Home » Commentary » Currently Reading:

On The Principles Of Self-Determination And So-Called “Territorial Integrity” In Public International Law (The Case Of Nagorno-Karabakh)

June 22, 2010 Commentary No Comments

By: Ara Papian – Head, “Modus Vivendi” Center

We are not going to negotiate over the right of the people of Artsakh (Karabakh) to self-determination.

Serzh Sargsyan, President of the Republic of Armenia, 1 June 2010

It is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.

Judge Hardy Dillard, International Court of Justice, 16 October 1975

The notions of “self-determination” and “territorial integrity” are often used with regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Unfortunately, these legal terms are largely misused mostly due to political motives. One of the grave misinterpretations of the said notions was by Ambassador-to-be (or not to be) Matthew Bryza when he declared: “There’s a legal principle of territorial integrity of states, there’s a political principle of self-determination of peoples.” As a matter of fact, it is just the opposite. There is a legal principle of self-determination and there is no such principle of territorial integrity. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter declares merely: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. Thus this has nothing to do with absolute “territorial integrity”, (i.e. preservation of the territory of a state intact) but, according to authoritative interpretation of the United States Foreign Relations Law, it is simply the rule against intervention, a “prohibition of use of force” [1] and purely calls to refrain from “the use of force by one state to conquer another state or overthrow its government.” [2]

In order to have adequate understanding of the status, scope and content of the principles of “self-determination” and so called “territorial integrity” in contemporary international law, we need to elaborate more on the issue.

SELF-DETERMINATION

Self-determination: Historical Background

Self-determination is an ancient political right that is cherished by every people. The word “self-determination” is derived from the German word “selbstbestimmungsrecht” and was frequently used by German radical philosophers in the middle of the nineteenth century. The political origins of the concept of self-determination can be traced back to the American Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The American Revolution is considered to be “an outstanding example of the principle of self-determination.”[3] The principle of self-determination was further shaped by the leaders of the French Revolution. During the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, the principle of self-determination was interpreted by nationalist movements as meaning that each nation had the right to constitute an independent State and that only nationally-homogeneous States were legitimate.[4] During World War I, President Wilson championed the principle of self-determination as it became crystallized in Wilson’s Fourteen Points (8 January 1918) and consequently was discussed in the early days of the League on Nations. The Mandate system was to some degree a compromise between outright colonialism and principles of self-determination.

While discussion of the political right and principle of self-determination has a long history, the process of establishing it as a principle of international law is of more recent origin. Since the codification of International Law is today mostly achieved through an international convention drown up in a diplomatic conference or, occasionally, in the UN General Assembly or similar forum on the basis of a draft with commentary prepared by the International Law Commission or some other expert body,[5] we must follow the development of the discussed notions through international instruments. It must be stressed that if the rules, incorporated in the form of articles in the conventions, reflect existing customary international law, they are binding on states regardless of their participation in the conventions.[6]

Self-determination: Development under the Aegis of the United Nations

1. Incorporation into the UN Charter

The principle of self-determination was invoked on many occasions during World War II. It was proclaimed in the Atlantic Charter (14 August 1941). The provisions of the Atlantic Charter were restated in the Washington Declaration of 1942, in the Moscow Declaration of 1943 and in other important instruments of the time. Owing to these declarations already at the days of establishment of the United Nations, the notion of self-determinations was seen as a principle of international law.

Ultimately, “the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples” was incorporated into the United Nations Charter. The Charter [Article 1(2)] clearly enunciated the principle of self-determination: “The purposes of the United Nations are: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determinations of peoples” and self-determination is conceived as one among several possible “measures to strengthen universal peace.”[7] Chapter IX (International Economic and Social Co-operation, Article 55) lists several goals the organization should promote: “With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.” Under Article 56, “all Members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article 55.”

The principle of self-determination, as it follows from Article 55 of the UN Charter, is one of the fundamentals of peaceful and friendly international relations. In other words, there can be no such relations without the observance of this principle. The same article says it is the duty of the United Nations to promote respect for fundamental human rights (para. c) and, consequently, for the nations’ right to self-determination. And since the establishment of friendly relations between peoples and the promotion of respect for human rights figure among the United Nation’s most important tasks, it is obvious that this organization is entitled to raise the question of a people’s self-determination.[8]

The Charter is dominant over all the other international documents. This provision is set down in Article 103 of the Charter, and is accepted by all the members of the UN. It is clear that the UN considers the self-determination of peoples (self-determination, not just the right of people for self-determination, i.e. the application of this right) as not only one of its basic principles but also as a basis for friendly relations and universal peace. Hence, rejection of self-determination hinders friendship and universal peace. In addition, Article 24, Point 2 holds: “In discharging these duties [the maintenance of international peace and security] the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.” It means that, in the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council must be guided by self-determination of peoples because it is one of its principles.

2. Development through UN Practice

The concept of self-determination was further developed by the United Nations. Through its resolutions the United Nations has expounded and developed the principle of self-determination. In Resolution 637A(VII) of December 16, 1952 the General Assembly declared that: “the right of peoples and nations to self-determination is a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of all fundamental human rights.” The General Assembly recommended, inter alia, that “the States Members of the United Nations shall uphold the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations.”

In 1960, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514(XV) entitled Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples which declares that: [para. 2]. “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” The Declaration regards the principle of self-determination as a part of the obligations stemming from the Charter, and is not a “recommendation”, but is in the form of an authoritative interpretation of the Charter.[9]

Later on, the principle was incorporated in a number of international instruments. In 1966 two conventions on human rights entered into force – the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Covenants have a common Article 1 which states: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

Consequently the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among the States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations [General assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970] confirmed the principle that self-determination is a right belonging to all peoples and that its implementation is required by the UN Charter: “By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference , their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every state has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.”

M. Zahovic, rapporteur for the Special Committee on Principles of International Relations concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among the Nations, remarked: “Nearly all representatives who participated in the debate emphasised that the principle was no longer to be considered a mere moral or political postulate; it was rather settled principle of modern international law. Full recognition of the principle was a prerequisite for the maintenance of international peace and security, the development of friendly relations and cooperation among the States, and the promotion of economic, social and cultural progress throughout the world.”[10]

Self-Determination: The Principle and Human Rights

The principle of self-determination developed from a philosophical to political concept in international relations and has now matured into a fundamental principle of positive international law. It has developed recently as an aspect of human rights belonging to the group rather than to the individual[11] and therefore rightly belongs to both Covenants of Human Rights, as it was mentioned.

On 25 June 1993, representatives of 171 States adopted by consensus the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of the World Conference on Human Rights (June 14-25, 1993). The final document agreed to in Vienna, which was endorsed by the forty-eighth session of the General Assembly (resolution 48/121, of 1993), reaffirms the principles that have evolved during the past 45 years and further strengthens the foundation for additional progress in the area of human rights. The document recognizes interdependence between democracy, development and human rights, including the right to self-determination. The final document emphasizes that the Conference considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right[12] [para. 2]: “The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right”.[13] Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and co-sponsors of the OSCE Minsk group as well (Russian Federation, USA, France) are parties to this convention.

International organizations which are concerned with human rights and world peace have given full recognition to the fact that respect for self-determination is a condition for world peace. Fundamental human rights are meaningful in the context of a people enjoying self-determination.[14]

The raison d’être for the principle of self-determination is the enjoyment by all peoples, regardless of race, religion, or sex, of full democratic rights within the law, free from internal or external domination. It seeks to provide the opportunities for the political, economic, social, and cultural development of all peoples. The basic objective of the principle is to guarantee that all peoples have a government to their choice that responds to their political, economic, and cultural needs.[15] Thus, denial of the right to self-determination is a human rights violation and constitutes a breach of international law.

