Author: Harut Sassounian

This is the surprising story of Azerbaijan, a country that buys weapons from others for its own needs, selling tens of millions of dollars of weapons to a Central African country.

The article, titled “Congo-Brazzaville Strongman Buys Secret Weapons Haul from Azerbaijan,” was published by OCCRP (Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project) on February 22, 2021. It was written by Khadija Sharife and Mark Anderson. Congo-Brazzaville is another name for the Republic of Congo.

Here is the OCCRP’s summary of the key findings of the article:

“Since 2015, Congo-Brazzaville has bought a huge weapons stockpile from Azerbaijan, with over 500 tons of weapons delivered to the country in multiple shipments.

In January 2020, more than 100 tons of weaponry was sent from Azerbaijan to Congo-Brazzaville’s Republican Guard, including 775 mortar shells and over 400 cases of rockets designed to be launched out of trucks.

Opposition figures claim that previous shipments of weapons from Azerbaijan were used to fuel a brutal post-election offensive in 2016 that led to a humanitarian crisis.

Saudi Arabia was listed as a ‘sponsoring party’ in at least two arms consignments sent in 2016 and 2017, around the same time Congo-Brazzaville’s admittance to OPEC [Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries] was being negotiated.”

According to OCCRP, “in January 2020, at the Turkish port of Derince on the eastern shores of the Sea of Marmara, a huge cache of weapons was loaded onto the MV Storm. Registered in the tax haven of Vanuatu, the ship set sail with an arsenal of mortar shells, multiple launch rockets, and explosives, en route from Azerbaijan to the Republic of the Congo, better known as Congo-Brazzaville.”

The above summary raises several serious questions: Why was Azerbaijan shipping weapons to the Republic of Congo, when Baku itself needed weapons? Is it Azerbaijan or Turkey the real source of the weapons shipped to Congo? Why did Saudi Arabia sponsor two of the weapon shipments in 2016 and 2017, meaning that the Saudi government paid for the weapons? Why were the dictators of Azerbaijan and Turkey trying to support President Denis Sassou-Nguesso, the dictator of the Republic of Congo, who has been in power ever since 1997? What did Azerbaijan or Turkey get in return for the arms shipments?

In January 2020, over 100 tons of weapons worth tens of millions of dollars were shipped by Azerbaijan to the headquarters of Congo’s elite Republican Guard. This was the latest of at least 17 such shipments since 2015. In total, over 500 tons of weapons, including hand grenades, mortar systems, and millions of bullets were sent by Azerbaijan to Congo, according to OCCRP.

Opposition forces have claimed that these weapons are to be used by the President of Congo to maintain his rule by force in the March 21 presidential election. He recently had the constitution changed so he could be president for life!

How can a financially bankrupt country like Congo afford to buy such a large quantity of weapons? By funding two of the weapons shipments, Saudi Arabia wanted to extend its political influence over Congo.

The most recent shipment of weapons from Azerbaijan to Congo on January 2020 included 775 mortar shells and over 400 cases of rockets. They were transported from Baku to Turkey by a Bulgarian company and then loaded onto the ship MV Storm at Derince, a port managed by the Turkish government. An inside source confirmed that Congo bought the weapons at discount prices.

The Congolese government used the weapons from Azerbaijan against the opposition in a scorched earth strategy, according to the leader of a political party in Congo. Given the regime’s brutal human rights record, no European country would sell weapons to Congo. In the 2016 presidential election, the United States criticized the government of Congo for “widespread irregularities and the arrests of opposition supporters.” The presidential election this month is expected to be just as corrupt as the previous ones. “The government is carrying out a pre-election campaign of intimidation, harassment and arbitrary detention against its political opponents,” said a representative of Amnesty International.

The OCCRP reported that “the first shipments of arms arrived in Brazzaville on Azerbaijani Air Force planes, but starting in 2017 a private [Azeri] carrier, Silk Way Airlines, began flying the weapons instead. …Silk Way is registered in the British Virgin Islands, a tax haven, and was previously linked to the Aliyev family. As well as previously winning lucrative contracts with the U.S. government to move ammunition and other non-lethal materials, Silk Way was found, in leaked correspondence reported by Bulgarian newspaper Trud, to have used flights with diplomatic clearance to secretly move hundreds of tons of weapons around the world, including to global conflict zones, between 2014 and 2017.”

