Tweet
CONTRADICTIONS OBVIOUS IN ARMENIA-TURKEY PROTOCOLS
Civilitas Foundation
Sunday, 11 October 2009 16:20 |
Turkey
DEMEANING SIGNING FOR DEMEANING PROTOCOLS: 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 second 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 favorable Karabakh settlement process. Given
this, any Armenian insiste nce 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.
Civilitas Foundation
Sunday, 11 October 2009 16:20 |
Turkey
DEMEANING SIGNING FOR DEMEANING PROTOCOLS: 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 second 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 favorable Karabakh settlement process. Given
this, any Armenian insiste nce 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.