Inoculation of Public Opi nion Against Denials of Artsakh’s ECG
Posted on May. 26. 2024
“Never be afraid to raise your voice
for honesty and truth and compassion
against injustice and lying and greed.
If people all over the world… would do
this, it would change the earth.”
William Faulkner
BY Z. S. ANDREW DEMIRDJIAN
Truism has it that survival depends on sources of sustenance, which, in turn, depends on land to produce them. Most living things in the world compete for land and even engage in warfare to secure a large territory to enjoy what the good Earth provides.
Throughout history mass killings have taken place for capturing land and the perpetrators have gotten off scot-free like the Armenians who have lost nine-tenths of their homeland mainly to the Ottoman Turks –including the loss of 1.5 million of men, women, and children perished in 1915-1923.
Today, mass or partial killing is called genocide. The concept of genocide was the brainchild of a Polish Jewish jurist called Raphael Lempkin, who is considered to be the author of the concept. In 1919, Great Britain set free the entire Ottoman captured perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide (1915-1923) without due trials for criminal acts.
This act of setting criminals free baffled, if not shocked, Raphael Lempkin, who wrote in his book The Axis in Europe with the Armenian Genocide in mind as an example: “A nation was killed, and the guilty persons were set free, Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?”
The apparent injustice inspired Lempkin to pursue the idea of mass killing to be as worthy of prosecution and conviction as the killing of a single person. After considering the terms “Vandalism,” “Barbarity,” he settled on the concept of “Genocide,” (genos and cide in Greek meaning the killing of a people). In his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe, he tentatively defined genocide by saying, “By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group”.
Flowchart 1
The Model of Ethnic-Cleansing Genocide of Artsakh:
The Input Variables Required for Ethnic Cleansing
Are The Same or Analogous to Variables As The Input for Genocide
The coining of the term genocide and its preliminary definition are the extent of Limpkin’s contributions, He died impoverished in 1951 at the age of 50. The rest of the movement such as the bylaws was formulated by the United Nations convention called the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the UN National General Assembly on December 9, 1948 convention, as General Assembly Resolution 260.
Now, let us look at the tragedy of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). Azerbaijan and its friends have already begun to influence the world opinion that whatever had happened to the people of Artsakh was voluntary; that is to say, they were not forced to flee their homes. As a result, there is a need to inoculate your friends, acquaintances, fellow workers, representatives, senators, etc. against future attacks by Azerbaijan and its cohorts, who will deny of any wrongdoing by Azerbaijan.
Persuading others to avoid persuasion or to resist persuasion is the crux of the Inoculation Theory and Practice. Inoculation theory is a social-psychological and communication theory, which explains how an attitude or belief can be made resistant to persuasion or influence, in analogy to how a body gains resistance to a virus through being vaccinated.
As you’d agree, knowledge is power; and power is able to move mountains. Ideas have changed the world; ideas may also benefit Armenia and Artsakh. So, let us get to know the following facts about genocide as an international law to inoculate others against denials, distortions, and dishonesty of Azerbaijan’s propaganda machine.
The UN convention entered into force on January 12, 1951. Some of the detailed and quite technical definitions and responsibilities are as follows:
Article I indicates the contracting parties confirmed that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law, which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article II states genocide to mean any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnical, racial or religious group such as by: “1. Killing members of the group 2, Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent the birth within the group. Finally 5, Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.
Article III maintains that the following acts shall be punishable: First, genocide. Second, conspiracy to commit genocide. Third, direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Forth, any attempt to commit genocide. Fifth, complicity to genocide.
Here are some important answerable arguments based on international genocide law against the anticipated lies and distortions of Azerbaijan as to what had really happened to the indigenous people of Artsakk in late 2023:
1. Displacement of the people of Artsakh was voluntary not forced. Genocide criminals have always denied their quilt. For example, in anticipation of a denial of ethnic-cleansing genocide (ECG) of the people of Artsakh, we may say that it is true that the exodus of the people from Artsakh may appear to be voluntary, but the fact is that Azerbaijan starved them first for a long time through a siege of starvation for 10 months and then shelled their homes with surprise artillery and missile strikes on September 19 and 20, 2023. It is obvious that fleeing from their homes was not a voluntary act, but a forced evacuation to save one’s limb and life?
When a siren blares and wakes you up in the middle of the night to warn you of a surprise enemy attack, do you continue to sleep or get ready to get the h… out of that danger zone? This argument will make someone resist any attempt by Azerbaijan to make him or her swallow Azeri blatant lies.
