The blog contains articles and thoughts in English, Armenian and Arabic about Armenian issues, Artsakh-Karabakh issue, Armenian Genocide as well as the life of Armenians and Christians in Iraq and the Middle East.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Armenia Submits Protocols to Constitutional Court: What’s Next?
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
Pres. Serzh Sargsyan quietly submitted the Armenia-Turkey Protocols to the Constitutional Court on November 19, without a public announcement.
Under Armenian law, all international agreements have to be submitted to the Constitutional Court, prior to their consideration by Parliament for ratification. The Protocols were signed by the Armenian and Turkish Foreign Ministers on October 10, after both sides publicly committed on August 31 to “make their best efforts” to ratify the Protocols in a “timely” manner.
Given the fact that Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had already introduced the Protocols to the Turkish Parliament on October 21, the timing of Pres. Sargsyan’s submission to the Court may have been prompted by his wish to avoid accusations of foot-dragging by Prime Minister Recep Erdogan during his Washington visit on December 6. Indeed, over the weekend, a Turkish official accused Armenia of not taking any steps to ratify the Protocols. Hurriyet newspaper quoted a Senior Turkish Diplomat as stating: “I do not think that one could press Turkey at this moment when Armenia has still not submitted them to Parliament.”
Forwarding the Protocols to the Constitutional Court, however, does not necessarily mean that Armenian officials intend to ratify them quickly, since they had announced that they are going to wait for Turkey to ratify them first. Moreover, Turkish leaders have repeatedly linked the ratification of the Protocols to the resolution of the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict, thus making it questionable if the Protocols would be ratified at all.
The Armenian Constitutional Court’s website indicates that after submission of a case to the Court, the first step is assigning one of its judges to conduct a preliminary review within 15 days, which could be extended by 10 days. In all, the Court has 90 days from date of submission to announcing its decision. The Constitutional Court’s mandate specifies that its decision will not be based on whether the Protocols are in compliance with the Constitution, but on whether the obligations deriving from such an international agreement are in conformity with the Constitution.
Given the lack of public trust in Armenia’s courts in general, most Armenians, especially those who oppose the Protocols, are highly skeptical that the Constitutional Court would not rubber stamp the government’s position on these Protocols. Some members of the press questioned the appropriateness of Gagik Harutyunyan, the Constitutional Court’s Chair, accompanying Pres. Sargsyan on his recent overseas “consulting tour,” trying to convince Diaspora Armenians that the Protocols were in Armenia’s best interest.
Given the critical nature of the proposed Protocols and their long-term impact on Armenia’s national interest, it is expected that the Constitutional Court would approach this case with the utmost seriousness and responsibility. While most Armenians would prefer that the Court disapprove the Protocols, it is more likely that it would approve them after adding several clarifications and interpretations that would be part and parcel of the agreement prior to submission to Parliament. Such clarifications would hopefully minimize the detrimental effects of the Protocols and not allow Turkey to misinterpret the agreement, particularly references to international treaties that may preclude future Armenian claims, and formation of a historical sub-commission that could question the facts of the Armenian Genocide.
Another important issue that the Constitutional Court may consider is adding a provision that would give the Armenian government the right to unilaterally abrogate this agreement, should Turkey violate any of its provisions after ratification.
During Pres. Sargsyan’s meeting with over 60 Armenian community leaders in Los Angeles on October 4, I suggested that the Armenian government add a formal reservation to the Protocols, giving itself the right to consider the agreement null and void, should Turkey, after ratification, not open the border with Armenia within the stipulated 60-day timeframe or if it closed the border after opening it. Significantly, Pres. Sargsyan publicly agreed with my suggestion and committed himself to adding such a provision.
Since it appears that the Armenian government is intent on going through with these Protocols despite all objections, the Constitutional Court and the Armenian Parliament should attempt to minimize the damage they are sure to cause to the country’s national interests by adding specific reservations and clarifications prior to their eventual ratification.
Publisher, The California Courier
Pres. Serzh Sargsyan quietly submitted the Armenia-Turkey Protocols to the Constitutional Court on November 19, without a public announcement.
