‘Never again’ is the rallying cry
for all who believe that mankind
must speak out against genocide.
Jon Corzine
by Z. S. Andrew DemirdjiaN
On September 19 and 20, 2023, the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh) was captured by Azerbaijani forces, guile, and brutality. The act is tantamount to the rape of a peace loving nation, the ethnic Armenians’ ancestral homeland.
The indigenous people of the Republic of Artsakh have reached the nadir of their sufferings. For over 3,000 years, these people have been continuously living in their ancestral land. Within 24 hours of surprise heavy artillery and missile strikes against Artsakh’s defense forces and unarmed civilians by Azerbaijan, the capital city of Stepanakert had to surrender.
On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijani military forces staged a blitzkrieg sneak attack at the people of Artsakh, killing 200 persons and wounding over 400 men, women, and children –despite a ceasefire agreement brokered by Russia, Armenia’s so-called ally and partner, between Armenia and Azerbaijan on November 9, 2020.
The conquistador President Ilham Aliyev was caught on camera trampling on Artsakh’s flag cast on the floor. Is this becoming a respectable president of a civilized nation or is this universally defined as an inappropriate, barbarian behavior? The act is akin to Azerbaijani’s beheading of Armenian POWs as the primitive tribes of the world jungles used to do to their captives in the past –for their collections of war trophies.
The consequence of this brutal attack was the exodus of the 120,000 population of Artsakh, a whopping 100,000 individuals were forced to seek asylum in their neighboring Armenia alone. The flight was triggered out of internationally founded fear of war, violence, and persecution including ethnic cleansing and genocide by Azerbaijan. Only some old and ill persons were left in Artsakh.
The country was devastated and eventually emptied of its native people. In this way, Azerbaijan has inflicted a lot of mental and physical pain and suffering, destruction, and killing of civilians consisting of unarmed men, women, and children.
All of this tragic event was unfolding while the international community, especially the Russian peace keeping force, USA, EU, UN, etc. had become spectators of a heinous crime perpetrated by ogre President Ilham Aliyev who had breached his promises of ceasefire on multiple occasions with impunity.
A robust population of over 120,000 has been rooted out of their native land. For some experts, this act constitutes ethnic cleansing of an unprotected people to deprive them of their homes and homeland; others, even proclaim it as genocide on account of their sufferings and being brutally killed.
In this article, I would like to briefly explore the contentions of the two schools of thought; that is to say, whether the brutal treatment of the people of Artsakh is ethnic cleansing or genocide. I would like also to raise the question whether it is possible that these two concepts are related and that they are the two sides of the same coin? I shall also discuss the implications of each concept in the hope of being of some help to the tormented and exiled people of Artsakh.
Ideas have changed the world; ideas may also help Artsakhakhtsis’ rights and interests. So, let us clarify the term genocide and then tackle ethnic cleansing as a recent comer into the world of our vocabulary.
Genocide Treaty
Upon Raphael Limpkin’s coining of the term genocide based on the Armenian massacres and sufferings of 1.5 million during 1915-1923 periods by the Ottoman Empire, the United Nations (UN) first defined genocide in 1948 in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide. One way to define it by stating that genocide is “the crime of intentionally destroying part or all of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, by killing people or by other methods.” We shall discuss the other methods (i.e., ethnic cleansing) later in this article.
As a result of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crimes of Genocide, the treaty outlines the following five acts that can qualify as genocide if they are done “with the intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group”:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm
- Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births
- Forcibly transferring children
To constitute an act as genocide, the act must be done with intent to eliminate an entire group or part of the people. Without provable intent, a group or individual can still be guilty of “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing” but not genocide.
Tribunals have historically struggled to establish a legal standard for genocidal intent. The task has defied a solution due to the fact that only a few perpetrators, with the notable exception of the Nazi regime, have left explicit plans detailing their intentions to eradicate groups.
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.”
However, the UN treaty does not dictate the outcome of a genocidal conviction. Past sentences have shown a range from a mere 10 months to life in prison, depending on the person’s role in the crime.
While the punishment for a crime of genocide is too little for the harm done to an ethnic group, the courts are more generous in granting restitution to the people for suffering material losses through genocide of their people.
Incidentally, the first person found guilty of genocide, since the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923, was the former mayor of Rwanda’s Taba Commune in l998. The International Genocide Tribunal on Rwanda found Jean-Paul Akayesu guilty because “he knew or should have known that the act committed would destroy, in whole or in part, a group”.
Overall, international courts have been toothless in convicting and punishing genocide perpetrators. Now, let us acquaint ourselves with this relatively new term Ethnic Cleansing.
