Category: Harut Sassounian

 

 

 

Money may help solve some problems, but does not solve them all. And sometimes it backfires!

 

Azerbaijan is the perfect example of a filthy rich country using its billions of petrodollars to win over foreign politicians and individuals in all walks of life in an attempt to improve its shoddy image around the world. In fact, the term “caviar diplomacy” was specially coined to describe the “goodies” that Azeri officials regularly and generously distribute to achieve their sinister purposes.

 

For example, Baku paid $5 million to Mexico City to renovate a park on condition that the statue of former President Heydar Aliyev be displayed in that prominent location. After Mexican activists became aware of this unseemly deal, the dictator’s statue was dismantled and unceremoniously dumped in storage.

 

Azeri officials are finding out that not everyone can be bought and there still are some honorable people in this world who cannot be bribed! One such person with impeccable integrity is Peter Savodnik of the New York Times. Earlier this month, the American journalist was invited to Baku by Ibrahim Ibrahimov, an Azeri multi-billionaire, in order to get the New York Times to write a puff piece on his gargantuan construction project.

 

Unimpressed by the excesses of the nouveau riche Azeri oligarch, Savodnik wrote a scathing article ridiculing Ibrahimov’s grotesque vision. Here are brief excerpts from the reporter’s lengthy article:

 

Ibrahimov is planning to build “a sprawling, lobster-shaped development called Khazar Islands — an archipelago of 55 artificial islands in the Caspian Sea with thousands of apartments, at least eight hotels, a Formula One racetrack, a yacht club, an airport and the tallest building on earth, Azerbaijan Tower, which will rise 3,445 feet. When the whole project is complete… 800,000 people will live at Khazar Islands, and there will be hotel rooms for another 200,000. …It will cost about $100 billion.”

 

Savodnik reports that the day before he arrived in Azerbaijan, Ibrahimov’s representative flew to Moscow to hand-deliver a book and DVD on the Khazar Islands project. Once in Baku, the journalist was struck by the oligarch’s lavish lifestyle — “sitting in the back seat of a black Rolls-Royce as it tore across island No. 1 of his soon-to-be built archipelago. Nigar Huseynli, his 23-year-old assistant, was sitting up front in a black and white floral-print skirt, black tights and rectangular black sunglasses. She seemed to be vaguely worried, always. She wore a great deal of perfume that, she said, came from Italy. ‘When he’s in Azerbaijan,’ Huseynli said, ‘Mr. Ibrahimov always drives in his black Rolls-Royce. In Dubai, he has a red one.’”

 

Sporting “blue Stefano Ricci crocodile-skin shoes that matched his blue Stefano Ricci jeans, blue Zilli jacket and blue Zilli button-down shirt,” Ibrahimov told Savodnik that the Azerbaijan Tower would definitely be in Guinness World Records. If the Saudis or Emiratis or anyone anywhere tried to build a bigger building, Ibrahimov said he would then build an even bigger one!

 

Savodnik writes that the Azeri oligarch described Pres. Ilham Aliyev, the Boss of All Bosses, as “a great supporter, an ally, the son of the savior of the people of Azerbaijan.” When the NY Times reporter asked Ibrahimov “about other features of his regime: the lack of transparency, the lack of civil liberties, the detention of opposition activists,” his response was typical of all oligarchs: “I don’t know anything about politics.”

 

The American journalist boldly slammed both Ibrahimov and his country: Azerbaijan “builds nothing that the rest of the world wants and has no internationally recognized universities. It does, however, have oil.” In a follow up article, Savodnik concluded: “Underneath all the glass and steel and neon lights, it [Azerbaijan] is still an authoritarian state.”

 

This is not the first time The New York Times has published an exposé of Azerbaijan. In an October 27, 2003 editorial, the newspaper wrote: “Ilham Aliyev, businessman, playboy and novice politician, received a nice gift from his father — the country of Azerbaijan. Heydar Aliyev had ruled Azerbaijan almost continuously for 34 years, first as an agent of the Soviet Politburo and then as an autocrat in his own right. When he became too ill to continue, he anointed his son to run for president in his place. Ilham Aliyev ran a rigged campaign, using all the powers of the state, and then celebrated his victory by arresting most of the opposition.”

