Open Letter to Ahmet Davutoglu

ara papyan (Medium)
YEREVAN—Professor Ara Papian, the director of the Modus Vivendi Center in Yerevan issued an open letter to Turkey Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu. In the letter, Papian analyzes Davutoglu’s speech, last week, to parliament as he presented the protocols for ratification. Below is the complete text of the letter:

Respected Minister,
I read with interest the text of your speech of the 21st of October at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. My impressions were mixed. However, I mainly felt that you wished to present what was desirable, instead of what was real.

To begin with, it was astonishing to hear of “occupation” from the foreign minister of a country which has itself been occupying 37% of the territory of Cyprus for more than three decades now, not to mention three-fourths of my homeland – the Republic of Armenia – for almost nine decades. I would like to stress that I am not referring to some abstract “Armenian lands,” but solely the territory granted to the Republic of Armenia through a document of international law, that is, the arbitral award of US President Woodrow Wilson of the 22nd of November, 1920. I shall elaborate on the arbitral award later, but for now I would simply like to say that, in accordance with international law, arbitral awards are “definitive and without appeal.”1

Respected Minister,

While commenting on the fifth clause of protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey2, you drew the conclusion that the Republic of Armenia recognises “the existing border” according to the treaties of Moscow (of the 16th of March, 1921) and Kars (of the 13th of October, 1921).

This is a very arbitrary conclusion indeed. The document in question does not cite the aforementioned so-called treaties. The protocols refer only to “the relevant treaties of international law.” That is, evidently, the treaties in question must be governed by international law, at the very least not being in violation of it. Simultaneously, by referring to “the relevant treaties of international law” and not simply “international treaties,” the protocol provides a more inclusive definition, and thus brings in “the instruments of international law” in general, regardless of the kind of document, as, given the present case, we have a document known as a “protocol.” Accordingly, a “treaty” must be understood in a way separate from the term for the document, purely as a legal, written international agreement. [“Treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law – Article 2.1(a), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969].

It is evident that “the existing border” mentioned in the protocol is not the illegal dividing line which came about as a result of Bolshevik-Kemalist actions. Ex injuria non oritur jus, illegal acts cannot create law. “The existing border” implies that which exists in international law and in accordance with international law. And there is no only one such border between Armenia and Turkey: the border decided by the arbitral award of US President Woodrow Wilson.

The treaties of Moscow and Kars which you mentioned in your speech are not treaties at all from an international law point of view. In order for them to be considered as treaties, they ought to have been signed by the plenipotentiary representatives of the lawful governments of recognized states. Neither the Kemalists, nor the Bolsheviks, to say nothing of the Armenian Bolsheviks brought to power in Armenia, fulfilled the above requirement in 1921. And so, the act of signing those treaties were in violation of the basic principles of international law – jus cogens – at the very moment they were signed. And according to Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, which you yourself cited in your speech, “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.”

Do you really believe that two unrecognized, and consequently illegal self-proclaimed administrations, as the Bolsheviks and Kemalists were in 1921, could, through a bilateral treaty (of Moscow), nullify a legally negotiated international document signed by eighteen recognised states (the Treaty of Sèvres)? Do you believe that the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact, for example, is a legal document? I don’t think so, because two countries, namely the USSR and Germany, could not decide the borders of a third country. Then why do you believe that two rebel movements, as, I repeat, the Bolsheviks and Kemalists were in 1921, had the authority to decide in Moscow the borders of some other country, the Republic of Armenia, even if it were occupied?

Do you really believe that the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, as well as the Georgian and Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic ever had the capacity to make treaties under international law? Of course not. Since April of 1920 (for Azerbaijan), December of 1920 (for Armenia) and February of 1921 (for Georgia), these countries were rendered simply territories of different administrative units under Russian Bolshevik occupation. In Armenia’s case, the Senate of the United States adopted outright the following by Resolution #245 on the 3rd of June, 1924: “Turkey joined with Soviet Russia in the destruction of the Armenian State.”3 If there were no Republic of Armenia from the 2nd of December, 1920, how could it sign an international treaty in Kars in October of 1921?

