Category: Authors

Russian elections: why Putin wins

For many Russian citizens who gave their votes for the future presidential candidates on Sunday as well as for most of international audience the result of the Russian elections has come to no surprise. However, the re-election of Vladimir Putin has risen a lot of controversies in the international media. While some experts believe the elections had been fabricated, independent international observers who were monitoring the elections process say exactly the opposite.

Among the new members of the international observation delegation were the representatives from Abkhazia. They shared their fresh and unambiguous impression from the election process. According to Astamur Logua, Abkhazia’s Parliamentary Deputy, the entire election process met the international standards and was perfectly organized. He also added that voters who mostly came with their families and children were very cheerful and friendly while the atmosphere at the voting stations was quite festive. The observers from the Italian “North League” party mentioned that all international observers had been provided with all the necessary facilities required to perform their work including the free access to all the voting stations, non-stop support from the organizers etc.

But what mystifies the international community the most is perhaps the conscious vote for Putin of most of the Russian citizens. Despite the “authoritative” style of the Putin’s policy, as how most of the Western media describe it, many young Russians along with the senior citizens preferred the Putin’s candidacy to a young opposition leader Ksenia Sobchak. Why did it happen? Many Russian people still clearly remember the tough 1990s, when Boris Yeltsin came to the power and proclaimed the change. It was then when many Russian people were left jobless overnight while others got fabulously wealthy. It was also the time when most of financial and trade deals not recorded and the proclaimed legalized government still reminded a sort of anarchy. When Putin came into power things got stabilized. Russian companies and industries started to thrive again while Russian people could afford buying cars, homes and have a better standard of living.

Moreover, the example of Ukraine Revolution and the Arab Spring has taught the Russians a lesson: when it comes to the West’s interference into a sovereign government system and the West’s support of the opposition the outcome might be very disastrous for a single nation. Considering the multiple attempts of the West to destabilize the Russian legislative system including the latest case of Sergey Skripal’s poisoning the support of the Russian opposition could hardly have been massive for the Russians care about their national values, culture and traditions and remember the lessons the history has taught them.

March 21, 2018
How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

The Armenian National Committee of America, San Fernando Valley West chapter, held an all-day conference on March 17 on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Artsakh (Karabagh) liberation struggle. The conference was held at the Ferrahian Armenian High School in Encino, California. The speakers were: historian Garo Moumdjian, Ph.D, California Courier publisher Harut Sassounian, ANCA National Board Member Steven Dadaian, Esq., A.R.F. Western US Central Committee Member Levon Kirakosian, Esq., and A.R.F. Western US Central Committee Member Vache Thomassian, Esq.

Here are excerpts from Harut Sassounian’s remarks at the conference:

The United Nations Security Council adopted four Resolutions during the Artsakh (Karabagh) war in 1993 calling for the withdrawal of Armenian forces, cessation of all hostilities and urging a negotiated settlement of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

These four Resolutions are often cited by the Azerbaijani media which is under the strict control of the government of Azerbaijan. In the past 25 years, the Azeris have repeatedly condemned Armenia for not abiding by these UN Security Council Resolutions, and have made them a part of their continued propaganda war against Armenia.

However, Azerbaijan has distorted the contents and context of these Resolutions, trying to deceive the international public opinion. Azerbaijan itself has not complied with these Resolutions. When one side (Azerbaijan) violates these Resolutions, it cannot accuse the other side (Armenia) of not complying with them.

The UN Security Council is composed of 15 States: Five of them are permanent members who have a veto power (United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, and France) and 10 of them are rotating members. The UN Security Council is charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. UN member states are obligated to carry out the decisions of the Security Council.

It is particularly hypocritical of the Turkish government to blame Armenia for not complying with the four UN Security Council Resolutions, when Turkey itself has violated over 60 UN Security Resolutions adopted since Turkey’s invasion of Northern Cyprus in 1974.

