Tweet
ARMENIA-TURKEY PROTOCOLS SIGNED
http://www.civilitasfoundation.org/cf/anal ysis/caucasus/269-armenia-turkey-protocols-signed. html
Aravot Daily
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 11:17
Caucasus
First Step - Capitulation: The ill-constructed protocols signaling the
beginning of formal relations between Armenia and Turkey received an
uncertain and inauspicious signing in Zurich. 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 to the
rest, either about the long-awaited event itself or the content
of the documents being signed - it becomes obvious that these
documents are in fact full of the contradictions and expectations
that do not engender the serious trust and respect necessary for
stable and respectful relations between countries.Those within and
outside Armenia who support this process label all those against it
as nationalists, extremists or those who categorically reject all
relations with Turkey. But I, and others like me, who have for decades
wanted and continue to believe in the importance of Armenia-Turkey
rapprochement are neither extremists or nationalists.We are not afraid
to recognize the enormous challenges of creating a new relationship
in the context of overwhelming political, psychological, practical
challenges. It is for fundamental political and security reasons
that we oppose these protocols. We want the documents that define
our reciprocal relationship to be respectful, farsighted and most
of all, sustainable. These protocols are not. We want the documents
to define a 21st century relationship that is as honest about past
grievances as it is about contemporary political realities. These
protocols are not.Instead of an acknowledgement of the historic
divide and mutual distrust that separates us, or at the very least
circumventing that topic, the documents place one-sided conditions
and receive one-sided concessions. Normalization has thus begun
with the capitulation of the Armenian side.Indeed these protocols -
barely signed and not even ratified - have already damaged, possibly
irrevocably, Armenia's positions on the three most significant issues
of national security and national identity.First, they will hamper
the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. The reason for this is
simple. Any Armenian insistence of no-linkage between Armenia-Turkey
and Armenian-Azerbaijani is not credulous.
The linkage between the Turkey border opening and the resolution
of the Karabakh conflict was clear from the beginning. Now, it's
inarguable. If the presence of the Minsk Group co-chair countries'
foreign ministers at the signing wasn't enough, there were the last
minute frantic attempts at the signing ceremony to prevent Turkey from
speaking of that linkage at that forum. But the coup de grace was the
Turkish Prime Minister's unequivocal conditional announcement the day
after, buttressed by the strength of his ruling party whose meeting
had just concluded, that the Turkish Parliament won't ratify these
protocols until territories are returned.Any acceptable resolution
will require certain compromise on the Armenian side - including
compromise on the territories surrounding Karabakh. Many would say
that such compromise would have been necessary eventually regardless
of Armenia-Turkey relations. This is true. But in this conditional
environment, when Turkey at every opportunity refers to the return
of territories without the resolution of Karabakh's status, even the
most reasonable compromise that Armenia would have been prepared to
make will be more difficult for this or any administration to make,
because it will be viewed domestically as a concession made under
pressure, in exchange for open borders, not for the independence
of Karabakh. Even if the Turkish parliament ratifies the protocols
and opens the border with the mere expectation that Armenians will
return those territories in the near future, still, in the context
of the forceful and repeated admonitions by the Turkish leadership,
those expectations will themselves become conditions that the border
opening was in exchange for possible future concessions.Second, the
nature of the genocide debate has been deeply altered. The ink on the
protocols was not even dry before major news outlets and international
figures began to couch their terminology, retreating from the use of
the term genocide, citing the protocol's provisions that a commission
will determine what the events of 1915 really were. In other words,
we have offered the international community the formalization of
official Turkey's position. If earlier, Armenians and international
experts had defined the political and historical events as genocide,
while the official Turkish side insisted on denying the term and
the history behind the term, today, the official Turkish "doubts"
have been sanctioned and will internationalize the denial of the
events, their causes and consequences, and thus strengthen the
historic and demographic status quo. Armenians will now be dragged
into a new cycle of denial - struggling against the machinery of a
state bent on rewriting history and consolidating the consequences
of genocide.Finally, this document succeeds in touching what had
heretofore been a dormant but sensitive issue - the subject of
borders and territorial claims. No Armenian administration had ever
made such a claim of Turkey. Today, this sensitive issue has become a
front-line issue. When Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says
