Turkish Forum English

Category: Southern Caucasus

  • How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

    How Azerbaijan Distorts UN Security Council Resolutions

    image001 7

    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)

  • So-called Turkish-Armenian Scholarship Conference in Berlin Exposes Hypocrisy Galore

    So-called Turkish-Armenian Scholarship Conference in Berlin Exposes Hypocrisy Galore

    By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.

    The news made hardly a ripple in the Turkish media, but a so-called Turkish-Armenian scholarship conference held on September 15-18, 2017 in Berlin had all the markings of a scandal. The conference, having the theme, “Past in the Present: European Approaches to the Armenian Genocide,” was the 10th in the series of “Workshop on Armenian-Turkish Studies” (WATS) held at different locations since its inception in 2010.

    Primarily organized by the U.S.-based Middle East Studies Association (MESA), this year’s conference (WATS 2017) was held at the European Academy Berlin under the auspices of Dr. Martina Münch, a Minister of the State of Brandenburg. The co-organizers were the University of Michigan, University of Southern California (USC), and Lepsiushaus Potsdam.

    The Pretense

    The WATS series is magnanimously advertised as forums “where Turkish, Armenian and other historians could conduct an informed debate relating to the controversy surrounding the relocation of Ottoman Armenians during World War One.”

    All that sounds good. The key words here are “controversy” and “debate.” Controversy on a historical topic should normally lead to debate, and the two words complement each other. The outcome of a debate may result in a stand-off, a compromise, and possibly accord.

    This is how things should work out, especially in the academic world.

    The Reality

    But it turns out that lofty description for the WATS series is merely a PR front. For one thing, the institutions or universities that have organized and promoted the WATS conferences are those that advocate “Armenian genocide.” This is certainly the case with the organizers of WATS 2017.

    In fact, the co-organizer Lepsiushaus Potsdam, a historical house where German Protestant missionary Johannes Lepsius (also known as the “Guardian Angel of the Armenians”) once lived, is now a museum in Potsdam, Germany, serving as a “Research Center for Genocide Studies.”

    Obviously a mission well-suited for advancing the “Armenian genocide” cause! (Question: Has Lepsiushaus organized a conference on the 1904-1907 Namibian atrocities committed by German settlers in Namibia? The racial extermination and collective punishment brought upon the native population are sometimes known as the “First Genocide in the 20th Century.”

    As for the other co-organizers, they are U.S.-based, and the positions of these institution on the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia are beyond dispute. They are die-hard proponents of “genocide.” In the U.S. the Armenian foundations are known for their “generosity” in advancing the “genocide” thesis, and a number of academic institutions reap rewards from this bounty. At the University of Michigan, for example, the Manoogian Foundation funds genocide advocacy under the banner of “Armenian Studies Program.”

    Another foundation has enabled Prof. Taner Akçam, the “Prince Charming” of the Armenian lobby, to be awarded the “Robert Aram, Marianne Kaloosdian and Stephen and Marian Mugar Chair in Armenian Genocide Studies” at Clark University in Massachusetts – never mind Akçam’s unsavory past related to subversive activities and prison term in Turkey. Earlier, Prof. Akçam received financial support from the Zoryan Institute, and was the beneficiary of the “Cafesjian Family Foundation” when he was at the University of Minnesota.

    The largess from Armenian foundations to fund genocide “studies” goes on.

    Second, and not surprisingly, the attendees to the WATS conferences have been those researchers that support one way or another the “Armenian genocide” narrative. Academicians with Turkish names are particularly welcome in these conferences. In fact, they are the prized attendees. Researchers, Turkish or foreign, that do not subscribe to the Armenian narrative are treated as “persona non grata.” The net effect is that the conferences act like exclusive clubs.

    Hypocrisy

    Given these facts, it is sophistry or chicanery to talk of WATS conferences as forums to provide “an informed debate relating to the controversy” on the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia. Such language is pure deception. There is no substantive debate in these conferences, and given the prevailing mindset, it is naive to expect any. The “Armenian genocide” narrative is treated as a historical truth, not as a controversy, and the overarching debate is nonexistent.

    In fact, the title of this year’s conference, bearing the phrase “Armenian genocide,” drops all the pretense of being anything other than a doctrinaire posture on the 1915 events in Ottoman Anatolia.