Let us now review each of the four UN Security Council Resolutions which were adopted unanimously by all 15 member states. I have added my comments in bold letters at the end of some of the clauses of these four Resolutions:

Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 822, adopted April 30, 1993:

“Demands the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable cease-fire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan.” Azerbaijan has violated the cease-fire for 25 years on a regular basis by continuously shooting across the borders of Artsakh and Armenia.

“Urges the parties concerned immediately to resume negotiations for the resolution of the conflict within the framework of the peace process of the Minsk Group of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution of the problem.” The Minsk Group of CSCE, subsequently renamed OSCE, is composed of three co-chairs: the United States, France and Russia which are the official mediators to help resolve the Artsakh conflict, not the United Nations Security Council!

“Calls for unimpeded access for international humanitarian relief efforts in the region, in particular in all areas affected by the conflict in order to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population and reaffirms that all parties are bound to comply with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.” Despite this clause, Azerbaijan has tried to undermine the delivery of international humanitarian aid to the people of Artsakh.

Excerpts from UN Security Council Resolution 853, adopted July 29, 1993:

“Expressing once again its grave concern at the displacement of large numbers of civilians in the Azerbaijani Republic and at the serious humanitarian emergency in the region.” The reference to “the serious humanitarian emergency in the region” also applies to Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan.

“Reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Azerbaijani Republic and all other States in the region.” This clause applies to both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

“Reaffirming also the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory.” Artsakh Armenians have the right to self-determination under international law and UN Protocols.

“Reiterates in the context of paragraphs 3 and 4 above its earlier calls for the restoration of economic, transport and energy links in the region.” This clause is violated by Azerbaijan and Turkey by their blockades of Armenia and Artsakh.

“Urges the parties concerned to refrain from any action that will obstruct a peaceful solution to the conflict, and pursue negotiations within the Minsk Group of the CSCE, as well as through direct contact between them, towards a final settlement.” The reference to “the parties concerned” and “direct contact between them,” implies Artsakh’s inclusion in the negotiations, as was the case earlier. Azerbaijan blocked Artsakh’s participation in the negotiations.

“Urges the Government of the Republic of Armenia to continue to exert its influence to achieve compliance by the Armenians of the Nagorny Karabakh region of the Azerbaijani Republic with its resolution 822 (1993) and the present resolution, and the acceptance by this party of the proposal of the Minsk Group of the CSCE.” Armenia coordinates its negotiating position with the government of the Republic of Artsakh. However, Artsakh’s exclusion from the negotiations makes the task of coordination more difficult. Furthermore, Artsakh not being a recognized state and not a member of the UN is under no obligation to comply with any of these Resolutions.

“Urges States to refrain from the supply of any weapons and munitions which might lead to the intensification of the conflict or the continued occupation of territory.” This clause is violated by Turkey, Russia, Israel, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Pakistan, and several others, which have supplied billions of dollars of weaponry to Azerbaijan.

(Continued next week)

March 20, 2018
EU’s bitter lessons

The European Union continues to struggle with its economic and migration crises. The huge debt, obsolete political and economic regulations and inability to manage its migration policy are important alerts for the EU indicating the Brussels’s need to change its compass, says Pino Arlacchi, Member of the European Parliament.

By pursuing the US political course in the Syria war, the EU did not get any visible profit. Instead, it was left alone to cope with the increasing flows of illegal migrants posing safety threats for the EU citizens.

Indeed, The Syrian scenario is very much alike to the one in Afghanistan in 1979. When the Soviet army entered in 1979 trying to set up a friendly government in the country and altering the Cold War balances in the region, The United States, Saudi Arabia, and other countries started arming the anticommunist Afghan militia groups. The country was flooded with weapons while most of those weapons were in hands of Taliban. Shortly after that the US became the number one enemy for Afghanistan, says Arlacchi.

During the Syria war, the US have once again learned the bitter lesson as they did in Afghanistan. However, the Syrian opposition is so diverse and uncontrolled that its arming could have much tragic consequences. This is why the US used Saudi Arabia and Qatar as a sort of a liaison to keep the balance in the region. But we also saw the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Qatar that split the countries apart. Obviously, the strategic alliance of Iran, Russia and Turkey has played a crucial role in the Syria war. All the countries could be able to gain the trust from both people and decision-making powers in the region. At the same time the US along with the EU received little credibility from the Syrian government.