these protocols reaffirm the provisions of the Lausanne Treaty, that
means the issue of reparation and compensation is now on the table. I
do not demand my ancestral home in Marash, but if that demand were
really so illusive, then why is Turkey forcing me to renounce my
historic links with that home?It is important to understand that
the claim on land is not merely a sentimental issue having to do
with Armenian properties in Turkey 100 years ago. The issue of
lands is also an important element of the Karabakh conflict. If a
mere 100 years later, Turkey is able to formalize and legalize its
control of lands taken forcibly, then what's to prevent Armenians
from waiting if that offers them the opportunity to formalize their
control of the lands surrounding Karabakh?On Saturday, October 10,
we heard President Sargsyan's address to the Armenian people, issued
just hours ahead of the scheduled signing, the content of which
was directly contradictory to the content of the protocols. 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.The administration said one thing and signed
another. Normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations, as an idea even,
has been discredited.The processes - both Armenia-Turkey, and the
Karabakh peace talks - are going to become more complicated and more
intense, and not at all to our advantage. If Armenia does not bring
this process to a halt, and return to square one, the consequences
will be grave not just for the administration, but for the Armenian
people.First Step - Capitulation: The ill-constructed protocols
signaling the beginning of formal relations between Armenia and
Turkey received an uncertain and inauspicious signing in Zurich. 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 to the rest, either about the long-awaited event
itself or the content of the documents being signed - it becomes
obvious that these documents are in fact full of the contradictions
and expectations that do not engender the serious trust and respect
necessary for stable and respectful relations between countries.
Those within and outside Armenia who support this process label all
those against it as nationalists, extremists or those who categorically
reject all relations with Turkey. But I, and others like me, who
have for decades wanted and continue to believe in the importance of
Armenia-Turkey rapprochement are neither extremists or nationalists.
We are not afraid to recognize the enormous challenges of creating
a new relationship in the context of overwhelming political,
psychological, practical challenges. It is for fundamental political
and security reasons that we oppose these protocols. We want the
documents that define our reciprocal relationship to be respectful,
farsighted and most of all, sustainable. These protocols are not. We
want the documents to define a 21st century relationship that is as
honest about past grievances as it is about contemporary political
realities. These protocols are not.
Instead of an acknowledgement of the historic divide and mutual
distrust that separates us, or at the very least circumventing that
topic, the documents place one-sided conditions and receive one-sided
concessions.
Normalization has thus begun with the capitulation of the Armenian
side.
Indeed these protocols - barely signed and not even ratified - have
already damaged, possibly irrevocably, Armenia's positions on the three
most significant issues of national security and national identity.
First, they will hamper the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. The
reason for this is simple. Any Armenian insistence of no-linkage
between Armenia-Turkey and Armenian-Azerbaijani is not credulous. The
linkage between the Turkey border opening and the resolution of
the Karabakh conflict was clear from the beginning. Now, it's
inarguable. If the presence of the Minsk Group co-chair countries'
foreign ministers at the signing wasn't enough, there were the last
minute frantic attempts at the signing ceremony to prevent Turkey
from speaking of that linkage at that forum. But the coup de grace
was the Turkish Prime Minister's unequivocal conditional announcement
the day after, buttressed by the strength of his ruling party whose
meeting had just concluded, that the Turkish Parliament won't ratify
these protocols until territories are returned.
Any acceptable resolution will require certain compromise on the
Armenian side - including compromise on the territories surrounding
Karabakh.
Many would say that such compromise would have been necessary
eventually regardless of Armenia-Turkey relations. This is true. But
in this conditional environment, when Turkey at every opportunity
refers to the return of territories without the resolution of
Karabakh's status, even the most reasonable compromise that Armenia
would have been prepared to make will be more difficult for this or
any administration to make, because it will be viewed domestically
as a concession made under pressure, in exchange for open borders,
not for the independence of Karabakh. Even if the Turkish parliament
ratifies the protocols and opens the border with the mere expectation
that Armenians will return those territories in the near future, still,
in the context of the forceful and repeated admonitions by the Turkish
leadership, those expectations will themselves become conditions that
the border opening was in exchange for possible future concessions.
