|
 |
|
One Must Always Have Faith In The Passage Of Time The following is a 1997 interview with Louis Joinet, who served as an advisor to French President Francois Mitterand [June 11, 2007] - What memories does the name Monte Melkonian bring to mind? - My recollections can be categorized into three groups. Let's remember that in 1981 he had multiple identities. At the time I served as a judicial advisor to then Prime Minister Pierre Mauroy. On November 18, 1981, we received word that a passenger in transit from Milan was under police surveillance. The passenger was bound for Beirut and went under the name Avenesyan or something similar. (When Monte is later arrested he calls himself Khatchig Avedisyan, a citizen of Turkey-E.B.) The whole affair was cloudy. Here's a person traveling to Beirut from Italy, of Armenian descent, with Turkish citizenship carrying a Cypriot passport. Of course he attracted our attention. We then find out the passport's a fake, which he later doesn't deny. At this point he claims his name is Dimitriu Georgiu. A month prior to this, there had been an attack on a Jewish synagogue. It turned out that the prime suspect also carried a Cypriot passport whose serial numbers closely resembled those of Monte's passport. Thus, our three suspicions about Melkonian.1) The undeniable fact that his passport was a fake, which in itself is a crime in France. 2) His suspected links to the synagogue bombing in Copernicus Street. 3) That he himself executed or was involved in the attack against a Turkish diplomat in Rome that occurred a month before his arrest in France. We should remember that the Socialist-Left in France had just come to power and was suspected of having links to various terrorist groups. Soon rumors began to fly that the government wanted to set him free. Of course, this wasn't the case at all. We began our investigation of the synagogue bombing and even sent an agent to Cyprus to check the passports, but to no avail. So we couldn't link Monte Melkonian to that attack. We were then only left with the fact that Dimitriu Georgiu was a passenger using a fake passport, an everyday occurrence. Anyway, he was charged on the passport infraction and given a four month suspended sentence. Afterwards he was deported to Beirut under police custody. After his arrival there he gave a press conference during which he revealed his true identity as Monte Melkonian. This is my first recollection of Monte. The second was somewhat dramatic in nature but interesting politically. Remember that this all took place when ASALA was under the leadership of Hagop Hagopian. I could never tell if Hagopian was one person, a fake collective name, or what? Some ASALA members had started to criticize the leadership for being too authoritarian and for carrying out senseless acts of terrorism, something that reached its zenith with the Orly Airport incident. Some people, Melkonian included, understood how this could be used against the Armenian Cause since those victimized by these acts had nothing to do with the recognition of the genocide or with the current situation in eastern Anatolia. Remember that ASALA had also called for the liberation of occupied Armenian lands there. The French-Armenian community slowly found itself in a precarious position and could be negatively impacted by this type of terrorism. What resulted was a process that started in 1982. The Armenian National Movement in France, lead by Ara Toranian, along with the Popular Movements in England and Canada, started to unite around Monte Melkonian and his more pronounced political orientation. This was an overall strategy that didn't rely solely on a militaristic approach but also included a political component. It was important that someone like Monte assume leadership of such a movement for which a political analysis of current realities was paramount. While I didn't accept all the actions taken by the new leadership, I think history proved us right when he had our doubts about Monte's involvement in the Copernicus bombing and other tit-for-tat killings, something that certain government agencies would have us believe. This is my second recollection. My third recollection stems from news articles I read about him going to Nagorno-Karabakh to fight in the liberation struggle there after Armenia declared its independence. He assumed some high-level responsibilities in the north, if I'm not mistaken, and heroically commanded several military units. We were told similar stories of his bravery when my wife and I visited Karabakh on a vacation. It was a very moving experience. In this way he became a hero. History is strange…When I first met him I only saw another terrorist, just like the rest. But later… It just goes to show that one must always have faith in the passage of time. - In this context you're probably not surprised to hear that he's a national hero in Armenia? - Based on what I've said, no, I'm not. I can't say if he personally participated in any anti-Turkish acts. I'm against such things. As a lawyer I abhor the use of violence, even political violence. When we take into account how he developed a political line counter to Hagop Hagopian's, I'm not surprised that his destiny lay with his people and that he met his end within the democratic upheavals of those lands. I don't know if they are aware of this in Armenia (I know it's mostly forgotten in France) that when the groups coalescing around Monte Melkonian wanted to somehow split from ASALA, they were all banished. This included the group “Armenian National Movement-ASALA” in France that had started to take a more political orientation in its analysis as opposed to mere militarism and eventually dropped the ASALA link from its name. To clarify the ongoing split even further, the Monte Melkonian-led faction of ASALA adopted