It is an indisputable fact of international law that no legal consequences are held for an occupied country by the acts of the occupiers, as “a cession of territory during occupation is not effective.”4 There is no ambiguity in this matter.

The fact that the protocols do not make legal the situation created as a result of the Armenian Genocide and that they do not recognize any frontiers was stated outright in the address of the President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sarkisian, on the 10th of October, 2009: “Any sort of relationship with Turkey cannot cast into doubt the reality of the dispossession and genocide of the Armenian people,” and “The issue of the current frontier between Armenia and Turkey is subject to a resolution as per prevailing international law. The protocols say nothing more than that.”

Clear and simple.

Now let us see what this “prevailing international law” is exactly, according to which “the issue of the current frontier between Armenia and Turkey is subject to a resolution.”

In order to understand this, one must return to the not-too-distant past, during that short period of time, when the Republic of Armenia was recognised as a state by the international community. When, on the 19th of January, 1920, the Supreme Council of the Paris Peace Conference, that is, the British Empire, France and Italy, recognised the Republic of Armenia, it was done so with a certain condition, that the borders of the Republic of Armenia were to be determined soon afterwards. The US also recognised the Republic of Armenia with that same condition on the 23rd of April, 1920.

When it came to the borders of the Republic of Armenia, naturally, the most important was the question of the Armenia-Turkey frontier. And so, at the San Remo session of the Paris Peace Conference, alongside other issues, this particular question was discussed during the 24th to the 27th of April, 1920, and, on the 26th of April, the US President Woodrow Wilson was officially requested to arbitrate the frontiers of Armenia.5 On the 17th of May, 1920, President Wilson accepted and took on the duties and authority as the arbiter of the frontier between Armenia and Turkey. I would like to especially emphasize that this was almost three months before the Treaty of Sèvres was signed (which took place on the 10th of August, 1920). Whether the Treaty of Sèvres would come to pass or not, the compromis (agreement) of a legal arbiter existed, and consequently, the arbitral award deciding the border between Armenia and Turkey would take place. It is another matter that the Treaty of Sèvres consisted of an additional compromis. It is necessary to note that the validity of the compromis only requires the signatures of the authorized representatives and that no ratification is required for compromis.

Accordingly, based upon the compromis of San Remo (of the 26th of April, 1920), as well as that of Sèvres (of the 10th of August, 1920), US President Woodrow Wilson carried out his arbitral award on the borders between Armenia and Turkey on the 22nd of November, 1920, which was to be enforced thereupon and without reservations in accordance with the agreement (compromis).

Two days later, on the 24th of November, the award was officially conveyed by telegraph to the Paris Peace Conference for the consideration of the League of Nations. The award was accepted as such, but remained unsettled, because the beneficiary of the award – the Republic of Armenia – ceased to exist on the 2nd of December, 1920.

The issue of the current status of Wilson’s arbitral award
It is necessary to state, first of all, that any arbitral award is a binding document to be carried out without reservations. Moreover, arbitral awards are “final and without appeal.”6 “The arbitral award is the final and binding decision by an arbitrator.”7

The final and non-appealable nature of arbitral awards is codified within international law. In particular, by Article 54 of the 1899 edition and Article 81 of the 1907 edition of the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. And so, by the arbitral award of the President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, the frontier between Armenia and Turkey has been decided for perpetuity, being in force to this day and not subject to any appeal.

Therefore, when the fifth clause of the protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey mentions “the mutual recognition of the existing border between the two countries as defined by the relevant treaties of international law,” then that can only take into consideration the border defined by the only legal document in force to this day, the arbitral award of US President Woodrow Wilson. There is no other legal document “of international law,” as the protocol says.

There is another important issue to consider here. Have the authorities and public bodies of the United States ever expressed any position with regards to President Wilson’s arbitral award deciding the border between Armenia and Turkey?

