Category: Harut Sassounian

Sassounian’s column of Nov. 28, 2013
Sassounian’s column of Dec. 19, 2013
Sassounian’s column of January 9, 2014

 

Sassounian’s column of Nov. 28, 2013

 

 

A Proud Moment for Armenians:

Courthouse Named after Gov. Deukmejian

 

 

Two prominent Armenian-Americans were recently honored with exceptional accolades, making Armenians proud of their accomplishments.

 

In July, the US Navy announced that a future guided-missile destroyer will bear the name of Paul Ignatius (Iknadosian), the highest ranking Armenian-American official in the Federal Government. He served for eight years in the presidential administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson as Assistant Secretary of the Army, Undersecretary of the Army, Assistant Secretary of Defense, and finally in 1967, Secretary of the Navy.

 

Last week, a new superior court building in Long Beach, California, was named after Governor George Deukmejian. The official dedication ceremony of the $339 million court complex took place on November 21.

 

Gov. Deukmejian served the State of California with distinction for 28 years. After narrowly winning his first election as governor in 1982, he was reelected in a landslide in 1986. Earlier, he had served for four years as Attorney General (1979-83), twelve years as State Senator (1967-1979) and Senate Majority Leader (1969), and four years as Assemblyman (1963-67). In 1988, then Vice President and presidential candidate George H.W. Bush considered Gov. Deukmejian as a possible vice presidential running mate. However, Deukmejian asked that his name be withdrawn from consideration in order not to leave California in the hands of a Democratic Lieutenant Governor. Had he not declined and had been picked for the Republican ticket, Deukmejian would have been elected Vice President along with Pres. Bush later that year. Subsequently, he could have run for President, and if successful, become the first US President of Armenian descent!

 

To honor the governor, over 500 government officials, former colleagues, friends, family members and distinguished guests attended the courthouse dedication ceremony. Congratulatory remarks were delivered by members of the California Supreme Court, Superior Court of Los Angeles County, U.S. Congress, State Assembly, Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Mayor of Long Beach, and Bar Association of Long Beach.

 

The half million square feet Deukmejian Courthouse includes 31 courtrooms, administrative space, detention facilities, offices for county justice agencies, and compatible retail space. The building features the latest safety and environmental innovations with functional public spaces for the efficient conduct of business and movement of people throughout the building.

 

Successive speakers emphasized Gov. Deukmejian’s strong family values and his Armenian heritage. California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter (Bagdasarian), who had worked for Gov. Deukmejian as Appointments Secretary, mentioned in his keynote remarks that the governor had “moved from New York to California in 1955, armed only with his law degree and high principles instilled by his Armenian-American immigrant parents…. He was an outstanding legislator, attorney general, and governor. He earned and retained our respect through more than a quarter century of excellent public service at the highest levels.”

 

Gov. Deukmejian, a native of the village of Menands, New York, was named Courken at birth. His father, Courken, was from Aintab and mother, Elbiss (Alice), from Arapkir.

 

Justice Baxter recalled that the Judicial Council of California had decided with a unanimous vote to name the new building as the Governor George Deukmejian Courthouse. “This action reflects the bipartisan respect and support” the governor enjoys “throughout this nation and state,” Baxter proudly proclaimed.

 

The 35^th governor of California was the last speaker of the evening before unveiling the dedication plaque, surrounded by his wife Gloria, their children and grandchildren.

 

“So many parties skillfully have combined their talent and expertise to produce a truly extraordinary new courthouse building in Long Beach,” stated Gov. Deukmejian. “It is an outstanding addition to the skyline and to the fabric of the city, and I am proud and pleased to have my name associated with it.” He called the dedication ceremony “a wonderful, touching and humbling capstone to my life and career in public service.”

 

In a jovial mood, Gov. Deukmejian made self-deprecating remarks about his well-known “lack of charisma,” and his long Armenian last name which he had never considered changing or shortening. “My only concern has been that my name wouldn’t fit” on the courthouse building, the governor joked to the great amusement of the guests.

 

One would hope that the 85-year-old governor would soon make his first trip to Armenia. It is important that the young generation of Armenians in the homeland get to know him as an outstanding role model and inspiration for their future accomplishments.

