Tweet
PRESS RELEASE
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Contact: Information Desk
Tel: (374-1) 52-35-31
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.ArmeniaForeignMinistry.am
FM Oskanian Addresses UN Commission on Human Rights
Addresses Genocide and Karabakhıs Self-Determination
Minister Vartan Oskanian addressed the 61st session of the UN Human Rights
Commission in Geneva today. This is the first year of Armeniaıs second term
on the 53-member Commission.
The minister explained that Armeniaıs membership in this Commission is not
simply an organizational matter. He said that membership is ³as much a
product of our sense of responsibility as of our deep, immediate daily
awareness that individual human rights, the basic human rights of a society,
and individual and collective security are all inextricably, inarguably,
expressly interconnected.² For Armenians, he said ³the human rights
principle, the concept of manıs inalienable rights touches a raw nerve. We
spent the greatest part of the last century under a regime that endured
solely because of the absence of human rights. Immediately prior to that
period, we had the dubious honor of being the centuryıs first victims of
genocide. At the end of the century, we were still fighting to secure the
rights of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.²
Then the Minister focused on Genocide and the issue of Nagorno Karabakh
self-determination.
On Genocide, he explained that for Armenians, ³As a minority, living in the
Ottoman Empire, their call for the application of the lofty principles of
liberty, equality and fraternity, led to their death sentence. Today, their
survivors, living within and outside the Republic of Armenia expect that the
worldıs avowal of the universality of those same noble principles will lead
to recognition that Genocide was committed against Armenians.²
Referring to recent calls by the Turkish leadership for a historical debate,
the Minister reiterated Armeniaıs readiness for dialogue.
³Letıs not confuse the two kinds of dialogue,² he said. ³One is a debate
about history. The other is a political discussion. Periodic calls by
various Turkish administrations for historical debate simply delay the
process of reconciling with the truth.²
On the struggle of the people of Nagorno Karabakh for self-determination,
the Minister remarked, ³Ironically, Mr. Chairman, even as societies have
learned to support the victims of domestic violence, we have not yet
graduated to offering the same support to victims of international or
government violence. At best, the world watches silently as the victims
attempt to defend themselves, and if somehow, against great odds, they
succeed, then the world quickly pulls back, as the state loudly cries foul
and claims sovereignty and territorial integrity.
³Just as the perpetrator of domestic violence loses the moral right to
custody, so then, does a government that commits and promotes violence
against its own citizens lose its rights. It is in such instances that the
notion of self-determination is significant and legitimate.²
The Minister concluded his remarks with, ³Mr. Chairman, for us, defense and
protection of human rights is not an abstract principle. It is the
difference between survival and annihilation. We believe it is the same for
many in the world. Yet, our individual and collective tendency is to ignore
or neglect problems for which we have no immediate answer or prospect for
solution. This is even more true in situations which defy belief, surpass
common norms, and shake our very assumptions and values. For these very
reasons, in our ever-shrinking world, what is required is resolve on the
part of the committed in order to expand the engagement of those still
hesitant.²
On the margins of the Commissionıs annual meeting, the Minister met with
Dimitri Rupel, Sloveniaıs Foreign Minister and Chairman-in-Office of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He also met with the
Foreign Minister of Finland, Laila Freivalds. He also met with the President
of the ICRC, Jacob Kellenberger, and Sergei Orjonikidse, Director General of
the Geneval office of the United Nations.
Below is the full text of the Ministerıs statement.
Mr. Chairman,
This is a special year for multilateral diplomacy as we celebrate the 60th
anniversary of the United Nations. This is also a critical year as we
contemplate the reforms necessary to bring this institution, the UN, in line
with the various evolutions and revolutions that the world has seen in this
past 60 years. The UN is the place where we have built security institutions
and structures on the foundations of human freedom and economic access.
Here, we both take from and give to a more interdependent world. With the
future in mind, this is place where we will eventually look to find ways to
avoid threats as we broaden and enlarge human rights and civil liberties.
