Author: Harut Sassounian

The Corrupt Despot of Azerbaijan

Journalist Fin Depencier wrote a lengthy exposé in the San Francisco-based Palladium Magazine, titled: “Ilham Aliyev and the Making of Azerbaijan.”

The article starts with Ilham Aliyev’s early years in Moscow when his father, Heydar Aliyev, was a member of the ruling Politburo of the Soviet Union.

At the young age of 16, Ilham Aliyev “was admitted into Russia’s most prestigious university, the Moscow Institute of International Relations,” through his father’s KGB connections. He graduated with a PhD in history and taught at the university from 1985 to 1990. He learned fluent English and specialized in British history.

In 1987, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev dismissed Heydar Aliyev from the Politburo. His son, Ilham, was fired from the University after “Heydar criticized Gorbachev’s government for the killing of Azerbaijani civilians in Baku.” Ilham was blacklisted and could not get a job. “He ended up in the clothing business, purchasing a factory on the outskirts of Moscow…. He then briefly relocated to Istanbul.”

In 1993, after Heydar became the president of the Republic of Azerbaijan, he recalled his son to Baku and appointed him vice president of SOCAR, Azerbaijan’s state oil company. When Heydar was involved in a dispute with Western oil companies over Caspian oil rights, he spoke with the newly-inaugurated Pres. Bill Clinton who pressured the companies to accept Aliyev’s conditions. Ilham flew to Houston and signed the agreement which gave SOCAR 20% share in the new oil consortium. The remainder was divided among British Petroleum, Aramco, Russia’s Lukoil, Pennzoil, and others.

After his father’s death, Ilham became President of Azerbaijan in a controversial election in 2003. He purged the old guard of oligarchs and officials and jailed “hundreds of functionaries belonging to the main opposition party, the Popular Front of Azerbaijan.” Among those jailed were “hundreds of journalists, activists, and other opponents of the government from the last two decades. As of 2015, Azerbaijan had more than twice the number of political prisoners as Belarus and Russia combined.” Nevertheless, “Aliyev expected most corruption to flow through him and his family.”

In 1983, “Ilham married Mehriban Pashayeva, whose grandfather was a famous Azerbaijani writer that already had amassed enormous wealth. He expanded the already-large Pashayev fortune by giving family members positions in government, which they have exploited for personal gain.” Here are several examples: “Nargiz Pashayeva, Aliyev’s sister-in-law, is the rector of Moscow State University’s Baku branch. His father-in-law, Arif Pashayev, runs the national aviation academy. Arif’s brother, Hafiz Pashayev, is a deputy minister of foreign affairs and served as U.S. ambassador for over 13 years. And so on it goes — the Pashayevs are now Azerbaijan’s most wealthy family by far. Their conglomerate, PASHA Holdings, owns seven of the ten largest banks in Azerbaijan, along with interests in tourism and insurance.” In 2017, Pres. Aliyev appointed his wife as vice president of Azerbaijan to be his successor.

Aliyev has successfully silenced his foreign detractors “through intimidation and bribery. Azerbaijan manages a network of institutions whose purpose is to distribute funds throughout the West and ensure positive coverage in the media, allies in the business world, and defenders in politics. The network has been most active in Europe: in 2012, the European Sustainability Initiative used the term “caviar diplomacy” to describe Azerbaijan’s practice of bribing EU politicians. Doing state business in Azerbaijan is comfortable. The regime spends lavishly on hotel suites and dinners for its guests. Friendly journalists are offered access to Nagorno-Karabakh and other select locations. In 2017, Aliyev decided to give 255 loyal Azerbaijani journalists free apartments for their service to the regime.”

In 2017, the Global Anti-Corruption Consortium “revealed a scheme in which the Azerbaijani government laundered $2.9 billion through four shell companies in the UK…. According to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, other recipients included “at least three European politicians, a journalist who wrote stories friendly to the regime, and businessmen who praised the government…. In some cases, these prominent individuals were able to mobilize important international organizations, such as UNESCO and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, to score [public relations] victories for the regime.” The European Sustainability Initiative described the scheme as the ‘biggest corruption scandal in the history of the Council of Europe.’”