Self-determination: Development of the Principle Through Other Organizations

The International Commission of Jurists (affiliated to the International Court of Justice) has held numerous conferences on the rule of law attempting to provide a clear and comprehensive definition of rule of law and better measures of implementation in the context of protecting human rights. Its first congress was held in Athens in 1955, where the participants gave effect to the Act of Athens which resolved: “ (9) The recognition of the right to self-determination being one of the great achievements of our era and one of the fundamental principles of international law, its non-application is emphatically condemned. (10) Justice demands that a people or an ethnic or political minority be not deprived of their natural rights and especially of the fundamental rights of man and citizens or of equal treatment for reasons of race, colour, class, political conviction, caste or creed”.[16]

The First World Conference of Lawyers on World Peace through Law, in their Declaration of General Principles for a World Rule of Law (Athens, July 6, 1963), adopted a resolution which stated: “In order to establish an effective international legal system under the rule of law which precludes resort to force, we declare that: (…) (6) A fundamental principle of the international rule of law is that of the right of self-determination of the peoples of the world, as proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations.”[17]

Self-determination: Development of the Principle Through the ICJ

The principle of self-determination is exemplified in the decisions by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). For example, in the South-West Africa Cases (December 26, 1961, and July 18, 1966) Judge Nervo, dissenting, expressed the belief that the concept of equality and freedom “will inspire the vision and the conduct of peoples the world over until the goal of self-determination and independence is reached.”[18]

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court relating to the Western Sahara Case (October 16, 1975) reconfirmed as well “the validity of the principle of self-determination” in the context of international law.[19]

Also in the decision of June 30, 1995, concerning the East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia) the International Court reaffirmed that the principle of self-determination of peoples is recognized by the UN Charter and by its own jurisprudence as being “one of the essential principles of contemporary international law.”[Para. 29][20]

Self-Determination: Status, Scope and Content in Contemporary International Law

Both the United Nations and the majority of authors are alike in maintaining that the principle of self-determination is part of modern international law. Due to developments in the United Nations since 1945, jurists now generally admit that self-determination is a legal principle.[21] The principle has been confirmed, developed and given more tangible form by a consistent body of State practice and has been embodied among “the basic principles of international law” in the Friendly Relations Resolutions.[22] The generality and political aspect of the principle do not deprive it of legal content.[23] Furthermore, having no doubts that the principle of the self-determination of peoples is a legal principle, currently many declare self-determination to be a jus cogens (peremptory) norm of international law.[24] Accordingly, no derogation is admissible from the principle of self-determination by means of a treaty or any similar international transaction.[25]

It must be underlined that the right of self-determination is the right to choose a form of political organization and relations with other groups. The choice may be independence as a state, association with other groups in a federal state, or autonomy or assimilation in a unitary (non-federal) state.[26] A situation involving the international legal principle of self-determination cannot be excluded from the jurisdiction of the United Nations by a claim of domestic jurisdiction. International customary law is binding on all states regardless of consent; and in any event, states have bound themselves under the Charter to respect the principle.[27] The claims of the states that the implementation of the principle of self-determination infringes on their rights or is contrary to their “constitutional processes” cannot be made a pretext for depriving other peoples of their right to self-determination.[28] Presently self-determination as a principle is truly universal in scope.[29] It is also unconditional because most of the UN members also hold that realization of the right to self-determination should not have any strings attached to it.[30]

All these conceptions were summarized in the statement by Hans Brunhart, Head of Government and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Principality of Liechtenstein, during the Forty-Seventh Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations (September 23, 1992, UN Doc. A/47/PV.9) [para. 6]: “The right to self-determination as principle is now universally accepted. I would recall not only that self-determination is one of the foundations of the Charter, but also that most States represented in this Assembly are already under certain specific legal obligations in this area by virtue of Article 1 of each of the great human rights conventions of 1966. [i. e. the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.] There it is formally and with legally binding effect acknowledged that: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”[31]

Despite all this, and with some notable exceptions, the practical and peaceful application of the principle of self-determination has often been lacking. Time and again have dominant powers hindered oppressed peoples from availing themselves of their right to self-determination despite the obligations assumed in signing the UN Charter. So how is one to establish that a people wants to be the master of its own destiny?

There are different ways of establishing the will of the people demanding self-determination. The will of the people may be determined by a plebiscite. A plebiscite or, what amounts to the same thing, a referendum means the right of the majority of the population to determine the political and legal status of the territory it inhabits.[32] The will of people may be expressed by parliament or by any other representative institutions elected by the self-determining people.[33]

By and large there are plebiscites without a popular vote on the questions concerned. In such cases, the population of the self-determining territory elects a representative organ which then expresses the people’s will. If the elections to these organs and the vote in them are conducted on a democratic basis, this method of expressing the people’s will is quite legitimate.[34] This is the situation that we had lately (23 May 2010) in Nagorno-Karabakh during the elections of the Parliament of the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh).

The will of the people may also be expressed in the form of mass protests (civil disobedience, demonstrations, rallies, newspaper articles, etc.). Lastly, it may find expression in armed uprisings or wars for national liberation. The latter is an extreme measure and people resorts to it only if forced to do so. A rule of customary international law has emerged, according to which the principle of self-determination includes a right of secession and, as a consequence, the legality of wars of national liberation and third party interventions on behalf of the secessionist movements.[35] The use of force to achieve self-determination and for the assistance of national liberation movements has increasingly been claimed as legitimate in recent years, on the ground that it furthers the principles of the UN Charter.[36]

There is no rule of international law forbidding revolutions within a state, and the United Nation’s Charter favors the self-determination of peoples. Self-determination may take the forms of rebellion to oust an unpopular government, of colonial revolt, of an irredentist movement to transfer territory, or of a movement for the unification or federation of independent states.[37] It should be especially stressed that whatever way is chosen, no “central authority” or any other people can solve the problem for the self-determining people, for that would be contrary to the very principle of self-determination.[38]

While establishing the scope of self-determination, a question must be answered: Are the peoples and nations which have already implemented their right to self-determination subjects of this right? The answer is “Yes”, inasmuch as the UN Charter recognizes the right to self-determination of all peoples and nations, without distinguishing between those which have attained statehood and those which have not. The question is answered analogically in the General Assembly resolution on the inclusion of the clause on human rights in the International Covenant on Human Rights.[39] It has been strongly advocated that a nation which has been divided into States by outside interference and without the clear consent of the population still possess the inherent right of self-determination including the right of reunification.[40]

Furthermore, infringement of the right to self-determination has been used by the European Community as a potential ground for withholding recognition of an entity as a State and hence to deny the legitimacy of a government or a State which does not protect the right of self-determination. In the EC Declaration on the Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union (December 16, 1991), there is the requirement that a potential new State has constitutional guarantees of democracy and of “the rights of ethnic and national groups and minorities” before recognition by the EC States would be granted. Moreover, a new rule of international law holds that a State established in violation of the right of self-determination is a nullity in international law.[41]

Another question which concerns the self-determination of peoples is: Can the right of self-determination be applied to non-colonial entities? Certainly the main objective of the right of self-determination was to bring a speedy end to colonialism. However, since codification of that principle in the UN Charter, not one of the major international instruments which have dealt with the right of self-determination have limited the application of the right to colonial situations. For example, the common Article 1 of the two International Human Rights Conventions of 1966 (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) applies the right to “all peoples” without any restriction as to their status, and the obligation rests on all States. Likewise, principle VIII of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference 1975 includes: “by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, all peoples have the right, in full freedom, to determine, when and as they wish, their internal and external political status, without external interference, and to pursue as they wish their political, economic, social and cultural development”. State practice also supports a broader application of the right of self-determination beyond strictly colonial confines. Indeed, the international Commission of Jurists, in its report on Bangladesh’s secession, stated that: “if one of the constituent peoples of a State is denied equal rights and is discriminated against, it is submitted that their full right of self-determination will revive”.[42] In the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (12 September 1990), which was signed by four of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council, it was expressly mentioned that the “German people, freely exercising their right of self-determination, have expressed their will to bring about the unity of Germany as a State”, [Preamble, para. 11], despite the fact that neither East nor West Germany was a colony. It was also been applied by States in the context of the break-up of the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia.[43]

TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY AND POLITICAL INDEPENDENCE

“Territorial Integrity”: Evaluation and Content

The notion of “territorial integrity” has been employed only three times in international instruments. All other cases are only references to these said documents.

The concepts of territorial integrity and political independence emerged during the years immediately following the end of World War I. Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations stipulated that: “the Members of the League undertake to respect and preserve as against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all Members of the League”.[44] The same understanding of “territorial integrity” was reaffirmed in the UN Charter: “2(4). All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” The other important international instrument which is often referred to is the Helsinki Final Act (adopted on August 1, 1975) which requires the following: “The participating States will refrain in their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations in general, from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State…”.

