Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Armenian Question Today. II - 2

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

  • The Armenian Question Today. II - 2

    THE ARMENIAN QUESTION TODAY. II - 2
    Armen AYVAZYAN

    "Zrutsakits" weekly (Yerevan), #1 (164)
    14/02/2011
    Posted in: ARMENIAN RESISTANCE, Analysis, Armenia @en, Azerbaijan @en, GEOGRAPHY
    Previous Parts: 2010 #41 (159), #45 (163)

    ARMENIAN QUESTION TODAY

    II. International Legal Level

    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. Đ~P 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 Đ°re 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.

    (To be continued)

    Doctor of Political Sciences

    This is a slightly expanded English version of the article, which
    was first published in Armenian and Russian in the "Sobesednik
    Armenii/Hayastani




    From: A. Papazian
Working...
X