Tweet
ARMENIA-TURKEY PROTOCOLS SHORTSIGHTED
http://www.civilitasfoundation.org/c f/interviews/265-armenia-turkey-protocols-shortsig hted.html
Wednesday, 07 October 2009 00:00
Mr. Oskanian, it is obvious today that the executive branch and
their majority in parliament are for 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 anothe
r 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=2 0no 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,
f ind 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
preco ndition, 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 authoritiesE2 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=2
0political 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 reg arding 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.Mr. Oskanian, it is obvious today that the
executive branch and their majority in parliament are for 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.
At20the 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'=2 0are 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 shortsightedne ss. 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=2 0to 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 trying20to
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,=2 0and 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 recogni ze 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.
http://www.civilitasfoundation.org/c f/interviews/265-armenia-turkey-protocols-shortsig hted.html
Wednesday, 07 October 2009 00:00
Mr. Oskanian, it is obvious today that the executive branch and
their majority in parliament are for 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 anothe
r 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=2 0no 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,
f ind 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
preco ndition, 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 authoritiesE2 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=2
0political 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 reg arding 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.Mr. Oskanian, it is obvious today that the
executive branch and their majority in parliament are for 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.
At20the 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'=2 0are 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 shortsightedne ss. 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=2 0to 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 trying20to
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,=2 0and 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 recogni ze 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.