Category: Harut Sassounian

switzerland Must Appeal European Court’s

Verdict on the Armenian Genocide

 

The European Court of Human Rights issued last week a critical Armenian Genocide-related ruling in the case of Dogu Perincek vs. Switzerland.

 

Perincek, the leader of a minor Turkish political party, had traveled to Switzerland in 2005 with the intention of daring the Swiss authorities to punish him for denying the Armenian Genocide. He brazenly called the Armenian Genocide an “international lie.”

 

In response to a criminal complaint filed by the Switzerland-Armenia Association, Perincek was tried and fined for racial discrimination by the Lausanne Police Court in March 2007. A Swiss Appeals Court confirmed his sentence, ruling that he had violated Article 261bis of the Criminal Code. The National Council (parliament) of Switzerland had already recognized the Armenian Genocide in 2003. Perincek then appealed his case to the Federal Tribunal, the highest court in Switzerland, which reconfirmed his sentence.

 

On June 10, 2008, Perincek appealed his sentence to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, claiming that many of his rights, including freedom of expression, were violated by the Swiss courts. He demanded a compensation of 140,000 euros for moral and financial damages, and court expenses.

 

On Dec. 17, 2013, the European Court dismissed most of Perincek’s claims (Articles 6, 7, 14, 17, 18 of the European Convention) and rejected his demand for compensation. However, five out of the seven Judges ruled that Switzerland had violated Perincek’s right to free expression (Article 10).

 

This was a highly unusual ruling since freedom of expression is not an absolute right in European jurisprudence. Many European states impose restrictions on free speech, including imprisonment for denying the Holocaust. Punishing Holocaust denial, while condoning rejection of the Armenian Genocide, is an unacceptable double standard. Either denial of both genocides should be outlawed or neither.

 

The European Court’s 80-page ruling was not easy to read, not only because it was in French, but more importantly, the five Judges who ruled in Perincek’s favor misinterpreted almost all issues. A whole book could be written to rebut their countless factual mistakes. The Judges misrepresented Perincek’s allegations, Swiss laws and court rulings, facts of the Armenian Genocide and its international recognition, while repeatedly contradicting themselves. To make matters worse, the four-page press release issued by the Registrar of the Court last week further distorted the Court’s verdict, thereby completely confusing the international media about the details of case.

 

The five Judges who endorsed Perincek’s false accusations were: Guido Raimondi (Italy), Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), Dragoljub Popovic (Serbia), Andras Sajo (Hungary), and Helen Keller (Switzerland). The opposing Judges were: Nebojsa Vucinic (Montenegro) and Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque (Portugal). In a seven-page addendum to the verdict, Judges Raimondi and Sajo contradicted themselves again, while making excuses for ruling in Perincek’s favor. Having raised questions about the veracity of “the Armenian massacres,” after claiming that their task is not to assess the facts of the genocide, the two concurring Judges assert that the destruction of the Armenian people was government-sponsored, thereby acknowledging its genocidal nature. Yet they insisted on referring to the Armenian Genocide as “Mets Yegherrn” (sic) which they translate as “the Grand Crime.” Dissenting Judges Vucinic and Pinto de Albuquerque, on the other hand, attached to the verdict their 19-page well-researched comprehensive report on the Armenian Genocide. This valuable study should be translated into several major languages and disseminated worldwide.

 

More urgently, Armenian government officials and major diaspora organizations have asked the Swiss government to appeal the European Court’s fallacious verdict to its 17-judge Grand Chamber before the 90-day deadline. Armenia’s Diaspora Minister Hranush Hakobyan has called on Armenians worldwide to protest the Court’s verdict by contacting their governments and sending letters of complaint to the Court. The Armenian National Committee in Europe pledged to take all necessary measures to object to the Court’s ruling, urging Switzerland to file an appeal.

 

If left unchallenged, the European Court’s ruling would have a chilling effect not only on efforts to criminalize denial of the Armenian Genocide in other European countries, particularly France, but more importantly, on the forthcoming Centennial of the Genocide. The Court’s verdict, as it stands, is an endorsement of the denialist stance of both Turkey and Perincek, who is currently serving a life sentence in a Turkish jail for engaging in criminal activity! Turkey had directly intervened in this case by submitting extensive testimony to the European Court. The Turkish Foreign Ministry issued a bold statement shamelessly applauding the Court’s verdict and boasting about its support for freedom of expression! Under Article 301 of Turkish Penal Code, telling the truth about the Armenian Genocide is a crime, while in Switzerland lying about the Genocide is an offense!