Moreover, the EU is swamped with its internal issues that it faces the risk of splitting apart. Ironically it may be, but with integrity being its main value, The European Union is falling apart today. A huge debt of Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Cyprus and other EU’s members and their inability to repay it explains the attempts of those countries to boycott the Brussels’s regulations.

According to Arlacchi, the world is changing its compass and the EU has to adapt to it. The West is losing its role of the world economic and political dictator due to its huge debt and ineffective policy. Instead, China and Eurasia are on the rise today.

March 18, 2018
International Legal Expert Affirms Artsakh’s Right of Self-Deter mination

A colloquium was held on February 27, 2018, at the European Parliament in Brussels on the legal right of self-determination for Nagorno-Karabagh (Artsakh). It was hosted by European Parliament deputies Michèle Rivasi (Verts/A LE) and Lars Adaktusson (EPP); and co-organized by the Armenian Legal Center for Justice and Human Rights, Tufenkian Foundation, and the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy.

The speakers at the colloquium were: Dr. Alfred de Zayas, a UN Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Dr. Paul Williams, Professor of Law, American University Washington College of Law and co-founder of Public International Law & Policy Group; Dr. Sergey Markedonov, Associate Professor at Russian State University; Armine Aleksanyan, Deputy Foreign Minister of Artsakh Republic; and moderator Giro Manoyan, Board Member of the Armenian Legal Center for Justice and Human Rights.

Prof. Alfred de Zayas started his legal argument by quoting from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which stipulate that “All peoples have the right of self-determination.”

Furthermore, international legal expert de Zayas emphasized that according to the two UN Covenants, “duty bearers of the right of self-determination are all States parties to the Covenants, who are not merely prohibited from interfering with the exercise of the right, but ‘shall promote’ its realization proactively…. They must not only respect the right, but implement it. Moreover in modern international law, self-determination is an erga omnes [towards everyone] commitment stipulated in numerous articles of the UN Charter and in countless Security Council and General Assembly resolutions. The empowerment of peoples to enjoy human rights without discrimination and to exercise a degree of self-government is crucial for national and international stability. Otherwise, a significant potential for conflict remains.”

Significantly, Prof. de Zayas stressed: “Even though self-determination has emerged as a jus cogens [compelling law] right, superior to many other international law principles, including territorial integrity, it is not self-executing.” Among “legitimate claimants to the right of self-determination,” Prof. de Zayas included the Kurds, Sahraouis, Palestinians, Kashmiris, Igbos of Biafra, and Tamils of Sri Lanka. He also mentioned as examples “the Russian-Ukrainian entities of Lugansk and Donetsk, the Republic of Pridnestronia (Transnistria-Moldavia), the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh), Alkhazia, and Southern Ossetia… among peoples that have achieved self-determination through effective separation from State entities with which they had hitherto been associated, but their international status remains inchoate because of the political bickering among the great powers and consequent lack of international recognition.”

Prof. de Zayas added that people seeking self-determination “are entitled to the full protection of the International human rights treaty regime. A solution to the impasse can only be through peaceful negotiation, since the use of armed force against self-determination would violate numerous international treaties, including the UN Charter, the human rights Covenants, and the Geneva Red Cross Conventions.”

“If there is a compelling demand for separation,” de Zayas insisted, “it is most important to avoid the use of force, which would endanger local, regional and international stability and further erode the enjoyment of other human rights.” In addition, “The implementation of self-determination is not exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of the State concerned, but is a legitimate concern of the international community.”

Prof. de Zayas explained that the principal of territorial integrity is only valid in the case of an external attack: “The principle is not intended for internal application, because this would automatically cancel out the jus cogens [compelling law] right of self-determination. Every single exercise of the right of self-determination that results in secession has entailed an adjustment to the territorial integrity of the previous State entity. There are too many precedents to count.”

