Tweet
PRESS RELEASE
The Civilitas Foundation
One Northern Ave. Suite 30
Yerevan, Armenia
Telephones: +37494.800754; +37410.500119
email: [email protected]
web: www.civilitasfoundation.org
DEMEANING SIGNING FOR DEMEANING PROTOCOLS: CONTRADICTIONS IN ARMENIA-TURKEY
PROTOCOLS BECOME PLAIN
On Saturday, October 10, we witnessed two consequential but sadly
conflicting events. One was the signing of the miscalculated and
ill-constructed Armenia-Turkey protocols, despite great domestic and
international concern and opposition among Armenians. The other was
President Sargsyan's last-minute address to the Armenian people, issued just
hours ahead of the scheduled signing, the content of which was directly and
unabashedly contradictory to the content of the protocols.
Indeed, so different are the two that it can even be said that the
president's arguments were the best reasons to reject the protocols. The
address insisted that there are irrefutable realities and we have undeniable
rights; the protocols on the other hand question the first and eliminate the
second. Armenia, without cause and without necessity, conceded its historic
rights, both regarding genocide recognition and what the address so justly
called `hayrenazrkum - a denial and dispossession of our patrimony.
Further, the provision for ratification of the protocols by the Turkish
parliament comes in the context of repeated and forceful calls by high-level
Turkish officials who repeatedly affirm that ratification hinges on a
Karabakh settlement process Azerbaijan finds favorable. Given this, any
Armenian insistence of no-linkage between Armenia-Turkey and
Karabakh-Azerbaijan is not credulous.
Given the last-minute scrambling and hesitation in Zurich, it is difficult
to imagine a more demeaning signing or a more demeaning document. The
parties themselves and the representatives of the world powers, all were
present but all remained silent. When such a `historic' moment goes by with
none of the sides or the witnesses able to say anything acceptable or in
agreement with the rest, either about the long-awaited event itself or the
content of the documents being signed - it is difficult to see how this
document can provide the serious basis of trust and respect necessary for
stable and respectful relations between the parties.
* *
From: Baghdasarian
The Civilitas Foundation
One Northern Ave. Suite 30
Yerevan, Armenia
Telephones: +37494.800754; +37410.500119
email: [email protected]
web: www.civilitasfoundation.org
DEMEANING SIGNING FOR DEMEANING PROTOCOLS: CONTRADICTIONS IN ARMENIA-TURKEY
PROTOCOLS BECOME PLAIN
On Saturday, October 10, we witnessed two consequential but sadly
conflicting events. One was the signing of the miscalculated and
ill-constructed Armenia-Turkey protocols, despite great domestic and
international concern and opposition among Armenians. The other was
President Sargsyan's last-minute address to the Armenian people, issued just
hours ahead of the scheduled signing, the content of which was directly and
unabashedly contradictory to the content of the protocols.
Indeed, so different are the two that it can even be said that the
president's arguments were the best reasons to reject the protocols. The
address insisted that there are irrefutable realities and we have undeniable
rights; the protocols on the other hand question the first and eliminate the
second. Armenia, without cause and without necessity, conceded its historic
rights, both regarding genocide recognition and what the address so justly
called `hayrenazrkum - a denial and dispossession of our patrimony.
Further, the provision for ratification of the protocols by the Turkish
parliament comes in the context of repeated and forceful calls by high-level
Turkish officials who repeatedly affirm that ratification hinges on a
Karabakh settlement process Azerbaijan finds favorable. Given this, any
Armenian insistence of no-linkage between Armenia-Turkey and
Karabakh-Azerbaijan is not credulous.
Given the last-minute scrambling and hesitation in Zurich, it is difficult
to imagine a more demeaning signing or a more demeaning document. The
parties themselves and the representatives of the world powers, all were
present but all remained silent. When such a `historic' moment goes by with
none of the sides or the witnesses able to say anything acceptable or in
agreement with the rest, either about the long-awaited event itself or the
content of the documents being signed - it is difficult to see how this
document can provide the serious basis of trust and respect necessary for
stable and respectful relations between the parties.
* *
From: Baghdasarian