 

For the sake of truth and justice, it is imperative that the Swiss government appeal the Court’s verdict and not succumb to Turkish political and economic pressures.

 

 

Turkey’s membership in UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee provides a unique opportunity for Armenians and other dispossessed nations to draw the world’s attention to the Turkish government’s illegal confiscation of their cultural heritage and demand their immediate return.

 

 

 

It is always interesting to see how the Armenian community is viewed by outsiders. That perspective becomes more fascinating when the assessment is made by a U.S. diplomat in an internal report.

 

The large number of classified U.S. government documents released by WikiLeaks include cables sent by the American Embassy in Armenia to the State Department. One of those dispatches, dated Nov. 17, 2009, is a ‘Confidential’ report by Amb. Marie L. Yovanovitch covering her 2009 tour of Los Angeles, Boston, New York City, and Washington, D.C.

 

Here are highlights of the ambassador’s report, titled: “Experience Engaging Diaspora Communities — Armenia.”

 

1) The Diocese of the Armenian Apostolic Church “is under the authority of the Holy See of Etchmiadzin,” while the Prelacy “recognizes the jurisdictional authority of the Armenian Catholicos (head of the Armenian Church) based in Antelias, Lebanon. This is only for administrative purposes though, as, doctrinally, the Prelacy recognizes the theological supremacy of the Catholicos in Etchmiadzin in Armenia. The Prelacy is associated with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF)/Dashnaks, founded in 1890, and constitutes one of the three largest sectors of the Armenian-American community and are considered conservative in nature.” The report explains that “the ARF/Dashnaks have two goals: recognition that the massacres of Armenians in Turkey in 1915 constitute genocide, and the recovery of the traditional Armenian lands in eastern Turkey.” In all certainty, the Turkish government would not be pleased that a US diplomat has described parts of Turkey as “traditional Armenian lands.” Furthermore, the report states that the ARF “supports a ladies auxiliary association…known as the Armenian Relief Society (ARS), in addition to youth and cultural associations and a large media operation in the United States including newspapers, radio, and television.”

 

2) The report describes U.S. Armenian Catholics as “the smallest religious denomination…. The Armenian Catholic Church supports a small number of schools and orphanages but has almost no activities in Armenia.”

 

3) “The Armenian Protestant community is considered the oldest Armenian community in the United States and is very active through their Armenian Missionary Association of America (AMAA).”

 

4) “The Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU), established in 1906, is the second major sector and is the largest charitable organization in the Armenian community…. They are affiliated with the Armenian Democratic Liberal Party (ADL), also known as Ramkavars, which is active (but marginal) in Armenia, the American Diaspora community, and in the Middle East, such as Lebanon.”

 

5) “The Hnchag, or Armenian Social Democrat Party, is the third of the politically based Armenian community cluster of organizations and the smallest Armenian-community based political party. It functions as a political club in California and publishes a weekly paper.”

 

6) The report also lists “independent organizations that are non-partisan in character,” such as the Armenian Assembly of America [AAA], Lincy Foundation, Cafesjian Foundation, and Tufenkian Foundation. Interestingly, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) is placed in this category even though the report acknowledges that ANCA is “generally recognized as the lobbying organization of the Dashnaks.”

 

7) In the humanitarian group, the report includes the Fund for Armenian Relief, Hayastan All Armenian Fund, Children of Armenia Fund, Jinishian Foundation, Armenian EyeCare Project, and Armenia Tree Project, but fails to mention the United Armenian Fund which has delivered close to $700 million of humanitarian aid to Armenia since the earthquake of 1988.

 

8) Amb. Yovanovitch describes the Ministry of Diaspora and the National Competitiveness Foundation as examples of the Armenian government’s outreach efforts to the Diaspora.

 

9) The report criticizes the Armenian Diaspora for not supporting “the promotion of democracy, electoral reform, and civil society development in Armenia.” However, it states that Armenian-Americans provide financial support to two think tanks: the Armenian Center for National and International Studies, and Civilitas Foundation.

