Tweet
OSKANIAN: ARMENIA-TURKEY PROTOCOLS ARE SHORTSIGHTED
Vartan Oskanian's Interview to www.7or.am, October 7, 2009
*Mr. Oskanian, it is obvious today that the executive branch and their
majority in parliament are in favor of signing the Armenia-Turkey protocols.
It seems nothing stands in their way especially since their representatives
constantly say that given the population's grave socio-economic situation,
it is obvious that they support the signing since that is the only way to
have the border open.*
* *
First, there are more dignified ways to arrive at an open border, I'm
certain of that. Today, it's obvious that both in Armenia, and in the
Diaspora the general mood is quite apparent. In Armenia, as a result of
discussions, however superficial, and after Serge Sargsian's foreign visits,
it's obvious that there is a great deal of resistance to this initiative. As
a result of this process, whose dangers were apparent to me early on, our
nation finds itself in a complicated situation, from which the government is
not trying to extricate itself; rather, it's further intensifying it.
*At the beginning of the Armenia-Turkey process, the political forces were
reserved in their comments, and the pitfalls did not seem obvious to many.
Was it possible to avoid publicizing these documents and to take the process
in another direction?*
* *
Of course it was possible, but what we have today is the worst-case
scenario. First, the process went public, which on the one hand enticed the
Turkish side to exploit the process for its own sake, and as a result,
important countries with differing interests engaged at very high levels.
Second, the Armenian government succumbed to artificial and senseless
timetables which served the interests of other countries. On April 22, they
made a statement which provided President Obama with the opportunity not to
use the term `genocide'; then came the premature publicizing of these
protocols with a date for signing that would give Serzh Sargsyan the
justification he needs to attend the football game in Turkey. As a result of
the administration's miscalculations and their ignoring obvious realities,
we have today two very serious problems. First, a hasty and badly negotiated
document which even in the case of the most pragmatic interpretation, goes
counter to our national interests. Second, a continuing and unpredictable
process on which the Republic of Armenia has zero leverage and influence.
Today it's a fact that as a result of those documents there is serious
tension, to say the least, in our society. Therefore, there is a serious
problem with this document, right? But to pull off such an agreement with
Turkey, it would have been necessary to enjoy serious majority support.
Today, not only is there no such support, but the contrary is true. The
authorities had no right to put our people in such a situation.
*Mr. Oskanian, your criticism can leave the impression that there is some
jealousy or envy. *
Any fair-thinking individual would realize that the man who is to sign this
document is not to be envied. Further, those who are forced to explain away
my criticism by calling it jealousy do so because they can't publicly accept
their own failures, and it turns out they're well aware that they're in a
difficult situation. During the president's closed-door meetings with the
Diaspora, eve government representatives said that this is a badly
negotiated document, but because it's already on the table, they are forced
to defend it. But I would like to point out that this is not something like
a tax-legislation package that we can say is not so great, but we can pass
it, and then later see about improving it. This is that critical document
which assesses our past and pre-determines our future.
*But those who defend the documents say that there are no pre-conditions in
the protocols and even stress that the words `genocide' or `Karabakh' are
not even there.*
* *
Did they really think that there, black on white, it was supposed to say
that we renounce the genocide issue and Karabakh, too? Those who defend this
document, who resist seeing the obvious realities, would, I suppose, find
ways to prove their position even if that were the case. You know, if some
people don't wish to see reality, that doesn't mean that reality does not
exist. With these protocols, the Turks have seen expressed their 17 years of
preconditions - a commission that studies historic events and documents,
and
recognition of borders. In fact, since `making news' and `taking initiative'
are in vogue in Armenia these days, let me assure you that by signing these
protocols, Armenia will indeed be the first in the world in one thing - in
the history of diplomacy, there are no other protocols which affirm the
recognition of existing borders; there is no such principle in the world.
