Category: Authors

  • Should Pashinyan Go to Baku at Aliyev’s Invitation to Attend an Int’l Conference?

    Should Pashinyan Go to Baku at Aliyev’s Invitation to Attend an Int’l Conference?

    Hikmet Hajiyev, Head of Foreign Policy Department of Pres. Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, announced on July 21 that Armenia was officially invited to the United Nations’ International Conference on Climate Change (COP29) to be held in Baku, Nov. 11-22. Hajiyev said that the invitation was sent by Mukhtar Babayev, Azerbaijan’s Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources, to the Armenian Foreign Ministry. Even though all UN members are automatically invited, Hajiyev made it sound like Azerbaijan was doing a special favor to Armenia by describing the invitation as a “goodwill and inclusive approach in the absence of diplomatic relations between the two countries.” Hajiyev added: “Now is the time for the Armenian authorities to make a decision.”

    Armenian officials have not issued a formal response to the invitation. They have made two evasive comments: The spokeswoman of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said: “such a visit is not planned in the work agenda of the Prime Minister,” and the spokeswoman of the Armenian Foreign Ministry told a journalist: “we will inform you in case the issue is addressed.”

    Baku claims that there will be 70-80,000 tourists visiting Baku on that occasion. Thousands of journalists, delegates of international environmental organizations, high-ranking officials of various governments and dozens of heads of state from around the world are expected to attend the Conference. 198 countries are parties to the Convention on Climate Change.

    On Dec. 7, 2023, the Armenian Prime Minister’s office and the Azerbaijani President’s administration had issued a joint declaration disclosing that in return for Armenia not exercising its veto power on Azerbaijan hosting the Climate conference, Azerbaijan would release 32 Armenian Prisoners of War held in Baku, and Armenia in turn would release two Azeri soldiers who were captured after crossing Armenia’s border and murdering an Armenian citizen. In addition, Azerbaijan agreed to support Armenia’s candidacy to the Eastern Europe Group‘s Bureau of COP29. At the time, I wrote that Pres. Aliyev was so obsessed with holding this prestigious international conference in Baku that Armenia should have insisted that Azerbaijan release all of the Armenian Prisoners of War held in Baku since the 2020 war as well as the eight high-ranking Artsakh officials held since September 2023.

    In recent months, at several international gatherings, Pres. Aliyev has boasted about Azerbaijan hosting the COP29 Conference, attributing that to “the increasing international respect for his country, two and a half month after” its occupation and ethnic cleansing of Artsakh. “Chairing the COP29 and holding this event in Baku is a clear example of the great trust that the international community has in our country. Almost 200 countries unanimously supported our candidacy,” Aliyev bragged.

    Pashinyan will respond to Azerbaijan’s invitation to participate in the COP29 Conference in Baku at a press conference in August, according to the Government Information and Public Relations Department of Armenia.

    Azeri officials have raised the possibility of Pashinyan and Aliyev signing during the November Conference in Baku a preliminary agreement outlining the basic principles of an eventual peace treaty. Hajiyev is touting the idea of “COP Truce,” suspending all hostilities around the world during the conference, similar to the concept of “Olympic Truce” to promote its false image as a peacemaker. At the end of May, Elchin Amirbekov, the Azerbaijani president’s Special Envoy, mentioned that the Conference could be a good opportunity for signing a peace treaty with Armenia.

    During his press conference on May 7, Pashinyan said that Yerevan agrees to sign a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before November. However, the Armenian Foreign Ministry warned on June 19 that “Azerbaijan will do everything possible to abort the process of signing a peace treaty with Armenia in November during the COP29 Summit in Baku in order to unleash a new aggression against the Republic of Armenia.”

    It is not known what Pashinyan will announce in August regarding his possible participation in the Baku Conference in November. However, in my opinion, Pashinyan should avoid falling in the trap set by Aliyev to gain bonus points in front of a worldwide audience at the expense of Armenia by showcasing the attendance of Pashinyan or his representative in the Conference in Baku. This would be a major coup for Aliyev, acting as a peacemaker, while continuing to make regular threats to Armenia and escalating his demands for concessions from Armenia. Furthermore, signing a piece of paper under the guise of a peace treaty will not obstruct Aliyev from any future attacks on Armenia.

    I believe that no Armenian official should consider going to Baku, while Azerbaijan is holding dozens of Armenian Prisoners of War and occupying parts of the Republic of Armenia since 2021. Without Azerbaijan first releasing all of the Armenian prisoners and withdrawing from Armenia, no Armenian official should go to Azerbaijan nor hold any kind of meeting or negotiation with Baku.