 

The position of the executive branch
The highest executive power of the United States not only recognized Wilson’s arbitral award, but has also ratified it and, therefore, it has become part of the law of the land of the United States. The President of the United States Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby ratified the award of the arbitrator Woodrow Wilson with their signatures and The Great Seal of the United States. According to international law, the personal signature of the arbitrator and his seal, if applicable, are completely sufficient as ratification of an arbitral award. Woodrow Wilson could have been satisfied with only his signature or as well as his presidential seal. In that case, the award would have been the obligation of an individual, albeit a president. However, the arbitral award is ratified with the official state seal and confirmed by the keeper of the seal, the Secretary of State. The arbitral award of Woodrow Wilson is thus an unqualified obligation of the United States of America itself.

 

The position of the legislative branch
Arbitral awards are not subject to any legislative approval or ratification. They are governed by international public law. So the Senate, which reserves the right to take up matters relating to foreign policy according to the US Constitution, never directly discussed the arbitral award deciding the Armenian-Turkish frontier. Nevertheless, in the course of discussing other matters, the Senate of the United States explicitly expressed its position on this award on at least one occasion.

On the 18th of January, 1927, the Senate rejected the Turkish-American treaty of the 6th of August, 1923, for three reasons. One of the reasons was that Turkey “failed to provide for the fulfillment of the Wilson award to Armenia.” 8 Senator William H. King (D-UT) expressed himself much more clearly in an official statement on this occasion, “Obviously it would be unfair and unreasonable for the United States to recognize and respect the claims and professions of Kemal so long as he persist in holding control and sovereignty over Wilson Armenia.”9  The vote in the Senate in 1927 testifies without a doubt to the fact that Wilson’s arbitral award was a ratified award and had legal bearing in 1927. Nothing from a legal perspective has changed since then, and it thus remains in force to this day.

The position of public bodies
The most important public bodies in the United States are political parties. The main clauses of party programs are to be found in party platforms, which are approved by the general assemblies of political parties.

The Democratic Party of the US (the party of current President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton) has officially expressed a position on Wilson’s arbitral award on two occasions, in 1924 and in 1928.

In its 1924 program, the Democratic Party included a separate clause of the “Fulfillment of President Wilson’s arbitral award respecting Armenia”10 as a platform and goal. The 1928 platform went even further, referring to the US as a state and, as per the “promises and engagements” of the Allied Powers, “We favor the most earnest efforts on the part of the United States to secure the fulfillment of the promises and engagements made during and following the World War by the United States and the allied powers to Armenia and her people.”11 The only “promise and engagement” of the United States to the Republic of Armenia was and continues to remain the arbitral award of Woodrow Wilson on the border between Armenia and Turkey.

 

Respected Minister,

As opposed to the current generation of Americans and Europeans, we know the Turks well, and we therefore do not harbor any illusions. I believe that you, in turn, know us well, and must therefore bear no illusions of your own. If you Turks believe that by arm-twisting Armenia you can force anything upon the Armenian people, you are much mistaken. Our history is proof of quite the contrary.

We – the Armenians and the Turks – are condemned together to find mutually-acceptable solutions. Such solutions may come in many forms, but one thing must be clear, that they have to benefit the establishment of a stable peace for the entire region, the development of a diverse economy, the creation of a co-operative atmosphere, while serving as well the realization of certain interests of global powers and their greater inclusion in regional issues. And so, that solution must be such that it dispels the security concerns of the Armenian side, while providing conditions of sustained economic growth and development for the Republic of Armenia, as well as guaranteeing the preservation of Armenian cultural values. Simultaneously, the solution must not go against the core interests of Turkey, and the proposal must be appreciable by the Turkish side as a dignified solution to the given circumstances.

 

Respected Minister,
We are willing to co-operate, but do not take that as a sign of weakness and do not force us to raise a white flag of surrender. That will never occur.
Accept, Minister, the deepest assurances of my consideration.