2. There was no killing of the group as a whole. The argument could be made that almost the entire population of 120,000 of Artsakh left their homeland. It is true that the majority had fled their homes, but the surprise attack had killed 200 and wounded 400 persons. To qualify for genocide, the group does not have to be killed “in whole”. According to international genocide law, an act is genocide whether the victims were killed “in whole or in part”.
This point is worthy of repetition. To qualify an act as genocide, the group does not have to be annihilated; the killing maybe in whole or in part like part of Artsakh was killed and wounded by Azerbaijani artillery and missile strikes on September 19 and 20, 2023 and the rest had to flee out of fear of war, violence, and persecution. See # 8 for related arguments.
3. There was no physical destruction or mental anguish. The preemptive argument may run something like the majority people of Artsakh was not physically destroyed. But, they suffered mental anguish, which constitutes genocide. According to international genocide law “Causing serious bodily and mental harm” constitutes genocide of the group.
4. For Genocide, there must be intent to kill. The intent can be specific or general. The argument may be that there is no proof that Azerbaijan had any intention to kill the people of Artsakh had they not quested for freedom through self-determination.
In terms of intent, specific, direct evidence surfaced when during a national press interview of 2.5 hours long (on January 10, 2024), President Aliyev admitted his intention of genocide of the people of whom 200 had already been killed and 400 wounded to terrorize the people into fleeing their homeland, by stating –”Had they [the Armenians of Artsakh] not surrendered, they would have been eliminated. There was no other option.” The act is a crime of genocide no matter how many Armenians were killed 200 or 120,000 by Azerbaijan. It is one of the UN rules or law pertaining to genocide.
“They [The people of Artsakh] would have been eliminated” means Aliyev had the intention to liquidate or eradicate them had they continued to defend themselves against his aggression, but he could only eliminate part of them, which is still genocide.
Another important admission of President Aliyev is pertinent is that he had warned PM Nikol Pashinyan about the impending Azerbaijan’s attack on Artsakh on September 19, 2023 by stating, “I told both the Armenian leadership and the international actors that I could press the button and carry out this operation [the surprise attack to kill the people of Artskh] in a minute and they would not be able to do anything”. The foregoing admission can also serve as President Aliyev’s intent to kill the people of Artsakh.
5. Perpetrators were soldiers or members of the ruling in-group and not their leader (e.g., President Aliyev’s followers or soldiers not him). It may be true that the leader may not have engaged directly in the atrocities; nevertheless, he or she is also responsible. Thus, perpetrators can be one person or a group. Equally difficult is for the courts to decide on the punishment for genocide. The UN treaty addressing genocide states that any person or group committing the crime of genocide “shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.” President Aliyev is responsible for the ECG of the people of Artsakh.
6. The accused genocide perpetrators (e.g., like President
Aliyev) respect and abide by the international law. Genocide is usually schemed by heads of state and disregard international law. For example, President Ilham Aliyev confessed on January 10, 2024 during a TV interview that international law is a toothless tiger and that it lacks meaningful enforcement and with that, undermines its own authority. This kind of mentality, this kind of belief, unfortunately, gives license to a criminal to kill with impunity.
Here is what genocidal President Aliyev confessed his anti-social acts as a criminal: “I have repeatedly said that international law does not work. These mechanisms are deployed for weaker countries. Bigger states ignore them. For them, it is as if law is not law. Under these circumstances, countries that demand justice, and rightly so, must secure this justice themselves”. Based on his belief, President Aliyev broke all of his signed agreements for ceasefire since 1994, which makes him an outlaw or someone in contempt of international law and decency.
7. There has not been any immediate effect of mental stress, harm (trauma, fear, and anxiety on the people of Artsakh). To deflect any argument that there is no negative immediate effects on the people of Artsakh who fled their homes, a sensible preventive response would be that just because immediate effects would not be visible, displaced people would suffer of the delayed consequences later in life, especially children would be susceptible to delayed effects of trauma, anxiety, and all the destructive effects of war, violence, and persecution brought upon a group of people.
8. To qualify an act as genocide, most of the group members have to be annihilated. While it is true that most people consider genocide to be the killing of masses, but the UN regards the killing maybe in whole or in part like part of Artsakh was deliberately killed and wounded by Azerbaijani artillery and missile strikes on September 19 and 20, 2023 to get rid of them as separatists.. According to UN convention, the act is genocide whether the victims were killed “in whole or in part”.