    A less desirable alternative would be for Pashinyan or his representative to go to Baku and demand to address the international conference of 196 nations, condemning Azerbaijan’s repeated threats to invade Armenia, castigating its occupation of Artsakh, ethnic cleansing of 120,000 Artsakh Armenians, refusal to allow them to return to their ancestral homeland under international guarantees, not releasing all of the Armenian Prisoners of War, and not withdrawing the Azeri troops from Armenia.

    However, there is a good chance that Azerbaijan may renege on its promise to allow Armenia’s representative to address the conference at the last minute. A much better option for Armenia would be to refuse to attend the conference unless Azerbaijan releases the Armenian Prisoners of War and withdraws its troops from Armenia in advance of the conference.

  • Armenia’s Top Leaders on Vacation: Some Hope They Wouldn’t Come Back

    Armenia’s Top Leaders on Vacation: Some Hope They Wouldn’t Come Back

    Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s office surprisingly announced that he was going on a long vacation from July 15 to August 12. More shockingly, several other officials of Armenia had decided to go on vacation at the same time, leaving the country without its top leadership.

    I would have had no concern if Pashinyan had gone on a one or even two-week long vacation. Everyone needs a break from time to time. But, the top leader of the country going on vacation for almost a month is incredible. I have not heard of the leader of any country in the world having gone on a 29-day vacation.

    Besides the astonishing length of the absence of the Prime Minister from office, I have three other concerns:

    1)    There seems to be no basic understanding that several of the country’s leaders cannot be absent from office at the same time. What if, God forbid, would a war break out or some other serious emergency occur? Normally, when the leader of any country is temporarily absent, his deputy performs his functions — not in Armenia. Several members of the Armenia media reported that the Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan, who is supposed to replace the Prime Minister during his absence, has also gone on vacation for nine days during the same period. Fortunately, there is a second Deputy Prime Minister who will fulfill the duties of Prime Minister. Furthermore, the Speaker of the Parliament, Alen Simonyan, decided to go on vacation for 20 days from July 16 to August 5. He will be replaced by Deputy Speaker Ruben Rubinyan (July 16-22) and Deputy Speaker Hakob Arshakyan (July 23-August 5). Also on vacation are Finance Minister Vahe Hovhannisyan (for 10 days) and Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan (until July 22).

    2)    If the leaders of Switzerland were to be absent from their offices for days, weeks or even months, nothing untoward would happen, since the country is located in a peaceful part of the world. Regrettably, Armenia is located in a precarious region with constant threats from Azerbaijan. Armenia’s leaders have to be constantly on alert and work diligently to solve its myriad problems. Under these circumstances, their going on lengthy and simultaneous vacations is reckless and irresponsible.

    3)    Finally, Pashinyan announced last month that Armenia is ready to sign a peace treaty with Azerbaijan in one month. Why would he then turn around and go on vacation for a month? Shouldn’t he be in his office, if, by a miracle, Pres. Aliyev agreed to sign such a treaty which I believe is not only useless, but also contrary to Armenia’s interests? Aliyev is cleverly stringing along the signing of a peace treaty to extort endless concessions from Armenia!

    Even though the leadership’s wholesale absence entails a major risk for the country, many Armenians are not too concerned. On the contrary, they are happy that the leaders are away from office so they can do less damage to the country’s interests. Some members of the public are hoping that these leaders would remain on permanent vacation and not return to their positions.

    Some of the readers feel that I am too critical of Pashinyan. While it is true that no one is perfect, starting from me, the Prime Minister goes to extensive lengths to make egregious errors and baseless statements which would have been laughable, if they did not have such serious consequences. Hundreds of such examples come to mind. Let us just mention the latest example when the Prime Minister along with his wife attended the UEFA’s Soccer championship game on July 14 in Berlin.

    Pashinyan, obsessed with social media, regularly posts on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, Twitter (X), and YouTube, all of his speeches, meetings, and visits. Unlike other world leaders, he walks around with one or two cell phones in his hand.

    During the soccer match in Berlin, he placed his cell phone in front of him and videotaped, not the match, but his own face, adding a bizarre song to the video by a 31-year-old female American singer known as Tinashe. Wikipedia described the song titled, “Nasty,” as “an understated R&B and rhythmic pop song on which Tinashe ‘rap-sings’ about searching for someone to match her sexual energy, which she alternately calls her ‘freak’ and her ‘nasty’, while also using several double entendres. The song has a ‘robotic’ hook and, in its second verse, she details a sexually charged date night, singing ‘Shotgun, my thighs on the seat, I ain’t got nothin’ underneath, Looks like you’re ’bout to spend the night, Looks like, I’m ’bout to change your life.’”

