Category: Harut Sassounian

The Arab News published on March 28 an article titled, “Book by Saudi author unravels Ottoman atrocities in Madinah.” The book was written by Saudi historian Muhammad Al-Saeed who exposed Ottoman atrocities against the Muslim population of the holy city of Madinah in Saudi Arabia in 1918 when it was part of the Ottoman Empire.

Al-Saeed, in his book, “Seferberlik: A Century on from the Ottoman crime in Madinah,” tells the seldom-known story of the deportation and killings of the population of Madinah by Ottoman General Fakhri Pasha. The city was pillaged and its holy relics looted by the Ottoman army.

The journalist of the Arab News article, Mohammed Al-Sulami, explained that even though some historians use the Turkish/Arabic word ‘Seferberlik — meaning mobilization or collective deportation — when referring to the Armenian Genocide, this term is also used to refer to the mass displacement of the population from Madinah.

Fakhri Pasha laid siege to Madinah when the city was under attack by the British-backed Arab fighters of Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Makkah. Fakhri Pasha deported 40,000 people from Madinah by trains to present-day Syria, Turkey, and Iraq, abandoning them to their fate. Only 140 residents remained in Madinah who suffered from famine.

Furthermore, the Ottoman army removed the valuable personal effects of Prophet Muhammad from his sacred chamber and smuggled them to Constantinople (Istanbul). Fakhri Pasha converted the Prophet’s mosque into a weapons depot, thus endangering the tomb of the Prophet. Fakhri Pasha also demolished many buildings, starved the remaining population of Madinah and confiscated their possessions, such as farms and crops, reserving the food for his soldiers.

“The stolen treasures arrived in Constantinople, the Ottoman Empire’s capital, and have been on display for many years at the Topkapi Museum,” author Al-Saeed said. The Arab News article explained that the stolen holy relics included “old copies of the Quran, jewelry, golden candlesticks and swords. Besides the 390 artifacts, visitors to the [Topkapi] museum can see the following possessions of Prophet Muhammad: the Blessed Mantle, the Holy Banner, his sword and bow, a jar, a piece of his tooth and a hair from his beard.”

Al-Saeed also revealed that “Fakhri Pasha even attempted to have the body of Prophet Muhammad exhumed and shipped to Constantinople. An Egyptian engineer, who was summoned to Madinah to modify the minarets of the Prophet’s Mosque to support the weight of Ottoman artillery, claimed he was ordered to open the tomb, but he refused. Fakhri Pasha asked for his help to exhume the body of the prophet and move it to Constantinople, according to the historical documents written by the French representative in Cairo and sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The French representative vouched for the account of the Egyptian engineer, who fled the city and did not carry out the crime, thus confirming that the grave in question did indeed house the prophet’s body and the goal was to move the body to Constantinople.”

Al-Saeed told the Arab News that “Madinah reached the point of famine, forcing its citizens and orphaned children to eat cats, dogs and what remained on the farms and in the streets.”

Importantly, Al-Saeed said he wrote about the Ottoman Empire’s atrocities in Madinah “because he believes modern Turkey is trying to whitewash its imperial past. He plans to translate his book into several languages to raise awareness of this little-known chapter of Ottoman history.”

Al-Saeed further said: “I wrote an article in 2015 about the passage of 100 years since this crime and provided details that few people knew about. Reactions to the article varied between people shocked at the information and those who could not believe it, given the Turkish publicity ahead of its publication which attempted to whitewash the Ottoman Empire’s ugliness and its heinous crimes against Arabs. The public was oblivious to the Ottoman crimes. Following the article, the idea of documenting the event was established, so that history would not forget it like other events in Arab history, particularly since the few historical sources that documented Seferberlik are in the Ottoman, English and French archives. Moreover, the sources of information are very limited and the grandchildren of those who were in Madinah at the time do not have many documents. A lot of the city’s inhabitants were displaced. Many of them did not return.”

In a second publication, Saudi Arabia’s ‘Okaz’ newspaper, Saudi journalist Khaled Abbas Tashkandy, wrote in a 2017 article that “his own grandfather was one of the victims of the mass and forced displacement crimes of the people and sons of Madinah by the orders of the military governor Fakhri Pasha during the Seferberlik and how the Turkish soldiers broke into his family’s house and kidnapped him from his mother’s arms and deported him to Astana.” The Saudi journalist confirmed the details of the persecution of the people of Madinah by Fakhri Pasha and the looting of Prophet Muhammad’s personal effects.