It is obvious that the Helsinki Final Act, likewise the UN Charter and League of Nations Covenant earlier, condemns merely the use of force against territorial integrity and does not unconditionally advocate for the absolute maintenance of territorial integrity. It makes clear that use of external force or threat of use against territorial integrity and political independence is unacceptable. Meanwhile, the Helsinki Final Act (Chapter 1) specifically holds that: ” frontiers can be changed, in accordance with international law, by peaceful means and by agreement.”

It is apparent that ever since the first time that the notion of “territorial integrity” appeared within the domain of international law, it has been closely intertwined with the question of the use of external force. In other words, the principle of “territorial integrity” is traditionally interwoven with the fundamental principle of the prohibition of the threat or use of force[45] and not with the absolute preservation of the territory of a state intact. As it was mentioned above, it is just the “prohibition of use of [external] force”[46] and the renunciation of “the use of force by one state to conquer another state or overthrow its government.”[47]

“Territorial Integrity”: Scope, Limitation and Status under International Law

In modern political life there are repeated wrongful attempts to present “territorial integrity” as a general limitation on the right to self-determination. The basis for such limitation is false because the government of a State which does not represent the whole population on its territory without discrimination cannot succeed in limiting the right of self-determination on the basis that it would infringe that State’s territorial integrity.[48]

Moreover, state practice shows that territorial integrity limitations on the right of self-determination are often ignored, as seen in the recognition of the independence of Bangladesh (from Pakistan), Singapore (from Malaysia) and Belize, “despite the claims of Guatemala”.[49] In addition, after the recognition by the international community of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, recognition of East Timor and Eritrea, recognition to a certain extent of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it could now be the case that any government which is oppressive to peoples within its territory may no longer be able to rely on the general interest of territorial integrity as a limitation on the right of self-determination.

Therefore there is a clear-cut understanding: only a government of a State which allows all its peoples to decide their political status and economic, social and cultural development freely has an interest of territorial integrity which can possibly, only possibly, limit the exercise of a right of self-determination. So territorial integrity, as a limitation on the exercise of the right of self-determination, can apply only to those States in which the government represents the whole population in accordance with the exercise of internal self-determination.[50] Thus, there is an apparent conceptual link between democracy and self-determination. Democracy is often viewed as internal self-determination, and secession as external self-determination, that is, as the right of a people to govern itself, rather than be governed by another people.[51]

Moreover, it is clear that those deprived of the right of self-determination can seek forcible international support to uphold their right of self-determination and no State can use force against such groups. As it was referred above, the Declaration on Principles of International Law provides that “every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples … of their right of self determination and freedom and independence”. The increase in actions by the international community which could be classed as humanitarian intervention, such as in Somalia and with the creation of “safe havens” for the Kurds North of the 36^th parallel in Iraq[52] (1991-2003), indicates the reduced importance given by the international community to the territorial integrity of a State when human rights, including the right of self-determination, are grossly and systematically violated.[53] The right of self-determination applies to all situations where peoples are subject to oppression by subjugation, domination and exploitation by others. It is applicable to all territories, colonial or not, and to all peoples.[54] Indeed, many of the claims for self-determination arose because of unjust, State-based policies of discrimination and when the international legal order failed to respond to the legitimate aspirations of peoples.

Self-Determination: Human Rights and the Right to Secession

One of the supposed dangers of self-determination is that it might encourage secession. First of all, there is no rule of international law that condemns all secessions under all circumstances. Self-determination includes the right to secede.[55] In a situation when the principle of territorial integrity is clearly incompatible with that of self-determination, the former must, under present international law, give way to the latter.[56] For instance, if a majority or minority insists on committing an international crime, such as genocide, or enforces a wholesale denial of human rights as a deliberate policy against the other part, it is submitted that the oppressed party, minority or majority, may have recourse to the right of self-determination up to the point of secession.[57]

As Azerbaijan used force in answer to the free and peaceful expression of the will of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh (rallies, referendums, claims, appeals), took inadequate means of punishment, perpetrated massacres of the Armenian citizens of Azerbaijan in Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad, and waged a ruthless war with Ukrainian, Afghan, Russian mercenaries and sustained defeat, it cannot expect that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh will renounce their lawful right and will not exercise their right of self-determination.

Actually, the world community is under legal and moral obligation to recognize the political self-determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, i.e. to recognize the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh; if a de facto state has crystallized, refusal to recognize it may be tantamount to a denial of self-determination. Moreover, there is a clear understanding in international law: after the international requirements for the recognition of belligerency have been fulfilled (as it was done with regard to Nagorno-Karabakh by the Bishkek Protocol (May 5, 1994), and by the Cease-fire Agreement, (May 12, 1994)), a duty of recognition of belligerency necessarily follows, and refusal of recognition is interference with the right of political self-determination of the people of a State, and therefore constitutes illegal intervention.[58] This obligation arises from the understanding that the principle and rules on self-determination are erga omnes, that is, they belong to that class of international legal obligations which are not “bilateral” or reciprocal, but are in favor of all members of the international community.[59]

In the Loizidou v. Turkey Case, a 1996 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, Judge Wildhaber identifies an emerging consensus that the right of self-determination, more specifically secession, should be interpreted as remedial for certain human rights abuses: “Until recently in international practice the right to self-determination was in practical terms identical to, and indeed restricted to, a right to decolonisation. In recent years a consensus has seemed to emerge that peoples may also exercise a right to self-determination if their human rights are consistently and flagrantly violated or if they are without representation at all or are massively underrepresented in an undemocratic and discriminatory way. If this description is correct then the right to self-determination is a tool which may be used to re-establish international standards of human rights and democracy”.[60] As Judge Wildhaber attests, there is increasing agreement among authors that the right of self-determination provides the remedy of secession to a group whose rights have been consistently and severely abused by the state.[61] The self-determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh must certainly be assessed as an act of corrective justice as well.

So a minority’s entitlement to self-determination can and must be judged within a human rights framework. Self-determination postulates the right of a people organized in an established territory to determine its collective political destiny in a democratic fashion.[62]

It is legal nonsense to presume that self-determination should take place within previous administrative borders, without regard for the cultural, linguistic or ethnic identity of the people there. Internal boundaries in the former Soviet Union were often drawn in a way which ensured that many members of the titular nation were outside the boundaries of their (titular) republic, as it was with Nagorno-Karabakh.[63] A politically disempowered distinct group in a specific region has the right to independence,[64] regardless of whether or not they are organized in an administrative unit. There is no doubt that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh (not only the people of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region) are entitled to independence as their choice of self-determination due to the extreme discrimination that they faced under Azerbaijan.

SUMMARY

Self-determination is an ancient political right. Presently the right to self-determination is a well-established principle in public international law. The principle has been confirmed, developed and given more tangible form by a consistent body of State practice and has been embodied in various international instruments.
The principle of self-determination is exemplified in the decisions by the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
The principle of self-determination is one of the fundamentals of peaceful and friendly international relations. Respect for self-determination is a condition for world peace. Those deprived of the right of self-determination can seek forcible international support to uphold their right of self-determination.
Self-determination as a principle of international law is universal in scope. The right of self-determination applies to all situations where peoples are subject to oppression by subjugation, domination and exploitation by others – all peoples and nations, without distinguishing between those which have attained statehood and those which have not.
The principle of the self-determination of peoples is a legal principle and is a jus cogens (peremptory) norm of international law.
The right of self-determination is the right to choose a form of political organization and relations with other groups. Denial of the right of to self-determination is a human rights violation and constitutes a breach of international law.
The right of peoples and nations to self-determination is a prerequisite to the full enjoyment of all fundamental human rights. Therefore the General Assembly recommended that the member states of the United Nations uphold the principle of self-determination of all peoples and nations.
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter has nothing to do with absolute “territorial integrity”, but is simply the rule against intervention, a “prohibition of use of force” and purely calls to refrain from “the use of force by one state to conquer another state or overthrow its government.”
Self-determination includes the right to secede. The people of Nagorno-Karabakh (not only the people of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region) are entitled to independence as their choice of self-determination.
Self-determination postulates the right of a people organized in an established territory to determine its collective political destiny in a democratic fashion.