Journalist Depencier reported that British Petroleum “won the contract to operate the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. British mining giant Anglo American PLC has large investments in Azerbaijan and has benefited enormously from Azerbaijan’s victory in Nagorno-Karabakh, as mining sites were seized from the Armenians…. In 2021, it was revealed that Aliyev and his family had a secret real estate portfolio in London worth an astounding $694 million.” British politicians were also coopted. “British Member of Parliament Bob Blackman has taken seven free trips to Azerbaijan since 2011 worth tens of thousands of pounds.”

Azerbaijan has also cultivated a close relationship with Israel. “A 2012 Wikileaks report showed that Israel has secret bases in southern Azerbaijan near the Iranian border. The strengthening of ties between Israel and Azerbaijan was encouraged by the United States.” U.S. officials theorized that “the Israel-Turkey-Georgia-Azerbaijan axis, supported by the U.S., would be a counterweight to the Syria-Iran-Armenia-Russia axis. Israel supplies Azerbaijan with 69% of its imported weaponry, and Azerbaijan supplies Israel with 40% of its energy needs in return.”

Depencier concluded: “Aliyev rules like a de-facto monarch with unquestionable power. He “isn’t afraid of being called corrupt, tyrannical, or malevolent.”

Despite its military alliance with Armenia, Russia did not defend Armenia from Azerbaijan’s repeated attacks. Meanwhile, the West, seduced by Azerbaijan’s oil and gas, turned a deaf ear to Armenia’s plight.

Journalist Till Bruckner wrote a lengthy investigative article regarding Azerbaijan handing some of its vast petrodollars to politicians, businessmen, and universities around the world. Even prominent individuals and institutions prostitute themselves when a huge amount of money is thrown at them. Bruckner’s article, “Corruptistan Azerbaijan: How to Build Yourself a Stealth Lobbyist, Azerbaijani style,” was posted on the website of “Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.”

The article states: “The rise of Brenda Shaffer, a scholar and oft-quoted expert in the field of energy politics illustrates just how vulnerable the American foreign policy establishment is to manipulation by foreign agents. Supported by an overseas regime and an assorted network of overt and undercover lobbyists, she used oil money to build her academic credentials, then in turn used those credentials to promote Azerbaijan’s agendas through Congressional testimony, dozens of newspaper op-eds and media appearances, countless think tank events, and even scholarly publications. She’s still doing it.”

When testifying before the House of Representatives’ Committee on International Relations in 2001, Shaffer was introduced as “the director of the Caspian Studies Program and a post-doctoral fellow in the international security program at the Belfort [Belfer] Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.”

In her remarks, Shaffer asked Congress to repeal Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act that barred direct US aid to the government of Azerbaijan. Members of Congress did not know that “the Caspian Studies Program she headed at Harvard was set up in 1999 through a $1 million grant from the US Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce and a consortium of oil and gas companies led by Exxon, Mobil, and Chevron, all of which had commercial interests in the region. The chamber of commerce is a pro-Azerbaijan pressure group whose Board of Directors includes a vice president of SOCAR, the Azerbaijan state-owned energy company, and top lobbyists for BP and Chevron.”

The chamber issued a press release in 1999, stating that the Caspian Studies Program’s aim was to “help shape informed policy,” regarding Azerbaijan. The Kennedy School of Government, in its own press release, announced that Graham T. Allison, Director of Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Pres. Ilham Aliyev, then first vice president of Azerbaijan’s oil company, SOCAR, would speak at its inaugural conference.

In 2000, then-President Heydar Aliyev attended an Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce event, telling the guests: “I cheer the opening of a new chair at Harvard University relating to Azerbaijan and [the] Caspian area. I am thankful for the assistance of American-Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce rendered for it.” Allison, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School, was removed from the chamber’s Board of Trustees after OCCRP pointed out his name.

OCCRP repeatedly asked the chamber for a copy of its financial statements, however, the chamber did not provide them, which is illegal.

The chamber listed such prominent individuals as “Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, James A. Baker III, Brent Scowcroft and John Sununu” as members of its “Honorary Council of Advisors.”

Shaffer “led the Caspian Studies Program until 2005. During her tenure, she wrote 14 op-eds for leading US and Israeli newspapers including the International Herald Tribune and the Jerusalem Post. Most called on American policy makers to pay more attention to the region. One exhorted the US to stop funding for the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh.” In May 2006, journalist and lobbying expert Ken Silverstein wrote an article titled, “Academics for Hire,” in Harper’s Magazine, accusing prominent academics of performing “intellectual acrobatics on behalf of the [Caspian] region’s rulers.” He singled out Shaffer for especially harsh criticism.