In a third publication, The NewArab published an article by Kemal Afzali on March 11, titled: “Saudis claim last Ottoman governor planned to ‘steal Prophet Muhammad’s body.’” This article “provoked uproar among Saudi social media users, many of whom believe it to be characteristic evidence of alleged Turkish animosity towards the Kingdom’s holy cities.” The Arabic hashtag #desecration_ of_the_prophets_grave has appeared in over 7,500 posts on Twitter and Facebook as of early March. Many Saudis have decried “the historic act of ‘Turkish blasphemy.’” Some have drawn parallels between Fakhri Pasha’s barbaric actions and Pres. Erdogan’s “contemporary support for ‘insurgent activity against Arab states.’” One social media post read: “Turks are a nation of thieves. They are bandits and criminals.”

It is incomprehensible to me that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, after more than a Century, has not demanded that the Turkish government return the looted sacred relics of Prophet Muhammad. While Turkey brazenly demands that museums in other countries return antiques that were taken out of Turkey, even though many of these items are of Greek or Armenian origin, the Turkish government has not returned the stolen Saudi artifacts. Should Turkey refuse to do so, Saudi Arabia should file a lawsuit against Turkey in the World Court and publicize the Turkish theft worldwide.

In the past, Turkey and Saudi Arabia enjoyed normal or friendly relations, but that is not the case now. Due to Pres. Erdogan’s dictatorial and military actions in some parts of the world, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are on the opposite sides of various disputes. As a result, Saudi Arabia has blocked the transmission of Turkish programs from its TV stations and has banned the import of Turkish products. This is the right time for Saudi Arabia to act more decisively against Turkey and demand the return of the sacred religious items belonging to the Kingdom. The display of Prophet Muhammad’s personal effects in a Turkish museum is an insult to all Arabs and all Muslims worldwide. These sacred items belong to Saudi Arabia.

For three decades, the government of Israel and Jewish-American leaders have been showering Azerbaijan with excessive and undeserved praise for its alleged tolerance for its Jewish community and friendship with Israel. There have been several visits by Israeli leaders and prominent Jewish-Americans to Baku, glorifying the government of Azerbaijan and flaunting the special affinity between them.

This is hypocrisy of the highest form. The truth is that relations between Azerbaijan and Israel have nothing to do with the treatment of Jews in Baku. The two countries are basically engaged in mutual exploitation, ignoring all humanitarian and ethical concerns. Azerbaijan has purchased billions of dollars of advanced lethal weapons from Israel in exchange for the sale of Azeri oil to Israel, which imports 40% of its oil from Azerbaijan. It is disgraceful that descendants of the Holocaust are arming Azerbaijan to kill survivors of the Armenian Genocide for a fistful of dollars!

Israel has two other reasons for maintaining good relations with Azerbaijan. The first is Israel’s interest in gathering intelligence on Iran and having access to Azerbaijan’s airfields in case of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear stockpile. This is probably what Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev meant when he compared his country’s relations with Israel to an iceberg: “Nine-tenths of it is below the surface.” Israel’s second reason is to cultivate good relations with a Muslim country, given the Arab-Israeli conflict and its isolation from the Muslim world. However, in light of the recent rapprochement between Israel and several Arab nations, the value of Azerbaijan to Israel in this regard is diminishing.

On the other hand, Azerbaijan expects to maximize its political interests in the United States by benefiting from the influence of Israel and Jewish-Americans in Washington, to counter the Armenian-American lobby.

Nevertheless, Azerbaijan and Israel are concealing some of the irritants in their relationship. First of all, Israel has opened its Embassy in Baku in 1993, whereas Azerbaijan has refused to open its Embassy or even a Consulate in Israel, out of concern for its relations with Arab and Muslim nations, particularly Iran. This fact alone belies the supposed friendly relations between the two countries.

Another contradiction is Azerbaijan’s anti-Israel votes and speeches at the United Nations and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Azerbaijan’s most recent critical action of Israel occurred at the United Nations Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, Switzerland on March 18, 2021.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a frequent apologist for Azerbaijan, quickly condemned the Azeri Representative’s remarks at the UN by harshly accusing Azerbaijan of committing “a virtual ‘blood-libel’ against the Jewish state.”