Ara Papian

Head, “Modus Vivendi” Center

1-7 June 2010

[1] Restatement of the Law (Third), The Foreign Relations Law of the United States, The American Law Institute, Washington, 1987, v. 2, § 905(7), p. 389.

[2] Ibid., p. 383.

[3] Umozurike O.U. Self-Determination in International Law, 1972, Connecticut, 1972, p. 8.

[4] Thurer D. Self-Determination, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, vol. IV, Amsterdam, 2000, p. 364.

[5] Rosenne S. Codification of International Law, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, v. I, Amsterdam, 1992, p. 633.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Thurer D. op. cit., p. 365.

[8] Starushenko G. The Principle of Self-determination in Soviet Foreign Policy, Moscow, 1963, p. 221.

[9] Recueil des cours de l’Academie de droit international, The Hague, 1962, II, p. 33. Annual Report of the Secretary-General , 1960, 2. Chief Judge Moreno Quintana, International Court of Justice Reports, 1960, pp. 95-96.

[10] Umozurike O.U. op. cit., p. 192.

[11] Ibid., p. 271.

[12] Hillier T., Sourcebook on Public International Law, London-Sydney, 1998, p. 192.

[13] Documents, UN General Assembly, A/CONF.157/23; 12 July 1993.

[14] Umozurike O.U. op. cit., p. 188.

[15] Ibid., p. 273.

[16] Ibid., p. 185.

[17] Declaration of General Principles for a World Rule of Law, American Journal of International Law, 58, (1964) pp. 138-151, at 143.

[18] International Court of Justice, Reports, 1966, v. IV, p. 465.

[19] ICJ Reports (1975) 12 at 31-33. See also the Namibia Opinion, ibid. (1971), 16 at 31; Geog K. v. Ministry of Interior, ILR 71, at 284; and the Case Concerning East Timor, ICJ Reports (1995) at 102.

[20] Thurer D. op. cit., p. 370.

[21] Brownlie I. Principles of Public International Law, Oxford, 1998 (5^th ed.), p. 600.

[22] Thurer D. op. cit., p. 366.

[23] Brownlie I. op. cit., p. 600.

[24] Hillier T. op. cit., p. 191. Supporters of the view that the right of self-determination is part of jus cogens include: I. Brownlie, op. cit., (4^th ed.), Oxford, 1991, p. 513. A. Cassese, International Law in a Divided World, Oxford, 1989, p. 136; J. Craword, “The Rights of Peoples: Some Conclusions”, in J. Crawford, (ed.), The Rights of Peoples, Oxford, 1988, pp. 159-175, at p. 166; H. Gros Espiell, The Right to Self-Determination, Implementation of United Nations Resolutions (1978), para. 85; and the UK’s and Argentina’s statements in the context of the Falklands/Malvinas dispute (1982) 53 British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 366-379.

[25] Cassese A. Self-determination of Peoples, Cambridge, 1995, p. 134-35.

[26] Brownlie I. op. cit., p. 599.

[27] Umozurike O.U. op. cit., p. 196.

[28] Starushenko G. op. cit., p. 209.

[29] Thurer D. op. cit., p. 369.

[30] Starushenko G. op. cit., p. 210.

[31] Self-Determination and Self-Administration, A Sourcebook, (ed. W. Danspeckgruber and A. Watts), London, 1997, Appendix 2, The Liechtenstein Initiative at the UN, p. 405.

[32] Starushenko G. op. cit., p. 214.

[33] Ibid., p. 213.

[34] Ibid., p. 215-6.

[35]Thurer D. op. cit., p. 368.

[36] Hillier T. op. cit., p. 612.

[37] Self-Determination, Digest of International Law (ed. M. Whiteman), Washington, 1974, v. 5, § 4, p. 39.

[38] Starushenko G. op. cit., p. 214.

[39] Resolution 545 (VI) of February 5, 1952.

[40] Thurer D. op. cit., p. 368.

[41] Ibid., p. 369.

[42] The Secretariat of the International Commission of Jurists, Report on “Events in East Pakistan, (1971)”, Geneva, p. 69.

[43] McCorquodale R. Self-Determination: Human Rights Approach, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 43, # 4 (Oct. 1994), p. 861.

[44] Rozakis Ch. Territorial Integrity and Political Independence, in R. Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, v. IV, Amsterdam, 2000, p. 813.

[45] Ibid., pp. 812-13.

[46] Restatement of the Law (Third), op. cit., p. 389.

[47] Ibid., p. 383.

[48] McCorquodale R. op. cit., p. 880.

[49] Maguie J. “The Decolonization of Belize: Self-Determination v. Territorial Integrity” (1982) 22 Virginia Journal of International Law, p. 849.

[50] McCorquodale R. op. cit., p. 880.

[51] Moore M. National Self-Determination, Oxford, 1998, p. 10.

[52] Security Council Resolution 688 (April 5 1991).

[53] McCorquodale R. op. cit., p. 882.

[54] Ibid., p. 883.

[55] M. Moore, op. cit., p. 23.

[56] O.U. Umozurike, op. cit., p. 187.

[57] Ibid., p. 199.

[58] A.V.W. Thomas and A.J. Thomas, Non-Intervention: The Law and its Import in the Americas, Dallas, 1956, p. 220.

[59] A. Cassese, op. cit., p. 134.

[60] Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits), European Court of Human Rights, 18 December, 1996, (1997) 18 Human Rights Law Journal 50 at p. 59.

[61] K. Knop, Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law, Cambridge, 2002, p. 74.

[62] Ibid., p. 85.

[63] M. Moore, op. cit., p. 140.

[64] T.M. Frank, The Power of Legitimacy among the Nations, New York, 1990, p. 171.

International News By CNN

Mixing porn and politics?
It isn't everyday that video from inside a routine legislative session causes an uproar big enough to force three politicians to resign all at once but that is just what happened in South India after video surfaced of Indian ministers watching what appeared to be video of a sex act on a cell phone during a debate in the house assembly. […]
Ex-Maldives president wants successor to resign
The former Maldives president recently forced to resign on Wednesday called for the new leader to step down, a lawmaker said. […]
U.S.-Egypt relations tested in latest crisis
As though there were not enough tumult in Egypt, a new crisis has soured its strongest Western ally and threatened to sever military aid a year after revolution felled a longtime dictator. […]
The boom of Turkey's art market
After being virtually ignored for decades, both at home and abroad, Turkish modern art has rapidly developed into a booming market. […]
'No negotiations' on Falklands, UK vows
The British Foreign Office Wednesday dismissed a complaint from Argentina about the "militarization of the South Atlantic" as tensions rise over the Falkland Islands, over which the two countries fought a war 30 years ago. […]
Safety checks ordered for all Airbus A380 airplanes
All Airbus A380 airplanes must be checked for cracks in the wings within three to four weeks, the European Aviation Safety Agency ordered Wednesday. […]
Russia, China battle to curb U.N. power
George Lopez: Russia's and China's vetoes of Syria sanctions are attempts to sabotage the U.N.'s power to intervene in global crises. […]
Steinem and Wolfe: Can we end rape as war tool?
Gloria Steinem and Lauren Wolfe say sexual violence in wartime is poorly studied, often not acknowledged and a devastating strategy of conquest. To end it, it's crucial that it be brought into the light. […]
Japan's elderly gamers
Close your eyes, and you know where you are: The unmistakable sound of anime voices and the jingle of a completed lap around the electronic track ring through the hall. This is a classic video game arcade in Japan, filled with the sounds long associated with this gaming nation. But open your eyes, and the players are not exactly the teenagers you'd expe […]
Egypt's American soccer coach
Bob Bradley, an American who coaches Egypt's national soccer team, says Egypt's love for soccer is intertwined with its political revolution. […]

Book Reviews

John Balian’s “Novel Approach” Brings the Armenian Saga to the Masses – An interview with John Balian by Lucine Kasbarian

Armenians often wish for a tale about the Armenian Genocide and its aftermath that would make a blockbuster film and draw attention to their cause. John Balian’s new book, Gray Wolves and White Doves (CreateSpace/Amazon.com), may be that tale.

