Tweet
DIFFICULT WEEK IN APRIL: 94 YEARS LATER
Karine Ter-Sahakyan
PanARMENIAN.Net
Will the Armenian side be able to have her own way and to convince
the Turkish and all the other interested parties in the fact that a
dialogue is possible only without preconditions? 25.04.2009 GMT+04:00
The week started with just another visit of the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-chairs to the region. In fact, there was nothing new, except
the regular dim statements about the speedy regulation of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, peace and stability in the region and
prosperity. The MG statements are sometimes quite like the reports
of the secretaries of city committees, issued to higher authorities:
everything is good; sure there are discrepancies, deficiencies, but
everything can be improved. The cochairmen's route is also traditional:
Yerevan-Baku-Yerevan-Stepanakert-Yere van- Baku, with some variations.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ But the interesting point is that Official Baku has
not ever protested against this route and has not sent notes to the
Departments of Foreign Policy of France, USA or Russia, complaining
of the "illegal crossing of the boundary". Almost as Orwell says:
all are equal, but some are more equal than others. But this just
in passing. The diplomats arrived simply in order to once more make
sure the Presidents did not change their minds about the encounter
in Prague due on May 7, although it is incomprehensible, how they
could have done so...
But the basic news of the week came on the night of April 22-23, when
the agreement between Foreign Ministries of Armenia and Turkey was
promulgated, with the mediation of the Swiss Foreign Ministry about
a certain road map on the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish
relations. The most interesting point is that the very text of
the agreement cannot even be called a text in view of its unusual
brevity. However, this gave rise to different kinds of commentaries
and interpretations, especially in the Azeri press. The latter began
to speak of various kinds of "leakages", having nothing in common with
the reality. By the way, the lie was so transparent that refutations
appeared in the same Azerbaijani press already the next day... And the
matter concerned some assumed five clauses, which Armenia allegedly had
to carry out, so that Turkey would graciously open the boundary. By the
way, it was exactly the complete lack of information of the population
of Armenia about the content of the agreement that became the reason
for various kinds of commentaries, quite far from the reality too. It
is completely understandable that each of the parties in this game
is trying to outwit the other, but the question is to what extent
the Armenian side will be able to have her own way and to convince
the Turkish and all the other interested parties in the fact that a
dialogue is possible only without preconditions. Especially when the
question stands quite clear for Armenia: to be or not to be.
And finally - the annual April 24 address of the US President Barack
Obama, an address that everybody had been waiting for with some morbid
feeling: will he utter the Word or not?
That small percentage of Armenians, who knew for sure that the US
President would avoid the word "genocide" in his address, can sigh
with relief. But Barack Obama did even worse; he actually legalized
the Armenian word for the Genocide "Mets Yeghern", which caught the
entire world, including Turkey. It would be nave of us to think
that he used this word-combination by pure accident. He, or to be
more accurate, his speechwriters saved face: the word is not uttered,
but a curtsey is made to Armenians. And in this connection again the
question arises: how long the recognition of the Armenian Genocide is
going to be the basic, if not the unique priority of foreign policy
of the Armenian state?
It is appropriate to recall that before the promulgation of the
joint statement of the Armenian and Turkish MFAs, for some reason
majority of Armenians thought Obama would certainly repeat what he
said being a Senator and a Presidential candidate. If we do not seize
on words and definitions, the US President kept his promise. The
extent of truthfulness of this assertion can confirm the fact
that Turkey considers the words "Mets Yeghern" and "Genocide" to be
synonyms. Well, something like "the catastrophe of the European Jews"
and the "Holocaust". By the way, in their statement of petition for
the events of 1915 the Turkish intelligentsia used almost the same
expressions. Besides, Turkish diplomat, Ambassador Yalim Eralp said,
"Mets Yeghern" indicates "genocide". Moreover, the Foreign Ministry
of Turkey severely criticized Obama's address, finding his statements
unacceptable. As for Abdullah Gul, there are some moments in Obama's
speech with which he cannot agree. "In 1915 hundred thousands of
Turks and Moslems lost their lives. With this regard it is necessary
to share the pain of all those who died", stated President Gul.
However, the matter is not in concepts, but in the legal
aspect. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide leads to the claims of
moral and material compensation for the Armenian nation to be awarded
by Turkey as the assignee of the Ottoman Empire. So many times has
all this been said that it is no more taken seriously. The worst that
could happen, has happened: recognition of the Armenian Genocide has
become an exchange card, a political tool, a method of pressure and
anything else, but a requirement of justice.
However, Obama's address was best commented by a person, far from
politics, namely Armen Jigarkhanyan: "What we expect is not a matter of
political angle. The importance of the persona of Obama is a temporary
concept, while the problem of recognition of the Armenian Genocide has
existed for 94 years. Will Obama pronounce the word "genocide" or not
is not so important. Our relation to today's state of affairs is the
most important. This is a matter to be approached with an open soul
and a sober mind; there is no place for emotions here." According to
Armen Jigarkhanyan, each person that speaks about recognition of the
Genocide must think about how competent he is in this issue. "Each
Armenian has the right to require recognition of the Genocide, at
the same time caring for the possibility of establishing diplomatic
relations between Armenia and Turkey", he said.
