Tweet
AGHJAYAN: THE PROTOCOLS: A DISASTER FOR ARMENIAN FOREIGN POLICY
By George Aghjayan
http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/09/0 2/aghjayan-the-protocols-a-disaster-for-armenian-f oreign-policy/
September 2, 2009
The announcement of the establishment of diplomatic relations between
Turkey and Armenia this week has already received both positive and
negative critiques from various circles. Unfortunately, the initial
reaction has only touched on superficial aspects of the announcement.
Tuesday's statement by the eastern U.S. and Canada district of the
Armenian Democratic Liberal (ADL) is particularly surprising. The ADL
seems satisfied that simply announcing diplomatic relations with the
promise to "formulate recommendations" for resolving as yet undefined
issues suffices for a "political victory for Armenia." Hallelujah,
we can now believe that "Turkey finally realizes that in a civilized
world good neighborly relations are beneficial to both countries." Such
assertions lead one to wonder if anyone from the ADL actually read
the documents.
A statement by the Bureau of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(ARF) was more cautious and critical of the protocols. The ARF claims
the protocols "question the veracity of the Armenian Genocide" and
that, while not included explicitly, Turkey continues to include the
return of Artsakh (Karabagh) to Azerbaijan as a pre-condition.
Presumably, during the months of negotiations over the language to
be contained in the protocols, there were requests by both Turkey and
Armenia to include or exclude certain language. So, when one analyzes
the final document, it can be viewed from the perspective of which
country asked for inclusion of each point and, thus, critique the
effectiveness of each country's diplomacy.
When viewed in that light, the obvious question is what has each
country gained and, by correlation, given up. Some statements contained
in the protocols are of such a nature as to question why they were
included at all.
For instance, why is there a need to "condemn all forms of terrorism,
violence, and extremism"? Which country asked that this be included
and for what purpose? My suspicion is that this was included at the
request of Turkey and will be used as a weapon in the dispute over
Artsakh. Regardless of the realities, it is well documented that both
Turkey and Azerbaijan portray the self-defense of the Armenians in
Artsakh as terrorism. The other obvious objective is the security of
pipelines through the region.
Again, to analyze the protocols from an Armenian perspective, you
must break down each declaration with an eye towards how Turkey will
use it as a reason to leave its promises unfulfilled. What exactly
are those promises (i.e. what has Turkey given up)? A review of the
protocols indicates only one item that could even remotely be termed
an ask from Armenia, and that is the opening of the border with the
resulting commerce.
The issue is that the opening and closing of the border can be
done effortlessly and immediately, as required. Thus, any action
by Armenian that Turkey deems a breach in the protocols would lead
to an immediate closure of the border. From Turkey's perspective,
all the better if Armenia becomes reliant on the cross-border commerce.
Unfortunately, what Armenia has given up cannot be retaken so
easily. For instance, Armenia continues to affirm the existing border
with Turkey and the formation of an historical commission.
The vague objectives of the commission hardly give one a warm
feeling-to "implement a dialogue with the aim to restore mutual
confidence" is not exactly aiming high. In addition, the promise of
"impartial scientific examination" cannot be guaranteed. The unstated
"existing problem" of course is the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide and, as many have already pointed out, that has already been
internationally accepted.
Finally, the inclusion of a "commitment to refrain from pursuing any
policy incompatible with the spirit of good neighborly relations" must
be questioned in light of affirmation of the Armenian Genocide. Either
Turkey will claim that efforts at international recognition of the
Armenian Genocide will constitute a policy that is counter to "good
neighborly relations" or, more appropriately, Armenia should demand
Turkey cease all efforts to deny the genocide as denial of a known
genocide is clearly meant to demean Armenians and threaten Armenia.
Contrary to the assertions of the ADL, the protocols are a disaster
for Armenian foreign policy.
By George Aghjayan
http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/09/0 2/aghjayan-the-protocols-a-disaster-for-armenian-f oreign-policy/
September 2, 2009
The announcement of the establishment of diplomatic relations between
Turkey and Armenia this week has already received both positive and
negative critiques from various circles. Unfortunately, the initial
reaction has only touched on superficial aspects of the announcement.
Tuesday's statement by the eastern U.S. and Canada district of the
Armenian Democratic Liberal (ADL) is particularly surprising. The ADL
seems satisfied that simply announcing diplomatic relations with the
promise to "formulate recommendations" for resolving as yet undefined
issues suffices for a "political victory for Armenia." Hallelujah,
we can now believe that "Turkey finally realizes that in a civilized
world good neighborly relations are beneficial to both countries." Such
assertions lead one to wonder if anyone from the ADL actually read
the documents.
A statement by the Bureau of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(ARF) was more cautious and critical of the protocols. The ARF claims
the protocols "question the veracity of the Armenian Genocide" and
that, while not included explicitly, Turkey continues to include the
return of Artsakh (Karabagh) to Azerbaijan as a pre-condition.
Presumably, during the months of negotiations over the language to
be contained in the protocols, there were requests by both Turkey and
Armenia to include or exclude certain language. So, when one analyzes
the final document, it can be viewed from the perspective of which
country asked for inclusion of each point and, thus, critique the
effectiveness of each country's diplomacy.
When viewed in that light, the obvious question is what has each
country gained and, by correlation, given up. Some statements contained
in the protocols are of such a nature as to question why they were
included at all.
For instance, why is there a need to "condemn all forms of terrorism,
violence, and extremism"? Which country asked that this be included
and for what purpose? My suspicion is that this was included at the
request of Turkey and will be used as a weapon in the dispute over
Artsakh. Regardless of the realities, it is well documented that both
Turkey and Azerbaijan portray the self-defense of the Armenians in
Artsakh as terrorism. The other obvious objective is the security of
pipelines through the region.
Again, to analyze the protocols from an Armenian perspective, you
must break down each declaration with an eye towards how Turkey will
use it as a reason to leave its promises unfulfilled. What exactly
are those promises (i.e. what has Turkey given up)? A review of the
protocols indicates only one item that could even remotely be termed
an ask from Armenia, and that is the opening of the border with the
resulting commerce.
The issue is that the opening and closing of the border can be
done effortlessly and immediately, as required. Thus, any action
by Armenian that Turkey deems a breach in the protocols would lead
to an immediate closure of the border. From Turkey's perspective,
all the better if Armenia becomes reliant on the cross-border commerce.
Unfortunately, what Armenia has given up cannot be retaken so
easily. For instance, Armenia continues to affirm the existing border
with Turkey and the formation of an historical commission.
The vague objectives of the commission hardly give one a warm
feeling-to "implement a dialogue with the aim to restore mutual
confidence" is not exactly aiming high. In addition, the promise of
"impartial scientific examination" cannot be guaranteed. The unstated
"existing problem" of course is the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide and, as many have already pointed out, that has already been
internationally accepted.
Finally, the inclusion of a "commitment to refrain from pursuing any
policy incompatible with the spirit of good neighborly relations" must
be questioned in light of affirmation of the Armenian Genocide. Either
Turkey will claim that efforts at international recognition of the
Armenian Genocide will constitute a policy that is counter to "good
neighborly relations" or, more appropriately, Armenia should demand
Turkey cease all efforts to deny the genocide as denial of a known
genocide is clearly meant to demean Armenians and threaten Armenia.
Contrary to the assertions of the ADL, the protocols are a disaster
for Armenian foreign policy.