    Why would the Prime Minister of Armenia add such an inappropriate song to his video that has “Nasty” lyrics, with the word “nasty’ repeated 59 times in the song?

    Surprisingly, Pashinyan’s video along with the song, “Nasty,” was reported by TV channel 5 in Los Angeles. The headline of the segment on TV was: “Pashinyan & wife in Berlin at Euro Soccer Finals, Listening to ‘Nasty’ Song.” The TV channel asked: “What do the 2024 European Championship final, Tinashe and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan have in common?” My answer: Absolutely nothing!

    Channel 5 reported that Pashinyan posted on TikTok a second video showing the victory celebration at the end of the soccer match, once again adding the song “Nasty.” The TV channel stated: “It is not known why he chose the one-time Crescenta Valley High School student’s song as the background music for the two videos. It is also not known how exactly he found the song in the first place.”

    It is almost impossible to explain the Prime Minister’s actions and motives. Maybe, he is looking for a Hollywood gig after he is no longer Prime Minister.

  • A Fresh Example of Armenian Dirty Propaganda

    A Fresh Example of Armenian Dirty Propaganda

    By Azer HASRET

    We in Azerbaijan see and know what does mean Armenian fake propaganda because we face it at the everyday level and usually try to answer in a related manner. But the Armenian propaganda machine uses even any tiny shell to spread lies and fake information about Azerbaijan, Türkiye, and other Turkic countries…

    Now I’m providing an example of the fake propaganda action by Armenians once more.

    On August 1, 2024, there was a regular State Department Press Briefing at the White House. Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson made a brief introduction and afterwards answered the questions of journalists.

    Let’s see a question by a journalist (maybe Armenian, we don’t know):

    Question: “There are Armenian POWs in the jails of Azerbaijan for four years by now, and there are Armenian local politicians from Nagorno-Karabakh again in the prisons of Azerbaijan for nearly one year after Azerbaijan launched another unprovoked attack last fall. According to Freedom House, after Karabakh territory came under Azerbaijani control, Karabakh is the most unfree territory in the world. It’s worse than North Korea. It’s worse than Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan, you name it”.

    This is the first part of the question. The person addressing the question claims that “there are Armenian POWs in the jails of Azerbaijan”.

    Are there any?

    Not of course! Because all POWs captured during the 44-day war of 2020 were returned to Armenia! Thus, Azerbaijan does not have any single Armenian POW at its disposal…

    But why does Armenian propaganda claim that Azerbaijan has the Armenian POWs?

    This is purely for propaganda purposes! Armenians know that they need to bring this issue to the attention of the world in a way where people can think that Azerbaijan is so inhumane and keeps POWs. Of course, many million people around the world do not know the realities in the region. Even most of them don’t know where Armenia is, who Armenians are, and so on. But propaganda works anyway…

    Then this very “journalist” quotes the Freedom House claiming that “Karabakh is the most unfree territory in the world. It’s worse than North Korea. It’s worse than Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan”.

    Are we surprised?

    No!

    Because this very Freedom House is a propaganda tool as well to suppress new emerging democracies. This organization has been known for its pro-Armenian stance for dozens of years! It was and is supporting Armenian separatism while being silent about more than 250 thousand Azerbaijanis forcefully expelled from Armenia and those 750 thousand IDPs forced off from Karabakh by Armenian occupants!

    Just for a reminder, starting from 1988 Armenia expelled all Azerbaijanis from its territory. Hundreds of Azerbaijanis were killed, and their homes were looted by Armenians. This move served as the start of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict back in those years. Then Armenia occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijani lands early in the 1990s and forced out 750 thousand inhabitants! Azerbaijan managed to free its lands from Armenia’s occupation only after 30 years and during this movement, Armenian inhabitants (approximately 70 thousand people) voluntarily left Karabakh while Azerbaijan repeatedly asked them to stay…

    So why the Freedom House is claiming that Karabakh is the most unfree territory? Those 750 thousand Azerbaijanis need to return to Karabakh but can’t because Armenians have wiped off any single home in that territory. That’s why very few people live there and there can’t be any evolution regarding freedoms in that area. The lands freed from Armenian occupation are covered with landmines and even it’s dangerous to walk around.

    Let’s see why and how the Freedom House decided that “Karabakh is worse than North Korea”.

