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.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Show is Over…The Protocols are Dead!
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
The show is finally over! The international community is no longer buying the endless Turkish excuses for refusing to ratify the Protocols. Armenian officials, who naively believed that Turkey would open its border and establish diplomatic relations with Armenia, are beginning to question the Turks’ sincerity and contemplating the possibility of the Protocols’ collapse.
Now the blame game starts! Whose fault is it that the Protocols are not being ratified? In my view, the Turks are the ones to be blamed for deceiving the international community all along. It was never the intention of the Turkish leaders to carry out their publicly stated plans to normalize relations with Armenia. They were simply engaged in a ploy to obstruct what they believed to be Pres. Obama’s solemn pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide, and to facilitate Turkey’s admission to the European Union (EU), since open borders are one of the key prerequisites for EU membership.
Without taking a single positive step, Turkey created the false impression of reconciling with Armenia, thereby dissuading Pres. Obama from using the term "Genocide" in his April 24 statement. Turkish leaders also succeeded in exploiting the Protocols to generate favorable worldwide publicity for their country.
During long and difficult negotiations, Turkey demanded that in return for opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations, Armenia withdraw from Karabagh (Artsakh), set up an international commission to study the facts of the Genocide, and acknowledge the territorial integrity of Turkey.
After Russia, the United States, and Europe applied intense pressure on both sides, Armenia and Turkey made a series of compromises. Armenia reluctantly agreed to establish an ambiguous "historical commission," which was not explicitly linked to the Genocide. Armenia also had to accept a reference in the Protocols to prior international treaties that confirmed Armenian territorial concessions to Turkey, but did not specifically mention the capitulatory Treaty of Kars. Furthermore, the Protocols included a clause that called for non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states, implying that Armenia could no longer support Artsakh, because that would be construed as interference in Azerbaijan’s domestic issues.
Since the Protocols signed on October 10 did not fulfill all of Turkey’s demands, its leaders started threatening not to ratify the Protocols or open the border with Armenia until the Artsakh conflict is resolved in Azerbaijan’s favor. In other words, Turkey was trying to make up for any deficiencies in the Protocols by holding their ratification hostage to its precondition on Artsakh.
The ratification of the Protocols became even more complicated when Azerbaijan began to threaten its "Big Brother" Turkey for considering the opening of the border with its archenemy -- Armenia. The Azeris wanted the Turkish blockade to continue until Armenia is forced to acknowledge Azerbaijan’s jurisdiction over Artsakh. The Azeri threat of raising natural gas prices to Turkey and redirecting some of its oil to Russia made Turkish leaders even more reticent to consummate their agreement with Armenia.
To appease Azerbaijan, Turkey demanded that Russia, Europe and the United States pressure Armenia into making concessions on Artsakh. This Turkish request, however, fell on deaf ears. The international community realized that the attempt to simultaneously resolve two thorny issues -- the Artsakh conflict and Armenia-Turkey Protocols -- would lead to solving neither one!
Realizing that hardly anyone outside Turkey and Azerbaijan was supporting their demands on Artsakh, Turkish leaders set their sights on another convenient scapegoat: The Constitutional Court of Armenia. Although the Court decided on January 12 that the obligations stipulated in the Protocols complied with the constitution, it also issued several clarifications and limitations that restricted the Turkish government’s loose interpretation of the Protocols.
Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu brazenly threatened to abandon the Protocols outright, unless the Armenian Constitutional Court "corrected" its decision -- an impossible task under Armenian laws! The State Dept. quickly sided with Armenia, rejecting the Turkish claim that the Constitutional Court's ruling contradicted the "letter and spirit" of the agreement. Of course, the State Department’s true intent was to forestall the Armenian Parliament from adding any reservations on the Protocols at the time of ratification.
Since the Chairman of the Armenian Parliament had already announced that he would not take any action until the Turkish Parliament ratified the Protocols first, the ball is now in Turkey’s court. The Protocols have been collecting dust in Ankara ever since they were submitted to the Parliament on October 21, 2009. The Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Turkey had stated in their joint announcement of last August that the Protocols should be ratified "within a reasonable timeframe." Armenian officials recently reminded Turkey of that loose deadline, adding that Armenia would be forced to take unspecified counter-actions should Turkey not ratify the Protocols by February or March, at the latest!
