Source: http://cnarmeniens.org/boundariesborders
Timestamp: 2020-08-12 03:27:37
Document Index: 21982620

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 5', 'art 6', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8', 'art 8']

BOUNDARIES / BORDERS | CONGRES NATIONAL DES ARMENIENS OCCIDENTAUX
BOUNDARIES / BORDERS
BOUNDARIES/BORDERS OF THE ARMENIAN CLAIMS AND POSSIBILITIES OF INTERNATIONAL DIALOGUE
5. In 1945-47 the Soviet Union planned to take back the Kars region (in 1878-1917 – part of Russian Empire) from Turkey and to unite its territories with Armenian SSR and Georgian SSR. Turkey resisted and the problem did not receive solution. In May 1953 the USSR declared, that it did not have any territorial claims from Turkey.
In the formulations of preamble is stated, in particular, the importance of the “joint declaration of the Allied Powers on May 24, 1915, for the first time in history defining the most heinous crime prepared against the Armenian people as a “crime against humanity and civilization” and emphasizing the necessity of holding Ottoman authorities responsible, as well as the role and significance of the Sevres Peace Treaty of 10 August 1920 and US President Woodrow Wilson’s Arbitral Award of 22 November 1920 in overcoming the consequences of the Armenian Genocide.”
The Declaration has 12 articles. The first five in a way are connected to the Genocide issue. In the sixth article is written, that “the united will of Armenia and the Armenian people is to achieve worldwide recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the elimination of the consequences of the Genocide, preparing to this end a file of legal claims as a point of departure in the process of restoring individual, communal and pan-Armenian rights and legitimate interests.” The seventh article “condemns the illegal blockade of the Republic of Armenia imposed by the Republic of Turkey, its anti-Armenian stance in international fora and the imposition of preconditions in the normalization of interstate relations, considering this a consequence of the continued impunity of the Armenian Genocide.” The next article “calls upon the Republic of Turkey to recognize and condemn the Armenian Genocide committed by the Ottoman Empire, and to face its own history and memory through commemorating the victims of that heinous crime against humanity and renouncing the policy of falsification, denialism and banalizations of this indisputable fact.” Then the Declaration “supports those segments of Turkish civil society whose representatives nowadays dare to speak out against the official position of the authorities.” Finally, the document “expresses the hope that recognition and condemnation of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey will serve as a starting point for the historical reconciliation of the Armenian and Turkish peoples.”
Modus vivendi is a Latin phrase that means “mode of living” or “way of life”. It often is used to mean an arrangement or agreement that allows conflicting parties to coexist in peace. It is the name of a think-tank, which is engaged in the research of the Armenian Cause (since 1999), its founder and leader is diplomat, former ambassador of Republic of Armenia in Canada in 2000-2006, Mr. Ara Papian. He prepared and published (with his Foreword) the “Arbitral Award of the President of the United States of America Woodrow Wilson. Full Report of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia. Washington, November 22nd, 1920” (available in PDF format at http://www.armeniangenocidereparations. info/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Arbitral-Award-Of-The-Presidnet-Of-The-United-States-Of-America-Woodrow-Wilson.pdf). It consists from 10 Chapters and several maps, from which I present to your attention only three. Mr. Papian brings many arguments in favor to the idea, that the Arbitral Award is being in force to this day and is not subject to any appeal. The arguments can be found in many articles of Mr. Papian, most of which are published in the website of the think-tank: http://www.modusvivendicenter.org.
According to Ara Papian “Strategy Paper on the Armenian Cause” (finalized in March 2009), “the real purpose of resolving the Armenian Question is to create a sustainable state through the minimal requirements necessary for security and development.” “Without resolving the Armenian Question, Armenian statehood will remain politically unstable, militarily vulnerable, economically dependent and psychologically timid.”
“Resolving the Armenian Question has but one path: through peaceful means and compromise, the path of persistent and lasting efforts. Simultaneously, however, considering how the general political, economic or military potential of the Republic of Armenia, as well as that of the Armenian people, falls behind and will always fall behind the resources of Turkey and Azerbaijan, and also Georgia, which is caught up in their politicking, it thus becomes necessary for the struggle and resistance to take place entirely on such a field in which Armenia is not only on par with the others, but also has tangible advantages. That is to say, the relations between the Republic of Armenia and those countries who have violated its rights must manifest themselves in terms of international law, and all the prevailing issues among those relations must be given legal approaches and solutions.”