Silverstein accused Harvard’s Caspian Studies Program of lacking “intellectual integrity,” highlighting its connection with Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce and specifically pointed out “Shaffer’s 2001 plea to Congress to repeal sanctions against Azerbaijan.”

Silverstein cautioned in his article: “Caspian watchers beware: the next time you see or hear an ‘independent’ American expert talking about how the region’s rulers are implementing bold reforms, check the expert’s credentials to see just how independent he or she truly is.”

Bruckner wrote: The following month, “the International Herald Tribune ran its third Shaffer op-ed, about ethnic Azerbaijanis and other minorities in Iran.” Since then, Silverstein outed her as an “academic for hire whose career was fueled by Azerbaijani lobbying outfits and Western oil companies invested in Azerbaijan.”

Bruckner complained to the editors of the New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Bloomberg, Foreign Affairs Journal, and Wall Street Journal for publishing Shaffer’s op-ed articles without disclosing her connections to Azerbaijan.

Shaffer also frequently participated in think tank panel discussions. Two days after Azerbaijan’s 2013 fraudulent presidential election, Shaffer spoke at Carnegie Endowment for International Affairs, praising the repressive country’s “vibrant press,” its fierce political debates, and its “realistic” voters!

“During December 2014 alone, Shaffer appeared on TV screens via Fox Business and Al Jazeera America, and commented on energy issues in print via the Jerusalem Post, London Times, The Australian, NPR, and Foreign Policy magazine. (Only weeks earlier, Foreign Policy itself had run a piece on Azerbaijan’s lobbying efforts by a different author that mentioned Shaffer’s SOCAR connection),” wrote Bruckner.

It is shameful that think tanks, universities, and politicians eagerly take the money offered to them by Azerbaijan, thereby encouraging the repressive regime to continue giving large sums to cover up its human rights violations.

