Azerbaijan Sees Red: 

Bill in Armenia on NKR recognition draws Baku’s wrath

By Naira Hayrumyan -

May 4, 2016

 

 

In a move that has been condemned as a “provocation” by Azerbaijan, the government of Armenia on May 5 is going to discuss and provide its conclusion on a bill dealing with the formal recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’s (NKR) independence.

Welcome to free Artsakh

After the government’s opinion the bill authored by opposition MPs Zaruhi Postanjyan and Hrant Bagratyan (ex-prime minister) will be debated in the country’s legislature where the final decision will be made.
Postanjyan is known to have repeatedly suggested recognizing the independence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), but the bill would not become law due to the position of the executive and the parliament majority that a formal recognition of the NKR would mean withdrawing from internationally mediated talks with Azerbaijan on the conflict settlement and could trigger renewed hostilities. In the current conditions following the April 2-5 war in Nagorno-Karabakh and continuing tensions in the conflict zone, however, some experts do not rule out certain progress of the bill.
Meanwhile, the bill proposed in Armenia has raised hysteria in Azerbaijan where deputy chief of President Ilham Aliyev’s administration Novruz Mammadov described it as “another provocation of the Armenian leadership” aimed at “preserving the status quo.”
Meanwhile, the Armenian side does not hide that the bill is intended to play a constraining role in the prevention of a new possible aggression by Azerbaijan.
“If Azerbaijan starts a new military aggression, the issue of the recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh will be included in the agenda,” Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharyan said.
Vladimir Hakobyan, a spokesman for the Armenian president, said, meanwhile, that Armenia is closely following the “delusional statements of Azerbaijani officials, which are not only surprising, but also ridiculous”. He reminded that the bill was presented by opposition MPs. “Let there be no doubt that in the event of recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the public will learn about it first from President Serzh Sargsyan,” the presidential press secretary said.
In his turn, Chairman of the NKR Public Council on Foreign Policy and Security, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the NKR Masis Mailyan said: “Armenia must recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Now the situation has changed. And politicians have revised their approaches. Earlier in Yerevan they thought such recognition could lead to a war or disruption of the peace process. But life has shown that even without this recognition Azerbaijan started the war and actually torpedoed the negotiation process, as well as violated the ceasefire agreement of 1994.” Now, the diplomat added, there will no longer be any fears on this matter, and Armenia must take more drastic steps.
That Armenia may recognize the NKR and conclude with it an agreement on mutual military assistance was first stated during the April war by President Sargsyan. He said that if Azerbaijan continues aggression, Armenia will make a move to formally recognize the NKR’s independence.

The Security of the Parliamentary Republic

The Security of the Parliamentary Republic:

the Model of Israel

Tracing the debate over the constitutional reforms in Armenia, we deemed it useful, based upon the results of three academic trips, to interview Major General Hayk Kotanjian — Head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, Ministry of Defense, Republic of Armenia; Doctor of Political Science; Professor — about the Israeli model of the parliamentary republic in terms of effectiveness of the security policy.

E&O: Dear General, in your opinion, what is the similarity of the lessons learned by the Armenian and Jewish peoples from the national catastrophes they went through in the 20^th century?

H.K.:Notwithstanding the remarkable unique identity of these two ancient players in shaping civilization systems in West Asia and the Middle East, to my mind, they share political lessons learned from national catastrophes having experienced during the two World Wars of the 20^th century — the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire and the Genocide-Holocaust of the Jews of Europe. Both peoples responded to the national catastrophes following the World Wars having driven them to the verge of total annihilation, with the revival of the culture of their ancient millennia-old statehood and creation of independent nation states – the Republic of Armenia and the State of Israel. Another important feature of similarities of these two re-established nation states is that the Republic of Armenia in 1918 and the State of Israel in 1948 were proclaimed parliamentary republics.

Dear Professor, how would you assess the current threats to the national security of Israel and the effectiveness of the parliamentary model of government in terms of guaranteed political security and sustainable development of the State of Israel?