Ara Papian

Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre,
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 2000-2006
of the Republic of Armenia to Canada

23 October, 2009

 

Notes

1. The Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 1899, # 54; 1907, # 81.
2. “Confirming the mutual recognition of the existing border between the two countries as defined by the relevant treaties of international law.”
3. The Armenian Review, vol. 30, No. 3-119, 1977, p. 286.
4. W. Fiedler, Continuity, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, v. 1,  Amsterdam, 1992, p. 808.
5. Full Report of the Committee upon the Arbitration of the Boundary between Turkey and Armenia, Appendix I, Number 10. (The National Archives, Washington, 760J.6715-760J.90C/7)
6. Hans-Jurgen Schlochauer,  Arbitration, Encyclopedia of Public International Law, v. I, 1992, Amsterdam, p. 226.
7. A Dictionary of Arbitration and its Terms (ed. by Katherine Seide),  New York, 1970,  p. 32.
8. Lausanne Treaty is Defeated, The Davenport Democrat, 19 January 1927, 1.
9. The New York Times, January 19, 1927, 1.
10. National Party Platforms, 1840-1968, (compl. By Kirk and Donald Johnson), Urbana-Chicago-London, 1972, p, 277.
11. ibid.

Authors

Discussion Policy

Comments are welcomed and encouraged. Though you are fully responsible for the content you post, comments that include profanity, personal attacks or other inappropriate material will not be permitted. Asbarez reserves the right to block users who violate any of our posting standards and policies.

16 Comments

  1. Sammy said:

    Ara Papian is the kind of President Armenia needs, not an ex-KGB thug who wants to play the “I am the President” game to validate himself and blunder Armenia’s future.

  2. Papken Hartunian said:

    “..the beneficiary of the award – the Republic of Armenia ..”
    The beneficiary of the award are all present generation and future generations of all Armenians not only the Republic of Armenia at the time or current or in the future. All armeniasn must bring a class action in USA against Republic of Turkey to enforce the Wilsonian Arbitration Award or judgment.

    I might do it alone!

    Long Live Armenia and Armenioans especially Aram Papian.
    Thanks a million Aram.

    Papken Hartunian

  3. Katia K. said:

    Throughout our history, when faced with legal retributions, Turkey weazled itself out by merely lying and distorting of the facts. Distortion of facts, has been Turkey’s number one successful tool in addition to sweet Turkish “gifts” and bribing, in fooling and distracting the European and American powers.
    We need to recognize this technique of theirs because it is a true and proven political tool that Turkey always resorts to. Now it is announcing to the world that the Armenians were the aggressors in Karabagh and now the occupiers of Azeri lands. We all know this is the exact opposite of what happened in reality, but they invest so much resources in their propaganda that they eventually brainwash everyone and sell these lies as truths on the international stage. This is where WE have always failed to overcome the Turks. We are following the law and thinking that everyone will see and appreciate that…. That is not the truth however. When the Armenians were getting attacked in Baku, most countries either apprehended the Azeris or watched silently. Look at what has happened after 17 years. Most countries, lied to throughout all these years, are singing the rhetoric that the Azeris have the right of territorial integrity. This technique, of telling a lie until it becomes the truth, has worked and is working for them. It works in some circles where the Turks have lied and said that WE massacred them, it works when people have started talking about the Kars treaty and are completely disregarding the Sevres Treaty, it is also working when Turkey is presenting some of our archeological treasures in Turkey as left by their own ancestors!
    So far, we have not spent enough resources to study and unravel this system of theirs. We need to start doing that NOW and very aggressively. For each lie and deceipt of theirs we need to unleash our historians and politicians to smother it with FACTS, over and over, until FACTS are the only things that people can hear. Karabagh is a historical Armenian enclave. Karabagh was awarded to Azerbaijan by Stalin. Azerbaijan attacked the Armenians in Baku in an ethnic cleansing attempt. Karapagh fought in SELF DEFENSE against a disciplined Azeri army. Karapagh won the war, regained its historical lands and announced its independence. Karapagh practiced self determination that has been allowed elsewhere in the previous Soviet republics.
    Long live Aram Papian, and may all of our other Aram Papians unleash their rightful cries for Fact, Law and Justice.