Once again Armenians heard supportive words from the international community; this time from the United Nations Security Council.
The discussion in the UN Security Council served to influence world public opinion and internationalize the Artsakh issue, thus pressuring Azerbaijan to allow 120,000 Artsakh Armenians to have access to food, medical aid, and travel to Armenia through the Lachin Corridor.
Here are excerpts from the 2-hour long speeches by all 15 UN Security Council members on December 20, 2022:
The first speaker was Miroslav Jenča, UN’s Assistant Secretary-General. He stated that “Armenia and Azerbaijan have provided widely differing accounts of the situation and accused each other of violating the November 9, 2020 trilateral statement.”
The Deputy Representative of France, Nathalie Estival-Broadhurst, made a powerful statement saying that “restrictions on the free movement through the Corridor between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh are unacceptable. The direct consequence of blocking the Lachin Corridor is the isolation of the NK population. It has humanitarian consequences that are getting worse every day. France calls for the unconditional restoration of traffic along the Corridor and of supplies to Nagorno-Karabakh, while respecting the rights of the populations residing there.… France also notes that, as the Republic of Azerbaijan has undertaken, the safety of the movement of people, vehicles and goods along the Lachin Corridor in both directions be guaranteed.”
Mohamed Issa Abushahab, the Representative of the United Arab Emirates, urged both sides “to resolve their differences through peaceful and diplomatic means.”
Ferit Hoxha, the Representative of Albania, noted “the importance of ensuring freedom and security of movement along the Corridor.”
Geng Shuang, the Representative of China, stated that “the disputes surrounding the Lachin Corridor should be resolved through dialog and consultation.”
Robert A. Wood, the Alternate Representative of the United States, strongly urged “the government of Azerbaijan and others responsible for the Corridor’s security to restore free movement, including for humanitarian and commercial use, as soon as possible…. Any attempt to cut off services essential to the civilian population of Nagorno-Karabakh is unacceptable.”
Anna M. Evstigneeva, the Deputy Representative of the Russian Federation, stated that “the Corridor ensures a link between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia.” She admitted that “it is under the control of a Russian peacekeeping contingent, which remains a guarantor of stability in the region and is carrying out its objectives effectively.” She promised that a full transport Corridor will be restored “in the very near future.”
James Kariuki, the Deputy Representative of the United Kingdom, strongly urged “the immediate reopening of the Corridor. The Lachin Corridor is the only means by which daily necessities can be delivered to the region. The closure of the Corridor for over a week raises the potential for severe humanitarian consequences, especially in the winter. We also note with concern the civilians who have been stranded by the closure and urge that their unimpeded return is urgently prioritized.”
Ronaldo Costa Filho, the Representative of Brazil, expressed his serious concern that “any obstruction jeopardizes the well-being of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.”
Jayne Jepkorir Toroitich, the Representative of Kenya, voiced concern about “the ongoing blockade along the Lachin Corridor.” She called on both sides “to de-escalate current tensions and cooperate in ensuring freedom and security of movement along the Corridor.”
Juan Gomez Robledo Verduzco, the Representative of Mexico, stated that his country “is following with concern the tensions surrounding the situation in the Lachin Corridor and the potential humanitarian implications of traffic blockages.”
Mona Juul, the Representative of Norway, stated that “the blockage of the Corridor has already had severe humanitarian implications. Medical supplies and medical evacuations have been interrupted. As any disruptions to the supply of essential goods and services harm the most vulnerable groups first. This can and must be avoided.”
Khalilah Hackman, the Representative of Ghana, emphasized “the need to prioritize the humanitarian interests of civilian populations. Any real or perceived blockage of the Lachin Corridor must be addressed as a matter of urgency to ensure the interrupted and safe movement of all persons.”
Martin Gallagher, the Deputy Representative of Ireland, warned that “without the free movement of people, goods, food and medical supplies through this vital Corridor, the people of Nagorno Karabakh will surely face a humanitarian crisis this winter. As a Council we must do everything we can to avoid this and prevent another man-made catastrophe emerging on our watch. Ireland therefore calls on the Azerbaijani authorities to immediately and unconditionally restore freedom and security of movement along the Lachin Corridor…. Ireland supports a negotiated, comprehensive and sustainable settlement of the conflict, including on the long-term status of Nagorno-Karabakh.”
Edwige Koumby Missambo, the Representative of Gabon, expressed concern regarding “the closure of the Lachin Corridor, which could result in a humanitarian crisis. The right to move through the Corridor must be guaranteed.”
Ravindra Raguttahalli, the Deputy Representative of India, stated: “the reports regarding blockade of the Lachin Corridor indicate adverse implications on the supply of essential items such as food and medicine to Nagorno Karabakh. This is a matter of deep concern and has the potential to precipitate a humanitarian crisis.”
Mher Margaryan, the Representative of Armenia, warned that the blockade is “another demonstration of systematic violence used by the Azerbaijani authorities to subject the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to ethnic cleansing.” He urged the UN to apply “sanctions” against Azerbaijan.
The final speaker was Yashar T. Aliyev, the Representative of Azerbaijan. He repeated the usual lies of the government of Azerbaijan, denying that the Lachin Corridor is blocked.

Hiring of Two Retired U.S. Generals

The Washington Post published last week a lengthy investigative article titled: “Air Force feared generals’ foreign consulting jobs would cause scandal” by journalists Craig Whitlock and Nate Jones. The article disclosed Azerbaijan’s offer to hire two retired U.S. Air Force generals. The Post went to extensive legal battles with the U.S. Air Force to reveal the concealed details of this scandalous transaction.

Between 2016 and 2021, the Post submitted four Freedom of Information Act requests to the U.S. government seeking the documents in this matter. However, the Air Force either did not respond or claimed that it could not find any documents. Finally, the Post had to file a lawsuit in court which resulted in the judge ordering the Air Force to release 400 pages of internal documents revealing the details of these two generals’ attempts “to profit” from their previous military contacts with Azerbaijan and “Pentagon’s struggles to police such behavior,” according to the Post.

The Washington Post wrote that “during the height of war in Afghanistan, U.S. military leaders flocked to…Azerbaijan to embrace its president, Ilham Aliyev” who was compared by the U.S. Embassy in Baku to the “mafia boss in the ‘Godfather.’” The newspaper added: “Corruption flourished under the Aliyevs, with the CIA describing it as ‘pervasive’ and the State Department calling it ‘systemic.’” Nevertheless, the Pentagon persuaded Aliyev to open its airspace to U.S. and NATO military supplies to go to Afghanistan. “In exchange, U.S. officials promised a closer diplomatic partnership with Aliyev and steered $369 million in defense contracts to Silk Way Airlines, an Azerbaijan cargo carrier that U.S. investigators say was controlled by the government.”