Under Armenian law, all international agreements have to be submitted to the Constitutional Court, prior to their consideration by Parliament for ratification. The Protocols were signed by the Armenian and Turkish Foreign Ministers on October 10, after both sides publicly committed on August 31 to “make their best efforts” to ratify the Protocols in a “timely” manner.
Given the fact that Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu had already introduced the Protocols to the Turkish Parliament on October 21, the timing of Pres. Sargsyan’s submission to the Court may have been prompted by his wish to avoid accusations of foot-dragging by Prime Minister Recep Erdogan during his Washington visit on December 6. Indeed, over the weekend, a Turkish official accused Armenia of not taking any steps to ratify the Protocols. Hurriyet newspaper quoted a Senior Turkish Diplomat as stating: “I do not think that one could press Turkey at this moment when Armenia has still not submitted them to Parliament.”
Forwarding the Protocols to the Constitutional Court, however, does not necessarily mean that Armenian officials intend to ratify them quickly, since they had announced that they are going to wait for Turkey to ratify them first. Moreover, Turkish leaders have repeatedly linked the ratification of the Protocols to the resolution of the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict, thus making it questionable if the Protocols would be ratified at all.
The Armenian Constitutional Court’s website indicates that after submission of a case to the Court, the first step is assigning one of its judges to conduct a preliminary review within 15 days, which could be extended by 10 days. In all, the Court has 90 days from date of submission to announcing its decision. The Constitutional Court’s mandate specifies that its decision will not be based on whether the Protocols are in compliance with the Constitution, but on whether the obligations deriving from such an international agreement are in conformity with the Constitution.
Given the lack of public trust in Armenia’s courts in general, most Armenians, especially those who oppose the Protocols, are highly skeptical that the Constitutional Court would not rubber stamp the government’s position on these Protocols. Some members of the press questioned the appropriateness of Gagik Harutyunyan, the Constitutional Court’s Chair, accompanying Pres. Sargsyan on his recent overseas “consulting tour,” trying to convince Diaspora Armenians that the Protocols were in Armenia’s best interest.
Given the critical nature of the proposed Protocols and their long-term impact on Armenia’s national interest, it is expected that the Constitutional Court would approach this case with the utmost seriousness and responsibility. While most Armenians would prefer that the Court disapprove the Protocols, it is more likely that it would approve them after adding several clarifications and interpretations that would be part and parcel of the agreement prior to submission to Parliament. Such clarifications would hopefully minimize the detrimental effects of the Protocols and not allow Turkey to misinterpret the agreement, particularly references to international treaties that may preclude future Armenian claims, and formation of a historical sub-commission that could question the facts of the Armenian Genocide.
Another important issue that the Constitutional Court may consider is adding a provision that would give the Armenian government the right to unilaterally abrogate this agreement, should Turkey violate any of its provisions after ratification.
During Pres. Sargsyan’s meeting with over 60 Armenian community leaders in Los Angeles on October 4, I suggested that the Armenian government add a formal reservation to the Protocols, giving itself the right to consider the agreement null and void, should Turkey, after ratification, not open the border with Armenia within the stipulated 60-day timeframe or if it closed the border after opening it. Significantly, Pres. Sargsyan publicly agreed with my suggestion and committed himself to adding such a provision.
Since it appears that the Armenian government is intent on going through with these Protocols despite all objections, the Constitutional Court and the Armenian Parliament should attempt to minimize the damage they are sure to cause to the country’s national interests by adding specific reservations and clarifications prior to their eventual ratification.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Turkish Officials Admit To Playing Games With Protocols
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
With each passing day, the games Turkish officials have been playing with the Protocols are becoming more obvious and ridiculous!
Throughout the long months of negotiations, I repeatedly warned that Turkish officials were not sincere in their announced intention of opening the border with Armenia and establishing diplomatic relations. By acting as if they were seeking reconciliation with Armenia, Turkish leaders simply wanted to prevent further acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by third countries, extract maximum concessions from Armenia on Artsakh (Karabagh), and block future territorial demands from Turkey.