The opposition in Congo is concerned that the weapons from Azerbaijan will increase the prospect of violence around the elections. “We are worried that the weapons that Sassou-Nguesso’s regime bought from Azerbaijan could be used to crack down on the opposition during the upcoming election,” said an opposition leader.

The United Nations should launch an investigation into these secret weapons sales from Azerbaijan to the dictator of Congo to oppress the human rights of the local population and rig the presidential election once again!

As the situation in Armenia is getting more chaotic on a daily basis, baseless accusations are becoming a common practice. It is no longer possible to distinguish fact from fiction.

Sadly, words like ‘traitor’ and ‘bought by Turks or Azeris’ are being used by Armenians to accuse fellow Armenians without a shred of evidence. We have all heard multiple times that the territories around Artsakh were given up by the former presidents long before the war and that Armenian traitors helped the enemy by disclosing our military secrets or urged soldiers to stop fighting during the war. These accusations have been repeated so often that a lot of Armenians believe them to be true. Never mind that no evidence has been presented, tarnishing the reputations of those they disagree with. If there were so many traitors during the war, how come not one such traitor has been arrested and convicted for treason?  Normally, traitors during a war are immediately arrested, convicted and shot by a firing squad.

I do not believe that there are any traitors among us nor are there Armenians who sold their soul to the enemy for a handful of dollars. These are made up stories just because we disagree with each other. Regrettably, most Armenians do not know how to carry out a civilized conversation without insulting those they disagree with.

In this analysis, I will avoid using such terms as traitor and sold out, and stick as much as possible to the facts, no matter how difficult they are to discern.

One issue that keeps coming up is the fact that the presidents of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia seem to prefer Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan over the opposition. This does not mean that Pashinyan is a traitor or is working for the interests of Armenia’s enemies. I believe that Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia are siding with Pashinyan for two main reasons:

1)  All three realize that Pashinyan, defeated in the Artsakh war and having signed a capitulation document, is in no position to go against the wishes of Azerbaijan and Turkey, and especially Russia. Whereas, as a former member of the opposition, Pashinyan was totally anti-Russian, he changed his tune and supported all Russian initiatives even before the war. After the war, he is completely beholden to Putin and does not dare to deviate one bit from the Russian President’s directives. This became even more so after Pres. Putin repeatedly praised Pashinyan for signing the Nov. 10, 2020 trilateral agreement and abiding by its terms. Azerbaijan and Turkey are also satisfied that, after their defeat of Armenia, there is a leader like Pashinyan who is fully going along with the terms of the agreement.

2)  Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia also realize that should Pashinyan’s rule topple, his successor may not be as amenable to comply with the terms of the trilateral agreement. While a defeated country is in no position to contest these imposed terms, the fact that Pashinyan’s opponents are expressing their opposition to that agreement means that Azerbaijan, Turkey and Russia may have to deal with a new Armenian leader who will question the terms of the agreement that the three countries consider a fait accompli. So, Aliyev, Erdogan and Putin naturally prefer to deal with Pashinyan based on their own interests rather than because Pashinyan is their ‘agent.’ At best, we can say that Pashinyan is reluctantly going along with these three leaders. At worst, he truly believes that the ceasefire agreement is in the best interest of Armenia, paving the way to the lifting of blockaded transportation routes, thus potentially boosting Armenia’s economy.

We can be on different sides of the above analysis, but one thing is very clear. Pashinyan should not cross any red lines which are totally contrary to Armenia’s national interests. It is one thing to be obligated to go along with your enemies after your defeat, but it is a whole different thing to enthusiastically comply with their wishes, mistakenly believing that the enemy’s imposed actions are in Armenia’s own interest. Aliyev and Erdogan have repeatedly stated that they are willing to allow Armenia to use their transportation routes under certain conditions which were: 1) Return Artsakh territories to Azerbaijan (which has been mostly accomplished through the use of force), 2) Recognize the existing borders of the Republic of Turkey (no more territorial demands from Turkey), and 3) Discontinue the international pursuit of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. More recently, Aliyev added a new demand: signing a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan which means that Armenia will give up claiming Artsakh as an Armenian territory.

In my view, these Azeri and Turkish demands should be rejected by Armenia’s current leaders. These are red lines that no Armenian government should cross, depriving future Armenian generations of their right to pursue the nation’s just demands.