At this juncture, neither Armenia nor Turkey is willing to back down from its recalcitrant position. Should Turkey’s leaders remove Artsakh and the Constitutional Court as preconditions, they would risk not only losing Azerbaijan as an ally, but seriously jeopardize their party’s majority in next year’s parliamentary election. Similarly, Armenia’s leaders can neither give up Artsakh nor "correct" the ruling of the Constitutional Court. No amount of outside pressure can therefore force the two governments to reverse course. That is why I believe the Protocols cannot be resuscitated!
Turkey came very close to deceiving Armenia and the rest of the world with these infamous Protocols. Fortunately, they failed before causing lasting damage to Armenia’s national interests.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Lets Remember Hrant Dink
Hrant Dink 15 Sep 1954 - 19 Jan 2007
Assassinated in Istanbul by 17 year old Turkish nationalist, Ogun Samast.
Why?
Couple of reasons -
he was Armenian,
he was a journalist, editor
he didn’t keep quit
he wanted the truthhe was brave
Quotes from Hrant:
“If I write about the Armenian Genocide it angers the Turkish generals. I want to write and ask how we can change this historical conflict into peace. They don’t know how to solve the Armenian problem.”
“I challenge the accepted version of history because I do not write about things in black and white. People here are used to black and white; that’s why they are astonished that there are other shades, too.”
“The prosecutions are not a surprise to me. They want to teach me a lesson because I am Armenian. They try to keep me quiet.”
9 days before his assassination, in his final Agos column he wrote:
“It is obvious that those wishing to alienate me and make me weak and defenseless reached their goal. Right now they have brought about a significant circle of people who are not low in numbers and who regard me as someone “insulting Turkish identity” due to dirty and false information.”
“My diary and the memory of my computer are full of messages from citizens of this circle full of range and threats.”
Lets Remember Hrant Dink.
Assassinated in Istanbul by 17 year old Turkish nationalist, Ogun Samast.
Why?
Couple of reasons -
he was Armenian,
he was a journalist, editor
he didn’t keep quit
he wanted the truthhe was brave
Quotes from Hrant:
“If I write about the Armenian Genocide it angers the Turkish generals. I want to write and ask how we can change this historical conflict into peace. They don’t know how to solve the Armenian problem.”
“I challenge the accepted version of history because I do not write about things in black and white. People here are used to black and white; that’s why they are astonished that there are other shades, too.”
“The prosecutions are not a surprise to me. They want to teach me a lesson because I am Armenian. They try to keep me quiet.”
9 days before his assassination, in his final Agos column he wrote:
“It is obvious that those wishing to alienate me and make me weak and defenseless reached their goal. Right now they have brought about a significant circle of people who are not low in numbers and who regard me as someone “insulting Turkish identity” due to dirty and false information.”
“My diary and the memory of my computer are full of messages from citizens of this circle full of range and threats.”
Lets Remember Hrant Dink.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Constitutional Court Limits Protocols’ Damage to Armenian National Interests
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
After months of bickering among Armenians the world over about the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, the Constitutional Court of Armenia on January 12 pronounced its judgment on whether the obligations stipulated by the Protocols comply with the constitution.
The Court’s task would have been relatively easier, if it were to simply deal with the legal aspects of the Protocols which would have required a yes or no decision followed by a brief explanation. Yet the fact that the Court’s verdict was eight pages long and contained scores of clarifications, interpretations, explanations, and restrictions, indicated that the Justices of the Court had to walk a tightrope between safeguarding Armenia’s relations with major foreign powers and minimizing the potential damage the Protocols could cause to the Armenian national interest.
Since the Court was apparently reluctant to reject outright these badly-negotiated and poorly-worded Protocols, it did the next best thing: accept the Protocols after placing a large number of restrictions on their legal interpretation and implementation. Thus, the Court’s decision partially vindicates all those who have been expressing their serious reservations regarding the negative aspects of the Protocols.
