ARMENIAN GENOCIDE 90

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
25 April 05

There are dates in the history of every nation which have the power of
uniting, and may decide a nation’s fate decades and centuries
ahead. Wherever the Armenians live, in Armenia, Artsakh, Russia, the
United States, France, Lebanon, and any other part of the world, they
have a common tragic date. It is the day of commemoration of the
victims of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire. Every year on
this day the Armenian families spread all over the world light a
candle in the memory of the innocent victims. Those who are
well-acquainted with the Armenian history will never ask the question
why so many Armenians live outside their historical homeland. History
replied to this question over 90 years ago. However, the country which
perpetrated the first monstrous genocide in the 20th century and which
is at present trumpeting its commitment to the European and universal
values, unfortunately, has not repented of its crime yet. Moreover,
the same country is brazenly making attempts at persuading the
international community to withdraw the issue of international
recognition of the Armenian Genocide. All the countries which
recognized the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire had to face the
counteraction of official Ankara. Thereby, those countries have had
the opportunity to get convinced what values dominate in the Turkish
society. These values maintain that all the countries which did their
duty before the mankind are the enemies of the Turkish nation.
Hysteria, blackmail, threats to break all kinds of relationships: here
is the non-complete set of tools for imposing political pressure on
those who have recognized or are going to recognize the Armenian
Genocide. Unfortunately, the efforts of Ankara are often
successful. There are politicians, including those from the West, who
would rather announce that the UN Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide adopted in 1948 has no
retrospective power and, therefore, cannot be applied to the tragic
events in West Armenia 90 years ago than break relationships with
modern Turkey. The standpoint of such politicians can be considered to
be impudence. Such a standpoint is not only a typical example of
political hypocrisy but also provides ground for other similar crimes,
and may be by the same country which has already perpetrated genocide
once. What is the blockade of transport communication with Armenia by
Turkey if not the consequence of leaving the Armenian Genocide
unpunished? However, it is more surprising that the same country
which has been objecting to the call of the civilized world to lift
the blockade of Armenia and set up diplomatic relationships with
Armenia pretends to the role of mediator in the Karabakh conflict not
hesitating in defending the standpoint of Azerbaijan. This peculiar
perception of the mediating mission by Turkey starts from its attitude
towards the issue of recognition of the Genocide. And isn’t the
craving of the Azerbaijani authorities to give a special role to
Turkey in the resolution of the Karabakh issue determined by the same
circumstance? No other definition but permanent policy of genocide can
characterize the attitude of the Azerbaijani authorities towards the
Armenian population of this republic since its foundation. The vivid
proof to this is the history of the former Autonomous Region of
Nagorno Karabakh. In the years of existence of NKAR the Baku
authorities attempted to affect the demographic picture in the region
in favour of the Azerbaijani population, intending to dissolve the
Armenian sovereignty. To fulfill the task the Azerbaijani government
used such methods as discrimination against the Armenians in the
social, economic and cultural spheres, distortion of the Armenian
history, prohibition of any economic and cultural relationships
between Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia, destruction of Armeniancultural
monuments and churches, formation of the image of the Armenian as the
historical and archenemy of the Azerbaijani and other Turkic
peoples. The Azerbaijani rulers implemented an identical policy
against once the Armenian majority of the sovereign republic of
Nakhijevan as a result of which no single Armenian had been left there
by the mid-twentieth century. I think we must duly present the fate of
the Armenians of Nakhijevan to the international community as a vivid
example of what would await Nagorno Karabakh if it remained within
Azerbaijan. All the aforementioned methods of the policy of
discrimination implemented by the authorities of Baku provided ground
for perpetration of another genocide of the Armenians, this time in
Azerbaijan; the political forces of Azerbaijan do not even hide that
they regard the `Armenian’ policy of Ottoman and present day Turkey as
exemplary. The Baku authorities were the worthy students of their
teachers. The extermination and deportation of the Armenian population
from the cities of Sumgait, Baku and Kirovabad, Shamkhor, Khanlar,
Shamakhi and other regions of Azerbaijan because of their nationality,
the unexpected siege of NKR, the everyday bombing of Stepanakert
intended to exterminate the peaceful population, the slaughter of
women, children and elderly people in the village of Maragha, as well
as the lasting blockade of Nagorno Karabakh andother crimes committed
against the Armenians by the authorities of Baku perfectlysuit the
definition of genocide. In regard with crimes against humanity dubious
standards, juggling of terms, distortion of problems and manipulation
with historical facts are unacceptable. Crimes against humanity should
be condemned by the international community, and the instigators and
perpetrators should be punished. The international community cannot
have an alternative to this attitude towards genocide. Otherwise, the
fact of genocide is used for fulfilling their geopolitical,