 

The New York Times concluded its scathing editorial by urging the United States to keep Pres. Aliyev “at arm’s length and avoid repeating the unfortunate history of supporting autocrats who sit atop oil riches.” Regrettably, this warning went unheeded by successive US administrations.

 

 

 

 

Pres. Serzh Sargsyan’s comments generated much controversy last week when he reportedly stated at a campaign stop in Yerevan on Feb. 5 that ‘tseghasbanoutyoun’ (genocide) and ‘yeghern’ (atrocity) are synonymous. He asserted that Pres. Obama, without uttering the word ‘genocide,’ had said “everything.” The Armenian head of state was referring to Pres. Obama’s use of the term ‘Meds Yeghern’ (Great Atrocity) rather than ‘Armenian Genocide’ in his annual April 24 commemorative statements.

The words Yeghern or Meds Yeghern were used by Armenians mostly before Raphael Lemkin coined the term genocide in 1943 to describe the organized mass killings of Armenians during the 1915-23 period. Before 1943, Armenians used various expressions to refer to those killings, such as ‘chart’ (massacre), meds vojir (great crime), ‘aghed’ (disaster), ‘deghahanoutyoun’ (deportation), and ‘aksor’ (exile). However, none of these words have the legal connotation of tseghasbanoutyoun or genocide under international law.

Since 1943, Armenians have spent much time and effort to convince the world that they were the victims of genocide and are now seeking justice from Turkey under international law. This is fundamental reason why Armenians demand genocide recognition, not massacres, atrocities or deportations!

The only reason Pres. Obama has used the term Meds Yeghern in his annual statements is to avoid the words Armenian Genocide, in acquiescence to Turkish pressures. If Meds Yeghern and genocide have the same meaning, why doesn’t Pres. Obama use the term genocide instead of Meds Yeghern? After all, presidential candidate Obama did not promise Armenian-American voters that if elected he would recognize the Meds Yeghern; he pledged to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Thus, all who allege that Meds Yeghern and genocide are synonymous are simply giving Pres. Obama a free pass and allowing him not to keep his solemn pledge. They are also undermining several decades of extensive lobbying efforts for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide!

Those who claim equivalence between Meds Yeghern and genocide do it not out of ignorance in Armenian terminology. They know full well that the two words don’t have the same meaning. Their real reason is to declare victory by making people believe that the President of the United States did after all acknowledge the validity of the Armenian Genocide.

There are a couple of fallacies in this approach. First, regardless of what Meds Yeghern means to Armenians, it is a meaningless term to all those who do not speak Armenian. Second, equating Meds Yeghern and genocide in order to claim success on genocide recognition is a futile exercise. It is really unnecessary to twist the meaning of Pres. Obama’s words. The United States recognized the Armenian Genocide as far back as 1951, when the US government submitted an official document to the International Court of Justice (World Court), acknowledging the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide as examples of genocide. Another US President, Ronald Reagan, issued a Presidential Proclamation on April 22, 1981, where he mentioned the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, the House of Representatives acknowledged the Armenian Genocide by adopting two resolutions in 1975 and 1984.

Consequently, there is no longer a pressing need to pursue further acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by passing repeated congressional resolutions or demanding that Pres. Obama utter the words Armenian Genocide. Nor is there a need to reinterpret Pres. Obama’s statements, claiming that by using the term Meds Yeghern he has automatically acknowledged the Armenian Genocide. The only reason Pres. Obama should recognize the Armenian Genocide is to be a man of his word!

It is imperative for Armenians and their supporters to concentrate their efforts on the eve of the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide not on gaining further recognition — an already accomplished fact — but on securing justice for the massive crimes committed against their ancestors a hundred years ago.