Here are some of the main interpretations and limitations that the Court placed on the Protocols:
1) The Court made all clauses of the Protocols conditional on the implementation of two main obligations: "establish diplomatic relations" and "open the common border." The Justices thus made these two actions a necessary prerequisite for the fulfillment of all other obligations to be undertaken by Armenia and Turkey.
2) The Court narrowly interpreted the "open the common border" clause of the Protocols, indicating that Armenia was simply making a commitment "to resolve legal-organizational and institutional issues connected to safeguarding the normal operation of border checkpoints." Significantly, the Court used the term "checkpoint" rather than "border," thereby indirectly refusing to accord legal recognition to Armenia’s present boundary with Turkey. Since it was Turkey that closed the border, it alone is responsible for re-opening it. Armenia’s obligation, on the other hand, is limited to simply making the necessary administrative arrangements to permit passage through a checkpoint.
3) The Court ruled that only those international treaties that have been ratified under the constitution of the present Republic of Armenia could be considered legally valid. The clear implication is that border issues regulated by treaties pre-dating the Republic’s existence cannot be considered valid. This interpretation contradicts frequent Turkish declarations that the Protocols reconfirm Armenian territorial concessions to Turkey, specifically referencing the 1921 Treaty of Kars. Indeed, the Court pointedly downplayed the overall significance of these Protocols by mandating that all future treaties that establish and further develop relations between Armenia and Turkey require its specific approval.
4) The Court countered the text of the Protocols which included specific language about multilateral obligations, by asserting that the documents in question were "exclusively of a bilateral interstate nature." The Justices thus precluded Turkey from interfering in the Karabagh (Artsakh) negotiations and making the improvement of Armenia-Turkey relations conditional on the resolution of that conflict.
5) The Court took issue with Turkish statements that the aim of the historical commission envisaged by the Protocols is to review the facts of the Armenian Genocide. The Justices clearly stated that the provisions of the Protocols could not contradict the preamble of the constitution which includes a reference to Armenia’s Declaration of Independence. Article 11 of the Declaration stated: "The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia."
The key question now is what happens next?
At a minimum, the Constitutional Court has limited some of the damaging aspects of the Protocols by ruling that any laws emanating from the Protocols, after parliamentary ratification, cannot violate the constitution of the Republic of Armenia.
Of course, it would be far more preferable if the Parliament were to reject these Protocols outright. Regrettably, this is unlikely, as the Parliament is dominated by pro-government deputies. If rejection is not a possibility, the President of Armenia and the Parliament should at least consider specific reservations or changes to these Protocols in line with the Constitutional Court’s decision.
Failing that, Armenians who oppose the Protocols must pin their last hope on the Turkish Parliament’s insistence that it would not ratify the Protocols until Armenia withdraws from Artsakh. Should the Turkish Parliament not ratify the Protocols, it would be highly ironic if Armenians had to rely on Turkish actions in order to protect their national interest!
Friday, January 15, 2010
Armenian pogroms in Baku
2010 MARKS 20TH ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIAN POGROMS IN BAKU
Armenian pogroms in Baku were planned previously
http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/print/?nid=41556Iraqi Armenians in Armenia
Thursday, January 14, 2010
The Majority of UK Members of Parliament from Scotland and Northern Ireland have recognised the Genocide
Dear Readers,
I received the following e-mail from Mr. Eilian Williams from Wales-Armenia Solidarity. Mr. Williams had an Appeal in the past to help the Armenians of Iraq (http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2008/10/wales-armenia-solidarity-appeal-to-help.html). He is a man of honour who has been exerting great efforts to support the Armenian Cause (http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/07/welsh-shepherd-does-more-for-armenian.html) and (http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/07/eilian-williams-welsh-shepherd_15.html).
Hrant Dink Society
c/o The Temple of Peace, Cathays Park,Cardiff
eilian@nantperis.wanadoo.co.uk
07718982732
These develpments , which will increase the moral pressure on Prime Minister Gordon Brown, took place this week after lobbying from Armenia Solidarity, a Welsh-based organisation supported , by Nor Serount Cultural Association. Dr Bob Spink kindly acceeded to their request in December for a motion in the UK parliament on the Holocaust, which included this part:: "This House....condemns unreservedly denial and denigration of the memory of the Holocaust, as well as of the 1915 Genocide of Armenians and Assyrians in Turkey, and the politics of hatred and division which led to these events"
Of the 59 Scottish MPs in the UK parliament, 37 have recognised the genocide, 13 have not, and the remaining 8 are not allowed ro sign, being part of the Labour Government.