It remains to be seen if Armenia’s next leaders will be able to find a way to minimize the losses from the war. But one thing is certain: Pashinyan must resign immediately allowing a new and more competent leadership trying to manage the catastrophic situation Armenia finds itself in.

Words have meanings and consequences as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan found out when he told a journalist last week that the powerful Russian Iskander missiles, supposedly fired by Armenia during the Artsakh War last November, “did not explode or exploded 10%.” This surprising statement was in response to an interview by previous President Serzh Sargsyan in which he asked why Pashinyan had not ordered the use of the Iskander missiles during the early part of the Artsakh War.

Several days after the Prime Minister’s highly controversial statement, his spokeswoman announced that Pashinyan “was not briefed correctly regarding the Russian missiles.” But it was too late. The damage was done.

No one could have predicted the chain of unexpected events that followed Pashinyan’s words questioning the merits of the Iskander missiles that Russia had exported exclusively to Armenia. A large number of Russian military experts and political leaders reacted very harshly to Pashinyan’s statement viewing it as disparaging of the prized missiles of Russia and the prestige of its defense industry.

However, the reaction within Armenia was no less devastating. When First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces Tiran Khachatryan, a Lieutenant General, was asked to comment on Pashinyan’s statement about the Iskander missiles not exploding, he responded with a chuckle that it was not possible and not serious.

Upon hearing of this slight, Prime Minister Pashinyan immediately ordered the firing of the Deputy General Staff. His dismissal was endorsed by Pres. Armen Sarkissian, according to the process outlined in the constitution. The Prime Minister had surely overreacted to Khachatryan’s snub, particularly since Pashinyan himself had appointed him in June 2020 and awarded him the prestigious “National Hero” medal for his outstanding role during the Artsakh War.

In retaliation, dozens of top Armenian military leaders released a joint statement on Feb. 25, 2021, demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister and his government. The statement was signed by Onik Gasparyan, Chief of the General Staff and 40 other high-ranking military Officers, including 17 generals and Commanders of all five Army Corps. Later, several other military and police officials added their signatures.

The military’s statement expressed its “resolute protest” against the “short-sighted and baseless” dismissal of the First Deputy Chief of the General Staff “without taking into account the national and state interests of the Republic of Armenia, solely based on personal and pretentious sentiments.” The statement added that “in such difficult conditions for the country, such a decision is an anti-state and irresponsible step. The Prime Minister and his government are no longer able to make adequate decisions in this critical and fateful situation for the Armenian people. The Armed Forces, for a long time, patiently tolerated the ‘attacks’ by the incumbent authorities to discredit the Armed Forces, but everything has its limits…. The current authorities’ unproductive governing and the most serious errors exhibited in foreign policy have brought the country to the brink of collapse. Based on the created situation, the Armed Forces demand the resignation of the Prime Minister and the government….”

Pashinyan immediately announced on his Facebook page the firing of the Chief of the General Staff. The Prime Minister called the military’s statement “an attempted military coup,” urging his supporters to gather at the Republic Square where he joined them and marched in Yerevan streets holding a megaphone. This was a highly irresponsible act on the part of Pashinyan, venturing to the streets during what he described as an attempted military coup, which could have led to tragic consequences for the country had anyone harmed him.

After Pashinyan ordered the firing of Onig Gasparyan, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Pres. Sarkissian, having consulting all sides of the political spectrum, refused to sign the Prime Minister’s order, calling it unconstitutional. The Prime Minister then submitted a second dismissal request to the President. Should the President refuse to sign the order for a second time, then the issue will be submitted to the constitutional court for its final decision. It is curious as to why the President endorsed the Prime Minister’s earlier order to sack the First Deputy of the General Staff but refused to sign the order to dismiss the Chief of the General Staff. After all, the First Deputy Chief of the General Staff’s wrongdoing was simply chuckling at the Prime Minister’s statement about the Russian missiles, whereas his boss, the Chief of the General Staff, demanded the Prime Minister’s resignation.

In the meantime, the Armenian military took no further steps beyond its call for the resignation of the Prime Minister which the Prime Minister wrongly described as an attempted coup. However, the statement could be viewed as interference in political affairs which violates the constitution. It is clear that the military’s intent is having the Prime Minister resign without taking any military actions.