    Maybe because the Freedom House’s Vice President for Policy and Advocacy is Annie Wilcox Boyajian, whose husband is an Armenian for example?..

    This was the first part of the question of blackmailing Azerbaijan. But a “journalist” continues further with his attempt to blackmail Azerbaijan. Let’s see the second part of the question.

    Question: “So the question is whether you follow this situation with the collapse of liberties and civil society in Nagorno-Karabakh, if you have any comments on this, and is there anything that this administration can do to help the detained Armenians in – that are jailed in Azerbaijan, whether to – you can help them to release – to be released or assist in any other form? Thank you”.

    “Liberties and civil society in Nagorno-Karabakh”? Isn’t this a bit strange? Who can speak about the liberties and civil society in any territory that was under the occupation of a foreign country? In our case, we speak about the Azerbaijani Karabakh region which was under Armenia’s occupation for about 30 years and thus there couldn’t be any sign of liberties and civil society. But this Armenian propaganda mouthpiece claims that “liberties and civil society collapsed” in Karabakh…

    What is good, Vedant Patel’s answer was quite accurate, and the terms used were selected very carefully. Let’s see.

    MR PATEL: “So, on the context of the broader situation in the South Caucasus, this is something that the Secretary and the department continue to be deeply engaged on. I don’t have any updates for you as it relates to that process. And look, when it comes to detainees, we have been clear and consistent that any country needs to treat all detainees humanely, with dignity, and in accordance with international law, and needs to respect detainees’ human rights, and that continues to be true in this case as well”.

    No single word about the so-called POWs! And no mention of Azerbaijan!

    The State Department and the US Administration know quite well what is what in the South Caucasus!

    And now let’s be clear with those detainees to whom Vedant Patel is paying attention. Yes, Azerbaijan has Armenian detainees. But they are not the citizens of Armenia (except one) and none of them was captured during the war actions. All of them are tried for being a part of an organized crime against civilians which caused the killing of hundreds of people. At the same time, they are citizens of Azerbaijan of Armenian origin, and they need to answer for those killings before the court. This is very simple and understandable, and the US Administration and other major international actors have quite enough information about this…

    Now let’s pay attention to the report by Armenian media which claims that Vedant Patel spoke about “Armenian POWs”.

    The headline at the News.am reads: “Patel: US State Department is deeply engaged on matter of Armenian POWs held by Azerbaijan”.

    Further, the news reads: “On the context of the broader situation in the South Caucasus, the US Secretary of State and the Department continue to be deeply engaged on the matter of Armenian prisoners of war (POWs) being held in Azerbaijan. Vedant Patel, Principal Deputy Spokesperson of the US Department of State, noted about this at Thursday’s Department press briefing”.

    patel

    Did Vedant Patel use the wording like “Armenian prisoners of war (POWs) being held in Azerbaijan”?

    Not of course!

    We have quoted Vedant Patel’s answer to this question in full and as we mentioned above, he was quite accurate in using the terms. But the Armenian fake propaganda machine claims, that Vedant Patel spoke about “Armenian POWs”…

    So, this is a way how Armenian propaganda works. Most people who read Armenian-style “news” usually don’t investigate the origins. It is usual and understandable for all people around the world. Because those not engaged in politics and news-making are not professionals and they used to believe the media. And Armenians use this opportunity for their ugly propaganda…

  • Only 13% of Armenians Support Pashinyan; He Lost His Mandate; New Elections Needed

    Only 13% of Armenians Support Pashinyan; He Lost His Mandate; New Elections Needed

    The Gallup International poll conducted in Armenia on July 3-6, 2024, indicated that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s rating has dropped to 13.4% among potential Armenian voters. When he first came to power six years ago, his rating was around 80%.

    When asked: “How do you evaluate the work of Nikol Pashinyan?”

    — 13.4% of the public said that they find his work “completely positive.” This is 4% higher than two months ago in May.

    — 21.7% evaluated his work in July as “rather positive,” up 3% from May.

    — 40.3% rated his work in July as “generally negative,” 1% lower than May.

    — 14.5% rated him in July as “rather negative,” 4% lower than May.

    — 10.1% of the participants said the question was too “difficult to answer.”

    This means that 35.1% of the public rated Pashinyan in July as “positive” and “rather positive,” up from 27.8% in May, whereas the majority of 54.8% rated him “negatively” and “rather negatively” in July, down from 59.7% in May.

    To the question: “If the parliamentary elections were held next Sunday which party or coalition of parties would you vote for?” Here are their answers:

    1)  14.4% for the ruling Civil Contract party.

    2)  3.7% for the Armenia coalition.

