Marasmus of former Armenian ambassador Ara Papyan - UPDATED

 - Dear Vuqar Seidov!

I would like to explain you the "nonsense" of Ara Papyan regarding some "resolution of the Assembly of the League of Nations of 1920. It is the Sevres peace treaty- one of the contracts of the Versaille-Washingon system, whose creation marked the end of the First World War. It was signed by Antanta countries and the states, joininh them (Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Belgium, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Kingdom of Serbians, Croatians and Slovenians, Hijaz, Czechoslovakia and Dashnak Armenia) on the one side and Sultan Turkey on the other in Serves (France) on August 10 of 1920. Do not hesitate to read it, since you can do it in a minute through Internet. Not only professional diplomats but also professional journalists. I would quote only a part of this contract which says that Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan should establish their borders by way of direct talks with each others or when inpossible attain agreement through mediation of ally states.

I hope you have understood everything.

Marina

* * * * *

* * * * *

Dear Marina

Thank you for the letter. I know the Sevres treaty almost by heart and there is no need to search it in the internet. The strange is that ambassador Ara Papyan, speaking vaguely about some agreements, do not mention the name of this famous international treaty of the Versaille-Washington system. If you give an intervew or speak at some scientific conferences and "round tables" you should call things by their names. The Sevres treaty of 1920 is a document, which has become a common concept and there is no need to speak about it vaguely. The fact that Papyan did not call the Sevres treaty causes serious discomfort for opponents and make them doubt the familiarization with almost all international treates of that time. Perhaps, he chose the tactics on purpose to mislead the opponent and get the statement reach the subconscience of a reader.

Meanwhile, if mr. Papyan said "the Sevres Treaty", he would have facilitated my work in particular, as it is difficult to find a more unwise substantiation of his position and more hopeless choise of his country of a legal document to form a base for resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh.

I would like to remind you that the Sevres treaty, in line with which Turkey was divided and its territories transferred to other states, did not come to effect on a number of reasons. First of all, one of the conditions for the contract's coming to effect was its ratification of all the parties within 6 months (article 260 of the Contract) and the Great National Assembly of Turkey rejected to ratify it, though the delegation of Sultan signed it in Sevres. The new government of Turkey, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal attacked Armenian, Greek, British, French and Italian forces and suppressed the resistance of Kurds, thus, bringing its territory almost to the present-day borders. Turkey and Antanta countries signed a new agreement almost annulling all previous agreements, including the Sevres treaty, on October 11 of 1922. The contract, you have mentioned and which Ara Papyan doehesitates to mention, has never come in power de-facto and became invalid de jure after review of its conditions at the Lozanna conference of 1923 and signing of Losanna peace treaty between France, Great Britain, Italy,Japan, Greece, Romania, Kingdom of Serbians, Croatians and Slovenians on the one hand and Turkey on the other hand. Thus the Losanna peace treaty buried its ancestor (the Sevres treaty).

You may ask, where is Armenia? As for borders in the South Caucasus, I want to remind you and Papyan about signing of another contract, annuling the Sevres treaty. This is the Karstreaty of 1921, signed, by the way, by the government of Armenia. In line with the Kars treaty, which is effective at present, the border between Turkey and Armenia was established in the form, we see at the present moment and Nakhchivan has been recognized a part of Azerbaijan. Turkey and Russia became the guarantors of today's status of Nakhchivan and for its transfer from Azerbaijan to Armenia, formal agreement of these two states should be received, which is not too easy, by the way. To inform you, Armenia's adherence to the regulations of the Kars treaty of 1921 was fixed in by former Foreign Minister of Armenia and chief of ambassador Ara Papyan in the Foreign Ministry of Armenia Vardan Oskanyan during the speech in the Central European University in autumn of 2007. It is surprising that the Armenian Foreign Minister sees one treaty as a basic international document and his subsidiaries another. Though it would be better not to comment on the internal discipline and professionalism of Armenian Foreign Ministry's officials.

Another fact is curious. Referring to "decisions" of the Assembly of League of Nations (not being ashamed to name the currently unpopular Sevres treaty), the Armenian diplomat does not miss the opportunity to falsify the regulation of this ineffective document. In particular, he states that "in line with this document Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia were to coordinate issues of borders between each others, otherwise, the said issue should be settled by the Council of League of Nations, based on the national composition of the residents of definite areas". What I have mentioned in a bold type is a wheeze of Mr.Papyan. The ineffective Sevres contract has never contained a work, attributing the following to the main ally states (Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan): to define borders in the South Caucasus considering the ethnic composition of any regions. Article 92 of the contract says the following: "borders between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia shall be defined on the basis of a direct agreement between these states. In case these countries fail to reach an agreement on borders by the day of adoption of a resolution (by the US President) on issues, fixed in article 89 (article 89 states the need to transfer the issue on establishment of a border between Turkey and Armenia in the vilayets of Erzerum, Trabzon, Van and Bitlis) for arbitrary considering by the US President, the borders in the disputable places will be defined by main ally states". Papyan's attempt to introduce amendments to the to the abortive contract cases light irony and reminds of the sad history of andonyan falsifications.

