Recognition Of Nagorno-Karabakh By Armenia Inexpedient At The Moment

RECOGNITION OF NAGORNO-KARABAKH BY ARMENIA INEXPEDIENT AT THE MOMENT, ANC MEMBER SAYS

news.am
Dec 6 2010
Armenia

The international community will always cite Armenian President
Serzh Sargsyan’s speech at OSCE Summit in Astana: “In the case of
Azerbaijani military aggression, Armenia will have no alternative
but recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state,” Vladimir
Karapetyan, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Armenian
National Congress (ANC) told the reporters on December 6.

According to the ANC member, the statement was a wrong message sent
to the world community.

“Sargsyan’s statement will always be caused to backfire on Armenia,”
he noted.

“When Armenia initiates recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence,
the international community will say the latter laid down conditions. I
regret Armenian President made two incompatible statements within a
month. In Aghdam, the President said if Azerbaijan unleashes a war,
this time Armenia’s blow will be final and deadly. I have hailed this
quite an adequate approach. However, declaring Armenia will have no
alternative but recognize Nagorno-Karabakh if Azerbaijan provokes
a military aggression, particularly, to condition the recognition
process by the third party’s actions, is strange to me,” he said.

Meanwhile, Karapetyan stressed if “Heritage”-initiated bill on
Karabakh’s independence is put to the vote, the Parliament should
vote unanimous “yes”.

However, according to the oppositionist, recognition of
Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia is inexpedient at the moment. “If Armenia
starts the recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh, all the signed documents
and approaches towards the conflict resolution will be called into
question. “In this regard, I do not think Republican Party of Armenia
(RPA) will approve of the bill,” Karapetyan concluded.

From: A. Papazian

BAKU: Gerard Depardieu To Give Reading In Baku

GERARD DEPARDIEU TO GIVE READING IN BAKU

news.az
Dec 6 2010
Azerbaijan

French actor Gerard Depardieu is to read selected extracts from Prosper
Merimee’s novella Carmen at Azerbaijan’s Opera and Ballet Theatre.

He will read the extracts on 13 December, before a performance of
Bizet’s opera Carmen.

The evening is part of the fourth International Rostropovich Festival
which opens on 12 December.

Soloists from Galina Vishnevskaya’s Opera Centre will perform in
Carmen.

Prize-winning singers will perform the main roles. Alina Shakirova
will play Carmen, Oleg Dolgov will be Don Jose, Anastasia Privoznova
Micaëla and Azerbaijani singer and Bolshoy Theater soloist Elchin
Azizov will take the role of Escamillo.

Russia’s Yaroslav Tkalenko will conduct, while the production is
directed by Ivan Popovskiy.

Last month Depardieu denied that he had called for financial aid for
the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh republic.

Armenian media reported that the Oscar-winning actor called for
financial assistance for Karabakh as part of a fund-raising campaign
by the Hayastan All-Armenian Fund.

Depardieu expressed surprise at the reports, describing them as
wishful thinking.

From: A. Papazian

Armenian President Alone Entitled To Withdraw Protocols From Parliam

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT ALONE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW PROTOCOLS FROM PARLIAMENTARY AGENDA

news.am
Dec 6 2010
Armenia

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan alone is entitled to recall the
signature from Armenia-Turkey Protocols, Armenian parliament Speaker
Hovik Abrahamyan stated in RA National Assembly on December 6.

MP from “Heritage” parliamentary faction Armen Martirosyan stated
WikiLeaks publications proved that Turkey never intended to reconcile
relations with Armenia.

“Has not the time come for the Protocols to be withdrawn from the
parliamentary agenda and signatures recalled? the MP noted.

“The Protocols’ ratification was proposed by Armenian President and
Government. It is known that Serzh Sargsyan suspended the documents’
ratification in Armenian National Assembly. Only Armenian President
has a right to recall the signature from the documents,” Abrahamyan
stressed.

From: A. Papazian

WikiLeaks Negative Impact On Turkish-Azerbaijani Relations Obvious,

WIKILEAKS NEGATIVE IMPACT ON TURKISH-AZERBAIJANI RELATIONS OBVIOUS, EXPERT SAYS

news.am
Dec 6 2010
Armenia

Negative affect of the WIkiLeaks-published documents on
Azerbaijani-Turkish relations is obvious, Turkish studies expert
Artak Shakaryan said at today’s press conference. The expert said he
has returned from a conference initiated by Usak organization.