Speaking on item 7 of the Council’s agenda, “human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories,” Kamran Seyfullayev, Third Secretary at the Permanent Mission of Azerbaijan to the UN in Geneva, gave a three-minute speech on March 18, in which he severely criticized the treatment of Palestinians by the State of Israel. Here is what he said:

“I have the honor to deliver this statement on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) [Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev is the Chairman of the movement which is composed of 120 countries].

“For many years, the Non-Aligned Movement has maintained a firm position of solidarity with the Palestinian people and their just cause, and the condemnation of massive, flagrant and systematic violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law committed by Israel.

“The NAM also underscores the need to continue providing political, economic and humanitarian support to assist the Palestinian people and to bolster their resilience and efforts aimed at achieving their legitimate national aspirations, including their inalienable right to self-determination and freedom in their independent State of Palestine.

“We recognize and commend the efforts of the United Nations and its agencies and particularly the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East and the Committee of Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian people. The Movement encourages continuation of their support. The NAM takes note with appreciation of the report of the Secretary General presented to the 43rd Session of the Human Rights Council on the Israeli settlements in the occupied Syrian Golan.

“The NAM expresses its grave concern at the continuing Israeli settlement policy and related activities, including the expansion of settlements, the expropriation of land, the demolition of houses, and the confiscation and destruction of property, which has changed the physical character and demographic composition of the occupied territories and the occupied Syrian Golan.

“The General Assembly, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council have all confirmed that the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements and other related activities in the occupied Palestinian Territory and the occupied Syrian Golan are illegal under international law. The NAM is also deeply concerned over numerous UN official reports, particularly by the recent report of the Secretary General, which have reaffirmed the continued human rights violations of the Palestinian people by Israeli force, throughout the occupied State of Palestine.

“In this regard, the NAM urges the international community to exert its pressure in order to cease immediately the continuation of this illegal trend by Israel which is a blatant violation of international law.

“Furthermore, the NAM strongly believes that Israel, as the occupying power, has to be held accountable for its continued grave and systematic violations of both international human rights law and international humanitarian law in all occupied Arab territories, including Syrian Golan.

“The NAM emphasizes that Israel, as the occupying power, should immediately release all Palestinian prisoners, particularly children and women. It should also cease serious violations of international law and fully lift the blockade of Gaza to remedy the ongoing punitive measures against the civilian population and release Palestinian children in detention in accordance with international standards, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

“In conclusion, the NAM extends its full support to the Government of the State of Palestine in its ongoing efforts to put an end to the occupation of the land of the State of Palestine and realize the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.”

It is ironic that the Simon Wiesenthal Center officials, after years of kowtowing to Azerbaijan, repeatedly visiting that country, and praising it as a close friend of Israel, are now complaining about Baku’s harsh criticism of Israel. I hope Jewish and Israeli leaders realize that they have been fooled by Azerbaijan all these years and learn the valuable lesson that a wolf in sheep’s clothing cannot be trusted. They should also realize that, as the saying goes, when you go to bed with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Israeli and Jewish officials do not seem to have learned anything from their experience of being deceived by Turkey. After decades of backing Turkey, even going as far shamefully blocking the congressional recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Israeli and Jewish officials are now accusing Turkey of anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel. Armenians kept warning them for years, to no avail, not to trust Turkey and that they will be stabbed in the back when they least suspect it. In this vulgar game of mutual exploitation, Israelis and Jewish Americans got the short end of the stick. The same thing is happening now in their relations with Azerbaijan. It will only get worse, unless they quickly come to their senses.

Not everything should be measured by oil, weapons and money. There is something much more valuable like humanity, justice and truthfulness than financial gain and self-interest. But in this selfish world, it is too much to expect such decent behavior!

Last month, California Superior Court Judge William C. Ryan rejected Gov. Gavin Newsom’s refusal to accept the Parole Board’s decision to release Hampig Sassounian from jail. I was under the wrong impression that the Governor’s decision on pardons was final and not subject to a review or reversal by the courts. It turns out that the law requires the Governor to consider “all relevant, reliable information available” and his parole decisions must not be arbitrary or capricious. This article is based on a copy of the Judge’s 19-page ruling.

Hampig Sassounian, not related to this writer, was convicted on June 29, 1984 of first degree murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, but was resentenced to a term of 25 years to life in 2002, making him eligible for parole. Sassounian assassinated Turkish Consul General Kemal Arikan in Los Angeles on January 28, 1982 when he was 19 years old. He is now 58.