According to Papian, “today, the Armenian Question is the re-establishment of the territorial, material and moral rights by international law pertaining to or retained by the current Republic of Armenia.” “The entire process of resolving the Armenian Question can be divided into three successive and mutually dependent stages:”
“a. The preliminary stage: The stage of collecting, researching and analysing documents pertainning to resolving the Armenian Question (not to be confused with the Armenian Genocide). The final outcome of this stage must be the preparation of a collection of documents regarding the Armenian Question” (not the Armenian Genocide) “and its publication in various formats and languages, providing bases for Armenian demands.” “b. The middle stage: In this stage, it will be necessary to engage notable specialists and legal professionals experienced in international law and judicial proceedings. The final outcome of this stage must be the execution of a lawsuit against the Turkish Republic at the International Court of Justice of the UN with the participation of experts from various legal spheres.” “c. The final stage: The stage of proposing the court case and initiating the suit. At this stage, the Republic of Armenia must be completely involved as the primary claimant of the basic rights of the demands of the Armenian people, calling on the International Court of Justice of the UN […] to take up the issue of the Turkish Republic’s disregard of international law and non-compliance with international obligetions borne. The final outcome of this stage must be the decision of the UN Security Council on Turkey […] to carry out the obligations they have borne arising from, in particular, the arbitral award of Woodrow Wilson of November 22, 1920.”
“At the present stage, the Armenian Question has three main components: territorial, material and moral. Consequently, one can only consider resolving the Armenian Question with a complete handling of the issues arising from the aforementioned three components, that is, with complete or partial reparations.”
“a. The territorial component of the above triad is the most essential. Although the Republic of Armenia had significant territorial losses during 1920-1923, nevertheless, they amount to de facto losses, and not de jure. That is, even though those territories were occupied by foreign powers and later annexed to other countries, the RA nevertheless continues to maintain the title and its legal rights with regards to those territories.”
“b. The material component of the Armenian Question It must be made clear from the beginning that material reparations have nothing to do with “payment in return for blood”. Material reparations must first of all include the direct material losses borne by the Armenian people and the Republic of Armenia, which comes to around $40-100 billion with today’s currency, according to numerous estimates.”
“As the general principle behind reparations is the restoration, at the very least, of the situation before the fact, reparations thus have to make provisions for the recovery of that most sensitive aspect for the Armenian people, the human loss. The Turkish authorities, under the supervision of the international community and international organisations, must create a specific fund, which would encourage childbirth among Armenians, regardless of citizenship, providing significant material support to families with many children of descendants of Armenian Genocide survivors.”
“Material reparations must also take into account renovations within the territory of the Republic of Turkey of Armenian monuments and other aspects of cultural heritage, which have been purposefully destroyed or damaged by the Turkish authorities.”
“c. Moral compensation must not solely include the direct recognition and simultaneous condemnation of the Armenian Genocide by the Republic of Turkey, but also, which is more important, it must delve into the realization of a program for reconciliation. The Turkish authorities must undertake comprehensive and multi-faceted public campaigns and educational programs revealing the historical truth to Turkish society.”
“During the past fifty years, resolving the Armenian Question, mainly characterized by the statelessness of the Armenian people and the desire to achieve certain successes, found expression through having the Armenian Genocide recognised. Even if, with some reservations, one could consider such a policy justified given its times and limitations, such a political mainstay has come to be out of date and ineffectual ever since 1991, with the re-establishment of Armenian statehood.”
“The solution [of the Armenian Issue] must not go against the core interests of Republic of Turkey, and the Turkish side must be given the opportunity to appreciate and accept in perpetuity the fact that the proposal is a dignified solution for both parties to the given circumstances. And so, resolving the Armenian Question would be possible through the territorial lease of the territories under question, through a novel status being granted to those territories, by which the de jure territorial title of the RA would be recognized alongside the de facto rule of the Republic of Turkey over those territories.”
“I. The Republic of Turkey would lease “Wilsonian Armenia” from the Republic of Armenia on the basis of a bilateral treaty containing international guarantees with reasonable terms. This treaty and its adjunct agreements would codify the rights and obligations of the parties, as well the participation and involvement of international organisations and interested countries in the territories under question. The terms of lease, the method of payment and its periodicity would be decided by a corresponding agreement.”