“The conference brought together mainly Turkish nationalists and
Azerbaijani experts but chill in Azerbaijani-Turkish relations was
obvious. The Azerbaijani-Turkish ties are not based on fraternal
relations so far, they are based on pragmatic perspective of gaining
benefits from oil and gas cooperation. This proves that WikiLeaks
cannot fully prevent from deepening of ties between the two states,”
he said.

As to Armenian-Turkish reconciliation Shakaryan stressed that Turkey’s
approaches on the issue have not changed. “Turks still claim that until
the Karabakh issue is not resolved, no progress will be registered
in the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation process. However, Turks also
realize that Aliyev is the one who does not want to resolve the
Karabalh problem,” the expert stressed.

From: A. Papazian

Armenian-NATO Cooperation Has Been Strengthened, Kladio Bizoniero

ARMENIAN-NATO COOPERATION HAS BEEN STRENGTHENED, KLADIO BIZONIERO

times.am
Dec 6 2010
Armenia

On December 3 the head of the Armenian mission to NATO Samvel Lazarian
met Kladio Bizoniero, the deputy of the NATO General Secretary,
press service of Armenian Foreign Ministry reports.

On the beginning of the meeting Samvel Lazarian informed about the
end of his work and thanked for the effective cooperation.

The deputy General Secretary noted with pleasure the cooperation
between NATO and Armenia had a considerable advantage and hope it
would be continued.

The sides discussed the fulfillment of agreements got at Lisbon summit,
also spoke about the opportunities of NATO-Russia cooperation.

Other bilateral interesting issues were also discussed.

S. Lazarian presented the last developments of Nagorno Karabakh
issue settlement in the frame of the OSCE Astana summit.

From: A. Papazian

Expert: Turkish Lobby Stronger Than Armenian

EXPERT: TURKISH LOBBY STRONGER THAN ARMENIAN

news.am
Dec 6 2010
Armenia

Despite the endeavors by the Armenian lobby in US, unfortunately,
Turkey still gains the upper hand. Turkish studies expert, Artak
Shakaryan who recently returned from the USA, said at a press
conference.

“After visiting the US Congress and think tanks in Washington, where
I tried to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the Turkish and
Armenian lobbies, I discovered that the Armenian lobby in the US,
unfortunately, is not as strong. The Turkish lobby is stronger and
broader in scale, not counting the business lobby”, he said.

According to him, pro-Turkish analyses and lectures are prepared in
think tanks and universities with Turkish funding and are presented
to the public. So today Ankara has quite an influence on certain
circles in the United States.

Shakaryan noted that after parliamentary elections in 2015, the US
intends to increase pressure on Turkey, as, many in the United States
are disappointed by the Armenian-Turkish rapprochement process.

From: A. Papazian

Expert Says Armenian Lobby Yields Turkish Lobby In Washington

EXPERT SAYS ARMENIAN LOBBY YIELDS TURKISH LOBBY IN WASHINGTON

Panorama
Dec 6 2010
Armenia

Armenian lobby in Washington isn’t as powerful as Turkish lobby is,
expert Artak Shakaryan said in news conference today. He said he
was just back from Washington where he had a meeting with Turkish
lobbying company.

According to him studying the impacts of Armenian and Turkish lobbies
paying attention to deeper issues, it becomes obvious that Armenian
lobby isn’t so powerful as theirs.

“We basically focus our voters, on California and Boston and we have
power in Congress. But Turkish lobby is more large scale. And business
lobbies they have mainly Turkish-Azerbaijani direction,” he said.

Expert asked to pay attention on analytical centers and universities.

He said the universities target Turkish and Caucasian affairs and
they are financed by Turkish or pro-Turkish forces.

He said analytical centers are financed by Turkish companies and the
only neutral expert is Tom de Vaal.

A. Shakaryan stated that Ankara has more profound strategic influence
in US.

From: A. Papazian

At NA Standing Committee On Foreign Relations

AT NA STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

National Assembly
parliament.am
Dec 6 2010
Armenia

On December 6 at the sitting of the NA Standing Committee on Foreign
Relations, which was presided over by Armen Rustamyan it was decided to
postpone up to 30 days the debate of the draft law of the announcement
submitted by Larisa Alaverdyan On the Crimes Committed against the
Local Armenian Population by the Azerbaijani Authorities in All
Numerous Settlements of the Azerbaijani SSR and NKAR (later NKR)
during 1988 – 1992.”