On December 27, 2019, the Board of Parole Hearings, found Sassounian suitable for release on parole. However, on May 25, 2020, Gov. Newsom rejected the Board’s decision based on the prisoner’s crime, “outsized political import,” and that his insight was “relatively new.”

On August 14, 2020, Sassounian filed a petition to the Superior Court challenging the Governor’s reversal of the Parole Board’s decision. He argued that the Governor’s decision is not supported by evidence that he posed an unreasonable danger to society, if released. Sassounian also contended that the “Governor imposed an unlawfully heightened standard of parole suitability illegally founded upon the circumstances of Sassounian’s life crime.” He contended that there is no evidence that he lacked “insight” and “the Governor’s conclusion that Sassounian has not demonstrated insight ‘for a sufficiently long period’ is an illegal reason to deny parole.”

On October 7, 2020, the court issued an Order to Show Cause. The Governor’s office filed its response on January 11, 2021, repeating the reasons why he refused parole for the prisoner. Sassounian then submitted his response on January 26, 2021 rejecting the Governor’s claims against him.

Judge Ryan ruled that Sassounian’s record does not contain any evidence to support the Governor’s contention that he is not suitable for release on parole. In addition, the Judge found that the Governor used an improper standard when considering both the “import” of Sassounian’s offense and the notoriety of his victim, as well as the recency of his insight. Therefore, the Judge ordered the release of Sassounian from jail.

Judge Ryan, in his verdict, mentioned Sassounian’s description of his background “as an Armenian born and raised until the age of 13 in Lebanon. During this time, they lived in an ‘active war zone and would routinely see dead bodies,’ including those of women and children. His father was an alcoholic who was often gone for weeks at a time, though Petitioner [Sassounian] had a good, loving relationship with his mother. He lived with his many siblings and extended family members, including his grandparents who were victims of the ‘Armenian Genocide.’ His grandmother often told Petitioner of how she lost her entire family to the genocide and that she only narrowly escaped death herself.”

The Judge continued: “At 13, his [Sassounian’s] family immigrated to the United States to escape the violence in Lebanon, but the family dynamic remained challenging. They moved to Pasadena where there was a large Armenian population. He joined the Armenian Boy Scouts and the Armenian Youth Federation. This is where he met his crime partner, Krikor ‘Koko’ Saliba. They became friendly a year or two before the crime and would discuss politics and the history between Armenia and Turkey, including the genocide. They also noted and discussed that there were ‘a lot of political assassinations going on’ at the time. That is, ‘Armenians were assassinating Turkish diplomats in Europe mostly because they were angry that … after the genocide Turkey would deny the genocide…. Young Armenians were upset about this and — they thought that — Turkey should step up and acknowledge the genocide…and get into dialogue with the Armenian people or make peace with them.’ Because this was not happening, ‘young Armenians decided to resort to violence….[They had] given up that… peaceful dialogue with Turkey was… going to happen.’ During this time Petitioner [Sassounian] and his crime partner, who was a few years older than Petitioner, discussed going to Europe to carry out an assassination like they had been seeing take place. At some point, Arikan, however, made a public address calling all Armenians ‘liars’ and declared there was no Armenian genocide. Saliba showed Petitioner an article regarding Arikan’s statement. ‘Being the grandsons of survivors of the Armenian genocide, we took that to be very insulting. And we took very deep offense about that.’”

Judge Ryan decided that “there is no evidence in the record to support the Governor’s finding of lack of insight, such the commitment offense of nearly 40 years is still probative of Petitioner’s current dangerousness.”

The Judge challenged the Governor’s contention that Sassounian’s insight into his crime was “very recent.” Judge Ryan stated that “the case law establishes there is no predetermined amount of time an inmate must demonstrate or possess insight such that it is sufficient for the purposes of suitability.” The Judge ruled that “the insight standard the Governor used to guide his decision was incorrect… and held Sassounian to a different ‘arbitrary’ standard.”

Regarding the issue of Sassounian being a danger to society, “the court notes that the psychologist found Petitioner to represent a low risk of violence upon release,” wrote the Judge. “Petitioner wrote a victim apology letter to Mr. Arikan’s family, friends, and colleagues, as well as one to the ‘Nation of Turkey, the Turkish government, and Turkish Communities of the World,’” stated Judge Ryan. “The court finds the Governor’s decision was both arbitrary and procedurally flawed,” ruled the Judge. He also noted that Sassounian “has comprehensive release plans for both the United States and Armenia.” This is in reference to Sassounian’s statement that he may relocate to Armenia after his release from prison.