 

The most interesting aspect of Amb. Yovanovitch’s report is the section on the Armenian-Turkish Protocols. She asserts that Armenian-American groups “pay close attention to Armenia’s foreign policy decisions and are quick to mobilize their supporters against the Armenian government if the Diaspora groups believe the government is not acting in Armenia’s best interests. Many groups oppose the government’s regional reconciliation efforts on the grounds that such reconciliation does not include resolution of the simmering conflict in Nagorno-Karabagh or recognition that the Ottoman Empire engaged in genocide in 1915. Other groups though, such as the Armenian Assembly of America and AGBU, have publicly supported the government’s policies of regional cooperation and an end to Armenia’s isolation in the Caucasus. In September [2009], AAA, AGBU, the Eastern and Western Diocese Churches, and the Ramkavars issued a public statement supporting President Sargsyan’s foreign policy to normalize relations with Turkey.”

 

Although the Ambassador’s report is informative, it does not accurately and comprehensively cover the full spectrum of the Armenian-American community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since every Armenian around the world passionately upholds the interests of Artsakh (Karabagh), many wonder why the Government of Armenia has not officially recognized its independence from Azerbaijan.

 

Armenia’s leaders are concerned that recognizing Artsakh’s independence prematurely would undermine the peace process with Azerbaijan and possibly subject Armenia to international pressure and sanctions. Moreover, Pres. Serzh Sargsyan has announced that Armenia would recognize Artsakh in case Azerbaijan resorts to war.

 

Opposition political figures assert that Artsakh’s recognition is long overdue and blame Armenian officials for not formally recognizing its independence. They also wonder how Armenians can expect other countries to recognize the Republic of Artsakh without Armenia taking the lead. Based on these arguments, opposition Heritage party members periodically bring up a resolution to the Armenian Parliament for the recognition of the Republic of Artsakh. Undoubtedly, such proposals are prompted out of a sincere conviction that Armenia has an obligation to recognize this liberated territory. However, there are those who are convinced that the opposition’s true intent is to embarrass the government’s majority by daring its members to cast a vote against Artsakh’s recognition.

 

Such resolutions create awkward situations not only for pro-government parliamentarians, but also other opposition members who are compelled to support the resolution in order not to give the false impression that they oppose Artsakh’s independence.

 

On Nov. 13, when Zaruhi Postanjian, leader of the Heritage Parliamentary block, proposed such a resolution, the final vote was 10 in favor and 0 against. The resolution was not adopted even though no one voted against it, as the overwhelming majority of the 131 parliamentarians decided to boycott the session rather than vote against Artsakh’s recognition.

 

Surprisingly, officials of Armenia, Artsakh and Azerbaijan have had a similar reaction to the resolution. Vahram Atanessian, Chairman of Artsakh’s Foreign Relations Committee, expressed his agreement with the position of Armenia’s parliamentary majority: “At this moment, recognition of the Artsakh Republic does not serve a useful purpose, as it would cause a number of significant problems.” Shavarsh Kocharyan, Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia, concurred: “Recognizing Artsakh at this time would be contrary to Armenia’s interests, because it would make it the only country to do so, thus creating an unfavorable situation for Armenia at the present time.”

 

Elman Abdullayev, spokesman for Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry, agreed with Armenian officials: “The discussion of the bill on the recognition of Nagorno Karabagh as an independent state by the Armenian Parliament would negatively affect the peaceful settlement of the conflict and aims at undermining this process.” Azeri political scientist Fikrat Sadikhov reacted with harsher words: “Such recognition would be a blunt challenge to Azerbaijan, which, of course, would not remain unanswered. Yerevan is very well aware that such a move by Armenia would be crossing the red line, which still detains Azerbaijan from more forceful and radical steps in respect of the release of its lands.” Sadikhov further stated: “The Armenian leadership understands that by recognizing the independence of the separatist regime, it will radicalize and exacerbate the situation, and enrage international organizations and regional powers.”

