Category: Harut Sassounian

The Turkish government is continuing its duplicitous game of playing on both sides of the fence, pretending to be the friend of both Russia and Ukraine in order to draw maximum benefit from its tightrope walk.

However, Turkey cannot keep playing this game for too long before it falls flat on its face from the teetering tightrope. For decades, as a member of NATO, Turkey violated its principles, bought problematic weapons from Russia while acting as a member of the Western military camp, refused to support the collective decisions of the organization, and got sanctioned by the United States, its NATO partner.

Turkey has played a similar erratic role as a member of the Council of Europe, violating the basic rules of the organization, including repeatedly refusing to implement decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. After all this, Pres. Erdogan has the audacity to complain that Turkey is not allowed to join the European Union. In reality, it should not even be allowed to remain in the Council of Europe. Too bad NATO does not have a provision on expelling one of its member states. Amazingly, Turkish leaders have appealed to the United Nations to have their country become the sixth permanent member of the Security Council with a veto power. Such a thing should never be allowed. It would be the end of the UN.

In the meantime, Turkey is continuing its two-faced “neutrality” between NATO and Russia in the Ukraine war. Turkey is the only NATO member that has refused to sanction Russia and has not closed its airspace to Russian aircraft. Turkey abstained while the overwhelming majority of the Council of Europe voted to suspend Russia’s membership. Turkey then turned around and voted twice in the UN General Assembly in March in favor of a resolution condemning Russia for invading Ukraine.

Furthermore, the Turkish Ambassador to the UN, Feridun Sinirlioglu, delivered a scathing attack on Russia. Sinirlioglu said the war in Ukraine is the result of the “blatant violation” of international humanitarian law by Russia, which he described as “unacceptable.” He then added, “For our part, we will not give up on our brothers and sisters in Ukraine.” These words indicate that Turkey is not neutral in this war.

While Turkey’s ambassador at the UN was sharply critical of Russia, Turkish businessman Ethem Sancak, one of Pres. Erdogan’s closest political allies and executive board member of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), visited Moscow and told the Russian RBC TV channel that Turkey’s sale of drones to Ukraine was a big mistake. Sancak also said: “We will not join in the sanctions, because if Russia falls, Turkey would get divided. And if Turkey falls, the same goes for Russia…. We are allies with Russia.” Sancak described Turkey’s membership in NATO as “shameful….” He then added: “NATO is a cancerous tumor.”

In addition, “Having gained experience in sanctions busting schemes that undermined both US and UN Security Council embargoes on jihadist groups and Iran in the past, the government of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is now poised to implement a similar playbook for Western sanctions on Russia. Hoping to make money for his business cronies and aid his country’s embattled economy and finances, Erdogan apparently saw the opportunity to make a profit by offering Russians a lifeline to help overcome the restrictions and beat the sanctions,” wrote Abdullah Bozkurt in Nordic Monitor.

In order to appease Russia, Turkey rejected U.S. suggestions to transfer to Ukraine the S-400 missile systems it had bought from Russia, which had resulted in the U.S. imposing sanctions on Turkey. Furthermore, in recent days, several Russian oligarchs have brought their luxury yachts and private jets from Europe to Turkey to avoid western sanctions. Bahadir Ozgur, a Turkish commentator who specializes in exposing organized crime, says Turkey is the “gangsters’ heaven,” the Al-Monitor news website reported.

As a result of long-running sanction-busting activities by Turkey, the Biden administration is well aware of Turkish efforts to bail out Russia from U.S. and EU imposed sanctions. Neither the White House nor Congress are too keen to side with Erdogan who is constantly plotting to glorify himself and his country by trying to mend its damaged relations with Europe, the United States, Israel, Egypt, the UAE and Armenia.

In another failed public relations stunt, Pres. Erdogan announced prior to last week’s NATO Summit in Brussels that he would be meeting with Pres. Joe Biden in order to create a photo-op intended to raise Turkey’s questionable standing in the world and his own poor rating at home.

Despite Erdogan’s intense diplomatic lobbying, Pres. Biden refused to meet with him at the NATO Summit, undermining his desire to gain positive PR from such a meeting. The White House rejected a push by the U.S. Embassy in Ankara for such a face to face encounter.

Pres. Biden, who has had a long-lasting personal dislike of Pres. Erdogan because of his anti-western policies, did the right thing by not providing him with further opportunities for self-aggrandizement at a time while he continues his close relations with Russia. There is also stiff resistance in Congress to any appeasement of Turkey.