    3)  3.5% for the Democracy, Law and Order party.

    4)  2.3% for I Have Honor coalition.

    5)  1.5% for Bakrat Srpazan.

    6)  1.2% for the Prosperous Armenia party.

    7)  0.6% for the Republic party.

    8)  2% for others.

    9)  8.6% for none of them.

    10)  29.6% refused to answer or had difficulty answering.

    11)  32.5% will not vote at all.

    These numbers provide an important insight into the next election. Pashinyan’s ruling party will only get 14.4%, while the other parties, if they form a coalition, will get 14.8% of the vote. For the opposition parties to become the majority in the next Parliament, they need not only to form a coalition, but also try to get votes from the remaining 70.7% who refused to answer or had difficulty answering or will not be voting.

    Regarding the question: “Is Armenia in general moving in the right or wrong direction?” The respondents answered:

    — 15.2% “completely right.”

    — 10.6% “rather right.”

    — 28.5% “generally wrong.”

    — 23.1% “rather wrong.”

    — 22.5% “have difficulty answering.”

    This means that the majority of 51.6% feel that the country is going in the wrong direction. Only 25.8% feel it is going in the right direction. This does not bode well for Pashinyan and his ruling party.

    To the question, should Armenia change its Constitution as Pres. Aliyev had demanded? The public responded:

    — 80.3% said no in July, more than double the 38.1% in January.

    — 11.7% said in July that certain clauses should be changed. In January, 34.2% had said the same thing.

    — 3.3% said in July that a whole new Constitution is necessary. In January, 13.4% said the same thing.

    — 4.7% could not answer in July. In January, 14.4% could not.

    This is a critical issue, since Pashinyan has agreed with Aliyev to change the Constitution, while 80.3% of the public is opposed to it.

    To the question: “How do you evaluate the movement of “Tavush for the sake of Armenia” initiated by the Primate of Tavush, Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan?” The public said:

    — 18.3% “completely positive” in July, which is substantially down from 35.1% in May.

    — 15.5% “rather positive” in July, slightly lower than the 17.8% in May.

    — 32.4% “generally negative” in July, which is higher than the 23.5% in May.

    — 14.9% “rather negative” in July, a little higher than the 10% in May.

    — 18.9% could not answer in July. In May, 13.6%.

    The answers indicate a declining trend in the Armenian public’s support for the Archbishop’s movement.

    To the question: “According to you, should Armenia become a member of the European Union (EU)?”

    — 34.2% said, “definitely yes.”

    — 22.5% said, “rather yes.”

    — 19.1% said, “definitely no.”

    — 13.7% said, “rather no.”

    — 10.5% said, they “could not answer the question.”

    This indicates that 56.7% are in favor of Armenia joining the EU, while 32.8% are opposed to it. The majority agrees with Pashinyan. I believe, this is an unrealistic wish on the part of the Armenian public and the Prime Minister, as most of Armenia’s economy is linked to Russia and any interruption in that critical link will have a devastating effect on Armenia’s economy. The pro-EU reaction is mostly due to the Armenian public’s major disappointment with Russia for not coming to the rescue of Armenia militarily. Another important issue is whether the EU will allow Armenia to join it. As we know, Turkey has been trying unsuccessfully to join the EU for decades and Georgia has also been trying to join the EU for years. There will be years’ long wait for Armenia.

    A similar question was asked as to “whether Armenia should leave the [Russia-dominated] Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) and start the process of joining the European Union?”

    — 28.8% said, “definitely yes.”

    — 17.3% said, “rather yes.”

    — 21.4% said, “definitely no.”

    — 15.6% said, “rather no.”

    — 16.9% said, they “have difficulty answering the question.”

    This indicates that 46.1% of the public is in favor of leaving the EEU, while 37% are opposed to leaving the EEU.

    The next question: “Whether Armenia should leave the [Russia-affiliated] Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and join NATO?”

    — 44.3% said in July, “Armenia should not be a member of any structure; should be neutral.” 40.3% had given the same answer in February.

    — 16.9% said in July, “Armenia should continue its membership in CSTO.” 28% had given the same answer in February.

    — 29% said in July, “we should aspire to join NATO.” 22.5% had given the same answer in February.

    — 9.8% said in July, they “have difficulty answering the question.” 9.2% had given the same answer in February.

    Not surprisingly, these answers indicate a declining trend in the Armenian public’s interest in being associated with anything related to Russia and an increasing interest in the West. However, wanting to join NATO is an unrealistic wish.

