Tweet
TURKEY-ARMENIA: THERE'S NO WILL FOR THERE TO BE A WAY
Semih Idiz
Hurriyet
Jan 21 2010
Turkey
Has the Constitutional Court of Armenia thrown a spanner into the
works of the "Zurich Protocol's" that aim to normalize ties between
Armenia and Turkey? There are those on both sides who think (and hope)
so; and yet there are those think (and hope) that this is not the case.
The bottom line is that the court decided the protocols in question
are in compliance with the Constitution of Armenia. It added no
qualification to the key sentence spelling out this final decision.
But it still confused minds; because it hitched some conditions to the
protocols in the six-page text it issued later explaining the details
of its decision. Most notably, it declared that nothing done under
these protocols could violate Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration
of Independence.
That article makes it a duty for Armenia to try and get the world to
accept the events of 1915 as genocide. This angered Turkey, of course,
which said, "It violated the spirit and letter of the protocols."
Officials on the Turkish side were quick to point out that the
protocols foresee the establishment of an independent panel of
historians to look into the events of 1915.
They added that the court's ruling prejudges what independent
historians may say.
As an aside here, it must be said the attempt by both sides to force
a particular interpretation of 1915 on each other is a dead-end-street.
No matter what an independent panel of historians say - and it is
unlikely they will come up with one view on the matter - Armenia will
not stop claiming a genocide happened.
Neither will Turkey stop denying that such genocide occurred. If
there is anyone on either side who believes that the process foreseen
in the protocols will finally and definitively vindicate one side
or the other as far as this complex historical issue is concerned,
they are dreaming.
The best that a panel of historians can do - and it must remembered
this is not a court panel - is provide as much information and
explanation about what happened in 1915. That way those who are
concerned with this historic matter can come out with their own views
on those events and the context in which they took place.
The Armenians side believes, of course, that this will "obfuscate" a
historical fact. For many on the Turkish side, however, what comes out
will not be "obfuscation" but "clarification" and "contextualization."
At any rate, there can be no end to this discussion.
To return to the main subject, Turkey says now the protocols have been
"wounded" because of the ruling of Armenia's Constitutional Court. It
has not, however, declared the protocols "dead." But the whole question
is in a vacuum.
It is not clear if the court said the protocols are in compliance with
its constitution, and therefore their texts can stand as they are, or
if it said that the text will have to be changed following this ruling.
It is, of course, the texts of these protocols that are important
for the world at large. Both sides had, after all, poured months of
efforts, under the auspices of Switzerland, to work out its extremely
careful wording.
Compliance or non-compliance by the sides will therefore be ultimately
determined according to these texts, whether they are ratified and
enter the body of international law.
The protocols basically incorporate a detailed outline for establishing
not just diplomatic ties but also normalizing relations in every
sphere of human activity, according to a set of principles and
certain timetables.
If the court is now calling on the texts to be revised, then this
will effectively deem the protocols null and void and negotiations
between Turkey and Armenia will have to start from ground zero (if
indeed they can at all).
Whether the Yerevan government wants to go that way is an open
question. The court's decision also shows it, too, was caught between
a legal and a highly emotional political issue, but could not openly
risk returning the Turkish-Armenian process to ground zero.
It is clear, however, that these protocols are not moving. There is a
tangible reluctance and reserve on both sides in this respect. The
Recep Tayyip Erdogan government is not blameless either having
effectively slapped a "Karabakh condition" on the ratification of
the protocols by the Turkish Parliament.
Erdogan boasts that "his government is one step ahead of the Armenian
government," having sent the protocols to Parliament for ratification.
He argues that the rest is up to Parliament now.
In the meantime he keeps insisting that it is unlikely that Parliament
will ratify the protocols, unless there is movement on the Karabakh
front to Azerbaijan's advantage.
This is completely disingenuous.
Erdogan is playing to the political gallery because he knows there
is serious opposition in Turkey to the protocols. If he wanted to
show real leadership, however, he could guide his party, which has
a majority in Parliament, to vote for the protocols without delay.
Some argue, of course, that many of Erdogan's own deputies would vote
against the protocols given the sensitivity of all issues related to
Armenia and Armenians. If so, that begs an even bigger question. Why
did the Erdogan government initiate this process in the first place
then if it was not going to be able to complete it?
In the meantime, the confusing ruling of the Constitutional Court has
given a fresh argument for those in Ankara who are reluctant about
the Turkish-Armenian process.
Neither does there seem to be extreme enthusiasm in Yerevan over
the issue.
The government there has said it will only endorse the protocols if
the Turkish Parliament does and hence the current stalemate. It also
appears to be doing little to support the protocols in public against
harsh opposition and criticism.
Put openly, there is no will in Ankara or Yerevan at the present time
to find a way to move forward in their ties. If there was, that way
forward would be found regardless of the difficulties.