Turning to the unconstitutionality of the military’s statement, there are counter points to this argument. The military stated that they could no longer remain quiet while the country is on the brink of collapse. The national interest of Armenia has to be of paramount importance. After all, the military is the guardian of the nation’s security. Furthermore, Pashinyan and his supporters cannot all of a sudden claim to be defenders of the constitution, when they have been violating many of its provisions in the past three years. The Prime Minister has repeatedly pressured the courts and has stacked the Constitutional Court with his allies to get verdicts desired by the government. Pashinyan and his supporters similarly pressured Pres. Sarkissian to force him to sign the Prime Minister’s order. Ironically, the democratic principles endorsed by Pashinyan when coming to power have dissipated turning the country into a one-man rule, a dictatorship. Given the Prime Minister’s partisans’ overwhelming majority in Parliament, other voices have been mostly muzzled. All suggestions to form a government of competent experts have been ignored, leaving Pashinyan with a mediocre and incompetent cadre of officials and advisors.

Pashinyan’s only important attribute is that he is not corrupt — which is very positive, but that alone is not enough to lead the state through such turbulent waters. After all, Armenians are not looking for a saint, but a competent leader who can solve the country’s complex problems.

Furthermore, Pashinyan and his followers did not always practice what they are preaching now. Back in 2018, when there were widespread street protests by Pashinyan and his supporters, a large number of Armenian soldiers illegally left their barracks and marched with the demonstrators. Even though this was a violation of military rules and interference in politics, Pashinyan did not take any action against these soldiers. In a similar situation occurred in 1998, when Defense Minister Vazgen Sargsyan forced then President Levon Ter-Petrosyan to resign. No one complained that it was unconstitutional.

Shortly after this new crisis in Armenia, leaders in Azerbaijan and Turkey issued self-serving statements on the situation in Armenia. In my opinion, both of these countries, led by dictators, are in no position to comment on developments in Armenia, let alone give Armenians lectures about democracy. They should look at themselves in the mirror and keep their mouths shut.

Having suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of our enemies in the Artsakh War, Armenians cannot afford now to attack each other. We need to place the national interest above all else. Having lost most of Artsakh and thousands of soldiers, let’s not risk losing Armenia itself.

Pashinyan, the leader of the ‘Velvet Revolution,’ should not have told his followers last week that there will be no more ‘velvet’ which could be interpreted as a threat to anyone who disagrees with him. Should the military also adopt a no velvet approach, the outcome would be tragic for the entire Armenian nation. The best solution would be for the Prime Minister, having lost territories and thousands of soldiers, to resign by his own volition without facing any threats or protests. Otherwise, having demanded Pashinyan’s resignation, the military leaders may carry out their demand by force, to ensure that they themselves are not arrested. Such a group arrest would deprive Armenia of its entire military leadership. Months from now, under calmer conditions, new parliamentary elections should take place with a clean slate, hopefully excluding Pashinyan and the other former leaders. The people have the right to decide by a majority vote who their new leader should be.

Ever since Pres. Joe Biden’s election last November, hundreds of articles have been published around the world analyzing the problematic relations between Turkey and the United States. Pres. Biden has made no secret of his dislike, if not outright hostility, toward Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The main points of contention between the United States and Turkey are as follows:

1)    U.S. support for Kurdish allies in Syria which Turkey considers terrorists;

2)    Turkey’s purchase of S-400 Russian missiles which could expose NATO’s military technology to Moscow. As a result, the United States cancelled the sale of advanced F-35 jets and imposed sanctions on Turkey;

3)    U.S. refusal to extradite the Turkish cleric Fethullah Gulen whom Turkey falsely accuses of inciting the coup d’état against Erdogan in 2016;

4)    Turkey’s abysmal record on human rights with the jailing of thousands of innocent civilians, journalists and judges on trumped up charges which Pres. Biden finds unacceptable.

Pres. Erdogan is following the strategy practiced by the Ottoman Empire of manipulating rival European powers against each other, by switching sides and changing partners. For example, he has declared himself to be the defender of all Muslims and particularly Palestinians, while engaging in a military partnership with Israel until recently. Another example is Turkey’s membership in the Western military alliance of NATO, while purchasing billions of dollars of sophisticated Russian missiles which are incompatible with NATO and U.S. weapons. At the same time, Erdogan is cozying up to Russia while involved in a military conflict with Russia in Syria and Libya. Turkey and Russia, two normally antagonistic countries, have also managed to find a modus vivendi in the Artsakh conflict.