geo-economic, regional, home political and other interests. And since
countries pursue various, often quite contradicting interests, it
often happens so that in a certain period of time a certain government
prefers to forget the fact of genocide and even indirectly justify
it. At present the Azerbaijani government behaves exactly this way,
for it imagines the â=80=9Cfair’ resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict to be the banishment of the entire native Armenian population
from Artsakh. For this purpose Baku conducts a policy of provoking the
world and regional powers to impose political and economic and even
military pressure on Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. At the same time,
the propaganda machine of Azerbaijan has launched an unprecedented
campaignof distortion of historical facts to the point of presenting
Armenians to the international community as a nation which perpetrated
genocide of Azerbaijanis. Unfortunately, the international community
does not criticize this policy of Baku, whereas it contains the danger
of instilling perpetual hatred in the present and future generations
of the Azerbaijani community against the entire Armenian nation. The
consequences of similar policies are destructive for the establishment
of an atmosphere of confidence between the Azerbaijani and Armenian
people destined to be neighbours. The consequence of this aggressive
policywas the cruel murder of the Armenian officer by his Azerbaijani
colleague in Budapest, which was a shock for the civilized world. The
reaction of the Azerbaijani society to this crime, a society which
accepted the murderer asa national hero, revealed the reprehensible
consequences of the anti-Armenian policy of Baku authorities to the
world. Therefore, as long as there are people in the Azerbaijani
authorities who are directly involved in instigating massacres of
ethnic Armenians both in Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh and who
continue to instill hatred in the Azerbaijani society towards the
Armenian nation, it will be very difficult for us to believe in the
mutually acceptable and civilized resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict, peaceful coexistence and mutually favourable cooperation of
our peoples and countries in the future. Where isthe way out? What
lesson did we draw from the tragic events that took place 90 years ago
and quite recently? How can we confront the aggressive intentionsof
our neighbours and prevent the past from repeating? Unfortunately, the
modern practice of international relationships has not yet worked out
effective methods of prevention or at least stopping of extermination
of people because of their ethnic, racial and religious
characteristics. The national liberation movement in Artsakh clearly
indicated that in the modern world the most effective way of
confronting threats of genocide is not the endless addresses to
international organizations and expectation for their intervention,
but self-organization of the society ready for armed defence to live
in their land and defend their rights given by God. The statehood in
Karabakh was the superior form of self-organization of the people of
Artsakh which managed to solve the fatal problem of elimination of
external military pressure threatening the security of the people of
Nagorno Karabakh with the support of all the Armenians. Independent,
democratic and strong Armenia, independent, democratic and strong
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh: here are the chief guarantees for the
security of our nation. The Turkish state which denies its offence
must draw a lesson from its actions. It is first of all useful for
Turkey and its people. Turkey which strives for becoming member of the
European Union is facing the deciding choice of the further way of
development of the country and society. In this context the attitude
of Turkey towards the Armenian Genocide is a test on Turkish
democracy, a sort of litmus test indicating the degree to which the
countryis fit to have a place in the union of the European
countries. It is not a simple choice. It is inevitable too. This
choice will decide the further role of Turkey in the region, including
South Caucasus, in the formation of the geopolitical and geo-economic
architecture. One thing is clear: in the South Caucasian region, and
in the sphere of resolution of conflicts, particularly the Karabakh
conflict, the performance of the geopolitical function to which Turkey
pretends, requires from Turkey a high level of political maturity, as
well as the ability of reconsidering conceptually its own attitude
towards the factors which determine the attitude of the nations of the
region towards the region and the Turkish state. Today the
international community and first of all Turkey, has to answer the
following question: what is more legitimate and acceptable from the
standpoint of civilization, international law, international stability
and security, the policy of denying the Armenian Genocide which allows
perpetuating international crime or the search for opportunities for
repentance and relief of the consequences of the genocide displaying
historical and political courage? No Turkish government that succeeds
another can evade responsibility lying more and more heavily on the
shoulders of the Turkish state. Ladies and gentlemen, In two days
Armenians all over the world, civilized humanity will pay homage to
the victims of the genocide of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. No matter
how many years will pass, we will always live with pain in our
hearts. The pain will go on with our nations throughout history. Much
time may pass until our pain becomes the pain of humanity. Sooner or
later this time will come. It is our duty, the duty of progressive
mankind to make this time come sooner. April 24 will forever remind
the generations that will come that there can be no statute of
limitations for crimes against humanity.

AA.
25-04-2005