Tweet
FORMER FM VARDAN OSKANIAN SAYS "NO" TO PROTOCOLS; A MATTER OF "NATIONAL DIGNITY"
Hrant Katarikyan
http://hetq.am/en/politics/16347/
2009 /09/22 | 18:48
I just returned from a lecture delivered by former RoA Foreign Affairs
Minister Vardan Oskanian on the Armenian-Turkish protocols.
During his impassioned speech on the pitfalls he saw inherent in the
document, Mr. Oskanian stressed that Armenia had come to a political
crossroads with far-reaching implications for the Republic of Armenia
and the Armenian nation worldwide.
I will not go into the details of Mr. Oskanian's opposition to the
protocols as presently constituted but rather point to the general
thrust of his arguments against them. In short, Mr. Oskanian pointed to
the stipulation that Armenia recognize the current borders between the
two states and the setting up of an inter-governmental sub-committee
that would look into "outstanding historical issues" between Armenia
and Turkey as the main reasons for his opposition.
These two points, he argued, whether or not the protocols are
eventually ratified by the respective nations are victories for Turkey
and will be adroitly used by Ankara to quash any future Armenian
demands for genocide recognition and possible compensation for the
consequences of 1915.
Mr. Oskanian assured the assembled audience at the Yerevan Hotel,
many students, that he would never have dared present the Armenian
people with such a fait accompli out of personal principle and a sense
of self-respect. He confessed that he could not, in good conscience,
agree to the protocols as currently worded.
He stressed that Armenia had rushed head long into negotiations that
would lead to a reopening of the border with Turkey, but at a very
high price. The former foreign minister also noted that the publicity
surrounding the talks had pushed Armenia into a corner and that Turkey
was using the publication of the protocol document to its advantage,
He cited that fact that Ankara was already making preparations to
campaign those countries that have officially recognized the 1915
Armenian Genocide to rescind their resolutions, arguing that Armenia,
by agreeing to signing the protocols, had itself called those events
into question.
Of particular concern, according to Mr. Oskanian, was the fact that
Turkey has obligated Armenia to reconcile itself with past historical
injustices and that this was something totally unacceptable and a
document unworthy to sign and thus pass on to future generations of
Armenians that would have to live with the unfavourable consequences.
He noted that there are many countries, even in Europe, that have
recognized the "territorial integrity" of their neighbours while not
officially recognizing borders as presently constituted and that
this has not prevented them from enjoying diplomatic relations,
or the free flow of goods and people.
Mr. Oskanian noted that Armenia is ill-prepared to confront the
consequences of an open border with Turkey given the many internal
problems existing in Armenia today. He cited the existence of
political prisoners, the questionable 2008 presidential elections,
social upheavals stemming from the March 1st public disturbances
and the lack of democracy in Armenia in general. He argued that open
borders with Turkey will not resolve these internal issues and may
even exacerbate them. "Armenia has survived and even made positive
economic strides with a closed border," he noted, adding that, wise
Armenian foreign policy would have been a little more circumspect
and patient in its dealings with Turkey.
A question from the floor concerned what steps the Armenian
public should take before the parliament ratifies or rejects the
protocols. Mr. Oskanian said that he had already made his views
publicly known but was ready to lend his voice to any publicly
organized protest. He confessed that he hadn't had a chance to sign
the ARF's petition drive now going on in Republic Square against the
protocols but that he saw no reason not to sign.
Speaking of the ARF, party MP Vahan Hovhannisyan was in the crowd and
stated that he fully agreed with the views expressed by the former
Foreign Minister. Someone should have asked the ARF leader why they
have held back calling for the resignation of the president given
that he has signed off on the protocols which the party regards as a
national disaster looming on the horizon. Then too, Mr. Hovhannisyan
could have been asked what concrete steps the party took to strengthen
the rule of law and democratic development while a member of the
ruling coalition. I am sure the ARF can defend it past positions,
no matter how duplicitous they may sound.
Then too, the question of the diaspora's role in the protocol process
was raised. All agreed that the diaspora's opinion, or more correctly,
opinions should be heard but that a suitable mechanism for giving
voice to those views had yet to be created.
And this is perhaps the saddest reality of all. When the nation
is confronted with such a critical and historic challenge with
far-reaching consequences, neither Armenia, much less the diaspora
is sufficiently prepared and organized to respond.
In the case of Armenia, one could argue that there is a lack of
independent news outlets and civil organizations to formulate and
give voice to such dissenting opinion.
But what are the excuses for the diaspora? There democratic
institutions and civil society apparently flourish. Perhaps it is a
lack of will and long-term national strategy that has hindered the
creation of a collective voice and unified structure able to confront
such challenges and thus collaborate with the Republic of Armenia on
a pan-national level.