Turkey first dragged out the negotiations until right before April 24 to preclude Pres. Obama from keeping his promise on recognizing the Armenian Genocide. The Protocols were finally signed on October 10, to ensure that Pres. Sargsyan does go to Turkey to attend the soccer match between the national teams of the two countries.
Meanwhile, Turkey’s leaders were repeatedly announcing that they would not open the border and their Parliament would not ratify the Protocols until Armenia returned Artsakh to Azerbaijan -- even though there is no such requirement in the signed documents. More than a month has now passed since the signing of the Protocols in Zurich, but there are no signs that the Turkish Parliament would ratify them anytime soon.
Just before signing the Protocols, Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu traveled to Azerbaijan to pledge once again that they had no intention of opening the border with Armenia until Artsakh was returned to Azerbaijan.
As if these outrageous pre-conditions were not sufficient to shake Armenians’ confidence in the Protocols, Turkish officials made no attempt to hide their deceptive designs.
The October 5th issue of the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet quoted Foreign Ministry officials in Ankara as stating: “The formation of a joint history commission and re-opening the border are included in the documents. However, they can be put into effect only after a solution is found to the Karabakh issue. Without a solution to the Karabakh conflict, these protocols cannot be transferred to Parliament. Even then, Parliament would not adopt it. So, relax.”
To convince the Azerbaijanis that Turkey had no plans to ratify the Protocols, Turkish Foreign Ministry officials boasted about their success in deceiving Europeans on another agreement: “Turkey had to sign a protocol with the European Union on the Cyprus issue. What happened? Did Turkey open its seaports and airports to Cypriot vessels and airplanes, after four years?”
We now have solid evidence that these Turkish officials were not making an idle boast when they indicated that signing an agreement means nothing to them. In the Oct. 25 issue of “Today’s Zaman,” commentator Ercan Yavuz cited dozens of examples of agreements signed by Turkey, but not ratified, after the passage of many years! At present, there are 146 agreements with 95 countries, including Argentina, Azerbaijan, Libya, Slovenia, Sweden, and Syria, awaiting the approval of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Commission. The oldest -- an agreement signed 26 years ago between Iraq and Turkey -- is still pending ratification by the Turkish Parliament. Many other important agreements have been signed since 2004, but still not ratified!
Given the Turkish record of not taking seriously commitments made on behalf of their country, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Turkish Parliament would not ratify the Armenia-Turkey Protocols anytime soon. Of course, by not ratifying the Protocols, Turkey would be breaking its written pledge of August 31, to ratify the Protocols in a “timely” manner.
Interestingly, Armenia’s Foreign Minster Edward Nalbandian, in a recent interview with Reuters, asked: “Why sign the Protocols, if they are not going to be ratified?” The answer is obvious: The Turkish government is interested in creating a positive image for itself in front of the international community by appearing to want “good neighborly relations” with Armenia, without actually taking any concrete steps to do so.
Armenia’s officials are sadly mistaken if they believe that Turkey would come under intense international pressure, should it not ratify the protocols. Time and again, Turkey has proven its immunity from pressures applied by other countries, including the United States, as was the case on the eve of the Iraq war when Turkey refused to allow U.S. Troops to cross its borders to enter Iraq.
If pressured from outside, Turkish leaders would simply blame Armenia, by pointing out that it has not made any concessions on Artsakh, thereby making it impossible for the Turkish Parliament to ratify the Protocols.
Armenian officials have repeatedly stated that the Artsakh negotiations are unrelated to the Protocols and that the Armenian Parliament would not ratify the Protocols before Turkey, adding that they would scrap the agreement, if Turkey failed to act in a “timely” manner.
It remains to be seen whether Armenia would keep its pledge of not making any territorial concessions on Artsakh; and should Turkey refuse to ratify the Protocols after the lapse of several months, would Armenia’s leaders have the courage to declare the signed Protocols null and void?
