Category: Harut Sassounian

Ever since independence in 1991, Armenia’s leaders have been reluctant to make any concrete demands from Turkey beyond recognition of the Armenian Genocide. 

Only in recent years, Armenian officials have begun to speak about “the elimination of the consequences of the genocide,” without specifying the ‘consequences’ and the means for their ‘elimination.’ 

Earlier this month, however, a major shift was announced in Armenia’s foreign policy vis-à-vis Turkey, when Aghvan Hovsepyan, the Prosecutor General of Armenia, called for the return of historic Armenian territories at an international conference of Armenian lawyers in Yerevan. This is the first time that a high-ranking Armenian government official has made such a public demand from Turkey. 

In a lengthy and comprehensive speech, Hovsepyan stated that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by various countries is simply a moral and emotional issue. Calling for a switch to “the legal field,” the Prosecutor General indicated that “to eliminate the consequences of the Armenian Genocide” Turkey must “pay compensation to heirs of the Armenian Genocide, return to the Armenian Church the miraculously still standing Armenian churches and properties in Turkey, and give back the ‘lost territories’ to the Republic of Armenia.” 

Prosecutor General Hovsepyan insisted that unless Armenians adopt this bold approach, they will not accomplish any concrete results in the next one hundred years, just as they did not in the last one hundred years. He proposed a thorough legal review of all international agreements regulating Armenia-Turkey relations, from the Berlin Treaty of 1878 to the signed but not ratified protocols of 2009. He also declared that the region of Nakhichevan is “an inseparable part of Armenia, albeit occupied by Azerbaijan.” Hovsepyan urged the assembled lawyers from around the world to prepare the legal case for territorial demands from Azerbaijan and Turkey and present it to the Armenian government for eventual submission to the International Court of Justice (World Court). 

Statements made by a prosecutor general usually do not carry much weight in international affairs, if it were not for the fact that several other high-ranking officials, including Pres. Serzh Sargsyan, President of the Constitutional Court Gagik Haroutyunyan, Minister of Diaspora Hranush Hakobyan, Armenia’s Minister of Justice Hrair Tovmasyan, and Minister of Justice of Artsakh (Karabagh) Ararat Tanielyan, also made remarks on restitutive justice at the lawyers’ conference. It was clear that the Prosecutor General was the designated spokesman of the Armenian government to articulate its new tougher line toward Turkey in advance of the Genocide Centennial. 

Pres. Sargsyan, using more circumspect language than the Prosecutor General, told the lawyers’ conclave: “The international recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, and elimination of its consequences will always remain a salient issue. As long as the Armenian State is in existence, all efforts to deny and send into oblivion this historical reality will be doomed. This greatest crime against humanity must be recognized and condemned once and for all, and first of all, by Turkey itself.” 

In keeping with the government’s new policy orientation, Constitutional Court President Gagik Haroutyunyan announced that a special committee will be formed to prepare the legal documentation necessary for the pursuit of Armenian Genocide claims. 

At the conclusion of the conference, the participants issued a joint statement asserting that the priority for Armenian lawyers is not proving the self-evident facts of the Genocide, but preparing a comprehensive legal document “to remedy the consequences of the Armenian Genocide.” 

This is a welcome development in terms of arriving at a consensus between the Armenian government and the Diaspora on the objectives to be pursued for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. 

However, in order to move beyond mere emotionally inspiring statements, the Armenian leaders must take two immediate steps: 

1) Withdraw the Armenian government’s signature from the counter-productive Armenia-Turkey Protocols. On the eve of the Genocide Centennial, it would be inconceivable to move forward with fruitless efforts to improve relations with Turkey, while preparing to file a lawsuit for restitution. 

2) Form a team of international law experts to begin structuring the legal case against Turkey in the World Court and/or the European Court of Human Rights. 