Erdogan is constantly justifying his tightrope walk between East and West by claiming that he is trying to play a mediating role in the Ukrainian war. This is yet another misleading excuse for Erdogan’s self-serving attempts to give himself and his country undeserved importance.

There might be heads of state who have sued their own governments after they were overthrown or their possessions confiscated, but, I am not aware of any leader in office who continued his pending lawsuit against his own country in a foreign court. We have the incredible case of not one, but two lawsuits filed years ago by Nikol Pashinyan against the Republic of Armenia in the European Court of Human Rights. These two lawsuits were still pending when he became Prime Minister. In addition, Alexander Arzumanyan had also a pending lawsuit against the Republic of Armenia in the European Court at the time of his appointment as Ambassador.

No one can fault citizen Pashinyan for filing the two lawsuits, long before he began serving as Prime Minister in 2018, in order to clear his name after he and his newspaper were found guilty of violating Armenian laws. However, after becoming Prime Minister, he should have withdrawn the lawsuits from the European Court and filed an appeal with Armenian courts which he has done now four years after assuming his current office. During his January 2022 “press conference,” Pashinyan admitted that he had thought about filing an appeal in Armenian courts, however, he said that he decided to wait until the European Court had made its decision. I believe it would have been more proper to withdraw the lawsuits from the European Court and file the appeal in Armenia.

Armenpress reported on Feb. 16, 2022 that “the Prosecutor-General of Armenia Artur Davtyan filed a motion in the Court of Appeal requesting to overturn the 2010 guilty verdict of Nikol Pashinyan and exonerate him. On January 19, 2010, the Yerevan Court of General Jurisdiction had found Pashinyan guilty of ‘organizing mass disturbances’ during the March 1, 2008, demonstrations [which resulted in 10 deaths, burned cars and looted stores. After hiding from authorities for 16 months], Pashinyan was sentenced to seven years in prison but served a little less than two years and was released under a general amnesty. On January 18, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights issued a judgment in the case of Pashinyan vs. Armenia, which Pashinyan had filed when he was an opposition politician. The European Court recognized that Pashinyan’s right to freedom, personal immunity, as well as the right to freedom of peaceful assembly were violated.” The European Court did not award Pashinyan with any amount of money for damages or legal fees.

Interestingly, the Armenian government’s lawyer at the European Court did not present any evidence or objections to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to defend the Armenian court’s 2010 verdict against Pashinyan. It is understandable that a government lawyer would be reluctant to present evidence of wrongdoing against his own country’s Prime Minister! The ECHR reaches all its decisions after weighing the plaintiff’s arguments against the evidence presented by the respective government. In this case, the government did not present its side of the story, since the plaintiff and the government were awkwardly on the same side. It is also important to note that the European Court only began to review Pashinyan’s lawsuit in 2019, after he became Prime Minister in 2018, which means that he had plenty of time to withdraw his petition from the European Court. Regrettably, Pashinyan’s lawsuit in the European Court against Armenia provided scandalous material to the Azeri press, publicizing it with the headline: “Pashinyan defeated Armenia in European Court.”

Pashinyan’s second lawsuit in the European Court of Human Rights against the Republic of Armenia was filed by Dareskizb, the publishing company of his newspaper, Haykakan Jamanak. The newspaper had printed on October 14, 2010, an article under the headline: “Seven out of Eight are in the List,” accusing several high-ranking Armenian government officials of involvement in “drug and human trafficking and money laundering crimes.” Three of the accused officials filed a lawsuit in an Armenian court against Haykakan Jamanak for defamation. Pashinyan lost the lawsuit and the subsequent appeal.

The European Court decided in 2021 that the applicant’s rights were violated. The Government of Armenia was ordered to pay the publishing company of Pashinyan’s newspaper 9,000 euros in damages, in addition to taxes.

