Category: Harut Sassounian

 

 

,

 

With the approaching Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, there has been growing public interest in taking legal action against Turkey in international courts.

 

One of the leading experts in this field was Dr. Yuri Barseghov, Professor of International Law, who wrote scores of pioneering books and articles on Armenian claims. Shortly before his death in 2008, Prof. Barseghov of Moscow outlined the basis for legal action against Turkey in an article titled: “Ways and Means of Assigning Responsibility for the Armenian Genocide.”

 

Dr. Barseghov maintained that in 1920, “the Ottoman Empire admitted its responsibility for committing this crime” by signing the Treaty of Sevres, which unfortunately was not ratified due to the reluctance of the Allied Powers to pressure Turkey. Since then, despite the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by dozens of countries and international organizations, Prof. Barseghov believed that such acknowledgments “will not solve the problem of [Turkish] responsibility.”

 

Prof. Barseghov contended that “since Turkey stubbornly continues to refuse recognizing that it committed this crime, it is still necessary to solve the question of responsibility for the Armenian Genocide through competent international bodies by making such decisions mandatory for both parties [Armenia and Turkey].”

 

Dr. Barseghov did not believe that the United Nations is a practical vehicle for the resolution of the Armenian Genocide issue, since it is a highly politicized body. “Decisions of the General Assembly are not mandatory,” while the major powers, such as the United States and Great Britain, enjoy the privilege of veto power in the Security Council blocking any action against Turkey.

 

The problem of initiating litigation under the statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is that both Armenia and Turkey have to agree in advance to abide by the decisions of the Court. Neither country has so far “recognized the obligatory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.” Since Turkey most probably would not agree to submit itself to such jurisdiction, Dr. Barseghov suggested that the Republic of Armenia as a sovereign state take advantage of “the unique opportunity” of filing a unilateral case against Turkey on its responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, “under Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.”

 

Dr. Barseghov expressed regret that no response was received from the Armenian government after the Armenian Institute of International Law and Political Science of the Union of Armenians of Russia — which he directed — several years ago submitted a study on this subject to Pres. Robert Kocharian and Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian.

 

Dr. Barseghov explained that “in order to start a case by this judicial procedure [Article IX], the Government of Armenia has to formulate its position on the questions of interpretation, application or implementation of the Convention on this basis on the question of responsibility of the Turkish state for the committed crime.”

 

Prof. Barseghov warned Armenian officials that “there exists a provision in International Law which is confirmed by the International Court of Justice in other cases: if a state has the opportunity to submit a dispute but does not take such action, it would mean that the state accepts the existing situation.”

Dr. Barseghov allayed possible Armenian concerns that the ICJ may object to filing such a case due to questions regarding the retroactivity of the Genocide Convention. He expressed his firm belief that the Convention applies to the Armenian Genocide even though it preceded the Convention. He noted that the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion of 1951 stated: “the principles inherited by the Convention on Genocide, unlike the treaty obligations established in it, were already part of common international law by the time these awful crimes were committed.”

 

Prof. Barseghov pointed out that arguments supporting the Convention’s retroactivity were put forward by the ICJ which has “twice given competent, exhaustive explanations on the fundamental basic questions of the applicability of the Convention including also its retroactivity.” Based on these rulings, Prof. Barseghov concluded: “the Convention applies also to crimes committed in the past whose consequences have not been eliminated.”

 

As announced during a recent conference in Yerevan, the Armenian government has formed a task force to prepare the legal file for a case to be brought against Turkey in international courts. The expert advice of Prof. Barseghov and other specialists should ensure that the lawsuit is properly prepared and presented to obtain long overdue justice for Armenian Genocide victims.

 

 

 

 

 

Ever since Egypt’s President Mohamed Morsi was removed from office, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been harshly critical of the new government, strongly advocating his fellow Islamist Morsi’s return to power.