 

Despite the potentially complicating consequences of Artsakh’s recognition, Armenians worldwide enthusiastically support the independence of the Republic of Artsakh. However, it would be preferable that such resolutions be brought to the parliament’s consideration only after securing the approval of all factions. Otherwise, when a handful of opposition parliamentarians place this issue on the agenda against the majority’s wishes, it appears that their whole purpose is partisan political gain, and sends the wrong signal to Azerbaijan and countries around the world that Armenia is against Artsakh’s independence.

 

Furthermore, the opponents of such resolutions are typically accused of siding with Azerbaijan on this critical issue, thereby undermining Armenian efforts to secure international recognition for the Republic of Artsakh.

 

A more preferable strategy for supporting Artsakh’s independence would be to strengthen the Republic of Armenia politically, economically, and militarily so that its leaders would not have to be too concerned about international condemnation and sanctions, whenever they decide it is the opportune time to recognize the Republic of Artsakh.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Expecting a public relations nightmare during the Armenian Genocide Centennial, Turkish officials are anxious to prevent further damage to their country’s already tarnished reputation.

 

Even though they have no intention to open the border with Armenia, Turkey’s leaders are pretending to do so by constantly issuing fake conciliatory statements. By falsely claiming that Turkey is in the process of patching up its differences with Armenia, Ankara’s hidden agenda is to discourage additional countries from recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

 

However, given Azerbaijan’s paranoid reaction to any talk of Turkey opening its border with Armenia, Turkish officials are forced to retreat by warning that the Armenia-Turkey border would remain closed, unless ‘progress’ is made on the Karabagh (Artsakh) issue.

 

Such contradictory Turkish statements have been issued countless times, ever since Armenia and Turkey signed Protocols in 2009 to open their mutual border and establish diplomatic relations. As recently as last week, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told a closed session of the Turkish Parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee that preparations are underway to open the border with Armenia. When confronted by an opposition parliamentarian about Turkey’s true intentions, Davutoglu quickly reversed himself, stating that Armenia must first withdraw from Karabagh before the border could be opened.

 

The Foreign Minister made similar remarks a month ago while visiting Switzerland, when he announced that Turkey was looking for “creative ideas” to improve its relations with Armenia. Davutoglu’s creative or rather clever ploy is to avoid looking like an obstructionist, while making excuses for his country’s refusal to ratify the Protocols.

 

Back in 2009, the Turkish government appeared eager to ratify the Protocols which included various extraneous matters, including the formation of a committee of historians to study archival documents on the Armenian Genocide. When Azerbaijan vehemently objected to Turkish plans to open the border with Armenia, Turkey announced that it could no longer ratify the Protocols, even though it was clearly in its national interest to do so. Thus, despite its claims of being a major regional power, Turkey caved in to Azerbaijan’s veto. During his remarks in the Turkish Parliament on November 6, Davutoglu sheepishly reiterated that his country would open its border with Armenia only after obtaining Azerbaijan’s permission.

 

Clearly embarrassed by this leak to the press, a Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman denied that Davutoglu had made such a statement. This is not a credible denial as Turkish officials have made similar statements many times before. One plausible explanation for reviving the prospect of opening the border and railway link to Armenia could be Turkey’s intent to pressure the newly-elected President of Georgia who refuses to support the long-planned Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railway which was expected to circumvent Armenia.

 

To put an end to continuous Turkish exploitation of the Protocols, Pres. Serzh Sargsyan should carry out his promise of three years ago, when he warned that unless Turkey ‘shortly’ ratifies the Protocols, he would reconsider his position on this issue, implying that Armenia would withdraw from this agreement. Since the Protocols are still not ratified four years after they were signed, Pres. Sargsyan should declare them null and void.

 

Understandably, Armenian officials are reluctant to take such a drastic step, as they are concerned that the major powers would blame them for the Protocols’ failure. Armenia would prefer that the Turkish side be the first to withdraw from the Protocols, and thereby bear the blame for their collapse. Turkish officials could be playing the same blame game, by waiting for Armenia to be the first to withdraw.

 

In my view, Armenia can no longer afford to wait. With the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide less than 18 months away, Armenia’s President should do what he promised three years ago and withdraw his government’s signature from the ill-fated Protocols. Armenia could not be blamed for this action, as Turkish officials have repeatedly announced that they have no intention of ratifying the Protocols.

