Tweet
WAS IT NOT THE SAME BEHAVIOUR ON MARCH 1?
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview-lrahos15 413.html
14:46:14 - 05/10/2009
Interview By Arman Galoyan
Interview with the member of the Armenian National Congress,
Matenadaran scientific worker Arshak Banuchyan
The fact that on October 10 the Armenian and Turkish protocols will
be signed seems already determined. What do you think about the
protocols and in particular about the commission setup to study
historical issues?
I do not think it has been determined only now. Just from the
beginning, when the protocols were released it was clear that no
discussion aims at making changes in the pre-signed documents. In
order to make changes there are neither relevant legal mechanisms
nor such possibilities are set by the documents.
In essence, the Congress gave the most balanced and political
assessment of the protocols. Moreover, during the last one year and
a half, the Congress and its leader, have repeatedly voiced about
dangers in home and foreign policies as well as in the Karabakh
issue which did not awake either the government or intellectuals and
political figures engaged in lauding the government in TV. Open the
books of the Armenian first president "Armenian-Turkish relations"
and "Return," published in May of the current year. You will see
that all the current dangers have been predicted there. During the
latest rally, the leader of the Congress, the first president of
Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan pointed out the only solution to this
situation. It is new presidential election, new legitimate government
able to solve the situation, to correct the mistakes. Even, in order
to disperse the fear of political forces terrified by new elections,
he said he will not promote his candidature. To hint to the president
to resign proceeding from national interests is also a manifestation
of political will. Of course, it is understandable that there will be
no resignation. And the political forces who are against the protocols
instead of arousing a national wave demanding resignation focused the
public's attention on the discussions. Foreign Minister's resignation
demand and the signature collecting action promoted the signing of the
protocols. And to dwell on the details of the texts of the protocols
is just a material of thinking exercise. Just the point on setting
up the commission of historians is enough to refuse these protocols.
Many intellectuals in different scientific institutions command these
protocols, while rumours are spread that in reality they are against
them. What would you say in this connection?
If they command the protocols being sure that they do not contain
any precondition, or the fact of genocide is not being disputed,
they have to understand that after in case of a failure, they are
not freed from responsibility. And if they just refute the genocide,
they commit the same crime what those who perpetrated the genocide
did. The same goes for those who being against the protocols, only
complain in the corridors of scientific institutions but do not voice
it. Did they not have the same behaviour after the March 1 events?
It is a common truth: one gets the right to control the destiny
of people through election by the same people. This is not just a
phrase. When taking decisions, the same government feels the support
of the people and communicates with the world being more powerful
with this support. The government, which is not trusted in its
country naturally, cannot resist external repression and in order
to lengthen its power, it has to make concessions in connection
with national-public interests. The whole public machine with its
judicial, tax and other levers persecutes those who try to voice their
complaints. Unfortunately, instead of reconciling with its own people,
the government causes a deeper split between the leadership and the
people. While in the present stage, and in general, we need national
unity around the interests of our country. I feel very sorry for
those intellectuals in the corridors, who keeping silence, in essence
"please" the government.
In your opinion, will they manage to set up the commission of
historians? Who will be its members?
I do not think anyone will dare to participate in the works of such a
commission. Anyway, no one knows. I cannot exclude that someone with
demagogic explanations will not participate in it.
The government insists that there is no precondition in the protocols
and the opposition affirms the opposite.
In general, I think that the setup of the commission of historian
is one of the hidden mines in that protocol which will worsen the
Armenian and Turkish relations. I think the day when the hidden points
of the protocols will appear in the Karabakhi process is not far
either. Is there any sense to speak about a document which is going
to be presented in different ways by different sides. Recently, one
of the lauders of the protocols said in TV that "if Turks explain the
protocols this way, we will explain them that way". They have to be
asked who is going to decide which of the explanations is right. Who
is the judge?
Time, which is the only incorrupt judge, will not let restore the
missed possibilities neither will give time to correct the mistakes.