Of the 18 elected Northern Irish MPs , the 6 Sinn Fein Members do not take their seats. Of the remaining twelve, eleven of them have signed now or in the past
These follow the example of MPs from Wales, the majority of which have recognised the Genocide in 2006 and 2007. By now 26 Welsh MPs have recognised the genocide, 9 have not, and the remaining 5 are not allowed, being in the government. The progressive attittude of Welsh politicians is explained, in our view, by an empathy with other countries who have also endured centuries of foreign occupation.
In addition, the First Ministers of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have all recognised the Genocide. The Welsh First Minister did so in 2001, while the Scotish and Northern Irish First Ministers have both signed motions in the UK parliament to this effect
In the other Celtic country of the UK , all the MPs from Cornwall have recognised the Genocide in 2007.
It is regrettable that Genocide Denial is a problem of only one country in the UK, namely England ,where nearly all UK Armenians live. It is regrettable also that the Armenian government has no diplomatic representation in any of these Celtic countries of the UK, which have staunchly supported the cause.
UK Armenians are encouraged to write to their MPs asking them to the current Early Day Motion, number 287.
I received the following e-mail from Mr. Eilian Williams from Wales-Armenia Solidarity. Mr. Williams had an Appeal in the past to help the Armenians of Iraq (http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2008/10/wales-armenia-solidarity-appeal-to-help.html). He is a man of honour who has been exerting great efforts to support the Armenian Cause (http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/07/welsh-shepherd-does-more-for-armenian.html) and (http://ara-ashjian.blogspot.com/2009/07/eilian-williams-welsh-shepherd_15.html).
Hrant Dink Society
c/o The Temple of Peace, Cathays Park,Cardiff
eilian@nantperis.wanadoo.co.uk
07718982732
The Majority of UK Members of Parliament from Scotland and Northern Ireland have recognised the Genocide
These develpments , which will increase the moral pressure on Prime Minister Gordon Brown, took place this week after lobbying from Armenia Solidarity, a Welsh-based organisation supported , by Nor Serount Cultural Association. Dr Bob Spink kindly acceeded to their request in December for a motion in the UK parliament on the Holocaust, which included this part:: "This House....condemns unreservedly denial and denigration of the memory of the Holocaust, as well as of the 1915 Genocide of Armenians and Assyrians in Turkey, and the politics of hatred and division which led to these events"
Of the 59 Scottish MPs in the UK parliament, 37 have recognised the genocide, 13 have not, and the remaining 8 are not allowed ro sign, being part of the Labour Government.
Of the 18 elected Northern Irish MPs , the 6 Sinn Fein Members do not take their seats. Of the remaining twelve, eleven of them have signed now or in the past
These follow the example of MPs from Wales, the majority of which have recognised the Genocide in 2006 and 2007. By now 26 Welsh MPs have recognised the genocide, 9 have not, and the remaining 5 are not allowed, being in the government. The progressive attittude of Welsh politicians is explained, in our view, by an empathy with other countries who have also endured centuries of foreign occupation.
In addition, the First Ministers of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have all recognised the Genocide. The Welsh First Minister did so in 2001, while the Scotish and Northern Irish First Ministers have both signed motions in the UK parliament to this effect
In the other Celtic country of the UK , all the MPs from Cornwall have recognised the Genocide in 2007.
It is regrettable that Genocide Denial is a problem of only one country in the UK, namely England ,where nearly all UK Armenians live. It is regrettable also that the Armenian government has no diplomatic representation in any of these Celtic countries of the UK, which have staunchly supported the cause.
UK Armenians are encouraged to write to their MPs asking them to the current Early Day Motion, number 287.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Armenians, Just as Bulgarians, Should Demand Compensation from Turkey
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
Bojidar Dimitrov, Bulgaria’s Minister in charge of the Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, stirred a hornet’s nest at the start of the new year by threatening to block Turkey’s accession to the European Union (EU), unless it paid billions of dollars in compensation for Bulgarians who were forcefully displaced during the Ottoman era.
