Tweet
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
ARA KHACHATOURIAN
www.asbarez.com/index.html?showarti cle=41892_4/28/2009_1
Monday, April 27, 2009
The timing of the now-infamous "Roadmap" announced last Wednesday by
the foreign ministries of Armenia, Turkey and Switzerland not only
cast a dark cloud over April 24 commemorations around the world and
in Armenia, but also put in motion political events, the results
of which may, in the long run, hurt Armenia and Armenians and their
national aspirations and security.
Monday's announcement by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation to quit
Armenia's coalition government resulted from this and other contentious
issues stemming from Yerevan's handling of this process and creating a
new political landscape that can have its implications in the Diaspora.
It is always desirable and socio-economically necessary to have good
relations with one's neighbors, but the manner in which this particular
agreement was derived raises questions about the viability of Armenia's
position in this and other regional aspects. The agreement, which
is shrouded in secrecy and official Yerevan's refusal to dialogue
with its people prior to taking the country on a journey of historic
proportions, makes it hard to not conjecture that in this process
Armenia has made certain concessions.
Although President Serzh Sarkisian and Foreign Minister Eduard
Nalbandian continue to reiterate that these discussions and any
future agreement on opening of the borders will be derived without
any pre-conditions, the timing--two days before the official 94th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide--signals that an irreversible
and irrevocable concession was already forced on and made by Armenia.
While during the negotiation process, the parties can express and
adopt positions that may lead to success or breakdown of talks,
the fact will always remain that the announcement was made on April
22. There is no going back.
The Turkish side adeptly manipulated this process beginning with leaks
in Turkish, US and Azeri press alleging that Armenia had already agreed
to certain provisions the most important of which was the establishment
of a commission to address the Genocide and the second the recognition
of today's Turkish borders, which effectively signaled that Armenia was
willing to recognize the Kars treaty to which it was never a signatory.
During recent weeks, the tenor of the Sarkisian administration on
the issue of Genocide recognition also changed.
In an interview, which was conducted before the "roadmap" agreement
but was published after the announcement Sarkisian told the Wall
Street Journal that recognition of Genocide was for "restoration of
justice and prevention of genocide in the future"--a very watered-down
version of the Armenian Cause.
Sarkisian went on tell the WSJ that "If some countries decide to create
difficulties in those [Armenia-Turkey] relations, they would just
announce a recognition of genocide and so would compromise relations
between Armenia and Turkey. Once again, it is not we who are pushing
the US to recognize the genocide." For an administration, which from
day one has stated that the international recognition of the Armenian
Genocide was an integral part of its foreign and domestic policy,
this flip-flopping by the president sends a mixed signal to foreign
governments and thwarts decades-long efforts to garner recognition
for the Genocide.
The meddling US-factor cannot be ignored in this equation. The
unprecedented attention that the Caucasus/Turkey received during the
first 100 days of the Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton
and then Barack Obama visiting Turkey and the State Department's
consigliore, Matthew Bryza effectively setting up camp in the Caucasus
and specifically at Ilham Aliyev's doorstep, signaled that the US
wanted to place this issue on the fast track, because it wanted to
advance its agenda in the region and the role Turkey needed to play
in order for US aspirations to succeed. Obama was not going to risk
a repeat of 2003 when Turkey refused US access to Iraq through the
Incirlik airbase.
So, why not give everyone what they wanted.
Obama perched Turkey on a mantle as a regional player/leader/conduit
and through Vice-President Joe Biden "applauded" Sarkisian for his
leadership, an affirmation by the US that the Armenian president
needed and direly wanted ever since taking office in April 2008. So,
Armenia was quick to give in to US demands, perhaps in hopes that it
will receive a larger US aid package and the once-frozen Millennium
challenge money.
This is no excuse for Obama to trample on his own campaign pledge on
April 24, but if the Armenian leadership was willing to show disdain
on the timing of this announcement, then more reason for the US to
justify its actions by pointing the finger at Armenia.
Nevertheless, Obama's betrayal of his own pledge is unforgivable and
demonstrates that this agent for change buckled down under pressure
from the various forces that define the US agenda and became synonymous
with his predecessors. By not properly recognizing the Genocide, Obama
alienated a very vocal support-base, which went to great lengths to
ensure his election.
The always word-conscious Obama should be told that "Medz Yeghern"
does not mean "Tseghaspanutiune"--Genocide. So, what does happen
next? The domino effect that Yerevan's faulty timing has created
will impact on how we do things here in the US. This means securing
the passage of the Genocide resolution is now, more than ever, more
critical and demands a more vigorous grassroots involvement to ensure
that the number of co-sponsors increases and that Speaker Pelosi will
place this for a vote on the House floor.
Her remarks last week indicated her continued insistence that the
Genocide be recognized. We should harness the bi-partisan support
toward the passage of the resolution, which, in essence, direct the
president to properly recognize the Genocide.
As for the ARF, it will become an alternative on the political scene
in Armenia and will be able to guide the people through principled
policies aimed at fostering national interests and it will continue
to vocally oppose any effort or agreement that will pose a threat to
national security and threaten our national aspirations.
