Tweet
Khanjian: An Author's Notes
Asbarez
Jan 15th, 2010
BY ARA KHANJIAN
Based on the comments of some readers of my article `Questionable
Economic Results Do Not Provide Justification For Signing The
Turkey-Armenia Protocols', Asbarez January 8, I would like to make two
clarifications.
First, this article is not arguing that we shouldn't open the border
and that we should isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.
Turkey closed the border; therefore Turkey could open it at anytime.
Armenia should be prepared for that day. Currently we aren't.
The article says that: `We could divide Armenian producers into two groups:'
First, large companies producing energy and raw materials such as
copper. Most of Armenia's exports are based on raw materials.' If
Turkey opens the borders, this group of producers could benefit,
because they could export energy, such as electricity to Turkey.
`The second group could be represented as small and medium size
producers, producing for the domestic markets, mainly in the
agricultural and food production sectors.' Most of the labor force in
Armenia works in this group. The article argues that this group will
suffer when Turkey opens the border, because they will not be able to
compete with the subsidized Turkish products. The article describes
that the Turkish government:
Protects its products through higher tariffs and quotas. Either
Armenia should impose similar tariffs and quotas on Turkish products
or it should negotiate with Turkey to reduce them.
Subsidizes its producers. Either Armenia should subsidize its
producers at the same level or should negotiate with Turkey to reduce
them.
Promotes its exports. Armenia's government should support its
producers to exports their goods all over the world.
Finally the article argues that the best way for Armenia to improve
its economy and raise the standard of living of the population, is to
increase the productivity of production in general, and more
specifically the production of the agricultural sector. In section
four, the article argues that Armenia could increase productivity and
improve living conditions in Armenia by increasing the level of
competition, reducing corruption and shadow economy, improving the
rule of law and increasing government expenditures on education,
health care, communication, internet access, etc. When Armenia takes
these measures and improves the quality of production and if Turkey
opens the border, then Armenian products will be able to compete with
Turkish ones.
Secondly, I am not using economic arguments to argue against the
protocols. We don't need the economic arguments to be against the
protocols. There are already three main reasons to oppose them. In my
opinion the most important reason to oppose the protocols is that it
accepts and confirms the current borders that exist between Turkey and
Armenia. This implies that Armenia agrees that Kars, Ardahan, the rest
of Western Armenia, even Massis and Ararat are Turkish territories.
The second reason is that the protocols `will generate directly or
indirectly doubts about the Armenian Genocide.' Finally, the protocols
could endanger Karabakh. These three arguments are more than
sufficient to condemn the protocols. Even if the economic gains from
open borders are more than the economic losses, accepting that Ararat
is a Turkish territory, is enough for me to be against the protocols.
The article is just arguing that those who support the protocols
couldn't even use economic arguments in favor of the protocols,
because when Turkey opens the borders, some groups in Armenia will
benefit, while others will suffer and the effect on the whole economy
and the population is questionable.
Asbarez
Jan 15th, 2010
BY ARA KHANJIAN
Based on the comments of some readers of my article `Questionable
Economic Results Do Not Provide Justification For Signing The
Turkey-Armenia Protocols', Asbarez January 8, I would like to make two
clarifications.
First, this article is not arguing that we shouldn't open the border
and that we should isolate ourselves from the rest of the world.
Turkey closed the border; therefore Turkey could open it at anytime.
Armenia should be prepared for that day. Currently we aren't.
The article says that: `We could divide Armenian producers into two groups:'
First, large companies producing energy and raw materials such as
copper. Most of Armenia's exports are based on raw materials.' If
Turkey opens the borders, this group of producers could benefit,
because they could export energy, such as electricity to Turkey.
`The second group could be represented as small and medium size
producers, producing for the domestic markets, mainly in the
agricultural and food production sectors.' Most of the labor force in
Armenia works in this group. The article argues that this group will
suffer when Turkey opens the border, because they will not be able to
compete with the subsidized Turkish products. The article describes
that the Turkish government:
Protects its products through higher tariffs and quotas. Either
Armenia should impose similar tariffs and quotas on Turkish products
or it should negotiate with Turkey to reduce them.
Subsidizes its producers. Either Armenia should subsidize its
producers at the same level or should negotiate with Turkey to reduce
them.
Promotes its exports. Armenia's government should support its
producers to exports their goods all over the world.
Finally the article argues that the best way for Armenia to improve
its economy and raise the standard of living of the population, is to
increase the productivity of production in general, and more
specifically the production of the agricultural sector. In section
four, the article argues that Armenia could increase productivity and
improve living conditions in Armenia by increasing the level of
competition, reducing corruption and shadow economy, improving the
rule of law and increasing government expenditures on education,
health care, communication, internet access, etc. When Armenia takes
these measures and improves the quality of production and if Turkey
opens the border, then Armenian products will be able to compete with
Turkish ones.
Secondly, I am not using economic arguments to argue against the
protocols. We don't need the economic arguments to be against the
protocols. There are already three main reasons to oppose them. In my
opinion the most important reason to oppose the protocols is that it
accepts and confirms the current borders that exist between Turkey and
Armenia. This implies that Armenia agrees that Kars, Ardahan, the rest
of Western Armenia, even Massis and Ararat are Turkish territories.
The second reason is that the protocols `will generate directly or
indirectly doubts about the Armenian Genocide.' Finally, the protocols
could endanger Karabakh. These three arguments are more than
sufficient to condemn the protocols. Even if the economic gains from
open borders are more than the economic losses, accepting that Ararat
is a Turkish territory, is enough for me to be against the protocols.
The article is just arguing that those who support the protocols
couldn't even use economic arguments in favor of the protocols,
because when Turkey opens the borders, some groups in Armenia will
benefit, while others will suffer and the effect on the whole economy
and the population is questionable.