Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • Hastert to Plead Guilty of Sexual Abuse, Yet US Still Covers up Turkish Blackmail

    Hastert to Plead Guilty of Sexual Abuse, Yet US Still Covers up Turkish Blackmail

    This week, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert is expected to plead guilty to the charge of making secret payments to buy the silence of boys he had sexually abused when he was a high school wrestling coach. This plea deal with federal prosecutors would seal his court records, thus hiding from the public the details of the evidence against him.

    Ever since 2005 when former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds exposed corruption at the highest levels of the US government, concerned citizens have been waiting impatiently for law enforcement officials to look into her shocking revelations.

    Given the regrettably long silence by Washington and the mainstream US media, I believe it is time to expose once again the scandalous cover up of the claims that Turkish groups had bribed Speaker Hastert.

    Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, published in The American Conservative last week the sinister details of foreign governments blackmailing Speaker Hastert.

    Edmonds was fired from her FBI position after revealing to her superiors the penetration of US government entities by Turkish agents “who were seeking to influence U.S. foreign policy while sometimes engaging in illegal activity,” according to Giraldi. “The scope of the corruption allegedly involved bribery of senior government officials and congressmen, arranging for export licenses to countries that were embargoed, and the exposure of classified information,” Giraldi wrote.

    In a 2009 deposition, Edmonds explained that Hastert was “one of the primary U.S. persons involved in operations and activities that are not legal, and they’re not for the interest of the United States but for the interest of foreign governments and foreign entities.” She described Hastert’s wrongdoing as: “The acceptance of large sums of bribery in forms of cash or laundered cash and laundering it to make it look legal for his campaigns, and also for his personal use, in order to do certain favors and call certain — call for certain actions, make certain things happen for foreign entities and foreign governments’ interests, Turkish government’s interest and Turkish business entities’ interests.”

    During the deposition, Edmonds was asked: “Did you have reason to believe that Mr. Hastert, for example, killed one of the Armenian genocide resolutions in exchange for money from these Turkish organizations?” She responded: “Yes, I do…. Correct… and not only taking money, but other activities, too, including being blackmailed for various reasons.” After retiring from the House of Representatives, Hastert worked for the Washington firm of Dickstein Shapiro as a registered lobbyist for Turkey.

    Edmonds also revealed during her deposition that Hastert “used the townhouse [in Chicago] that was not his residence for certain not very morally accepted activities. Now, whether that was being used as blackmail I don’t know, but the fact that foreign entities knew about this, in fact, they sometimes participated in some of those not maybe morally well activities in that particular townhouse that was supposed to be an office, not a house, residence, at certain hours, certain days, evenings of the week. So I can’t say if that was used as blackmail or not, but certain activities they would share. They were known.”

    Edmonds told congressional investigators that on FBI phone recordings Turkish individuals boasted of their secret relationship with Hastert. “They discussed giving him tens of thousands of dollars in clandestine payments in exchange for political favors and information. Many of the transcripts involved a suspect at the city’s Turkish Consulate, as well as several members of the American-Turkish Council and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations, business entities that some FBI agents believed served as occasional covers for organized crime. Some calls appeared to be referring to drug shipments and other possible crimes,” Giraldi wrote.

    “Edmonds noted that the phone taps contained repeated references to Hastert’s volte face [change of position] in the fall of 2000 over the campaign to have Congress designate the killings of Armenians in Turkey between 1915 and 1923 a genocide. In August 2000, Speaker Hastert declared that he would support the resolution and send it to the full House for a vote. The resolution, vehemently opposed by the Turks, did indeed pass in the International Relations Committee by a large majority. Then, on October 19, shortly before a full House vote, Hastert withdrew it…. A senior official at the Turkish Consulate indicated in one recorded conversation that the “price for convincing Hastert to withdraw the genocide resolution would be at least $500,000,” Giraldi reported in his article.

    Fifteen years later, the American public is still waiting for the US government to investigate the serious allegations of Turkish bribery and blackmail of Speaker Hastert!