Security threats to the State of Israel are not inferior to the level of security threats to the Republic of Armenia: the majority of Islamic countries consider the existence of Israel to be illegal (only Egypt and Jordan recognized Israel) and overtly express the need to eliminate it. Their policy and the activities of non-state actors of radical Islam manipulated by them pose external and internal threats to the existence of the State of Israel. The legitimacy of the State of Israel is called into question by the radicals of Orthodox Judaism as well (the Lord is the only Leader, and no one else can exercise power over the Jewish people).

Political and security analysts of Israel single out three components of strategic vulnerability causing existential threat to Israel, which are taken as a given in the National Security Strategy of the state: 1. Huge demographic advantage of the Arab (Islamic) countries; 2. Vulnerability of borders for lack of strategic depth (width of the territory of Israel in certain areas does not exceed fifteen kilometers); 3. Necessity to deter the enemy in a hard protracted conflict that requires investments of huge resources for defense needs (1947-1949 — Israel’s War of Independence, 1956 — Suez Crisis; 1967 — Six-Day War, 1967-1970 — War of Attrition, 1973 — Yom Kippur War, 1982-2000 — First Lebanon War, 1991 — Israel's participation in the Gulf War, 2006 — Second Lebanon War, 2008-2009 — Operation Cast Lead (Gaza War)).

The toolkit for resolving internal political conflicts, as well as successfully countering external threats in the Israeli model of parliamentarism has proved to be effective over 67 years: with the duration of the cadence of the Knesset for 4 years, the average length of activity of the convocation of the Parliament over the years of Israel's existence is quite high and is 3.5 years. In this case, the reason of productivity of political crises management lies in the consistency of Israeli parliamentary model reflecting the strategic interests of national security and sustainable development of the Jewish people both in Israel and in the system of World Jewry as a whole.

Dear Professor, as a political scientist and researcher in the field of political institutes and processes of national security, could you briefly present the essence of the parliamentary model of governance in Israel regarding the effectiveness of key actors and processes of making and implementing decisions of national scale?

First of all, it should be noted that, in response to the Genocide-Holocaust, the Founding Fathers of the State of Israel, resting upon the resolution of the UN Security Council, shared the conviction that in order for the Jewish state to become a safe heaven and beacon for the progressive and sustainable development both for the Jews living on the land of the Zion, and the World Jewry as a whole, the State of Israel ought to be created as an effective democracy. And now the State of Israel in practice is the only effective democracy in the Greater Middle East, as well as a beacon of sustainable democratic development for the entire World Jewry.

The political role of a nonpartisan President, who is elected by the Parliament—the Knesset, and takes the ceremonial and protocol role as the Head of the state, and is also endowed with strategically important political powers, is of exceptional importance in this parliamentary model. From the elected members of the Parliament he nominates the candidate for the Prime Minister mandated to negotiate with parliamentary parties for the formation of the government.

 

The Prime Minister of Israel—after the Parliament approves his Government—becomes the state center of guaranteeing the national security and sustainable development of the State of Israel. Receiving the proposal by the President, before the approval of the Cabinet he holds consultations with the parties which may support his Government, and clarifies their requirements both on political matters, and concerning the appointments in the ministries and other agencies. After the consultations with the parties, the Coalition structure and its program, as a range of coordinated guidelines making up the political strategy of the Coalition, are developed.

Based upon the negotiations between the Prime Minister and the Coalition parties, the decision on distributing the ministerial posts in the Government is made. The tool for distributing the ministerial posts serves the “ministerial key”, i.e., the co-relation of the overall number of members of the parliament factions supporting the Prime Minister, to the number of ministers in the Government. The number of ministerial portfolios which every faction is to receive is decided by a number of members of that faction in the Knesset, divided by the “key”. The problem of “remainders” is solved via the appointment of deputy ministers and other officials. It is noteworthy that, given the fact that the majority of ministers and all deputy ministers are members of the Parliament, provides the Prime Minister with an additional resource in support of his policy and influence of the Cabinet upon passing the parliamentary decisions, especially in furthering the legislative initiatives by the Government. In the Israeli Government the post of the Vice-Premier is also available, and holding of more than one office is also possible.

Dear Professor, what are the specifics of Israel in terms of ensuring the legitimacy of the Government and the activity of its members in the Knesset at the parliamentary model of governance?