Rather than demanding that the United States or even Turkey acknowledge the Genocide, which would not result in any concrete benefit, Armenians should focus their energies on more meaningful steps such as filing lawsuits against the Turkish government in national and international courts.

Once Armenians regain their territories and properties from Turkey through legal action or as a result of unexpected geopolitical developments, the Turkish government can go on denying the Genocide as long as it wants!

 

 

 

 

Some weeks ago, when Sen. John Kerry’s name was first mentioned as a possible successor to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, I cautioned Armenians not to get overly excited just because “a good friend” of the Armenian community could assume such an influential post.

 

Unfortunately, it did not take long to discover that my words of caution were fully justified. Despite his 30-year-record of support for Armenian issues, Sen. Kerry proved last week, right before assuming his new position, that even such a close “friend” could reverse his long-held views, disappointing the Armenian-American community.

 

Regrettably, Sen. Kerry turned out to be no different than Pres. Obama, Vice President Biden, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. As US Senators and presidential candidates, they all made lavish promises in seeking the backing of Armenian-American voters, and completely ignored them after assuming office.

 

While some may argue that Armenians should only blame themselves for trusting dishonest politicians, I believe all voters have the right to expect elected officials to keep their promises. Otherwise, lying to the public becomes an acceptable practice with no prospect of replacing deceitful officials with honest ones.

 

Sen. Kerry experienced an overnight transformation last week, when for the first time in his political career, he shied away from using the term “Armenian Genocide.” In the past, Sen. Kerry had strongly criticized Presidents and Secretaries of State for not acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. Ironically, he now refuses to practice what he preached for so many years!

 

Sen. Kerry proved that he is not the man he used to be, when responding to written questions on Armenian issues submitted by Senators Robert Menendez (Dem.-NJ) and Barbara Boxer (Dem.-CA), after his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

 

When asked for his views on the Armenian Genocide, Sen. Kerry shamefully repeated the euphemisms used by Pres. Obama in his annual April 24 statements. The nominee for Secretary of State, after using the term “Armenian Genocide” throughout his long Senate career, all of sudden shied away from that term and employed every other word in the English dictionary, except genocide. This is what he stated:

 

“The U.S. government clearly acknowledges and mourns as historical fact that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. These events resulted in one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century, and the United States recognizes that they remain a great source of pain for the people of Armenia and of Armenian descent as they do for all of us who share basic universal values. The President honors the victims every April 24th on Remembrance Day, so that we never forget this dark chapter in history.”

 

In a follow-up question reminding him of his own sponsorship for legislation to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide, Sen. Kerry ducked the issue by insisting that he would “represent the policies of the President and Administration faithfully.”

 

Sen. Kerry’s response to questions on the Armenian-Turkish Protocols were just as disappointing. He insisted that he would continue to support the failed efforts of Pres. Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, pressuring Armenia and Turkey to ratify the Protocols. Four years ago, in a private meeting, I explained to Sen. Kerry, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, why the Armenia-Turkey Protocols were doomed to failure and were contrary to Armenia’s national interests. Back then, the Senator seemed to find my arguments convincing. He has now reverted to supporting the Obama administration’s position on the Protocols which Turkey, under pressure from Azerbaijan, has fortunately refusing to ratify.

 

In response to another written question, Sen. Kerry indicated that he might be willing to meet with the leadership of Armenian-American organizations, something Secretary Clinton and Pres. Obama have refused to do in the last four years. Such a meeting would provide the opportunity to explain to Secretary Kerry why the Obama administration is wasting its time trying to push Turkey to ratify the Protocols. Turkish leaders have made it clear that they would not finalize the Protocols, unless Armenians make territorial concessions to Azerbaijan on Artsakh.

 

While Armenian-Americans may not be pleased with Sen. Kerry’s sudden change of heart on Armenian issues, regardless of the reasons, they have no choice but to meet and work with the Secretary of State who is in office today. Armenians’ only wish is that periodically they will be able to interact with the REAL John Kerry whom they knew and loved for the past 30 years!