Largely autobiographical, this atmospheric novel is presented through the eyes of an innocent young boy trying to make sense of the world as he grows up amid repressive conditions in Western Armenia/Eastern Turkey during the 1960s and 70s.

This fast-paced, multi-layered narrative takes readers from Hanna Ibelin’s (a.k.a. Jonah Ibelinian’s) close-knit family life in the perilous Asia Minor region of Palu to terror and tragedy while en route to Syria’s Kamishli, to a bleak existence on the mean streets of Istanbul.

Facng the disintegration of his family, Hanna is promised salvation abroad. Guardians enroll him in the Armenian seminary of Jerusalem, where he takes his Armenian name Jonah Ibelinian, and practices Armenian customs in comfort and safety. But as Jonah begins to adjust to this new life, he encounters inter-ethnic strife, clerical corruption, deception, and banishment for alleged insurrection against the Turkish state.

While on the lam in Europe, Jonah searches for lost kin as he stays just one step ahead of his pursuers. As he hides from the Turkish secret police, fugitive Jonah is coaxed by a former rival to conduct a secret mission in exchange for acceptance. Jonah also searches the depths of his own conscience as he is told that his mission is to be carried out at the Turkish Airlines counter at Orly Airport on the outskirts of Paris.

As the story crescendos into a dynamic climax, buried secrets, and hidden identities and motives are revealed – leading the gripping saga to a fulfilling conclusion.

Gray Wolves and White Doves’ storyline is laced with intrigues and betrayals, ancient traditions, comic relief and accurate historical depictions – fused together by the protagonist’s indomitable will to live in freedom and dignity. This literary achievement is already being put on par with Billy Hayes’ autobiographical thriller and award-winning film, Midnight Express. While Gray Wolves and White Doves stands on its own merits as a spellbinding story, author John Benjamin Sciarra aptly points out that Balian’s treatment further elevates it because “…by setting [the novel] in the shadow of the attempted annihilation of Armenians by Turks, the historical background becomes as meaningful as the story itself.”

Protagonist Ibelinian possesses many fine qualities often attributed to the Armenian people: Christian values, love of family, drive, talent, and a strong work ethic. The grace and humility with which Jonah faces down impossible odds offers readers a model to emulate and an opportunity to place their own personal challenges into perspective. And by presenting his story as a cross between Raffi’s epic Khentè and a John Grisham novel, Balian captures the interest of general readers while introducing them to the Armenians – a people whose history has been hijacked, culture appropriated, and appeals for justice disregarded.

Following is an interview conducted with the author. To learn more and to purchase the book, visit http://johndbalian.com.

Lucine Kasbarian: How have your life experiences and literary interests equipped you to write Gray Wolves and White Doves, and what do you hope this book will accomplish?

John Balian: It is said that the best fiction usually involves strong elements of true-life experiences, and this book is no different. The premise of the book is based on my life experiences. It is also said that everyone has a book hidden inside. Gray Wolves and White Doves is clearly the one I needed to release from within me.

While Gray Wolves and White Doves is an suspenseful thriller, it is based on a real-life story that weaves a timeless tale of a man’s perseverance, the endurance of hope, and the winning ways of the human spirit no matter how bleak the circumstances.

My hope for the book is to leave a legacy to generations to come and to shed light on an often-ignored and definitely under-explored topic of great importance – the issue of genocide, an event that has contributed so dramatically to the factional rivalries and the current quagmire of the Middle East. My intent here was to bring attention to this matter while entertaining and rousing a non-Armenian audience without preaching to them.

The readership is looking for a motion picture based on this story. Also, to translate the book, first into Armenian and Turkish and then into other languages would be a very desired outcome.

LK: You are to be congratulated for self-publishing this work. Because of the subject matter and your treatment of it, I wonder if a mainstream book publisher would have produced it. Tell us how this book came to be.

JB: There is no stigma anymore in the self-publishing realm. I understand that established authors are choosing this route more often. I did attempt to get an agent for representation by sending a query to about a dozen of them, but it became apparent that to succeed in the traditional publishing approach, it would take a very long time with no apparent benefits while running the risk of losing the literary and educational value of this book.

I chose the Amazon publishing services called BookSurge Publishing and CreateSpace. They offered easy access to the Amazon distribution channels as well as editing services that were quite impressive and very helpful.

LK: A disclaimer in the book states that while the story is based on actual events, any similarity to real persons is coincidental. How much of your book is historical and how much is autobiographical? Where does fact end and fiction begin?

JB: The events and historical aspects of the book are all factual. The fictional aspects come from taking poetic license with the creation and portrayal of characters and plots, and the timing of events and scenes.

LK: This story, which has been enthusiastically reviewed by scores of non-Armenian readers, appeals to more than one demographic. You add special touches to the story that will resonate with Armenian readers in particular, such as your decision to name the villains Sevantz and Aghvesian, or to create characters with evocative Turkish names such as Soluk Kurt, Inonu, Turgut and Erdogan. Please talk about this.

JB: To date, more than 95 percent of the readership has been non-Armenian. There is unanimity on the quality of work and an overwhelmingly positive reaction to the writing, the story and its literary value. Some samples of the feedback and sentiments can be seen in the reviews placed on Amazon, with a total of 50 reviews thus far with a top rating of five stars.

In addition to the pace of the book, I want the readers (on a second or third reading) to delve into the meaning and intricacies of scenes, names and references to religious, historical, and biblical issues, and to personalities past and present that continue to influence peoples’ and nations’ lives.

LK: While telling your tale, life in Jerusalem comes alive, as does the issue with which many lay communities struggle: corrupt authority figures and clergy. What purpose do you think your treatment of this taboo topic could serve?

JB: My hope is that it leads to awareness and more importantly to the protection of our national treasures and heritage.

LK: Two powerful aspects of this book were your ability to communicate how goodness and humility can inspire hostility and envy in others, and the resulting trauma that persists within the Armenians. The central character is scapegoated by transgressors who project sins onto him. Please talk about the importance these concepts hold for you, for the Armenian nation and for humanity.

JB: Unfortunately this mindset is not limited to one period of time, one region of the world, one country, or one people. Humanity grapples with these issues daily and never seems to have the collective courage to overcome these destructive attitudes. Armenians have been victims of inhumane treatment with devastating results for far too long. How to break this cycle is the real challenge.

LK: Do you think the Republic of Turkey has the same mindset today that it did during the years the action in this book takes place? Is your story just an artifact, or could it also be a cautionary tale?

JB: I believe my story is not an artifact. The mindset today is no different than during the years the action in this book takes place.

However, I think we are at a watershed time. A segment of the Turkish public is clamoring for the truth while the radicals are struggling to maintain the denialist policies of their government and forefathers. I believe this book will help our cause and the struggles of all victims of persecution, genocide, and those whose human spirits are under constant threat of being obliterated.

So far, I know one person of Turkish heritage has read Gray Wolves and White Doves. He recently sent me a note as follows: “…I just finished it, and I am still shaking.” He acknowledged that “…while the book is very, very good, I do have very mixed emotions.”

LK: What void do you think exists in literature on Armenian subjects?

JB: I would hope that we as a community add to our armamentarium books such as Gray Wolves and White Doves and other tools of “entertainment/education” and place these books on the required reading lists for students and transform the books into feature films to ensure they become yet another piece of the fabric and tapestry that we need to weave to tell the world the full story and tell it in a manner that is not offensive or overbearing. You can see from the reviews, and many other readers have told me in person, that this book has taught them about the Middle East, Armenia, the Armenians, and the Genocide. In fact, reading the novel has inspired many to research these issues on their own.

LK: How do you keep up with current Armenian events?

JB: I am an avid reader of all Armenian newspapers and journals. I currently serve on the Board of Directors of the Armenian Center at Columbia University.

LK: Will readers learn what happens to Jonah and the abducted child held by the Turkish couple? Where can readers hear you speak about your book?

JB: The readers are asking me the same questions. All I can say for now is that I will focus on ensuring the widest possible audience for this book and that it becomes a film.