The election of the Prime Minister and the ministers from among the members of the Parliament asserts the legitimacy of not only the Premier, but also the Government at large. After being approved by the Knesset the ministers receive the vote of confidence both from “below” — the mass support, and from “above” — the Parliament, the elite support.  After consultations—on adequate grounds—the candidate for minister’s post if necessary may be nominated also a non-member of the Parliament (usually an influential specialist). The minister from among the Knesset members has limitations in his parliamentary activity: he may not make parliamentary inquiries, introduce his bills as an MP, cast a vote of no confidence in the government, be a member of Knesset committees. Sometimes a minister upon taking office renounces his parliamentary mandate; while his party (the Coalition) does not lose his seat—it is taken by the next person in the party list.

Unlike the practice in other states, the Deputy Minister in Israel is a political figure. In particular, according to the law, he must be a member of the Knesset (we would remind you that such a strict requirement doesn’t apply to the Minister), and he is also responsible for ensuring the liaison between the Ministry and the Knesset. The appointment and the dismissal of the Deputy Minister is not the Minister’s but the Premier’s prerogative (however, the Minister’s consent in this case is also obligatory). The Government reports on this to the Knesset, nevertheless the Parliament’s permission is not required. It should be noted that the above-mentioned parliamentary restrictions concerning the ministers, also apply to the deputy ministers.

Dear General, please briefly present the place and role of the National Security Council (NSC) in the system of parliamentary governance of the State of Israel.

The NSC of the State of Israel is a special tool of the Government’s power carrying out the development and coordination of interagency policy aimed at ensuring the national security and sustainable development of Israel. The coordinator of the activities of this special body, chaired by the Prime Minister, is the Secretary of NSC, who is appointed from among nonpartisan highly qualified specialists, and whose activities shall not be made public.

The interagency policy of national security, developed by the NSC chaired by the Israeli Prime Minister on strategic issues of foreign policy and security, is promptly carried out by the Prime Minister through the Security Cabinet (Narrow/Kitchen Cabinet) endowed with the necessary powers and resources.

Dr. Kotanjian, how do you view the use of the Israeli model and experience in the preparation and discussion of the draft of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia as the basis of the constitutional reform with the transition to a parliamentary model of state governance?

Indeed, the uncritical copying of Israel’s experience would be wrong, and the State Commission on the drafting of the Constitution did not allow it. As an example of the specificity of the Israeli experience we can note that the parliamentary model of governance in Israel successfully operates without any Constitution in the State of Israel. The legal regulation of the system of the government and the political activity of public institutions is carried out according to the system of Basic Laws.

Using the lessons of the guaranteed provision of the national security in the parliamentary model of Israel under the concentration of power (powers of the government-administration and resources) in the hands of the Prime Minister—the head of the ruling inter-party Coalition - (with a restricted role of the nonpartisan President with ceremonial and protocol functions) requires a pragmatic calculation — with a sober view of specificity of the political culture of the Republic of Armenia.

Dear Professor Kotanjian, what would you like to note as a conclusion?

In conclusion, I would like to mention the real democratic character of the parliamentary model of governance in Israel, at the origins of the State of Israel aimed at the development of political party system in the proportional elections to the Parliament with a low threshold for parties to the supreme representative body of power. Israeli politicians and experts themselves do not consider the experience ideal. Skillfully using the tools of public and confidential criticism, they work to identify shortcomings and overcome them. The democracy of the parliamentary model of the government in Israel is characterized by high political culture of pluralism and party competitiveness with continuous criticism, identification of flaws, and lessons learned from them for the improvement of the democratic Jewish state.

And of course, it should be emphasized that the people of Israel, being aware of its responsibility as a main source of power and using the tools of effective democracy, have the opportunity to do whatever is necessary within the limits of the guaranteed rights and freedoms, as well as civil liabilities to the State of Israel, that in its Parliament—the Knesset and then in the Government the most worthy representatives were elected.

Lessons learned from national CATASTROPHES

Lessons learned from national CATASTROPHES: on the threshold OF

the 100^TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE IN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE

Presentation of the Head of the Institute for National Strategic Studies MOD, RA, 

Doctor of Political Science, Major General Hayk Kotanjian.