There should be no discrimination among people who seek self-determination, according to Prof. de Zayas: “The independence of the former Soviet republics and the secession of the peoples of the former Yugoslavia created important precedents for the implementation of self-determination. These precedents cannot be ignored when modern self-determination disputes arise. It is not possible to say yes to the self-determination of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, but then say no to the self-determination of the people of Abkhazia, Southern Ossetia or Nagorno Karabagh. All these peoples have the same human rights and must not be discriminated against. As in the case of the successful claimants, these peoples also unilaterally declared independence. There is no justification whatever to deny them recognition by applying self-determination selectively and making frivolous distinctions that have no base in law or justice.”

For those who juxtapose the principle of territorial integrity to self-determination, Prof. de Zayas countered: “The principle of territorial integrity is not sufficient justification to perpetuate situations of internal conflict that may fester and erupt in civil war, thus threatening regional and international peace and security.”

Finally, Prof. de Zayas suggested that “In order to ensure sustainable internal and external peace in the twenty-first century, the international community must react to early warning signs and establish conflict-prevention mechanisms. Facilitating dialog between peoples and organizing referenda in a timely fashion are tools to ensure the peaceful evolution of national and international relations. Inclusion of all stakeholders must be the rule, not the exception. In conclusion, let us celebrate the implementation of self-determination of peoples as an expression of democracy, as indeed democracy is a form of self-determination.”

March 13, 2018
Terminated Armenia-Turkey Protocols Should be a Lesson for Armenia’s Leaders

Finally, the Armenian President officially declared null and void the infamous Armenia-Turkey Protocols during a meeting of the National Security Council last week. Pres. Sargsyan had made several announcements since 2009, warning that he would remove the Protocols from the Parliament’s agenda unless Turkey ratified them shortly. Pres. Sargsyan’s most recent such warning was made last September during his remarks at the United Nations General Assembly, stating that he would declare the Protocols null and void before the Spring of 2018.

The Protocols were signed by Armenia’s Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on October 10, 2009, in Zurich, Switzerland. Also present at the signing ceremony were the Foreign Ministers of Russia, France, Switzerland, U.S. Secretary of State, and high-ranking officials of the European Union.

The lengthy text of the Protocols called for the opening of the borders between Armenia and Turkey, and establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The Protocols also included many other unrelated matters, such as recognizing the existing Armenian-Turkish border, and the establishment of a historic commission to examine problems between the two countries, meaning the Armenian Genocide.

As a result, there was a worldwide outcry against adoption of the Protocols with protests both in Armenia and many Diasporan communities. Shortly before the signing of the Protocols on October 10, 2009, Pres. Sargsyan embarked on a worldwide tour of major Armenian communities in Paris, New York, Los Angeles,

Beirut, and Rostov-on-Don (Russia) ostensibly to listen to their concerns regarding the Protocols. However, it was clear from his remarks at these meetings that he had made up his mind to go ahead with the Protocols, and the intent of the tour was to persuade Diaspora Armenians to give up their objections. During his visits overseas, Pres. Sargsyan was greeted with angry protests and confrontations making his propaganda tour a failure.

During Pres. Sargsyan’s stop in Los Angeles on October 4, 2009, he met with leaders of 60 Armenian organizations with the overwhelming majority criticizing the pending Protocols, while thousands of Armenians demonstrated outside the hotel where the meeting was taking place.

In my remarks at that meeting, I cautioned Pres. Sargsyan that Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan’s President, by objecting to the Protocols would block their eventual ratification by Turkey. Ironically, such an outcome would mean that Azerbaijan’s President, not Armenian’s President, would be inadvertently defending Armenia’s interests.

It was clear to many Armenians, both inside and outside of Armenia, that Turkey had no intention of opening its mutual border. The Protocols were a Turkish ploy to pressure Armenia to make territorial concessions to Azerbaijan on Karabagh (Artsakh).