At the end, the Judge pronounced that Sassounian “committed a murder for which he has been appropriately punished…. The Governor’s reversal is vacated, the Board’s grant of parole from December 27, 2019, is hereby reinstated. The Board is directed ‘to proceed in accordance with its usual procedures for release of an inmate on parole unless within 30 days of the finality of this decision the Board determines in good faith that cause for rescission of parole may exist and initiates appropriate proceedings to determine that question.’” Gov. Newsom decided not to appeal the Judge’s ruling, allowing the pardon go into effect which would set Sassounian free shortly.

In my opinion, violence is never justified regardless of the reason. Consul General Arikan was not guilty of committing genocide against the Armenian people. He was not even born during the genocide. Armenians have demands from the Government of Turkey, not individual Turks. Sassounian committed a crime for which he was punished by serving almost 40 years in jail. The complaints by the Turkish government about Sassounian’s release are not credible. The Turkish government pressured the Federal Government to urge Gov. Newsom in 2020 and previously Gov. Brown in 2017 to reject the Parole Board’s decisions to release Sassounian. Even less credible, not to say completely shameful, are the protests of the Azerbaijani government against Sassounian’s release. Azerbaijan awarded Azeri axe murderer Ramil Safarov the title of national hero for butchering an Armenian soldier while he was sleeping. Safarov served not a single day in jail in Azerbaijan after his extradition from Hungary.

Finally, it is completely unacceptable that the Turkish Government would demand excessive punishment for an Armenian who murdered a Turk, while Turkey itself continues to deny the mass murder of 1.5 million innocent Armenians. Only after the Turkish government acknowledges the Armenian Genocide and makes appropriate amends for it, Armenians can consider apologizing for the murder of a single Turk!

This is the surprising story of Azerbaijan, a country that buys weapons from others for its own needs, selling tens of millions of dollars of weapons to a Central African country.

The article, titled “Congo-Brazzaville Strongman Buys Secret Weapons Haul from Azerbaijan,” was published by OCCRP (Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project) on February 22, 2021. It was written by Khadija Sharife and Mark Anderson. Congo-Brazzaville is another name for the Republic of Congo.

Here is the OCCRP’s summary of the key findings of the article:

“Since 2015, Congo-Brazzaville has bought a huge weapons stockpile from Azerbaijan, with over 500 tons of weapons delivered to the country in multiple shipments.

In January 2020, more than 100 tons of weaponry was sent from Azerbaijan to Congo-Brazzaville’s Republican Guard, including 775 mortar shells and over 400 cases of rockets designed to be launched out of trucks.

Opposition figures claim that previous shipments of weapons from Azerbaijan were used to fuel a brutal post-election offensive in 2016 that led to a humanitarian crisis.

Saudi Arabia was listed as a ‘sponsoring party’ in at least two arms consignments sent in 2016 and 2017, around the same time Congo-Brazzaville’s admittance to OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries] was being negotiated.”

According to OCCRP, “in January 2020, at the Turkish port of Derince on the eastern shores of the Sea of Marmara, a huge cache of weapons was loaded onto the MV Storm. Registered in the tax haven of Vanuatu, the ship set sail with an arsenal of mortar shells, multiple launch rockets, and explosives, en route from Azerbaijan to the Republic of the Congo, better known as Congo-Brazzaville.”

The above summary raises several serious questions: Why was Azerbaijan shipping weapons to the Republic of Congo, when Baku itself needed weapons? Is it Azerbaijan or Turkey the real source of the weapons shipped to Congo? Why did Saudi Arabia sponsor two of the weapon shipments in 2016 and 2017, meaning that the Saudi government paid for the weapons? Why were the dictators of Azerbaijan and Turkey trying to support President Denis Sassou-Nguesso, the dictator of the Republic of Congo, who has been in power ever since 1997? What did Azerbaijan or Turkey get in return for the arms shipments?

In January 2020, over 100 tons of weapons worth tens of millions of dollars were shipped by Azerbaijan to the headquarters of Congo’s elite Republican Guard. This was the latest of at least 17 such shipments since 2015. In total, over 500 tons of weapons, including hand grenades, mortar systems, and millions of bullets were sent by Azerbaijan to Congo, according to OCCRP.

Opposition forces have claimed that these weapons are to be used by the President of Congo to maintain his rule by force in the March 21 presidential election. He recently had the constitution changed so he could be president for life!