  • Armenians Should Counter Azerbaijan’s Pressure on Israel to Deny the Genocide

    Armenians Should Counter Azerbaijan’s Pressure on Israel to Deny the Genocide

    sassounian3

    ,

    As relations between Israel and Turkey have become increasinly strained in recent years, shifting from strategic alliance to outright hostility, many analysts began to wonder about the Israeli government’s uncharacteristically muted reaction to Turkish Pres. Erdogan’s anti-Semitic diatribes and anti-Israeli actions.
    Under these circumstances, Armenians and their supporters are puzzled by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s continued complicity in the Turkish government’s denial of the Armenian Genocide and the blocking of its recognition by the Knesset (parliament).
    Some Middle East experts offer two explanations of Israel’s puzzling stance:
    1) Despite the apparent bad blood between Israel and Turkey, the two countries continue their covert intelligence sharing and arms trade.
    2) Azerbaijan, Turkey’s junior brother, has taken an aggressive role in pressuring Israel not to recognize the Armenian Genocide by using as leverage its purchase of billions of dollars of advanced Israeli weapons, providing Israel much needed petroleum products, and a base in Baku to infiltrate and spy on Iran with which it has a 400-mile border.
    The Israeli government has become so overly sensitive to Azerbaijan’s diktats that during a recent visit by Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian to Jerusalem, Israel’s Foreign Minister rudely refused to meet with him. Only through a last minute intervention, Mr. Nalbandian managed to meet with the President of Israel.
    An article in the November 1 issue of The Jerusalem Post fully illustrates the extent of Israel’s kowtowing to Azerbaijan. At a time when most Western groups, including the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), refused to monitor Azerbaijan’s Parliamentary elections because of restrictions imposed by Baku, four Israeli Knesset members rushed to Azerbaijan to show their support for Aliyev’s despotic regime!
    The Israeli delegation, led by former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, now chairman of the Israel-Azerbaijan Parliamentary Group, included ex-ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren, Sofa Landver, and Yoel Razbozov.
    The Jerusalem Post reported that Lieberman, as Foreign Minister, “worked to strengthen Israeli ties with Azerbaijan,” and quoted him saying in Baku that it is “an important country and a good friend of Israel…. Even in the time of the Soviet Union, [Azerbaijan] was known to treat its Jewish community well, and there is no anti-Semitism there. We must continue strengthening our relations with Azerbaijan.” Azernews also quoted him telling the Azeri Elections Media Center that Azerbaijan “is an example of democracy, stability, and successful foreign policy.” Most knowledgeable people would dismiss such ridiculous and false statements.
    One wonders why the former Foreign Minister is so anxious to whitewash Azerbaijan’s past and present practices of anti-Semitism? After the four Knesset members return from Baku, they should be asked to disclose the lavish gifts they must have received in appreciation for their rubber stamping of the fraudulent elections in Azerbaijan. Not surprisingly, Aliyev maintained its tight grip on power after his ruling party retained its majority in parliament, while the mainstream opposition boycotted last Sunday’s elections.
    The Jerusalem Post reported that “Azerbaijan is considered the Muslim country friendliest to Israel, and the two countries have close ties and significant trade. Azerbaijan is Israel’s biggest oil provider, and trade between the two countries reaches $5 billion, more than with France. In recent years, Lieberman, then-president Shimon Peres, and Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon visited Baku.”
    In pursuing its arms for oil policy, Israeli officials have conveniently ignored Azerbaijan’s gross violations of human rights, lack of freedom of speech, and jailing of journalists and activists, including Leyla Yunus, head of the Baku-based Institute for Peace and Democracy, and investigative reporter Khadija Ismayilova of Radio Free Europe.
    While it might be somewhat understandable that Israel and Azerbaijan are pursuing their self-interests, no matter how reprehensible the means, Armenia must also pursue its own national interests and counter the actions of any country that jeopardizes its security and questions the Genocide. The Armenian government should make crystal clear to Israeli officials that by selling multi-billion dollar sophisticated weapons to Azerbaijan, they become responsible for putting at risk thousands of Armenian lives. Azerbaijani officials have publicly announced that they intend to use the arms acquired from Israel to attack Nagorno Karabagh (Artsakh) and Armenia.
    Lastly, Armenia should warn Azerbaijan that its unwarranted denials of the Armenian Genocide and pressures on other countries, such as Israel, to join its denialist cause, would further antagonize Armenians, making it impossible for them to accept any concessions on the Artsakh conflict.