The souring of relations between the U.S. and Turkey dates back to the time of Obama’s presidency, during which Biden served as Vice President. Erdogan was annoyed with Obama after an initial friendship. However, the Turkish leader developed a privileged relationship with the United States after Donald Trump became President. It is still unclear what prompted such a warm personal affection between the two. Was it Trump’s financial interests in Turkey or his bizarre fondness for tyrants around the world? We may never know.

Nevertheless, Biden fired the first shot in a December 2019 interview with the New York Times in which he called Erdogan an ‘autocrat’ and stated that the United States should support Turkish opposition leaders “to be able to take on and defeat Erdogan. Not by a coup, but by the electoral process.”

The next awkward situation arose when Erdogan congratulated Biden a few days after the November election. Four months later, Biden has still not contacted Erdogan even though he has called many other world leaders. Erdogan must be deeply offended by this diplomatic snub.

The first indication of the Biden administration’s tough policy on Turkey became evident on January 19, 2021, during Blinken’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearing, when he pointedly called Turkey a “so-called strategic partner” and raised the possibility of imposing more sanctions on that country. “The idea that a strategic — so-called strategic partner of ours — would actually be in line with one of our biggest strategic competitors in Russia is not acceptable,” Blinken said. “I think we need to take a look to see the impact that the existing sanctions have had and then determine whether more needs to be done.”

Blinken’s critical comments on Turkey were later reaffirmed by US national security advisor Jake Sullivan who described Turkey as “an ally that in many ways… is not acting as an ally and this is a very, very significant challenge for us and we’re very clear-eyed about it.” Sullivan placed Turkey in the same category as China.

On Feb. 5, 2021, the Pentagon confirmed that the Biden administration has no intention to lift the sanctions on Turkey for purchasing the Russian missiles. Turkey’s “decision to purchase the S-400 is inconsistent with Turkey’s commitments as a U.S. and NATO ally,” Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said. “Our position has not changed…. We urge Turkey not to retain the S-400 system…. Turkey had multiple opportunities over the last decade to purchase the Patriot defense system from the United States and instead chose to purchase the S-400, which provides Russia revenue, access and influence,” Kirby said.

To make matters worse, Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soslu repeated in early February the baseless accusation that the United States was behind the abortive Turkish coup in 2016. State Department spokesman Ned Price issued a sharp rebuke, calling the allegations made by the Turkish Minister as “wholly false.” They “are inconsistent with Turkey’s status as a NATO ally and strategic partner of the United States,” added Price.

Another contentious issue is the in absentia Turkish trial of American professor Henri Barkey of Lehigh University on false charges of aiding the 2016 coup. The US State Department called the accusations against Prof. Barkey baseless.

On Feb. 10, 2021, the U.S. State Department called on Turkey to immediately release from jail Turkish philanthropist and human rights activist Osman Kavala who has been detained for more than three years without a conviction. Kavala was falsely accused of trying to overthrow the Turkish government with Prof. Barkey during the 2016 failed coup. The State Dept. urged Turkey to comply with a European Court of Human Rights ruling in late 2019 that Kavala be released.

On February 15, 2021, when Blinken finally called Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, he urged Turkey not to retain the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system.

Last December, when the United States placed sanctions against Turkey for the purchase of the Russian missiles, the Turkish Foreign Ministry arrogantly warned: “Turkey will take the necessary steps against this decision, which will negatively affect our relations and will retaliate in a manner and timing it deems appropriate.”

Turkey is still attempting to find a way to circumvent the U.S. sanctions. On February 1, 2021, it hired Arnold & Porter, a major American lobbying firm in Washington, D.C., to resolve the dispute with the U.S. government over the Russian missiles. The contract was signed with the Ankara-based SSTEK Defense Industry Technologies, owned by the Presidency of Defense Industries (SSB), Ankara’s main defense industry authority. SSTEK agreed to pay Arnold & Porter $750,000 for the six months to give Turkey “strategic advice and outreach” to U.S. authorities.