    What all this amounts to is hypocrisy – in fact contemptible hypocrisy, given that it takes place in an academic environment and violates what true academic scholarship stands for. The august corridors of the academia can sometimes be deafeningly numbing if prejudice and cushy incentives take over and the mind is grievously frozen.

    Inconvenient Truths

    The no-debate, doctrinaire stance on the Armenian issue stands in direct contradiction with an inconvenient truth: the 2013 and 2015 positions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the 2016 position of France’s Constitutional Council. These high judicial authorities in Europe have underscored the fact that “Armenian genocide” is controversial among scholars.

    The doctrinaire stance is also in conflict with the position of a large number of Turkish and foreign researchers that do not subscribe to the Armenian narrative.

    Another “inconvenient truth” is that the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide explicitly requires that any determination as to the crime of genocide must be made by a competent tribunal – a requirement the proponents of “Armenian genocide” would rather – and in fact do not – talk about. The claim of “Armenian genocide” by parliaments, politicians, establishments such as MESA, etc., runs counter the edicts of this Convention. This is what the ECHR and France’s Constitutional Court have ruled.

    But then, as far as the Armenian side, why bother with such “details” when a well-funded, well-organized propaganda does a wonderful job to peddle the Armenian version of history!

    The Armenian propaganda in the West has been so effective that it has given rise to what this author has called the “Settled History Syndrome,” an affliction in the Western media that accepts Armenian allegations as a fact without questioning the veracity of these allegations – in utter contempt of anti-genocide scholars, and more recently, also the judicial positions of high courts in Europe.

    An Audacious Complaint

    All the above aside, what made this year’s WATS conference all the more egregious was a letter sent by MESA President Prof. Beth Baron and MESA Executive Director Dr. Amy W. Newhall to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım of Turkey. Dated September 15, 2017, and copied to few other high Turkish officials as well as a number of EU, Council of Europe and UN officials, the MESA directors had the audacity to complain and express “deep concern” about Turkey-based scholars being allegedly prevented from attending the Berlin conference – while also preaching the virtues of “academic freedom” and “freedom of expression.”

    But on the other hand, the same MESA officers didn’t have any compunction about limiting the conference to their hand-picked scholars.

    The MESA letter led to angry protests from some circles in Turkey, including Dr. Doğu Perinçek, given that the efforts of some Turkish researchers opposing the “genocide” thesis, and wanting to participate in the conference, were rebuffed by the conference administrators.

    On display was hypocrisy galore.

    As far as known, Turkish officials have not replied to the MESA letter. A reply given by this author on October 27, 2017 can be viewed at:
    https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Demirmen-MESA.pdf

    Note: This article was originally published in The Diplomatic Observer in English and Turkish in December 2017, Ankara, Turkey.

  • Shopping mall squabble in California draws venomous Armenian comments and prompts media censure

    Shopping mall squabble in California draws venomous Armenian comments and prompts media censure

    By Ferruh Demirmen, Ph.D.
    September 9, 2017

    The dispute between the Armenian lobby and the Americana-at-Brand shopping mall in Glendale, California last month on whether to display an advertisement on a billboard precipitated a series of events, shedding a disturbing light on the activities of the lobby and two pro-Armenian news outlets. The billboard was intended to advertise The Architects of Denial, a documentary purportedly giving an account of what the lobby calls “Armenian genocide” through interviews with survivors.

    The documentary was funded to the tune of 50,000 dollars by the well-funded Armenian lobby.

    Both the initial squabble and its aftermath were reported in the Armenian media as well as in the LA Times and its affiliate Glendale News-Press – outlets well known for their sympathies towards Armenian causes. The town of Glendale, just outside Los Angeles, is home to more than 65,000 Armenian Diaspora residents.

        Principled stand and surrender

        The Carusso-owned Americana initially refused to accept the billboard, arguing – correctly – that the advertisement was politically charged and would violate the city’s zoning rules. The owners had received advice from the Turkish consulate in Los Angeles in addition to the Armenian community about the advertisement, and was trying to keep its properties “neutral and impartial.”

        The notion of neutrality and impartiality embraced by Americana was not acceptable for the Armenian Diaspora. Upon Americana’s refusal, the Armenian lobbying apparatus quickly sprang into action. With intense pressure from the lobby, including threat of boycott of all Carusso-owned properties, Americana quickly relented and agreed to display the advertisement.