Alexander Arzumanyan had also filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Armenia in the European Court before being appointed Ambassador to Denmark and Norway in 2017, and additionally to Sweden in 2019. He challenged in the European Court of Human Rights his conviction by an Armenian court for his involvement in the 2008 protests following the presidential elections. He was the head of Levon Ter Petrosyan’s presidential campaign. Prior to that, Arzumanyan was Armenia’s Foreign Minister. In 2001, he became one of the founding members of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission. Following the 2008 protests, he was arrested and charged with “usurpation of State power.” On June 22, 2009, an Armenian court found him guilty of organizing mass disorder, sentenced him to five years in prison, and freed him immediately due to an amnesty. In 2009, Arzumanyan appealed to the European Court which ruled in 2021 that his rights to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly have been violated. Just like Pashinyan, Arzumanyan chose not to withdraw his lawsuit from the European Court of Human Rights after becoming an Ambassador. I don’t know why the Armenian government did not make his appointment in 2017 conditional on the withdrawal of his lawsuit. The ECHR ordered the Republic of Armenia to pay Amb. Arzumanyan 9,000 euros for damages and 2,600 euros for legal costs and expenses, in addition to taxes.

I wonder if there is any other country in the world whose Prime Minister and Ambassador had pending lawsuits against their own country in a foreign court at the time of assuming office, obliging the Republic of Armenia to pay them damages and legal fees from their own governmental budget!

In the midst of the Ukraine-Russia War, a few leaders have made questionable statements to take advantage of the chaotic situation and push for their selfish agendas!

As soon as Pres. Recep Tayyip Erdogan learned that the Ukrainian government had asked for “immediate accession” to the European Union (EU), he made the same request for Turkey.

Erdogan hypocritically said: “We appreciate the efforts to get Ukraine EU membership. But I ask the EU members, why does Turkey’s membership in the EU worry you?” He called on the EU to show the Turkish request the “same sensitivity” as that of Ukraine and arrogantly slammed EU member states for being “not sincere.” Erdogan flippantly asked: “Will you put Turkey on your agenda when someone attacks (us) too?” He then complained: “Why don’t you give the military equipment needed by Turkey?” What for? To attack and kill more people and occupy more countries?

Turkey applied to join the EU back in 1987 and was officially recognized as a candidate for membership in 1999, but its accession talks, which started in 2005, were stalled due to objections from the Cypriot government due to Turkey’s occupation of Northern Cyprus in 1974. Germany and France also opposed Turkey’s EU membership.

Even in the case of Ukraine, despite the current sympathy for that country, it would take a long time to complete the negotiations with the EU and make the necessary economic and political improvements to fulfill the criteria for joining the EU.

Turkey’s EU membership, on the other hand, is farther away, if ever. Turkey does not comply with most EU criteria for membership. It has had several military coup d’états and attempted coups, in addition to its anti-democratic regime which in fact is a dictatorship. Turkey has violated just about every human rights law, including the wholesale jailing of journalists, shutting down the free press, supporting Islamist terrorists, massacring Kurds, desecrating Christian churches, occupying Northern Cyprus, intervening militarily in Syria, Northern Iraq and Libya, aiding Azerbaijan to occupy Artsakh, and refusing to carry out the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.

To qualify for EU membership, Turkey first has to overhaul its entire constitution and laws to become a democratic country, release tens of thousands of jailed innocent citizens, stop supporting terrorists, adopt and implement European standards for human rights, restore minority rights, withdraw from Northern Cyprus, acknowledge the Armenian Genocide and make restitution for Armenian losses.

When Erdogan sheepishly asked if Turkey would also be considered for EU membership “when someone attacks us too,” in reality no one has attacked Turkey, but Turkey has attacked plenty of other countries.

Regrettably, the tragic suffering of the Ukrainian people during the Russian war is not a unique phenomenon. There have been countless such brutal wars and mass murders throughout history. One should not forget the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire 1915-23, resulting in the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians; the invasion and occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkey in 1974 which is still continuing; the Turkish incursion into Northern Syria; and the war on Artsakh by Azerbaijan and Turkey in 2020, committing barbaric war crimes during which the world remained silent when hospitals, schools, civilian apartments were bombed, children and women butchered, There were no sanctions against Turkey or Azerbaijan, no around the clock media coverage of the atrocities, and no military or economic assistance to Armenia and Artsakh. 

Let us now move to two unexpected statements by Turkish political leaders. Mustafa Destici, head of the Turkish nationalist Great Unity Party and an ally of Erdogan’s government, warned that after Ukraine, Russia will target Kars and Ardahan, two cities in Western Armenia occupied by Turkey. “If you see Russia on our borders later, do not be surprised,” said the Turkish party leader.

Similarly, the Chair of the opposition Turkish IYI Party Meral Akshener chimed in: “Who can claim that Turkey is safe? Who can say that the missing pieces in Putin’s mind are not Kars, Ardahan and Erzurum [Garin]?”