In fact, the signing ceremony in 2009 was delayed by several hours when it became known that Turkey’s Foreign Minister, in his remarks, would link the unrelated subject of the Karabagh conflict to the Protocols. Only the last-minute intervention by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton temporarily resolved the dispute and the two sides proceeded to sign the Protocols.

However, in the years following the signing ceremony, the Turkish leaders made repeated statements that they had no intention to ratify the Protocols unless Armenia made concessions on Karabagh. Indeed, Azerbaijan had vigorously protested the signing of the Protocols and warned Turkey not to proceed with ratification. Azerbaijan intended to pressure Armenia to make territorial concessions on Karabagh by keeping Armenia’s borders with Turkey closed.

Armenia’s leaders had allowed major foreign powers to pressure them into making a decision that was contrary to the Armenian people’s interests. As a small state, it is understandable that Armenia could not act like its larger and more powerful Turkish neighbor which repeatedly flaunts the wishes of the international community. Nevertheless, Armenia’s leaders could at least make an effort to keep foreign intervention to a minimum.

Another lesson Armenia’s leaders should learn from the Protocols’ debacle is that before they embark on initiatives that affect Armenian interests worldwide, they should hold serious consultations to make sure that the majority of Armenians in Armenia and the Diaspora are on board with their decisions. Naturally, internal matters affecting those living within Armenia’s borders are their prerogative, however, issues that affect all Armenians, such as the Armenian Genocide, Armenian territorial demands from Turkey, and the final settlement of the Artsakh conflict are major concerns to all Armenians. Long before signing any documents on these subjects, Armenia’s leadership should ensure that most Armenians agree with them. Otherwise, we shall see the repetition of ugly confrontations in Armenia and the Diaspora with Armenian authorities.

I raise these concerns in response to Pres. Sargsyan’s two statements last week:

1) “When we started the negotiation process, we naturally predicted two outcomes — positive or negative.”

2) “If we get proposals tomorrow, or the next day, we will be ready to discuss them.”

Pres. Sargsyan’s statements indicate that Armenia’s leaders have not recognized their mistaken approach to Armenian-Turkish issues. It is not true that Armenia did not lose anything. Turkey manipulated the Protocols to ensure that no foreign country meddled in the Armenian Genocide issue. In fact, Pres. Obama also exploited the Protocols to refrain from using the term Armenian Genocide in his April 24 statement of 2009 and in the subsequent seven years.

Furthermore, Pres. Sargsyan’s statements indicate that Armenia is apt to make the same mistake again. For years, he had been declaring that Armenia is ready to ratify the Protocols the same day that Turkey ratifies them. Fortunately, Turkey never ratified the Protocols, preventing Armenia from taking an action contrary to its own national interests!

March 6, 2018
Pres. Erdogan, a Menace to the World,Should be Stopped Before it ’s Too Late

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has become a major danger to his own nation as well as many others. His actions and statements in recent years should seriously worry his neighbors and the entire world.

The last tyrant ignored by the international community was the genocidal butcher Adolf Hitler who unleashed World War II, invading scores of countries and killing millions of people. Regrettably, Western leaders have tried to appease Erdogan, thereby creating a monster! Strangely, some in the Islamic world treat him with respect, while many Western countries consider Turkey as one of their key allies. To make matters worse, Russia is also trying to win Erdogan over, to distance him from the West and NATO.

A vivid example of Erdogan’s unfit mental state is his recent bizarre public statement posted on the Turkish President’s website, titled: “Turkey is the Standard-Bearer of the Global Fight for Justice.”

No one in their right mind would make such a deceptive statement. Turkey is the last country in the world to be described as “the standard bearer of the global fight for justice.” With hundreds of journalists and tens of thousands of professors, lawyers, judges, and public employees in jail, how can Pres. Erdogan make such a false claim? Besides the current injustices perpetrated on the Turkish people, Erdogan also denies massive past injustices such as the genocide against Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians.