Ethnic Cleansing Concept
Ethnic cleansing, on the other hand, refers to a situation when “an ethnic group is forced to leave their homes due to the fear of war, violence, or persecution”. It is generally referred to the expulsion of a group from a certain area usually claimed as their homeland.
It should be noted that ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law. The term was employed in the context of the 1990s conflict in the former Yugoslavia and is considered to have come from the literal translation of the Serbo-Croatian expression of “etnicko ciscenje, “ meaning ethnic cleansing. As to who used it first and for what reason is still unknown.
The term “ethnic cleansing”, however, has been used in resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the UN. It has also been acknowledged in judgments and indictments of the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia), although it did not constitute one of the counts for prosecution. A formal definition has never been provided, though.
Ethnic cleansing has not been officially defined by the UN or any relevant or related international organization. Furthermore, it is not recognized as a crime under international law according to the UN. As we shall see later, the required conditions between ethnic cleansing and genocide are not crystal clear at first sight. Later, we shall navigate through the blur or fog if any to see the light at end of the tunnel.
Unlike genocide, international law lacks enforcement mechanisms for ethnic cleansing: it demands buy in or approval from an international community. Clearly it has not been effective. For example, more than 500,000 Rohingya refugees, escaping violence and persecution in Myanmar, have fled their homes in a matter of two months for the third time in 2016. No punitive measures have been taken against the perpetrators of the crime.
The Critical Question
Here is the challenging question: Is the tragic event of the people of Artakh a case of ethnic cleansing or genocide or both? Let us hon. on our intellectual tools and see if we can answer this knotty question.
If we go through the five conditions to qualify a crime as genocide, we would see that the first requirement “1. Killing members of a group,” the second requirement “2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm,” and that the third requirement “3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part” support the position that ethnic cleansing may be the input to genocide.
Seemingly, therefore, both are related concepts to criminalize the perpetrators of the crime against humanity.
Here is the supporting argument: On December 12, 2022, Azerbaijani so-called environmental activists with Aliyev’s consent blocked the Berdzor (Lachin) Corridor, which is the only link to connect Artsakh to Armenia and beyond.
The deadly blockage, thus, prevented the flow of food, medicine, and fuel from the outside world. In other words, Azerbaijan weaponized siege starvation for nine months to make the people of Artsakh to become hungry, weak, sick, and finally succumb to Aliyev’s wish of controlling their ancestral land. And, to the dismay of many Armenians, Aliyev’s premeditated plans worked for him with flying colors!
As a consequence of the siege, 30,000 children were traumatized, a lot of people became ill, and some others even died from lack of food, medicine, and heating fuel and electricity. As you may know, it really gets cold in Artsakh in winter. Without heating fuel (natural gas) and electricity, people die from exposure to cold, especially the infants and the elderly. The inflictions and afflictions of Azerbaijan are too numerous to list here.
Unabashedly, Azerbaijan’s strongman Alieyev laid a medieval style siege on Artsakh just as his predecessors had done to Constantinople in 1453.
Like the matador weakening the bull before plunging his sword into the beast’s shoulder to weaken it and later kill it, President Aliyev terrorized the people of Artsakh. Starving people is an act of destruction. Depriving of people of required medicine is causing death to the people. Stopping the flow of electricity and fuel for heating is an instance of a slow death. The intend to commit a crime is obviously amply explicit.
Psychological studies have shown that fear also has profound harmful effects on children as well as on adults’ mental functioning. These bodily and mental inflictions upon the people of Artsakh are testimony to the fact that Aliyev wanted to destroy the native people of Artsakh and to terrorize them to leave their homes and farms to inhabit them with his own in-group Azeri Turks.
Aliyev’s infamous siege of starvation is nothing but the 2nd and 3rd required acts for a crime to be considered genocide: “2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm,” and that the third requirement “3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part”.
As for Aliyev’s sneak attack on Artsakh on September 19 and 20, killed 200 persons and wounded 400 civilians the act is consistent with the 1st requirement of an act to be genocide, namely “1. Killing the members of a group.” Had Artsakh not surrendered within two days, the casualties would have soared to thousands and thousands of people killed by Aliyev’s surprise strikes, indiscriminately destroying many of the natives of Artsakh.
All of these instances prove that President Aliyev wanted to starve people to death so that he can claim their ancestral land. For months, he even refused to let humanitarian aid to reach the people of Artsakh. We can conclude the whole act as being ethnic cleansing as a prelude to genocide.
Mr. Emin Husynov, the special representative of President Aliyev, has recently announced that Azerbaijan plans to settle 140,000 Azeris in Artsakh by 2026,. Is this not a premeditated crime to deprive the indigenous people of their homes and homeland? Instead, Aliyev should ask non-combatant citizens of Artsakh to return to their homes and farms.