Dimitrov said Turkey owed Bulgaria $20 billion for expelling hundreds of thousands of ethnic Bulgarians in 1913. The Republic of Turkey, which was founded in 1923, had assumed the obligations of the Ottoman Empire and agreed to make reparations in a 1925 treaty. However, thus far, Bulgaria has received no compensation from the Turkish government.
"Turkey is surely able to pay this sum, after all, it’s the 16th largest economic power in the world," Dimitrov said, capitalizing on a statement that Turkish officials often make, bragging about their country’s economic strength!
Dimitrov disclosed that the payment of compensation as required by the 1925 treaty is one of Bulgaria’s three pre-conditions in order not to veto Turkey’s admission to the EU. The other two pre-conditions involve energy and water management issues.
Veselin Ninov, a Bulgarian government spokesman, confirmed to the EUobserver on January 4, that Dimitrov’s announcement represented official state policy. He revealed that the dispute was being handled by a "Bulgarian-Turkish intergovernmental working group" and that Prime Minister Boyko Borissov would raise the compensation issue during his upcoming visit to Turkey.
Turkish officials reacted quickly and harshly! Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, repeating the same baseless accusations that Turkish leaders often make regarding the Armenian Genocide, alleged that the Turks suffered as much as the Bulgarians during that period. According to Zaman newspaper, Davutoglu warned that Bulgaria’s demands for compensation might harm bilateral relations, although, he confirmed that the two countries have been discussing "issues relevant to the mass transfers of Turks and Bulgarians during the last days of the Ottoman Empire."
Bulgarian officials immediately backed down realizing that an open confrontation with Turkey on this issue may not be as beneficial to them as quiet, behind closed doors negotiations. Bulgaria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Marin Raykov sought to downplay Dimitrov’s demands by stating that his country did not make Turkey’s EU bid conditional on the resolution of the compensation issue for displaced persons. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Borissov rebuked Dimitrov, threatening to fire him should he make a similar statement in the future without first consulting him.
Minister Dimitrov quickly apologized in order to retain his job. Press official Veselin Ninov, however, was not as fortunate. He was fired for endorsing Dimitrov’s earlier statement.
For the time being, Bulgaria’s leaders may find it premature to openly link their demands for compensation from Turkey to its bid for EU membership, even though many Bulgarians have persistently demanded such reparations for decades. Consequently, this issue is bound to remain on the agenda of the two countries, undermining Turkey’s oft-stated claim that it has zero-problems or disputes with its neighbors.
Despite Prime Minister Borissov’s disclaimer, Bulgaria has now added yet another wrinkle to Turkey’s bid for EU membership which is becoming increasingly elusive. Already several European countries such as France, Germany, Holland, and Austria strongly oppose Turkey’s EU membership bid. Greece and Cyprus would not allow Turkey to join the EU, unless its troops withdraw from Northern Cyprus. Furthermore, it would be impossible for Turkey to join the EU without fulfilling one of its key requirements -- open borders with all neighboring states. Turkey, thus, cannot become an EU member, unless it opens its border with Armenia, independently of the fate of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.
Beyond the obstacles in joining the EU, Turkey is swamped with a large number of lawsuits filed against it in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Should it refuse to compensate Bulgaria for the 1913 refugees, it is likely to face more legal troubles.
However, Turkey’s record on winning lawsuits in the ECHR is not very good. It has already lost several major court cases for its occupation of Northern Cyprus. Also, Greek and Armenian minority foundations in Turkey have successfully recovered through the ECHR some of their real estate assets that were confiscated decades ago.
Encouraged by these successful lawsuits, Armenians living in Turkey and throughout Europe should seek legal redress through the ECHR for their countless losses suffered during the Genocide. Claims could be filed for the loss of personal property, bank accounts, real estate, monuments and churches.
No peace without justice!
No reconciliation without restitution!