Moreover, article 93, which binds Armenia to treat respectively (literally "protect") national minorities in its territory, is curious, as well. Everyone is well aware of how Armenia has fulfilled its commitments- since that Papyan's country has done a lot for Armenia not to have a single Azerbaijani in its territory.

Nevertheess, Papyan's initiative to reanimate the abortive Sevres treaty is as ridiculous, as would be Stocholm's proposal to review the Russian-Swedish border (by the way, currently not existing) on the basis of the Pluss treaty of 1583 and raise the issue in the UN Security Council, or the same would be restoration of the Greek-Persian border on the basis of peace treaty of 387 B.C. It is really difficult to comment the external policy initiatives of A|ra Papyan, I have called the marasmus in my article.

Hope, you have also got everything.

Sincerely,

Vuqar Seidov

---------------------

This week former Armenian ambassador to Canada (2001-2006), currently independent expert Ara Papyan made a statement, recognizing the fact of legal defeat of Armenia in the process of peaceful resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno Karabakh.

Putting legal and political factors on quite different scales, the political scientist was obliged to admit that "despite political factor is strong, the process will eventually base on legal norms" and in the sense of international law his country is losing to Azerbaijan and Turkey. Paraphrasing Papyan, international law is on Azerbaijani side in the Nagorno Karabakh issue, no matter how hard Armenia tries to politicize the topic and bound its settlement with political process.

Here, the reasonable part of the former ambassador's statement ends and is followed by nonsense, which can only raise doubts about professionalism of the former "diplomat". How else can we call the external political initiatives of a person, which would astonish any professor of international relations in even unpopular university of scientific center of the world (perhaps, except for Papyan's native country) not speaking of diplomatic circles? Particularly, in a desperate attempt to oppose the legal advantage of Azerbaijan the former ambassador spoke for adoption as a basis legal document for the resolution of the conflict, some "resolution" of the League of National Assembly of 1920. according to which the three South Caucasus states must coordinate issues of borders between each others, otherwise, accept the decision, which would be adopted for them by the Council of League of Nations, based on the national composition of the residents of definite areas.

Without making an effort to present any reference to this mysteriour document (which is not merely a document but Armenian counterbalance to UN Charter of 1945 and Helsinki Final Act of 1975) of the organization, which was dismissed long ago and demonstrated its helplessness before war, the former ambassador is going deeper into diplomacy and proposes to transfer the resolution of Nagorno Karabakh conflict to the UN Security Council (!). At the same time the high ranking Armenian diplomat without wasting time, prompts to the permanent members of the Security Council the way they should approach the problem resolution - "consider demographic data of 1920, but not modern, subjected to modificaiton in the result of illegal actions of Azerbaijan in driving aboriginal Armenian population out of Nagorno Karabakh".

The marasmus is reaching its pick when the former Armenian ambassador suggests to fila a claim against... members of the UN Security Council for their "failure to fulfill their own decisions". Papyan argues the need for such a claim with the fact that UN is an assignee of the League of nations and, thus, the failure of the permanent members of the UN Security Council to fulfill what League of Nations once adopted is a ground for filing a claim against them! (I wonder to which court?)

And in the conclusion of his statement the Armenian political scientists passes to criticizing his government for failing to do it so far. I would like to show my solidarity with mr. Ara Papyan and ask the government of Armenia strictly: "Why haven't you filed a claim to the court against members of the UN Security Council? How long will you bear it?"

It is sometimes difficult to comment on marasmatic attempts of "experts", whom official Yerevan even appoints ambassadors. You don't know which way to approach them and what to begin with. Such nonsense in one short announcement does not often occur. I would like to draw attention of OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Matthew Bryza, Bernard Fassier and Yuri Merzlyakov to the announcement of their colleague Ara Papyan to expose the professional lvel of those, who are sometimes appointed ambassadors in Armenia. Let's put aside the fact that the transfer of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement to other international organizations in fact means withdrawal from the OSCE MG format, which was disapproved by Armenia itself, voting alongside with Wanuatu against the resolution of the 62nd session of the UN General Assembly "ON situation in the occupied lands of Azerbaijan". But if we relevantly accuse UN of failure to fulfill its resolutions (by the way, doubtful ones, not having even references) of the League of Nations, then today's assignee of the USSR Russia should have been expelled from UN, not speaking of the Security Council, for failure to execute demand of the League of Nations about the release of the annexed regions of Finland, for which the USSR was once expelled from the League of Nations. Nonsense? No, it is just an artistic continuation of the logics of the Armenian former ambassador.

And if the high diplomat of Armenia (official, by the way) urges to review of state borders in the South Caucasus, isn't it an open recognition of territorial claims of Armenia towards Azerbaijan lying in the center of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, which Yerevan tries to conceal under pretense of "the right of nations for self-determination"? And doesn't the former Armenian ambassador think that review of borders considering demographic data of 1920 (I wonder, why 1920, but not 1826 or 1800) will leave his country without Zangezur, eastern settlements of Geycha lake, Vedibasar plain and without the capital at all? Therefore, Papyan would be recommended to sit where he is and keep silent.

/Day.Az/

Related news:

Armenian political scientist: "Armenia is losing to Azerbaijan"