  • Top European court’s decision should make Pope Francis blush

    Top European court’s decision should make Pope Francis blush

    By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.

    AVİM, Center for Eurasian Studies

    October 26, 2015

    When Pope Francis, during a Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica on April 12, 2015, pronounced the word “genocide” in reference to the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia a century ago, it was patently clear that he was delving into territory he should not have. It was a meeting where the pontiff and top Armenian clerics and Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan had gathered in what was apparently a show of Christian solidarity.

    By recognizing “Armenian genocide,” and calling the Armenian victims “confessors and martyrs for the name of Christ,” the Pope was asserting an unproven event, revealing his prejudice, or at the vey best, his misjudgment. The recent decision from the Grand Chamber of the prestigious European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a testimony to the Pope’s wrongful and deplorable stance on Armenian allegations.

    In its milestone decision announced on October 15, 2015, the Grand Chamber, by a majority vote, agreed with the Second (lower) Chamber’s 17 December 2013 decision that Switzerland had violated Turkish politician Doğu Perinçek’s right to freedom of expression when it imposed penalty on Perinçek in connection with his “denial of Armenian genocide.” Hoping to have the lower chamber’s decision reversed, Switzerland, under intense Armenian lobbying, had appealed that decision to Grand Chamber – obviously to no avail.

    The Grand Chamber’s decision had two equally important ramifications. By letting stand the lower chamber’s decision, the Grand Chamber in effect affirmed that: (a) “Armenian genocide” is controversial and unproven, (b) there can be no comparison between the 1915 events and Holocaust.

    The court’s position is consistent with the provisions of the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide (ratified in 1951), which first codified this term. According to this Convention, genocide is a legally construed special crime, and it can only be established through a judicial process in a duly authorized court – an international court or a court where the alleged crime was committed. Without a verdict from such a court, labeling an event as genocide lacks legal validity. In other words, it is merely an opinion.

    To date there exists not a single court verdict characterizing the 1915 events as genocide. The UN has also refused to call the 1915 events genocide. When he decided to recognize “Armenian genocide,” the Pope should have been aware of these legal boundaries. ECHR is an organ of the 47-member Council of Europe.

    So, one must ask, absent a judicial verdict, what gave the Pope the authority to call the 1915 events “genocide”?

    In its February 3, 2015 ruling (Croatia v. Serbia), the International Court of Justice in The Hague also concluded that forced relocation, which is what happened in Anatolia in 1915, even if it results in killings, cannot be called genocide unless specific intent (dolus specialis) to harm or kill is proven. The court also held that the provisions of the 1948 Convention cannot be applied retroactively, i.e., judgments as to past events not permissible.

    In the U.S. the Bill of Rights protects a party from being labeled guilty of a crime without due process; i.e., the alleged crime must be adjudicated in a court of law. The old, venerable adage, “Innocent until proven guilty,” must be respected.

    It is obvious that by labelling the 1915 events as genocide the Pope exceeded his authority and violated both the European and American due-process standards. The same standards, in fact, also bind parliaments that have so far recognized “Armenian genocide.”

    To date, the Armenian side, out of fear it would lose, has refrained from litigating its case in a court of law, preferring to influence the public opinion through propaganda instead.

    A case in point is the 17 December 2003 order of the European Court of First Instance on a lawsuit lodged by a group of Armenian-French citizens against three European institutions including the Council of the European Union. The applicants had sought compensation for non-material damage suffered on account of, inter alia, recognition of Turkey’s status as a candidate for accession to the EU without Turkey’s prior acknowledgment of Armenian genocide. The court found that the applicants’ action was without legal merit and dismissed the claim, adding that the European Parliament’s 1987 resolution calling on Turkey to recognize “Armenian genocide” was purely political, without any binding consequences. Appeal of the ruling to the higher court was dismissed.

