Category: Harut Sassounian

I just returned home from two hectic weeks of travel. First, I participated in the Armenia-Diaspora Conference in Yerevan, where I co-chaired a panel on the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, and spoke in two other panels proposing the formation of a democratically elected Diaspora-wide structure to represent the seven million Armenians residing outside of Armenia and Artsakh.

I then flew to Bucharest, Romania, to join scholars, activists, journalists and clergy from a dozen countries in the first-ever international Armenian Genocide conference.

The always vigilant Turkish Ambassador to Romania went to great lengths to undermine not only the Armenian Genocide conference, organized by the Diocese of the Armenian Church of Romania, but also the inauguration of a Khachkar or Cross Stone dedicated to the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide.

Turkish Ambassador’s efforts failed miserably as the Khachkar was inaugurated as scheduled on Sept. 26, and both the Vice Mayor of Pitesht and Governor of Arjesh attended the ceremony along with other Romanian dignitaries and Genocide conference participants. In fact, when the Ambassador objected to the inauguration of the Khachkar, the Mayor of Pitesht sharply rebuked him by telling him that he has no right to interfere in the internal decisions of a Romanian city!

The Turkish Ambassador next tried to block the international Armenian Genocide conference. Turkey has a major influence over Romania due to a large amount of trade between the two countries. The Ambassador must have been particularly upset by the fact that the Romanian government was funding the Genocide conference. Fortunately, the Ambassador could not disrupt the conference which was held as planned. It was attended by specialists from Armenia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Iran, Lebanon, Romania, Syria, and the United States.

The only surprise was the location where the conference participants were staying. As I walked into the Tempo Hotel lobby, I noticed that there were several Turkish newspapers, including Zaman (in Romanian!), on a rack next to the front door. Upon further inspection, I discovered a brochure that described the hotel as being owned by Muslim Turkish Cleric Fethullah Gulen! Even though the hotel was conveniently located just one block from the Armenian Church headquarters in Bucharest, where the conference was being held, some of the Armenian participants felt uncomfortable staying in a Turkish hotel. We wondered how the Turkish hotel owners felt, after discovering that they housed scores of Armenian genocide specialists from around the world!

Curious as to what was being discussed at the conference, the Turkish Embassy had sent two of its employees to take notes which the Turkish Ambassador must have dutifully forwarded to Ankara. Fortunately, there were no unpleasant incidents. The two Turkish diplomats kept a low profile and did not attempt to disrupt the conference. Likewise, none of the Armenian participants attempted to interfere in the work of the Turkish Embassy officials.

In addition to the lecture I delivered at the conference on the subject of “Genocide Recognition or Quest for Justice,” I had the pleasant task of introducing two of my books on the Armenian Genocide in Romanian translation, which were just published by the Diocese of the Armenian Church of Romania. The first book is a collection of one hundred of my columns published in recent years in The California Courier and other newspapers. The 400-page book is titled, “One hundred columns on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide.” My second book, “The Armenian Genocide, Documents and Declarations, the World Speaks Out, 1915-2015,” was also published by the Armenian Diocese in Romanian translation.

Both the Diocese and the Armenian community leaders have an active publication program, having translated into Romanian many important books on the Armenian Genocide, despite the dwindling of the Armenian community due to waves of exodus to Western Europe and North America.

There are two prominent Varujans in the local Armenian community. The first is Senator Varujan Vosganian, President of the Armenian Union of Romania, and Vice President of the Writers Union of Romania. He is a former Minister of Economy and Trade and author of a widely read autobiographical novel on the Armenian Genocide. The second is Varujan Pambuccian, Parliament member and President of National Minorities represented in the Romanian Parliament.

Many of the scholars were in Romania for the first time. They pledged to support the local community’s efforts, particularly on the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide.

Over 1,000 attendees of the Armenia-Diaspora Conference in Yerevan, organized by the Diaspora Ministry, cheered loudly when Catholicos Aram I of the Great House of Cilicia made the surprising announcement that the Catholicosate would file a lawsuit in a Turkish court
demanding the return of its properties confiscated during the 1915-1923 Genocide. His Holiness explained that before taking this important decision, he had consulted with international legal experts during the past two years.

Stating that remaining indifferent towards the violation of Armenian rights is tantamount to treason, the Catholicos urged Armenians to take the genocide issue out of the narrow confines of genocide recognition and condemnation, and transcend the mindset that genocide recognition is the ultimate goal of the Armenian Cause. Considering that it is high time to transfer Armenian demands from Turkey to the legal field. His Holiness announced that the See of Cilicia would file shortly a lawsuit with the Constitutional Court of Turkey, seeking the return of its erstwhile headquarters, the Catholicosate of Sis. Should the Turkish Court reject the lawsuit, which is likely, the Catholicosate will then appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, said the Catholicos. He also expressed the hope that this lawsuit would pave the way for other legal demands from Turkey for the return of public, private, and religious
properties belonging to Armenians.