Second, the nature of the genocide debate has been deeply altered. The
ink on the protocols was not even dry before major news outlets and
international figures began to couch their terminology, retreating from
the use of the term genocide, citing the protocol's provisions that a
commission will determine what the events of 1915 really were. In other
words, we have offered the international community the formalization
of official Turkey's position. If earlier, Armenians and international
experts had defined the political and historical events as genocide,
while the official Turkish side insisted on denying the term and the
history behind the term, today, the official Turkish "doubts" have
been sanctioned and will internationalize the denial of the events,
their causes and consequences, and thus strengthen the historic and
demographic status quo. Armenians will now be dragged into a new
cycle of denial - struggling against the machinery of a state bent
on rewriting history and consolidating the consequences of genocide.
Finally, this document succeeds in touching what had heretofore
been a dormant but sensitive issue - the subject of borders and
territorial claims. No Armenian administration had ever made such a
claim of Turkey.
Today, this sensitive issue has become a front-line issue. When Turkish
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says these protocols reaffirm the
provisions of the Lausanne Treaty, that means the issue of reparation
and compensation is now on the table. I do not demand my ancestral
home in Marash, but if that demand were really so illusive, then why
is Turkey forcing me to renounce my historic links with that home?
It is important to understand that the claim on land is not merely
a sentimental issue having to do with Armenian properties in Turkey
100 years ago. The issue of lands is also an important element of
the Karabakh conflict. If a mere 100 years later, Turkey is able to
formalize and legalize its control of lands taken forcibly, then what's
to prevent Armenians from waiting if that offers them the opportunity
to formalize their control of the lands surrounding Karabakh?
On Saturday, October 10, we heard President Sargsyan's address to the
Armenian people, issued just hours ahead of the scheduled signing,
the content of which was directly contradictory to the content of
the protocols.
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.
The administration said one thing and signed another. Normalization
of Armenia-Turkey relations, as an idea even, has been discredited.
The processes - both Armenia-Turkey, and the Karabakh peace talks -
are going to become more complicated and more intense, and not at all
to our advantage. If Armenia does not bring this process to a halt,
and return to square one, the consequences will be grave not just
for the administration, but for the Armenian people.
http://www.civilitasfoundation.org/cf/anal ysis/caucasus/269-armenia-turkey-protocols-signed. html
Aravot Daily
Wednesday, 14 October 2009 11:17
Caucasus
First Step - Capitulation: The ill-constructed protocols signaling the
beginning of formal relations between Armenia and Turkey received an
uncertain and inauspicious signing in Zurich. 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 to the
rest, either about the long-awaited event itself or the content
of the documents being signed - it becomes obvious that these
documents are in fact full of the contradictions and expectations
that do not engender the serious trust and respect necessary for
stable and respectful relations between countries.Those within and
outside Armenia who support this process label all those against it
as nationalists, extremists or those who categorically reject all
relations with Turkey. But I, and others like me, who have for decades
wanted and continue to believe in the importance of Armenia-Turkey
rapprochement are neither extremists or nationalists.We are not afraid
to recognize the enormous challenges of creating a new relationship
in the context of overwhelming political, psychological, practical
challenges. It is for fundamental political and security reasons
that we oppose these protocols. We want the documents that define
our reciprocal relationship to be respectful, farsighted and most
of all, sustainable. These protocols are not. We want the documents
to define a 21st century relationship that is as honest about past
grievances as it is about contemporary political realities. These
protocols are not.Instead of an acknowledgement of the historic
divide and mutual distrust that separates us, or at the very least
circumventing that topic, the documents place one-sided conditions
and receive one-sided concessions. Normalization has thus begun
with the capitulation of the Armenian side.Indeed these protocols -
barely signed and not even ratified - have already damaged, possibly
irrevocably, Armenia's positions on the three most significant issues
of national security and national identity.First, they will hamper
the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. The reason for this is
simple. Any Armenian insistence of no-linkage between Armenia-Turkey
and Armenian-Azerbaijani is not credulous.