Parliamentary hearings at the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations 

of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, December 8, 2014.

Honorable Mr. Chairman!

Dear Members of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia and the European Jewish Parliament!

Ladies and Gentlemen!

Let me start my presentation highlighting the fact that tomorrow is the very day when 66 years ago - on December 9, 1948 - the United Nations adopted The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide[i] developed by Professor of Jewish origin Raphael Lemkin. At the same time, the proposal to legislatively announce the December 9 the Remembrance Day for victims of all Genocides in Armenia is on the agenda of the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations of the Parliament of the Republic of Armenia, under the auspices of which today’s hearings are conducted, that are very important in terms of understanding the perspectives of the security cooperation in the interest of the sustainable development of World Armenians and World Jewry. 

Nevertheless, we must state, bearing the full responsibility, that on the eve of this significant event, in close proximity to the Republic of Armenia and the State of Israel the torturers of the Islamic State perpetrate genocide of Christians, Jews, Yazidis, and Muslims - not engaged in terroristic jihad. To efficiently solve the problem of countering this common threat, it is instrumental to consider and reconsider the lessons learned by peoples from the genocidal crimes committed against humanity and mankind during the contemporary history. At the same time, the absolute or proportionate number of victims from different peoples and religious groups is, indeed, various; nevertheless, this in no way belittles the role of tragedy in the fates of each of them. 

The Armenian and Jewish peoples are alike in having responded to the genocides by restoring and democratically promoting their ancient statehoods. These remarkable events occurred at the end of the two World Wars of the 20^th century: the Republic of Armenia and the State of Israel were established accordingly on 28 May, 1918 and 14 May, 1948.

The “Never Again” principle integrates the logical and moral bases of the Jewish and Armenian peoples’ right to contribute to the international community in providing Israel and Armenia with the guarantees of non-recurrence of genocide.[ii] This principle is a cornerstone underlying the National Security Strategies of the Republic of Armenia and the State of Israel.

The urgency of the “Never Again” principle for the Armenian people called forth by the genocidal acts against the Armenians of Azerbaijan during Perestroika in the USSR, in response to the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians’ peaceful political actions for self-determination and withdrawal from the Azerbaijani SSR in compliance with the USSR legislation then in force.[iii]  It concerns the pogroms in Sumgait and Kirovabad in 1988 and in Baku in 1990. These crimes were interspersed and to this day are being interspersed with the attempts to “counterbalance” them with the genocidal acts against Azerbaijanis allegedly committed by the Armenians. Thus, the slaughter of its own citizens in Khojalu, carried out in 1992 by the Popular Front of Azerbaijan - in order to discredit the then Azerbaijani President and to seize the power - is imputed to the Armenians who, when neutralizing enemy’s firing positions, had actually opened a humanitarian corridor for the evacuation of the people of Khojalu.[iv] 

In recent past, the Baku mass media played up the information that on the territory of the mass grave in Guba - a town in the north of Azerbaijan - a memorial complex was erected in commemoration of the victims of the genocide allegedly committed by the Armenians against the Mountain Jews at the beginning of the last century.[v] This fact became a matter of political manipulations targeted at cultivating anti-Armenian sentiments among the Jews.[vi] However, as the historical facts picked up from the Turkish sources and published by the Armenian side evidence, in fact this concerns the mass grave of the Armenians killed as a result of the massacre perpetrated by the Ottoman Islamic army under the command of Nuri Pasha at the invasion of the South Caucasus in 1918. Besides, according to the documents of the Central State Historical Archive of Russia the relations between the Armenians and the Jews in the South Caucasus region were exceptionally friendly.[vii]  The attempts of using falsification of historical events in Guba - to lead the Jewish and Armenian peoples to a clash - failed due to the productive cooperation of the scholars and influential organizations of the Armenian and Jewish Diasporas, as well as the experts of Armenia and Israel.