If what I say is convincing of Aliyev’s intention to torture people with fear and famine, to force them into submission, then that agrees with the second act of genocide condition: “2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm” and with the third genocide requirement condition: “3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part.”
When there was a heavy shelling of Artsakh on September 19 and 20, 2023, people flew their homes for safety; we call that ethnic cleansing. When Azerbaijan also made a suprise terror attacks and killings on the ethnic Armenian enclave, doesn’t that consititute as part of a genocide plan to overcome the people of Artsakh since it involved the killings and destruction of people? That twin crimes of ethnic cleansing and genocide are entertwined is obvious in this instance. Additionally, ethnic cleansing and genocide are the twins of crimes against humanity.
It would be logical to conclude that since Aliyev’s artilleries and missiles have killed unarmed civilians of Artsakh, the act is nothing but the first requirement for genocide, that is, “1. Killing the members of a group”.
To blow away the fog that blurs the difference between ethnic cleansing and genocide, based on the brief argument above, we can draw the conclusion that through ethnic cleansing acts we can also arrive at genocide for both in ethnic cleansing and genocide the perpetrator is “1. Killing the members of a group”, “2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm,” and “Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part.” What Aliyev did to the people of Artsakh is genocide and this is the naked truth. Armenians should capitalize on this crime of genocide to get help for the exiled people of Artsakh.
Fear, flight, destruction, killing, and the capture and the downfall of a native nation are ample evidence to convict President Aliyev of genocide of the people of Artsakh. Flowchart 1 summarizes the argument presented above.
Fear, flight, destruction, killing, and the capture and the downfall of a native nation are ample evidence to convict President Aliyev of genocide of the people of Artsakh. Flowchart 1 summarizes the argument presented above.
Flowchart 1
The Input Variables Required for Ethnic Cleansing Are The Same or Similar Factors As The Input for Genocide
The Siege of Starvation & Sneak Attacks by Azerbaijan (Dec. 12, 2022) Forced exodus out of fear of war, violence, and persecution including famine, illness, mental distress, killing, and destruction of the people of Artsakh Ethnic Cleansing* Are The Same or Similar to:
“1. Killing the members of a group”
“2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm ” Genocide*
“3.Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part”
*Note: Since both Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide share the same or similar input factors or variables (i.e., inflictions) as well as the results (output factors) they are the same or similar crimes against humanity. In other words, what Azerbaijan has done during the starvation siege and after the assault on Artsakh to capture Stepanakert shelling it indiscriminately and killing people is genocide. The act is punishable under the Genocide Convention Treaty.
We have here a case of the emperor has no clothes. No one seems to challenge the status quo or question things that others around us are accepting. One wonders as to how many members of the UN have failed to see that both ethnic cleansing and genocide are intertwined. The only explanation given to me by an erudite friend is that most of the members of the UN are superficially educated. A lot of them earned their positions at the UN on account of their loyalty and support given to the ruling political group of their country and not on their own merits.
According to Professor James Silk (at Yale Law School), “Your motivation may be that you want the people out, but if in doing that you intend to destroy the group, then it’s also genocide.” President Aliyev has expressed his intention on several occasions on TV to destroy the Armenians in order “to teach them a lesson”.
Implications of Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide
Generally speaking, the tendency has been to believe in ethnic cleansing of an ethnic group, but not genocide as mass or partial killings, which is rather regarded as an exaggeration of what truly had happened. In genocide, it becomes the story of who done it and for what intention. Therefore, it is advisable to use first ethnic cleansing to convince the audience or the reader, and then point out that ethnic cleansing is listed as the #1, #2, and #3 required conditions to qualify the act as genocide.
In other words, the implication is that to use “foot in the door” approach in persuading the audience or the reader and then indicate that, indeed, ethnic cleansing is the same as the #1, # 2, and #3 genocide requirements or as the major instruments to bring on genocide.
Ethnic cleansing is as egregious as is genocide. The only difference is in abuses; in genocide, one suffers less.
Finally, the Western nations or rather the international community should be held morally responsible for the plight and predicament of the Artsakh people. Soon the Armenian heritage of Artsakh will become the palimpsest of their past. The Armenian Diaspora should support the Artsakh refugees in their right to return to their homes as the indigenous people of their ancestral enclave.
The new generation of Armenians should never give up the dream of liberating Artsakh again for nobody knows what fortunes the future would bring. Morally and patriotically, the refugees from Aartsakh should never, ever abandon their homeland of millennia with the help of the Republic of Armenia and its vast Diaspora.