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview-lrahos15 413.html
14:46:14 - 05/10/2009
Interview By Arman Galoyan
Interview with the member of the Armenian National Congress,
Matenadaran scientific worker Arshak Banuchyan
The fact that on October 10 the Armenian and Turkish protocols will
be signed seems already determined. What do you think about the
protocols and in particular about the commission setup to study
historical issues?
I do not think it has been determined only now. Just from the
beginning, when the protocols were released it was clear that no
discussion aims at making changes in the pre-signed documents. In
order to make changes there are neither relevant legal mechanisms
nor such possibilities are set by the documents.
In essence, the Congress gave the most balanced and political
assessment of the protocols. Moreover, during the last one year and
a half, the Congress and its leader, have repeatedly voiced about
dangers in home and foreign policies as well as in the Karabakh
issue which did not awake either the government or intellectuals and
political figures engaged in lauding the government in TV. Open the
books of the Armenian first president "Armenian-Turkish relations"
and "Return," published in May of the current year. You will see
that all the current dangers have been predicted there. During the
latest rally, the leader of the Congress, the first president of
Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan pointed out the only solution to this
situation. It is new presidential election, new legitimate government
able to solve the situation, to correct the mistakes. Even, in order
to disperse the fear of political forces terrified by new elections,
he said he will not promote his candidature. To hint to the president
to resign proceeding from national interests is also a manifestation
of political will. Of course, it is understandable that there will be
no resignation. And the political forces who are against the protocols
instead of arousing a national wave demanding resignation focused the
public's attention on the discussions. Foreign Minister's resignation
demand and the signature collecting action promoted the signing of the
protocols. And to dwell on the details of the texts of the protocols
is just a material of thinking exercise. Just the point on setting
up the commission of historians is enough to refuse these protocols.
Many intellectuals in different scientific institutions command these
protocols, while rumours are spread that in reality they are against
them. What would you say in this connection?
If they command the protocols being sure that they do not contain
any precondition, or the fact of genocide is not being disputed,
they have to understand that after in case of a failure, they are
not freed from responsibility. And if they just refute the genocide,
they commit the same crime what those who perpetrated the genocide
did. The same goes for those who being against the protocols, only
complain in the corridors of scientific institutions but do not voice
it. Did they not have the same behaviour after the March 1 events?
It is a common truth: one gets the right to control the destiny
of people through election by the same people. This is not just a
phrase. When taking decisions, the same government feels the support
of the people and communicates with the world being more powerful
with this support. The government, which is not trusted in its
country naturally, cannot resist external repression and in order
to lengthen its power, it has to make concessions in connection
with national-public interests. The whole public machine with its
judicial, tax and other levers persecutes those who try to voice their
complaints. Unfortunately, instead of reconciling with its own people,
the government causes a deeper split between the leadership and the
people. While in the present stage, and in general, we need national
unity around the interests of our country. I feel very sorry for
those intellectuals in the corridors, who keeping silence, in essence
"please" the government.
In your opinion, will they manage to set up the commission of
historians? Who will be its members?
I do not think anyone will dare to participate in the works of such a
commission. Anyway, no one knows. I cannot exclude that someone with
demagogic explanations will not participate in it.
The government insists that there is no precondition in the protocols
and the opposition affirms the opposite.
In general, I think that the setup of the commission of historian
is one of the hidden mines in that protocol which will worsen the
Armenian and Turkish relations. I think the day when the hidden points
of the protocols will appear in the Karabakhi process is not far
either. Is there any sense to speak about a document which is going
to be presented in different ways by different sides. Recently, one
of the lauders of the protocols said in TV that "if Turks explain the
protocols this way, we will explain them that way". They have to be
asked who is going to decide which of the explanations is right. Who
is the judge?
Time, which is the only incorrupt judge, will not let restore the
missed possibilities neither will give time to correct the mistakes.