 

 

 

It is no secret that Armenian communities around the world are busy planning scores of projects for the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide on April 24, 2015.

 

It is also no secret that the Turkish government and its agents are closely monitoring all announced Armenian plans, so Ankara could prepare its counter-moves to the anticipated Armenian “Tsunami.”

 

By publicizing their plans more than two years before the centennial, Armenians would be providing Turkish denialists valuable intelligence and sufficient lead-time to figure out how best to disrupt Armenian commemorative activities.

 

Armenians must realize that succeeding Turkish governments have had a long history of genocide denial. In fact, the crime of genocide and its cover up were designed simultaneously almost a century ago by the Young Turk regime. Furthermore, As a powerful state, Turkey is eager and willing to use its considerable resources to counter Armenian political initiatives around the globe. Ankara routinely pressures, threatens, and even blackmails all individuals, organizations, and states that acknowledge the facts of the Armenian Genocide.

 

A small example of such ominous developments occurred recently when a production team announced plans to make a major movie on the Armenian Genocide, based on Micheline Aharonian Marcom’s novel, “Three Apples Fell from Heaven.” Sona Tatoyan, the film’s producer, gave an interview to a Turkish newspaper while visiting Istanbul last month, probably unaware that the Turkish media is notorious for distorting Armenian Genocide related topics. Ms. Tatoyan was fortunate that she was interviewed by Radikal, one of Turkey’s more reputable newspapers, known for its liberal views on the Armenian Genocide. Even then, there were some minor distortions in Radikal’s report. What made matters worse was the translation of the Tatoyan interview into English by a little known website called Al-Monitor, seriously distorting her views.

 

For example, Ms. Tatoyan’s statement to Radikal, that the bones of genocide victims were protruding from the sands of the Syrian desert in Der Zor and Ras al-Ayn, was misrepresented by Al-Monitor as: “We were crushing skulls and tossing bones.” Worse yet, Al-Monitor falsely quoted Ms. Tatoyan stating: “They [Armenians] should forget the genocide.” In reality, she had said: “Making peace with Anatolia, with Turks, does not mean forgetting the genocide or condoning the politics of denial in Turkey.”

 

Ms. Tatoyan was naturally upset by the distortions of her deeply held convictions on the Armenian Genocide. In a subsequent interview with Asbarez newspaper, she categorically denied having ever told Armenians to forget the genocide. “I have not made such a statement. How could I have? How could I have said anything like that in an interview about a film on the Armenian Genocide I am helping create?”

 

Since Al-Monitor’s article was in English, most non-Turkish speakers read the distorted version of Ms. Tatoyan’s interview, which was widely disseminated on the internet. Many readers were terribly disappointed by what they thought were her views on the Armenian Genocide. This is a serious blow to her efforts because making a major movie is a costly undertaking that requires a huge investment. When potential financial supporters are turned off, it could have a devastating impact on the future of her project.

 

However, Ms. Tatoyan remains deeply committed to her film. She realizes that “during the production of the film, there will be constant attempts to distract us, to take our attention away from our goal of producing a great historical epic film on the Armenian Genocide. The best way to counter such attempts is to stay focused on the film and produce it for the world to see. The film speaks for itself,” she told Asbarez.

 

It is unclear if the distortions of Ms. Tatoyan’s interview resulted from poor translation or intentionally done to undermine a major movie on the Armenian Genocide. Nevertheless, between now and April 24, 2015, Armenians could encounter a multitude of sinister Turkish schemes to quash Armenian initiatives aiming to demand justice from Turkey.

 

Armenians should be alert and circumspect in publicizing their plans for the 100^th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. Very few details should be disclosed to the public during the planning stages of special events and projects. The Turkish government should be prevented from learning about planned Armenian activities as much as possible in order to deny Ankara advance knowledge and time to counter and undermine Armenian righteous demands on the centennial of one of the 20^th century’s most heinous crimes against humanity!