“Two U.S Air Force generals — Duncan McNabb and William Fraser III — who oversaw the supply routes from 2008 and 2014, after retirement, tried to cash in on their Azerbaijan connections,” the Washington Post wrote. The United States Transportation Command (Transcom) “had awarded 2,230 cargo airlift missions to Silk Way during McNabb’s tenure, plus 1,117 missions while Fraser was in command, for a total cost of $369 million.” Upon retiring from active duty, the four-star generals negotiated valuable consulting deals with Silk Way Airlines.

McNabb told the Washington Post: “he once hosted a Silk Way executive for dinner at his home at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois.” After retiring from the Air Force in December 2011, “he said, officials with Silk Way Airlines contacted him about a possible business venture.”

The U.S. military routinely approves such jobs after retirement, however, it denied permission to General McNabb, because it had serious concerns that it would be “a potential embarrassment and a risk to national security…fearing that the consulting jobs would trigger a scandal” according to Air Force internal documents. General McNabb went to great lengths to fight the Air Force’s rejection of his job. According to a 2015 memo, General Fraser warned the U.S. military that “if the U.S. government prevented him from working for Silk Way, it would face ‘blow-back’ from Azerbaijan, and that Aliyev’s government might even block U.S. and NATO supply routes to Afghanistan in retaliation.”

Philip Deaver, a civilian Air Force lawyer, wrote in his objection that since the U.S. had given Silk Way Airlines $369 million, and since the two generals had managed the supply routes via Azerbaijan, it might look like McNabb and Fraser knew “that a perk of office is a lucrative advisory contract from Silk Way upon retirement.” McNabb said he had visited Azerbaijan five or six times.

General McNabb told the Washington Post, “he once hosted a Silk Way executive for dinner at his home at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois.” After retiring from the Air Force in December 2011, he said, “officials with Silk Way Airlines contacted him about a possible business venture. Silk Way wanted to modernize its operational control center at Heydar Aliyev International Airport in Baku. The firm invited McNabb to return to Azerbaijan in June 2013 for a visit and offered to hire him as an adviser.” That same month, “he set up a consulting firm, Ares Mobility Solutions, partnering with a retired Air Force colonel and a captain in the Navy Reserve who had worked in the airline industry. Ares signed a contract with Silk Way that paid a monthly retainer of $10,000 plus expenses, documents show. Under the deal, McNabb was expected to travel to Baku every three to five months to work for a few days at a time.”

After assuming his Air Force position at Transcom in 2011, General Fraser flew to Baku and met with Pres. Aliyev. “Over the next three years, Fraser met with Aliyev twice in Azerbaijan and once in New York, according to the Azerbaijan’s government.”

In April 2014, Azerbaijan’s ambassador to the United States, Elin Suleymanov, visited Scott Air Force Base in Illinois to tour Transcom headquarters. He told Fraser, who was nearing retirement, that “there are many opportunities for future military and commercial cooperation” between the United States and Azerbaijan, according to a U.S. military press release.

Within days of his retirement, Fraser received a job offer from Silk Way Group. Fraser sought in advance permission from the Air Force, stating that he “would be a consultant/advisor providing subject matter expertise” and would “help develop future business opportunities” for the pay of $5,000 a day. However, the Air Force rejected his request. Fraser submitted a second application which was also turned down. “Fraser did not mention in his application that his son, William Fraser IV, also worked in the aviation business in Azerbaijan,” the Washington Post wrote. His son, “a former U.S. Marine sergeant had taken a job two years earlier as an assistant to the president of Azerbaijan Airlines, the state-owned carrier, as a public relations and strategic communications specialist.”

U.S. federal law requires that military personnel, who served at least 20 years, obtain permission before they accept anything of value from a foreign government or companies controlled by foreign governments. When the Air Force found out that McNabb had not sought permission in advance of his work in Azerbaijan, his subsequent application was denied. He was told that he had violated U.S. law. “There is no criminal penalty for breaking the law, but the military can withhold retirement pay from those who do so. McNabb confirmed that the Defense Department docked his pension but declined to say how much,” the Post wrote.

By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com

The New York Times published on November 28, 2022, a shocking article by reporter Constant Méheut, titled: “A Paris Museum Has 18,000 Skulls. It’s Reluctant to Say Whose.”