These are obviously bombastic statements. Russia has no such intentions. On the contrary, Russia is trying to woo Turkey away from NATO. Nevertheless, these two statements have one important benefit to the Armenian side: They remind the Turkish population that Kars, Ardahan and Erzurum (Garin) are contested cities that do not belong to Turkey. They are a part of Western Armenia.

Finally, here is an interesting statement Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made to the UN Human Rights Council earlier this month: “The principle of respect for territorial integrity applies only to states whose governments represent the entire people living on their territory.”

Even though Lavrov was referring to the 1970 UN declaration to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, he must have forgotten that the principle he quoted applies to Armenians of Artsakh. Lavrov claimed that the Ukrainian government does not represent all of the people living on the territory of the Ukrainian state. If that’s what Lavrov believes, Russia must acknowledge that the government of Azerbaijan does not represent Armenians living on the territory of Artsakh. Therefore, Russia should declare that it supports the self-determination of the Republic of Artsakh!

As the war in Ukraine is continuing to cause more devastation and the loss of human life, countries around the world, particularly Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, had to make difficult choices in their policies, public statements and votes in international organizations. Despite concerns about Turkey’s inconsistent positions, it is clear that neither Russia nor the West is willing to push Turkey to the opposing camp. Pres. Erdogan’s senior advisor, Ibrahim Kalin, pompously told CNN that Western countries have urged Turkey to maintain its ties with Russia, which is highly unlikely. Erdogan was quoted as saying: “we can neither give up on Ukraine nor Russia.” This is described as “strategic ambiguity.”

Here is my analysis of the repercussions of this war on Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Will they be able to maintain their ambiguous positions or will they stumble and lose their delicate balance?

Let us start with the votes these three countries have cast regarding the conflict. The first vote took place on February 25 at the European Council where Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey are members. Out of the 47 members, only Russia and Armenia voted against the motion to suspend Russia’s membership in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers. Forty two countries voted in favor. Azerbaijan did not vote. Turkey abstained.

The next vote came on February 28 in the UN Human Rights Council on whether to include the situation in Ukraine on the Council’s agenda. Out of the 47 Council members, 29 voted in favor and 13 abstained (including Armenia). Russia was probably not pleased with Armenia’s vote. On the other hand, the Charge d’Affaires of Ukraine in Armenia Denis Avtonomov expressed his government’s satisfaction with Armenia’s vote. More importantly, on March 4, the Human Rights Council voted to establish a commission to investigate Russia’s violations in Ukraine. Thirty-two countries voted in favor and 13 abstained (including Armenia). Azerbaijan and Turkey are not members of the UN Council.

The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on March 2 calling on Russian forces to withdraw from Ukraine. 141 member states voted in favor and 35 abstained (including Armenia). Turkey voted in favor. Azerbaijan did not vote.

Going beyond votes, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has the difficult task of balancing his country’s military, political and military alliance with Russia with trying to maintain positive relations with the West. Pashinyan made his first cautious remarks regarding the conflict on March 2: “We are deeply saddened by the unfolding events which are now clear that will have global repercussions. Our hope is that the scheduled Russian-Ukrainian talks will take place and become fruitful, and diplomacy will be able to silence the cannons.”

Azerbaijan also has its foot in both camps. On February 26, Ukraine’s President Volodomyr Zelensky tweeted twice praising Azerbaijan for supplying $5 million of medicines and ordering Azeri gas stations in Ukraine to provide free fuel to emergency vehicles, just days after Azerbaijan and Russia had signed a treaty of alliance. However, Azerbaijan has not imposed sanctions on Russia, just like Turkey and Armenia. Since Ukraine had supported Azerbaijan politically and militarily prior to the 2020 Artsakh war and the fact that 2,000 Russian peacekeepers are providing security for Artsakh Armenians, the government of Artsakh announced its recognition of the “independence” of the Russian controlled regions of Donetsk and Lugansk in Ukraine.

Turkey is the only NATO member that has refused to impose sanctions on Russia and kept its airspace open to Russian planes, in order not to lose Russian investments, gas imports, and large income from tourists. Surprisingly, Erdogan approved on March 1 an investment promotion agreement with Belarus which is sanctioned by the West for joining Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On the other hand, Turkey blocked the passage of some Russian warships through Turkish straits to the Black Sea, as stipulated by the 1936 Montreux Convention. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken expressed his appreciation for the Turkish decision. Nevertheless, Turkey-U.S. relations remain frigid.