 

 

 

The Turkish government has recently embarked on an aggressive campaign, pressuring a large number of European and American museums to return antiquities that were taken out of the country during Ottoman times.

 

While it is understandable that nations would want to recover ancient relics that were part of their patrimony, in the Turkish case there are certain anomalies that merit closer scrutiny.

 

If these valuable relics were taken out of Turkey in recent times without proper authorization, one could argue that the Turkish government is perhaps entitled to them, even though they emanate from ancient civilizations that predate the conquest of that part of the world by Ottoman Turks.

 

It is ironic that the country claiming these antiquities is one of the history’s biggest looters and pilferers of other nations’ cultural heritage such as churches, monasteries, monuments, and schools belonging to Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. One must have clean hands before having the audacity of accusing others of theft.

 

Most shocking of all, the Turkish government is preparing a lawsuit against the British Museum in the European Court of Human Rights based on Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights which states: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.”

 

According to an article by Ceylan Yeginsu in the International Business Times (IBT), using human rights laws to recover antiquities is a novel concept never before used by any country. It is incredible that one of the biggest violators of human rights in the world is getting ready to sue the British Museum ostensibly for violating the rights of Turkish citizens.

 

Turkey is planning to file this lawsuit on January 30 to reclaim the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, “one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world.” The British Museum, however, argues that it had not misappropriated this ancient relic. Olivia Rickman, press and PR manager of the Museum, told IBT that the sculptures from the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus in the Museum’s collection were acquired in 1846, 1857 and 1859. Rickman further states that “these pieces were acquired during the course of two British initiatives, both with firmans [legal permits issued by the Ottoman authorities] that granted permission for the excavation of the site and removal of the material from the site (1857 and 1859) and Bodrum Castle (1846) to the British Museum.”

 

IBT quoted Charlotte Woodhead, an expert in cultural heritage law at the University of Warwick in England, stating that she was not aware of human rights legislation ever being used before to reclaim such objects. “If a claim is brought before the European Court of Human Rights, it will be interesting to see on what basis it is argued and also to see what the outcome is,” Woodhead stated.

 

Turkey has also used an Ottoman law banning the export of artifacts in order to claim ownership of ancient artifacts from major museums around the globe, such as the Louvre in Paris, the Getty in Los Angeles, New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Cleveland Museum of Art, and Harvard’s Dumbarton Oaks. If Turkey can claim Ottoman-era assets, then it must be held responsible for Ottoman-era liabilities such as plunder, territorial conquest, and genocide!

 

By filing such questionable lawsuits, Turkey’s real intent is to intimidate foreign museums into returning the claimed artifacts. If the museums do not cave in to Turkish pressure and refuse to turn over these items, it would be interesting to see if the Turkish government would still go ahead with its threatened lawsuits. The big risk for Turkey is that if the courts reject its claims, no museum would ever agree to return any of the demanded antiquities.

 

However, should a foreign museum wish to return an ancient relic to Turkey, it should make it conditional on the Turkish government officially identifying the true origin of the object, such as Hittite, Roman, Greek, Armenian or Assyrian. This is necessitated by the fact that Turkey has omitted all references to the origin of ancient Armenian churches and monuments from inscriptions presently affixed to the entrance of these sites.

 

Turkish efforts to reclaim antiquities from the world’s great museums provide a unique opportunity for Armenians to publicize the Turkey’s misuse and outright destruction of thousands of Armenian churches, monasteries, schools, cemeteries and castles.

 

Armenians should petition the European Court of Human Rights, objecting to the return of any artifacts to Turkey, unless its government makes a legally binding pledge to preserve and identify all remaining Armenian monuments on its territory. The next step would be to demand that Turkey return the more than 2,000 churches to the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most political observers predict a contentious hearing in the Armed Services Committee and later in the full Senate on the confirmation of former Sen. Chuck Hagel, Pres. Obama’s nominee as the next Secretary of Defense.