The linkage between the Turkey border opening and the resolution
of the Karabakh conflict was clear from the beginning. Now, it's
inarguable. If the presence of the Minsk Group co-chair countries'
foreign ministers at the signing wasn't enough, there were the last
minute frantic attempts at the signing ceremony to prevent Turkey from
speaking of that linkage at that forum. But the coup de grace was the
Turkish Prime Minister's unequivocal conditional announcement the day
after, buttressed by the strength of his ruling party whose meeting
had just concluded, that the Turkish Parliament won't ratify these
protocols until territories are returned.Any acceptable resolution
will require certain compromise on the Armenian side - including
compromise on the territories surrounding Karabakh. Many would say
that such compromise would have been necessary eventually regardless
of Armenia-Turkey relations. This is true. But in this conditional
environment, when Turkey at every opportunity refers to the return
of territories without the resolution of Karabakh's status, even the
most reasonable compromise that Armenia would have been prepared to
make will be more difficult for this or any administration to make,
because it will be viewed domestically as a concession made under
pressure, in exchange for open borders, not for the independence
of Karabakh. Even if the Turkish parliament ratifies the protocols
and opens the border with the mere expectation that Armenians will
return those territories in the near future, still, in the context
of the forceful and repeated admonitions by the Turkish leadership,
those expectations will themselves become conditions that the border
opening was in exchange for possible future concessions.Second, the
nature of the genocide debate has been deeply altered. The ink on the
protocols was not even dry before major news outlets and international
figures began to couch their terminology, retreating from the use of
the term genocide, citing the protocol's provisions that a commission
will determine what the events of 1915 really were. In other words,
we have offered the international community the formalization of
official Turkey's position. If earlier, Armenians and international
experts had defined the political and historical events as genocide,
while the official Turkish side insisted on denying the term and
the history behind the term, today, the official Turkish "doubts"
have been sanctioned and will internationalize the denial of the
events, their causes and consequences, and thus strengthen the
historic and demographic status quo. Armenians will now be dragged
into a new cycle of denial - struggling against the machinery of a
state bent on rewriting history and consolidating the consequences
of genocide.Finally, this document succeeds in touching what had
heretofore been a dormant but sensitive issue - the subject of
borders and territorial claims. No Armenian administration had ever
made such a claim of Turkey. Today, this sensitive issue has become a
front-line issue. When Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says
these protocols reaffirm the provisions of the Lausanne Treaty, that
means the issue of reparation and compensation is now on the table. I
do not demand my ancestral home in Marash, but if that demand were
really so illusive, then why is Turkey forcing me to renounce my
historic links with that home?It is important to understand that
the claim on land is not merely a sentimental issue having to do
with Armenian properties in Turkey 100 years ago. The issue of
lands is also an important element of the Karabakh conflict. If a
mere 100 years later, Turkey is able to formalize and legalize its
control of lands taken forcibly, then what's to prevent Armenians
from waiting if that offers them the opportunity to formalize their
control of the lands surrounding Karabakh?On Saturday, October 10,
we heard President Sargsyan's address to the Armenian people, issued
just hours ahead of the scheduled signing, the content of which
was directly contradictory to the content of the protocols. 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.The administration said one thing and signed
another. Normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations, as an idea even,
has been discredited.The processes - both Armenia-Turkey, and the
Karabakh peace talks - are going to become more complicated and more
intense, and not at all to our advantage. If Armenia does not bring
this process to a halt, and return to square one, the consequences
will be grave not just for the administration, but for the Armenian
people.First Step - Capitulation: The ill-constructed protocols
signaling the beginning of formal relations between Armenia and
Turkey received an uncertain and inauspicious signing in Zurich. 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 to the rest, either about the long-awaited event
itself or the content of the documents being signed - it becomes
obvious that these documents are in fact full of the contradictions
and expectations that do not engender the serious trust and respect
necessary for stable and respectful relations between countries.
Those within and outside Armenia who support this process label all
those against it as nationalists, extremists or those who categorically
reject all relations with Turkey. But I, and others like me, who
have for decades wanted and continue to believe in the importance of
Armenia-Turkey rapprochement are neither extremists or nationalists.
We are not afraid to recognize the enormous challenges of creating
a new relationship in the context of overwhelming political,
psychological, practical challenges. It is for fundamental political
and security reasons that we oppose these protocols. We want the
documents that define our reciprocal relationship to be respectful,
farsighted and most of all, sustainable. These protocols are not. We
want the documents to define a 21st century relationship that is as
honest about past grievances as it is about contemporary political
realities. These protocols are not.