    This latest poll indicates the Armenian public’s continued dissatisfaction with Pashinyan and his political party and the public’s interest in a shift away from Russia towards the West.

  • Armenians Want to Enjoy Their Lives, Not Struggle Eternally, Pashinyan Said

    Armenians Want to Enjoy Their Lives, Not Struggle Eternally, Pashinyan Said

    Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan last week continued to advocate for his policy of appeasement towards Azerbaijan, suggesting that Armenians rather enjoy their lives than engage in eternal struggles.

    Addressing the leaders of his political party, Civil Contract, on June 23, Pashinyan rhetorically asked: “Can we perceive the state as a means to make the well-being of and happiness of the people living here possible and not as a springboard, an outpost, for some eternal struggle? …Is the Republic of Armenia an instrument of eternal struggle or is the Republic of Armenia an instrument of living?”

    This is the rosy promise that Pashinyan made to the people to come to power in 2018. He deceived the Armenian public by pledging to bring them peace and higher income. We now see that he brought nothing but death and misery to the nation after sacrificing thousands of soldiers, the entire territory of Artsakh, and parts of the Republic of Armenia. Contradicting his own criticisms of the previous regimes for increasing the national debt, he more than doubled it by borrowing billions of dollars from international financial institutions, thus placing a huge burden on future Armenian generations. 

    Pashinyan’s only accomplishment is creating a luxurious life for his own family by living in a government mansion, being driven in expensive cars, flying around the world in a luxurious government jet, and staying in five-star hotels in various capitals. In contrast, he came to the office on a bicycle six years ago.

    In his June 23 remarks, Pashinyan fabricated two non-existent ‘challenges and threats’ that supposedly face the Armenian nations. He said:

    1) “There are large countries, international big players, who tell us: ‘ …You are not really a living people; you are a suffering people. You have to suffer, you have to migrate, be slaughtered, have to struggle, and through all that, come and beg for salvation from me, and I have to come and save you.’”

    2) Pashinyan said that the second challenge came from “Azerbaijan, especially Azerbaijan, whose words, to put it very briefly, are as follows: ‘You did not let me live for 30 years, I won’t let you live either, and I will take revenge on you.’”

    Pashinyan provided in the above two defeatist statements the best evidence that he is not a competent leader which necessitates his immediate resignation, before he destroys the homeland.

    First of all, no one in the world has said that Armenians must suffer. This is fake news. The only person that Armenians need to be saved from is Pashinyan. If Armenians want to continue their existence as a nation, they must replace Pashinyan as soon as possible with a more capable leader who could defend Armenia’s interests while ensuring the people’s proper living standards. These two goals are not mutually exclusive.

    Secondly, why is Pashinyan acting as if he is the spokesman for Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev? Each time Pashinyan opens his mouth, one has distinct the impression that Aliyev is not sitting in Baku, but in Yerevan on the Armenian Prime Minister’s chair! Azerbaijanis did not suffer for 30 years. They lived perfectly well earning billions of dollars from exporting their oil and gas around the world, building multiple sky scrapers in Baku, and hosting prestigious international events and conferences. Even more astonishingly, since Pashinyan says that Aliyev is intent on seeking revenge from Armenia, why is he then begging Azerbaijan to sign a peace treaty? Will a piece of paper deter Aliyev from his fixation on seeking revenge from Armenia?

    As if these absurd statements were not sufficient, Pashinyan spoke about “the reasons why ‘the opposition movement,’ led by Archbishop Bagrat Galstanyan, ‘has waned.’ Besides using outrageous lies to disparage the high-ranking clergyman, Pashinyan and his cohorts constantly repeat the fake notion that the opposition movement has failed. If the movement had really failed, why does Pashinyan keep talking about it? The truth is that Pashinyan and his followers are seriously worried about the Archbishop’s activities and his numerous followers. The regime’s concern is justified because for the first time in six years, one man has been able to unite the entire opposition field under one umbrella, something no one else has been able to accomplish until now!

    By making such absurd statements, Pashinyan is simply trying to discourage his party members from giving up, like rats leaving a sinking ship. It is no secret that his followers in the Parliament and government are very worried about their jobs and incomes if the opposition succeeds in toppling the government. Furthermore, Pashinyan and his supporters seriously fear that they will be arrested and charged with corruption, abuse of power, violating the laws of the Republic of Armenia, and handing over Artsakh and the territories of the Republic of Armenia to Azerbaijan.