It is noteworthy that the Commission on Human Rights is the only
non-principal UN body which has been mentioned in the High Level Panel
Report and for which far-reaching reforms have been recommended for this
commission. That is because I believe all of todayıs biggest challenges
affect and are affected by the absence of or adherence to human rights. This
makes the nature of the report very important. How and with what instruments
and mechanisms those rights are to be protected is the concern addressed by
the report and by each of us. Everyone in the international community need
to become engaged as we contemplate that report.
The international communityıs increased focus on shared responsibility for
promoting human rights and freedoms at the national level requires open and
enhanced international co-operation. To justify the need to make new
decisions about old problems, do we need to constantly remind ourselves that
our world is not the same as it was 60 years ago, or even 15 years ago?
Then, local human rights abridgements were local or domestic tragedies.
Today, such abridgements are the first step toward international
catastrophes. Hiding behind national sovereignty in order to avoid
responsibility for to provide protection to human rights, today, risks
proliferation of injustice, insecurity, misery and conflict,
internationally.
Mr. Chairman,
Armeniaıs membership in the Commission on Human Rights is as much a function
of our sense of responsibility as of our deep sense of belief and conviction
that the basic human rights of a society, and individual and collective
security are all inextricably, inarguably, expressly interconnected. For
Armenians, the human rights principle, the concept of manıs inalienable
rights touches a raw nerve. We lived the greatest part of the last century
under a regime that endured solely because of the absence of human rights,
civil liberties and freedoms. Immediately prior to that period, we had the
dubious honor of being the centuryıs first victims of genocide. At the end
of that century and today still, we were still fighting to secure the rights
of self-determination of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.
Let me reflect on each of these.
After living, as I said, under an ideologically different helmet only
fourteen years ago, our domestic experience has been difficult and sometimes
bumpy. We have learned to believe less in snap changes, we have our reasons
to be sceptical of revolutions, we know that smooth public relations do not
last as long as decent human relations. Therefore, as last year, so next
year, we will continue to build on our successes, through evolutionary,
incremental ways: poverty reduction, protecting the rights of conscientious
objectors and religious sects, reforming the judicial system, strengthening
political diversity and free expression, protecting and promoting the rights
of women and children, fighting human traffickers.
As for Genocide, Mr. Chairman, it is the ultimate manifestation of the
violation of human rights. This year marks the 90th anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide. Two-thirds of the Armenian population perished between
1915 and 1918. As a minority, living in the Ottoman Empire, their call for
the application of the lofty principles of liberty, equality and fraternity,
led to their death sentence. Today, their survivors, living within and
outside the Republic of Armenia expect that the worldıs avowal of the
universality of those same noble principles will lead to recognition that
Genocide was committed against Armenians.
Ninety years after the event, we still live with the memory of suffering
unrelieved by strong condemnation and unequivocal recognition. In this we
are not alone. The catharsis that victims deserve and societies require in
order to heal and move forward together, obliges me to appeal to the
international community to call things by their name, to remove the veil of
obfuscation, of double standards, of political expediency.
Very recently, at the highest levels, the Turkish leadership called for a
historical debate. They suggested that historians from Turkey and Armenia go
thru archives and sort out this issue. My immediate response that Armenia
would not participate in a historical debate was interpreted as rejection of
dialogue.
Letıs not confuse the two kinds of dialogue. One is a debate about history.
The other is a political discussion. Periodic calls by various Turkish
administrations for historical debate simply delay the process of
reconciling with the truth. The facts are clear. The historical record is
clear. We know well what happened to our forebears. Even in the first days
of the Turkish Republic, the local Turkish authorities who had actually
carried out the genocidal acts were tried and found guilty by their own
Turkish courts. The Turks themselves, for their own reasons, put aside that
historical record and moved away from that honest, dignified approach to one
of denial and rejection. Turkey owes the worldıs generation that recognition
so we move forward.
Mr. Chairman,
This slice of our history is even more reason for the international
community to denounce genocide, once and for always, as a political tool. We
commend the Secretary Generalıs 5-point action plan, we believe in
strengthening the capacity and mandate of his Advisor on Genocide, and we
believe that governments who commit Genocide must be persecuted and
prosecuted the governments who commit genocide.