In the case of the Jews, the urgency of guaranteeing non-recurrence of the Holocaust is conditioned by the unremitting mortal attacks against the Jewish people since the establishment of the State of Israel, and at present accompanied by the terrorism of the radical Islam. Direct intersection of security interests of the Armenians and Jews in terms of the threat of recurrence of genocides in the Middle East has recently been reflected in the destruction of the 1915 Armenian Genocide Martyrs' Memorial Church of the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia in the Syrian desert Deir ez-Zor by the vandals of the Islamic State[viii].  

As it is well known, there is a serious issue regarding the fact that genocide - being an international crime against humanity and humankind - requires recognition from the state, the former authorities of which had committed genocide, as well as the international community. Meanwhile, non-recognition of genocide, as a rule, is politically motivated. As a precedent we should consider the recognition of the Holocaust by the authorities of the FRG, who have fundamentally dissociated themselves from Nazi Germany’s former genocidal leadership. As we know, the government of Konrad Adenauer on this basis signed an agreement with the government of Israel and the Conference on Jewish Material Claims against Germany, under which committed itself to pay compensation to the affected party.  Distancing itself from the genocidal regimes of Sultan Abdul Hamid and the Young Turks with the assumption of adequate responsibility for compensating the damage is expected from modern Turkey’s authorities in terms of the Genocide committed against 1.5 million of its citizens of Armenian origin.     

As some Israeli experts think, in due time, taking into account the dynamics of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel, with a view to build and maintain partnership with secular Turkey - an alternative to Arab states - has refused to recognize the Armenian Genocide, so as not to irritate Ankara. The public arguments of the given political solution were veiled in the form of protection of the uniqueness of the Holocaust as a phenomenon incomparable with any other genocide in the history of mankind.

However, along with the changing priorities of the Turkish authorities, based on the doctrine of "neo-Ottomanism", and the consequent recent new geostrategy of Turkey in the Middle East and the Islamic world, there is a tendency for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by authoritative representatives of the world Jewry. Let me provide you with some assessments by the leading researchers of the Holocaust.

DR. ISRAEL CHARNY,

Executive Director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide, Jerusalem.

Editor-in-Chief of the Encyclopedia of Genocide.

“The Armenian Genocide is remarkable in many respects, including the fact that in the bloody 20^th century it was an early example of mass genocide, which many recognize as a “dress rehearsal” of the Holocaust”[ix].

SOL GITTLEMAN

Provost and Head of the Chair of Judaic Studies, Tufts University (US).

“The campaign of vilification and dehumanization which preceded the destruction of hundreds of thousands of Armenians in 1895-1896 and again in 1915 was, in subtlety and in preparation, just as carefully orchestrated as was the preparation of Dr. Goebbels. The Armenians were categorized according to the stereotype. Therefore, they were less than human, and killing men, women, and children was not an act of brutality, but rather an act of heroism necessary to free the country from an infection.”[x]

LUCY DAWIDOWICZ,

Expert on Holocaust, Harvard (US).

“The Armenian Genocide in its extent and horror most closely approximated the murder of the European Jews <…> The once unthinkable “Armenian solution” became, in our time achievable “Final solution”, the Nazi code name for the annihilation of the European Jews.[xi]”

Meanwhile, Israel urged to recognize the Armenian Genocide not only by leading experts on the Holocaust. Over the years Knesset members Aryeh Eldad, Ze’ev Elkin, Zahava Gal-On, Haim Oron, Yossi Sarid, Yuri Stern, Yair Tzaban, Alexander Tzinker and others bore on the agenda of the plenary sessions of the Israeli Parliament proposals for official recognition of this tragic fact of history. Today’s Israeli president Reuven Rivlin - the then Speaker of the Knesset - also considered the recognition of the Armenian Genocide to be the duty of the Israeli parliament.[xii]

A crucial support for the recognition of Armenian Genocide demonstrated Yona Metzger, Chief Rabbi of Israel, who visited the Memorial to the victims of the Armenian Genocide in Tsitsernakaberd in 2005[xiii].

We welcome the members of the European Jewish Parliament at the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia on the threshold of the 100^th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire. Let me express my confidence that today’s joint discussion of ours will advance the understanding and implementation of constructive cooperation between the Armenians of the World and World Jewry in the interests of security and sustainable development of the Republic of Armenia and the State of Israel, as well as the Armenian and the Jewish Diasporas.

