Author: Harut Sassounian

www.TheCaliforiaCourier.com

I just became aware of an important interview Pres. Serzh Sargsyan had given to Turkish journalist Cansu Camlibel of Hurriyet newspaper on April 24, 2015 in Yerevan. The article was buried under the avalanche of media coverage during the commemorations of the Armenian Genocide Centennial.

Here are key excerpts from Pres. Sargsyan’s lengthy interview as published in the Turkish Daily News, the English edition of Hurriyet:

— The President rightly pointed out that “the emotional and non-diplomatic reaction of the Turkish leadership [to Pope Francis’s acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide in The Vatican on April 12] was yet another proof that Turkey continued its policy of evident denial pursued at a state level, thus taking upon it the burden of the responsibility for the crime perpetrated by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire.”

— “As a mighty power and champion of democratic values, the United States has on numerous occasions stated its position regarding the Armenian Genocide. Out of 51 U.S. constituent states 44 recognized and condemned the Armenian Genocide. Throughout history various American presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, described the atrocities against the Armenian people as genocide. Even those U.S. presidents, that had not used the word ‘genocide’ during their tenure, had used that term while campaigning. It means that they never questioned the veracity of what had happened, and only due to certain political considerations refrained from uttering the word ‘genocide.’” While Pres. Sargsyan correctly characterized U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide, there were a couple of inaccuracies in his answer: The United States has 50, not 51 states; and Gerald Ford acknowledged the Armenian Genocide as a Congressman, before becoming President.

— “The Turkish proposal of establishing the so-called commission of historians has only one goal, which is to delay the process of the Armenian Genocide recognition, and divert the attention of international community from that crime. That is not only our view but also the view of the international community that goes on recognizing and condemning the Armenian Genocide. The protocols contain no clause of establishing any commission on historical studies. The respective paragraph in the protocol envisages a dialogue aimed at restoring mutual confidence between the two nations, which entailed the establishment of a sub-commission. Throughout the negotiations, the Armenian side has stressed on numerous occasions at various levels also to the Turkish side that the veracity of the genocide cannot be questioned under any circumstances.” Armenians who opposed to the Protocols, including this writer, had made similar objections.

— “It is already the sixth year since the protocols have been signed: when is the expedient time? …The years past have demonstrated that Turkey is looking forward not to some convenient moment, but instead is trying to prevent the manifestation of the unambiguous position of the international community on the Armenian Genocide by imitating a process of the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, claiming that recognitions were something that hindered the reconciliation. The process of the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation was launched upon my initiative, and pursued a very simple goal — to establish diplomatic relations without any preconditions, and unseal the last closed border in Europe, safeguarding peaceful and neighborly coexistence of our nations. Unfortunately, the lack of political will on the part of the Turkish authorities, distortion of the letter and spirit of the protocols, fresh manifestations of denial, and continuously brought up preconditions intended to feed groundless demands of Azerbaijan thwarted the implementation of the protocols…. After six years of unfulfilled expectations, I have decided to recall the protocols from the parliament. On one occasion I said the Armenians are not going to wait indefinitely for the Turkish authorities to be able to find a convenient moment to finally ratify those protocols.” In my opinion, the Armenian Foreign Minister should immediately withdraw his signature from the Protocols and declare them obsolete.

— “The Republic of Armenia has never declared any territorial claims either on Turkey or any other country since our independence. There has never been such an issue on the foreign policy agenda of our country, and there is none today. That is a clear-cut position.”

If not read carefully, Pres. Sargsyan’s last answer could easily be misunderstood. He is neither saying that Armenia has territorial claims from Turkey nor that it does not! Armenia simply has not raised this issue officially because doing so could have serious national security implications given its powerful and hostile neighbor on the Western Front. Political parties, organizations, and individuals like this writer have frequently made territorial claims from Turkey, but it is understandable that Armenia’s Head of State has to be much more circumspect in his public pronouncements.

Pres. Sargsyan stated several years ago that he leaves the pursuit of Armenian territorial claims to a future generation, which implies that Armenia does indeed have territorial demands from Turkey!

Publisher, The Calfornia Courier

The Armenian Genocide Centennial State Committee unanimously adopted a resolution on September 26 in Yerevan to form a Pan-Armenian Council. Also present were representatives of Armenian Genocide Centennial Committees (AGCC) from 40 countries, with the exception of the AGCC’s of the Eastern and Western United States.

An Organizing Committee was formed composed of 12 individuals: Gagik Harutyunyan, President of the Constitutional Court of Armenia; Vigen Sargsyan, Armenian President’s Chief of Staff; Hranoush Hakobyan, Armenia’s Diaspora Minister; and representatives of the Holy See of Etchmiadzin, Holy See of the Great House of Cilicia, Armenian Catholic Church; Armenian Evangelical Church, Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Armenian Democratic League, Social Democratic Hunchakian Party, Union of Russian Armenians, and Armenian General Benevolent Union.

Possibly due to oversight, the Organizing Committee did not include a representative of the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh). However, the adopted resolution clearly stated that the Pan-Armenian Council would include representatives of the Republic of Armenia, Republic of Artsakh, major Diasporan organizations, key Armenian state agencies, religious institutions, civil society, and political parties.