Publisher, The California Courier
With each passing day, the games Turkish officials have been playing with the Protocols are becoming more obvious and ridiculous!
Throughout the long months of negotiations, I repeatedly warned that Turkish officials were not sincere in their announced intention of opening the border with Armenia and establishing diplomatic relations. By acting as if they were seeking reconciliation with Armenia, Turkish leaders simply wanted to prevent further acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by third countries, extract maximum concessions from Armenia on Artsakh (Karabagh), and block future territorial demands from Turkey.
Turkey first dragged out the negotiations until right before April 24 to preclude Pres. Obama from keeping his promise on recognizing the Armenian Genocide. The Protocols were finally signed on October 10, to ensure that Pres. Sargsyan does go to Turkey to attend the soccer match between the national teams of the two countries.
Meanwhile, Turkey’s leaders were repeatedly announcing that they would not open the border and their Parliament would not ratify the Protocols until Armenia returned Artsakh to Azerbaijan -- even though there is no such requirement in the signed documents. More than a month has now passed since the signing of the Protocols in Zurich, but there are no signs that the Turkish Parliament would ratify them anytime soon.
Just before signing the Protocols, Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu traveled to Azerbaijan to pledge once again that they had no intention of opening the border with Armenia until Artsakh was returned to Azerbaijan.
As if these outrageous pre-conditions were not sufficient to shake Armenians’ confidence in the Protocols, Turkish officials made no attempt to hide their deceptive designs.
The October 5th issue of the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet quoted Foreign Ministry officials in Ankara as stating: “The formation of a joint history commission and re-opening the border are included in the documents. However, they can be put into effect only after a solution is found to the Karabakh issue. Without a solution to the Karabakh conflict, these protocols cannot be transferred to Parliament. Even then, Parliament would not adopt it. So, relax.”
To convince the Azerbaijanis that Turkey had no plans to ratify the Protocols, Turkish Foreign Ministry officials boasted about their success in deceiving Europeans on another agreement: “Turkey had to sign a protocol with the European Union on the Cyprus issue. What happened? Did Turkey open its seaports and airports to Cypriot vessels and airplanes, after four years?”
We now have solid evidence that these Turkish officials were not making an idle boast when they indicated that signing an agreement means nothing to them. In the Oct. 25 issue of “Today’s Zaman,” commentator Ercan Yavuz cited dozens of examples of agreements signed by Turkey, but not ratified, after the passage of many years! At present, there are 146 agreements with 95 countries, including Argentina, Azerbaijan, Libya, Slovenia, Sweden, and Syria, awaiting the approval of the Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Commission. The oldest -- an agreement signed 26 years ago between Iraq and Turkey -- is still pending ratification by the Turkish Parliament. Many other important agreements have been signed since 2004, but still not ratified!
Given the Turkish record of not taking seriously commitments made on behalf of their country, it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Turkish Parliament would not ratify the Armenia-Turkey Protocols anytime soon. Of course, by not ratifying the Protocols, Turkey would be breaking its written pledge of August 31, to ratify the Protocols in a “timely” manner.
Interestingly, Armenia’s Foreign Minster Edward Nalbandian, in a recent interview with Reuters, asked: “Why sign the Protocols, if they are not going to be ratified?” The answer is obvious: The Turkish government is interested in creating a positive image for itself in front of the international community by appearing to want “good neighborly relations” with Armenia, without actually taking any concrete steps to do so.
Armenia’s officials are sadly mistaken if they believe that Turkey would come under intense international pressure, should it not ratify the protocols. Time and again, Turkey has proven its immunity from pressures applied by other countries, including the United States, as was the case on the eve of the Iraq war when Turkey refused to allow U.S. Troops to cross its borders to enter Iraq.
If pressured from outside, Turkish leaders would simply blame Armenia, by pointing out that it has not made any concessions on Artsakh, thereby making it impossible for the Turkish Parliament to ratify the Protocols.
Armenian officials have repeatedly stated that the Artsakh negotiations are unrelated to the Protocols and that the Armenian Parliament would not ratify the Protocols before Turkey, adding that they would scrap the agreement, if Turkey failed to act in a “timely” manner.