In conclusion, I feel genuinely obliged to speak about the appropriateness of the invitation of His Excellency the President of Israel Dear Mr. Reuven Rivlin to Yerevan in April, 2015, to take part in events marking the 100^th  Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire. This visit, reflecting the national security interests of the State of Israel and the Republic of Armenia, and I am sure of it, may become a high performance act of moral duty for all the states and peoples of the world - in relation to the memory of the victims of crimes against humanity and mankind.

---

[i] See Конвенция о предупреждении преступления геноцида и наказании за него. Принята резолюцией 260 (III) Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН от 9 декабря 1948 года (http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/genocide.shtml),

H.V. hakobian: The Genocide of the Armenians in Azerbaijan from 1988-1990, from the standpoint of international law. “Haykakan Banak” Quarterly Journal of Military Sciences, MOD, RA, Yerevan 1997.

[ii] See: Гайк Котанджян. "Никогда опять" - императив гарантирования безопасности еврейского и армянского народов. International expert Center for Electoral Systems. 31 мая 2011 (http://www.elections-ices.org/russian/publications/textid:10805/).

[iii] See: Hayk Kotanjian: Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Nagorno-Karabakh Government In-Exile Speaks of the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Karabakh National-Liberation Movement, International Center for Electoral Systems, Israel, http://www.elections-ices.org/files/publications/298.pdf.

[iv] See: in detail В. А. Пономарев. Трагические события, которые можно было предотвратить. Военно-научный журнал ИНСИ МО РА “Армянская армия”, 2012, N 3.

[v] See: "Французские евреи испытали ужас от массового захоронения в Губе". 27 октября 2012 АзерТАдж: - (http://news.day.az/politics/363021.html).

[vi] See: Гайк Котанджян. Политологи против политики ксенофобии главы Азер­байджанского государства. 01.11.2012 (http://www.elections-ices.org/files/publications/16038.pdf)

[vii] See: "Почему и как Российские евреи принимали христианство по армянскому обряду (1910-1915 гг.)". Документы и материалы Центрального Госу­дарствен­ного Исторического Архива России. Подборка. Составитель и автор введения академик НАН РА Вардгес Микаелян, Ереван, "Наири" 1999.

[viii]  See “IS said to destroy Armenian Genocide memorial: Complex in Deir ez-Zor was often compared to the Auschwitz death camp in Poland”. September 22, 2014, The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/is-reportedly-destroys-armenian-genocide-memorial/#ixzz3L1iCdUis)

[ix] Charny Israel. Ed., Introduction to «The Widening Circle of Genocide» - «Genocide: A Critical Bibliographic review». Vol. New Branswick, N.J.: Transaction, 1994. P. XIX; «The Ottoman Empire: A Troubled Legacy». Views, Comments and Judgements by Noted Experts Worldwide. Compiled by Vahakn N. Dadrian for the Association of Genocide Scholars. Williamsburg (USA), 1997. P. 69.

[x] Sol Gittleman, The Stereotype as a Prelude to Genocide in «Genocide and  Human Rights» (A special issue of the «Journal of American Studies», IV, 1 & 2, 1992. P. 5); «The Ottoman Empire: A Troubled Legacy». Views, Comments and Judgements by Noted Experts Worldwide. Compiled by Vahakn N. Dadrian for the Association of Genocide Scholars. Williamsburg (USA), 1997. P. 75.

[xi] Dawidowicz Lucy. The Holocaust and the Historians. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981. P. 20.

[xii] “Knesset Speaker working to boost recognition of Armenian genocide”. May 31, 2011, Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/knesset-speaker-working-to-boost-recognition-of-armenian-genocide-1.365034)

[xiii]   “Israeli chief rabbi says killing of Armenians in 1915 was genocide”. November 23, 2005, World Jewish Congress  (http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/5737/israeli_chief_rabbi_says_killing_of_armenians_in_1915_was_genocide)

INTERSTATE RELATIONS AHEAD OF TALKS IN SOCHI

ON OBSERVANCE 

OF PRINCIPLES AND NORMS OF ETIQUETTE 

IN INTERSTATE RELATIONS AHEAD OF TALKS IN SOCHI

by Hayk KOTANJIAN

Yerevan, 08.08.2014

Chairman of the Political Science Association of Armenia, Elected Member of the Academy of Military Sciences (RF), Visiting Professor at the National Defense University (US), Doctor of Political Sciences (RF), Major General Hayk Kotanjian asked the editorial staff of IA REGNUM to publish the following statement.