Publisher, The California Courier
Bojidar Dimitrov, Bulgaria’s Minister in charge of the Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, stirred a hornet’s nest at the start of the new year by threatening to block Turkey’s accession to the European Union (EU), unless it paid billions of dollars in compensation for Bulgarians who were forcefully displaced during the Ottoman era.
Dimitrov said Turkey owed Bulgaria $20 billion for expelling hundreds of thousands of ethnic Bulgarians in 1913. The Republic of Turkey, which was founded in 1923, had assumed the obligations of the Ottoman Empire and agreed to make reparations in a 1925 treaty. However, thus far, Bulgaria has received no compensation from the Turkish government.
"Turkey is surely able to pay this sum, after all, it’s the 16th largest economic power in the world," Dimitrov said, capitalizing on a statement that Turkish officials often make, bragging about their country’s economic strength!
Dimitrov disclosed that the payment of compensation as required by the 1925 treaty is one of Bulgaria’s three pre-conditions in order not to veto Turkey’s admission to the EU. The other two pre-conditions involve energy and water management issues.
Veselin Ninov, a Bulgarian government spokesman, confirmed to the EUobserver on January 4, that Dimitrov’s announcement represented official state policy. He revealed that the dispute was being handled by a "Bulgarian-Turkish intergovernmental working group" and that Prime Minister Boyko Borissov would raise the compensation issue during his upcoming visit to Turkey.
Turkish officials reacted quickly and harshly! Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, repeating the same baseless accusations that Turkish leaders often make regarding the Armenian Genocide, alleged that the Turks suffered as much as the Bulgarians during that period. According to Zaman newspaper, Davutoglu warned that Bulgaria’s demands for compensation might harm bilateral relations, although, he confirmed that the two countries have been discussing "issues relevant to the mass transfers of Turks and Bulgarians during the last days of the Ottoman Empire."
Bulgarian officials immediately backed down realizing that an open confrontation with Turkey on this issue may not be as beneficial to them as quiet, behind closed doors negotiations. Bulgaria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Marin Raykov sought to downplay Dimitrov’s demands by stating that his country did not make Turkey’s EU bid conditional on the resolution of the compensation issue for displaced persons. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Borissov rebuked Dimitrov, threatening to fire him should he make a similar statement in the future without first consulting him.
Minister Dimitrov quickly apologized in order to retain his job. Press official Veselin Ninov, however, was not as fortunate. He was fired for endorsing Dimitrov’s earlier statement.
For the time being, Bulgaria’s leaders may find it premature to openly link their demands for compensation from Turkey to its bid for EU membership, even though many Bulgarians have persistently demanded such reparations for decades. Consequently, this issue is bound to remain on the agenda of the two countries, undermining Turkey’s oft-stated claim that it has zero-problems or disputes with its neighbors.
Despite Prime Minister Borissov’s disclaimer, Bulgaria has now added yet another wrinkle to Turkey’s bid for EU membership which is becoming increasingly elusive. Already several European countries such as France, Germany, Holland, and Austria strongly oppose Turkey’s EU membership bid. Greece and Cyprus would not allow Turkey to join the EU, unless its troops withdraw from Northern Cyprus. Furthermore, it would be impossible for Turkey to join the EU without fulfilling one of its key requirements -- open borders with all neighboring states. Turkey, thus, cannot become an EU member, unless it opens its border with Armenia, independently of the fate of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.
Beyond the obstacles in joining the EU, Turkey is swamped with a large number of lawsuits filed against it in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Should it refuse to compensate Bulgaria for the 1913 refugees, it is likely to face more legal troubles.
However, Turkey’s record on winning lawsuits in the ECHR is not very good. It has already lost several major court cases for its occupation of Northern Cyprus. Also, Greek and Armenian minority foundations in Turkey have successfully recovered through the ECHR some of their real estate assets that were confiscated decades ago.
Encouraged by these successful lawsuits, Armenians living in Turkey and throughout Europe should seek legal redress through the ECHR for their countless losses suffered during the Genocide. Claims could be filed for the loss of personal property, bank accounts, real estate, monuments and churches.
No peace without justice!
No reconciliation without restitution!
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Friday, January 08, 2010
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
p--cmYrAD_e345B