It is highly doubtful that Turkey will be able to resolve the dispute regarding the Russian missiles through its hired lobbyist. Interestingly, the contract with SSTEK specified that Arnold & Porter “does not make any promises or guarantees” about the outcome. “If the matter does not reach a successful conclusion, for any reason, SSTEK shall still be responsible for all fees and disbursements charged by the firm under the terms of this agreement.” It is noteworthy that at a time when the Turkish economy is on the verge of collapse and the Turkish people are in dire financial straits, Pres. Erdogan is wasting $750,000 of Turkish taxpayers’ money on useless lobbying.

It remains to be seen if Turkey’s tightrope walking skills will succeed to maintain the Russian missiles and evade the U.S. sanctions. Should Turkey be forced to get rid of the missiles, it will have to face the consequences of a major disruption in its relations with Russia. Turkey will then have to choose either the East or the West. It will no longer be able to fool both sides. Biden and Blinken are too experienced to fall for Erdogan’s tricks.

The title of a recent article by journalist Nicholas Morgan describes best the state of U.S.-Turkish relations: “Is Turkey Biden’s Ally from Hell?” We will find out shortly.

The California Courier

Neither Armenia’s previous nor current leaders have had the adequate experience to run a country. This is true in both domestic and foreign policies. In order to rectify this undesirable situation, some have suggested finding the pertinent experts who would advise Armenia’s leaders. Regrettably, all such efforts have failed for the simple reason that before the experts could be helpful; the leaders have to be willing to listen to their advice. My long experience in dealing with Armenia’s leaders has shown that they think they know everything and have no need to learn from anyone. This is one reason why the Republic of Armenia has been mismanaged for 30 years. It is understandable that a leader does not have to be knowledgeable about every issue. That is why he or she has advisors. But when the advisors know even less than their leader, as is the case in Armenia, the situation becomes hopeless.

I have written this lengthy introduction to make the point that in addition to not knowing much and not listening to advice, Armenia’s leaders refuse to learn from their past mistakes which is the reason why they repeat them.

One such example is the current discussion in Armenia and Turkey about the possible opening of the Armenian-Turkish border, closed by Turkey since 1993. Last week, Armenia’s Foreign Minister Ara Aivazyan told the members of Parliament: “There is no longer a reason [for Turkey] to close the border with Armenia. For long years, Turkey blockaded Armenia’s border, demanding a change in the status quo of the Artsakh conflict. The status quo has been changed through the use of force.” The Foreign Minister assured the Parliament that currently no activities have been initiated in that regard.

The Armenian Foreign Minister’s statement comes on the heels of recent expressions by the President and Foreign Minister of Turkey of their willingness to open the border with Armenia, should the latter meet certain conditions. In the past, Turkey’s reason for closing the border was Armenia’s refusal to free “Azerbaijan’s occupied territories.” Therefore, one would think that now that Azerbaijan has forcefully occupied most of these territories, the problem is solved and Turkey will open the border. However, let us remember that Turkey had two additional conditions to open Armenia’s border:

1) Armenia must abandon its pursuit of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide;

2) Armenia must recognize Turkey’s current borders and not make any territorial demands.

We all recall that back in 2009 after Armenia and Turkey signed the Protocols to open their mutual border, Turkey made the additional demands from Armenia. When Armenia refused to accept these new conditions, Turkey decided not to ratify the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, after coming under intense pressure from Azerbaijan.

At the time, there was a major outcry from the Diaspora and many within Armenia that the Protocols were not in Armenia’s interests. Nevertheless, President Serzh Sargsyan persisted in his misguided approach, until Turkey gave up on the Protocols, inadvertently saving Armenia’s interests.

The other major harmful effect of the Protocols was that it undermined the pledge that Pres. Barack Obama had made to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide on April 24, 2009.

The Protocols were a clever Turkish ploy to derail the acknowledgment of Armenian Genocide by the President of the United States. The Turkish leaders, with the collaboration of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, repeatedly told Pres. Obama not issue a statement recognizing the Armenian Genocide at a time when Armenia and Turkey were engaged in serious negotiations on normalizing their relations. They succeeded in convincing Pres. Obama that using the term Armenian Genocide would disrupt these negotiations. As a result, instead of keeping his campaign pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide, Pres. Obama stated on April 24, 2009: “I also strongly support the efforts by Turkey and Armenia to normalize their bilateral relations. Under Swiss auspices, the two governments have agreed on a framework and roadmap for normalization. I commend this progress, and urge them to fulfill its promise.”