There are more than 190 countries in the world and nearly that many
territorial disputes. Those countries have diplomatic relations, recognize
each other's territorial integrity, without confirming each other's borders,
or at least not formulated in such a way. Today, when Aliyev can stand on
the lands of Nakhichevan and insolently proclaim that Zangezur is
Azerbaijani territory, Armenia's recognizing Turkey's present borders is
simply political shortsightedness. So, these two preconditions are in fact
in this document; while the other one - about Karabakh - is something that
Erdogan reminds us about daily. No matter how much the Armenian government
insists that NK is not a precondition, no matter how often the co-chairs
insist that NK is not a precondition, at the end of the day, who is it who
will open the border - the same person who is announcing that NK is indeed a
precondition.
*Today there are some who analyze the domestic political situation, and
issues related to democratization and conclude that all this facilitates
foreign pressure on Armenia.*
You know, in 18 years, democracy in Armenia has never been in an enviable
state. I was foreign minister for 10 years and I can assure all those who
don't know, as well as all those who know but wish to mislead the public,
that the international community cannot force a government to take steps it
does not wish to take. And those who wish to justify the government's
foreign policy by invoking the idea of foreign pressure, they are simply
aiding in the implementation of this flawed policy.
*Nevertheless, responding to your criticism, many respond by saying that
Armenia was seriously weakened after the last presidential election, after
the events of March 1, and thus it became easier for the international
community and the superpowers to push the Armenian government to take steps
which assume greater risk. And in this context, there is often mention of
your share of the guilt.*
* *
Every government since independence bears some guilt for Armenia's
unenviable international situation. Some more, some less. But if we only
engage in demagogery and accusations and counter-accusations, Armenia's
problems will not be solved. That only justifies today's failures, both
domestic and foreign. Yes, the domestic situation does have a determining
effect, but not because it brings on foreign pressures. When there are so
many domestic problems, political divisions, serious economic challenges,
problems with democracy, all of which cannot be resolved by opening the
border, and you add to these this new situation, we will be faced with
challenges which we will not be able to withstand unless we have a unified
society and a government which enjoys the public's categoric support.
*You mean the challenges involved in the Karabakh resolution process?*
* *
Yes, and today those who insist that the Armenia-Turkey process is not
linked to the Karabakh process are fooling themselves. I have no other
explanation. I don't exclude the possibility that Turkey will open the
border before the Karabakh issue has reached a final resolution. But I do
exclude the possibility that they will do so without having received the
assurances of the main actors about the return of territories and a
resolution of the Karabakh status issue that is to Azerbaijan's liking. This
is the most worrisome. The government's insistence that the process is not
linked to Karabakh or that these are really good documents raises serious
questions in my mind about the soundness of the authorities' judgments. When
they really don't see anything to worry about, then there is reason to worry
that tomorrow, in the Karabakh process too, the worse formulations also
won't be a source of concern for them.
*Mr. Oskanian, there is also criticism aimed your way saying that both the
current Armenia-Turkey negotiations, as well as the Karabakh document on the
table today, were born in your days in office.*
* *
The shortest answer to that question is that this kind of public, high-level
Turkey-Armenia process that is taking place today and that could bring upon
us serious pressures on the Karabakh issue did not exist in our day. That's
an irrefutable fact. As to the Karabakh document, it is supposed to be the
basis for negotiations, not for hasty solutions. Neither in the
Armenia-Turkey case, nor in the case of Karabakh, have we brought any
documents to the public for their consideration. Therefore such criticism is
baseless.