After five of its dozen Turkish drones were shot down by Russia, Ukraine plans to purchase more drones from Turkey which have targeted Russian armed convoys. On the other hand, Turkey had purchased Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missiles causing the United States to sanction fellow NATO member Turkey, blocking its acquisition of the American F-35 stealth bombers.

On March 1, The New York Times published an article by Carlotta Gall titled, “Ukraine Invasion Increases Friction Between Erdogan and Putin.” She reported that hours before the start of the war, two Turkish planes landed in Ukraine to evacuate diplomatic staff and other Turkish citizens from Kiev. However, the planes and evacuees became stranded, resulting in Pres. Erdogan getting criticized at home for misreading the looming danger and not acting quicker. Erdogan had invited Presidents Putin and Zelensky to Turkey to mediate the conflict. Putin politely declined the invitation. Erdogan shut down several Western media outlets silencing their criticisms of Russia.

Despite Turkey’s fence-sitting in the conflict, “three Turkish factories and four warehouses in Ukraine were destroyed By Russia during the war. These factories manufactured ammunition and small bombs,” reported the London-based Arabic newspaper Rai Al-Youm. In addition, “a large factory that specialized in building the structures of Bayraktar drones was destroyed.” Ukrainian factories supply engines and other critical parts for Turkish drones. The newspaper quoted an unnamed senior advisor to Erdogan stating that Turkish losses in Ukraine are in the hundreds of millions of dollars and could possibly reach billions of dollars.

Meanwhile, Erdogan’s son-in-law, drone manufacturer Selcuk Bayraktar, tweeted: “I condemn in the strongest terms the unlawful invasion carried out by Russia in defiance of the sovereignty of an independent nation.” He said he supported “Ukraine and Crimea, the homeland of our Turkish brothers resisting the occupation.” In a second tweet, Bayraktar regretted the “destruction and suffering caused by war.” Turkish citizens pointed out the hypocrisy of a “merchant of death” whose drones have caused so much destruction around the world. He obviously places his business interests ahead of human lives.

The Russia-Ukraine war has disrupted the norms of international order, forcing many countries, including Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey, to delicately balance their interests on both sides.

What is happening right now in Ukraine is the worst possible scenario for both sides, in fact all sides.

First of all, this is an enormous tragedy for the people of Ukraine who have fallen victim to the Russian invasion which should have been avoided at all costs. No one can justify the destruction of a country and the killing of innocent people. We should support peace, common sense and safety of all human beings.

Let us ignore the unrelenting propaganda, misinformation disinformation, and hypocrisy which have inundated the media before and during the war. No need to play politics or partisanship with people’s lives.

Let us now move from emotional statements to the real world which can only be ignored at our own peril. Since the beginning of the world, the powerful has always imposed his will on the weak. There is no escape from this. It has always been this way and will continue to be this way. All those who believe in truth and justice are sadly mistaken. They live in a make-believe world.

Russia, as a powerful country, felt that it was being threatened by Western powers encroaching on its sphere of influence and wanted to protect its national interests. Whether we agree or disagree with the Russian view is immaterial. This is how the Russians perceive the situation. And when you are a powerful country, right or wrong, you try to impose your will on others, one way or another. The precedent for this situation is the Russian invasion of the Republic of Georgia in 2008 when the latter flirted with the idea of joining NATO. Russia occupies large parts of Georgia to this day.

Those in the West who have been making sanctimonious statements about big bad Russia attacking an innocent country are conveniently forgetting how the western countries themselves behaved for decades, even centuries. The imperial powers of the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy went around the world conquering dozens of smaller, poorer and weaker countries, subjugated them, plundered their natural resources, killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of natives, until they rose up and tossed the aggressors out.

The United States, the self-declared paragon of democracy and human rights, has attacked and occupied several countries in the past imposing its will around the world. The U.S. government has overthrown many leaders who have refused to toe its line and submit to America’s wishes. There are dozens of such examples, the latest of which is Iraq. Who can forget the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the Soviet Union deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles away from the United States? The two countries came to the brink of nuclear war on that occasion. There is also the long-standing U.S. policy of the Monroe Doctrine which states that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is considered a hostile act against the United States. How is this different from Putin’s interpretation of Russia’s sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, including Ukraine? Finally, Pres. Biden’s actions against Russia are partially prompted by his intent to raise his record low rating of 37%. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that only 33% of Americans approve Biden’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, while 47% disapprove.