While skeptics may not take seriously the recent policy pronouncements of the Armenian authorities, the Turkish Foreign Ministry has no such doubts. Last week, Ankara denounced the Armenian territorial demands, announcing angrily that “nobody can dare to claim territory from Turkey!”

Some months ago I wrote a column titled “Obama is Exploiting Turkish Leaders’ Craving for Flattery,” explaining that the U.S. President is able to persuade Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to do his bidding by taking advantage of his weakness for lavish praise!

Those aware of Erdogan’s authoritarian streak — on full display during the recent brutal attacks on protesters in Istanbul and other Turkish cities — have been deeply troubled by U.S. officials’ repeated mischaracterization of the Prime Minister’s dictatorial regime as ‘a role model for the Islamic world.’

The insincerity of such assessments was exposed when WikiLeaks made public thousands of confidential diplomatic cables from the U.S. Embassy in Ankara, indicating that American officials’ real opinion about Erdogan is the exact opposite of what they have been stating in public.

The Embassy dispatches, published by the German magazine Der Spiegel, described the Turkish Prime Minister “as a power-hungry Islamist surrounded by corrupt and incompetent ministers.” In a May 2005 cable, the U.S. Embassy surmised that Erdogan never had a realistic view of the world and believes he was chosen by God to lead Turkey. A knowledgeable source told American officials that “Tayyip believes in God … but does not trust him.”

U.S. diplomats report that the Prime Minister gets almost all his information from Islamist-leaning newspapers, ignoring the input of his own ministers. The Turkish military and intelligence services no longer share with him some of their reports. He trusts no one completely, surrounding himself with “an iron ring of sycophantic (but contemptuous) advisors.” Despite Erdogan’s macho behavior, he is reportedly terrified of losing his grip on power.

Although the Turkish leader declared war on corruption when he first assumed office, informants told U.S. Embassy officials that corruption exists at all levels, even within the Erdogan family. A senior government advisor confidentially told a journalist that the Prime Minister enriched himself from the privatization of a state oil refinery. An Energy Ministry official alleged that Erdogan asked Iranians to sign a gas pipeline deal with a Turkish company owned by an old schoolmate. Furthermore, two American sources claimed that the Prime Minister had eight Swiss bank accounts. Erdogan has denied all such allegations, insisting that his wealth is mostly derived from gifts received at his son’s wedding, and acknowledging that an anonymous Turkish businessman has been paying the expenses of his four children to study in the United States. Such explanations are viewed by the American Embassy as “lame.”

The Embassy’s cables contain many other startling accusations against Erdogan. Informants have told U.S. officials that when his political party’s candidate lost the Trabzon mayoral race, the Prime Minister allegedly funneled millions of dollars from a secret government account to his close friend Faruk Nafiz Ozak whom he had named as head of the local Trabzonspor football club. The money was for hiring top players so that the soccer team’s victories would overshadow the accomplishments of the elected mayor.

According to a cable sent by former U.S. Ambassador Eric Edelman, Erdogan’s appointees lacked “technocratic depth.” While some “appear to be capable of learning on the job, others are incompetent or seem to be pursuing private … interests.” High-ranking Turkish officials have informed the American Embassy in Ankara that they are appalled by the Prime Minister’s staff. Erdogan reportedly appointed as his undersecretary a man exhibiting “incompetence, prejudices and ignorance.” The Women’s Minister Nimet Cubukcu, an advocate of criminalizing adultery, obtained her position because she happened to be a friend of the Prime Minister’s wife. Another minister is accused of “nepotism, links to heroin smuggling, and a predilection for underage girls.”

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, highly-praised by U.S. officials in public, also comes under private scrutiny and criticism. According to confidential American Embassy cables, Davutoglu “understands little about politics outside of Ankara.” In fact, U.S. diplomats are alarmed “by his imperialistic tone … and his neo-Ottoman vision.” In a January 2010 dispatch, the American Ambassador reported that Turkey has “Rolls Royce ambitions but Rover resources.” Former Defense Minister Mehmet Gonul was also critical of the Foreign Minister, warning American officials about his “Islamist influence on Erdogan,” and calling him “exceptionally dangerous.”