Semih Idiz
Hurriyet
Jan 21 2010
Turkey
Has the Constitutional Court of Armenia thrown a spanner into the
works of the "Zurich Protocol's" that aim to normalize ties between
Armenia and Turkey? There are those on both sides who think (and hope)
so; and yet there are those think (and hope) that this is not the case.
The bottom line is that the court decided the protocols in question
are in compliance with the Constitution of Armenia. It added no
qualification to the key sentence spelling out this final decision.
But it still confused minds; because it hitched some conditions to the
protocols in the six-page text it issued later explaining the details
of its decision. Most notably, it declared that nothing done under
these protocols could violate Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration
of Independence.
That article makes it a duty for Armenia to try and get the world to
accept the events of 1915 as genocide. This angered Turkey, of course,
which said, "It violated the spirit and letter of the protocols."
Officials on the Turkish side were quick to point out that the
protocols foresee the establishment of an independent panel of
historians to look into the events of 1915.
They added that the court's ruling prejudges what independent
historians may say.
As an aside here, it must be said the attempt by both sides to force
a particular interpretation of 1915 on each other is a dead-end-street.
No matter what an independent panel of historians say - and it is
unlikely they will come up with one view on the matter - Armenia will
not stop claiming a genocide happened.
Neither will Turkey stop denying that such genocide occurred. If
there is anyone on either side who believes that the process foreseen
in the protocols will finally and definitively vindicate one side
or the other as far as this complex historical issue is concerned,
they are dreaming.
The best that a panel of historians can do - and it must remembered
this is not a court panel - is provide as much information and
explanation about what happened in 1915. That way those who are
concerned with this historic matter can come out with their own views
on those events and the context in which they took place.
The Armenians side believes, of course, that this will "obfuscate" a
historical fact. For many on the Turkish side, however, what comes out
will not be "obfuscation" but "clarification" and "contextualization."
At any rate, there can be no end to this discussion.
To return to the main subject, Turkey says now the protocols have been
"wounded" because of the ruling of Armenia's Constitutional Court. It
has not, however, declared the protocols "dead." But the whole question
is in a vacuum.
It is not clear if the court said the protocols are in compliance with
its constitution, and therefore their texts can stand as they are, or
if it said that the text will have to be changed following this ruling.
It is, of course, the texts of these protocols that are important
for the world at large. Both sides had, after all, poured months of
efforts, under the auspices of Switzerland, to work out its extremely
careful wording.
Compliance or non-compliance by the sides will therefore be ultimately
determined according to these texts, whether they are ratified and
enter the body of international law.
The protocols basically incorporate a detailed outline for establishing
not just diplomatic ties but also normalizing relations in every
sphere of human activity, according to a set of principles and
certain timetables.
If the court is now calling on the texts to be revised, then this
will effectively deem the protocols null and void and negotiations
between Turkey and Armenia will have to start from ground zero (if
indeed they can at all).
Whether the Yerevan government wants to go that way is an open
question. The court's decision also shows it, too, was caught between
a legal and a highly emotional political issue, but could not openly
risk returning the Turkish-Armenian process to ground zero.
It is clear, however, that these protocols are not moving. There is a
tangible reluctance and reserve on both sides in this respect. The
Recep Tayyip Erdogan government is not blameless either having
effectively slapped a "Karabakh condition" on the ratification of
the protocols by the Turkish Parliament.
Erdogan boasts that "his government is one step ahead of the Armenian
government," having sent the protocols to Parliament for ratification.
He argues that the rest is up to Parliament now.
In the meantime he keeps insisting that it is unlikely that Parliament
will ratify the protocols, unless there is movement on the Karabakh
front to Azerbaijan's advantage.
This is completely disingenuous.
Erdogan is playing to the political gallery because he knows there
is serious opposition in Turkey to the protocols. If he wanted to
show real leadership, however, he could guide his party, which has
a majority in Parliament, to vote for the protocols without delay.
Some argue, of course, that many of Erdogan's own deputies would vote
against the protocols given the sensitivity of all issues related to
Armenia and Armenians. If so, that begs an even bigger question. Why
did the Erdogan government initiate this process in the first place
then if it was not going to be able to complete it?
In the meantime, the confusing ruling of the Constitutional Court has
given a fresh argument for those in Ankara who are reluctant about
the Turkish-Armenian process.
Neither does there seem to be extreme enthusiasm in Yerevan over
the issue.
The government there has said it will only endorse the protocols if
the Turkish Parliament does and hence the current stalemate. It also
appears to be doing little to support the protocols in public against
harsh opposition and criticism.
Put openly, there is no will in Ankara or Yerevan at the present time
to find a way to move forward in their ties. If there was, that way
forward would be found regardless of the difficulties.