It would have been preferable to engage in direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to find a peaceful solution to the crisis. As it is often said, “war is diplomacy by other means.” The more outside powers such as the United States, France and the United Kingdom meddled in this dispute, the worst it got, since each of these countries, pretending to defend Ukraine, were in fact pursuing their own interests. The crux of the issue is the disagreement between Russia and the West about an alleged pledge made by the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union that NATO will not expand to Eastern Europe, threatening Russia’s security. Nevertheless, NATO did expand to several Eastern European countries, which Russia viewed as a hostile act.

Russia decided to impose its will on Ukraine, fearing that if it did not act promptly, Ukraine would join NATO, after which it would be impossible to neutralize the perceived danger, due to the NATO policy of “attack on one member country is deemed an attack on all.”

There should have been a compromise found on both sides to avoid war. Most people thought that there would be no war and that Russia was amassing troops on Ukraine’s border to pressure it to reach a compromise solution. Regrettably, the Russian attempt to influence Ukraine ended in a full scale invasion destroying large parts of the country’s infrastructure and causing untold casualties. It could be that Ukraine refused to compromise relying on Western assurances that it would come to its aid militarily and economically, if it resisted Russian demands not to join NATO. In addition to providing military hardware and economic assistance, Western countries tried to block Russia’s actions by issuing a series of draconian sanctions, which failed to alter its decision. The hopeful news is that Russian and Ukrainian delegations held their first direct talks on Monday and agreed to meet again.

Turning to the effects on Armenia of the war and sanctions on Russia, Armenia is caught in the middle of its alliance with and reliance on Russia and its standing with the rest of the world. As they say, when two elephants jostle, the ant gets stomped on, regardless of which elephant wins.

The biggest problem that Armenia has is the absence of a competent leader who would be able to come up with a skillful solution to extricate itself from this extremely complicated situation. Since the start of the war, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has not made an official declaration. Nevertheless, on three separate occasions, Armenia has taken sides and made statements regarding this conflict.

The most problematic action Armenia took was last Friday when the Council of Europe voted to suspend Russia’s membership in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers. Armenia was the only country that voted with Russia against the measure. Forty two countries voted yes. Turkey shrewdly abstained and Azerbaijan did not vote at all. Western countries will not look too kindly at Armenia’s support for Russia. Likewise, Russia will not look too kindly at Azerbaijan’s and Turkey’s votes. The war in Ukraine is sure to limit Turkey’s ability to walk on a tightrope between NATO and Russia. Azerbaijan’s similar tightrope walk will also be curtailed by not voting with Russia in the Council of Europe, thus undermining the declaration of “allied cooperation” signed on Feb. 22 by Russia and Azerbaijan.

Secondly, when Armenia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Vahan Hunanyan, was asked if Armenia will join Russia in recognizing the “independence” of the Ukrainian regions of Donesk and Lugnask, he replied: “There is no such issue on [Armenia’s] agenda.” Putin will not be pleased with that answer. He has many ways to pressure Pashinyan to toe the Russian line in this crisis.

Finally, speaking at a meeting of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council in Kazakhstan on February 25, Pashinyan suggested that prompt measures be taken “to minimize or circumvent” the anti-Russia sanctions approved by the West following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The anti-Russia sanctions are sure to have a major impact on Armenia’s frail economy as Russia is Armenia’s largest trading partner. As they say, when Russia sneezes, Armenia catches a cold. The $861 million remitted in 2021 by Armenian workers in Russia to their families in Armenia will be sharply curtailed due to the collapsing ruble and increased unemployment.

There is also a long-standing controversy between Armenia and Ukraine. Both sides accuse each other of betraying their trust and siding with their enemies.  In 2014, Armenia, along with nine other countries, voted with Russia against a UN General Assembly resolution which declared the pro-Russian Crimean referendum invalid. Armenians respond by recalling that Ukraine voted in the General Assembly in 2008, for a resolution demanding the withdrawal of “Armenian forces” from Nagorno Karabagh. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine announced during the 2020 Artsakh war: “We support Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and sovereignty just as Azerbaijan always supports our territorial integrity and sovereignty.” Furthermore, Ukraine sold lethal weapons to Azerbaijan prior to the 2020 war.