    The case was a legal defeat for the Armenian side, also reaffirming the fact that Armenian “g” resolutions passed by parliaments are no more than political opinions.

    Such realization should prompt parliaments that have recognized Armenian “g” to date to re-think their stance and rescind their decisions. The 1948 Convention does not make a distinction between “political” and “legal” recognition of genocide.

    The Pope, of course, has the right to express his opinion on the 1915 events; but this is not the same thing as denouncing these events as proven genocide.

    Speaking of opinion, in 1985 69 U.S. historians and researches signed a declaration, published in New York Times and Washington Post, stating that in their opinion the 1915 events do not constitute genocide. Among the signatories were eminent scholars such as Bernard Lewis. Surely, the Pope should have been aware of this declaration. Hence, even as regards opinion, there is no consensus among the scholars on “Armenian genocide.”

    The Pope apparently is also not aware that in 1920 his predecessor Pope Benedict XV had pleaded with the British to release some of the high-ranking Ottoman officials who were being held on the Island of Malta on suspicion of complicity in massacring Armenians. Benedict XV, who had direct contact with the Ottoman authorities, obviously did not think the Ottoman government had murderous or genocidal intentions toward the Armenians. All 244 Malta detainees, in fact, were released by the British for lack of evidence and returned to Turkish soil.

    So, one must ask the Pope: What did he know about the 1915 events in 2015 that his predecessor Benedict XV did not know almost a century earlier?

    Human rights issue

    The Pope, while recognizing “Armenian genocide,” astonishingly did not express any compassion for more than half a million civilian Muslims that lost their lives at the hands of renegade Armenian bands during the 1915 Armenian revolt.

    In a gesture of humanity, the Pope could have also offered condolences to the relatives of 42 Turkish diplomats and 4 foreign diplomats that were assassinated by Armenian terrorists in the 1970s through 1990s – including Turkish ambassador to Vatican Taha Carım in 1977. Three years later, in 1980, Carım’s successor Vecdi Türel and his driver were wounded by the terrorists.

    Likewise, the Pope could have expressed his compassion for the memory of the more than 600 Azeri civilians massacred by Armenian forces in the town of Khojaly in 1992.

    The Pope’s “humanity” should not be limited by race, religion or ethnicity.

    The 1.5 million Armenian victims alluded to by the Pope is also a grotesque exaggeration. The Armenian losses in Anatolia during World War I from all causes including fighting on the sides of the Allies were roughly 300,000, some 57,000 of which were during the relocation itself, most of them due to disease, famine and chaos.

    Double standard

    When he visited Sarajevo in June 2015, His Holiness, while denouncing the massacres inflicted upon the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, refused to use the term “genocide.” This, despite the fact that two UN courts have unequivocally called the Srebrenica massacres genocide. The Pope ignored the appeals of Bosnian academics and representatives of war victims to recognize the massacres as genocide. Srebrenica in a sense is a stone-throwing distance from the Holy See.

    Reflecting a shameful double standard, the Pope could not bring himself to use the word “genocide” when the perpetrators are Christian and the victims Muslim.

    In conclusion, His Holiness should deal with matters of faith and stay away from highly-charged historical issues that sow discord and hatred in society. He should not readily accept Armenian “g” allegations presented to him on a gold platter by the Armenian side. Otherwise, his call for inter-faith and inter-communal dialog becomes shamefully hollow.

  • To Ban Genocide Denial, Court Incites Armenians to Commit Violence

    To Ban Genocide Denial, Court Incites Armenians to Commit Violence

     

    Posted in: Column, Harut Sassounian

    In the case of Dogu Perincek vs. Switzerland, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) sustained in a 10-7 vote the Turkish politician’s right to free expression, finding that Swiss courts had wrongly convicted him for denying the Armenian Genocide.