Inability to continue down this path means we have failed structurally and
institutionally. It also means we have failed to make the difficult policy
choices because of short-term political costs, even though we know well that
there will be long-term human and international consequences. A financially
bankrupt government is turned over to international organizations until it
reforms and renounces its wrongs. Can we tolerate any less of a government
which is morally bankrupt? Do we want successive generations to believe that
genocide is inevitable in each generation, on each continent? Can we allow
governments to commit such massive violence against their own people? How
can we explain why a report on Threats Challenges and Change must consider
genocide a threat, even at the beginning of the 21st century?
Finally, the third human rights issue is that of the self-determination of
the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.
Ironically, Mr. Chairman, even as societies have learned to support the
victims of domestic violence, we have not yet graduated to offering the same
support to victims of international or government violence. At best, the
world watches silently as the victims attempt to defend themselves, and if
somehow, against great odds, they succeed, then the world quickly pulls
back, as the state loudly cries foul and claims sovereignty and territorial
integrity.
Just as the perpetrator of domestic violence loses the moral right to
custody, so does a government that commits and promotes violence against its
own citizens lose its rights. It is in such instances that the notion of
self-determination is significant and legitimate.
This is exactly what happened to the people of Nagorno Karabakh during the
days of the collapse of the USSR when they opted, peacefully, for
self-determination. The government of Azerbaijan immediately not only
rejected the peaceful dialogue but resorted immediately to forceful
suppression of those aspirations. Azerbaijan continued to militarily
respond. At one point, the people of Nagorno Karabakh were on the verge of
annihilation had there not been the last minute mobilization and their
determination to fight for their lives, homes and their homeland. Today the
government of Azerbaijan has lost the moral right to even suggest providing
for their security and their future, let alone to talk of custody of the
people of Nagorno Karabakh.
Mr. Chairman, for us, defense and protection of human rights is not an
abstract principle. It is the difference between survival and annihilation.
We believe it is the same for many in the world. Yet, our individual and
collective tendency is to ignore or neglect problems for which we have no
immediate answer or prospect for solution. This is even more true in
situations which defy belief, surpass common norms, and shake our very
assumptions and values. For these very reasons, in our ever-shrinking world,
what is required is resolve on the part of the committed in order to expand
the engagement of those still hesitant.
END
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Contact: Information Desk
Tel: (374-1) 52-35-31
Email: [email protected]
Web: http://www.ArmeniaForeignMinistry.am
FM Oskanian Addresses UN Commission on Human Rights
Addresses Genocide and Karabakhıs Self-Determination
Minister Vartan Oskanian addressed the 61st session of the UN Human Rights
Commission in Geneva today. This is the first year of Armeniaıs second term
on the 53-member Commission.
The minister explained that Armeniaıs membership in this Commission is not
simply an organizational matter. He said that membership is ³as much a
product of our sense of responsibility as of our deep, immediate daily
awareness that individual human rights, the basic human rights of a society,
and individual and collective security are all inextricably, inarguably,
expressly interconnected.² For Armenians, he said ³the human rights
principle, the concept of manıs inalienable rights touches a raw nerve. We
spent the greatest part of the last century under a regime that endured
solely because of the absence of human rights. Immediately prior to that
period, we had the dubious honor of being the centuryıs first victims of
genocide. At the end of the century, we were still fighting to secure the
rights of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.²
Then the Minister focused on Genocide and the issue of Nagorno Karabakh
self-determination.
On Genocide, he explained that for Armenians, ³As a minority, living in the
Ottoman Empire, their call for the application of the lofty principles of
liberty, equality and fraternity, led to their death sentence. Today, their
survivors, living within and outside the Republic of Armenia expect that the
worldıs avowal of the universality of those same noble principles will lead
to recognition that Genocide was committed against Armenians.²
Referring to recent calls by the Turkish leadership for a historical debate,
the Minister reiterated Armeniaıs readiness for dialogue.
³Letıs not confuse the two kinds of dialogue,² he said. ³One is a debate
about history. The other is a political discussion. Periodic calls by
various Turkish administrations for historical debate simply delay the
process of reconciling with the truth.²
On the struggle of the people of Nagorno Karabakh for self-determination,
the Minister remarked, ³Ironically, Mr. Chairman, even as societies have
learned to support the victims of domestic violence, we have not yet
graduated to offering the same support to victims of international or
government violence. At best, the world watches silently as the victims
attempt to defend themselves, and if somehow, against great odds, they
succeed, then the world quickly pulls back, as the state loudly cries foul
and claims sovereignty and territorial integrity.