The resolution directed that:

— The Pan-Armenian Council be of advisory nature, have geographic and thematic committees, and meet annually in Yerevan;
— The Council include on its permanent agenda the following items: a) review of a comprehensive annual report on conditions of Armenians around the world, b) discussion on the recognition, condemnation and elimination of the consequences of the Armenian Genocide, and c) coordination of pan-Armenian activities;
— The Council hold its inaugural session in Yerevan on September 20, 2016;
— The Organizing Committee prepare and send to members of the State Committee and regional AGCC’s by April 15, 2016, a preliminary outline of the structure and composition of the Pan-Armenian Council; hold consultations on the direction, format and activities of the Council; plan the inaugural session of the Council; and by July 15, 2016 inform State Committee members of its date and place;
— The Diaspora Minister prepare the first report of “Conditions of Armenians Around the World,” in consultation with the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Culture, Education and Science, state agencies, and Diasporan organizations, including the State Committee and regional AGCC’s; present by May 1, 2016, a preliminary report to the State Committee and regional AGCC’s seeking their proposals; hold consultations with regional AGCC’s to prepare proposals regarding their relationship with the Pan-Armenian Council; and finalize the report by the Sept. 20th session of the Council.

During the discussion, Hrant Markarian, Chairman of the Bureau of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, suggested that, in addition to the Pan-Armenian Council, regional councils be formed in various parts of the Diaspora to help organize in 2016, the 25th anniversary of the independence of the Armenian Republic, and in 2018, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the first Republic of Armenia.

I took the floor next asking why the Pan-Armenian Council did not include representatives of the public-at-large, to ensure that the majority of Armenians, who are not members of any Armenian organization, are represented in the Council. The President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, responded that his staff had explored such a possibility, but had given up due to the difficulty of selecting representatives from the Armenian Diaspora. I mentioned that there are mechanisms for selecting representatives from the various Armenian communities. The President welcomed the suggestion and referred it to the Organizing Committee. President of the Constitutional Court Gagik Harutyunyan and former Prime Minister Vazken Manoukian also commented on the possible inclusion of representatives from the general public in the Pan-Armenian Council.

As I have explained in previous columns, the Pan-Armenian Council would eliminate the need to form separate committees on the occasion of each Armenian crisis or issue. In my view, it would be preferable that Diasporan members of the Council be selected through democratic elections held in various Armenian communities around the world — a very difficult, yet rewarding task, if implemented successfully!

Finally, there was no discussion at the September 26 meeting on the role of the Diaspora Ministry after the Pan-Armenian Council is formed. This would be an important issue for the Organizing Committee to consider in its upcoming deliberations.

Several weeks ago, Sarkis Assadourian, a former Member of the Canadian Parliament, informed me that at his request Parliamentarian Judy Sgro had nominated Pope Francis for the 2016 Nobel Peace Prize.

In her nomination letter, MP Sgro praised His Holiness for crafting “a papacy of inclusion, openness and reform.” She described the Pope as “an inspirational force for good” and “a symbol of hope…. From his efforts at reconciliation of past misdeeds and conflicts, to his work geared to promote peace and a greater understanding and tolerance of those with differing viewpoints, Pope Francis has already established himself as a genuine and constructive instrument of global change.”

Assadourian asked me if I could find a U.S. legislator who would likewise nominate Pope Francis for the Nobel Peace Prize. I immediately contacted Cong. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who not only agreed to nominate the Pope, but also sought the support of other House Members by circulating a letter addressed to the Nobel Committee.

Cong. Schiff’s Sept. 23rd letter states: “With unsurpassed eloquence, humility and compassion, the Pope has used his pulpit to exhort people and nations around the world to conduct their affairs with spirituality, morality and integrity…. Pope Francis has been a powerful advocate for peace, urging an end to conflict and support for constitutive ties among nations. He has called on the world to use diplomacy and discussion to solve disputes, rather than military force, coercion or intimidation. This commitment to nonviolence, which the Pope has put into practice every day through his words and actions, is at the core of the principles behind the Nobel Peace Prize.”

In view of the Pope’s reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide during a Vatican Mass in early April, Cong. Schiff commended “his courageous stand for human rights and his condemnation of all genocides, both past and present.” His Holiness has also condemned “the persecution of Christians and other minorities in Syria and Iraq.”

Cong. Schiff also characterized Pope Francis as the “leading advocate of relief” for large numbers of refugees currently flooding Europe. The Pontiff has even invited “a Syrian refugee family to reside in his residence at The Vatican.”

Finally, in his letter of nomination, Cong. Schiff emphasized that “Pope Francis has also worked to galvanize the international community to take on global problems, such as the changing climate and environmental degradation…. Pope Francis casts the issue of an unhealthy earth in religious terms, emphasizing our joint duty to care for the world and to pass on an unspoiled environment to future generations.”

Coinciding with the Pope’s U.S. visit and address to the joint Houses of Congress, Schiff’s letter attracted great attention from colleagues and the media. The Washington Post, for example, in a lengthy article, “Should Pope Francis receive the Nobel Peace Prize?” noted that “a peace prize for Francis would be historic: no Pope has ever won the honor.”

A nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize is considered valid only if it is submitted by a person who falls within one of the following categories:

Members of National Assemblies and governments of states;
Members of international courts;
Members of Institut de Droit International;
University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology;
Directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
Board members of organizations that have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; and
Former advisers to the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

The Pope’s nomination would be considerably strengthened if it is also backed by U.S. Senators and legislators from other countries, including Armenian Parliamentarians. The deadline for submitting nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize is February 1, 2016. The recipient is selected by a 5-member Norwegian Nobel Committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway. The prize is awarded each year on December 10 in Oslo City Hall.

Pope Francis fully deserves the Nobel Peace Prize even though he is too modest to seek it or even accept it. Should he win the Prize, His Holiness would most probably donate the $1.5 million award to the poor and the destitute around the world.

On the occasion of the 24th anniversary of Armenia’s independence, I had the honor of delivering the keynote address at the celebration organized by the Armenian Consulate in Glendale, California. Here are excerpts from my remarks reflecting on some of the accomplishments since independence, and the challenges that still lie ahead.

The most remarkable achievement in the early years of the Armenian Republic was the liberation and establishment of the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh). As a result, a whole generation of Armenians under age 20, born and raised in independent Artsakh, has not spent a single day under Azerbaijan’s oppressive regime — and God willing — never will! Artsakh’s independence is an irreversible reality. Artsakh will never again be a part of Azerbaijan!

However, our challenges in Artsakh are not yet over. While it is true that we sacrificed much to win the war, we must now win the peace! This is not the time to let our guard down. Armenia’s border towns come regularly under attack from Azeri bombardment.

Armenians must take a series of important steps to ensure that Artsakh’s independence is secured. Artsakh must not only survive, but thrive! To accomplish this imperative necessity, we must first bolster Artsakh’s defenses. The best way to avoid war is to have a good defense.

For Azerbaijanis, recovering Nagorno Karabagh is a hollow luxury; but for Armenians, Artsakh is an existential necessity!

Besides reinforcing Artsakh’s defenses, Armenians need to replenish its population. We must create new facts on the ground so that the Azeri regime is convinced that Armenians, rather than abandoning Artsakh, are relocating there in larger numbers, thus making the return of that territory practically impossible.

Another key objective is putting Artsakh’s independence on firm legal grounds and gaining international recognition! The Armenian-American community has successfully countered the massively financed Azeri lobby in Washington and all 50 states.

Lastly, we must create better living conditions in Artsakh, by providing housing and jobs, so Armenians currently there, and those planning to relocate, can enjoy safe and comfortable lives.
However, none of these burdens should be borne alone by the people of Artsakh, but by the collective will of all Armenians and their supporters throughout the world.

To ensure Artsakh’s survival, we need a strong Armenia, which is also a necessity for the preservation of Armenian communities worldwide.

Now, almost a quarter century after independence, we must do everything in our power to ensure that the homeland is secure and prosperous.

Regardless of our ideological, political and religious differences, we must ALL unite under the banner of the Yerakouyn — the Tricolor. It matters not whether we agree or disagree with any particular leader. Government officials come and go, but the Armenian people and the homeland are everlasting!

However, we must keep in mind that the relationship between citizens and their government is a two-way street. Government officials are duty bound to create a social environment that is fair, conducive to a prosperous life, free of discrimination and intimidation. Citizens must have the chance and the choice, through democratic processes, to elect their preferred representatives without any interference from the authorities.
The political opposition, on the other hand, has the responsibility to hold the government accountable for its actions through constructive criticism and peaceful means, without risking the country’s stability and security.

Unfortunately, there is still widespread poverty and unemployment in Armenia. Immediate solutions must be found to feed the hungry, help the needy, and heal the sick, which will stem the tide of emigration — an existential threat to the homeland!

Despite the hardships that many Armenians continue to suffer from — some man-made, and others due to circumstances beyond government control, such as blockades by Turkey and Azerbaijan — we must acknowledge that there has been, over the past 24 years, a gradual progress in the living conditions of Armenia’s population.

Another successful accomplishment was the worldwide commemoration of the Armenian Genocide Centennial earlier this year. Thanks to the persistent efforts of the Diaspora in the last 100 years, and the Armenian government’s international diplomatic contacts in the past quarter century, the recognition phase of the Genocide is pretty much accomplished. We must now seek justice through restitution. The Turkish government must return everything that was confiscated during the Genocide and pay compensation for whatever cannot be returned.

The challenge ahead is creating a more efficient mechanism for coordinating the efforts of all 10 million Armenians from Armenia to Artsakh, and throughout the Diaspora.

One such approach would be to rename and transform the existing Centennial Committees in various countries as well as the Central Centennial Committee headquartered in Yerevan into permanent bodies responsible for:
1) Managing all pan-Armenian issues and crises affecting Armenian communities such as Syria;
2) boosting Artsakh’s security, economy, and autonomy;
3) halting and reversing emigration from Armenia; and
4) seeking restitution from Turkey for all human and material losses suffered by Armenians during the Genocide.