 

Given Erdogan’s unwelcome meddling in Egypt’s internal affairs, millions of Egyptians have expressed anger and resentment against Turkey and its prime minister. Egyptian newspapers have been replete with anti-Turkish reports and commentaries. Dozens of articles have been published condemning Turkish denials of the Armenian Genocide and urging Egypt’s new leaders to recognize it. There have also been calls for erecting a monument for the Armenian Genocide in Cairo and demands that Turkey pay restitution for the Armenian victims. In an unprecedented move, attorney Muhammad Saad Khairallah, head of the Institute of the Popular Front in Egypt, filed a lawsuit accusing Turkey of committing genocide against Armenians.

 

On Sept. 4, Khairallah and Dr. Ayman Salama, Professor of International Law at Cairo University, appeared on Lilian Daoud’s highly popular talk show, Al-Soura al-Kamila (The Complete Picture) on ONtv, watched by millions in Egypt and throughout the Arab world. Participating in the show by phone were Resul Tosun, former Turkish Parliament member from Erdogan’s Islamist AK Party, and Harut Sassounian, Publisher of The California Courier. The 36-minute TV program was conducted in Arabic, a language I have rarely used since childhood.

 

Prof. Salama informed the audience that the Turkish Military Tribunal in 1919 indicted the criminals responsible for the Armenian Genocide. Seventeen Turkish officials were found guilty, and three were hanged. Dr. Salama indicated that France, Great Britain and Russia had issued a joint Declaration in 1915, warning that they would hold Turkish leaders responsible for massacring Armenians and committing “crimes against humanity and civilization.”

 

Attorney Khairallah insisted that raising the Armenian Genocide issue in Egypt is long overdue and does not have any political undertones. He hoped that his lawsuit will force Egypt, “the largest Sunni country in the Middle East,” to serve as an example for other Arab countries to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Khairallah announced that his lawsuit will be considered by the Egyptian Court on November 5. He hoped that the Court would make a historic decision regarding this critical “human rights issue.”

 

When the hostess of the TV show asked for my opinion on the Egyptian lawsuit, I expressed my great satisfaction, hoping for a positive verdict on the eve of the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, and looking forward to its recognition by the Egyptian government.

 

I also commented that Erdogan had anointed himself as the new Sultan of the Middle East, and sole defender of all Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians. However, Erdogan’s misrepresentation was finally exposed when the Arab world realized that he was simply trying to dominate the region, pursuing Turkey’s self-interest rather than that of Arabs and Muslims.

 

Former Turkish parliament member Resul Tosun, joining the show by phone, quickly antagonized the viewers by claiming that “the current Egyptian government that came to power after the military coup is not legitimate, therefore, the filed lawsuit cannot be considered legitimate.” Tosun then went on to parrot his Turkish bosses’ baseless denials of the Armenian Genocide.

 

Prof. Salama, incensed by Tosun’s remarks, called Erdogan “the successor of the Ottoman butchers who committed the Armenian Genocide.”

 

The TV hostess then asked for my reaction to Tosun’s perverted views on the Armenian Genocide. I reminded the viewers that Kemal Ataturk, in an interview published in the ‘Los Angeles Examiner’ on August 1, 1926, had demanded that the Young Turks be “made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse and massacred.” I also recalled that the Sheikh of Al-Azhar, leader of the globally preeminent center of Islamic studies in Cairo, had issued a Fatwa (religious decree) in 1909 chastising Turkish officials for massacring 30,000 Armenians in Adana, Cilicia.

 

At the end of the show, attorney Khairallah announced that public rallies will be held shortly to demonstrate that his group’s lawsuit emanates from a popular demand — Egyptians asking their government “to recognize that Armenians were massacred at the hands of Turkish criminals.”

 

So far, Lebanon is the only Arab country to have recognized the Armenian Genocide. If Egypt follows suit, can Syria and the rest of the Arab world be far behind?

