Category: Harut Sassounian

 

I just returned from a three-day conference in Yerevan where  40 Armenian activists, journalists, and representatives of political, religious and cultural organizations from 18 countries (Argentina, Armenia, Artsakh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Netherlands, Russia, Syria, United States, and Uruguay) attended closed-door briefings from senior government officials.

 

The attendees met with the Vice Speaker and chairs of all parliamentary committees, President’s Chief of Staff Vigen Sargsyan, Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian, Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan, Diaspora Minister Hranush Hakobyan, National Security Council Secretary Artur Baghdasaryan, Constitutional Court Chairman Gagik Harutunyan, and President of Artsakh Bako Sahakyan

 

Since the briefings dealt with sensitive political and national security issues and were off-the-record, I can only disclose the general topics without attribution to a specific speaker or participant:

 

— Armenia’s decision to join the CIS Customs Union instead of signing the European Association Agreement;

— Threats to Armenia’s national security and efforts to neutralize them;

— Preparations for possible international legal action against Turkey to secure restitution for the Armenian Genocide;

— Plans for the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide;

— Status of signed but not ratified Armenia-Turkey Protocols;

— Superior morale of victorious Armenian soldiers — an advantage over Azeris in a renewed war with Azerbaijan;

— Diaspora’s participation in the economic development of Armenia and Artsakh.

 

The conference, organized by the Diaspora Ministry, provided the participants the rare opportunity to offer their critical assessment of the situation in the homeland and to openly question Armenia’s and Artsakh’s highest officials. The political leaders and their diasporan guests emphasized the urgent need for a framework or structure that would coordinate the efforts of Armenians in Armenia, Artsakh and Diaspora. During the conference and media interviews, I proposed the creation of a pan-Armenian committee which would include representatives from Armenia, Artsakh, and Diaspora, to deal expressly with the critical needs of Artsakh, similar to the Centennial Committee for the Armenian Genocide, except that the Artsakh committee would be of a permanent nature.

 

On September 21, the conference participants were invited to attend the special presidential reception in celebration of Armenia’s Independence Day. The evening ended with an impressive concert and fireworks show in Republic Square.

 

Prior to arriving in Yerevan, I attended the spiritually uplifting consecration of Moscow’s Armenian Cathedral, which reportedly cost tens of millions of dollars contributed by generous Russian-Armenian businessmen. The magnificent church structure and the nearby community center are expected to play a critical role in preserving the Armenian language and Christian faith for the two-million Armenians living in Russia. The September 17 consecration ceremony was attended by the Presidents of Armenia and Artsakh,Catholicos Karekin II, high-ranking Armenian clergymen from around the world, and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill. Pres. Putin did not attend due to his absence from Moscow.

 

On this august occasion, a series of concerts, receptions and banquets were held in Moscow hosted by the Armenian Diocese of Russia for the large number of guests from throughout the world. In appreciation, Catholicos Karekin II recognized the two dozen benefactors of the Cathedral by bestowing upon them the highest honorific medals of the Armenian Church.

 

While in Moscow, I attended several jewelry-related events, organized by prominent Armenian jewelers in Russia. For the first time in a hundred years, an Armenian, Gagik Gevorkyan, President of Estet Jewelry House, was elected head of the prestigious Russian Jewelers Guild. Mr. Gevorkyan sponsored the lavish annual Jewelry Charity Ball at his company’s headquarters in Moscow, attended by over a thousand jewelers and their families, including well-known Armenian jewelers from France, Canada, and the United States.

 

With a sense of great pride, I watched members of the Armenian Jewelers Association from Russia and North America address the distinguished guests at the International Jewelry Economic Forum and display their precious handiwork at JUNWEX, the XII International Jewelry and Watch Exhibition.

 

Before departing Moscow, I gave several TV interviews and participated in a panel discussion on Hayk Demoyan’s new book, “Turkey’s Foreign Policy and the Karabagh Conflict.”