The article reveals that the Musée de l’Homme (Museum of Mankind) in Paris, France, holds a “vast collection of human remains.” Stored in the basement of that museum are “18,000 skulls that include the remains of African tribal chiefs, Cambodian rebels and Indigenous people from Oceania. Many were gathered in France’s former colonies, and the collection also includes the skulls of more than 200 Native Americans, including from the Sioux and Navajo tribes. The remains, kept in cardboard boxes stored in metal racks, form one of the world’s largest human skull collections, spanning centuries and covering every corner of the earth.” Five of the skulls belong to Armenian Genocide victims. The museum has not made public the information about the identities of the 18,000 skulls, fearing restitution lawsuits.

I read the December 15, 2021 report of a French Senate Committee on its discussion of a proposed law about the fate of the remains at the museum. During that meeting, Sen. Catherine Morin-Desailly, co-author of the proposed law, stated: “amazingly, we find in our collections skulls dating from the Armenian Genocide.” Sen. Pierre Ouzoulias, another co-author of the proposed law, added: “I was overwhelmed learning that five Armenian skulls of victims of the Armenian Genocide, which were recovered in Deir-ez Zor [Syria], are still in the collections of the Museum of Mankind.”

Since New York Times reporter Méheut mentioned in his article that he had obtained confidential documents about the human remains in the museum, I wrote to him asking if these documents contained any details about the skulls of the five Armenian Genocide victims. He informed me that they were female skulls which were collected by Emmanuel Passemard, a French prehistory specialist, during his explorations in Syria in 1925-1926. The Bulletin of the French Prehistoric Society reported that Passemard gave a lecture at the Sorbonne University in Paris on February 16, 1927, during which he described his trip to the banks of the Euphrates River in Syria.

Méheut wrote in his article that “while France has led the way in Europe in investigating and returning colonial-era collections of artifacts — cultural objects, made by human hands — it has lagged behind its neighbors when it comes to remains.” The claimant of the remains has to prove an ancestral connection. However, “French legislation has made any return a cumbersome and time-consuming process.”

Méheut added: “As with other 19th-century museums, the Museum of Mankind was initially a repository for items gathered from around the world. The skulls were collected during archaeological digs and colonial campaigns, sometimes by soldiers who beheaded resistance fighters. Prized by researchers working in the now-debunked field of race science, the remains then fell into relative oblivion. In 1989, Philippe Mennecier, the curator [of the museum], put together the first electronic database of the collection. It enabled him to identify hundreds of what he called ‘potentially litigious’ skulls — remains of anticolonial fighters and Indigenous people, collected as war trophies or plundered by explorers — that could be claimed by people wishing to honor their ancestors.”

Christine Lefèvre, a top official at the Museum of Natural History, which oversees the Museum of Mankind, and Martin Friess, who is responsible for the museum’s modern anthropology collections, told Méheut the information was withheld because of privacy concerns, fear of controversy and because of uncertainties around some remains’ identities. “But several scholars and lawmakers said the museum’s stance stemmed from a greater concern: that transparency could open the floodgates for restitution claims,” Méheut wrote. “Over the past two decades, France has returned only about 50 sets of remains, including to South Africa, New Zealand and Algeria.”

Méheut explained that “to make matters more complicated, objects in public museum collections are the property of the French state and cannot change ownership unless the return is voted into law — a cumbersome process that has sometimes led France to lend remains instead of ceding possession. A representative for France’s culture ministry said officials were working on a sweeping law to regulate future returns of human remains.” The French government has yet to accept “a bill passed by the Senate in January that would remove the need for Parliament to approve every restitution.”

During the French Senate committee hearing, referring to the skulls of victims of the Armenian Genocide, Sen. Ouzoulias told his colleagues: “This is intolerable. We risk a major diplomatic conflict with certain countries when they become aware of the content of our collections. It is time to stop this. We can no longer live with corpses in our closets.”

Now that Armenians have learned about the storage of the skulls of five Armenian Genocide victims in a French museum, I suggest that the Armenian government, through its embassy in Paris, make an immediate request for the return of these skulls to Armenia to be buried near the Armenian Genocide Memorial complex in Yerevan. These victims deserve a respectful burial after being stored in a box in the basement of a French museum for a century.