How can a financially bankrupt country like Congo afford to buy such a large quantity of weapons? By funding two of the weapons shipments, Saudi Arabia wanted to extend its political influence over Congo.

The most recent shipment of weapons from Azerbaijan to Congo on January 2020 included 775 mortar shells and over 400 cases of rockets. They were transported from Baku to Turkey by a Bulgarian company and then loaded onto the ship MV Storm at Derince, a port managed by the Turkish government. An inside source confirmed that Congo bought the weapons at discount prices.

The Congolese government used the weapons from Azerbaijan against the opposition in a scorched earth strategy, according to the leader of a political party in Congo. Given the regime’s brutal human rights record, no European country would sell weapons to Congo. In the 2016 presidential election, the United States criticized the government of Congo for “widespread irregularities and the arrests of opposition supporters.” The presidential election this month is expected to be just as corrupt as the previous ones. “The government is carrying out a pre-election campaign of intimidation, harassment and arbitrary detention against its political opponents,” said a representative of Amnesty International.

The OCCRP reported that “the first shipments of arms arrived in Brazzaville on Azerbaijani Air Force planes, but starting in 2017 a private [Azeri] carrier, Silk Way Airlines, began flying the weapons instead. …Silk Way is registered in the British Virgin Islands, a tax haven, and was previously linked to the Aliyev family. As well as previously winning lucrative contracts with the U.S. government to move ammunition and other non-lethal materials, Silk Way was found, in leaked correspondence reported by Bulgarian newspaper Trud, to have used flights with diplomatic clearance to secretly move hundreds of tons of weapons around the world, including to global conflict zones, between 2014 and 2017.”

The opposition in Congo is concerned that the weapons from Azerbaijan will increase the prospect of violence around the elections. “We are worried that the weapons that Sassou-Nguesso’s regime bought from Azerbaijan could be used to crack down on the opposition during the upcoming election,” said an opposition leader.

The United Nations should launch an investigation into these secret weapons sales from Azerbaijan to the dictator of Congo to oppress the human rights of the local population and rig the presidential election once again!

As the situation in Armenia is getting more chaotic on a daily basis, baseless accusations are becoming a common practice. It is no longer possible to distinguish fact from fiction.

Sadly, words like ‘traitor’ and ‘bought by Turks or Azeris’ are being used by Armenians to accuse fellow Armenians without a shred of evidence. We have all heard multiple times that the territories around Artsakh were given up by the former presidents long before the war and that Armenian traitors helped the enemy by disclosing our military secrets or urged soldiers to stop fighting during the war. These accusations have been repeated so often that a lot of Armenians believe them to be true. Never mind that no evidence has been presented, tarnishing the reputations of those they disagree with. If there were so many traitors during the war, how come not one such traitor has been arrested and convicted for treason?  Normally, traitors during a war are immediately arrested, convicted and shot by a firing squad.

I do not believe that there are any traitors among us nor are there Armenians who sold their soul to the enemy for a handful of dollars. These are made up stories just because we disagree with each other. Regrettably, most Armenians do not know how to carry out a civilized conversation without insulting those they disagree with.

In this analysis, I will avoid using such terms as traitor and sold out, and stick as much as possible to the facts, no matter how difficult they are to discern.

One issue that keeps coming up is the fact that the presidents of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia seem to prefer Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan over the opposition. This does not mean that Pashinyan is a traitor or is working for the interests of Armenia’s enemies. I believe that Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia are siding with Pashinyan for two main reasons:

1)  All three realize that Pashinyan, defeated in the Artsakh war and having signed a capitulation document, is in no position to go against the wishes of Azerbaijan and Turkey, and especially Russia. Whereas, as a former member of the opposition, Pashinyan was totally anti-Russian, he changed his tune and supported all Russian initiatives even before the war. After the war, he is completely beholden to Putin and does not dare to deviate one bit from the Russian President’s directives. This became even more so after Pres. Putin repeatedly praised Pashinyan for signing the Nov. 10, 2020 trilateral agreement and abiding by its terms. Azerbaijan and Turkey are also satisfied that, after their defeat of Armenia, there is a leader like Pashinyan who is fully going along with the terms of the agreement.