        It also said it would allow the screening of the documentary in the mall free of charge.

        Jackie Levy, executive vice president of operations for Carusso, even apologized for the initial rejection of the ad.

        The bullying tactics of the Armenian lobby and Americana’s cowardly reversal of its earlier decision were a shame. Here was a case of political extortion exerted on a private company by an ethnic minority that wanted to propagandize a century-old grievance – of all places, in a shopping mall, where people come to relax and do shopping. And the company pitifully caving in.

        For the Armenian lobby, apparently no place in America is off-limits in pursuit of its “genocide” propaganda.

        The sparring exchange

        The event spurred an exchange of opinions between the Turkish and Armenian sides in the comments section of the LA Times. Denouncing the Armenian lobby’s strong-arm tactics and Americana’s total capitulation to its demands, the Turkish commentators argued that the supposed documentary would narrate an old, unproven “genocide,” and that Americana had abandoned all pretences of objectivity.

        In response, the Armenian commentators countered that the “genocide” was real and well-documented, labeling the opposition as “genocide deniers.”

        Although most of the exchanges between the two sides were civil, some of the comments from the Armenian side had a venomous tone. The animosity from the Armenian side was directed not only at Turks, but also at Islam in general.

        One of the Diaspora Armenians referred to Turks as “Turkish Mongol Mutts from Central/East Asia,” adding that “Islam is based on three principles: stealing, killing, and lying.”

        Another one accused the “Islamic Government of Turkey” for “spreading lies and bribing scholars and historians.”

        Dark undertones

        More disturbing was implicit or veiled threats of violence from the Armenian side. A Diaspora Armenian fakely named “S.Schmidt” became ominously too personal with Mr. Ergun Kirlikovali, one of the Turkish commentators. He identified Kirlikovali as a Muslim Turk born in Turkey and now living “comfortably in California,” revealing Kirlikovali’s age, the county he lives in, and even the full name of his wife. The one important information he left out was Kirlikovali’s street address.

        The question arose: What was the purpose of revealing such personal information?

        “S.Schmidt” said Mr. Kirlikovali is “the president of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), a corrupt racist organization whose ONLY purpose is to discredit the Holocost” [sic]. He counseled Kirlikovali to “take your fundamentalist Turkish point of views back to your ancestral lands of Mongolia along with your family.”

        He also wanted to banish another Turkish commentator as an “agent of the government of Turkey.”

        Alarmed that he was being personally targeted, and fearing violence against him or his family, Kirlikovali responded back: “This is a public alert to FBI. I am getting a lot of hate mail from Armenians. I am listed as number one in at least two Armenian hate sites. If something happens to me or my family members, FBI people, please go after this fellow who hides behind the fake name S.Schmidt. He is a notorious Armenian cyber-terrorist who demonizes any one, group, company, religion, or nation that disagrees with Armenians.”

        Media censure

        The disturbing turn of events led the LA Times to quickly remove the incendiary comments from its website. The editors were evidently spooked by Kirlikovali’s call for a FBI alert, and the fact that some of the comments from the Armenian side, with a dark underbelly, were not reflecting favorably on the Diaspora.

        Also expunged from the comments section were two commentaries entered under an alias by this author, decrying the poisonous invective emanated from the Armenian side, likening such diatribe to the mentality of the Ku Klux Klan – the difference being that the targeted group is not black Americans but Moslems and Turks – castigating the LA Times for allowing such racism on its website, and suggesting that Kirlikovali’s FBI alert should be taken seriously. The readers were reminded of the terrorist activities directed against Turkish diplomats in the 1970s and 1980s by fanatics such as Gourgen Yanikian and Hampig Sassounian.

        After “sanitizing” the comments section, of the 55 comments originally posted, at the writing of this article there are now only 41 comments that can be seen on the LA Times website. The 14 comments that were deemed to be incendiary or harshly provocative have been censured out and no longer accessible.

        The bottom line

        The whole episode was a reminder of the hatred or animosity ingrained in the minds of some Diaspora Armenians. Anti-Turkism, Islamophobia, and ethno-religious bias and bigotry seem to be alive and well in some quarters of Armenian Diaspora, and perhaps even more disturbingly, the columns of LA Times.