Karine Ter-Sahakyan
PanARMENIAN.Net
Will the Armenian side be able to have her own way and to convince
the Turkish and all the other interested parties in the fact that a
dialogue is possible only without preconditions? 25.04.2009 GMT+04:00
The week started with just another visit of the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-chairs to the region. In fact, there was nothing new, except
the regular dim statements about the speedy regulation of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, peace and stability in the region and
prosperity. The MG statements are sometimes quite like the reports
of the secretaries of city committees, issued to higher authorities:
everything is good; sure there are discrepancies, deficiencies, but
everything can be improved. The cochairmen's route is also traditional:
Yerevan-Baku-Yerevan-Stepanakert-Yere van- Baku, with some variations.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ But the interesting point is that Official Baku has
not ever protested against this route and has not sent notes to the
Departments of Foreign Policy of France, USA or Russia, complaining
of the "illegal crossing of the boundary". Almost as Orwell says:
all are equal, but some are more equal than others. But this just
in passing. The diplomats arrived simply in order to once more make
sure the Presidents did not change their minds about the encounter
in Prague due on May 7, although it is incomprehensible, how they
could have done so...
But the basic news of the week came on the night of April 22-23, when
the agreement between Foreign Ministries of Armenia and Turkey was
promulgated, with the mediation of the Swiss Foreign Ministry about
a certain road map on the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish
relations. The most interesting point is that the very text of
the agreement cannot even be called a text in view of its unusual
brevity. However, this gave rise to different kinds of commentaries
and interpretations, especially in the Azeri press. The latter began
to speak of various kinds of "leakages", having nothing in common with
the reality. By the way, the lie was so transparent that refutations
appeared in the same Azerbaijani press already the next day... And the
matter concerned some assumed five clauses, which Armenia allegedly had
to carry out, so that Turkey would graciously open the boundary. By the
way, it was exactly the complete lack of information of the population
of Armenia about the content of the agreement that became the reason
for various kinds of commentaries, quite far from the reality too. It
is completely understandable that each of the parties in this game
is trying to outwit the other, but the question is to what extent
the Armenian side will be able to have her own way and to convince
the Turkish and all the other interested parties in the fact that a
dialogue is possible only without preconditions. Especially when the
question stands quite clear for Armenia: to be or not to be.
And finally - the annual April 24 address of the US President Barack
Obama, an address that everybody had been waiting for with some morbid
feeling: will he utter the Word or not?
That small percentage of Armenians, who knew for sure that the US
President would avoid the word "genocide" in his address, can sigh
with relief. But Barack Obama did even worse; he actually legalized
the Armenian word for the Genocide "Mets Yeghern", which caught the
entire world, including Turkey. It would be nave of us to think
that he used this word-combination by pure accident. He, or to be
more accurate, his speechwriters saved face: the word is not uttered,
but a curtsey is made to Armenians. And in this connection again the
question arises: how long the recognition of the Armenian Genocide is
going to be the basic, if not the unique priority of foreign policy
of the Armenian state?
It is appropriate to recall that before the promulgation of the
joint statement of the Armenian and Turkish MFAs, for some reason
majority of Armenians thought Obama would certainly repeat what he
said being a Senator and a Presidential candidate. If we do not seize
on words and definitions, the US President kept his promise. The
extent of truthfulness of this assertion can confirm the fact
that Turkey considers the words "Mets Yeghern" and "Genocide" to be
synonyms. Well, something like "the catastrophe of the European Jews"
and the "Holocaust". By the way, in their statement of petition for
the events of 1915 the Turkish intelligentsia used almost the same
expressions. Besides, Turkish diplomat, Ambassador Yalim Eralp said,
"Mets Yeghern" indicates "genocide". Moreover, the Foreign Ministry
of Turkey severely criticized Obama's address, finding his statements
unacceptable. As for Abdullah Gul, there are some moments in Obama's
speech with which he cannot agree. "In 1915 hundred thousands of
Turks and Moslems lost their lives. With this regard it is necessary
to share the pain of all those who died", stated President Gul.
However, the matter is not in concepts, but in the legal
aspect. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide leads to the claims of
moral and material compensation for the Armenian nation to be awarded
by Turkey as the assignee of the Ottoman Empire. So many times has
all this been said that it is no more taken seriously. The worst that
could happen, has happened: recognition of the Armenian Genocide has
become an exchange card, a political tool, a method of pressure and
anything else, but a requirement of justice.
However, Obama's address was best commented by a person, far from
politics, namely Armen Jigarkhanyan: "What we expect is not a matter of
political angle. The importance of the persona of Obama is a temporary
concept, while the problem of recognition of the Armenian Genocide has
existed for 94 years. Will Obama pronounce the word "genocide" or not
is not so important. Our relation to today's state of affairs is the
most important. This is a matter to be approached with an open soul
and a sober mind; there is no place for emotions here." According to
Armen Jigarkhanyan, each person that speaks about recognition of the
Genocide must think about how competent he is in this issue. "Each
Armenian has the right to require recognition of the Genocide, at
the same time caring for the possibility of establishing diplomatic
relations between Armenia and Turkey", he said.