Category: Harut Sassounian

The Turkish government got a big slap in the face last week when the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to turn down its application for a Security Council seat. In effect, the international community was rejecting Turkey’s hostile policies both at home and abroad.

Turkey’s new Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had arrogantly predicted securing the prestigious seat for their country. The night before the vote, Cavusoglu had hosted a posh party for UN Ambassadors at the world famous Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City.

After spending several days in New York to lobby personally the UN delegates, Foreign Minister Cavusoglu optimistically told the media: “We think all our nice efforts will, with the grace of God, be reflected onto the ballot tomorrow. Of course, this is a vote and all kinds of results may come out. But, we believe, God permitting, that we will get the result of the work we put in.”

Prime Minister Davutoglu was equally optimistic that Turkey would score a “historic victory.” Just two days before the UN vote, he proudly announced: “If we are elected, and we believe it’s a great possibility, we will be the first country in the world to be elected for a second time, after a five-year break. This shows Turkey’s importance.”

Unfortunately for the Turkish leaders, their expectations did not come true. Despite Cavusoglu’s intensive lobbying efforts and earnest wish for divine intervention, only 60 out of 193 UN General Assembly member states voted for Turkey, while its rival, Spain, received 132 votes, winning a two-year term as a non-permanent member of the Security Council.

Why did Turkey lose in 2014 more than half the 151 votes it received in its successful bid for a Security Council seat in 2008? Here are the key reasons for Turkey’s failure to get elected this time around:

— The vigorous campaign by a large number of countries against Turkey’s membership: Armenia, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Israel, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, among others.
— President Erdogan’s ongoing acrimonious feud with powerful Turkish Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen, resulting in loss of General Assembly votes for Turkey from several African countries, where Gulen’s followers have an extensive presence. This is a major shift from 2008, when Gulen supporters had secured a large number of votes for Turkey.
— Turkish leaders’ poor judgment of deciding to reapply so soon after getting elected to the Security Council in 2009-2010. Turkey’s reelection would have deprived other countries from serving in that august UN body.
— Davutoglu’s self-aggrandizing neo-Ottoman yearnings had antagonized most Middle Eastern countries, turning his policy of “zero problems with neighbors” into zero neighbors without problems! Pew Research Center’s survey confirms that Turkey’s dismal standing throughout the Middle East has sunk to an all-time low.
— Erdogan’s autocratic rule at home, including the bloody quelling of protests at the Gezi Park, jailing journalists, and blocking Twitter and facebook. His dismissive words, “I don’t care what the international community will say,” had alienated countless people around the world. The vote against Turkey was UN members’ rebuke of Erdogan. Most delegates walked out of the hall during Pres. Erdogan’s pompous speech at the UN General Assembly in September.
— Tense relations with the United States and Western Europe over Turkey’s refusal to support the war against ISIS, and not defending Kurdish civilians who are being massacred by foreign Jihadists at a stone’s throw from the Turkish border. As a result, influential commentators called for Turkey’s expulsion from NATO and rejection of its application for membership in the European Union.
— Displeased with Turkey’s antagonistic stand, Pres. Obama sent a lowly charge d’affaires of the US Embassy in Ankara to attend Erdogan’s presidential inauguration on August 28.

By ignoring all these legitimate reasons for Turkey’s failure to win the Security Council seat, Foreign Minister Cavusoglu falsely attributed his country’s defeat to its reluctance to abandon “its values for the sake of getting more votes.” This ridiculous statement is made by the Foreign Minister of a country that has been pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of tiny island states around the world and poor African countries to buy their UN General Assembly votes.

Finally, the failure to gain a Security Council seat limits Turkey’s ability to exploit the powerful UN body to undermine the worldwide commemorative events next year on the Armenian Genocide Centennial.

On October 10, after lengthy heated debates, Armenia signed a treaty to join the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), composed of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. The agreement goes into effect on January 1, 2015, subject to ratification by parliaments of the four countries. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have also expressed an interest in joining the Union.

The intended objective of forming EEU is to facilitate the free movement of goods, services, capital, and labor across member states, and to implement a coordinated policy in the energy, industrial, agricultural and transport sectors.

Views of analysts on the merits of Armenia’s membership in EEU diverge depending on whether they are proponents or opponents of the country’s leadership. The arguments advanced by opponents of EEU include the possible loss of Armenia’s independence and isolation of Artsakh (Karabagh) through the establishment of customs checkpoints at the border. EEU proponents, on the other hand, are stressing Armenia’s geostrategic and economic interests. It remains to be seen which of these arguments will eventually prevail.

Meanwhile, there are some basic facts that are self-evident. Armenia has had long-standing and multifaceted links to Moscow going back to the Tsarist era, the Soviet Union, and today’s Russian Federation.

It is imperative to recall that the livelihood of hundreds of thousands Armenian migrants in Russia will be impacted by Armenia’s EEU membership, in terms of their ability to reside and work in that country. Furthermore, Armenian businesses would be able to expand their small domestic market, exporting their products with favorable tax terms to over one hundred million potential consumers in Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Armenia would also serve as an easy gateway for foreign investors interested in entering the vast and complex EEU markets.

In the final analysis, three essential questions need to be raised on Armenia’s membership in EEU:

1) Given the ongoing Artsakh conflict and Azerbaijan’s multi-billion dollar military spending spree, which country has sold and will continue to sell Armenia advanced weapons to mitigate the growing threat from Baku? Not the Unites States, Great Britain or France, but Russia!

2) Which country can provide Armenia with desperately-needed natural gas at any price, let alone at subsidized prices? Russia and Iran to a lesser extent through a small pipeline.

3) Since Russia is Armenia’s largest trading partner, it makes more economic sense to have favorable tax terms with that country than with Europe. Not joining EEU would place Armenia at a serious tax disadvantage with devastating economic consequences.

While these are compelling reasons for Armenia’s decision to join EEU, no one should conclude that Yerevan has to remain exclusively in the Russian economic zone. Clearly, it is in Armenia’s interest to develop multilateral ties with the rest of the world, including Western Europe, North America, Middle East, and Asia. Armenian officials have repeatedly stated their interest in developing closer economic, political, and even military relations with Western countries, but not at the expense of Armenia’s historical ties with Russia.

Meanwhile, it would be far more productive if Western countries, particularly the United States, rather than urging Armenian leaders to cut off vital relations with Russia, would actually offer tax privileges and other incentives to their investors in Armenia, thus reducing Yerevan’s exclusive dependence on Russia. Similarly, U.S. criticism and warnings issued to Armenia for its commercial ties with Iran are manifestly counter-productive. It would be far more helpful if the Obama administration could muster the courage to press Turkey and Azerbaijan into lifting their joint blockade of the Armenian Republic which has been in effect for over 20 years.

In the light of the foregoing existential strategic and economic realities, Western countries would be better served to use carrots rather than sticks to help steer Armenia toward a more balanced relationship between East and West.

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.