2)  Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia also realize that should Pashinyan’s rule topple, his successor may not be as amenable to comply with the terms of the trilateral agreement. While a defeated country is in no position to contest these imposed terms, the fact that Pashinyan’s opponents are expressing their opposition to that agreement means that Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia may have to deal with a new Armenian leader who will question the terms of the agreement that the three countries consider a fait accompli. So, Aliyev, Erdogan and Putin naturally prefer to deal with Pashinyan based on their own interests rather than because Pashinyan is their ‘agent.’ At best, we can say that Pashinyan is reluctantly going along with these three leaders. At worst, he truly believes that the ceasefire agreement is in the best interest of Armenia, paving the way to the lifting of blockaded transportation routes, thus potentially boosting Armenia’s economy.

We can be on different sides of the above analysis, but one thing is very clear. Pashinyan should not cross any red lines which are totally contrary to Armenia’s national interests. It is one thing to be obligated to go along with your enemies after your defeat, but it is a whole different thing to enthusiastically comply with their wishes, mistakenly believing that the enemy’s imposed actions are in Armenia’s own interest. Aliyev and Erdogan have repeatedly stated that they are willing to allow Armenia to use their transportation routes under certain conditions which were: 1) Return Artsakh territories to Azerbaijan (which has been mostly accomplished through the use of force), 2) Recognize the existing borders of the Republic of Turkey (no more territorial demands from Turkey), and 3) Discontinue the international pursuit of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. More recently, Aliyev added a new demand: signing a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan which means that Armenia will give up claiming Artsakh as an Armenian territory.

In my view, these Azeri and Turkish demands should be rejected by Armenia’s current leaders. These are red lines that no Armenian government should cross, depriving future Armenian generations of their right to pursue the nation’s just demands.

It remains to be seen if Armenia’s next leaders will be able to find a way to minimize the losses from the war. But one thing is certain: Pashinyan must resign immediately allowing a new and more competent leadership trying to manage the catastrophic situation Armenia finds itself in.

Words have meanings and consequences as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan found out when he told a journalist last week that the powerful Russian Iskander missiles, supposedly fired by Armenia during the Artsakh War last November, “did not explode or exploded 10%.” This surprising statement was in response to an interview by previous President Serzh Sargsyan in which he asked why Pashinyan had not ordered the use of the Iskander missiles during the early part of the Artsakh War.

Several days after the Prime Minister’s highly controversial statement, his spokeswoman announced that Pashinyan “was not briefed correctly regarding the Russian missiles.” But it was too late. The damage was done.

No one could have predicted the chain of unexpected events that followed Pashinyan’s words questioning the merits of the Iskander missiles that Russia had exported exclusively to Armenia. A large number of Russian military experts and political leaders reacted very harshly to Pashinyan’s statement viewing it as disparaging of the prized missiles of Russia and the prestige of its defense industry.

However, the reaction within Armenia was no less devastating. When First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Tiran Khachatryan, a Lieutenant General, was asked to comment on Pashinyan’s statement about the Iskander missiles not exploding, he responded with a chuckle that it was not possible and not serious.

Upon hearing of this slight, Prime Minister Pashinyan immediately ordered the firing of the Deputy General Staff. His dismissal was endorsed by Pres. Armen Sarkissian, according to the process outlined in the constitution. The Prime Minister had surely overreacted to Khachatryan’s snub, particularly since Pashinyan himself had appointed him in June 2020 and awarded him the prestigious “National Hero” medal for his outstanding role during the Artsakh War.

In retaliation, dozens of top Armenian military leaders released a joint statement on Feb. 25, 2021, demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister and his government. The statement was signed by Onik Gasparyan, Chief of the General Staff and 40 other high-ranking military Officers, including 17 generals and Commanders of all five Army Corps. Later, several other military and police officials added their signatures.

The military’s statement expressed its “resolute protest” against the “short-sighted and baseless” dismissal of the First Deputy Chief of the General Staff “without taking into account the national and state interests of the Republic of Armenia, solely based on personal and pretentious sentiments.” The statement added that “in such difficult conditions for the country, such a decision is an anti-state and irresponsible step. The Prime Minister and his government are no longer able to make adequate decisions in this critical and fateful situation for the Armenian people. The Armed Forces, for a long time, patiently tolerated the ‘attacks’ by the incumbent authorities to discredit the Armed Forces, but everything has its limits…. The current authorities’ unproductive governing and the most serious errors exhibited in foreign policy have brought the country to the brink of collapse. Based on the created situation, the Armed Forces demand the resignation of the Prime Minister and the government….”