 

Here is the link to the talk show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teAKr6Psyl0&sns=em

 

 

 

The sleepy town of Glendale became the center of a major international controversy on July 9, when the City Council approved a memorial to ‘comfort women’ — a euphemism to describe up to 200,000 young females who were forced into sexual slavery by the Japanese army during its occupation of Korea and neighboring countries before and during World War II.

 

The City Council, after hearing conflicting testimonies from members of the local Japanese and Korean communities, approved with a 4 to 1 vote the installation of a monument in Glendale in honor of ‘comfort women.’ At the unveiling ceremony of the monument, council members Ara Najarian and Zareh Sinanyan expressed sympathy for the plight of “comfort women,’ as their own Armenian ancestors had suffered from mass atrocities in Turkey.

 

Concerned by the parallels drawn between the genocide of Armenians by Turkey during World War I and the Japanese military’s sexual enslavement of ‘comfort women’ during World War II, the Consulate of Japan in Los Angeles sought a meeting with the Armenian National Committee of America to present its government’s position on this issue.

 

During Deputy Consul General Masahiro Suga’s meeting with ANCA, it became evident that the Japanese government had been far more forthcoming regarding the crimes committed by the imperial Japanese army than the Turkish government was on the Armenian Genocide. Mr. Suga explained that Japan had recognized its responsibility for violating the rights of ‘comfort women’ by issuing an apology, and offering compensation to the victims.

 

Nevertheless, the ‘comfort women’ remain dissatisfied with Japan’s acts of “atonement,” accusing Japanese officials of making conflicting announcements on this issue. Most ‘comfort women’ have also rejected the offered financial compensation, claiming that it was partially provided by private sources and not the government of Japan. In 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a resolution in support of ‘comfort women,’ urging the Japanese government to “formally acknowledge, apologize, and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its Imperial Armed Forces’ coercion of young women into sexual slavery.”

 

To find out how Japan’s reaction to the issue of ‘comfort women’ differed from the Turkish government’s denialist stand on the Armenian Genocide, I interviewed Jun Niimi, the Consul General of Japan in Los Angeles. He fondly spoke about his “affinity” toward Armenians developed during his 1995-98 service at the Japanese Embassy in Tehran, and his subsequent visits to Armenia, while stationed at the Embassy of Japan in Moscow.

 

Regarding the Japanese government’s position on ‘comfort women,’ Mr. Niimi explained that Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama issued a statement in 1995, expressing “deep remorse” and “heartfelt apology.” Japan also “provided atonement through the Asian Women’s Fund.”

 

Turning to the differences in the reaction of Turkey to the Armenian Genocide and Japan’s to the abuse of ‘comfort women,’ Consul General Niimi made three points:

 

“The government of Japan is well aware of the tragedy of the Armenian people at the beginning of last century. We would like to express our deepest condolences and sympathy to the victims. It is our strong belief that this kind of tragedy should never be repeated. The second point is regarding the position of the Turkish government. This is about another country’s position. Even though we are aware of that atrocity, yet, we are not in a position to grasp the details of precisely what happened a century ago in that area. So we cannot make a comment on the Turkish government’s position. But, I would like to repeat that we are aware of the tragedy and would like to express our sympathy and condolences. And the third point is that, regardless of the position of the Turkish government, the Japanese government’s position on the issue of ‘comfort women’ is that it expressed apology and remorse and made efforts to extend support to former ‘comfort women.’”

 

I informed the Consul General that Japan’s position on the Armenian Genocide is not much different from that of Turkey. I asked Mr. Niimi to relay to his country’s Foreign Ministry that Japan’s lack of acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide reinforces the skepticism of those who question the Japanese government’s sincerity in dealing fairly with the issue of ‘comfort women.’

 

In response, the Consul General of Japan expressed his understanding that “the word tragedy doesn’t sound good to you, because it’s genocide.” He promised to convey to his government “the sentiments of the Armenian community” on this issue.