I have had visits with book clubs in NY, NJ, CT, and MA and attended special events held for the book in the Northeast. On Wednesday evening, Sep. 28th, at 7:00pm, the St. Gregory Men’s Club will sponsor my presentation and book signing at the St. Gregory the Enlightener Armenian Church’s Atrium, 1131 North St, White Plains, NY, 10605, http://stgregoryarmenianchurch.org . Interested individuals must RSVP in advance to Chris Bonfiglio at (914) 707-2152, or chrisbonfiglio@verizon.net. Admission is $10 and light refreshments will be served.

Interviewer Lucine Kasbarian is a book publicist on leave, and the author of The Greedy Sparrow: An Armenian Tale, www.lucinekasbarian.com

New Children’s Picture Book From Armenian Folklore

Teaneck, N.J. and Belmont, Mass. – An Armenian folktale retold by Armenian-American writer Lucine Kasbarian and illustrated by Moscow-based artist Maria Zaikina debuts with Marshall Cavendish Children’s Publishers in April 2011.

The Greedy Sparrow: An Armenian Tale is from the ancient Armenian oral tradition and culture, which was nearly obliterated during the Turkish genocide of the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks in 1915. The author learned the tale from her father, editor and columnist C.K. Garabed, who would recite it to her at bedtime. He had learned it from his own grandmother, a celebrated storyteller from the Old Country. The tale was first put to paper by Armenian poet Hovhannes Toumanian at the turn of the 20^th century.

The Greedy Sparrow is the first time this tale has been presented in the English language as a children’s picture book. The story begins in old Armenia with a sparrow who catches a thorn in his foot. As he asks for help, he sets off an intriguing cycle of action that transports him through the Armenian countryside, encountering people engaged in traditional folkways. The Greedy Sparrow ends with a surprising twist and conveys moral messages about greed, selfishness and using one’s judgment. To address the ethical and human components of the tale, a discussion and activity guide will be available on the author’s website, www.lucinekasbarian.com.

Though intended for readers ages 4 through 8, noted Sesame Street host and storyteller Bob McGrath says that “The Greedy Sparrow is actually for everyone. It’s clever and humorous, and the wonderful illustrations not only add color but also truly interpret the story line.” The fable is lavishly illustrated with authentic depictions of Armenian folk traditions by Moscow-based animator and illustrator, Maria Zaikina, who was selected to illustrate The Greedy Sparrow after the author and publisher viewed her Armenian folk animations on YouTube

Author Kasbarian is a syndicated journalist and Director-on-Leave from Progressive Book Publicity. A graduate of the NYU Journalism program, she is the former Director of Publicity for Red Wheel, Weiser and Conari Press, and previously was Publicity and Marketing Manager at Hearst Books. Kasbarian is also the author of Armenia: A Rugged Land, an Enduring People (Dillon Press/Simon & Schuster, 1998) and was a contributing editor for Cobblestone magazine’s special issue, the Armenian Americans (Carus Publishing, 2000). The granddaughter of Armenian genocide survivors, Kasbarian has held leadership positions in the Armenian Youth Federation and the Land & Culture Organization. Among other organizations, she belongs to the National Writer’s Union, the Society of Children’s Book Writers & Illustrators, and the Women’s National Book Association.

The author and her husband, journalist David Boyajian, live in Belmont, Massachusetts and Teaneck, New Jersey. For the production of The Greedy Sparrow, the author served as the model for the illustrator’s rendering of the bride’s features. The bride’s wedding costume in the book bears a strong resemblance to that of the author’s own folkloric bridal gown.

The Greedy Sparrow is a 32-page illustrated hardcover book, available by mid-March, 2011 through Amazon and other brick-and-mortar and online booksellers, as well as through the publisher for $17.99 US; $20.95 CANADA. To order through the publisher, contact: Janet Kelly, Order Department, Marshall Cavendish Corp., 99 White Plains Rd., Tarrytown, NY 10591; Phone: (800) 821-9881 x 325; jkelly@marshallcavendish.com, www.marshallcavendish.us/kids.

“We Need To Lift The Armenian Taboo”

Turkish writer and publicist Ahmet Insel labels the initiative of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party to pray namaz on the ruins of Ani as provocation.

In an interview with “A1+,” the publicist said the initiative was supported only by a small percentage of Turks.

“They offered namaz in Ani in protest against Christian rites carried out in Trabzon and Akhtamar. The leader of the Nationalist Movement Party, Devlet Bahceli said if Christians are allowed to pray inside museums, similarly he can pray namaz in Armenian churches,” said Ahmet Insel.

The Turkish writer arrived in Armenia to participate in a book festival. Presentation of Armenian version of Dialogue sur le tabou arménien (Dialogue about the Armenian Tabou) co-authored by Ahmet Insel and Michel Marian was held during the festival.

The book was published in 2008 and is devoted to Hrant Dink.

The book is a conversation between two men, one Turk, one Armenian, about the past, present, and future. Through their personal and family itineraries, the great events that marked the history of these two peoples are evoked with, as its culminating point, the 1915 genocide and the question of its recognition.

About 230 Turkish intellectuals asks Armenians for forgiveness for the Armenian Genocide.

“We did not aim to raise the issue of the genocide, but to remove the taboo placed on the theme. Most Turks are unaware of the 1915 events as it was forbidden to speak about the Armenian genocide in Turkey. Those who knew the real facts proffered to keep silent,” said Ahmet Insel.

Born in 1955 in Istanbul, Ahmet Insel did his university studies in Paris and directed the Economics Department of the University of Paris I from 1990 to 1994. Since 2004, he teaches in and directs the Economics Department of Galatasaray University in Istanbul. Ahmet Insel is the author of numerous books on Turkey.

He thinks that the dialogue between the two nations will bring them closer.

“Part of the Turkish public believes that the facts should be revealed whereas others [Kemalists] do not want changes saying the recognition of the Armenian genocide will bring radical changes in Turkey,” said Michel Marian.

Michel Marian has published numerous articles on Armenian question. Part of his family was killed in the 1915 genocide; another part was able to flee, finding refuge in Armenia as well as in France.

US Media Discusses The Armenian Genocide

BURBANK, CALIFORNIA – KFI 640, a popular news/talk radio station hosted by Bill Handel on September 23 aired a live interview with Michael Bobelian, the writer of a new book titled Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and the Century-long Struggle for Justice

The book chronicles the aftermath of the Armenian Genocide of 1915, and recounts a people’s struggle for justice in the face of a century of silence and denial.

During the interview, which was aired during the prime morning time slot, Bill Handel addressed both the efforts within the United States to ensure that the US government appropriately acknowledges the Armenian Genocide and Turkey’s ongoing denial.

Handel, a well known and nationally syndicated radio talk show host, has discussed the Armenian Genocide during past shows.

The book already won many praises

“In this meticulously researched and moving work, Michael Bobelian reveals why the children of Armenia haven’t received justice for the genocide of their ancestors and the unconscionable efforts of Turkish leaders to rewrite their country’s history by denying its shameful past. This powerful and gripping account of a people’s century-long struggle for justice is long overdue.”

– George Deukmejian, thirty-fifth governor of California

“A powerful and provocative work, Children of Armenia is a poignant and disciplined chronicle of the difficult quest for recognition of the Genocide and the efforts within the Armenian community, the American government, and international community for acknowledgement. Without such acknowledgement, there can be no redress and no way of building toward the future. One reads these pages with sadness and with anguish but also with the understanding of the perniciousness of genocide denial, which provides to the victims — and the perpetrators — no way to go forward.”

– Michael Berenbaum, former project director, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and the Century-long Struggle for Justiceis published by Simon & Schuster in a hardcover format with 320 pages, it is available at Amazon.com

Azerbaijan wins Security Council Seat, while Armenians remain idle

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

Pres Aliyev was celebrating last week his country’s historic victory at the United Nations. With an overwhelming number of votes, Azerbaijan was elected for the first time to the prestigious UN Security Council for a two-year term.

This column shall address three questions: 1) how did Azerbaijan manage to get elected to such an elite body? 2) what will Azerbaijan accomplish with its newly-acquired seat? 3) what actions did Armenians take to counter Azerbaijan’s candidacy?

