Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Armenian Question Today

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Armenian Question Today

    This is a slightly expanded English version of the article, which was
    first published in Armenian and
    Russian in the `Sobesednik Armenii/Hayastani Zrutsakits' weekly
    (Yerevan), #1 (164), January 14, 2011.

    ARMENIAN QUESTION TODAY

    II. International Legal Level

    For the earlier parts of this series,
    see `Sobesednik Armenii/Hayastani Zrutsakits', 2010 г., ?-
    41 (159), ?- 45 (163)

    2. The Case of Armenocide and Ethnic Cleansing In Azerbaijan
    (1918-2010)

    The first Republic of Armenia (1918-1920) had neither the time, nor
    the possibility to conduct an open trial of the organizers and
    perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. Despite that, the decision to
    punish them was made during this short period, in October of 1919 and
    precisely in Yerevan, at the IX Congress of ARF Dashnaktsutyun, the
    ruling party at the time. In contrast the leadership of the "Third"
    Republic of Armenia (1991 to present) ` absolutely failing to
    comprehend the essence of the Armenian Question and pinning their
    hopes on a speedy settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh and the
    Turkish-Armenian conflicts via international mediation ` has simply
    decided to discard the effective and available means for self-defense
    and retribution, namely, the exclusive right of a sovereign state to
    pursue national and international prosecution of the organizers and
    perpetrators of Armenocide and ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan that
    partially took place during the existence of the "Third" republic.

    Hopeless attempts by all three presidents of RoA to appease the
    Armenian-hating regime in Baku and its patrons in Ankara have led only
    to an acceleration of Azerbaijan's comprehensive preparation for a new
    war against Armenia, as well as intensification of the anti-Armenian
    propaganda both within that country and internationally. Therefore at
    present, much like before, it is possible to respond adequately to the
    genocidal plans of the Azerbaijani state-sponsored fascism by
    instigating legal proceedings against it, exposing it in the courtroom
    and finding it guilty of Armenocide (genocide), starting from the
    massacres of Armenians in the newly created Azerbaijani (Musavatist)
    Republic, particularly in Baku (September 1918) and Shushi (March
    1920), to ethnic cleansings in Nakhichevan (1918-1988), Sumgait,
    Kirovabad, Baku again, then in Lowland and Mountainous (Nagorno)
    Karabakh (1988- 1994). These proceedings should have been instituted
    in Yerevan long ago, case by case and in their minute details, within
    the framework of a special tribunal instituted in the Republic of
    Armenia. Additionally, the relevant structures in RoA and Armenian
    Diaspora should have been actively ` legally, financially, and
    organizationally `

    contributing to the initiation of a series of separate cases against
    Armenocide and ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan in the national courts
    of foreign states by the exiled victims of these crimes, who are now
    refugees in different parts of the world. All this remains undone, but
    there can be no more delay, especially since Azerbaijan is preparing a
    proactive international legal offensive of its own, based on
    trumped-up fraudulent charges. Ð? special fact-finding team must
    be urgently established by a competent investigative body in RoA,
    which will take on all the work of collecting and analyzing the facts
    of crimes against Armenians in Artsakh, Nakhichevan, districts and
    towns of pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-Soviet Azerbaijan, and prepare
    this vast case for legal proceedings. Nakhichevan is a special case,
    since under the Treaty of Kars, Art. V., it is under the protectorate
    of Azerbaijan, by agreement of Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan, so
    Armenia has even more standing to investigate and condemn Soviet and
    Azerbaijani misrule of this predominantly Armenian territory and to
    withdraw its consent to the protectorate on the grounds that
    Azerbaijan has violated its duties under international law. An
    auxiliary fact-finding team should be established in the
    Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR). Finally, trials must be conducted, in
    the RoA and NKR, based on the entire range of modern international
    laws on crimes against humanity. In addition, international
    world-class experts should be involved in preparing and conducting the
    trial.