    More importantly for Armenians, the Grand Chamber contradicted the Lower Chamber’s unwarranted opinion of Dec. 17, 2013, which had questioned the validity of the Armenian Genocide. On October 15, 2015, ECHR’s Grand Chamber rectified that jurisdictional issue, ruling that the Court was “not required to determine whether the massacres and mass deportations suffered by the Armenian people at the hands of the Ottoman Empire from 1915 onwards can be characterized as genocide within the meaning of that term under international law, but has no authority to make legally binding pronouncements, one way or another, on this point.” This was the judgment of the majority of 10 judges who ruled in favor of Perincek.

    The remaining seven judges, not only disagreed with the majority’s ruling in support of Perincek, but went on to set the record straight on the Armenian Genocide: “That the massacres and deportations suffered by the Armenian people constituted genocide is self-evident…. The Armenian genocide is a clearly established historical fact. To deny it is to deny the obvious. But that is not the question here. The case is not about the historical truth, or the legal characterization of the events of 1915. The real issue at stake here is whether it is possible for a State, without overstepping its margin of appreciation [limited room to maneuver], to make it a criminal offence to insult the memory of a people that has suffered genocide. In our view, this is indeed possible,” the seven judges wrote in their dissenting opinion.

    Nevertheless, the Grand Chamber still reached some unwarranted conclusions that defy logic and common sense. The majority of the judges advanced the meaningless argument that since 90 years had passed between Perincek’s statements and “the tragic events” of 1915, there was no need for Switzerland to regulate his speech. Supposedly, the passage of time had made his denial less traumatic on Armenians. As the dissenting seven judges pointed out, the majority’s position violates “the principle that statutory limitations are not applicable to war crimes and crimes against humanity.”
    The majority of the judges also put forward a questionable argument to justify why denying the Holocaust was a crime, and not a violation of freedom of expression. They considered Holocaust denial an “antidemocratic ideology” and “anti-Semitism,” whereas they claimed that Perincek’s denial of the Armenian Genocide did not result “in serious friction between Armenians and Turks” in Switzerland. Furthermore, while asserting that there was a direct link between Holocaust denial and many of the European “States which had experienced the Nazi horrors,” they found no such link between Switzerland and the Armenian Genocide.

    There are several problems in the Judges preceding arguments:
    – There should not be a double standard in dealing with denial of any genocide. If denial of the Holocaust is a crime, so should the denial of other genocides. The preferential treatment of victims of certain genocides, but not others, is shameful and disgraceful. As editor of a newspaper in the United States, I naturally support the highly protective American notion of freedom of expression rather than the European model of a more restrictive freedom of speech. However, regardless of which legal system one adheres to, discrimination among genocide victims is not acceptable.

    – Majority of the judges repeatedly claimed that since Perincek’s denial did not result in causing public disorder by the Armenian community, Swiss courts should not have convicted him. Ironically, by making such a dangerous assertion, the Grand Chamber is actually inciting Armenians to resort to violence to satisfy the Court’s requirement that genocide denial could only be criminalized if it is followed by some sort of violent reaction. Since Swiss-Armenians acted in a civilized manner by calling the police and filing a lawsuit instead of bashing Perincek’s head, they are now being told that their legal claim is invalid because they did not cause a public disturbance!

    – It is historically wrong to state that there was no link between Switzerland and the Armenian Genocide. Over 400,000 Swiss citizens signed a petition in 1890′s to protest the Hamidian massacres. Swiss missionaries saved countless orphans during the Genocide and helped provide new homes for them in Switzerland.

    Fortunately, the Grand Chamber did not require Switzerland to amend its laws on genocide denial, implying that the law was simply misapplied in Perincek’s case. Therefore, Greece, Cyprus, and Slovakia also do not need to change their laws on criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide.
    Thankfully, the Court rejected Perincek’s claim that he is entitled to 135,000 euros ($142,000) in damages and court costs.
    International lawyers Geoffrey Robertson and Amal Clooney, and Armenia’s Prosecutor General Gevork Kostanyan should be commended for their exceptional efforts in representing Armenia in Court and defending the truth of the Armenian Genocide.

  • Who Should Demand Armenian Territories from Turkey?