Having spoiled Erdogan through lavish public praise, despite privately acknowledging his character flaws, U.S. officials must now assume full responsibility for the Prime Minister’s reckless behavior at home and abroad!

Some may have expected that the recent mass protests and unrest in Turkey would preoccupy its leaders with internal problems, distracting them from other important developments, such as Armenian Genocide issues. Regrettably, this has not happened.

As tens of thousands of demonstrators angrily protested throughout Turkey, expressing their dissatisfaction with Erdogan’s dictatorial rule, foreign ministry officials continued to pursue their routine denialist tasks, countering any and all efforts by other states to reaffirm the reality of the Armenian Genocide.

There were three such instances of Turkish reaction in recent weeks:

1) The Turkish government reacted harshly when Pope Francis acknowledged the Armenian Genocide, calling it “the first genocide of the 20th century.” The Pontiff was speaking during the June 3 visit to the Vatican of a delegation of Armenian Catholics. Although Pope Francis had made similar remarks in the past while serving as a Cardinal in Argentina, this is the first time he referred to the Armenian Genocide since his recent papal election.

The Turkish foreign ministry was quick to lodge a formal protest to the Vatican, expressing its “disappointment” at the Pope’s statement. Vatican’s Ambassador in Ankara was promptly summoned to the foreign ministry and told that the Pontiff’s remarks were “absolutely unacceptable” and could harm bilateral relations. An unnamed Turkish official even suggested that the Pope’s upcoming visit to Turkey might be in jeopardy after his remarks on the Armenian Genocide!

Rather than backing down, the Vatican made matters worse for Turkey by announcing that Pope Francis planned to visit Armenia on April 24, 2015, to perform a requiem service at the Centennial commemoration of the Armenian Genocide.

In view of the denialist mindset of Turkish officials, it is understandable that they would be displeased with the Pope’s factually candid and morally uplifting statement. After all, the Pontiff is not only the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, but also a head of state. Yet, there was no need for the Turkish foreign ministry to get so agitated, since the Vatican had recognized the Armenian Genocide twice in 2000 and 2001.

Turkish officials don’t seem to realize that by overreacting to acknowledgments of the Armenian Genocide, they are inadvertently promoting the very cause they are trying to undermine! Indeed, the Turkish condemnation of Pope Francis’ statement on the Armenian Genocide was reported by the media worldwide, helping to further publicize the facts of the Armenian Genocide. Ankara’s real intent in slamming anyone around the world who dares to speak out on the Armenian Genocide is to discourage all others from issuing similar statements, particularly in view of the upcoming Centennial in 2015.

2) The Greek Parliament also angered the Turkish authorities earlier this month when the ruling New Democracy Party, lifting a page from the French legislature, introduced a bill to punish xenophobia and denial or distortion of genocides recognized by Greece, such as the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. Violators of the proposed law would face up to three years of imprisonment and a fine of 5,000 to 20,000 euros. The Greek Parliament recognized the Armenian Genocide in 1996. Even though there has not been any public statements by Turkish officials against the newly introduced resolution, it is almost certain that pressure is being applied through Turkey’s ambassador in Athens and other diplomatic channels.

3) Ukrainian Parliament members Arsen Avakov of the opposition Batkivshchina ‘Fatherland’ Party, and Vilen Shatvoryan and Nver Mkhitaryan of the ruling Party of Regions introduced a resolution on June 6 for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Azernews reported that Azerbaijanis living in Ukraine protested outside the Parliament against this resolution. Also, a letter signed by several Azerbaijani organizations in Ukraine was sent to President Victor Yanukovych, claiming that the resolution is “of serious concern to the Turkic-speaking people of Ukraine, especially Azerbaijanis… and a serious blow to Azerbaijan and Turkey.” According to well-informed sources in Ukraine, the Turkish government is behind the Azeri protests, including the strong reaction from Mustafa Dzhemilev, Chairman of the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatars and a member of the Ukrainian Parliament.