    In recent days, Archbishop Galstanyan started to travel outside of Yerevan to gain supporters in other parts of the country. The Archbishop must form opposition groups in all villages and cities throughout Armenia to expand the movement beyond Yerevan, making it national in scope. The second benefit of spreading the protests throughout the country is to prevent Pashinyan from being able to bring thousands of policemen from all over the country to Yerevan to suppress the opposition protests. If there are simultaneous protests in all regions of Armenia on the same day, the police will be forced to remain in their local areas, thereby making it impossible for them to come to Yerevan in large numbers to attack the protesters.

    Finally, since the opposition movement is also supported by Armenians in the Diaspora, the Archbishop must appoint his movement’s representatives in various countries so it becomes a pan-Armenian worldwide movement rather than being limited to just Yerevan or Armenia.

  • Understanding the Armenian Question

    Understanding the Armenian Question

    Preface

    Overcoming Prejudice and Hatred

    The 1915 relocation was a dreadful operation for the Ottoman Armenians. It is undeniable that they suffered a great disaster with many innocent lives lost on their relocation routes.

    The Armenian genocide lobby claims that the Ottoman government intentionally “marched Armenians to their deaths”, thus committing the first genocide in history, and that the relocation law was only a pretext for the extinction of Armenians. This allegation of genocide does not ring true. It has no historical evidence or legal framework. To term the events of 1915 as genocidze is to detach genocide from its legal definition and to use it for political or religious purposes.

    No one has ever found any dependable documentary evidence to support the claim that the Ottoman government intended to exterminate the Armenians through relocation. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempts to prevent such an outcome, though these were not very successful under the extraordinary conditions of World War I.

    The 1915 relocation law introduced by the Ottoman government was a wartime security strategy and operational measure undertaken for reasons of urgent military necessity. The Ottoman Empire was fighting alongside Germany against Britain, France, and Russia. Armenians saw this as an opportunity to establish their own state and they revolted against the Ottoman Empire, of which they were citizens.

    In Eastern Anatolia, tens of thousands of Armenians, including those under arms in the Ottoman army, fled to join the Russian Caucasian Army. Serving as scouts and advance units, they supported the Russian invaders. In Southern Anatolia, thousands of Armenian volunteers joined French Legion troops and took part in the occupation of numerous Ottoman provinces.

    Those Armenians who stayed behind were also a great threat to the Ottoman war effort and to the lives of the Muslims of Eastern Anatolia. Just before the war, more than 12,000 Armenian males of fighting age had gone to Russia from Eastern Anatolia. There, they were trained in partisan and guerrilla tactics. Immediately after Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire, they returned to Anatolia. Joining with others who had never left Turkey, as well as Armenian deserters from the Ottoman army, they organized guerrilla activities on both sides of the Ottoman frontier. Henry Morgenthau, the American Ambassador in Istanbul, reported to Washington on 25 May 1915 that nobody estimated the Armenian guerrillas to be “less than 10,000, and 25,000 thousand is probably closer to the truth”.

    In the spring of 1915, when the British were at the Dardanelles, the Russians attacking in the east, and another British force apparently advancing on Baghdad, Armenian guerrilla activities had gained momentum all over Anatolia. Military supply and transport routes, and the communication channels of the Ottoman military units were sabotaged. Meanwhile the Armenian militias were attacking helpless Muslim villages in Eastern Anatolia and committing massacres against wholly innocent people. In some localities the entire Muslim population was killed. Armenian guerrillas were supported by Armenian villagers as well as by Armenians in the eastern cities that were home to leaders of their rebellion.

    For the Ottoman leaders, the Armenian uprising was the deadliest of all national security threats. On 14 November 1922, the New York Times reported that a total of 200,000 Caucasian and Ottoman Armenian volunteers fought against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. In response, at approximately the same time that the Armenians seized the City of Van, the Ottoman government ordered that the Armenian population residing in or near war zones be relocated to the southern Ottoman provinces, away from the advancing Russian army. Armenians living away from the front, if reported or suspected to be enemy collaborators, were also relocated.

    Understanding the Armenian Question uluc gurkan

    The Ottoman government took numerous measures for the care, protection and feeding of those subjected to deportation. However, under wartime conditions these measures were not fully implemented and unwanted suffering was not prevented. On the way to the south-eastern provinces, those being relocated were sometimes attacked by tribal gangs committing robbery or taking revenge for massacres of Muslims by Armenian bands, in some cases with the connivance of officials. Thousands of Armenians died in these attacks. The loss was multiplied by disease and famine.

    In reaction, the Ottoman government investigated the crimes that had been committed. Hearings were held across the eastern provinces, followed by court-martials, at which nearly 1,000 gang members and more than 600 civilian officials or military personnel were sentenced to imprisonment and, in some cases, execution for the attacks on or abuse of the Armenians.