While this is great news to all those who have been advocating for years taking legal action against Turkey, such lawsuits require painstaking preparation by top notch international lawyers. Moreover, regardless of how just one’s cause may be, no one can guarantee a positive outcome in court, given various external influences on the judiciary, and technicalities used as an excuse for rejecting a lawsuit emanating from a century-old grievance.

The Catholicos hinted at some of these obstacles in his remarks, acknowledging that “the framework of international law is not that favorable to our Cause.” More alarmingly, he seemed to dismiss the devastating effect the loss of such a court case would have on the Armenian Cause by claiming that “if we lose the lawsuit, we would still be winners, because we would have reminded the genocidaire and the international community that the Armenian people continues to demand its rights, no matter how much time has elapsed since the Genocide.”
The Turkish government would certainly exploit such a negative judgment by misrepresenting
its victory around the world as a rejection of all Armenian genocide claims.

Going beyond the Catholicosate’s initiative, His Holiness urged the Armenian government to file its own lawsuit against Turkey in the International Court of Justice (World Court), where only states have the right to sue. At the international Armenian lawyers’ conference sponsored by the Diaspora Ministry last year, a task force was formed under the auspices of the Gagik Haroutunyan, Chief Justice of Armenia’s Constitutional Court, to study the legal ramifications of filing a lawsuit against Turkey in the World Court. The task force is reportedly assessing the various legal options available to the Republic of Armenia.

Given the Armenian government’s cautious approach to suing Turkey, it was quite surprising that Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, during the Sept. 20, 2014 Armenia-Diaspora conference, when asked by a reporter about his reaction to the news that the Catholicosate of Cilicia would file a lawsuit against Turkey, enthusiastically and without hesitation responded:
“there could be no two opinions about it. Such an important initiative must only be supported.”

Coincidentally, the conference attendees were handed the executive summary and introduction of a lengthy report entitled, “Resolution with Justice: Reparations for the Armenian Genocide.” Funded initially by a grant from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, the report was prepared by the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group, composed of Alfred de Zayas, Jermaine O. McCalpin, Ara Papian, and Henry C. Theriault. George Aghjayan served as a consultant. The extensive report examines the case for reparations from legal, historical, and ethical perspectives.

It is clear that on the eve of the genocide centennial, several serious efforts are underway to seek justice through various courts for the massive human and economic losses suffered by the Armenian people during the 1915-1923 Genocide.

While Turkey was pressuring the French President not to support a bill criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide, it had to cope with Greece, yet another country that just adopted a law making it illegal to deny genocides, including the Armenian Genocide. Greece is the third European country, after Slovakia and Switzerland, to pass such a law. The Swiss law, however, is under review by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) for violating a Turkish defendant’s freedom of speech.

The French Parliament (2011) and Senate (2012) adopted a similar law to punish genocide denial which was overturned by the French Constitutional Council. To replace the failed law, French Deputy Valerie Boyer submitted a new bill to the Parliament last week. President Francois Hollande has also pledged to back the criminalization of Armenian Genocide denial.

Despite legal uncertainties regarding such laws in Europe, the Greek Parliament adopted by a vote of 54 to 42, on Sept. 9, an anti-hate crime law — Combating Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Racism — making it illegal to deny the Jewish Holocaust, and genocides recognized by international courts or by the Greek Parliament, i.e., the genocide of Pontus Greeks, the genocide of Asia Minor Greeks, and the Armenian Genocide. Those violating this new law would be fined up to 30,000 euros, and imprisoned for up to three years.

The Greek law stems from the European Union’s 2008 “Framework Decision against Racism and Xenophobia,” which urged all EU states to adopt laws that punish racism, xenophobia, denial of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Caught by surprise, Turkish officials and Azerbaijani propagandists made confusing statements about the Greek law. Initially, the Turkish Foreign Ministry condemned the Greek law, claiming that “it contradicts democratic principles and freedom of speech.” Soon however, the Foreign Ministry reversed itself and expressed the hope that the new Greek law would help protect the rights of Turks living in Greece! It should be noted that Greece adopted this law, despite Pres. Erdogan’s warning at the NATO Summit in Wales on Sept. 5 to Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras who flatly told the Turkish President that the Greek law would not violate international law. A similar warning was issued by Erdogan to the French President that adopting any new laws on the Armenian Genocide could complicate the relationship between their countries.

