Tweet
ARMENIA DEBATES LANDMARK DEAL WITH TURKEY
By: Emil Danielyan
Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume:
September 23, 2009 11:55 PM
Category: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Home Page, Foreign Policy, Turkey,
Armenia, Featured
Yerevan's fence-mending agreements with Ankara, which are expected
to be signed by October 14, have generated lively and bitter debates
among Armenia's leading political groups. Although many of them have
voiced misgivings about key parts of the deal, President Serzh Sargsyan
should have no trouble in securing its mandatory ratification by the
Armenian parliament. Nor is Sargsyan likely to face serious short-term
threats to his rule emanating from Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.
The most vocal critics of the process, notably the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation (ARF, also known as the Dashnak Party),
lack either the strength or desire to fight for regime change in
the country. Their concerns about the two Turkish-Armenian draft
protocols publicized on August 31 revolve around three issues. The
most important is the planned creation of a Turkish-Armenian panel of
historians that will examine the mass killings and deportations of
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Critics allege that Ankara might
exploit the existence of such a body in order to dissuade other
countries from recognizing the massacres as genocide.
ARF leaders and other government opponents, such as the former Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian, also strongly object to another provision
that commits Armenia to explicitly recognizing its existing border
with Turkey. They say the clause is unacceptable because it precludes
future Armenian territorial claims to formerly Armenian-populated
areas in what is now eastern Turkey. They have also speculated that
Sargsyan may have pledged to make more concessions to Azerbaijan in
return for Ankara's agreement to make no reference to the Karabakh
conflict in either protocol.
Sargsyan sought to address these concerns as he met with of 52 Armenian
parties mostly loyal to his administration on September 17. "I
also recognize the risks, and have concerns," he said, opening the
five-hour meeting behind closed doors. However, Sargsyan insisted
that his conciliatory tone in developing relations with Turkey is
worth this risk, since it shows that "a nation which endured the
cataclysm of genocide" is genuinely committed to making peace with its
longtime foe." He stressed that diplomatic relations between the two
neighboring states and an open border would only be the beginning of
a long reconciliation process (Statement by the Armenian presidential
press service, September 17).
Many participants in the discussion were reportedly unconvinced by
these arguments. "At one point, there was disappointment on Sargsyan's
face," one unnamed party leader told the Yerevan newspaper Iravunk de
Facto. "Sargsyan looked like a different person after the meeting,"
claimed Aram Karapetian of the New Times Party, one of the opposition
parties that did not boycott the meeting (RFE/RL Armenia Report,
September 17).
According to Armen Rustamian, an ARF leader who represented the
nationalist party at the meeting, the president made clear that the
controversial protocols cannot be amended in any way prior to signing
the inter-governmental agreement. The ARF drafted and circulated
several amendments to the documents (stemming from its objections)
on September 15, as dozens of its activists staged a protest outside
the main government and foreign ministry buildings in Yerevan against
the government's Turkish policy (Yerkir-Media TV, September 15).
Hrant Markarian, another Dashnak leader, told Radio Free Europe the
following day that Sargsyan might fall from power if he signs the
deal in its existing form. The warning seemed hollow, since unlike
the other opposition forces, the ARF is not demanding the Armenian
president's resignation, despite its harsh criticism of his Turkish
policy. Moreover, the influential party known for its hard line on
Turkey holds only 16 seats y and is not in any position to block the
agreement. It can only rely on the backing of the opposition Heritage
party, which controls seven seats. The parliament's pro-presidential
majority has already voiced its unconditional support for the
Turkish-Armenian agreements.
The Armenian National Congress (HAK), the country's leading opposition
force not represented in the assembly, has adopted a surprisingly
subtle position on the matter. Jamestown witnessed the HAK's leader,
Levon Ter-Petrosian addressing thousands of supporters in Yerevan on
September 18. He once again accused Sargsyan of being "fooled" by the
Turkish government last spring, but he stopped short of denouncing
the draft protocols. The former Armenian president stood by the HAK's
September 1 statement, which described the protocols as a step forward,
while rejecting the planned Turkish-Armenian genocide study. "Who
needs this belated hysteria now that it is almost impossible to
influence the process?" he said, scoffing at the ARF uproar.
Ter-Petrosian himself championed better relations with Turkey,
for which he was vilified by the ARF and other nationalist groups
during his 1991-1998 presidency. His more cautious stance on the
latest developments in the Turkish-Armenian dialogue underscores
the changed fortunes of Sargsyan. The latter has remained defensive
over a Turkish-Armenian statement issued on the eve of the April
24 remembrance of the "genocide." The statement, which announced
a "roadmap" to normalizing bilateral ties, made it easier for
U.S. President Barack Obama to ignore his pre-election pledges to
describe the massacres as genocide. Many in Armenia and its worldwide
diaspora accused Sargsyan of willingly sacrificing U.S. recognition
of the Armenian genocide and gaining nothing in return.
The August 31 publication of the Turkish-Armenian agreements, which
set concrete time frames for the re-opening of the Turkish-Armenian
border without preconditions, can now be held up by Sargsyan as
a diplomatic success, even if Ankara stalls or bl liament. In the
latter case, Yerevan would be able to portray itself as the more
constructive party in the Western-backed dialogue and avoid making
any unpopular concessions resented by the Armenian opposition. Both
the United States and the European Union have stressed the importance
of a speedy implementation of these agreements.
Yerevan was unusually quick to criticize Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan for reportedly reiterating that Turkey will not lift
the 16-year economic sanctions on Armenia until agreeing to a Karabakh
settlement acceptable to Azerbaijan. In a late-night September 18
statement, Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian warned that
Erdogan risks wrecking both the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement and
the Karabakh peace process.