 

During his 12 years in the Senate, Hagel, a Republican, managed to offend a slew of constituencies, including conservative Senators of his own political party, as well as Jewish Americans, Armenian-Americans, Cuban-Americans, and gays.

In order to appease his critics and secure Senate’s confirmation, Sen. Hagel has been busy in recent days issuing retractions and apologies to various groups.

 

Upon learning of Hagel’s nomination, Jewish-American organizations harshly criticized him for being soft on Iran and hard on Israel, and for stating that “the Jewish lobby” in the United States “intimidates a lot of people.”

 

Sen. Hagel responded by telling The Lincoln Journal Star on January 7 that his record demonstrates “unequivocal, total support for Israel” and endorsement of tough economic sanctions against Iran. There is “not one shred of evidence that I’m anti-Israeli, not one [Senate] vote that matters hurt Israel,” Hagel told the newspaper.

 

The nominee also backed down from his opposition to ambassadorial nominee James Hormel in 1998 whom he had called “openly, aggressively gay.” He issued an apology last week to gay rights groups, stating that his earlier comments were “insensitive.”

 

However, the nominee for Defense Secretary remains unapologetic regarding his highly insensitive remarks on the Armenian Genocide.

 

During a press conference in Yerevan on June 2, 2005, Sen. Hagel expressed his opposition to a pending congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide: “Historians and others should deal with it. But, I don’t think that the United States Government should become involved in the issue based on a resolution or any other way. What happened in 1915, happened in 1915. As one United States Senator, I think the better way to deal with this is to leave it open to historians and others to decide what happened and why.” This happens to be the exact position of the denialist Turkish regime on the Armenian Genocide.

Sen. Hagel went on to tell Armenian journalists: “The fact is that this region needs to move forward. We need to find a lasting peace between Turkey and Armenia and the other nations of this region. I am not sure that by going back and dealing with that in some way that causes one side or the other to be put in difficult spot, helps move the peace process forward.” These comments were simply intended to cover-up the Turkish crime of genocide.

 

Sen. Hagel’s pronouncements against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide are highlighted by his expressions of admiration for Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic, who continued the genocide initiated by the predecessor regime. It is not surprising that the Ataturk Society of America presented Sen. Hagel, the Ataturk Society’s Leadership Award on May 19, 2005, two weeks before going to Armenia and endorsing the Turkish government’s views on the Armenian Genocide.

 

Hurriyet newspaper quoted Sen. Hagel as making the following highly laudatory statement about the Father of modern Turkey in a 2008 speech: “Ataturk is one of the most valuable leaders of the 21^st century. Children in the United States know nothing about this great leader. They should teach about him in schools and write about him in history books. Ataturk played a leading role in shaping today’s world.”

 

Armenian-Americans and human rights activists, who are deeply concerned about Hagel’s nomination, were quoted in an article by Adam Kredo in Washington Free Beacon titled, “Chuck Hagel has an Armenian Problem.” Here are some of their statements:

 

— “We remain troubled by former Senator Hagel’s acceptance of Ankara’s gag-rule on American honesty about the Armenian Genocide,” ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian stated.

— “We expect a rigorous confirmation process which will also serve as an opportunity for Senator Hagel to forthrightly acknowledge the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide,” stated Bryan Ardouny, Executive Director of the Armenian Assembly of America.

— “On the eve of the Holocaust, Hitler mockingly asked, ‘Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?’ Not Chuck Hagel, apparently,” stated Rafael Medoff, Director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.

— “What Chuck Hagel said in his press conference in Armenia in 2005 regarding the genocide of Armenians by Turks is shameful,” said Walter Reich, former director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “In his forthcoming confirmation hearings, senators should confront him with what he said and should expect him to address it.”

— Hagel’s opposition to U.S. recognition of the Armenian genocide “betrays a shocking lack of moral leadership,” stated Thane Rosenbaum, Fordham University Law Professor.

 

Unless Sen. Hagel apologizes for his “insensitive” remarks on the Armenian Genocide, Armenian-Americans should urge the Senate to block his confirmation.