        Further, language, indirect that it might be, from the Armenian Diaspora that could potentially agitate Armenian youths to take up violence to advance Armenian causes is not new. An example came to light in the wake of the European Court of Human Right’s 2015 Grand Chamber decision on the Switzerland-Perinçek case when Harut Sassounian, a leading Diaspora lobbyist, commented on the defeat of Armenians and criticized the court with an insinuation that was troubling.

          Turks and Turkish Diaspora should wake up to the kind of adversary they are facing.

        • ARMENIA?

          ARMENIA?

          From: Yahoo [rdegraff@yahoo.com]
          I did some research on Armenia

          IN GOD WE TRUST !!!
          Richard C De Graff

           

          ARMENIA?

          I am getting sick and tired hearing about the so called Armenia genocide by the Turks of the crumbling Ottoman Empire in 1915.

          First, dear reader, I am an American through and through. My family escaped from the French Huguenots and migrated to Holland. After being in Holland for several decades they migrated to the Americas and Jeremiah, Isaac and Frederick De Graff founded Amsterdam NY. In1630.  My son David has the deed signed by King George of England declaring “all the land they could protect”.

          Secondly I never heard of Armenia until after 1975. I thought it was something one added to their garden salad until I had dinner at my secretary’s home with her husband and they told about the “Genocide by the Turks”.

          Strange, why was I hearing about it after 50 odd years after it supposedly happened?

          General Dwight David Eisenhower has film taken of Nazi Germany’s concentration camps “so some dumb bastard could not say it never happened 50 years from now.”

          Well some not so clever Armenians saw how Jewish Germans survived WW ll and could prove the NAZI’s stole their property- the received repatriation in German Marks.

          So these Armenians tried to tie up the Republic of Turkey. They got a lot of publicity for their nefarious efforts, but the history is all wrong.

          I have done research on this subject.  The first book was written in 1982 and published in 1983.

          It is THE ARMENIAN FILE The Myth of Innocence Exposed by Kamuran Gurun. This is a heavy duty book written for Turkish people who have a keen interest in their rightful history. It is like Robert Caro’s books on Lyndon Baines Johnson a former President of the United States; it is also heavy duty reading for a foreigner.

          The other book is a shocker of the surprised truth. Hovhannes Katchaznouni (The First Prime Minister of the Independent Armenian Republic) DASHNAGTZZOUTIUN HAS NOTHING TO DO ANYMORE (Report Submitted to the 1923 Party Convention)

          Katchaznouni became a member of the Armenian National Council in 1917 and was the Gashnag representative until 1018.He served on the Armenian committee conducting peace talks with the Turks in Trabzon and Batoun. He then became the first prime-minister of the independent Armenian State in 1918. He held that position until August 1919. He was arrested after the Bolsheviks came into power in 1920. He left the country after the counter-revolutionary revolt against the Bolsheviks rule was extinguished in 1921.

          OTTOMAN EMPIRE

          1299-1923

          The Ottoman Empire was unique to say the least. It covered Asia minor with Constantinople as its capital and control of lands around the Mediterranean basin, the Ottoman Empire was at the center of interactions between the Eastern and Western worlds for six centuries. Following a long period of military setbacks against European powers, the Ottoman Empire gradually declined into the late nineteenth century. The empire allied with Germany in the early 20th century, with the imperial ambition of recovering its lost territories, but it collapsed and was dissolved by the Allied Powers in the aftermath of World War I. [i]

          They had some basic rules that apply to Armenia problem.

          Religion was a basic tenant of the empire. They had freedom of religion as long as you obeyed their laws. Turkey is rich with religious history. The first seven churches that the apostle John wrote about are in Turkey. The Muslims are Sunni and Jesus mother retired there too. When the Holy Roman Empire broke up the Greek Orthodox Church was headquartered in Constantinople.

          Missionaries were enthusiastically welcomed from all kinds of religious sects.

          The Trojan War took there.

          By 1914 there were Turkish Armenians living in Turkey as Turkish citizens.

          Question? Why would Turkey commit genocide on the Armenians when 6.9% of their population is Armenian? Something is fishy here.