    Defending the right of Armenians in Artsakh to self-determination and,
    at the same time, omitting to give a legal assessment to Azerbaijan's
    crimes against humanity in a courtroom was a mistake that greatly
    weakened the position of RoA and NKR on the diplomatic front. A
    separate inquiry needs to be made into Azerbaijan's failure to fulfill
    its sovereign obligations toward the Armenian populations of NKR and
    Nakhichevan throughout the Soviet era, in order to demonstrate that in
    addition to its criminal record, Azerbaijan is unfit to act in any
    sovereign capacity with respect to Armenian populations and
    lands. Azerbaijan's crimes against humanity must be prosecuted in a
    court of law and at the state level, first of all in the independent
    Republic of Armenia, regardless of any possible future international
    proceedings and verdicts. If the independent Armenian state does not
    endeavor to convict the organizers and perpetrators of massacres,
    pogroms and forced deportations of its own countrymen, that is, it is
    not trying to pursue legal means of defense against the genocidal
    policies towards its own people, then serious questions arise
    regarding the degree of sovereignty of this state, as well as on the
    level of professionalism and system of values of its political elite.

    A relatively fresh example of an acute deficit of political will and
    international legal competence of the authorities of RoA transpired
    when they failed to give an adequate response to Azerbaijan's barbaric
    anti-Armenian criminality, namely the murder of the Armenian officer
    in Budapest in February of 2004 and the destruction in Julfa (in

    Nakhijevan) of thousands of irreplaceable monuments of world cultural
    heritage and Armenian medieval architecture ` cross-stones
    (khachqars), the fact of their barbaric demolition caught on tape
    during one of the regular episodes of vandalism in December of 2005.

    Further, the injured party (Republic of Armenia) should have
    categorized the crime in Budapest not simply as "aggravated murder"
    based on unspecified "despicable motives," as it was put by the
    Budapest court under Article 166 of Hungarian Penal Code (and readily
    accepted by the Armenian side), but as an act of state terrorism
    motivated by racial hatred and prepared by Azeri special forces, with
    the possible complicity of their Turkish counterparts (let us recall
    that the murderer was a graduate of two Turkish elite military
    schools: from 1992 to 1996 he studied in Istanbul Military College,
    then from 1996 to 2000 in Turkish Military Academy). Only a month
    after the murder of Gurgen Markaryan and long before the beginning of
    the Budapest process, I proposed to demand the consideration of strong
    evidence on the basis of which the offender could be indicted on these
    very charges, stressing that the available evidence "provides a solid
    ground to the Armenian party at the forthcoming court hearings in
    Budapest to explore this version of the murder, implying a
    premeditated and thoroughly planned action by the Azerbaijani special
    services, in other words, making a case for a state crime" (see
    www.defacto.am, 03/29/2004; "Novoye Vremya", 3/30/ 2004, in
    Russian). The inadequacy of Budapest's verdict, as well as the
    impunity of Azerbaijani vandalism in Julfa are fully sufficient
    reasons for separate trials to be conducted in Armenia and verdicts
    handed down in absentia to the organizers and executors of these
    crimes. On a related note, I would like to point out that RoA
    authorities did not properly respond to these barbaric displays of
    Armenophobia even on a purely political level, continuing their
    meetings and negotiations with the fascist leaders of the Baku regime
    as if nothing had happened, instead of -- at least temporarily `
    suspending all relations and contacts with them! Termination of
    negotiations, necessary if only to maintain national and state
    dignity, would have been, among other things, a powerful tool to
    inform the international public opinion about the impossibility of
    Artsakh's return under the rule of Azerbaijan, which raised the
    anti-Armenian racism to the level of state ideology.

