PRESS RELEASE
ChinaHAY
Skyline Commercial Center #1201-12F
71-77 Wing Lok Street
Sheung Wan
Hong Kong
Tel.: +852.6793.6410
Email: contact@chinahay.com
Web:

October 9, 2009

Statement by the Armenian Community of China on the Proposed Protocol
Between Armenia and Turkey: Top Two Questions Everyone Should Ask and
Why the Protocol Should Not Become Law

On behalf of the 200 some Armenian families of China, we would like to
issue this statement of our views on the proposed Protocol between
Armenia and Turkey. Much has already been stated about the Protocol in
well thought out articles, statements and commentary issued by many
political and national organizations, journalists and private citizens.
Rather than re-stating what has already been said, we would like to set
forth below certain comments that do not appear to have previously
entered the public forum on the Protocol and each independently support
our position that the Protocol should not become law.

1. Is Armenia and Serge Sarkisian Surrendering to the Nazi
French Occupation Government a Week Before D Day?

When the United States upholds President Obama’s promise to withdraw
from Iraq and a conflict longer and more expensive than World War II,
the autonomous Kurdistan created by the United States in Northern Iraq
is likely to secede from Iraq just as the provinces of Serbia and
Croatia seceded from the former Yugoslavia.

The more than 50 million Kurds living in Eastern Turkey, Iraq and
elsewhere comprise the world’s largest group of people without a nation.
For the first time in modern history, they have self-rule and a rule
making parliament in elections sanctioned by the United States, United
Kingdom and other nations supporting the Iraqi government. Autonomous
Kurdistan in Iraq is allowed to negotiate or approve certain oil deals
for Kurdistan. When and if Kurdistan is independent, the frightening
question for Turkey will be how much of the Kurdish provinces of Turkey
comprising Kars, Ardahan, Van and much of Eastern Turkey, including
Mount Ararat, will be annexed to Kurdistan.

With the United States now over debt-burdened and debating on whether to
support and pay for a continuing occupation of Iraq, and the President
trying to make good on his promise to withdraw from Iraq, Kurdistan and
the possible beginning of the dismemberment of Turkey could begin within
the next 12 – 36 months.

With Kurdistan being on the verge of being created, why would one
negotiate, acknowledge and cede Armenian claims to Kars, Ardahan, Van
and Ararat when Turkey may not even control those lands at the end of
this decade? Surrendering or ceding the claims now may seem about as
prudent as a French town surrendering to the Nazi French occupation
government a week before the Allies invaded Europe in Normandy to help
liberate France and the rest of Europe.

In summary, no, we do not think that the Protocol should become law or
that the Turkish border and Armenian claims for the restoration of lands
in Eastern Turkey should be ceded to Turkey until the next period of
history passes and we find out whether Kurdistan becomes independent as
the United States withdraws from Iraq, which all observers and
principals expect to happen within the next 12 – 36 months. At a
minimum, we have to keep in mind that the current American President,
who distinguished himself from his political competitors by stating that
he was against the War in Iraq and for a rapid withdrawal, does not
expect to go to the American electorate and ask for re-election in 3
years with what will be another 5,000 dead American soldiers and another
US $700 billion spent on the Iraq war. To the extent the Protocol
relinquishes claims to one square meter of claims to Armenian lands in
Eastern Turkey before it becomes clear whether there will be an
independent Kurdistan and whether its creation de-stablizes and annexes
Eastern Turkey, the Protocol is flawed and should not become law.

2. Does Serge Sarkisian Remember the 1972 Olympic Gold Medal
Game Between the United States and the Soviet Union?

In the 1972 Olympic gold medal game between the United States and Soviet
Union, America’s Doug Collins sank two free throws with 3 seconds on the
clock to put the United States ahead 50 – 49 at the end of the game. At
that moment, the Soviet coaches charged the scorers’ table saying that
they called a timeout at the point of the shot and play should have been
stopped. The officials decided to restart play with 3 seconds remaining
on the clock. However, when play resumed, the clock had not been reset.
At the moment it became clear that the Soviets could not score in the
remaining 3 seconds, the officials again sounded the buzzer to give the
Soviets a third chance to win the game. On each of these first two
times the buzzer was sounded, the American players stormed the court
with tears of joy as they believed that they won. When the clock was
restarted to replay the last 3 seconds and the Soviets had their third
opportunity to win the game and gold medal, the Soviets made their
inbound pass from the opposite side of the court and scored, handing the
Americans its first and only loss in Olympic basketball history.

One of the many points about the Protocol that is disturbing is that
Serge Sarkisian is agreeing to discuss the legitimacy of the Armenian
Genocide again with Turkey. We note three of the more significant
findings or legal conclusions on whether the events of 1915 comprised
genocide or crimes against humanity below:

(a) in 2003, the U.S. State Department funded and sponsored the
Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission. The Commission purchased a
legal opinion issued by the International Center for Transitional
Justice. The opinion was that the facts of the Armenian massacres of
1915 "viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of the
elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the [1948 Genocide
Convention]";

(b) in 1984, the Permanent People’s Tribunal in Europe
concluded after deliberation that the Armenian massacres of 1915
comprised genocide; and

(c) in the 1920s, a German court exonerated Soghomon Telerian
because, in short, Talaat Pasha, the Turkish Minister of the Interior,
committed crimes against humanity.

We are concerned that, like the Soviets and their sympathetic
Soviet-block officials in 1972, it is the intention of the Turks to
replay and litigate the issue of whether the events of 1915 comprise
genocide again-and-again until they find the one finder of fact, or
biased set of rules and procedures, that enable a conclusion to be
reached that the events of 1915 comprise nothing more than an internal
disturbance of a few hundred citizens.

On this point we note that the Protocol requires that there be "an
impartial scientific examination of historical records and archives to
define existing problems". We are concerned that there will either be
no due process or fairness in such an examination of the events of 1915,
or that the Turks, now tired of losing every objective examination of
the events of 1915, might simply require there be a vote of participants
in this scientific examination. We note that in the Turkish Armenian
Reconciliation Commission, the Armenians were outnumbered by Turks, 4-5.
So, if there had been a simple vote with majority ruling, the Commission
would have likely ruled that the events of 1915 did not comprise
genocide. For this reason, we believe that the Protocol is flawed and
should not become law.

Thus, no, we do not believe that the Protocol should become law unless
the Protocol or any future protocol contains a provision whereby the
Turkish government expresses acknowledgment for the Genocide or
eliminates any indirect references to it entirely.

* * *

We can be contacted for further queries or comments on this topic.

The Armenian Community of China