*There are also claims that the dangers that this process may bring for the
NK issue are theoretical, but that an open border is essential, and will
come at a cost.*
* *
That's the whole issue - at what price. Today they are trying to offer
us
two erroneous assumptions: one is that the open border is our only
salvation. Without at all disputing that an open border is far better than
a closed border, let's also admit that Armenia's internal, systemic economic
and political problems are so many that even partially solving even a few of
those problems would have incomparably greater economic effect than an open
border. Those problems have nothing to do with a closed border. Further, the
open border will not have a direct impact on the life of the average
citizen, or will have only a small and short-lived effect, because the
opening of the border will also bring with it a variety of economic
challenges which will be possible to address only when there is rule of law
in our country and not the countless problems which we have today. In
exchange for an open border, such capitulation would have been
understandable only if Armenia's very existence depended on it. Is it
possible that some people think that we are in that kind of desperate
situation?**
The second erroneous assumption is that the open border is as necessary for
us as the air we breathe and the water we drink, and therefore we must pay
that price. With the policies of the past, Armenia has proven countless ways
that the Turkish blockade cannot bring us to our knees. The country was
experiencing economic growth, there were no concessions in the NK question,
and the genocide recognition process was moving forward at a rapid pace and
that of course was the source of greatest concern for Turkey. In that sense,
we had a great negotiating advantage over Turkey. It is Turkey that is
under European pressure regarding opening the border, Turkey's eastern
regions are suffering economically, and they need the open border no less
than us. It is Turkey that wishes to play a regional role, and without an
open border that is not possible. Each year, it is Turkey that faces the
`danger' of possible US recognition of the genocide, and finally, it is the
Turkish leadership that has announced a policy of zero problems with
neighbors. Today we have given Turkey the opportunity to implement that
policy at our expense. Had we taken all these factors into consideration, we
could have been a bit more patient and implemented a more prudent diplomacy,
so that we could have a more desirable outcome sooner or later. Instead,
rather than taking advantage of the situation, the Armenian side has not
only agreed to all the preconditions, but has also given Turkey the right to
unilaterally determine the opening of the border.
*Nevertheless, many insist that even if we accept that the process did not
evolve in a way that would have been most beneficial for us, there is no way
out now, and the only thing to do is to conclude the process.*
* *
If there is the desire to recognize a mistake and correct it, then it's
always possible to find a way out. After all, in Turkey and in the US, and
in Europe, they are following the resistance that has been demonstrated both
in Armenia and in the Diaspora. It is possible to cite that resistance, and
even go to watch the football game, but ask for a `time-out' as far as
signing the protocols is concerned, and then, under more comfortable
circumstances, return to a confidential, not public format of meetings, and
negotiate a more acceptable document. Everything can be put on the right
path, if, of course, there is a desire to do so and not to, at all costs,
prove that one is right.
Vartan Oskanian's Interview to www.7or.am, October 7, 2009
*Mr. Oskanian, it is obvious today that the executive branch and their
majority in parliament are in favor of signing the Armenia-Turkey protocols.
It seems nothing stands in their way especially since their representatives
constantly say that given the population's grave socio-economic situation,
it is obvious that they support the signing since that is the only way to
have the border open.*
* *
First, there are more dignified ways to arrive at an open border, I'm
certain of that. Today, it's obvious that both in Armenia, and in the
Diaspora the general mood is quite apparent. In Armenia, as a result of
discussions, however superficial, and after Serge Sargsian's foreign visits,
it's obvious that there is a great deal of resistance to this initiative. As
a result of this process, whose dangers were apparent to me early on, our
nation finds itself in a complicated situation, from which the government is
not trying to extricate itself; rather, it's further intensifying it.
*At the beginning of the Armenia-Turkey process, the political forces were
reserved in their comments, and the pitfalls did not seem obvious to many.
Was it possible to avoid publicizing these documents and to take the process
in another direction?*
* *
Of course it was possible, but what we have today is the worst-case
scenario. First, the process went public, which on the one hand enticed the
Turkish side to exploit the process for its own sake, and as a result,
important countries with differing interests engaged at very high levels.
Second, the Armenian government succumbed to artificial and senseless
timetables which served the interests of other countries. On April 22, they
made a statement which provided President Obama with the opportunity not to
use the term `genocide'; then came the premature publicizing of these
protocols with a date for signing that would give Serzh Sargsyan the
justification he needs to attend the football game in Turkey. As a result of
the administration's miscalculations and their ignoring obvious realities,
we have today two very serious problems. First, a hasty and badly negotiated
document which even in the case of the most pragmatic interpretation, goes
counter to our national interests. Second, a continuing and unpredictable
process on which the Republic of Armenia has zero leverage and influence.