 

Not surprisingly, Davutoglu also declared last week that Turkish efforts to counter Armenian plans for the 100^th anniversary of the genocide are moving forward ‘at full speed.’ In order not to allow Turkey to undermine worldwide Armenian commemorations for the Genocide Centennial, Armenia’s leaders must renounce the Protocols long before April 24, 2015.

 

Furthermore, given the Turkish government’s century-old intransigence to acknowledge its culpability for the Genocide and refusal to make appropriate amends, Armenian officials should announce that they plan to seek justice, at long last, by applying to local, regional and international courts.

 

 

 

I visited the amazing land of Japan for the first time last month.

 

The minute I set foot on Tokyo’s Narita Airport, it felt like entering a surreal country — almost too good to be true!

 

The first thing that one notices is the extreme politeness of the Japanese people. Their repeated bowing to greet guests is incomparably more respectful than our customary casual handshake. I was amazed to find out that everyone gets the same excellent service, at no extra charge! No one gets tips, including waiters and parking attendants.

 

Japan is impeccably clean. No litter can be found anywhere. Piles of dirt or garbage are nowhere to be seen. You cannot find a single car in the streets with a dent or speck of dust. Even trucks hauling construction materials are covered with a net and hosed down before leaving the loading site, not to scatter dirt on city streets. Amazingly, after a typhoon directly hit Tokyo, there was no debris in the streets.

 

To top it all, there is very little crime in Japan due to the calm demeanor of the population and absence of guns. Despite Tokyo’s crowded sidewalks, everyone goes about their business, without pushing or shoving, arguing or raising their voices. Drivers respect traffic laws and conduct their cars in an orderly manner, without cutting in front of others or honking horns.

 

Many people are seen in the streets wearing medical masks. One would think that they were protecting themselves from catching the flu or some other disease from passersby. It turns out that the mask wearers were the ones who had the flu. They were being exceedingly considerate, not wishing to pass their germs onto others!

 

Besides visiting Japanese shrines and ancient palaces, I had the opportunity to engage in Armenian-related activities in this far away land. I was pleased to learn that the Republic of Armenia had an Embassy in Tokyo. Amb. Hrant Pogosyan and Attache Monica Simonyan received me graciously and briefed me about their relentless efforts to foster friendly relations between the two countries. We discussed opportunities for collaboration between the Armenian community in the United States and the Embassy of Armenia in Japan, particularly during the upcoming Centennial of the Armenian Genocide.

 

A totally unexpected treat was the concert organized by the Armenian Embassy, celebrating the 110^th anniversary of Aram Khachaturian’s birth. Three top musicians, pianists Armen Babakhanian and Julietta Vardanyan, and cellist Aram Talalyan, had flown from Armenia especially for this one night performance. The Japanese audience, foreign diplomats, and a handful of Armenian students and businessmen were highly impressed with Khachaturian’s music and the virtuosity of the performers. I even met a Japanese scholar who spoke Armenian fluently. I had never heard Armenian spoken with a Japanese accent!

 

Japanese friends had kindly arranged that I meet CEO’s of several major corporations in Tokyo and Kyoto and discuss investment possibilities in Armenia. I was highly impressed by state of the art stem-cell research laboratory at Kyoto University.

 

Later that day I had the unique opportunity to give a lecture to a group of bright university students and their professors. They spoke English quite well and asked numerous questions, even though I was told that Japanese students normally do not ask questions. My talk covered the Armenian Genocide, the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict, Syria’s civil war, the Arab Spring, the controversial issue of Comfort Women, and the necessity of peaceful resolution of conflicts.

 

After returning to Tokyo, my hosts surprised me by presenting me from the archives of The Japan Times newspaper, a copy of the issue dated Oct. 4, 1998, which had a half-page article about my humanitarian efforts for Armenia on behalf of the United Armenian Fund.

 

My final meeting was with three high-ranking Japanese government officials with whom I discussed at length Japan’s relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, China, Russia, and South Korea.

 

My conversations with Japanese university students and government leaders made me realize that Armenians have made a habit of concentrating all of their political efforts on the Middle East, Europe, North and South America, and totally ignoring the large number of strategically important countries in Asia.

 

It may be politically and economically more productive to extend the span of our attention to countries whose citizens know hardly anything about Armenia and Armenians.