=========

Sassounian’s column of Dec. 19, 2013

 

 

Davutoglu’s Charm Offensive

During Visit to Armenia

 

 

The wily Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu used every diplomatic trick to take maximum advantage of his presence in Yerevan during the Black Sea Economic Cooperation conference (BSEC) last week.

 

Davutoglu and his diplomatic team had initially launched a disinformation campaign by announcing that he might not participate in the conference because of other commitments, thus giving the impression of not being eager to travel to Armenia. Later on, he conditioned his attendance on the positive outcome of the meetings between the Presidents and Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. To reassure Pres. Aliyev of Azerbaijan that Turkey was minding the interests of its junior brother, the Turkish Foreign Ministry falsely tipped off the press that Armenia had agreed to withdraw from two regions around Karabagh (Artsakh).

 

Foreign Minister Davutoglu’s real intent in unleashing a charm offensive during his Yerevan trip was to preempt the anticipated worldwide campaign against Turkey during the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide in 2015. He wanted to impress the international community of his country’s willingness to reconcile with Armenia, while helping to advance Turkey’s application for European Union membership.

 

In response, Armenian officials did everything possible to lessen the success of the Turkish charm offensive. Armenia’s strategy was to keep Davutoglu’s Yerevan trip within the confines of the BSEC conference rather than engage in bilateral Armenian-Turkish relations, and exclude any discussion of the Armenian-Turkish Protocols and the Artsakh conflict.

 

It is therefore not surprising that there was no meeting in Yerevan between Armenia’s President and Turkey’s Foreign Minister. The only official encounter was with Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, who also met with several BSEC participants as host of the conference.

 

To be sure, Davutoglu faced some obstacles during his stay in the Armenian capital. He had to enter the Marriott Hotel, the venue of the conference, through the back door to avoid young political activists protesting his visit. Meanwhile, Nalbandian issued a series of terse statements before, during, and after the BSEC conference, warning Turkey that Armenia would not accept any preconditions, such as a partial withdrawal from the Artsakh area, in return for establishing diplomatic relations and opening the border between Armenia and Turkey.

 

Nalbandian’s resolute stand forced Davutoglu to back down, fearing that his trip to Armenia would be characterized as a failure. At the risk of alienating Azerbaijan, the Turkish Minister acknowledged that he had not come to present concrete proposals on Armenian-Turkish relations, and had not asked Armenia to withdraw from two regions around Artsakh. After the conference, Davutoglu changed his tune, insisting that his only purpose for coming to Yerevan was to overcome the “psychological barrier” between Armenia and Turkey and initiate renewed dialogue and trust.

 

In his stated quest for improved relations, Davutoglu held a meeting with former Defense and Prime Minister Vazgen Manukian, during which he belittled the Genocide as “certain past events” and urged everyone “to move forward.” When Manukian recounted the deaths of his four uncles during the Genocide, Davutoglu promised to say a prayer during his next visit to their birthplace — Moks, South of Lake Van. Yet audaciously he advised Armenians not to forget Turkish victims of World War I. He also suggested that Diaspora Armenians return to their former homeland, present-day Turkey. The most intriguing aspect of the meeting with Manukian was Davutoglu’s revelation that one of the buildings in the Foreign Ministry headquarters in Ankara had belonged to an Armenian — thus raising the possibility of a lawsuit by the former owner’s heirs.

 

Foreign Minister Davutoglu made one last attempt at undermining the preparations for the Armenian Genocide Centennial, by telling Turkish reporters on board his flight that the “deportation” of Armenians in 1915 was “inhumane.” By claiming that Turkey had never supported this move, he condemned the “deportation” as a “totally wrong practice done by [the Ottoman-era rulers under the Committee of the Union and Progress].”

 

Davutoglu also revealed that he has been meeting with Diaspora Armenians during his trips abroad, but had not publicized these encounters concerned that “extremist Armenians would cause problems.”