It is true that Pres. Obama failed to keep his campaign promise, but Armenia’s leaders are the ones who gave him the perfect excuse to hide behind the charade of the Protocols. Consequently, Armenians lost both the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by the President of the United States and the opening of the border.

Regrettably, the same scenario is about to repeat again this year. Pres. Joe Biden made a campaign promise to recognize the Armenian Genocide. It should be much easier for him to take such a step now, since both the House of Representatives (almost unanimously) and the U.S. Senate (unanimously) acknowledged the Armenian Genocide in 2019. While it is not certain that Pres. Biden will keep his promise, we should not give him the excuse not to do so.

If the past is any indication, this is the exact ploy that Turkey is plotting now. We know that the Biden Administration has a much harsher position vis-à-vis Pres. Erdogan and Turkey. There are several disputes between the United States and Turkey that will be difficult to overcome. Knowing this well, Pres. Erdogan has started in recent weeks to take steps to reconcile with Israel, Greece and Saudi Arabia in order to ingratiate himself to Pres. Biden. Pres. Erdogan’s suggestion to open the border with Armenia is a part of this overall Turkish strategy.

In the aftermath of the disastrous Artsakh War, Armenia’s leaders cannot afford to make more miscalculations. While most of Artsakh and its surrounding territories are already lost, I hope the Armenian Government does not make the mistake of providing an excuse for the Biden Administration not to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Even more importantly, Armenia’s leaders should not take the unthinkable step of pledging not to pursue the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide and acknowledge the current borders of Turkey. Such an acceptance would damage Armenia’s interests forever. How could Armenia agree to such Turkish suggestions in the aftermath of the vicious role played by Turkey in the recent Artsakh War, which resulted in the killing and maiming of thousands of Armenian soldiers and the occupation of Armenian territories? The wounds are too fresh to contemplate any attempt to normalize relations with Turkey.

Armenia’s inexperienced leaders can find themselves in an untenable situation if Turkey decides unilaterally to open its border, while Armenia refuses to do so; giving Turkey accolades and making Armenia seem obstructionist in the eyes of the international community. Armenia’s situation will be further complicated should Turkey open its border, whereas the Armenian Government just banned the import of Turkish products for six months or longer. Should the border open and Armenia allow the import of Turkish products, the Armenian market would be flooded with cheaper Turkish products, adversely affecting local manufacturers. One possible solution would be for Armenia, instead of outright banning Turkish imports, to place such an exorbitant tariff on them, making them practically unsaleable in the country. By avoiding the ban, Armenia would not look bad in the eyes of the world, while generating much needed revenue for the Armenian Government, should anyone import Turkish goods.

In the meantime, Armenia should put its own conditions on Turkey before agreeing to open its border, such as Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide and compensation for the Armenian losses. Such a move would contradict the positions of both Pres. Serzh Sargsyan and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan who have expressed their readiness to have Armenia ratify the ill-fated Protocols and open the border with Turkey, without any preconditions!

After ruling Armenia as Prime Minister for almost three years and most importantly during the country’s recent disastrous defeat in the Artsakh War, Nikol Pashinyan keeps making mistake after mistake and misstatement after misstatement.

As I have written before, regrettably Pashinyan is not competent to lead Armenia. He is more of a protester and a critic who does not possess the necessary skills and experience to be the head of state. The Artsakh War made the situation in the country even worse and exposed Pashinyan’s inability to manage the plethora of Armenia’s problems.

Armenians around the world had high hopes that, after getting rid of the previous regime, Pashinyan would be able to lead Armenia into prosperity and a degree a normalcy. The overwhelming majority of Armenians supported him due to their complete hostility to the former government.

Unfortunately, it turned out that Pashinyan was all talk and no action. In addition to his lack of experience, he surrounded himself with advisors and ministers who knew even less than he did. As a result, neither he nor his government had the slightest chance to be successful. The Artsakh War made matters worse. As the Commander-in-Chief, he made error after error leading Armenia and Artsakh to an indescribable disaster from which we will not recover for decades, if ever. Pashinyan now insists that he should remain in power to correct the grave problems of the country. One would be extremely naïve to believe in such a promise. A leader who is incompetent to lead in peace time and utterly fails during the war is in no position to correct anything. He has made matters worse with his misstatements and erroneous policies.