    Who Should Demand Armenian Territories from Turkey?

    www.TheCaliforiaCourier.com

    I just became aware of an important interview Pres. Serzh Sargsyan had given to Turkish journalist Cansu Camlibel of Hurriyet newspaper on April 24, 2015 in Yerevan. The article was buried under the avalanche of media coverage during the commemorations of the Armenian Genocide Centennial.

    Here are key excerpts from Pres. Sargsyan’s lengthy interview as published in the Turkish Daily News, the English edition of Hurriyet:

    — The President rightly pointed out that “the emotional and non-diplomatic reaction of the Turkish leadership [to Pope Francis’s acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide in The Vatican on April 12] was yet another proof that Turkey continued its policy of evident denial pursued at a state level, thus taking upon it the burden of the responsibility for the crime perpetrated by the authorities of the Ottoman Empire.”

    — “As a mighty power and champion of democratic values, the United States has on numerous occasions stated its position regarding the Armenian Genocide. Out of 51 U.S. constituent states 44 recognized and condemned the Armenian Genocide. Throughout history various American presidents, such as Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, described the atrocities against the Armenian people as genocide. Even those U.S. presidents, that had not used the word ‘genocide’ during their tenure, had used that term while campaigning. It means that they never questioned the veracity of what had happened, and only due to certain political considerations refrained from uttering the word ‘genocide.’” While Pres. Sargsyan correctly characterized U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide, there were a couple of inaccuracies in his answer: The United States has 50, not 51 states; and Gerald Ford acknowledged the Armenian Genocide as a Congressman, before becoming President.

    — “The Turkish proposal of establishing the so-called commission of historians has only one goal, which is to delay the process of the Armenian Genocide recognition, and divert the attention of international community from that crime. That is not only our view but also the view of the international community that goes on recognizing and condemning the Armenian Genocide. The protocols contain no clause of establishing any commission on historical studies. The respective paragraph in the protocol envisages a dialogue aimed at restoring mutual confidence between the two nations, which entailed the establishment of a sub-commission. Throughout the negotiations, the Armenian side has stressed on numerous occasions at various levels also to the Turkish side that the veracity of the genocide cannot be questioned under any circumstances.” Armenians who opposed to the Protocols, including this writer, had made similar objections.

    — “It is already the sixth year since the protocols have been signed: when is the expedient time? …The years past have demonstrated that Turkey is looking forward not to some convenient moment, but instead is trying to prevent the manifestation of the unambiguous position of the international community on the Armenian Genocide by imitating a process of the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement, claiming that recognitions were something that hindered the reconciliation. The process of the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation was launched upon my initiative, and pursued a very simple goal — to establish diplomatic relations without any preconditions, and unseal the last closed border in Europe, safeguarding peaceful and neighborly coexistence of our nations. Unfortunately, the lack of political will on the part of the Turkish authorities, distortion of the letter and spirit of the protocols, fresh manifestations of denial, and continuously brought up preconditions intended to feed groundless demands of Azerbaijan thwarted the implementation of the protocols…. After six years of unfulfilled expectations, I have decided to recall the protocols from the parliament. On one occasion I said the Armenians are not going to wait indefinitely for the Turkish authorities to be able to find a convenient moment to finally ratify those protocols.” In my opinion, the Armenian Foreign Minister should immediately withdraw his signature from the Protocols and declare them obsolete.

    — “The Republic of Armenia has never declared any territorial claims either on Turkey or any other country since our independence. There has never been such an issue on the foreign policy agenda of our country, and there is none today. That is a clear-cut position.”

    If not read carefully, Pres. Sargsyan’s last answer could easily be misunderstood. He is neither saying that Armenia has territorial claims from Turkey nor that it does not! Armenia simply has not raised this issue officially because doing so could have serious national security implications given its powerful and hostile neighbor on the Western Front. Political parties, organizations, and individuals like this writer have frequently made territorial claims from Turkey, but it is understandable that Armenia’s Head of State has to be much more circumspect in his public pronouncements.

    Pres. Sargsyan stated several years ago that he leaves the pursuit of Armenian territorial claims to a future generation, which implies that Armenia does indeed have territorial demands from Turkey!