One should not forget that there are around 500,000 Armenians who live in Ukraine. When other countries shut down their embassies in Ukraine and withdrew their nationals, the Armenian Embassy continued functioning and Armenian nationals remained in Ukraine risking their lives.

With each passing day, more innocent civilians are being killed in Ukraine, more sanctions are being imposed on Russia and more ominous threats are being issued. Common sense should prevail before the world reaches a doomsday scenario.

The only solution is reaching a compromise through peaceful negotiations. Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will leave everyone blind and toothless.

The Armenian government must take two important steps prior to opening the border with Turkey: 1) Forbid Turkish citizens from buying real estate in Armenia; and 2) Place tariffs on the import of products from Turkey.

Obviously, Turkish citizens do not have to cross the Armenian border to be able to buy real estate in Armenia. But, with the opening of the mutual land border, more Turkish citizens will be able to come to Armenia, thus increasing the flow of people and products from Turkey.

Allowing the citizens of a hostile country like Turkey to purchase real estate in Armenia is a serious national security threat, particularly if these properties are located near sensitive border areas.

There is a big contradiction between what the Constitution and laws of Armenia stipulate regarding the purchase of real estate by foreigners and what is actually practiced. Now that a Constitutional Committee has been set up to reform the existing Constitution, last amended in 2015, this is the right time to reconsider the existing provisions as to who can buy real estate in Armenia. There should be a ban on foreigners’ purchase of properties near Armenia’s border. In addition, citizens of Azerbaijan and Turkey should not be allowed to purchase any kind of property anywhere in Armenia.

This problem is particularly urgent because several years ago the Turkish government adopted a law that forbade the purchase of property in Turkey by citizens of four countries: Armenia, Cuba, North Korea and Syria. Citizens of another 35 countries are restricted to purchase property in Turkey based on the nature and location of the land. One would think that since the Turkish government has forbidden Armenian citizens from buying land in Turkey, Armenia should have reciprocated by banning the purchase of land in Armenia by Turkish citizens.

I wrote an article in 2012, informing Armenian officials of the Turkish law that banned the citizens of Armenia from buying land in Turkey and urged “the Armenian Parliament to consider adopting retaliatory measures against citizens of Turkey interested in purchasing Armenian properties.” Regrettably, my suggestion was ignored.

The 1995 Constitution prohibited foreigners from purchasing land in Armenia. However, this was contradicted by the Armenian government’s subsequent report to the World Trade Organization: “foreigners have the right to own real estate properties built on Armenian land.” The report also stated that “the [Armenian] legislation grants the Government the power to limit and prohibit foreign investment for national security concerns.”

In line with the Constitution of 1995, the subsequent Armenian Constitutions of 2005 and 2015 also stated that “Foreign citizens and stateless persons shall not enjoy ownership right over land, except for cases provided for by law.”

If foreigners are not allowed to purchase land or real estate in Armenia, then how were they able to buy them? In 2019 alone, foreigners, contrary to the Armenian Constitution, purchased 186 apartments, 72 houses, two factories, nine public properties and even 121 plots of land. How was this possible?

Much more concerning is that citizens of the enemy states of Azerbaijan and Turkey have been buying properties in Armenia without any objection. According to the figures released last week by the Armenian government’s cadastre or official registry of real estate, from 2010 to 2021 citizens of Azerbaijan purchased six properties in Armenia, which included five apartments and one public property. During the same period, citizens of Turkey bought 71 pieces of real estate, including 55 apartments, five houses, one garage, seven public properties and three plots of land in Armenia.

I assume that many of the Turkish citizens who purchased real estate in Armenia are of Armenian origin. I suggest that the Armenian government make an exception for those who are of Armenian origin, if and when the purchase of real estate by Turkish citizens is banned.

Finally, turning to the import of products from Turkey and other countries, the Armenian government must impose tariffs to protect the viability of domestic production. Since Turkey has a very large population, it is able to produce items much cheaper due to mass scale. Armenian producers, unable to compete with them, will go out of business. Already the Armenian market is flooded with Turkish products. After opening the border, Turkish products will no longer have to go through the expense of importing them via Georgia, which means that they will be even cheaper creating a bigger problem for domestic producers. Making matters worse, the collapsing value of the Turkish Lira has made the prices of imported products from Turkey cheaper.

Before several sectors of Armenia’s economy are completely devastated, the Armenian government must place tariffs on imported Turkish products to protect Armenia’s vulnerable producers.