 

 

While visiting a youth camp on August 18, Pres. Serzh Sargsyan was asked several questions on domestic and foreign issues. One particular question attracted the most attention due to the President’s unexpected answer.

 

When asked which candidate’s election in Azerbaijan’s upcoming presidential race is in Armenia’s best interest, Pres. Sargsyan surprised everyone by endorsing the reelection of incumbent President Ilham Aliyev.

 

Normally, when politicians are asked for their preferred candidate in a foreign election, they refrain from expressing an opinion or simply state that it’s the choice of that country’s voters. In this case, Pres. Sargsyan did not shy away from expressing his clear preference and provided the following explanation as to why Pres. Aliyev’s reelection in October for a third term is in Armenia’s interest:

 

“For Armenia, and not only for Armenia, neighbors that are on the democratic path of development are more beneficial. Hence, the conclusion that as a neighbor, and particularly as a negotiating partner, a democratic Azerbaijan is definitely more beneficial to us. But, if we set aside this consideration, the answer to the question is: The victory of incumbent President Ilham Aliyev would be most beneficial for us. We have gone through a long, albeit difficult, negotiating process and the path for a resolution is practically outlined, at least through public acceptance of the principles proposed by the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group. We have been actively negotiating for the last four years. Certainly, I wouldn’t say that the negotiating process is very active right now; nevertheless, we have made some progress, and if, after the election, Ilham Aliyev could muster the will and rise above his impetuous Armenophobia, I think this is the most acceptable and beneficial option for us.”

 

Pres. Sargsyan’s statement was promptly criticized both at home and, not surprisingly, in Azerbaijan. Opposition leaders in Yerevan were appalled that Armenia’s president would favor the reelection of Pres. Aliyev who has repeatedly threatened to attack Karabagh (Artsakh). They wondered how the authoritarian and warmongering president of Azerbaijan could be beneficial to Armenia. Azeri leaders were also unhappy with Pres. Sargsyan’s endorsement. Novruz Mammadov, Senior Advisor to Pres. Aliyev on Foreign Affairs, harshly condemned Armenia’s president for claiming that Aliyev’s reelection would be in Armenia’s best interest. In addition, Mammadov criticized Azerbaijan’s opposition parties for exploiting Sargsyan’s endorsement in their “dirty campaign” against Aliyev. Mammadov concluded by boasting that Azerbaijan’s president does not need Sargsyan’s support, because Aliyev enjoys the backing of such prominent world leaders as US President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

 

While Sargsyan conditioned his support for Aliyev on the merits of continued progress in the Artsakh negotiations, one can think of additional reasons why Aliyev’s reelection is in Armenia’s best interest:

 

— Pres. Aliyev is a vulnerable leader who is universally condemned for being autocratic, corrupt and a major violator of human rights.

— Aliyev has wasted huge amounts of his country’s oil wealth in enriching himself, his family, and cronies.

— He has spent billions of dollars buying weapons that have not helped him recover a single inch of Artsakh territory.

— The reelection of an inept Aliyev is a liability for Azerbaijan and an asset for Armenia. If he loses the presidency, his replacement could be a more effective leader who can pose a clear danger to the security of Armenia and Artsakh.

— Sargsyan’s endorsement of Aliyev diminishes his credibility in the eyes of the Azeri people who would wonder why the leader of Armenia, demonized as the enemy of Azerbaijan, is supporting their president. Indeed, conspiracy theorists must be having a field day in Azerbaijan! Since Aliyev’s reelection to a third term is a foregone conclusion due to the country’s traditionally fraudulent electoral system, Pres. Sargsyan’s preference for Aliyev may not lead to his defeat, but would certainly cast a cloud of suspicion on his already tarnished reputation.