It remains to be seen whether Armenia would keep its pledge of not making any territorial concessions on Artsakh; and should Turkey refuse to ratify the Protocols after the lapse of several months, would Armenia’s leaders have the courage to declare the signed Protocols null and void?
Monday, November 16, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Saturday, November 07, 2009
Friday, November 06, 2009
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Internal Documents Reveal UK Officials Misled Parliament on Armenian Genocide
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
A prominent legal expert, Mr. Geoffrey Robertson, exposed this week the false and inaccurate statements on the Armenian Genocide made by the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). The international jurist revealed that for many years the FCO (Foreign Ministry) had misled the British Parliament on the facts of the Armenian Genocide in order to curry favor with the Turkish government.
The 40-page meticulously-researched report, commissioned by the Armenian Centre of London, is based on hitherto secret documents obtained from the Foreign Office through the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Robertson, the author of a report titled, "Was there an Armenian Genocide?" served as first President of the UN War Crimes Court in Sierra Leone.
Mr. Robertson had to make repeated requests over several months to the British government in order to obtain internal documents that the Foreign Office was legally obligated to release. According to the FCO, some of the documents were not released at all, while those eventually made public were partially blacked out, in order not to damage Britain’s relations with Turkey.
In his report, Mr. Robertson explains that the Armenian Centre had asked him "to consider the attitude of the British government in refusing to accept that the massacres of Armenians in 1915-16 amounted to genocide, and whether its reasons for taking this position are valid and sustainable in international law."
Regrettably, today’s British officials have forgotten their government’s declaration, issued jointly with France and Russia on May 28, 1915, warning that "in view of the crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization," the three great powers would hold responsible "all members of the Ottoman government" who are implicated in the Armenian massacres.
The recently obtained internal documents reveal the Foreign Office’s misleading, false and sinister intent. In a 1999 memorandum, addressed to Minister of State for Europe Joyce Quin and others, the FCO stated that it is not the British government’s obligation to decide what constitutes genocide: "Investigating, analyzing and interpreting history is a matter for historians." In contrast, Attorney Robertson points out the government’s "basic error" in relying "on historians to decide a legal issue." He explains that "deciding what amounts to genocide is a matter for judgment according to international law, and not al all is a matter for historians. Historians establish facts: lawyers must judge whether those facts amount to a breach of international law."
In the same memorandum, the Foreign Office states that there is no documentary evidence proving that the mass killings of Armenians were a result of deliberate state policy. Mr. Robertson calls this statement "another canard -- that appears routinely and repeatedly" in internal FCO communications -- "the notion that there must be some written document that records a government or leadership decision to exterminate the Armenian people." Mr. Robertson points out that "no such document, of course, exists in relation to the Nazi Holocaust."
Clearly, the Foreign Office is more concerned about the domestic and overseas ramifications of acknowledging the Armenian Genocide than the crime of genocide itself. Mr. Robertson points out: "the memorandum goes on rather cynically to consider the clout of the campaign to recognise the genocide and notes that ‘the campaign does not appear at this stage to have enough support or direction to seriously embarrass HMG [Her Majesty’s Government].’"
The Foreign Office also places a higher premium on appeasing Turkey than on the moral issues arising from the attempted extermination of an entire nation. "HMG is open to criticism in terms of the ethical dimension," the FCO readily admits. "But given the importance of our relations (political, strategic and commercial) with Turkey, and that recognising the genocide would provide no practical benefit to the UK or the few survivors of the killings still alive today, nor would it help a rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey, the current line is the only feasible option." Mr. Robertson sarcastically, yet sadly, remarks: "This particular genocide could not be recognised -- not because it had not taken place, but because it was politically and commercially inconvenient to do so."