    The Ottoman trials of 1915–1917, much before the end of war, unquestionably prove that the Ottoman government did not intend to exterminate Armenians through relocation. The number of Armenians who survived relocation also proves that there was no genocide. The well-known Armenian historian Richard Hovannisian has estimated that about 275,000 Ottoman Armenian refugees survived in post-war Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran. More than 100,000 Ottoman Armenians were in France, the United States, and elsewhere. These were survivors who had been completely in the hands of Ottoman soldiers and officials. Had the Ottomans wanted, they could have killed them all. Yet most of the relocated Armenians survived.

    Detailing the suffering and losses during the relocation, even though they were not caused by genocide, is undoubtedly a humanitarian matter. However, this should be treated without prejudice and hatred while giving due scholarly attention to history and facts. The historical fact is that during World War I the suffering of Armenians was one of the many disasters that faced all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire. Those who lived in Anatolia, including Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, and Jews, suffered and made each other suffer.

    Muslims were the dominant population in the Ottoman lands during World War I. This does not mean, however, that they were not affected by the devastation of this war. As revealed by the reports of some American missionaries, prior to the relocation ruling, Armenians also committed atrocious massacres in the villages they captured, including Van, which they occupied. In addition to the American archives, Russian, French, British, and German national archives are also full of documents recording the suffering inflicted on Muslims by rebel Armenian gangs both before and after the relocation. Moreover, the Greek occupation after World War I was also a period of extreme suffering for Muslims in Anatolia.

    The painful human tragedies of war should be perceived holistically, without any racial and/or religious discrimination. These sufferings should be shared and, when necessary, mourned together. The perception of common suffering can only be realised by understanding the experiences of all Ottoman people, Muslims, and non-Muslims, together.

    However, communicating the suffering in Anatolia during World War I faces two important obstacles today. These stem from the discriminatory and prejudiced approaches of those who try to impose the memory of relocation defined as “genocide”. The first obstacle is that the same sensitivity shown towards the suffering of Christians, especially Armenians, is not shown towards Muslims, Turks, and Kurds. The second is that the one-sided Armenian emphasis on such uffering overrides historical and legal facts and is used to support allegations of “genocide”.

    “Genocide” is a legal concept. The classification of a historical event or a process as “genocide” can only be based on legal rulings, not personal convictions. In other words, the acknowledgement of suffering cannot change the definition of historical and legal facts.

    Furthermore, the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921) which was conducted by the British Attorney General are key to establishing that the alleged Armenian genocide is a farce as it has no historical and judicial basis. The ruling of July 29,1921 corresponds to a “judgement of non-prosecution” which means, “if there is no legal evidence to support the Armenian massacre claims, there is no legal basis to file or bring a lawsuit”. As this ruling constitutes the first step to a court trial, the outcome of the Malta Tribunal is a final judicial decision consistent with the relevant description of 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention. Therefore, absolving the Ottoman Turks that “the “Armenian massacre”, or currently termed “genocide” allegations do not exist.”

    This book aims to cleanse the debate on the “Armenian genocide” of prejudice, positioning it on historical and legal facts, and therefore preventing it from becoming a vicious “hate fight”. This is because prejudice nourishes discriminatory approaches. It damages our will to live together.

    In order to overcome the prejudice surrounding the Armenian genocide and to be freed from the hatred fuelled by this prejudice, historical and legal facts must replace the “subjective-memory records” about the events of 1915, which have been transformed into some kind of “conscience fetishism”.

    Historical and legal facts reveal that life is not black and white, but that there are shades of grey in between. This perspective allows us to see not only that the legitimate reasons for the 1915 relocation do not “justify” Armenian suffering, but also that the suffering inflicted does not eliminate the legitimate reasons for the practice. Historical and legal facts give us the opportunity to meet in this grey zone, which is free from prejudices, is no longer a vicious “hate discourse”, and opens the door to mutual tolerance.

    My primary debt in writing this book is to Bilal Şimşir, a valuable researcher and diplomat who brought the events of the British H.M. Attorney General Office’s prosecution in Malta to Turkey’s agenda and opened his personal archives to me. I would also like to thank Jale (Swailes) Özer, President of the ADD (Atatürk Society UK), who provided me with the missing documents from the British archives.

    My work on this book was made possible by the support of my wife, Nazime Gürkan, and my family. Without their patience and collaboration, it could not have been completed.

    Uluç Gürkan, Ankara 2023