Azerbaijan, Hungary and Slovenia were competing for a non-permanent seat reserved for the Eastern European region in the Security Council. Normally, Azerbaijan would have no chance of getting elected to such a distinguished body, since it is the least qualified of the three countries in fulfilling the requirements of the UN Charter, due to its failure to contribute to international peace and security, and lack of participation in the work of UN agencies.

According to knowledgeable sources, Azerbaijan made up for its deficiencies by offering tour packages and monetary incentives to UN delegates, and economic inducements to financially strapped nations in return for their votes at the UN General Assembly which elects the 10 non-permanent members of the Security Council. By hook or by crook, Azerbaijan acquired the support of Islamic countries, the Arab League, the Non-Aligned Movement, and CIS (former Soviet) countries, including Russia. Yet, despite these unusual lobbying tactics, it took Azerbaijan 17 rounds over a two-day period to garner the necessary votes, and only after Slovenia, its main rival, withdrew in protest from the race. Slovenia’s Foreign Minister Samuel Zbogar complained that his country “did not approve the way this campaign was held.” Although he did not elaborate, he was referring to Azerbaijan’s lavish gift-giving spree.

Naturally, gaining a seat on the powerful UN Security Council accords Azerbaijan international prestige and a new venue to pursue its incessant Armenophobic campaigns. Nevertheless, there is little chance that Azeri officials will be able to succeed in their announced objective of placing the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict on the Council’s agenda. The Minsk Group co-Chairs — France, Russia and the United States — as three of the five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, have made it amply clear that this matter will be handled by the Minsk Group, outside the UN framework. Hence, Azerbaijan’s leaders risk disillusioning their people, having reassured them that the Security Council will take up the Karabagh issue. Azerbaijan could also get entangled in precarious situations, being forced to take sides when voting on confrontational issues involving Iran, Israel, and Syria, among others.

While the Aliyev regime was turning the world upside down to come up with votes for its Security Council bid, what were Armenians doing to counter Azerbaijan’s efforts?

Opponents at home criticized the Armenian government for not declaring Armenia’s candidacy for the Security Council, arguing that this would have taken away votes from Azerbaijan. Such a strategy, however, may not have been in Yerevan’s best interest, because Armenia could not compete with Baku’s vote-buying spree, and would have drawn votes away from Slovenia, assuring a bigger victory margin for Azerbaijan.

In an earlier column, I had suggested that Armenian organizations and prominent individuals in the Diaspora, in consultation with Armenia’s Foreign Ministry, launch a global campaign to counter Azerbaijan’s candidacy. I had urged Armenians around the world to ask their respective governments not to support Azerbaijan’s Security Council bid.

Regrettably, neither the Armenian Foreign Ministry nor the Diaspora leadership initiated such a coordinated effort. Two months ago, when delegates from 50 countries gathered at a Pan-Armenian Conference in Yerevan, Foreign Ministry officials should have taken the opportunity to strategize with activists and heads of organizations on how to counter Azerbaijan’s candidacy. Ironically, one of the topics on the conference agenda was “mechanisms for the development of Armenia-Diaspora partnership.” Such discussions are only useful if they are followed up by concrete actions.

Fortunately, a mechanism for global Armenian coordination is in the works for the 100thanniversary of the Armenian Genocide. For this purpose, a preliminary meeting was held in Yerevan several months ago. Turkey has already announced its UN Security Council candidacy for 2015, at a time when Armenians will be commemorating the centennial of the Genocide. The question is: Will Armenians be better prepared to counter Turkey’s candidacy in four years than they were Azerbaijan’s this year?

Source: Tert – Originial Article

A new Armenian website for culture — arteria.am — was launched at the Khnko Apor Children’s Library in Yerevan today. Armenian Book Center NGO is the organization responsible for the site, which was developed with the assistance of the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA) and the Eurasia Partnership Foundation.

The website is the response to “the published book and organized exhibit, the cinema poster and the music that pours from the stage or the signs in procession down the street, the writing on the walls of establishments, the conversations given wings in city transport, which wants take form and resound as commentary or criticism,” reads the section on concept on the site, which is currently only available in Armenian.

Furthermore, those behind the project note that below the terms general “culture” and/or “national culture” day by day all differences are disappearing, colors are being erased, voices are being silenced, the me’s are ceasing to be individual personalities since looking at the same phenomenon from two or more perspectives is not permitted.

“It’s the demand for oneness and exclusivity. Whereas an energizing response opens the possibility of separations, a multiplicity of ones, in the penetration of whose outlook illuminated are distinctive subtleties and more shades, than the crash of dominant ideas brought down from above,” write the project founders.

Source: Epress – Originial Article

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier

Flying to Armenia, French President Nicolas Sarkozy confided to his top aides last week: “I am going to toss a live grenade!” He was revealing his readiness to act firmly if Turkey continued to deny the Armenian Genocide.

Shortly after arriving in Yerevan, Pres Sarkozy courageously declared before journalists assembled at the Armenian Genocide Monument: “The Armenian Genocide is a historic reality that was recognized by France. Collective denial is even worse than individual denial.” When asked if France would adopt a law to prosecute those who deny the Genocide, the French President stated: “If Turkey revisited its history, faced its bright and dark sides, this recognition of the Genocide would be sufficient. But if Turkey will not do that, then without a doubt it would be necessary to go further.”

As presidential candidate in 2007, Sarkozy promised to support the Senate’s adoption of a law criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide. The French Parliament had already approved such a bill in 2006. Yet, despite his pledge, Pres. Sarkozy’s ruling party blocked the bill’s adoption last May. While the French government banned denial of the Holocaust in 1990, it did not take a similar action on the Armenian Genocide, even though France had recognized it in 2001.

French-Armenians were incensed by Sarkozy’s betrayal. Singer Charles Aznavour publicly warned him that he would lose the support of 500,000 French-Armenians in next year’s presidential elections. Last month, the ARF of France endorsed the probable presidential candidacy of Socialist Francois Hollande after he promised that his party, which had recently gained majority of seats in the Senate, would vote for the bill banning denial of the Armenian Genocide. Hollande is currently far ahead of Sarkozy in opinion polls.

During his visit to Armenia last week, Pres. Sarkozy conveyed several important messages: He reassured Armenians of his intent to keep his initial pledge on the Genocide denial bill; warned Turkey to stop denying the Armenian Genocide; and indicated his clear sympathy for the Armenian position on Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh).

The French President’s trip to the three Republics of the Caucasus was clearly lopsided in favor of Armenia — where he stayed overnight, while spending only three hours in Azerbaijan andGeorgia. His brief stops in these two countries were simply an attempt to display a semblance of impartiality. Sarkozy’s first ever visit to Armenia was filled with festive events and dramatic gestures of friendship — planting a tree in memory of Armenian Genocide victims; laying a wreath at the Genocide Memorial, where he wrote in the Book of Remembrance — “France does not forget;” warning Turkey to acknowledge the Genocide by the year’s end; uttering the Armenian word “tseghasbanoutyoun” (genocide) which Pres. Obama has declined to use; lighting a candle in Etchmiadzin; rejecting Turkey’s membership in the European Union; opening the Aznavour Museum overlooking Mt. Ararat; and donating a priceless Rodin statue to the Republic of Armenia.

Finally, a world leader has dared to put Turkey’s bullying rulers in their place! Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu reacted angrily by telling the French President to confront his country’s colonial past and not to teach Turkey a history lesson. Azerbaijan’s President, Ilham Aliyev, gave a cold shoulder to the French leader during his visit to Baku. An aide to Aliyev declared that his country does not share Sarkozy’s views on the Armenian Genocide. Davutoglu’s condescending words against France could well incite the French Senate into adopting the new Genocide law.

French Armenians are now in a win-win situation. Both leading presidential candidates are committed to supporting not only the law criminalizing denial of the Armenian Genocide, but also backing other pro-Armenian initiatives. No matter which one of the two candidates wins in next year’s French presidential elections, Armenians stand to gain!

However, given politicians’ long trail of broken promises, French-Armenians should not trust their word. They should make it clear to both candidates that Armenians would support whoever helps pass the genocide denial bill BEFORE next April’s presidential elections. It would be ideal if both candidates instructed their party’s Senators to vote for the bill now, leaving the French Armenian community with the pleasant dilemma of choosing between two supportive candidates in the presidential elections.