*    *    *

Major General Hayk Kotanjian

This statement reflects a desire to help defuse tensions as a result of violations of the truce between the parties to the Karabakh conflict in terms of the recent hostilities on the borders of the Republic of Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic ahead of the talks between the heads of state of the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Sochi at the invitation of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair represented by the President of the Russian Federation.

As we know in the UN Charter and the preamble to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations common goals and principles of interstate relations are set forth concerning the sovereign equality of states, the maintenance of international peace and security and the promotion of friendly relations among nations.

Taking into account that the etiquette of interstate relations is not defined in some integrated code of international standards, it can be interpreted as a reflection of the goals and principles of the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention in the corporate rules of professional conduct in interstate relations, including the procedure rules and style of the visits, public speaking, business meetings and negotiations between actors in international relations. And in these terms, referring to the etiquette of interstate relations, we mean the commitment of the political culture of a state and actors to certain rules and traditions of maintaining relations with other states. At the same time, as the main actors of interstate relations and bearers of norms of this etiquette are the heads of states, and not just their diplomatic agents on behalf of their representatives. It is important to note that the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention are adopted both by the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The use of this approach - in the absence of another - makes it possible to interpret the observance of the norms of etiquette of interstate relations by the Head of Azerbaijan with his partners in the forthcoming talks in Sochi, being organized under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair represented by the Head of the Russian Federation - one of the permanent members of the UN Security Council.

In this regard, the reference of my Statement not only to the UN Charter but also to the Vienna Convention - despite the absence of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan - disguises the deep dissatisfaction with this political and diplomatic fact under the conditions of the tripartite ceasefire agreement among the Republic of Armenia, Azerbaijan and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, signed in May 1994, and many years of negotiations between the parties to the Karabakh conflict, under the aegis of Co-Chairmanship of the three permanent members of the UN Security Council: the Russian Federation, the United States and the French Republic.

Meanwhile, two days before the talks between the heads of state of the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan, on August 6, 2014, the official website of the President of Azerbaijan Mr. Ilham Aliyev posted the text of his speech entitled “THE PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN, SUPREME COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF THE ARMED FORCES ILHAM ALIYEV VISITED A MILITARY UNIT IN AGHDAM”. In this speech, the Head of the neighboring state used expressions against the Republic of Armenia, grossly violating the generally accepted norms of interstate relations. 

A fragment of the official text by the head of Azerbaijan is as follows: - “... If the Armenian fascist state will not give up its dirty deeds, the very existence of the Armenian state can be called into question. …". See the link of the official text on the site “PRESIDENT OF AZERBAIJAN. ILHAM ALIYEV”: http://ru.president.az/articles/12487  

As the Chairman of the Political Science Association of Armenia, I consider it my duty to mention the unacceptability of such expressions for heads of neighboring states having official interstate relations, especially on the eve of peace talks. 

By his in-no-way justified definitions the President of Azerbaijan Mr. Ilham Aliyev grossly violated the goals, principles and norms of interstate relations, established in the UN Charter and the preamble of the “Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”. The definition of “fascist state”, read out through the mouth of the President of Azerbaijan to the Republic of Armenia, can only hinder the efforts to establish peace and stability in the South Caucasus, as well as the success of the forthcoming meeting of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Sochi at the invitation of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair – the President of the Russian Federation. 

Ahead of the meeting of the Heads of state of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Sochi on August 8, 2014, I have the honor to express the hope that such expressions – inconsistent with international norms of interstate relations ‒ would not be repeated by the head of the neighboring state.

Dr. Hayk Kotanjian

Chairman of the Political Science Association of Armenia

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary

Turkey : “zero neighbors without problems.”