Azeri commentators also made contradictory claims even though the Greek law has nothing to do with Azerbaijan. One Azeri writer alleged that the Greek law does not mention the Armenian Genocide and that the Greek Parliament has never recognized the Armenian Genocide. Of course, both of these claims are completely false. Clearly, this Azeri writer does not know that the Greek Parliament recognized the Armenian Genocide on April 25, 1996, and on July 10, 1996 Pres. Konstantinos Stefanopoulos signed a decree, declaring April 24 to be “the memorial day of the genocide of the Armenians by Turkey.”

A second Azeri, V. Seyidov, not only acknowledged that the Greek law covers the Armenian Genocide, but went ahead and dared Greek police to arrest him after planning to state in Athens that “the Armenian Genocide is not a historical fact”! Assuming Mr. Seyidov would dare to carry out his bluff, it remains to be seen whether he will be thrown into a Greek jail or hailed as a ‘hero’ by denialists in Turkey and Azerbaijan, depending on ECHR’s final ruling.

Armenia’s Foreign Minister and Parliament praised Greece for adopting the law on criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide. However, it is high time that the Armenian Parliament officially recognize the Greek Genocide in Ottoman Turkey. Past efforts to do so have been quashed by the Armenian government for unknown and incomprehensible reasons!

On Sept. 22, Catholicos Aram I of the Great House of Cilicia is scheduled to meet with Greek Prime Minister Samaras in Athens, during which His Holiness is expected to express his gratitude to the Greek government for adopting the law against genocide denial.

On the eve of the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, it would be most salutary if ECHR would overturn its earlier ruling on the Swiss law and if France would adopt a new law criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide, paving the way for other European countries to follow suit.

Even though it is not an easy task to unify Armenians around a common set of restitutive demands from Turkey, it is critical to do so on the eve of the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide.

It is imperative that Armenians speak with one voice, telling the world what exactly they want from Turkey, because divergent demands would send a confusing message. Some Armenians would be satisfied with a simple acknowledgment of the Genocide and apology from the Turkish government. Others are after financial restitution, open borders, Black Sea access, and the return of Mount Ararat. Maximalists, including this author, demand everything that Armenians lost during the Genocide: restitution for the murders of 1.5 million Armenians, and recovery of their properties, bank accounts, churches, schools, cemeteries, and territories of Western Armenia. In previous columns, I have advocated the use of the general term — seeking justice — to summarize all Armenian demands from Turkey.

Being a ‘maximalist’ implies not only reclaiming everything Armenians lost during the Genocide, but also employing an optimum negotiating strategy. Why ask for the minimum and end up with even less? Wouldn’t it be wiser to begin with maximal demands and strike the best possible bargain?

These were some of my thoughts as I read the well-written commentary of Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, published in Le Figaro last week: “Turkey should reconcile with its own past.” He correctly labels as ‘fabricated’ and ‘misleading’ the recent use by Pres. Erdogan and other Turkish officials of the terms ‘common pain’ and ‘just memory’ in reference to the Armenian Genocide. Nalbandian also rejects the Turkish proposal for a “commission of historians in order to find the truth” about the Armenian Genocide. Unfortunately, this sinister proposal was included in the Armenian-Turkish Protocols of 2009 which the Foreign Minister continues to support in his article. Furthermore, rather than simply castigating Turkey for denying the Armenian Genocide and seeking ‘reconciliation’ through ‘recognition and condemnation of the Genocide,’ the Foreign Minister should have asked for ‘justice’ that encompasses all Armenian demands.

At the end of his in depth commentary, Nalbandian reminds Le Figaro readers that Pres. Sargsyan had invited Pres. Erdogan “to visit Armenia on April 24, 2015, on the occasion of the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. We hope it will not be a missed opportunity and Turkey’s President will be in Yerevan on that day.”

Clearly, Armenia is trying to put the Turkish President in a difficult corner: he will either reject the invitation, making him look bad in the eyes of the world, or come to Armenia on April 24, 2015, and acknowledge the Armenian Genocide.

To pursue this clever scheme, the Foreign Minister of Armenia took the unusual step of attending Pres. Erdogan’s August 28 inauguration to hand over Pres. Sargsyan’s formal invitation. Nalbandian’s Ankara visit came right after Erdogan insulted Armenians by complaining on Turkish television that some people called him Georgian, and “even worse, they called me an Armenian.”

I seriously doubt that Erdogan would show up in Yerevan on the Armenian Genocide Centennial. If he does not, Armenian officials would be elated that their ploy worked, making Erdogan look like an obstructionist. But, what if the Turkish President does come to Armenia on April 24, 2015? Erdogan may say and do a lot of outlandish things, but he is a wily politician who can easily evade the Armenian trap and turn the tables on his hosts. He could go to the Genocide Memorial Monument in Yerevan and announce that he has come to ‘share the pain’ of all victims of World War I, including Turks and Armenians. That would be a great public relations coup for Erdogan!