  4. Harout Bairamian said:

    Ara Papian should be commended for his thorough and factually solid point-by-point rebuttal of Mr. Davutoglu’s speech to the Turkish parliament, where the foreign minister, as is his habit, tried to put his own spin on the infamous Protocols.It seems that “the smartest diplomat in modern Turkish history” is hellbent on continuing the “proud” tradition of his nation’s officials going back a few centuries of not only trying to deceive the world anyway they can, but also on keeping his own people from knowing the truth about their own history.
    I know that Armenians have no shortage of intellectuals who possess the necessary knowledge about the Turkish-Armenian history to adequately counter every misrepresentation of facts and outright lies about the subject, that seem to emanate from official and semi-official Turkish sources on a daily basis.These Turkish officials know very well, that if they repeat a lie over and over again,and nobody says anything to counter it, people will start believing it. What has been in short supply from the Armenian side, was the courage and the fortitude to answer each and every untruth with an equal amount of truth.That’s why it’s so gratifying to hear a person of Aram Papian’s caliber call a spade, a spade, or perhaps more appropriately, a weasel, a weasel and prove it!
    Let’s hope that this kind of forceful attitude will encourage more Armenian individuals, organizations, and especially the official Yerevan, to be more assertive in their ongoing quest to seek justice for the Armenian nation.
    Speaking of official Yerevan, perhaps the top diplomat of Armenia, Mr Nalbandian,should also try to illuminate his Turkish counterpart from time to time ,instead of continuously brushing off Mr.Davutoglu’s transgressions as “intended for the domestic audience”. Nowadays, the world is your domestic audience.

  5. gharakhanina said:

    thanks Ara jan, its not enough to say thanks can we appoint you as our president of the Armenian people. he doesn’t deserver your letter. but we do, the million and half thank you, and all of diaspora and all our parents the silent in Armenia and the vocals there, a billion thanks.

    Papken, am so seriously with you on this, this is it, we are all with you, you are not alone!

  6. gharakhanian said:

    thank you, Ara Papian, its not enough to say thanks can we appoint you as our president of the Armenian people. he doesn’t deserver your letter. but we do, thanks a million!

    Papken, we are all seriously with you on this, this is it, you are not alone!

  7. Hagop Jack Nercessian said:

    Dear Mr. Papian
    I am obviously emotionally touched by your article. The eloquence of your language and the authenticity of the described historical facts coupled with a sound rationale should drive every voting member in our Armenian Congress (Azkayin Joghov) and Government to think hard before ratifying these protocols.
    God bless you and people like you; Aram Ayvazyan, Vartan Oskanian, Raffi Hovhannesyan, members of ANCA, His Holiness Catholicos Aram I , and many others… to stand up for our heritage, for our history and our international rights.
    The recent events in the Diaspora and in our Homeland demonstrate the vitality and citizenship of our 10 million strong Armenian communities.
    Thank you for educating worldwide, the Armenian Community.
    Thank you also for reminding the Big Powers about their roles and responsibilities for honoring and pursuing
    the previously established and legally binding international agreements.

    Kind Regards,
    Hagop Nercessian

  8. Arman Grigoryan said:

    Wow I love this guy, very power full stuff. Papken you are right we are all still victims of a 100 year old genocide we need a class action, how do we start? I am willing to commit rest of my life for it.

    arman
    grigoryan2032@yahoo.com

  9. Barkev Asadourian said:

    To Papken
    Ara not Aram
    100% I agree with you I would to add
    To be HONORED ONE OF ARMENIANS
    LEGASY
    Million of Thanks ARA BABIAN

  10. Levon said:

    This is a wonderful analysis and I congratulate Mr. Papian for laying it out in an open forum. The issue of the western border of Armenia is a critical issue in this discussion, but is not well understood by the Armenian public. Armenia should never agree to the de factor border that currently exists as the final one.