Hrant Katarikyan
http://hetq.am/en/politics/16347/
2009 /09/22 | 18:48
I just returned from a lecture delivered by former RoA Foreign Affairs
Minister Vardan Oskanian on the Armenian-Turkish protocols.
During his impassioned speech on the pitfalls he saw inherent in the
document, Mr. Oskanian stressed that Armenia had come to a political
crossroads with far-reaching implications for the Republic of Armenia
and the Armenian nation worldwide.
I will not go into the details of Mr. Oskanian's opposition to the
protocols as presently constituted but rather point to the general
thrust of his arguments against them. In short, Mr. Oskanian pointed to
the stipulation that Armenia recognize the current borders between the
two states and the setting up of an inter-governmental sub-committee
that would look into "outstanding historical issues" between Armenia
and Turkey as the main reasons for his opposition.
These two points, he argued, whether or not the protocols are
eventually ratified by the respective nations are victories for Turkey
and will be adroitly used by Ankara to quash any future Armenian
demands for genocide recognition and possible compensation for the
consequences of 1915.
Mr. Oskanian assured the assembled audience at the Yerevan Hotel,
many students, that he would never have dared present the Armenian
people with such a fait accompli out of personal principle and a sense
of self-respect. He confessed that he could not, in good conscience,
agree to the protocols as currently worded.
He stressed that Armenia had rushed head long into negotiations that
would lead to a reopening of the border with Turkey, but at a very
high price. The former foreign minister also noted that the publicity
surrounding the talks had pushed Armenia into a corner and that Turkey
was using the publication of the protocol document to its advantage,
He cited that fact that Ankara was already making preparations to
campaign those countries that have officially recognized the 1915
Armenian Genocide to rescind their resolutions, arguing that Armenia,
by agreeing to signing the protocols, had itself called those events
into question.
Of particular concern, according to Mr. Oskanian, was the fact that
Turkey has obligated Armenia to reconcile itself with past historical
injustices and that this was something totally unacceptable and a
document unworthy to sign and thus pass on to future generations of
Armenians that would have to live with the unfavourable consequences.
He noted that there are many countries, even in Europe, that have
recognized the "territorial integrity" of their neighbours while not
officially recognizing borders as presently constituted and that
this has not prevented them from enjoying diplomatic relations,
or the free flow of goods and people.
Mr. Oskanian noted that Armenia is ill-prepared to confront the
consequences of an open border with Turkey given the many internal
problems existing in Armenia today. He cited the existence of
political prisoners, the questionable 2008 presidential elections,
social upheavals stemming from the March 1st public disturbances
and the lack of democracy in Armenia in general. He argued that open
borders with Turkey will not resolve these internal issues and may
even exacerbate them. "Armenia has survived and even made positive
economic strides with a closed border," he noted, adding that, wise
Armenian foreign policy would have been a little more circumspect
and patient in its dealings with Turkey.
A question from the floor concerned what steps the Armenian
public should take before the parliament ratifies or rejects the
protocols. Mr. Oskanian said that he had already made his views
publicly known but was ready to lend his voice to any publicly
organized protest. He confessed that he hadn't had a chance to sign
the ARF's petition drive now going on in Republic Square against the
protocols but that he saw no reason not to sign.
Speaking of the ARF, party MP Vahan Hovhannisyan was in the crowd and
stated that he fully agreed with the views expressed by the former
Foreign Minister. Someone should have asked the ARF leader why they
have held back calling for the resignation of the president given
that he has signed off on the protocols which the party regards as a
national disaster looming on the horizon. Then too, Mr. Hovhannisyan
could have been asked what concrete steps the party took to strengthen
the rule of law and democratic development while a member of the
ruling coalition. I am sure the ARF can defend it past positions,
no matter how duplicitous they may sound.
Then too, the question of the diaspora's role in the protocol process
was raised. All agreed that the diaspora's opinion, or more correctly,
opinions should be heard but that a suitable mechanism for giving
voice to those views had yet to be created.
And this is perhaps the saddest reality of all. When the nation
is confronted with such a critical and historic challenge with
far-reaching consequences, neither Armenia, much less the diaspora
is sufficiently prepared and organized to respond.
In the case of Armenia, one could argue that there is a lack of
independent news outlets and civil organizations to formulate and
give voice to such dissenting opinion.
But what are the excuses for the diaspora? There democratic
institutions and civil society apparently flourish. Perhaps it is a
lack of will and long-term national strategy that has hindered the
creation of a collective voice and unified structure able to confront
such challenges and thus collaborate with the Republic of Armenia on
a pan-national level.