the title, “ASALA-Revolutionary Movement”. Taking all this into account, I'm not surprised at the praise bestowed upon him or his fateful demise. - Mr. Joinet, it's not often that a foreign diplomat, much less one from a western nation, vacations in Karabakh. What were your impressions? - At the time I was an advisor to French President Francois Mitterand. I wound up becoming friends with both President Ter-Petrosyan and with President Kocharyan. This is what happened. Levon Ter-Petrosyan was an opposition leader during the Gorbachev era and was arrested in Moscow. Here in France a defense committee was organized in which others and I became involved. (We had also worked on the genocide issue and we are generally concerned with developments in Armenia). That's how we met. In addition, during the run-up to the Presidential election when Levon Ter-Petrosyan had declared his candidacy, he found he needed to undergo a medical surgery that had a better chance of success in France. It was all very hush-hush at the time. A group of friends organized and financed the whole affair and the operation was performed without a hitch. On a subsequent return visit to France he invited all of us to dinner. Then, I received an invitation to spend my vacation in Armenia. My wife and I spent eight days in the care of a very friendly couple, especially Mrs. Ter-Petrosyan with whom we became close friends. We spent four days in Karabakh and I spent the time exploring the country. In those places where we were recognized we were received by welcoming committees, music, etc. - It's impossible not to mention in passing the role you played in the European Union regarding the Genocide recognition issue. - I didn't play a direct role in the E.U. but rather in the United Nations. Many in Armenia will remember the infamous Paragraph 30 history. A Special Rapporteur had been appointed to offer proposals to make the work of the upcoming Genocide Convention more productive. In his draft he mentioned the Armenian Genocide along with other historical examples. Turkey and her allies worked to have this citation removed. Afterwards, the Special Rapporteur literally vanished from the scene. In the United Nations it's not easy to replace an appointed rapporteur; it only happens in cases when the person resigns or dies while in office. A procedure was enacted, in which I was involved, that allowed for a new individual to be appointed. It was a friend of mine, Ben Whittaker, who was nominated. As a specialist in United Nations procedural matters we were able to reinstate the deleted Paragraph 30. In this capacity I attended several meetings and this reinstatement was truly a big step forward in the Genocide recognition campaign While I understand the difficulties involved, I believe that any future mutual accommodation between Armenians and Turks (let's not say reconciliation) will only result from recognition of the genocide. Let me add that more time needs to be devoted to this issue. We had to wait until President Chirac was in office for France to formally and publicly recognize the Genocide. Neither General De Gaulle nor Presidents Giscard and Mitterand took this step. It was the responsibility of the Vichy government for the deportations during the Jewish Holocaust. President Cardoza of Brazil followed Chirac's lead and also recognized his government's complicity. The same happened in Germany and somewhat differently in South Africa. Thus, we see a progression, which I hope continues. - What's your opinion regarding Kocharyan, the newly appointed Prime Minister? - I know him from my travels and have met him often. My first reaction was that his appointment would further complicate matters with Azerbaijan. I believe the experience he gained while governing Karabakh will serve him well in his new position. - What are your predictions regarding a settlement of the Karabakh conflict, especially given France's involvement in the process? - There's a French saying that goes, “You can't be a prophet in your own country, but you can in someone else's”. With each passing day, we continue on the right track. Strategies for peace are often colored by cultural factors. In places where there's a long standing ceasefire in effect there comes a point where the people involved long for some tranquility, if not peace. This reality does have an effect on political leaders. Every day that passes without a shot being fired is a positive step in the peace process. But I can't tell you when a final settlement will be reached. - Don't you think a contradiction exists between the principles concerning the rights of individuals and the rights of nations, in other words the right of self-determination as opposed to the right of a country's territorial integrity? - This issue manifests itself all over the world and each case is different. As far as I know till now there hasn't been a case where the right to self-determination has been applied according to international norms; in other words, a referendum. The only possible exception was the French issue of New Caledonia. According to UN standards a referendum in Karabakh would have to include all former residents, including Azeri refugees. Presently, this isn't a realistic scenario. While somewhat regrettable, a settlement will most likely result from traditional peace processes rather than a national referendum on self-determination. It will result from a political agreement between the opposing sides. If a referendum were held today those favoring self-determination would win, but this outcome would have no political significance for Azerbaijan. Thus, I think the political approach is the correct way forward. But then, I'm not Armenian, nor do I live in Karabakh. So I say in all modesty, I may be wrong. Interview conducted by Edik Baghdasaryan |
||||||
|
