V.H. Apelian's Blog
Monday, February 18, 2019
I was a Calouste Gulbenkian Scholarship Recipient
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Armenians First Christians to raise up Arms in Defense of their Right to Worship
During that time, the Sassanids underwent three changes of rulers, and also had to deal with external conflicts with Rome and a new wave of eastern barbarians known as the Ephthalites, or White Huns. After the death of King Peroz at the hands of the White Huns in 484, his brother and successor, Balash, made a serious reassessment of the long, inconclusive conflict in Armenia and sued for peace. Vahan sent messengers to the Persian camp, with proposals for liberties in Armenia, the main one being: "Religious worship in accordance with Christian doctrines and rites to be declared free in Armenia, and fire altars to be removed."
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Simon Simonian, The Last Scion of the Mountaineers
Thursday, December 20, 2018
Aram I: “The Armenian Church”, a Book Review
Saturday, December 15, 2018
ANCA and the Recognition of the Armenian Genocide
It was Harut Sassounian who brought to my attention that the ANCA like him also claims that the United States of America has repeatedly recognized the genocide of the Armenians.
In his most recent editorial dated December 12, 2018, and titled “U.S. Ambassador to Armenia Should Call the Armenian Genocide, Genocide”, Harut stated that “the United States has repeatedly recognized the Armenian Genocide at the highest levels of the government.”, and demanding that its ambassador to Armenia affirm the same. Obviously Harut is concerned that the U.S. ambassador to Armenia might not affirm what her government has acknowledged! But Harut conveniently ignores the reason and the sad turn of events that put an end to the former U.S. ambassador in Armenia, John Marshal Evans’ career as an official of the U.S. Government.
I have had numerous exchanges with Harut Sassounian disputing his claim. He insists on the veracity of his claim and cites the three different instances upon which he bases his argument. The three instances he cites are the following. I quote:
“1) The U.S. Government submitted in 1951 an official document to the World Court in which it recognized the Armenian Genocide as a Genocide for the first time.
2) The House of Representatives adopted two resolutions in 1975 and 1984 acknowledging the Armenian Genocide.
3) Pres. Reagan issued a Presidential Proclamation in 1981, which referred to the Armenian Genocide.
He further noted to me “the info on U.S. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is available for free on many websites, including the ANCA.” Harut Sassounian is the editor of California Courier he owns as its publisher and is entitled to voice his opinions. But the ANCA is a grass root organization and its opinions reflect what the community at large it represents believes. I found Harut’s assertion that ANCA does the same, disturbing.
The other day I checked the ANCA’s page and I found out that true to Harut’s assertion, ANCA does indeed claim that the U.S. has recognized the Armenian Genocide and makes reference to the three instances Harut first used to formulate his opinion.
On that page ANCA notes in bold letters that: “ President Trump like President Reagan should recognize the Armenian Genocide.” Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the workings of the U.S. Government knows that the first denizen of the Executive Branch, the President, executes what the Legislative Branch legislates. The latter has not resolved that the 1915 happening-the Medz Yeghern – constituted genocide. As to the President Reagan’s use of the G word, recently his speechwriter, Ken Khachigan, shed light on it. What President Reagan stated at that time in no way conveyed the position of the U.S. Government.
ANCA also states on that page that “Despite formal recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Government in 1951 and 1981….”. Obviously, in these two instances, the U.S. Government officials referenced to the 1915 happening in its legal term, GENOCIDE, but those references do not constitute recognition. Let me explain why I believe that to be the case.
We know that genocide is a compound word and is similar to many similar words, such as homicide, suicide, fratricide etc. But genocide differs from these words in a fundamental way. In case of the former words, the act of the killing constitutes the legal ground to act against their perpetrators. However, in case of the genocide its not the killing, it’s the INTENT to kill for the purpose of wiping out a community that constitutes the legal ground to act against the perpetrator of the genocide. Surely the 1.5 million Armenian victims make the intent the more obvious but by themselves do not constitute the legal ground for genocide. We know the Turkish authorities INTENDED to wipe out the Armenian race, but the U.S. Government has not claimed that it did, namely that it committed the genocide of the Armenians.
It is important that ANCA clarifies its understanding of the U.S. Government’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide. As far as I am concerned U.S. Government’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide entails for the U.S. Congress to resolve that the 1915 happening, the Medz Yeghern, constituted genocide. As far as I know there has not been any such a congressional resolution.
Consequently, it remains for the U.S. Government to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
Friday, December 14, 2018
What Collective Defense? What Security?
" It was May 29, 2014, when the President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan departed to Astana, the capital city of Kazakhstan to take part in summit of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). After signing the conditions for membership, Armenia was to become a full-fledged member of EEU as of January 1, 2015. The presidents of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan were naturally attending the summit as well. The proceedings of the summit were being aired in all the membership countries.
The president of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, the host of the summit solemnly took the podium. Much like the characteristic sullen and unpleasant faced former Soviet leaders spoke about the EEU for which Armenia had applied for membership and was present to sign accepting the conditions for Armenia’s membership. Nazarbayev suddenly started talking about the conditions for accepting Armenia’s membership, addressing president Serzh Sargsyan. We, said Nazarbayev, have received a letter from the president of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliev. He opposes Armenia joining the EEU with Karabagh. We, continued Nazarbayev saying, cannot accept the presence of Karabagh in the economic union. The precondition for Armenia joining the EEU was clear. Armenia could only join the economic union without Karabagh.
