh).

In fact, the signing ceremony in 2009 was delayed by several hours when it became known that Turkey’s Foreign Minister, in his remarks, would link the unrelated subject of the Karabagh conflict to the Protocols. Only the last-minute intervention by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton temporarily resolved the dispute and the two sides proceeded to sign the Protocols.

However, in the years following the signing ceremony, the Turkish leaders made repeated statements that they had no intention to ratify the Protocols unless Armenia made concessions on Karabagh. Indeed, Azerbaijan had vigorously protested the signing of the Protocols and warned Turkey not to proceed with ratification. Azerbaijan intended to pressure Armenia to make territorial concessions on Karabagh by keeping Armenia’s borders with Turkey closed.

Armenia’s leaders had allowed major foreign powers to pressure them into making a decision that was contrary to the Armenian people’s interests. As a small state, it is understandable that Armenia could not act like its larger and more powerful Turkish neighbor which repeatedly flaunts the wishes of the international community. Nevertheless, Armenia’s leaders could at least make an effort to keep foreign intervention to a minimum.

Another lesson Armenia’s leaders should learn from the Protocols’ debacle is that before they embark on initiatives that affect Armenian interests worldwide, they should hold serious consultations to make sure that the majority of Armenians in Armenia and the Diaspora are on board with their decisions. Naturally, internal matters affecting those living within Armenia’s borders are their prerogative, however, issues that affect all Armenians, such as the Armenian Genocide, Armenian territorial demands from Turkey, and the final settlement of the Artsakh conflict are major concerns to all Armenians. Long before signing any documents on these subjects, Armenia’s leadership should ensure that most Armenians agree with them. Otherwise, we shall see the repetition of ugly confrontations in Armenia and the Diaspora with Armenian authorities.

I raise these concerns in response to Pres. Sargsyan’s two statements last week:

1) “When we started the negotiation process, we naturally predicted two outcomes — positive or negative.”

2) “If we get proposals tomorrow, or the next day, we will be ready to discuss them.”

Pres. Sargsyan’s statements indicate that Armenia’s leaders have not recognized their mistaken approach to Armenian-Turkish issues. It is not true that Armenia did not lose anything. Turkey manipulated the Protocols to ensure that no foreign country meddled in the Armenian Genocide issue. In fact, Pres. Obama also exploited the Protocols to refrain from using the term Armenian Genocide in his April 24 statement of 2009 and in the subsequent seven years.

Furthermore, Pres. Sargsyan’s statements indicate that Armenia is apt to make the same mistake again. For years, he had been declaring that Armenia is ready to ratify the Protocols the same day that Turkey ratifies them. Fortunately, Turkey never ratified the Protocols, preventing Armenia from taking an action contrary to its own national interests!

March 6, 2018