Just last week, Pres. Erdogan took a tough stand against Armenia during his visit to Azerbaijan. He told Pres. Aliyev (for the thousandth time) that Turkey will not open its borders with Armenia until the latter withdraws from Karabagh (Artsakh). The newly-appointed Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu made similar harsh anti-Armenian remarks. In return, Pres. Aliyev pledged to support Turkey in ‘exposing the fictional Armenian genocide.’

It is clear that Turkey and Azerbaijan are escalating their rhetoric and planning joint efforts against Armenia rather than looking for reconciliation. Under these circumstances, Armenia should take an equally tough stand against the two hostile Turkic states, starting with the immediate withdrawal of Armenia’s signature from the Armenian-Turkish Protocols.

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry harshly condemned the California Legislature last week after the State Senate adopted resolution AJR 32 that “encourages and supports the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s continuing efforts to develop as a free and independent nation” and “urges the President and Congress of the United States to support the self-determination and democratic independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.” The resolution also acknowledged that Karabagh (Artsakh) “has historically been Armenian territory… and yet was illegally severed from Armenia by the Soviet Union in 1921 and placed under the newly created Soviet Azerbaijani administration.”

Both Houses of the California Legislature overwhelmingly supported the Artsakh resolution — the State Senate by a vote of 24-0 on August 27, and the State Assembly with a vote of 72-1 on May 8. Thus, California joins Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island in passing such pro-Artsakh resolutions.

The actions of the California Legislature infuriated the Government of Azerbaijan and its diplomats in the U.S. Elman Abdullayev, spokesman of Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry, dismissed the Artsakh resolution, calling it “nothing more than a piece of paper.” The Consul General of Azerbaijan in Los Angeles blasted the local Armenian community, the State of California and AJR 32. To justify his failure to block the resolution, he alleged that California Senators received “massive financial contributions for their election campaigns” from the “Armenian lobby.” Forgetting that he represents one of the most autocratic regimes in the world, the Consul General of Azerbaijan had the audacity to lecture U.S. officials on the “serious flaw in America’s political system that needs an urgent fixing.”

Before making such baseless accusations, the Azeri Consul General should have searched the internet to see how much money, if any, the 24 Senators who voted for the Artsakh resolution had received from Armenian-Americans. Campaign contributions are a public record in the United States, unlike Azerbaijan where visiting politicians are wined and dined and sent home with stacks of cash, cans of caviar, and gold ingots!

The Consul General also credited the passage of AJR to the “inordinate amount of effort by the Armenian lobby in California, where around one million Armenians reside.” The one million number is yet another exaggeration by the Azeri diplomat who went on to falsely claim that the Armenian “ethnic lobby” resorted to “threats, blackmail and other means” against California Senators.

The Azeri Consul General then bragged about his efforts against AJR 32, claiming that he and his Consulate undertook a number of “serious measures,” including “letters of protest to all Senators [and] holding numerous meetings with them….” Despite his frantic activities, not a single Senator voted against the Artsakh bill! Incredibly, the Consul claims he scored a major victory because the final vote was 24-0 in favor of Artsakh, and not 40-0, as some Senators were either absent or abstained!

Conveniently, the Consul General forgets to mention his biggest supporters in opposing the Artsakh bill: the powerful lobbying firms that Azerbaijan has hired in Washington and Los Angeles, at great expense. One of these firms, JCI Worldwide, led by Seth Jacobson, sent to all 40 California Senators a letter signed by Rabbi Dov Newman, Chabad of Beverlywood; Rabbi Mendy Cohen, Chabad of Sacramento; and Rabbi Yonah Bookstein, Pico Shul. The three Rabbis told the Senators that they “strongly oppose AJR 32…. Azerbaijan is an important ally to Israel and Jewish people. Jews live free and protected in Azerbaijan for thousands of years…. As Rabbis and leaders of Jewish communities across California, we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Azerbaijan and demand that you vote No on AJR 32.” These Rabbis clearly embarrassed themselves by sending such a ridiculous letter, since they failed to convince a single Senator to vote against the Artsakh resolution. Furthermore, their circulated letter was a big waste of Azerbaijan’s petrodollars, as JCI’s expensive lobbying proved to be worthless.

One wonders if Pres. Aliyev is aware that Azerbaijan’s Consulate in Los Angeles and Embassy in Washington are wasting millions of dollars on useless lobbying firms. Do the citizens of Azerbaijan, who mostly live in abject poverty, know that their leaders are wasting their country’s resources on political activities overseas just to counter a “piece of paper”? Indeed, if the California Senate resolution was a meaningless “piece of paper,” as the Azeri foreign ministry official claims, why did Azerbaijan spend so much time, effort and money trying to block its passage?