Despite the persistence of domestic instability, Turkish officials have continued to project their denialist policies around the globe, interfering with the internal affairs of other states. One would hope that the international community would reject the Erdogan regime’s pompous and arrogant attitude, as it is being rejected at home by large segments of the Turkish population.

The Armenian Defense Ministry is considering sending two platoons of troops to southern Lebanon. Ministry officials are traveling to Rome this week to discuss the structure, deployment site, number of troops, and needed supplies with their Italian counterparts who are in charge of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

This is a positive development since 2006 when Pres. Kocharian’s government refrained from joining dozens of countries that had agreed to take part in UN’s peacekeeping mission after Israel’s war with Lebanon. At that time, former Pres. Kocharian’s spokesman told Mediamax that the Armenian government refused to contribute troops because of UNIFIL’s unclear mandate and that any clashes involving Armenian soldiers could endanger the Armenian community in Lebanon. Pres. Kocharian staunchly defended his position on this matter during a private conversation I had with him in 2006.

The Turkish government, on the other hand, was quick to recognize the benefits of sending troops to Lebanon, as part of its effort to establish a military footprint, expand its political and economic influence in the Arab world, gather valuable intelligence, and counteract the Armenian influence in Lebanese affairs. Consequently, Turkish troops entered Lebanon for the first time since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire almost a century ago. Currently, UNIFIL consists of 11,000 troops from 37 countries, including 495 from Turkey. Armenia sent just one officer to southern Lebanon last year on an observer mission. Meanwhile over 130 Armenian soldiers have been serving in Afghanistan and 35 in Kosovo for several years, and until recently in Iraq.

The Armenian government did not fully explain last week as to why is it now interested in sending a peacekeeping force to Lebanon, after former Pres. Kocharian’s refusal to do so seven years ago. In my view, there are five good reasons why Armenia should contribute troops to UNIFIL:

1) The presence of Armenian soldiers on Lebanese soil would generate great pride among the large Armenian community in that country.

2) The Armenian contingent would serve to balance in a small way the pro-Turkish propaganda resulting from a much larger Turkish military deployment in southern Lebanon since 2006.

3) The Armenian troops would be the only ones from the South Caucasus, as neither Azerbaijan nor Georgia has contributed troops to Lebanon.

4) Even though there is an element of risk in sending troops to police southern Lebanon which borders Israel and Syria, this is a far less dangerous mission than Afghanistan where over 130 Armenian soldiers have been serving for a number of years.

5) As in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo, Armenian troops would gain valuable military experience by serving along with contingents from dozens of other countries.

The Armenian Defense Ministry also announced that it might send peacekeeping troops to Mali in Africa, where a series of bloody confrontations have been unfolding. In these clashes, Al-Qaeda-linked Islamist fighters have been battling Malian, French and African forces. A civil war is also raging between separatist Tuareg tribes and Malian troops. The situation is so precarious that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon issued a report last week warning that peacekeeping troops may face grave risks in and around Mali.

Under such dangerous conditions, it would be unwise for Armenian troops to be dispatched to Mali. The responsibility for the security of Mali is primarily assumed by troops from African countries with logistical support from the French military. Armenia cannot afford to risk the lives of its soldiers unnecessarily, keeping in mind its own security priorities at home due to the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict.

Having a limited number of Armenian troops serving in less dangerous locations may be a good idea in order to gain military training and diplomatic visibility, but dispatching large numbers of soldiers to multiple theaters of conflict and placing them in perilous situations would be most imprudent, given the small size of the Armenian military.