From: A. Papazian

Arnold Reisman: On An Armenian Manifesto Circa 1923

ARNOLD REISMAN: ON AN ARMENIAN MANIFESTO CIRCA 1923

History News Network
Dec 6 2010

[Arnold Reisman is an engineer and a retired professor of operations
research at Case Western Reserve University. Born in Lodz in 1934,
he came to the United States after World War II and is the author
of numerous books about Holocaust refugees in Turkey, including
Turkey’s Modernization: Refugees from Nazism and Ataturk’s Vision
(New Academia, 2006).]

Recently a friend showed me a booklet which I found intriguing. It
includes a most interesting and incisive account of what had been
happening among, and to, the Armenian people up to 1923. The original,
was written by a most knowledgeable Armenian activist of the time,
Hovhannes Katchaznouni. He was a powerful leader in the Dashnagtzoutiun
(English: Armenian Revolutionary Federation) and was the first prime
minister of the Armenian state in 1918 proclaimed by the Armenian
National Council in Tiflis (Tbilisi), as the ruling Armenian body was
known at that time. He “was in power as the head of government … for
thirteen months. He was among the founders of the Dashnagtzoutiun
Party and one of its top leaders. He was the prime authority of
Armenia and the Dashnagtzoutiun Party and served on the Armenian
committee conducting the peace talks with the Turks in Trabzon,
and Batoumi.” “He knew every Party secret before, during, and after
the founding of the ill-fated Republic.” “Few were in a position to
know more, nor to express themselves with greater clarity, logic,
and foresight than Hovhannes Katchaznouni.”

The booklet is a translation of a report Katchaznouni delivered to an
Armenian Congress in Bucharest in 1923. Referred to as his Manifesto
with a translated title: Dashnagtzoutiun Has Nothing to do Anymore,
it was self-published in the same year. Translated from the original
Armenian into Russian, the report was first published as a book in
Tbilisi, Soviet Georgia, in 1927 and only 2000 copies were printed.

When I searched for a copy of any edition of the Manifesto for myself,
I learned that only a few libraries in the United States carry any of
the books in any language and as of this writing, Amazon.com shows none
for purchase. The Armenian version cannot be found on the shelves of
any library anywhere in the world even though some still list it in
their catalogs. Allegedly the copies were removed from the libraries
in Europe by the Dashnagzoutiun members for political reasons.

A copy of the Russian edition was located in Moscow’s Lenin library by
Mehmet Perincek, a young Turkish scholar who translated the Russian
version into Turkish. So I borrowed my friend’s copy and read it
thoroughly. What I read blew me away. However it was published
in Turkey as an English translation of a Turkish translation from
Russian published in Tbilisi (Soviet Georgia) while the original was
in Armenian. Because of all the iterations I naturally I wanted to
check its validity.

Still searching, I found a version of the Manifesto on line. It is
a truncated edition but most significantly it was translated from
the original by Matthew A. Callender and edited by John Roy Carlson,
published by the Armenian Information Service in English in 1955,
and is offered by the University of Louisville. The report/book has a
total of 24 pages, some dedicated to commentary obviously postdating
the original Manifesto.

The Turko-English edition contains a response Katchaznouni wrote to a
“detailed” letter he received from “NN a personal friend and … party
comrade concerning the report … submitted to the Party Convention.”

He writes:

Dear NN,

I received your letter on June 22.

You say: ‘Though it was not possible to destroy your report before
it was read, I wish it would soon be forgotten. And I find it useless
and harmful to open this subject to a discussion.

This suggests that Dashnag party loyalists would not want others to
see the report and such a letter might have been the catalyst for the
removal of editions from library shelves and possibly the destruction
of existing copies.

Two of the editions were reviewed by this author on a per-paragraph
basis. While the 1955 and the 2006 English editions of the Manifesto
are found to be consistent in spirit on matters pertaining to the
Armenian-Turkish issues there are some points on which text could
be found in one but not the other. No conflictual information has
been located. The Turkish- English edition states that the Manifesto
“evaluates the tragic incidents as incidents of war and open heartedly
declares that they [the Armenians] have been tools in the hands
of foreign powers.” Scholars, opinion makers, policy and decision
makers, as well as concerned people at large should find the report
of great value regardless of the edition since it comes from a most
knowledgeable and a credible source.