Today it's a fact that as a result of those documents there is serious
tension, to say the least, in our society. Therefore, there is a serious
problem with this document, right? But to pull off such an agreement with
Turkey, it would have been necessary to enjoy serious majority support.
Today, not only is there no such support, but the contrary is true. The
authorities had no right to put our people in such a situation.
*Mr. Oskanian, your criticism can leave the impression that there is some
jealousy or envy. *
Any fair-thinking individual would realize that the man who is to sign this
document is not to be envied. Further, those who are forced to explain away
my criticism by calling it jealousy do so because they can't publicly accept
their own failures, and it turns out they're well aware that they're in a
difficult situation. During the president's closed-door meetings with the
Diaspora, eve government representatives said that this is a badly
negotiated document, but because it's already on the table, they are forced
to defend it. But I would like to point out that this is not something like
a tax-legislation package that we can say is not so great, but we can pass
it, and then later see about improving it. This is that critical document
which assesses our past and pre-determines our future.
*But those who defend the documents say that there are no pre-conditions in
the protocols and even stress that the words `genocide' or `Karabakh' are
not even there.*
* *
Did they really think that there, black on white, it was supposed to say
that we renounce the genocide issue and Karabakh, too? Those who defend this
document, who resist seeing the obvious realities, would, I suppose, find
ways to prove their position even if that were the case. You know, if some
people don't wish to see reality, that doesn't mean that reality does not
exist. With these protocols, the Turks have seen expressed their 17 years of
preconditions - a commission that studies historic events and documents,
and
recognition of borders. In fact, since `making news' and `taking initiative'
are in vogue in Armenia these days, let me assure you that by signing these
protocols, Armenia will indeed be the first in the world in one thing - in
the history of diplomacy, there are no other protocols which affirm the
recognition of existing borders; there is no such principle in the world.
There are more than 190 countries in the world and nearly that many
territorial disputes. Those countries have diplomatic relations, recognize
each other's territorial integrity, without confirming each other's borders,
or at least not formulated in such a way. Today, when Aliyev can stand on
the lands of Nakhichevan and insolently proclaim that Zangezur is
Azerbaijani territory, Armenia's recognizing Turkey's present borders is
simply political shortsightedness. So, these two preconditions are in fact
in this document; while the other one - about Karabakh - is something that
Erdogan reminds us about daily. No matter how much the Armenian government
insists that NK is not a precondition, no matter how often the co-chairs
insist that NK is not a precondition, at the end of the day, who is it who
will open the border - the same person who is announcing that NK is indeed a
precondition.
*Today there are some who analyze the domestic political situation, and
issues related to democratization and conclude that all this facilitates
foreign pressure on Armenia.*
You know, in 18 years, democracy in Armenia has never been in an enviable
state. I was foreign minister for 10 years and I can assure all those who
don't know, as well as all those who know but wish to mislead the public,
that the international community cannot force a government to take steps it
does not wish to take. And those who wish to justify the government's
foreign policy by invoking the idea of foreign pressure, they are simply
aiding in the implementation of this flawed policy.
*Nevertheless, responding to your criticism, many respond by saying that
Armenia was seriously weakened after the last presidential election, after
the events of March 1, and thus it became easier for the international
community and the superpowers to push the Armenian government to take steps
which assume greater risk. And in this context, there is often mention of
your share of the guilt.*
* *
Every government since independence bears some guilt for Armenia's
unenviable international situation. Some more, some less. But if we only
engage in demagogery and accusations and counter-accusations, Armenia's
problems will not be solved. That only justifies today's failures, both
domestic and foreign. Yes, the domestic situation does have a determining
effect, but not because it brings on foreign pressures. When there are so
many domestic problems, political divisions, serious economic challenges,
problems with democracy, all of which cannot be resolved by opening the
border, and you add to these this new situation, we will be faced with
challenges which we will not be able to withstand unless we have a unified
society and a government which enjoys the public's categoric support.