Although Armenia’s participation in UNIFIL is subject to parliamentary approval, little opposition is expected in view of the ruling party’s overwhelming majority. The Armenian government should seek the Parliament’s consent to dispatch peacekeeping troops to southern Lebanon only. There are many sensible reasons for stationing Armenian units in Lebanon, but not in Mali!

As the Centennial approaches, Turkish officials and their cohorts are searching for more subtle approaches to deny the Armenian Genocide. Realizing that their past practice of outright denial is no longer credible, they have initiated a more sophisticated campaign that intends to raise subtle questions about the Armenian Genocide, sowing seeds of doubt among uninformed masses.

It is not very often that I refer to book reviews in this column, but I could not ignore the masterful way Dr. Israel Charny, Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, dismantles Prof. Michael Gunter’s book, Armenian History and the Question of Genocide, which illustrates the latest revisionist approach at genocide denial.

Here are brief excerpts from Dr. Charny’s derisive review of Gunter’s book:

“This is the BEST book I have ever read — which means it is the best of the whole terrible world of books that are devoted to ridiculous and ugly denials of absolutely factual known genocides. It is, therefore, a TERRIBLE work…. This is the best DENIALIST work I have ever seen insofar as it is written with a quietness, and solidity of coverage of issues, and even more as if with an apparent fairness of representing ranges of ideas and opinions about issues rather than strong-arm statements of single opinion-truths.

“Gunter, a professor at Tennessee Tech, opens the book with a clear acknowledgment-disclosure of his significant period of lecturing in Turkey, and even as he says ‘I have long wanted to present an objective analysis of the Turkish point of view,’ he clearly conveys that he is very much on the side of Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide….

“Gunter is nonetheless a kind denier who continuously throws us bones for our respite — and thereby of course it would seem proves and reproves his announced objectivity. Thus in the same poisonous ‘Foreword’ he quickly adds to his core statement of denial crocodile tears: ‘Of course in no way does this excuse the horrible excesses committed by the Turks.’

“Perhaps the highest praise I can give Gunter is that unlike other great deniers he cites a large number of scholars and writers, who have published the now wonderfully strong literature confirming the Armenian Genocide — and I would add genocides of other peoples alongside the Armenians, specifically the Assyrians, Greeks, and Yezidis, and also the beginning moves of the Ottoman government toward a potential genocide of the Jews in Palestine. Deniers generally stay away like the plague from writers who confirm the Armenian Genocide….

“How does our intrepid ‘objective’ scholar conclude his book? Of course, he wants to be helpful in curbing the denial that fuels ‘continuing fear and revenge.’ So he offers strategies beginning with splitting the ‘more affluent Armenian Diaspora’ that is so concerned with ‘allegations of genocide’ from ‘the nation in Armenia’ and the ‘immediate economic reality of Armenia.’ Yes, he wants to be large-hearted and he calls on Turkey to help Armenia with its economic problems, and thus in eternal realpolitik ‘Turkey may begin to split the two Armenian actors.’ But all is not lost in deception. Goodhearted Gunter also includes a proposal to Turkey to open the borders it has lockjammed with Armenia for so many years.”

Charny concludes his incisive review by suggesting that Gunter’s book “should be studied by all students of denial for its artful stratagems of sounding fair, acting fairly, citing scholarship that covers divergent and contradictory points of view, speaking consistently softly, and of course calling for justice and peace, all in the course of organizing a disarming, deceitful, anti-history and anti-value-of-life work that should frighten anybody who is concerned with integrity in intellectual and scholarly works, and genuine valuing of human life.”

Taking one last jab at Gunter’s insidious denialism, Charny gives him a parting underhanded praise: “Once upon a time, deniers were so wild and obvious buffoons that they claimed that the Ottoman Turkish government protected and took care of the poor Armenian exiles in their forced march out of Armenia…. Now increasingly we have a whole series of recognized academicians who write in our contemporary language of scholarship and make their points in the name of open discussion and fairness. Gunter can be congratulated that he has risen to the top of this group….”