          WW l

          Now here is the problem. The Ottoman Empire is in its death throes and it takes side with Germany. It seems a natural because Germany is strong, Russia weak and the Allies are causing them a bundle of problems.

          The Tsar of Russia has just recently annexed Georgia in 1801to its sphere of influence. (A stepping stone towards the Black Sea?) What Russia wanted was a warm water ports for its Navy and has its eyes on Constantinople straights and easy entry into the Mediterranean Sea. (It still does.)  The areas if influences in Turkey in 1914-15 are Russia, Germany, France, Italy, USA, and the British!

          So the Armenians side up to Tsarist Russia basically because the Ottomans are in shambles.

          This is one of worst decisions world history. The Russian Revolution broke out in 1917 and the Bolsheviks took over.

          Off with their heads. The Tsarist dynasty is no more. History has now shown us that communist dictators liquidate the opposition. Russia did such a good job that when Hitler started to take on Russia, the only competent General officer was General Zhukov from Vladivostok which is the farthest western city in Russia.( It borders China and North Korea.) He was so far away that Stalin probably thought he was harmless. He is now considered one of Russia’s greatest generals.

          I make this point because Tsarist Russia or the Communist had no use for the Armenians so the smart ones were disposed of. (Modern day language calls it the “brain drain”) I can imagine how eager the communist were dreaming of straights of the Dardanelles and Constantinople were part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic.

          The dates are important here. The Armenian File was published in 1983. So what happened in the 1920s?

          But the Tip-off is Katchaznouni’s Report made in 1923. The Russians suppressed the report and it was not until April 2006 that the first edition of the COMPLETE report was published. There is now a third printing.

          I believe the genocide is a major con job just to gain funds by politicians who have failed to bring prosperity to their constituents.

          On May 19, 1919 Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) landed in Samsun and the National Struggle started and would not end until 1923 after he had defeated all countries that want to break up Turkey. His defeat of the British and his leadership role of modern Turkey make him one of the greatest world leaders of the 20th century.

           

          [i]Wikipedia-Ottoman Empire

           

        • Soghomon Tehlirian to be Commemorated in Berlin

          Soghomon Tehlirian to be Commemorated in Berlin

          Soghomon Tehlirian

          BERLIN (ArmRadio)–It was on March 15, 1921 that Armenian avenger Soghomon Tehlirian assassinated Talaat Pasha, one of the masterminds of the Armenian Genocide.

          On April 2, 120th anniversary of Tehlirian’s birth, representatives of the Armenian community will gather on Hardenbergstraße in Berlin, the site where Talaat was assassinated, to hold an event in memory of Tehlirian

          Tehlirian shadowed Talaat as he left his house on Hardenbergstraße on the morning of March 15, 1921. He crossed the street to view him from the opposite sidewalk, then crossed it once more to walk past him to confirm his identity. He then turned around and pointed his gun to shoot him in the nape of the neck.

          Talaat was felled with a single 9mm parabellum round from a Luger P08 pistol. The assassination took place in broad daylight and led to Tehlirian’s immediate arrest by German police.

          “I killed him, but I am not a murderer,” Tehlirian said of himself.

          After a two-day trial, Tehlirian was found not guilty by the German court, and freed. He eventually moved to the United States and lived out his years in San Francisco.

          Discussion Policy

          Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Though you are fully responsible for the content you post, comments that include profanity, personal attacks or other inappropriate material will not be permitted. Asbarez reserves the right to block users who violate any of our posting standards and policies.

        • AZERBAIJAN FILES : Resolution of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh Conflict Must be Based on the Rule of Legal Principles

          AZERBAIJAN FILES : Resolution of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh Conflict Must be Based on the Rule of Legal Principles

          image001 19

          Despite the extensive evolution of the international relations, political theorists continue to refer to it as jungle where everybody is against everybody, in order to highlight its distinctive peculiarities. Whereas today the goal of existing mechanisms founded on legal norms and principles is to ensure peaceful coexistence and mitigation of threats to peace and security.

          This requires common vision and methods. Otherwise, there would be more exceptions, questioning the existence of the general rules. This would be the pathway to jungle. Therefore, any given conflict or contentious situation must be assessed based on legal framework regardless of political positions or views. Only that could warrant lasting peace.