 

The Turkish charm offensive left a good impression on those who are hell-bent on Armenian-Turkish reconciliation and have no qualms in equating the executioner with the victim. The United States and Canada were the only two countries that officially welcomed the Turkish Foreign Minister’s visit to Armenia, urging further dialogue between the two sides.

 ============================

Sassounian’s column of January 9, 2014

 

 

Canadian Turks Should Condemn,

Not Condone, Genocide Denial

 

 

Canadian Turks launched a petition last month seeking the removal of all references to the Armenian Genocide from the 11^th grade curriculum of Toronto high schools.

 

This petition is a part of Turkish denialists’ long-standing efforts to reverse the Toronto District School Board’s (TDSB) 2008 decision to educate students about the Armenian, Jewish, and Rwandan genocides. TDSB’s action follows the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Canadian Senate in 2002 and the House of Commons in 2004. In addition, since 2006, successive Canadian Prime Ministers have issued official annual statements acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, despite intensive political pressure and economic blackmail by the Turkish government.

 

Back in 2008, a similar Turkish petition failed to sway TDSB to amend the genocide curriculum, after gathering over 11,000 signatures, mostly from Turkey. Indeed, the Ankara government and its Turkish proxies in Toronto have done everything possible during the past seven years to undermine this curriculum.

 

Below are the baseless claims made by the Turkish petition against TDSB’s genocide curriculum, followed by my rebuttal:

 

— Turkish Petition: “As the Turkish/Turkic speaking parents of students attending the Toronto District School Board, we are deeply concerned about the negative impact of the current curriculum module on ‘Armenian Genocide’ and the learning resources adopted by the Board since 2008.”

 

My response: There has been NO violence or intimidation against a single Turkish student in Toronto schools even though the genocide curriculum has been taught there for several years. The reason is that Armenians do not hold today’s Turks responsible for the crimes committed by the Government of Ottoman Turkey almost 100 years ago, except those who associate themselves with these crimes by their denial. The Republic of Turkey, on the other hand, as successor to the Ottoman Empire, is responsible for the continuing consequences of the Armenian Genocide. Denying the facts of the Genocide has a far more serious negative psychological impact on Armenians than its inclusion in the curriculum on Turks. Furthermore, the truth cannot be concealed in order not to offend the sensibilities of those who wish to cover up historical facts. Would anyone advocate erasing all references to the Jewish Holocaust from history books not offend present-day Germans?

 

— Turkish Petition: “The textbook on the Genocide of the Armenians and other readers, such as Barbara Coloroso’s Extraordinary Evil, unremittingly discredits one community’s narrative over the other; and, adversely affects the students of TDSB with Turkish and Turkic heritages.”

 

My response: There cannot be two narratives or two versions of the proven facts of the Armenian Genocide. There can only be one version — the truth!

 

— Turkish Petition: “We firmly believe that the values of mutual respect, understanding and peaceful coexistence can be achieved through an honest and open dialogue on history. Moreover, fair and unprejudiced learning should be based on historical facts and not solely on the narratives of select communities while ignoring others. It should also be noted that there are no court decisions on any of these historical claims and the opinions of historians differ regarding the details and the definitions of these events.”

 

My response: ‘Mutual respect, understanding and peaceful coexistence’ cannot be achieved through distortions and lies. Only after acknowledging the truth and making appropriate amends, Canadian Turks can talk about such lofty ideals. Furthermore, contrary to the Turkish claims, there are several court verdicts on the Armenian Genocide, starting with the Turkish Military Tribunals of 1919, and judgments by Argentinean, Swiss, and U.S. courts. Significantly, the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities adopted in 1985 a report acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. The ultimate arbiter of any genocide is the United Nations, since the Genocide Convention is a UN document.

 

To sum up, this latest Turkish petition is a total failure since its initiator, the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations, has so far collected less than 2,000 signatures out of a claimed membership of 200,000 in Canada. Interestingly, most of the signatories are not from Canada, but Turkey where the petition has been widely circulated.

 

A more worthwhile initiative for Canadian Turks would be to start a petition urging the Turkish government to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide and make proper restitution to the descendants of this heinous crime on the occasion of the Genocide’s Centennial.

 

 

 

 

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.