³Just as the perpetrator of domestic violence loses the moral right to
custody, so then, does a government that commits and promotes violence
against its own citizens lose its rights. It is in such instances that the
notion of self-determination is significant and legitimate.²
The Minister concluded his remarks with, ³Mr. Chairman, for us, defense and
protection of human rights is not an abstract principle. It is the
difference between survival and annihilation. We believe it is the same for
many in the world. Yet, our individual and collective tendency is to ignore
or neglect problems for which we have no immediate answer or prospect for
solution. This is even more true in situations which defy belief, surpass
common norms, and shake our very assumptions and values. For these very
reasons, in our ever-shrinking world, what is required is resolve on the
part of the committed in order to expand the engagement of those still
hesitant.²
On the margins of the Commissionıs annual meeting, the Minister met with
Dimitri Rupel, Sloveniaıs Foreign Minister and Chairman-in-Office of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He also met with the
Foreign Minister of Finland, Laila Freivalds. He also met with the President
of the ICRC, Jacob Kellenberger, and Sergei Orjonikidse, Director General of
the Geneval office of the United Nations.
Below is the full text of the Ministerıs statement.
Mr. Chairman,
This is a special year for multilateral diplomacy as we celebrate the 60th
anniversary of the United Nations. This is also a critical year as we
contemplate the reforms necessary to bring this institution, the UN, in line
with the various evolutions and revolutions that the world has seen in this
past 60 years. The UN is the place where we have built security institutions
and structures on the foundations of human freedom and economic access.
Here, we both take from and give to a more interdependent world. With the
future in mind, this is place where we will eventually look to find ways to
avoid threats as we broaden and enlarge human rights and civil liberties.
It is noteworthy that the Commission on Human Rights is the only
non-principal UN body which has been mentioned in the High Level Panel
Report and for which far-reaching reforms have been recommended for this
commission. That is because I believe all of todayıs biggest challenges
affect and are affected by the absence of or adherence to human rights. This
makes the nature of the report very important. How and with what instruments
and mechanisms those rights are to be protected is the concern addressed by
the report and by each of us. Everyone in the international community need
to become engaged as we contemplate that report.
The international communityıs increased focus on shared responsibility for
promoting human rights and freedoms at the national level requires open and
enhanced international co-operation. To justify the need to make new
decisions about old problems, do we need to constantly remind ourselves that
our world is not the same as it was 60 years ago, or even 15 years ago?
Then, local human rights abridgements were local or domestic tragedies.
Today, such abridgements are the first step toward international
catastrophes. Hiding behind national sovereignty in order to avoid
responsibility for to provide protection to human rights, today, risks
proliferation of injustice, insecurity, misery and conflict,
internationally.
Mr. Chairman,
Armeniaıs membership in the Commission on Human Rights is as much a function
of our sense of responsibility as of our deep sense of belief and conviction
that the basic human rights of a society, and individual and collective
security are all inextricably, inarguably, expressly interconnected. For
Armenians, the human rights principle, the concept of manıs inalienable
rights touches a raw nerve. We lived the greatest part of the last century
under a regime that endured solely because of the absence of human rights,
civil liberties and freedoms. Immediately prior to that period, we had the
dubious honor of being the centuryıs first victims of genocide. At the end
of that century and today still, we were still fighting to secure the rights
of self-determination of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.
Let me reflect on each of these.
After living, as I said, under an ideologically different helmet only
fourteen years ago, our domestic experience has been difficult and sometimes
bumpy. We have learned to believe less in snap changes, we have our reasons
to be sceptical of revolutions, we know that smooth public relations do not
last as long as decent human relations. Therefore, as last year, so next
year, we will continue to build on our successes, through evolutionary,
incremental ways: poverty reduction, protecting the rights of conscientious
objectors and religious sects, reforming the judicial system, strengthening
political diversity and free expression, protecting and promoting the rights
of women and children, fighting human traffickers.