Several weeks ago, while addressing the Parliament, Pashinyan angered many Armenians by describing as “unfortunate and pale” the historic Armenian city of Shushi in Artsakh. There was no reason to use such negative adjectives to describe a city which is the pride of all Armenians.

More recently, during another appearance in Parliament, in response to a question from a deputy about Shushi, Pashinyan made matters worse for himself, when he said: “Shushi before the conflict and the liberation [in 1992], had an Azeri population of 90 and more percent. In other words, you mean to say that the city of Shushi with an Azeri population of 90 and more percent is Armenian with that status?”

A huge outcry erupted among Armenians around the world after Pashinyan’s unfortunate words. This was yet another self-inflicted wound. A few days later, during Pashinyan’s visit to Yeraplour, the cemetery where fallen Armenian soldiers are buried, when a journalist questioned him about his statement in Parliament on Shushi, he said that he would give an answer if the reporter put her question in writing. The following day, the journalist wrote Pashinyan’s words on a large placard and read them aloud, while standing in front of the Prime Minister’s building. Even though one of Pashinyan’s supporters attacked the journalist and tore up her placard, the Prime Minister kept his word and on his Facebook page addressed the controversy during a live video.

In his response, Pashinyan first accused the media of manipulating his words. He repeated that in the early 1990’s Azeris consisted of over 90% or rather 96% of Shushi residents. He went on to state: “How Shushi could be considered under Armenian control by its status when 96% of the population was Azerbaijani?” Pashinyan then mentioned the offer by Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev on October 19, 2020, several weeks before the end of the war, to accept Armenia’s demand for a ceasefire on condition that Armenians allow the return of the former Azeri residents to Shushi, under Armenian rule.

Pashinyan made several errors in his original statement and subsequent failed attempt to set the record straight. Actually, he had no reason to go into such a convoluted and false argument. He had just to say that he rejected Aliyev’s offer because allowing Azeris to return to Shushi under Armenian control was unacceptable to him and most Armenians. In fact, that’s exactly what Pashinyan told the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, when the latter relayed to him Aliyev’s offer. Had Pashinyan limited his remarks to that fact, there would have been no outcry in the Armenian world. There was no reason to say that Shushi was mostly populated by Azeris prior to 1992, causing such a controversy at a time when his power is waning and he is criticized by a lot of Armenians, including many of his former supporters.

By mentioning the high percentage of Azeris living in Shushi in the past, Pashinyan made several mistakes:

First of all, regardless of the number of Azeris who lived in Shushi, it is a well-known fact that it has been an Armenian city for centuries long before Azerbaijan existed. In 1920, after Azeris massacred thousands of Armenians in Shushi and pursued a policy to depopulate the city’s Armenians, their numbers were diminished considerably. But Pashinyan provided no such background in his misleading statement.

Secondly, Pashinyan was wrong to judge whether an area is Armenian or not by its population at a particular time. For example, there are hardly any Armenians now living in Nakhichevan or Western Armenia, but Armenians still consider these territories to be a part of historic Armenia.

Thirdly, it is understandable that accepting Aliyev’s offer to allow former Azeri residents to return to Shushi, under Armenian control, was a hard pill to swallow for Pashinyan and most Armenians, there is an important issue to consider. How many Azeris would have returned to Shushi to live under Armenian rule? Very few, if any. Pashinyan’s implication that thousands of Azeris would have returned to Shushi, making the city’s population again 96% Azeri was totally unrealistic. No Azeri would have wanted to live in Shushi under Armenian rule, just like no Armenian would risk living in territories controlled by Azerbaijan.

Finally, Pashinyan’s refusal to accept Aliyev’s offer on October 19, 2020, meant that the war was prolonged until November 9, 2020, causing the loss of much more Armenian territories to Azerbaijan. Furthermore, Azeris took over Shushi completely and many more young Armenian soldiers were killed or wounded. The consequences of Pashinyan’s faulty decisions during the war were far worse than his misstatement in Parliament and his subsequent lame effort to correct himself.

The Prime Minister should realize that the longer he clings to power, the more he destabilizes the country. A defeated and incompetent leader cannot improve the tragic situation in the country. The sooner he leaves, the faster a new government can take over and try to reduce the damages suffered by Armenia and Artsakh.