*You mean the challenges involved in the Karabakh resolution process?*
* *
Yes, and today those who insist that the Armenia-Turkey process is not
linked to the Karabakh process are fooling themselves. I have no other
explanation. I don't exclude the possibility that Turkey will open the
border before the Karabakh issue has reached a final resolution. But I do
exclude the possibility that they will do so without having received the
assurances of the main actors about the return of territories and a
resolution of the Karabakh status issue that is to Azerbaijan's liking. This
is the most worrisome. The government's insistence that the process is not
linked to Karabakh or that these are really good documents raises serious
questions in my mind about the soundness of the authorities' judgments. When
they really don't see anything to worry about, then there is reason to worry
that tomorrow, in the Karabakh process too, the worse formulations also
won't be a source of concern for them.
*Mr. Oskanian, there is also criticism aimed your way saying that both the
current Armenia-Turkey negotiations, as well as the Karabakh document on the
table today, were born in your days in office.*
* *
The shortest answer to that question is that this kind of public, high-level
Turkey-Armenia process that is taking place today and that could bring upon
us serious pressures on the Karabakh issue did not exist in our day. That's
an irrefutable fact. As to the Karabakh document, it is supposed to be the
basis for negotiations, not for hasty solutions. Neither in the
Armenia-Turkey case, nor in the case of Karabakh, have we brought any
documents to the public for their consideration. Therefore such criticism is
baseless.
*There are also claims that the dangers that this process may bring for the
NK issue are theoretical, but that an open border is essential, and will
come at a cost.*
* *
That's the whole issue - at what price. Today they are trying to offer
us
two erroneous assumptions: one is that the open border is our only
salvation. Without at all disputing that an open border is far better than
a closed border, let's also admit that Armenia's internal, systemic economic
and political problems are so many that even partially solving even a few of
those problems would have incomparably greater economic effect than an open
border. Those problems have nothing to do with a closed border. Further, the
open border will not have a direct impact on the life of the average
citizen, or will have only a small and short-lived effect, because the
opening of the border will also bring with it a variety of economic
challenges which will be possible to address only when there is rule of law
in our country and not the countless problems which we have today. In
exchange for an open border, such capitulation would have been
understandable only if Armenia's very existence depended on it. Is it
possible that some people think that we are in that kind of desperate
situation?**
The second erroneous assumption is that the open border is as necessary for
us as the air we breathe and the water we drink, and therefore we must pay
that price. With the policies of the past, Armenia has proven countless ways
that the Turkish blockade cannot bring us to our knees. The country was
experiencing economic growth, there were no concessions in the NK question,
and the genocide recognition process was moving forward at a rapid pace and
that of course was the source of greatest concern for Turkey. In that sense,
we had a great negotiating advantage over Turkey. It is Turkey that is
under European pressure regarding opening the border, Turkey's eastern
regions are suffering economically, and they need the open border no less
than us. It is Turkey that wishes to play a regional role, and without an
open border that is not possible. Each year, it is Turkey that faces the
`danger' of possible US recognition of the genocide, and finally, it is the
Turkish leadership that has announced a policy of zero problems with
neighbors. Today we have given Turkey the opportunity to implement that
policy at our expense. Had we taken all these factors into consideration, we
could have been a bit more patient and implemented a more prudent diplomacy,
so that we could have a more desirable outcome sooner or later. Instead,
rather than taking advantage of the situation, the Armenian side has not
only agreed to all the preconditions, but has also given Turkey the right to
unilaterally determine the opening of the border.
*Nevertheless, many insist that even if we accept that the process did not
evolve in a way that would have been most beneficial for us, there is no way
out now, and the only thing to do is to conclude the process.*
* *
If there is the desire to recognize a mistake and correct it, then it's
always possible to find a way out. After all, in Turkey and in the US, and
in Europe, they are following the resistance that has been demonstrated both
in Armenia and in the Diaspora. It is possible to cite that resistance, and
even go to watch the football game, but ask for a `time-out' as far as
signing the protocols is concerned, and then, under more comfortable
circumstances, return to a confidential, not public format of meetings, and
negotiate a more acceptable document. Everything can be put on the right
path, if, of course, there is a desire to do so and not to, at all costs,
prove that one is right.