    Of course, trials in absentia are a relatively rare form of bringing
    justice in international jurisprudence, because, occurring in the
    absence of the accused, they limit the chances for his/her
    defence. But such courts аre quite typical when it comes to
    serious and very serious crimes, and, for whatever reason, the
    perpetrators do not get caught or brought to justice. This was how in
    1919 many of the leaders of Young Turks were sentenced in absentia by
    the Military Tribunals in Istanbul. Also, numerous trials in absentia
    of Nazi criminals have been held in various countries of the world. In
    the years 2009-2010 alone, five individuals were convicted of Nazi war
    crimes, three in absentia in Italy and two in Germany. Based on the
    uniquely specific challenges of the national security of Armenia,
    expressed principally in the ongoing genocidal policy against the
    Armenian people, a lack of international legal assessment of this
    policy, as well as the impunity of

    its perpetrators, Turkey and Azerbaijan, the legislation of the
    Republic of Armenia must be fundamentally reassessed both in terms of
    punishment for crimes against humanity, and in terms of organizing and
    conducting effective trials of such crimes.

    Further, the materials of the trials in absentia held in Armenia
    should be, in parts or in their entirety, be transferred to the
    international courts, and, first of all, to the UN International Court
    of Justice or a specially created International Tribunal in the Hague
    on Armenocide and ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan. Armenia will demand
    a verdict against Azerbaijan for material and financial reparations,
    moral, cultural and territorial compensation, and the return of the
    occupied territories of RoA and NKR.

    3. The Case of Ethnic Discrimination of Georgia's Armenian Population
    And the Rights of Armenians of Javakhk

    It is high time that the protection of undermined national interests
    and rights of Armenians in Georgia took the form of international
    legal pressure on Georgian authorities. This applies especially to the
    inherent right of Javakhk Armenians to self-rule and
    administrative-cultural autonomy within Georgia. Numerous instances of
    discriminatory policies of official Tbilisi in the linguistic,
    cultural-educational, demographic, religious, and administrative
    aspects of life of this Armenian region may serve as basis for Javakhk
    Armenians to initiate legal proceedings in Georgia and in
    international courts on their own. In the struggle for national
    self-preservation, Javakhk Armenians are experiencing a critical
    shortage of professional, financial and organizational resources. RoA
    and organizations of the Armenian Diaspora must support Javakhk
    Armenians in legal matters now, to avoid being forced to engage in
    firefighting an open conflict in the near future or facing the fact of
    `Nakhichevanization' (de-Armenization) of this strategically important
    territory. There are also opportunities for direct international legal
    intervention of the Republic of Armenia to protect the rights and
    interests of its compatriots in Javakhk. The basis for such pressure
    on Georgian authorities can be the international treaties within the
    framework of UN and the Council of Europe, signed and ratified by
    Georgia, including (the years of accession by Georgia are given in
    parenthesis) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1991), the
    International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1994), the
    Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of
    National Minorities (2005), and so on. At the same time, it should be
    noted that Javakhk Armenians are not a national minority in the
    conventional sense, since they live in their homeland, the northern
    part of the historical Armenian province of Gugark.

    The loss of Javakhk, its de-Armenianization according to the
    Nakhichevan scenario (moving along, by the way, at full speed) must be
    excluded, or it would entail catastrophic complications in the
    geostrategic situation of Armenia, comparable only to that of the loss
    of Artsakh. Javakhk Armenians are completely within their rights to
    proclaim autonomy without looking back at official Tbilisi, as well as
    to bestow upon the Armenian the status of official language at the
    regional level.

    It is useful to note that there are recent precedents in Europe: for
    example, on September 5th of 2009, a congress of representatives from
    local governments in the Hungarian-populated Transylvanian region of
    Romania, declared the establishment of Székely Land Autonomy (
    "Székely" is the endonym for Transylvanian Hungarians). The
    main decision of the participants in the second congress of this newly
    formed Autonomy, held on March 12th of 2010, was to recognize the
    Hungarian as the official language at the regional level. And although
    the central government of Romania does not recognize the legality of
    decisions for either of the two Hungarian congresses, the
    self-organization of Transylvanian Hungarians through the
    establishment of an autonomy and raising the status of the Hungarian
    language substantially strengthened their position in Transylvania and
    was a successful example of Hungary's resolute policy to protect the
    rights and interests of their compatriots abroad.

    Armen AYVAZYAN
    Doctor of Political Sciences




    From: A. Papazian
Working...
X