By: Emil Danielyan
Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume:
September 23, 2009 11:55 PM
Category: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Home Page, Foreign Policy, Turkey,
Armenia, Featured
Yerevan's fence-mending agreements with Ankara, which are expected
to be signed by October 14, have generated lively and bitter debates
among Armenia's leading political groups. Although many of them have
voiced misgivings about key parts of the deal, President Serzh Sargsyan
should have no trouble in securing its mandatory ratification by the
Armenian parliament. Nor is Sargsyan likely to face serious short-term
threats to his rule emanating from Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.
The most vocal critics of the process, notably the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation (ARF, also known as the Dashnak Party),
lack either the strength or desire to fight for regime change in
the country. Their concerns about the two Turkish-Armenian draft
protocols publicized on August 31 revolve around three issues. The
most important is the planned creation of a Turkish-Armenian panel of
historians that will examine the mass killings and deportations of
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Critics allege that Ankara might
exploit the existence of such a body in order to dissuade other
countries from recognizing the massacres as genocide.
ARF leaders and other government opponents, such as the former Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian, also strongly object to another provision
that commits Armenia to explicitly recognizing its existing border
with Turkey. They say the clause is unacceptable because it precludes
future Armenian territorial claims to formerly Armenian-populated
areas in what is now eastern Turkey. They have also speculated that
Sargsyan may have pledged to make more concessions to Azerbaijan in
return for Ankara's agreement to make no reference to the Karabakh
conflict in either protocol.
Sargsyan sought to address these concerns as he met with of 52 Armenian
parties mostly loyal to his administration on September 17. "I
also recognize the risks, and have concerns," he said, opening the
five-hour meeting behind closed doors. However, Sargsyan insisted
that his conciliatory tone in developing relations with Turkey is
worth this risk, since it shows that "a nation which endured the
cataclysm of genocide" is genuinely committed to making peace with its
longtime foe." He stressed that diplomatic relations between the two
neighboring states and an open border would only be the beginning of
a long reconciliation process (Statement by the Armenian presidential
press service, September 17).
Many participants in the discussion were reportedly unconvinced by
these arguments. "At one point, there was disappointment on Sargsyan's
face," one unnamed party leader told the Yerevan newspaper Iravunk de
Facto. "Sargsyan looked like a different person after the meeting,"
claimed Aram Karapetian of the New Times Party, one of the opposition
parties that did not boycott the meeting (RFE/RL Armenia Report,
September 17).
According to Armen Rustamian, an ARF leader who represented the
nationalist party at the meeting, the president made clear that the
controversial protocols cannot be amended in any way prior to signing
the inter-governmental agreement. The ARF drafted and circulated
several amendments to the documents (stemming from its objections)
on September 15, as dozens of its activists staged a protest outside
the main government and foreign ministry buildings in Yerevan against
the government's Turkish policy (Yerkir-Media TV, September 15).
Hrant Markarian, another Dashnak leader, told Radio Free Europe the
following day that Sargsyan might fall from power if he signs the
deal in its existing form. The warning seemed hollow, since unlike
the other opposition forces, the ARF is not demanding the Armenian
president's resignation, despite its harsh criticism of his Turkish
policy. Moreover, the influential party known for its hard line on
Turkey holds only 16 seats y and is not in any position to block the
agreement. It can only rely on the backing of the opposition Heritage
party, which controls seven seats. The parliament's pro-presidential
majority has already voiced its unconditional support for the
Turkish-Armenian agreements.
The Armenian National Congress (HAK), the country's leading opposition
force not represented in the assembly, has adopted a surprisingly
subtle position on the matter. Jamestown witnessed the HAK's leader,
Levon Ter-Petrosian addressing thousands of supporters in Yerevan on
September 18. He once again accused Sargsyan of being "fooled" by the
Turkish government last spring, but he stopped short of denouncing
the draft protocols. The former Armenian president stood by the HAK's
September 1 statement, which described the protocols as a step forward,
while rejecting the planned Turkish-Armenian genocide study. "Who
needs this belated hysteria now that it is almost impossible to
influence the process?" he said, scoffing at the ARF uproar.
Ter-Petrosian himself championed better relations with Turkey,
for which he was vilified by the ARF and other nationalist groups
during his 1991-1998 presidency. His more cautious stance on the
latest developments in the Turkish-Armenian dialogue underscores
the changed fortunes of Sargsyan. The latter has remained defensive
over a Turkish-Armenian statement issued on the eve of the April
24 remembrance of the "genocide." The statement, which announced
a "roadmap" to normalizing bilateral ties, made it easier for
U.S. President Barack Obama to ignore his pre-election pledges to
describe the massacres as genocide. Many in Armenia and its worldwide
diaspora accused Sargsyan of willingly sacrificing U.S. recognition
of the Armenian genocide and gaining nothing in return.
The August 31 publication of the Turkish-Armenian agreements, which
set concrete time frames for the re-opening of the Turkish-Armenian
border without preconditions, can now be held up by Sargsyan as
a diplomatic success, even if Ankara stalls or bl liament. In the
latter case, Yerevan would be able to portray itself as the more
constructive party in the Western-backed dialogue and avoid making
any unpopular concessions resented by the Armenian opposition. Both
the United States and the European Union have stressed the importance
of a speedy implementation of these agreements.
Yerevan was unusually quick to criticize Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan for reportedly reiterating that Turkey will not lift
the 16-year economic sanctions on Armenia until agreeing to a Karabakh
settlement acceptable to Azerbaijan. In a late-night September 18
statement, Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian warned that
Erdogan risks wrecking both the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement and
the Karabakh peace process.