 

Finally, in international relations, it is important to have a predictable counterpart, whether friend or foe. Pres. Aliyev’s behavior toward Armenia and Artsakh has been thus far quite predictable. Giorgi Lomsadze, writing in EurasiaNet.org, has accurately depicted Pres. Sargsyan’s endorsement of Aliyev as: “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Arab Spring in Egypt has turned into a hellish summer with countless casualties.

Ever since the Egyptian military deposed President Mohamed Morsi, one particular foreign leader has been screaming the loudest, demanding his immediate reinstatement. That bellicose leader is Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, a staunch supporter of his fellow Islamist Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Egypt’s new leaders, backed by large segments of the population, were infuriated especially after Erdogan severely criticized the overthrow of Pres. Morsi and the killing of hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood protesters. Using extremely harsh language, the Turkish Prime Minister condemned the Egyptian military for “carrying out a massacre with its soldiers, police officers, [and] heavy artillery.” Ironically, Erdogan called anyone who keeps silent in the face of injustice, “a voiceless devil.”

There is no question that a human tragedy is unfolding in Egypt and becoming more critical with each passing day. While no one can remain indifferent to the killing and maiming of civilians, the Prime Minister of Turkey is the last person on earth who should be taking such a self-righteous attitude. Anyone who has blood on his hands has no right to demonize others! One does not have to go back into history and recall the genocides committed by Erdogan’s forefathers against Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. Just a couple of months ago, the Turkish Prime Minister’s own hands were soaked in blood when he proudly acknowledged that he ordered the police to open fire on unarmed demonstrators in Istanbul, killing five people, blinding 11, and injuring 8,000 others. Thus, Erdogan has been stripped of all moral authority to lecture anyone else on democracy and civil rights.

Erdogan’s repeated meddling in Egypt’s internal affairs and his staunch support for Pres. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood escalated the hostilities between the two countries to such a degree that Egypt and Turkey ended up recalling their respective Ambassadors, further disrupting their diplomatic relations. The worsening tension has jeopardized the $2 billion Turkish investment in Egypt and frozen the activities of 300 Turkish businesses in that country.

What a difference a year makes! In May of 2012, when I was visiting Egypt on a lecture tour, a local newspaper refused to publish that part of my interview dealing with the Armenian Genocide. I was informed that given the close relationship between the two Islamist nations, it would be impossible to print anything against Turkey.

Curiously, after Pres. Morsi’s unceremonious departure from power, a series of articles appeared in scores of Egyptian newspapers, detailing the history of the Armenian Genocide, demanding that Turkey pay restitution to the survivors, and calling on Erdogan to acknowledge his country’s criminal past.

To top it all, a surprising twitter message was posted on August 17 by Adly Mansour, Egypt’s Interim President, announcing that his country’s “UN representative tomorrow will sign the international document recognizing the Armenian massacres which were committed by the Turkish army, causing the deaths of one million people.”

Even though Egyptian and Turkish newspapers widely reported the twitter message attributed to the Egyptian President, we were unable to independently confirm its authenticity. However, it is clear that the current Egyptian government and media are intent on using the Armenian Genocide as a way of getting back at Erdogan’s heavy-handed interference in their domestic affairs.

Understandably, most Armenians would be displeased that the victimization of their ancestors is being exploited in a political tug of war between the two countries. Yet, unfortunately, this is politics as usual. If Egypt’s new leaders find it expedient to recognize the Armenian Genocide, this would be a welcome change. It is better to recognize the Genocide, regardless of political motives, than not to recognize it for all the wrong reasons! After all, no one can expect the Egyptian government to take a position on an issue, if it is contrary to its own national interests. In this regard, Egypt is no different from other countries, including the United States and Israel, which periodically dangle acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide as a Damoclean Sword over the heads of Turkish leaders.

The final decision on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide depends on whatever concessions Cairo is expecting from Ankara. If Egypt, the most populous Arab state, recognizes the Armenian Genocide, that would deal a devastating blow to the Turkish government’s frantic efforts to counter the worldwide commemorations of the Genocide Centennial in 2015.