  • Pan-Armenian Council to Supersede Armenian Genocide Centennial Committee

    Pan-Armenian Council to Supersede Armenian Genocide Centennial Committee

    Publisher, The Calfornia Courier

    The Armenian Genocide Centennial State Committee unanimously adopted a resolution on September 26 in Yerevan to form a Pan-Armenian Council. Also present were representatives of Armenian Genocide Centennial Committees (AGCC) from 40 countries, with the exception of the AGCC’s of the Eastern and Western United States.

    An Organizing Committee was formed composed of 12 individuals: Gagik Harutyunyan, President of the Constitutional Court of Armenia; Vigen Sargsyan, Armenian President’s Chief of Staff; Hranoush Hakobyan, Armenia’s Diaspora Minister; and representatives of the Holy See of Etchmiadzin, Holy See of the Great House of Cilicia, Armenian Catholic Church; Armenian Evangelical Church, Armenian Revolutionary Federation, Armenian Democratic League, Social Democratic Hunchakian Party, Union of Russian Armenians, and Armenian General Benevolent Union.

    Possibly due to oversight, the Organizing Committee did not include a representative of the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh). However, the adopted resolution clearly stated that the Pan-Armenian Council would include representatives of the Republic of Armenia, Republic of Artsakh, major Diasporan organizations, key Armenian state agencies, religious institutions, civil society, and political parties.

    The resolution directed that:

    — The Pan-Armenian Council be of advisory nature, have geographic and thematic committees, and meet annually in Yerevan;
    — The Council include on its permanent agenda the following items: a) review of a comprehensive annual report on conditions of Armenians around the world, b) discussion on the recognition, condemnation and elimination of the consequences of the Armenian Genocide, and c) coordination of pan-Armenian activities;
    — The Council hold its inaugural session in Yerevan on September 20, 2016;
    — The Organizing Committee prepare and send to members of the State Committee and regional AGCC’s by April 15, 2016, a preliminary outline of the structure and composition of the Pan-Armenian Council; hold consultations on the direction, format and activities of the Council; plan the inaugural session of the Council; and by July 15, 2016 inform State Committee members of its date and place;
    — The Diaspora Minister prepare the first report of “Conditions of Armenians Around the World,” in consultation with the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Culture, Education and Science, state agencies, and Diasporan organizations, including the State Committee and regional AGCC’s; present by May 1, 2016, a preliminary report to the State Committee and regional AGCC’s seeking their proposals; hold consultations with regional AGCC’s to prepare proposals regarding their relationship with the Pan-Armenian Council; and finalize the report by the Sept. 20th session of the Council.

    During the discussion, Hrant Markarian, Chairman of the Bureau of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, suggested that, in addition to the Pan-Armenian Council, regional councils be formed in various parts of the Diaspora to help organize in 2016, the 25th anniversary of the independence of the Armenian Republic, and in 2018, the 100th anniversary of the founding of the first Republic of Armenia.

    I took the floor next asking why the Pan-Armenian Council did not include representatives of the public-at-large, to ensure that the majority of Armenians, who are not members of any Armenian organization, are represented in the Council. The President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, responded that his staff had explored such a possibility, but had given up due to the difficulty of selecting representatives from the Armenian Diaspora. I mentioned that there are mechanisms for selecting representatives from the various Armenian communities. The President welcomed the suggestion and referred it to the Organizing Committee. President of the Constitutional Court Gagik Harutyunyan and former Prime Minister Vazken Manoukian also commented on the possible inclusion of representatives from the general public in the Pan-Armenian Council.

    As I have explained in previous columns, the Pan-Armenian Council would eliminate the need to form separate committees on the occasion of each Armenian crisis or issue. In my view, it would be preferable that Diasporan members of the Council be selected through democratic elections held in various Armenian communities around the world — a very difficult, yet rewarding task, if implemented successfully!

    Finally, there was no discussion at the September 26 meeting on the role of the Diaspora Ministry after the Pan-Armenian Council is formed. This would be an important issue for the Organizing Committee to consider in its upcoming deliberations.