ARA KHACHATOURIAN
www.asbarez.com/index.html?showarti cle=41892_4/28/2009_1
Monday, April 27, 2009
The timing of the now-infamous "Roadmap" announced last Wednesday by
the foreign ministries of Armenia, Turkey and Switzerland not only
cast a dark cloud over April 24 commemorations around the world and
in Armenia, but also put in motion political events, the results
of which may, in the long run, hurt Armenia and Armenians and their
national aspirations and security.
Monday's announcement by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation to quit
Armenia's coalition government resulted from this and other contentious
issues stemming from Yerevan's handling of this process and creating a
new political landscape that can have its implications in the Diaspora.
It is always desirable and socio-economically necessary to have good
relations with one's neighbors, but the manner in which this particular
agreement was derived raises questions about the viability of Armenia's
position in this and other regional aspects. The agreement, which
is shrouded in secrecy and official Yerevan's refusal to dialogue
with its people prior to taking the country on a journey of historic
proportions, makes it hard to not conjecture that in this process
Armenia has made certain concessions.
Although President Serzh Sarkisian and Foreign Minister Eduard
Nalbandian continue to reiterate that these discussions and any
future agreement on opening of the borders will be derived without
any pre-conditions, the timing--two days before the official 94th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide--signals that an irreversible
and irrevocable concession was already forced on and made by Armenia.
While during the negotiation process, the parties can express and
adopt positions that may lead to success or breakdown of talks,
the fact will always remain that the announcement was made on April
22. There is no going back.
The Turkish side adeptly manipulated this process beginning with leaks
in Turkish, US and Azeri press alleging that Armenia had already agreed
to certain provisions the most important of which was the establishment
of a commission to address the Genocide and the second the recognition
of today's Turkish borders, which effectively signaled that Armenia was
willing to recognize the Kars treaty to which it was never a signatory.
During recent weeks, the tenor of the Sarkisian administration on
the issue of Genocide recognition also changed.
In an interview, which was conducted before the "roadmap" agreement
but was published after the announcement Sarkisian told the Wall
Street Journal that recognition of Genocide was for "restoration of
justice and prevention of genocide in the future"--a very watered-down
version of the Armenian Cause.
Sarkisian went on tell the WSJ that "If some countries decide to create
difficulties in those [Armenia-Turkey] relations, they would just
announce a recognition of genocide and so would compromise relations
between Armenia and Turkey. Once again, it is not we who are pushing
the US to recognize the genocide." For an administration, which from
day one has stated that the international recognition of the Armenian
Genocide was an integral part of its foreign and domestic policy,
this flip-flopping by the president sends a mixed signal to foreign
governments and thwarts decades-long efforts to garner recognition
for the Genocide.
The meddling US-factor cannot be ignored in this equation. The
unprecedented attention that the Caucasus/Turkey received during the
first 100 days of the Obama administration, with Hillary Clinton
and then Barack Obama visiting Turkey and the State Department's
consigliore, Matthew Bryza effectively setting up camp in the Caucasus
and specifically at Ilham Aliyev's doorstep, signaled that the US
wanted to place this issue on the fast track, because it wanted to
advance its agenda in the region and the role Turkey needed to play
in order for US aspirations to succeed. Obama was not going to risk
a repeat of 2003 when Turkey refused US access to Iraq through the
Incirlik airbase.
So, why not give everyone what they wanted.
Obama perched Turkey on a mantle as a regional player/leader/conduit
and through Vice-President Joe Biden "applauded" Sarkisian for his
leadership, an affirmation by the US that the Armenian president
needed and direly wanted ever since taking office in April 2008. So,
Armenia was quick to give in to US demands, perhaps in hopes that it
will receive a larger US aid package and the once-frozen Millennium
challenge money.
This is no excuse for Obama to trample on his own campaign pledge on
April 24, but if the Armenian leadership was willing to show disdain
on the timing of this announcement, then more reason for the US to
justify its actions by pointing the finger at Armenia.
Nevertheless, Obama's betrayal of his own pledge is unforgivable and
demonstrates that this agent for change buckled down under pressure
from the various forces that define the US agenda and became synonymous
with his predecessors. By not properly recognizing the Genocide, Obama
alienated a very vocal support-base, which went to great lengths to
ensure his election.
The always word-conscious Obama should be told that "Medz Yeghern"
does not mean "Tseghaspanutiune"--Genocide. So, what does happen
next? The domino effect that Yerevan's faulty timing has created
will impact on how we do things here in the US. This means securing
the passage of the Genocide resolution is now, more than ever, more
critical and demands a more vigorous grassroots involvement to ensure
that the number of co-sponsors increases and that Speaker Pelosi will
place this for a vote on the House floor.
Her remarks last week indicated her continued insistence that the
Genocide be recognized. We should harness the bi-partisan support
toward the passage of the resolution, which, in essence, direct the
president to properly recognize the Genocide.
As for the ARF, it will become an alternative on the political scene
in Armenia and will be able to guide the people through principled
policies aimed at fostering national interests and it will continue
to vocally oppose any effort or agreement that will pose a threat to
national security and threaten our national aspirations.