Not in Turkey’s interest to Provoke

Border Clash with Armenia

By Harut Sassounian

Publisher, The California Courier

A deadly incident with potentially serious consequences took place on the Armenian-Turkish border in the night of July 31.

Armenian and Turkish sources have provided conflicting versions of this event. They agree, however, that a Turkish shepherd was shot dead after crossing into Armenian territory.

Kars Governor Eyup Tepe claimed that without warning “Armenian soldiers” opened fire on 35-year-old Mustafa Ulker, as he was trying to retrieve his “sheep” from the Armenian side. The Turkish Governor accused Armenians of using “excessive force,” alleging that “the shepherd did not have a gun in his hand.” Another local Turkish official, Osman Ugurlu, identified the intruder as a Turkish citizen of Azeri origin who was armed only with a knife and was shot in the back.

In a diplomatic note of protest delivered to Armenia, the Turkish Foreign Ministry stated: “We strongly condemn the shooting of an innocent citizen for a simple border infringement apparently made very innocently. There is no valid explanation for the disproportionate use of Armenian force in such an ordinary event.” In a separate public statement, Ankara called on Armenia to show “good sense” in its relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, warning Yerevan of the dire consequences of wrong moves that could endanger regional stability and peace.

Armenia disputed the Turkish version of events, stating that two Turkish young men had crossed the border at 3 a.m., to steal sheep. When Russian soldiers guarding the Armenian frontier ordered the intruders to go back, the Turks mocked them and refused to retreat. The border guards then fired two warning shots in the air at which point one of the Turks opened fire on them. The Russian troops responded, killing one Turkish intruder, according to the Armenian Border Department of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation.

Turkish sources have repeatedly stressed that the shepherd was shot by Armenians, despite Ankara’s awareness that Russian troops are the ones guarding Armenia’s borders with Turkey and Iran, in line with the Moscow-Yerevan agreement of 1992. Instead of blaming the Russians, the Turkish government insists on holding Armenia responsible for the shepherd’s killing, turning it into an Armenian-Turkish incident rather than a Russian-Turkish quarrel.

The Armenian Foreign Ministry issued a restrained statement, expressing regret for the loss of life and hoping that such incidents will not recur in the future. It is clear that Yerevan does not wish to inflame tempers and trigger a more serious incident with unintended consequences.

It is understandable that Turkish leaders would want to exaggerate the significance of this relatively minor border incident in order to distract attention away from Turkey’s multitude of domestic and foreign troubles, in particular:

•   On-going mass protests in Turkey, challenging Prime Minister Erdogan’s despotic rule.

 

•   Arresting 3,000 demonstrators, injuring 8,000, and killing five others as a result of the “disproportionate use of force” by Turkish police.

 

•   Announcements placed in major American, British, and German newspapers, denouncing Erdogan’s “Nazi-like” actions. The Turkish Prime Minister’s threatened lawsuit against The (London) Times for publishing a full-page paid letter, signed by dozens of prominent Western intellectuals and artists, would more widely expose his intimidating tactics.

 

•   Letter addressed to Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul by 46 Members of the US House of Representatives, asking him to condemn the recent anti-Semitic statements of Turkish leaders, including Erdogan, who had referred to Zionism as a “crime against humanity” and blamed the recent Gezi Park protests on Jewish instigators.

 

•   Serious internal feuds with Kurdish groups, opposition political parties, and high-ranking imprisoned military leaders.

 

•   Repeated military intrusions into Iraqi Kurdistan.

 

•   Strained relations with Egypt’s new rulers after the overthrow of Pres. Mohamed Morsi, Erdogan’s fellow Islamist.

 

•   Frictions with Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, and Israel, and hostilities with Syria.

 

•   The bombing of the Turkish Embassy in Somalia last month by an al-Qaeda-linked group.

With all these problems swirling in and around Turkey, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s announced policy of “zero problems with neighbors” has turned into “zero neighbors without problems.”

At a time when Armenians are planning worldwide commemorations of the Genocide Centennial, Turkey can ill afford to add to its host of troubles a border clash with Armenia, which would only serve to publicize Turkey’s long list of past and present crimes!