The president of Armenia did not utter a word, in spite of the disgraceful state he was subjected to, especially when Nazarbayev was conveying to him the precondition laid down by Alieve, the president of Azerbaijan (note: Azerbaijan is not a member of EEU). With his own admission, Nazarbayev was stating that he had received a letter from Baku and the message was clear.
President Serzh Sargsyan's displeasure was obvious. But what could he do? By his own admission he had decided Armenia joining EEU the evening before. In a single night he had Armenia join the economic union of tyrannical countries with failed economies.
What else could he do when he was the one who had presented himself at their door applying for membership, when Armenia as a whole did not back him up? The people did not support him, even it understood and tacitly accepted the president’s sudden decision to join EEU. Thus Serzh Sargsyan let Nazarbayev’s insult go without a response. He uttered not a single word and returned to Armenia subdued where no one was expecting him to justify his stand for everyone seemed to have concluded that Armenia is a week and a poor country and will always remain at the whims of the tyrannical rulers of EEU. Were they not the very same countries that were arming Azerbaijan?
Now let us come to the present days and to the events that took place a few days earlier. This time it was at the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization) summit. The same countries have come together. Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have also joined them. The whole world knows that the leaders of these countries are as close to democracy as the moon is to our planet. The main topic of the agenda is the election of the new secretary-general. The former secretary-general Yuri Khachadurov has resigned because he faces grave legal issues in Armenia. The president of Belarus insists that the position of the secretary-general belongs to him, in spite of the fact that Khachadurov’s term extended to 2020. But Nikol Pashinyan opposes him and insists that the position of the secretary-general belongs to Armenia for the next two years. The by-laws are not clear about such succession. Russia remains silent. It might very well be that Russia wants Armenia cornered much like Serzh Sargsyan was four years earlier. The closed-door deliberations take place. According to some sources the deliberations take place in a very tense atmosphere. The sole ruler, the perpetual president of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko wants, at all cost, to snatch the decision to appoint the next secretary-general from Armenia. Pashinyan opposes him and counter offers. A decision is not arrived. Armenia refuses to give in and a consensus is not reached.
CST0 is an intergovernmental military security alliance. Each one of them is responsible for safeguarding the security of its member. If any one of the member countries is attacked, all are expected to join to safeguard the country’s security. Azerbaijan is not a member of CSTO. But lo and behold it is a favorite among some of the organization’s member countries. The day after the closed-door meeting, Belarus’s perpetual president invited the Ambassador of Azerbaijan in Minsk and conveyed to him the deliberations of the closed-door meeting. At least that is what the television and other news outlets of Belarus report.
Consequently, in plain daylight, the closed-door deliberations of the CSTO’s member countries are conveyed to a country that is an enemy of a member country. Pashinyan, in no uncertain term, condemned the conveying of the behind-door deliberations of the member countries to the ambassador of Azerbaijan and tells the members that no one henceforth has the right to treat Armenia in such a manner. The spokesperson of Belarus responded in a diplomatically uncalled manner. It is clear. Lukasheno’s ally is not the organization member Armenia. It is Azerbaijan. So is Khazakhstan’s.
This is how the “allies” of Armenia, Belarus and Khazakhstan, are. Four years ago it was Khazakhstan that dictated Armenia the conditions for its membership preconditioning it with the exclusion of Karabagh. Nowadays the president of an allied country conveys the behind the door deliberations of the member countries to Azerbaijan that is at war with a member country, Armenia.
These are no new revelations here. It was well known that EEU and CSTO are nothing else but agents on the world scene that serve Russia’s historical imperial mindedness. The countries that make up these two organizations do not have a common political mission. They do not have the same security goals. They do not even have a common economic vision. The saddest reality is that Armenia has been forced to become members to these organizations, made up of tyrannical rulers, at the expense of its own interests accepting the sale to Azerbaijan weapons of mass destruction and public humiliation.
Unfortunately the previous rulers of Armenia saw that the interest of Armenia is better served by serving the interests of their “allied” countries. They considered it to be a sound diplomacy arguing to us that the interests of Armenia are nowhere else other than subjugating ourselves to the conditions imposed upon us.
Before seeing the salvation of Armenia in EEU and CSTO alliances, it behooves us to ask how have the member countries accepted and viewed Armenia? Have they forcefully condemned Azerbaijan for continually attacking Armenian border village? Have they ceased arming Azerbaijan with weapons of mass destruction? Have they respected the right of people of Arstakh for self-determination? Have they taken into consideration Armenia’s unique geography and its special trade needs with neighboring countries? What we have witnessed in the behaviors of Lukashenka and Nazar prove the contrary.
Consequently, of what grand diplomacy are we talking about? Is demanding a country’s right to exist a grand diplomacy? It is time that these countries treat Armenia as an ally of equal footing. From this standpoint Pashinyan is right when he squarely confronts president of Belarus serenading Azerbaijan and demands explanation. He should demand explanation because that is what, first and foremost, the interests of Armenia dictate. Otherwise Armenia’s membership to EEU and CSTO makes no sense.
Raffi Doudaklian "
**********