 

 

The Arab Spring in Egypt has turned into a hellish summer with countless casualties.

 

Ever since the Egyptian military deposed President Mohamed Morsi, one particular foreign leader has been screaming the loudest, demanding his immediate reinstatement. That bellicose leader is Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of Turkey, a staunch supporter of his fellow Islamist Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

Egypt’s new leaders, backed by large segments of the population, were infuriated especially after Erdogan severely criticized the overthrow of Pres. Morsi and the killing of hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood protesters. Using extremely harsh language, the Turkish Prime Minister condemned the Egyptian military for “carrying out a massacre with its soldiers, police officers, [and] heavy artillery.” Ironically, Erdogan called anyone who keeps silent in the face of injustice, “a voiceless devil.”

 

There is no question that a human tragedy is unfolding in Egypt and becoming more critical with each passing day. While no one can remain indifferent to the killing and maiming of civilians, the Prime Minister of Turkey is the last person on earth who should be taking such a self-righteous attitude. Anyone who has blood on his hands has no right to demonize others! One does not have to go back into history and recall the genocides committed by Erdogan’s forefathers against Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. Just a couple of months ago, the Turkish Prime Minister’s own hands were soaked in blood when he proudly acknowledged that he ordered the police to open fire on unarmed demonstrators in Istanbul, killing five people, blinding 11, and injuring 8,000 others. Thus, Erdogan has been stripped of all moral authority to lecture anyone else on democracy and civil rights.

 

Erdogan’s repeated meddling in Egypt’s internal affairs and his staunch support for Pres. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood escalated the hostilities between the two countries to such a degree that Egypt and Turkey ended up recalling their respective Ambassadors, further disrupting their diplomatic relations. The worsening tension has jeopardized the $2 billion Turkish investment in Egypt and frozen the activities of 300 Turkish businesses in that country.

 

What a difference a year makes! In May of 2012, when I was visiting Egypt on a lecture tour, a local newspaper refused to publish that part of my interview dealing with the Armenian Genocide. I was informed that given the close relationship between the two Islamist nations, it would be impossible to print anything against Turkey.

 

Curiously, after Pres. Morsi’s unceremonious departure from power, a series of articles appeared in scores of Egyptian newspapers, detailing the history of the Armenian Genocide, demanding that Turkey pay restitution to the survivors, and calling on Erdogan to acknowledge his country’s criminal past.

 

To top it all, a surprising twitter message was posted on August 17 by Adly Mansour, Egypt’s Interim President, announcing that his country’s “UN representative tomorrow will sign the international document recognizing the Armenian massacres which were committed by the Turkish army, causing the deaths of one million people.”

 

Even though Egyptian and Turkish newspapers widely reported the twitter message attributed to the Egyptian President, we were unable to independently confirm its authenticity. However, it is clear that the current Egyptian government and media are intent on using the Armenian Genocide as a way of getting back at Erdogan’s heavy-handed interference in their domestic affairs.

 

Understandably, most Armenians would be displeased that the victimization of their ancestors is being exploited in a political tug of war between the two countries. Yet, unfortunately, this is politics as usual. If Egypt’s new leaders find it expedient to recognize the Armenian Genocide, this would be a welcome change. It is better to recognize the Genocide, regardless of political motives, than not to recognize it for all the wrong reasons! After all, no one can expect the Egyptian government to take a position on an issue, if it is contrary to its own national interests. In this regard, Egypt is no different from other countries, including the United States and Israel, which periodically dangle acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide as a Damoclean Sword over the heads of Turkish leaders.

 

The final decision on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide depends on whatever concessions Cairo is expecting from Ankara. If Egypt, the most populous Arab state, recognizes the Armenian Genocide, that would deal a devastating blow to the Turkish government’s frantic efforts to counter the worldwide commemorations of the Genocide Centennial in 2015.