          The OSCE Minsk Group, established in 1992, is mandated with the resolution of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh conflict. More than 20 years later, this body still struggles to report any progress. The worst part is that the Minsk Group has done nothing practical for identifying the substance of the conflict and shaping common position underpinned by the principles of the international law. Co-chairs have tried to isolate the peace process from other international organizations and relegated the norms of the international law. This in turn has decelerated the resolution of the problem.

          Co-chairs need to acknowledge that as Armenia enjoys impunity for the act of aggression it perpetrated, it would never agree to any compromises for the sake of peace. Compromised peace is based on mutual concessions enabling the parties to yield the benefits of the concord and constitutes legally sound resolution that implies granting high autonomy to the Nagorno Karabakh within the framework of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

          Adoption of documents by the international and regional organizations, including the Organization of Islamic Cooperation that condemn the facts of aggression and occupation contravening the international law are very important steps. They oblige the Armenian leadership to be more responsible, give up the aggression and seek compromised peace. In this regard, the Co-chairs must be guided by the documents adopted by the international organizations, including the verdict of the European Court of Human Rights on “Chiragov and Others v. Armenia” case in order to evaluate the situation objectively and produce own position on the essence of the conflict and Armenia’s aggression.

          It is worth mentioning that back in 1993, Mario Rafaelli – one of the Co-chairs of the Minsk Group – recognized the Armenian deception and condemned the occupation of Azerbaijan’s territory in the report he had produced. Today the course of the events requires the Co-chairs to be unwavering. Regrettably, instead of welcoming the contribution by international and regional organization serving the common cause they issue a statement urging PACE to refrain from discussing the documents pertaining to Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The very statement defies logic. Apparently, deliberately or not, the Co-chairs demonstrate indifference to principles that firmly reject the policy of aggression and occupation, thus undermining the foundation of a mechanism that politicians of the world so tirelessly worked to build in 20th century.

          Was not the fight against aggression and territorial occupation a key value the countries of the world rallied around? Had not the international community denounce the situations resulted by the use of military force? These are important questions for the Co-chairs to address.

          On the other hand, they need to exercise extra caution while interpreting the principles related to this conflict. How can the same principles and norms be misinterpreted? This is obvious when it comes to definition of territorial integrity and right to self-determination. The hierarchy of norms and the legal pyramid rests upon the application of commonality of the norms. For example, if once the territorial claims were perfectly legitimate, the territorial integrity became a fundamental principle of the international law overriding it and constituting a major pre-condition for sovereign development of the nations and peaceful coexistence.

          Its unanimous recognition by the international community is beyond doubt. Otherwise, there would be no point of safeguarding of international peace and security. The UN Security Council resolutions constantly underscore the territorial integrity of the countries and emphasize the degree of its significance. No international organization is willing to turn a blind eye on this issue because the consequences could be dire. It could be detrimental for the international law that took so many years to establish and shake the pillars of the Westphalia system that is at the heart of the present world order.

          The right to self-determination is characterized by more subjective factors and often highlighted in line with narrow national interests of certain countries. First used as a political notion, it was eventually incorporated into legal framework to ensure internal peace and stability. Its peculiarity is that it is applied to the People whereas the international law does not define the term – People. Despite certain countries exploiting it and suggesting subjective interpretations, the international jurisprudence and doctrine identifies concrete limits.

          First, it is common knowledge that the term People implies a nation and as such, self-determination is possible within the framework of the existing state. Second, certain groups, victims of colonialism, were recognized as People and their right to free themselves of colonial domination through peaceful or military means was recognized as well.

          The ruling of the International Court of Justice on Namibia and Western Sahara reaffirmed that. For instance, Canada’s Supreme Court avoids clearly defining the term People. Yet it states that the right to self-determination only generates a right in situations of former colonies; where People is oppressed; or where a certain group is denied meaningful access to government.

          Third, minorities living within national borders are not People. They have the right to exercise the right to self-determination but not to the detriment of the territorial integrity of a state. There are specific provisions in the international documents regarding the minority rights.The sole objective of those documents is to foster favorable conditions for minorities to continue developing their cultural identity.

          In light of the above mentioned the Minsk Group Co-chairs must acknowledge their mission for the humankind and increase efforts for resolution of the conflict based on the norms and principles of the international law.

          Fazıl ZEYNALOV