Instead of an acknowledgement of the historic divide and mutual
distrust that separates us, or at the very least circumventing that
topic, the documents place one-sided conditions and receive one-sided
concessions.
Normalization has thus begun with the capitulation of the Armenian
side.
Indeed these protocols - barely signed and not even ratified - have
already damaged, possibly irrevocably, Armenia's positions on the three
most significant issues of national security and national identity.
First, they will hamper the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. The
reason for this is simple. Any Armenian insistence of no-linkage
between Armenia-Turkey and Armenian-Azerbaijani is not credulous. The
linkage between the Turkey border opening and the resolution of
the Karabakh conflict was clear from the beginning. Now, it's
inarguable. If the presence of the Minsk Group co-chair countries'
foreign ministers at the signing wasn't enough, there were the last
minute frantic attempts at the signing ceremony to prevent Turkey
from speaking of that linkage at that forum. But the coup de grace
was the Turkish Prime Minister's unequivocal conditional announcement
the day after, buttressed by the strength of his ruling party whose
meeting had just concluded, that the Turkish Parliament won't ratify
these protocols until territories are returned.
Any acceptable resolution will require certain compromise on the
Armenian side - including compromise on the territories surrounding
Karabakh.
Many would say that such compromise would have been necessary
eventually regardless of Armenia-Turkey relations. This is true. But
in this conditional environment, when Turkey at every opportunity
refers to the return of territories without the resolution of
Karabakh's status, even the most reasonable compromise that Armenia
would have been prepared to make will be more difficult for this or
any administration to make, because it will be viewed domestically
as a concession made under pressure, in exchange for open borders,
not for the independence of Karabakh. Even if the Turkish parliament
ratifies the protocols and opens the border with the mere expectation
that Armenians will return those territories in the near future, still,
in the context of the forceful and repeated admonitions by the Turkish
leadership, those expectations will themselves become conditions that
the border opening was in exchange for possible future concessions.
Second, the nature of the genocide debate has been deeply altered. The
ink on the protocols was not even dry before major news outlets and
international figures began to couch their terminology, retreating from
the use of the term genocide, citing the protocol's provisions that a
commission will determine what the events of 1915 really were. In other
words, we have offered the international community the formalization
of official Turkey's position. If earlier, Armenians and international
experts had defined the political and historical events as genocide,
while the official Turkish side insisted on denying the term and the
history behind the term, today, the official Turkish "doubts" have
been sanctioned and will internationalize the denial of the events,
their causes and consequences, and thus strengthen the historic and
demographic status quo. Armenians will now be dragged into a new
cycle of denial - struggling against the machinery of a state bent
on rewriting history and consolidating the consequences of genocide.
Finally, this document succeeds in touching what had heretofore
been a dormant but sensitive issue - the subject of borders and
territorial claims. No Armenian administration had ever made such a
claim of Turkey.
Today, this sensitive issue has become a front-line issue. When Turkish
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says these protocols reaffirm the
provisions of the Lausanne Treaty, that means the issue of reparation
and compensation is now on the table. I do not demand my ancestral
home in Marash, but if that demand were really so illusive, then why
is Turkey forcing me to renounce my historic links with that home?
It is important to understand that the claim on land is not merely
a sentimental issue having to do with Armenian properties in Turkey
100 years ago. The issue of lands is also an important element of
the Karabakh conflict. If a mere 100 years later, Turkey is able to
formalize and legalize its control of lands taken forcibly, then what's
to prevent Armenians from waiting if that offers them the opportunity
to formalize their control of the lands surrounding Karabakh?
On Saturday, October 10, we heard President Sargsyan's address to the
Armenian people, issued just hours ahead of the scheduled signing,
the content of which was directly contradictory to the content of
the protocols.
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.
The administration said one thing and signed another. Normalization
of Armenia-Turkey relations, as an idea even, has been discredited.
The processes - both Armenia-Turkey, and the Karabakh peace talks -
are going to become more complicated and more intense, and not at all
to our advantage. If Armenia does not bring this process to a halt,
and return to square one, the consequences will be grave not just
for the administration, but for the Armenian people.