Earlier this month, during a speech at the AK Party’s Eskisehir Provincial Congress, Pres. Erdogan shamelessly announced: “Turkey is also the standard-bearer of the global fight for justice. Turkey is a safe haven for the oppressed and a nightmare for the oppressors.” If Turkey is such a ‘safe haven,’ why so many Turks are trying to escape from the country and seeking asylum in Europe? Why is the Turkish government issuing arrest warrants for the escapees and pressuring European countries to extradite Turkish journalists, intellectuals and human rights activists?

Appointing himself as a world leader, Erdogan has cast a wide net, meddling in the internal affairs of many countries, near and far: “Turkey is the hope for our Crimean brothers and sisters, the oppressed of Turkestan [Turkic people in Central Asia] and our friends from Caucasia, Sarajevo and Africa.” Erdogan goes on to affirm: “If we stumble, Al-Quds [Jerusalem] will fall, Palestine, Rakhine [region in Myanmar] and Somalia will fall.”

Several days after Erdogan’s pompous speech, Turkish opposition journalist Uzay Bulut wrote a critical commentary in The Washington Times, titled: “Turkey’s violence-tinged foreign policy.”

Uzay reminded readers that “the Ottoman Empire’s occupation of vast lands and Islam’s flag of conquest still influence Turkey’s foreign policy, including its invasions and ethnic cleansings.”

The prominent Turkish commentator specifically cited Erdogan’s interventionist policies in Northern Syria (Afrin) and Cyprus. Uzay mentioned that Turkey, having illegally occupied Northern Cyprus since 1974, now threatens what remains of the Republic of Cyprus. Erdogan declared: “Cyprus’ courage will only last ‘until they see our army, our ships and our planes.’” Turkey has ignored dozens of UN Security Council resolutions asking for the withdrawal of its troops from Northern Cyprus.

Erdogan also warned the European companies that are exploring gas fields in Eastern Mediterranean, in the territorial waters of the Republic of Cyprus. Uzay wrote that earlier this month “Turkish warships blocked a rig belonging to the Italian energy firm ENI from reaching Cypriot waters to start exploring for gas.”

Erdogan admitted his expansionist policies drawing parallels between Afrin, Cyprus and the Greek islands of the Aegean which are frequent targets of Turkish threats and demands. Erdogan brazenly declared: “Whatever Afrin is to us, our rights in the Aegean and Cyprus are the same. Do not ever think that the natural gas exploration in the waters of Cyprus and the opportunistic attempts in the Aegean Sea drop off from our radar.”

Going to more extremes, Yigit Bulut, one of Erdogan’s principal advisers, boastfully threatened Greece over the islet of Imia, which Turks call ‘Kardak.’ He warned: “Athens will face the wrath of Turkey worse than that in Afrin. We will break the arms and legs of officials of the [Greek] Prime Minister and any minister who dares to step on the Kardak islet in the Aegean. There is not an armed force in this region that could contend against the Turkish armed forces. So, everyone will know their place. All imperialists will accept that the people in this land are Turks and the nation in this land is Islamic ummah [nation] and they will kiss the hand that they cannot bend.”

Commentator Uzay reported that Erdogan himself threatened Cyprus with yet another military invasion: “Just as we disrupt the plots [in Syria] through Operation Euphrates Shield and Operation Olive Branch, and soon in Manbij and other regions, we can and we will disrupt the plots of those who engage in miscalculations on our southern border. Our warships and air force are keeping an eye on the area in order to intervene in any way whenever required.”

Turkey’s neighbors should be aware that Erdogan is intending to recover the Ottoman territories. He openly threatened: “Those who think that we’ve erased from our hearts the lands from which we withdrew in tears a hundred years ago are wrong.”

At the end of his article, Uzay rightly pointed out that the Western countries are mostly responsible for Erdogan’s out of control behavior: “The global inaction in response to Turkish aggression encourages Mr. Erdogan, the president of a so-called “ally” of the West, to threaten Cyprus with yet another military assault…. What enables him to get away with his intimidating rhetoric and ongoing hostility is the apparent weakness and confusion of the West in the face of violent Turkish supremacism.”

February 27, 2018