  11. Razmik said:

    We, Armenians should highly appreciate the efforts of Ara Papian in defending the rights of the Republic of Armenia and all Armenian people.
    Mr. Papian reacted very appropriately to the statements of the Turkish foreign Minister.
    World community and especially Turkish people must get a real picture of the history.

    Armenian people are very proud of you, Mr. Ara Papian,

    Thank you so much.

    Razmik Shahverdian
    Tehran

  12. John K. said:

    This is unbeleivable! We had all this information/evidence and we have been sitting on this for the past 70-80 years? What are we waiting for? Let us go to International Court of Justice! Let us sue everybody! Let us start with the perpetrator (Turks) and then sue the conspirators: the Germans, British, French etc… Jews did it, why can’t we do it? Also, let us have special classes for Armenian Cause in Armenian Schools. Let us educate our youth so that they can one day stand up for our rights! Knowledge is power! Let us use it!

  13. Gaidzag Shahbazian said:

    I am very thankful to you for the letter you sent to Turkish FM. For long time I was looking for details like this one about the protocols and agreements signed by Soviet Russia and Turkey. I consider this letter historical, it empowers me hope, and millions of Armenians will salute you for your heroism.

    My best regards

    Gaidzag Shahbazian

  14. Osik said:

    I watched the interview of Aljazireh TV with Davutoglu where he openly admitted holding and not sending the “Protocol” to their “Mejlis” for approval until they see a progress in the Gharabagh issue.
    We already witnessed how the signing of “Protocol” because of some phrases in the closing speeches was stalled; and how our secretary of state and her Russian counterpart were running around, twisting arms, since those phrases were constituting as “Precondition”; the only way that they managed to bring both parties back to sign the “Protocol” was by eliminating of closing statements, therefore to me if anyone of those two sides after signing makes any official announcement adding a preconditions like Turkish Foreign Minister did; automatically voids the “Protocol” specially when the announcement is exact the same clause that delayed the process for about 3 hours.

  15. gharakhanian said:

    i agree with John K. above, everything he said is right on the money! let us educate each other and call a meeting for all the attorneys to conference on this now! this is it! we have it all, its our time, Turkey would not be in such a panic and all the perpetrators you know who i mean and they know who they are, if they didn’t see the witting on the wall, if they can see how close we are why can’t we? all this is happening because of the Genocide recognition, this is the only issue for them. yes the land issue is connected but at the core of it is this. they are afraid and they have good reason to be this afraid and throw everything they have at us they have a lot to loose, to get us off the subject, its, Genocide, Genocide, Genocide, and denial i say is not the final stage alone when it takes this form and time, its continuation of Genocide. Thank you so very much for your letter Aram. am sure we all cherish it.

  16. manooshag said:

    Hye, Ara Papian, God Bless you. We have been waiting for you.

    Today I think of all those nearly two millions we lost, those who survived yet raised the generations that followed,
    until today… those whose voices are being heard today. For, I do believe there are times in history when the right person, whether a Washington (chose not to be king) a Lincoln (saved union) a Churchill (for England) comes forth to lead the way. In my lifetime I have seen the ARFers/survivors, whose efforts together – and those who stepped forward over all these years – kept alive Hai Tahd. We were imbued with the hopes, we did not become ex tinct. We suffered mightily under the Turks, and even had to contend with those amongst us who could not ‘keep the faith’, but we hung in there. And today, Ara Papian, we are fortunate that you have joined the ranks of the strong and visionary.

    We welcome your inspiring efforts for all Armenians, all together, all the world over… especially when we are facing a leadership in Haiastan whose abilities are clearly in question… Thank you, is all we can say, but think of it in terms of the volumes of thanks issuing from the world over… as your words, one by one, have helped bring us back to a commitment to our rights and our homeland.

*

Top