“II. Citizens of the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Armenia, independent of their place of residence, would maintain their citizenship, enjoying all the rights of that citizenship, carrying out their duties as citizens. All citizens of both countries would be allowed the unconditional rights of free movement, transportation of goods, residence and economic occupation in those territories, and paying taxes.”
“III. Income received through transit from third countries (including oil and gas pipelines) would go towards the improvement and development of local infrastructure (roads, railways, public places for general use).”
“IV. The territory in question would be demilitarised. Security provisions, even the defence, if necessary, of the territory would be the responsibility of international peacekeepers with corresponding authority and under the aegis of the UN Security Council. Maintaining law and order within communities would come under community police and, if necessary, internal forces. International civil and military observer and advisory bodies would have missions in the territory.”
“V. The status of the Kars region of the former Russian Empire (1878-1917) and the Republic of Armenia (1918-1920), the southern part of the Batumi region and the territories of the Surmalu region would be subject to separate discussion.” At the beginning of the 21st century, those territories comprise the provinces of Kars, Ardahan, Artvin and Igdir of the Republic of Turkey. In total, 26.241km2, or 3.4% of the total territory of the Turkey, and – at the beginning of the 21st century – 779.000 people, or 1.1% of the total. “As opposed to Wilsonian Armenia, direct Armenian sovereignty would be imposed upon these territories.”
3. The approach/position of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation – Dash­nak­tsu­tyun (ARF)
In 2007 the Armenian Genocide Reparations Study Group (AGRSG) was convened, which received “a grant from the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun” to study and report on the issue of reparations for the Armenian Genocide. Its mem­bers are Alfred de Zayas, Jermaine O. McCaplin, Ara Papian, and Henry C. Theriault (chair). The AGRSG released its' Final report (nearly 140 pages) in September 2014, which is available in PDF format online, at www.armeniangenocidereparations.info. It is available also in French, Spanish and Polish in the same website. It is noted in the annotation, that “the positions taken and perspectives expressed are those of the AGRSG members alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation-Dashnaktsutyun”.
The Report consists from eight parts. “It begins with background information on the Armenian Genocide (Part 1). It then provides:
– a schematic description of the harms inflicted on Armenians through the Genocide (Part 2);
– an outline of the different components appropriate to a comprehensive reparations package for a mass human rights violation (Part 3);
– a legal analysis of the Armenian Genocide reparations issue focused on international legal statutes, principles, and precedents (Part 4);
– an alalysis of the post-Genocide treaty history as it relates to the issue of material reparations, with a focus on President Wilson's Arbitral Award (Part 5);
– a philosophical examination of the ethical aspects of reparations, including analysis of various problems that arise in relation to reparations for mass human rights violations generally and/or the Armenian Genocide specifically (Part 6);
– development of a transitional justice reparations process that encourages participation by Turkish individuals and institutions and addresses the complexities of repair beyond material reparations (Part 7);
– a determination of the specific lands that constitute proper repair as well as options on what should actually comprise the land portion of a reparation package (Part 8);
– a calculation of the general monetary restitution due Armenians for the loss of life and suffering in the Genocide (Part 8);
– a framework for calculation of specific movable material wealth expropriated through the Genocide and other economic impacts that require restoration or compensation (Part 8), and
– a detailed breakdown of other elements of a full reparations package (Part 8).”
I would like briefly to stress on paragraph 8.5.3 – “Determining the territory to be returned and its post-reparations status.” “There are three primary factors in determining specifically which land should be transferred to Armenians as restitution for land lost through the Armenian genocide.” “First, large amount of lands, privately held by Armenians in a lawfull manner in the Ottoman Empire were expropriated through the Armenian Genocide. Second, the traditional Armenian homeland, referred to as “Six Armenian Vilayets (Provinces)” (Erzerum, Van, Bitlis, Diyarbekir, Mamuret-ul-Aziz,” and Sebastia) “or “Western Armenia” in addition to the region of Cilicia in the center of the southern Asia Minor, were emptied of Armenians by deliberate government policies including the Genocide. While these lands were under Ottoman governance (having been conquered centuries before the Genocide), the clear attempt to “de-Armenianize” is grounds for an Armenian right to these lands as compensation. Third, a portion of these lands was given to the 1918 Armenian Republic through a legally binding arbitration process, in recognition of the Armenian historic right to the lands, Armenian habitation of the lands, and the need for Armenians to have independence from Turkish rule that had just subjected them to genocide and clearly could never be a legitimate authority over Armenians again. The Armenian Republic was prevented from actual possession of some of this land, and lost the remainder through direct military invasion and conquest by Turkish nationalist forces.”