The full review can be downloaded from SSRN as

Posted on Sunday, December 5, 2010 at 6:54 PM

From: A. Papazian

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1712564
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/134237.html

Ninety Years Of Delusion Or How It Came To Pass – 2

NINETY YEARS OF DELUSION OR HOW IT CAME TO PASS – 2
by Ara Papyan

Times.am
Dec 6 2010
Armenia

on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the signing of the
Treaty of Alexandropol

On the 24th of November, 1920, the delegation of the Republic of
Armenia arrived at Alexandropol. Peace negotiations between the
Kemalist and Armenian delegations officially commenced the following
day. The head of the Armenian delegation was the former premier,
Alexander Khatisian. Authorised members of the delegation also included
former finance minister Abraham Gyulkhandanian, and the former governor
of the Kars region, Stepan Ghorghanian. The delegation consisted of
sixteen people in all.

I have already written about the extent of authorisation of the
delegation of the Republic of Armenia – or rather, the lack thereof –
at the moment of the signing of the Treaty of Alexandropol (on the
3rd of December, 1920). It is necessary now to turn to the status
of those claiming to act on behalf of Turkey and to see whether or
not that delegation had any authority to carry out negotiations or
to sign any documents as per international law and the constitution
of the Turkish state.

One clarification before discussing the so-called Turkish delegation.

It is necessary to emphasise that the word “Turkish” here is used
solely as an ethnic indicator, and not with any political meaning,
because even the very members of that delegation did not consider
themselves representatives of the state, Turkey, and rightfully so. In
the preamble to the document, the delegation in question is not called
“the Ottoman Empire” or “Turkey” or a delegation from the government
of either, but simply “the Government of the Grand National Assembly
of Turkey” (“Turkiye Buyuk Millet Meclisi Hukumeti” in Turkish,
“Le Gouvernement de la Grande Assemblee Nationale de Turquie”, as in
the French version of the document).

This was a group created in Ankara on the 23rd of April, 1920 by
joining together “Karakol”, a group created by the Turkish military
command (headed in 1912-1914 by Kâz?m Karabekir), along with the
various groups under “Mudafaa-i Milliye” (“National Defence Group”),
also formed with the encouragement and support of the same group.

Naturally, the activities of Karakol and other such groups cannot be
considered legal as, in accordance with international law, upon the
signing of the armistice, any acts aimed at violating the terms of the
armistice – namely, peace – is illegal and condemned. The activities
of the Kemalists were also in utter violation of the constitution of
Turkey, and thus the legitimate authorities of Turkey had declared
death penalties on certain Kemalists as early as April-May, 1920.

So, for example, on the 11th of April, 1920, the highest clergyman of
the empire, the Sheikh-ul-Islam, had outlawed the rebels by a fatwa and
declared divine approval to the act of killing them. The ringleader
of the rebels, Mustafa Kemal, was stripped of all his titles and
offices on the 11th of July, 1919, and, on the 11th of May, 1920,
in addition to the religious ruling, the Turkish military court had
passed the death penalty on him as well. That sentence was confirmed
by the Sultan on the 24th of May, 1920.

Thus, the delegation which had arrived in November-December, 1920
to Alexandropol was not representing Turkey, the state, but it was a
group of criminals on the run, including some sentenced to death for
war crimes. As almost all the so-called Kemalists (including Mustafa
Kemal) were former Young Turks – members of the Committee of Union and
Progress party, bearing the same extreme nationalist ideology – the
British rightfully considered them one and the same. Yes, the Kemalist
groups were militarily powerful, as they possessed the fifteenth army
of the Ottoman Empire (around 30,000 people) alongside other forces
(of the second, sixth and ninth armies), being additionally boosted
by Bolshevik support.

Regardless, however, none of that changed their legal status. It is
not the number of soldiers which has a bearing on the legality of
documents, but the legality of the authority of the delegations.

International law makes clear demands on the legality of any
international document. Those demands may be partly defined by a
triad of criteria, that any treaty may be considered legal if it is
signed by the authorised representative(s) of the legal authorities
of a recognised state.

It is evident that that the Kemalist delegation was not authorised and
was not representing the legal authorities of the recognised state
in question. Their authorities derived from the group known as the
“Grand National Assembly” (“Buyuk Millet Meclisi”) alone. What was
this group and what legal status did it have in 1920-21? This is an
important question for the validity of the treaties of Moscow (of the
16th of March, 1921) and Kars (of the 13th of October, 1921) as well,
as those two so-called treaties were signed by the representatives
from the same group as well.