French-Armenians and American-Armenians may want to reverse the long-established but failed approach of supporting candidates first by trusting their promises, hoping that they would come through after the election. The new strategy should be: Once the President is elected and carries out his promises, only then the community would reward him with its support.

Source: Tert – Originial Article

By Harut Sassounian

Publisher, The California Courier

Scottish researcher Steven Sim reported about his troubling experiences in Nakhichevan, a historic Armenian territory now occupied by Azerbaijan. Since Sim’s 2006 revealing report has not been adequately publicized in the international media, I would like to present here some of its highlights.

Sim stated that he entered Nakhichevan by land from Turkey and traveled to the village of Abrakunis at Yernjak valley. When he asked a 12-year-old about an ancient church there, the boy pointed to an empty piece of land.

Sim next visited Bananiyar, known to Armenians as Aparank, where he reported that “at least until the 1970s there were some ruins of a large medieval church located on high ground in the middle of the village. Now a mosque is built on the former church grounds.” At Norashen, two Armenian churches and a graveyard had existed at the north-western edge of this village. He found no trace of either churches or the graveyard.

On his 3rd day in Nakhichivan, while traveling by train to Julfa, Sim observed the remains of the Jugha graveyard. He reported seeing “a hillside covered by stone slabs, spread out over three ridges. All of the gravestones had been toppled, without any exceptions.”

In Ordubad, Sim was taken to the police station where his bag was searched, as he was interrogated about the purpose of his visit. He was then placed on the next bus back to Nakhichevan city. From there he went to Shurut which used to be “a small Armenian town during the late medieval period, with churches, schools, monasteries, scriptoria and several tens of thousands of inhabitants.”

At the neighboring Krna village, there were no traces of the local Armenian Church. The same was true about the village of Gah. When he asked a passerby about the church in Shurut, he was told that it had been destroyed.

In Shurut, Sim was confronted by a group of villagers. When he said that he had come to see the old church, they told him that there was never a church in their village. As he left Shurut, the taxi driver told Sim that the villagers had phoned the police in Julfa and that law enforcement officials would probably be waiting for him somewhere along the road.

A car was indeed waiting for Sim. “A policeman got into the back of the taxi and asked me if I had a topographic map, and an ethnographic book.” When Sim answered that he did not, the policeman made a cursory search of his bag. In Julfa, Sim stopped at the police headquarters, where his bag was searched again. After waiting in a corridor for a while, Sim was taken to the town’s Araz Hotel. He was escorted to a garden in the back of the building. Sim was finally allowed to leave after 3 hours. Everything in Sim’s “bag was taken out and carefully looked at, and the bag itself was examined for any secret compartments. This lasted for about 15 minutes, without a word being spoken.”

Sim was asked about his job. How much did he earn, who paid him to come to Nakhichevan, and why would he spend his own money to come here? The officers examined carefully Sim’s notebook and checked through all of his photographs stored in his digital camera. They showed most interest in a photograph he had taken in Nakhichevan city. “It was of a stone slab that I had seen in the gardens opposite the Momina Hatun mausoleum, surrounded by a large collection of ram-shaped gravestones. On this stone was carved a cross rising from a rectangular base.”

The Azeri officials told him that it was not a cross. Sim told them that he had read about the church in an Armenian book. They angrily responded: “It is wrong. It is lying to you. You see, Armenians are always lying — they are lying to everyone.” They also stated that “there never were any Armenian churches anywhere in Nakhichevan. There were no Armenians ever living here — so how could there have been churches here?” The Azeris told Sim: “We think that you are not here with good intentions towards the Azerbaijan republic.”

Sim stated that his unpleasant experiences in Nakhichevan shed “some light onto the attitudes that Azerbaijan holds about Armenians and anything Armenian.” The report shows why it is impossible for Armenians of Artsakh (Karabagh) to live ever again under oppressive Azeri rule. If a Scottish visitor is treated so poorly, imagine how much worse Azeris treated their Armenian subjects in Artsakh until its liberation.

Source: Hetq – Originial Article

In a Sept. 25, 2009 meeting with former President of Armenia Robert Kocharian initiated by then US Ambassador to Armenia Marie L. Yovanovitch, Armenia’s second president criticized current President Serzh Sargsyan for his handling of the rapprochement with neighboring Turkey.

According to a diplomatic cable sent by then US Deputy Chief of Mission Joseph Pennington to the US State Department soon after the meeting and recently published by WikiLeaks, Kocharian asked, “why should Turkey’s parliament have to ratify” a set of protocols when “the Turks did no such thing in closing the border” in 1993? In the ex-president’s view, the Turks were exploiting the protocols and Sargsyan “in an effort to embark upon a negotiating process that they had every intention of dragging out, to the detriment of Armenia’s interests… He said he would have imposed a deadline on the Turks to do both things, and criticized Sargsyan for not doing so. ‘Now Turkey is dictating the process, and we have no room for maneuver’.”

Kocharian also criticized Armenia’s agreement on a sub-commission on historical matters. “It would have been better, Kocharian stated, had Armenia insisted on the establishment of one inter-governmental commission that could study the gamut of bilateral issues… Miffed, Kocharian said that now President Sargsyan was about to embark upon ‘an unnecessary’ and ‘avoidable’ world tour of Armenian Diaspora communities to defend the protocols.”

Asked about his view of the domestic opposition to the protocols, Kocharian said political parties were not a potential obstacle for Sargsyan. “He said, however, that the president could have avoided the opposition of the nationalist Armenian Revolutionary Federation – Dashnaktsutyun (Dashnaks) by consulting them on the wording of the protocols prior to their publication. ‘Two word fixes’: is all it would have taken to neutralize the Dashnak criticism. He said that not a single political party, with the exception of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia, mattered in the debate.”

Kocharian flatly denied that former foreign minister Vartan Oskanian was speaking for him in his “increasingly shrill attacks” on Armenia’s normalization policy, which, according to Kocharian, had more to do with Oskanian’s principled stand, and the fact that the current administration has ignored Oskanian and his decade-long experience on the matter.

“‘Vartan is concerned,’ Kocharian said, ‘because he feels Armenia is being forced to pay a price for the border opening when it should not have to.’ Kocharian claimed that Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian insulted Oskanian by not consulting with his predecessor, and that Kocharian had recommended to President Sargsyan some sort of advisory role for Oskanian on the normalization process.”

Pennington notes that this is in contrast to how Kocharian himself is being treated, saying he recently voiced his differences with Sargsyan on Turkey and that he still occasionally consulted with the president on affairs of the state. “‘But I won’t interfere’ in the President’s business, Kocharian vowed. Kocharian said he intended not to interfere because if he did he would not be able ‘to lie about what he thought’ of the government’s policies and performance.”

In his commentary, Pennington writes that the ex-president keeps a “close pulse” on state affairs and “gives the distinct impression that he could quickly step into the breach to serve again if conditions warranted.”

“He appears to be biding his time enjoying his new life of leisure and reveling in traveling internationally without the complications of being President.

Home » Commentary » Currently Reading:

On The Principles Of Self-Determination And So-Called “Territorial Integrity” In Public International Law (The Case Of Nagorno-Karabakh)

Comment on this Article:

International News By CNN

CNN International Explores the Secrets of Armenia’s Stone Henge

The Protocol

Recent Comments

Middle East News By BBC

Sports News By The Huffington Post

Poll

-

Featured Books

Book Reviews

John Balian’s “Novel Approach” Brings the Armenian Saga to the Masses – An interview with John Balian by Lucine Kasbarian

New Children’s Picture Book From Armenian Folklore

“We Need To Lift The Armenian Taboo”

US Media Discusses The Armenian Genocide

Our Sponsors

Commentary

Azerbaijan wins Security Council Seat, while Armenians remain idle

New Online Cultural Platform Launched in Armenia

Pres Sarkozy Says ‘Tseghasbanoutyoun’, a word Obama has yet to utter

Visit to Nakhichevan Shows Why Armenians Can Never Again Live Under Azeri Rule

Kocharian Criticized Sargsyan’s Handling of Armenia-Turkey Protocols, But Said He Won’t Interfere

Copyright 2012 Hyemedia | Armenian News - All Rights Reserved