 

Despite the hectic schedule, my journey to Moscow and Yerevan opened up important networking opportunities for closer collaboration between Armenia and the two largest diaspora communities of Russia and the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

Here are some thoughts regarding recent noteworthy news items:

 

— Prominent Los Angeles attorney Mark Geragos, during his appearance on CNN last week, chided the United States for its double standard on the Armenian Genocide. When panelists Christiane Amanpour and Anderson Cooper were criticizing Iran’s denial of the Jewish Holocaust, Geragos reminded them about Pres. Obama’s unkept promise to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. “Our greatest ally in that region is Turkey. Yet, Turkey denies the Armenian Genocide. Obama as a candidate would talk about it, ‘when I am in office, I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.’ He has been completely stultified when he is in. So there is a political dynamic here at play that is a little hypocritical,” Geragos asserted.

 

— During the German elections on Sept. 22, eleven lawmakers of Turkish origin were elected to the German Bundestag, the country’s lower house of Parliament, more than doubling their number in the previous legislature. Armenians should not blindly criticize these 11 Parliamentarians because some — whether of Turkish or Kurdish origin — may be sympathetic to recognizing the Armenian Genocide.

 

— The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) fined Turkey over $200,000 for expropriating a Turkish family’s house, without paying compensation. The Court found that Turkey had violated the family’s property rights. The family had exhausted all appeals to Turkish courts before turning to ECHR for justice. A reader posted the following ironic observation on the website of the Turkish Daily News: “It seems like the Court of Christian Europe treats Muslim Turkish people with more respect than the Muslim courts in Turkey.”

 

— Turkish Minister of EU Affairs Egemen Bagish claimed last week that “Turkey will probably never become a member of the European Union because of stiff opposition and prejudiced attitudes from the bloc’s current members.” Bagish is wrong, as usual! Turkey will fail to become an EU member not because of Western prejudice, but due to its refusal to bring its laws up to European standards.

 

— Thousands of Christians, including Armenians, have been kidnapped, killed or maimed by Al-Qaida terrorists in Syria and yet not a single word of condemnation has been issued by any European or American official. Even worse, Western leaders are supplying lethal weapons to the extremists so they can kill more innocent people. It is time for the public in the Western world to show its outrage by mass protests and harsh rebukes. The US Congress should ban the delivery of weapons to all foreign fighters in Syria. Last week, an Armenian Catholic Church and a Greek Orthodox Church were desecrated and robbed in Rakka, Syria. The Jihadists shamefully climbed over the dome of the Armenian Church and replaced the cross with their black flag!

 

— The dictator of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, regularly and unwittingly assists the Armenian Cause by making hateful announcements that create a negative impression about his country in the international community. Aliyev’s outrageous statement that “Yerevan and Zangezour are Azeri territories” and “the time will come and we will live there,” is the raving and ranting of a deranged man with a pathological personality. Aliyev is expected to be elected to an unprecedented third term on October 9, meaning that Armenians will continue benefiting from his ‘helpful’ statements for several more years!

 

— The war of words escalated at the UN General Assembly last week as the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan made opposing statements. Below are excerpts from Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian’s remarks, accusing Azerbaijan for:

 

a) “Increasing warmongering and anti-Armenian hate-speech on a daily basis”

b) “Unprecedented accumulation of offensive weaponry in massive scale”

c) “Using mercenaries closely linked to notorious terrorist organizations”

d) “Glorification of an axe-murderer Safarov by Azerbaijani leadership”

 

Armenia’s Foreign Minister further stated that “the recognition, condemnation and prevention of genocide remains a priority for Armenia and we will take necessary actions to prevent new occurrences of the crime of genocide, while keeping high on the agenda the issue of responsibility for the crime against humanity and its denial…. As a nation that has survived the first genocide of the 20^th century, Armenia unequivocally welcomes the clear position adopted by the UN member states in precluding any possibility of immunity or pardon for perpetrators of crimes against humanity.”

 

 

 

,

 

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.”