“These three points correspond to three possible ways of determining the land that should be returned to Armenians: (1) land could be returned to the heirs of individual owners of the property, (2) specific areas of pre-Genocide Armenian population concentrations could be determined and returned, or (3) the lands, determined by the Wilsonian Arbitration Award process could be given.”
4. The approach/position of the National Congress of Western Armenians (NCWA) can be seen from the Report, prepared beforehand by a group of experts and then discussed and approved at the 4th congress of Western Armenians on March 28-29, 2015. The Congress declares that it “initiates the process for the acknowledgement and restoration of damages caused to the Western Armenians. It is the unified position of the Western Armenians, i.e. the heirs of the Armenian subjects/citizens of the Ottoman Empire that the necessity of restoration of the demographic and geopolitical existence of the Western Armenians in their homeland as a consequence of restoration and damages already caused and ongoing is irrefutable. In order to reach this supreme purpose, the 4th Congress of Western Armenians confirms the existence of two inseparable and equal goals:
Based on this collective awareness and in order to exercise its perpetual and irrefutable rights, the 4th Congress of Western Armenians is ready to simultaneously follow two paths: the path of dialogue with the Turkish society and the Turkish society and the Turkish authorities” and the second path – that is, the initiation – either directly by the Congress or through coordination of groups of private individuals – of legal actions within the Turkish courts and/or before the European Court of Human Rights.
The second document is the “Memorandum, addressed to the Government and the people of the Republic of Turkey” with the following demands:
“Recognize the presence of the National Congress of Western Armenians as legal entity in Turkey, enter into a direct and constructive dialogue with its representatives, and establish without delay a joint agency for the management, coordination and execution of our aspirations and challenges.
Adopt legal measures to make subsequent reparations for all individual and collective losses suffered by forefathers of the Western Armenians.”
“The adoption of the above mentioned measures will contribute to a better understanding among the different ethnic groups living on the territory of the Republic of Turkey and the Armenians. In turn, it will guarantee the aspirations of all for peace, justice and economic growth as well as social development in Turkey and the entire region.”
“The scheme for its realization, as I see it,[1] is as follows”: a commission of experts can be created, which may “only define the range of issues of the history of Armenian-Turkish” (as well as Armenian-Kurdish, Turkish-Kurdish, Greek-Turkish, Assyrian-Turkish etc) “relations that are to be presented to the Armenian and Turkish (as well as Kurdish, Greek, and Assyrian) public via the most watched TV channels, by Armenian and Turkish historians, with the provision of simultaneous translation. One thing seems to be clear: it is not likely that the historians in these debates will change their professional opinion under the weight of facts and arguments. Yet, in this case the subject is the watching public, the actual or potential representatives of a civil society, rather than the historians. It is these people, who will be able to hear the opposite party's views and opinions, and who will draw their own conclusions from the debates of experts. And only if these debates are expert (rather than journalistic or publicizing) and have merit, and if they are organized repeatedly over a long period, and are consistent, the Armenian and Turkish “truths” will become available to the conflicting parties, and will move from television screens into the sphere of active public discussions of a democratic nature. Moreover, along with genocide-related issues, it may be possible to discuss historical problems of the region and issues of Armenian-Turkish cultural interrelations in the course of their mutual history, which may help in getting to know each other better. This process is sure to have positive outcomes: the notions about each other of the people of the both sides will certainly change, and this may just pave the way for the starting of a process of actual reconciliation.”
[1] “Can Collective Memory of Genocide Lead to Reconciliation? A View from Yerevan.” In Prospects for Reconciliation: Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the International Work­shop. Yerevan, 27 November 2010, edited by Hranush Kharatyan-Araqelyan and Leyla Neyzi, 24-38. Bonn: Institut für Internationale Zusammenarbeit des Deutchen Volkshochschul-Verbandes (dvv international), 2011.