Pashinyan immediately announced on his Facebook page the firing of the Chief of the General Staff. The Prime Minister called the military’s statement “an attempted military coup,” urging his supporters to gather at the Republic Square where he joined them and marched in Yerevan streets holding a megaphone. This was a highly irresponsible act on the part of Pashinyan, venturing to the streets during what he described as an attempted military coup, which could have led to tragic consequences for the country had anyone harmed him.

After Pashinyan ordered the firing of Onig Gasparyan, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Pres. Sarkissian, having consulting all sides of the political spectrum, refused to sign the Prime Minister’s order, calling it unconstitutional. The Prime Minister then submitted a second dismissal request to the President. Should the President refuse to sign the order for a second time, then the issue will be submitted to the constitutional court for its final decision. It is curious as to why the President endorsed the Prime Minister’s earlier order to sack the First Deputy of the General Staff but refused to sign the order to dismiss the Chief of the General Staff. After all, the First Deputy Chief of the General Staff’s wrongdoing was simply chuckling at the Prime Minister’s statement about the Russian missiles, whereas his boss, the Chief of the General Staff, demanded the Prime Minister’s resignation.

In the meantime, the Armenian military took no further steps beyond its call for the resignation of the Prime Minister which the Prime Minister wrongly described as an attempted coup. However, the statement could be viewed as interference in political affairs which violates the constitution. It is clear that the military’s intent is having the Prime Minister resign without taking any military actions.

Turning to the unconstitutionality of the military’s statement, there are counter points to this argument. The military stated that they could no longer remain quiet while the country is on the brink of collapse. The national interest of Armenia has to be of paramount importance. After all, the military is the guardian of the nation’s security. Furthermore, Pashinyan and his supporters cannot all of a sudden claim to be defenders of the constitution, when they have been violating many of its provisions in the past three years. The Prime Minister has repeatedly pressured the courts and has stacked the Constitutional Court with his allies to get verdicts desired by the government. Pashinyan and his supporters similarly pressured Pres. Sarkissian to force him to sign the Prime Minister’s order. Ironically, the democratic principles endorsed by Pashinyan when coming to power have dissipated turning the country into a one-man rule, a dictatorship. Given the Prime Minister’s partisans’ overwhelming majority in Parliament, other voices have been mostly muzzled. All suggestions to form a government of competent experts have been ignored, leaving Pashinyan with a mediocre and incompetent cadre of officials and advisors.

Pashinyan’s only important attribute is that he is not corrupt — which is very positive, but that alone is not enough to lead the state through such turbulent waters. After all, Armenians are not looking for a saint, but a competent leader who can solve the country’s complex problems.

Furthermore, Pashinyan and his followers did not always practice what they are preaching now. Back in 2018, when there were widespread street protests by Pashinyan and his supporters, a large number of Armenian soldiers illegally left their barracks and marched with the demonstrators. Even though this was a violation of military rules and interference in politics, Pashinyan did not take any action against these soldiers. In a similar situation occurred in 1998, when Defense Minister Vazgen Sargsyan forced then President Levon Ter-Petrosyan to resign. No one complained that it was unconstitutional.

Shortly after this new crisis in Armenia, leaders in Azerbaijan and Turkey issued self-serving statements on the situation in Armenia. In my opinion, both of these countries, led by dictators, are in no position to comment on developments in Armenia, let alone give Armenians lectures about democracy. They should look at themselves in the mirror and keep their mouths shut.

Having suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of our enemies in the Artsakh War, Armenians cannot afford now to attack each other. We need to place the national interest above all else. Having lost most of Artsakh and thousands of soldiers, let’s not risk losing Armenia itself.

Pashinyan, the leader of the ‘Velvet Revolution,’ should not have told his followers last week that there will be no more ‘velvet’ which could be interpreted as a threat to anyone who disagrees with him. Should the military also adopt a no velvet approach, the outcome would be tragic for the entire Armenian nation. The best solution would be for the Prime Minister, having lost territories and thousands of soldiers, to resign by his own volition without facing any threats or protests. Otherwise, having demanded Pashinyan’s resignation, the military leaders may carry out their demand by force, to ensure that they themselves are not arrested. Such a group arrest would deprive Armenia of its entire military leadership. Months from now, under calmer conditions, new parliamentary elections should take place with a clean slate, hopefully excluding Pashinyan and the other former leaders. The people have the right to decide by a majority vote who their new leader should be.