Despite the widespread misunderstanding, the “Grand National Assembly”
was not, in fact, the parliament of Turkey from 1920 to 1923. It was
not and could not have been so from the point of view of international
law, as well as in accordance with the constitution current in the
country at the time. A country’s legislative and executive bodies
do not function upon capitulation and during the course of military
occupation. Supreme authority is handed over to the victorious powers
and that legal condition is preserved until a peace treaty is signed
and comes into force.

Such a state of affairs and conditions are indisputably codified in
international law, consolidated with numerous examples. In Turkey’s
case, from the 30th of October, 1918 (when the Armistice of Moudros
was signed) up to at least the 24th of July, 1923 (when the Treaty
of Lausanne of signed), authority belonged to the victorious Supreme
Council of the Allied Powers in Turkey, according to international law.

That council, which consisted of the highest officials of Britain,
France, Italy and the United States, carried out its authority in
Turkey first by simple representatives (November, 1918 to March,
1919), and then through High Commissioners (March, 1919 to September,
1923). The body which united the latter, which carried out supreme
authority in the territory of the former Ottoman Empire, was called
the “Inter-Allied Commissions of Control and Organisation”, with a
number of sub-commissions.

The Treaty of Lausanne confirms the aforementioned. The careful reader
of that treaty will note that it does not lay out those territories to
be separated from Turkey, but mentions those territories of the former
Ottoman Empire over which Turkish sovereignty would be re-instated.

The first session of the group known as the “Grand National Assembly”
took place on the 23rd of April, 1920. It had 327 participants,
of which at most 92 (less than a third) were former members of the
former Ottoman parliament. They were “doubly former” since the last
legal elections for the parliament took place in 1912, and the term
of those elected that year had come to an end 1916, in accordance
with Article 70 of the then-current constitution.

The so-called elections in the final months of 1919, mentioned
in historical accounts, and the sessions held in their wake from
January to April, 1920 cannot be considered elections and viewed as
parliamentary sessions, even with great wishful thinking, as all of
them took place in the absence of Turkish sovereignty, being carried
out in violation of the constitution and laws of the country.

In particular, articles 7, 17, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 60, 72, 77, and
120 were violated, all non-Turks were illegally denied their right
to vote. Consequently, the only recognised authority of Turkey at
the time, the Sultan, had dissolved the functioning of that illegal
gathering on the 12th of April, 1920 as per his own constitutional
right (Article 7). This is what was meant by “members of the former
parliament”. Even if the aforementioned 92 were to be considered
legally-authorised, which, as was shown, is highly questionable,
it would make no difference, as that figure would be insufficient to
call quorum.

The remaining 232 were representatives of branches of the so-called
rights’ defence groups, functioning illegally in the country. After the
defeat of the Ottoman Empire, from December, 1918 until October, 1920,
28 branches of such rights’ defence groups were formed, in which the
majority of the representatives were from the local party membership
of the criminal and outlawed Union and Progress, along with muftis
(Muslim clerics), Muslim landlords and non-Christian merchants.

The branches met in Karin (Erzurum, 23 July to 17 August, 1919), where
a united leadership group was formed, the “Representative Committee”
(“Heyet-i Temsiliye”), headed by Mustafa Kemal. A second gathering
took place in Sebastia, from 4 to 11 September, 1919. Although only
31 provincial representatives took part, the gathering gave itself
an impressive name – “Association for the Defence of the Rights of
Anatolia and Rumelia” (“Anadolu ve Rumeli Mudafaa-i Hukuk-? Milliye
Cemiyeti”).

This group moved to Ankara on the 27th of December, 1919 where,
in April 1920, admitting to its ranks former parliamentarians and
officials on the run from the law, it gave itself an even more
impressive name. It was renamed the “Grand National Assembly of
Turkey”, with the executive group, the “Representative Committee”,
henceforth the “Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey”.

That is to say, the group formed in September, 1919 and its executive
was formed again and renamed, but its legal status did not change as
a result.

And so, it was on behalf of the executive of this group, the
“government”, that the Turkish delegation was negotiating at
Alexandropol. Naturally, it is not the name of the group which decides
its authority, but the legal and legislative basis upon which a given
body is formed and within the framework of which it is established. A
group’s name per se does not define its jurisdiction, much less act
as a basis for the authorised signing of international legal documents.

(to be continued)

From: A. Papazian