As for Genocide, Mr. Chairman, it is the ultimate manifestation of the
violation of human rights. This year marks the 90th anniversary of the
Armenian Genocide. Two-thirds of the Armenian population perished between
1915 and 1918. As a minority, living in the Ottoman Empire, their call for
the application of the lofty principles of liberty, equality and fraternity,
led to their death sentence. Today, their survivors, living within and
outside the Republic of Armenia expect that the worldıs avowal of the
universality of those same noble principles will lead to recognition that
Genocide was committed against Armenians.
Ninety years after the event, we still live with the memory of suffering
unrelieved by strong condemnation and unequivocal recognition. In this we
are not alone. The catharsis that victims deserve and societies require in
order to heal and move forward together, obliges me to appeal to the
international community to call things by their name, to remove the veil of
obfuscation, of double standards, of political expediency.
Very recently, at the highest levels, the Turkish leadership called for a
historical debate. They suggested that historians from Turkey and Armenia go
thru archives and sort out this issue. My immediate response that Armenia
would not participate in a historical debate was interpreted as rejection of
dialogue.
Letıs not confuse the two kinds of dialogue. One is a debate about history.
The other is a political discussion. Periodic calls by various Turkish
administrations for historical debate simply delay the process of
reconciling with the truth. The facts are clear. The historical record is
clear. We know well what happened to our forebears. Even in the first days
of the Turkish Republic, the local Turkish authorities who had actually
carried out the genocidal acts were tried and found guilty by their own
Turkish courts. The Turks themselves, for their own reasons, put aside that
historical record and moved away from that honest, dignified approach to one
of denial and rejection. Turkey owes the worldıs generation that recognition
so we move forward.
Mr. Chairman,
This slice of our history is even more reason for the international
community to denounce genocide, once and for always, as a political tool. We
commend the Secretary Generalıs 5-point action plan, we believe in
strengthening the capacity and mandate of his Advisor on Genocide, and we
believe that governments who commit Genocide must be persecuted and
prosecuted the governments who commit genocide.
Inability to continue down this path means we have failed structurally and
institutionally. It also means we have failed to make the difficult policy
choices because of short-term political costs, even though we know well that
there will be long-term human and international consequences. A financially
bankrupt government is turned over to international organizations until it
reforms and renounces its wrongs. Can we tolerate any less of a government
which is morally bankrupt? Do we want successive generations to believe that
genocide is inevitable in each generation, on each continent? Can we allow
governments to commit such massive violence against their own people? How
can we explain why a report on Threats Challenges and Change must consider
genocide a threat, even at the beginning of the 21st century?
Finally, the third human rights issue is that of the self-determination of
the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.
Ironically, Mr. Chairman, even as societies have learned to support the
victims of domestic violence, we have not yet graduated to offering the same
support to victims of international or government violence. At best, the
world watches silently as the victims attempt to defend themselves, and if
somehow, against great odds, they succeed, then the world quickly pulls
back, as the state loudly cries foul and claims sovereignty and territorial
integrity.
Just as the perpetrator of domestic violence loses the moral right to
custody, so does a government that commits and promotes violence against its
own citizens lose its rights. It is in such instances that the notion of
self-determination is significant and legitimate.
This is exactly what happened to the people of Nagorno Karabakh during the
days of the collapse of the USSR when they opted, peacefully, for
self-determination. The government of Azerbaijan immediately not only
rejected the peaceful dialogue but resorted immediately to forceful
suppression of those aspirations. Azerbaijan continued to militarily
respond. At one point, the people of Nagorno Karabakh were on the verge of
annihilation had there not been the last minute mobilization and their
determination to fight for their lives, homes and their homeland. Today the
government of Azerbaijan has lost the moral right to even suggest providing
for their security and their future, let alone to talk of custody of the
people of Nagorno Karabakh.
Mr. Chairman, for us, defense and protection of human rights is not an
abstract principle. It is the difference between survival and annihilation.
We believe it is the same for many in the world. Yet, our individual and
collective tendency is to ignore or neglect problems for which we have no
immediate answer or prospect for solution. This is even more true in
situations which defy belief, surpass common norms, and shake our very
assumptions and values. For these very reasons, in our ever-shrinking world,
what is required is resolve on the part of the committed in order to expand
the engagement of those still hesitant.
END