Another false argument advanced by the Foreign Office in several memoranda is the contention that the UN Genocide Convention of 1948 has no retroactive effect and therefore, does not apply to the Armenian Genocide. Mr. Robertson, a top expert in the field of international law, quickly quashes this "bad point," because "the rule against retroactivity applies to criminal charges, made against individuals, of offences which were not against the law at the time they were allegedly committed. Nobody is suggesting that criminal charges should be brought now against long dead individuals -- the question is whether the massacre of the Armenians is correctly described as ‘genocide,’ according to the definition adopted by the UN Convention in 1948."
British Minister of State for Europe, Joyce Quin, was so incensed by her government’s extremism in "genocide denial," and its allegation that there was no evidence of a Turkish intent to commit genocide that, in an April 13, 1999 memorandum to the Foreign Office, she pointed out that the issue of intent had never been examined by government officials.
Mr. Robertson’s report then relates the diplomatic scandal involving Thorda Abott-Watt, the British Ambassador to Armenia, who shamelessly questioned the veracity of the Armenian Genocide during a 2004 interview in Yerevan. She stated that the evidence regarding the Armenian Genocide "was not sufficiently unequivocal" to be categorized as genocide under the UN Genocide Convention. In response to several columns I wrote at that time, thousands of readers worldwide inundated the British Foreign Office and the Armenian Foreign Ministry with letters of complaint. The Armenian government finally delivered a "Note verbale" (protest note) to the British government. Mr. Robertson uncovered an internal FCO memorandum written during that controversy, suggesting that the British government maintain its denialist policy, since Turkey "devotes major diplomatic resources to heading off any possible recognition. Turkey would react very strongly indeed to any suggestion of recognition by the UK."
In his examination of the hundreds of pages of recently released documents, Mr. Robertson came across "only one obscure and dismissive reference" by the Foreign Office to the "one credible international inquiry" that classified the Armenian mass killings as Genocide. This unique study was carried out in 1985 by the British Special Rapporteur, Benjamin Whitaker, at the request of the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. To his chagrin, Mr. Robertson found out that the Foreign Office had issued a memorandum advising government ministers to dismiss the UN 1985 report by stating that "since then, we are not aware of it being mentioned in any UN document or forum."
Even after several European countries had recognized the Armenian Genocide, the Foreign Office continued to stubbornly cling to its denialist policy by advising Minister of State for Europe, Geoff Hoon, that "Turkey is neuralgic and defensive about the charge of genocide despite the fact that the events occurred at the time of the Ottoman Empire as opposed to modern day Turkey. There were many Turks who lost their lives in the war and there may also be an element of concern over compensation claims should they accept the charge of genocide. This defensiveness has meant that Turkey has historically stifled debate at home and devoted considerable diplomatic effort to dissuading any further recognition."
Finally, in October 2007, when the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted a resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide, the Foreign Office wrote an alarming memorandum, expressing concern that "the Armenian diaspora worldwide lobbying machine" would now "go into overdrive!"
Mr. Robertson, based on his examination of the released internal documents written over a 10-year period, concludes that the advice given by the British Foreign Office to government ministers "reflects neither the law of genocide nor the demonstrable facts of the massacres in 1915-16, and has been calculated to mislead parliament into believing that there has been an assessment of evidence and an exercise of judgment on that evidence."
Mr. Robertson further establishes that the "parliament has been routinely misinformed, by ministers who have recited FCO briefs without questioning their accuracy. HMG’s [Her Majesty’s Government] real and only policy has been to evade truthful answers to questions about the Armenian genocide, because the truth would discomfort the Turkish government!"
In view of revelations of such misconduct and misrepresentation, the British Parliament should hold formal hearings and investigate the conduct of all officials who provided false and misleading information to Parliament members for well over a decade. Those found to be either negligent in carrying out their duties or complicit in providing outright falsehoods, should have charges filed against them or dismissed from their governmental posts.
In addition, Mr. Robertson, a pre-eminent international jurist, should be asked to file legal action against the Turkish government in British courts, and more importantly, in the European Court of Human Rights.
This extremely valuable report should be translated into several major languages and disseminated worldwide.
Monday, November 02, 2009
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
p--cmYrAD_e345B