Tweet
FROM THE BOSPHORUS: STRAIGHT - DISINGENUOUS DIPLOMACY IN TURKEY, ARMENIA
Hurriyet
Jan 21 2010
Turkey
The diplomatic effort to "normalize" Turkish-Armenian relations, the
long set of incomplete steps that began with a football match played
in Yerevan last year, would appear all but lost. The political straw
set to break the back of this diplomatic camel: language in a brief
by the Armenian constitutional court that salutes the ever-problematic
word "genocide."
As readers know, this is a description of the death and destruction
attending the collapse of the Ottoman Empire that we do not accept.
The reasons for our rejection of the term are many, and well known.
But we also realize and respect the historical weight of the
asymmetrical trauma experienced by the Armenian people and understand
why the symbolism of this word is at the core of Armenian identity.
So despite the convergence of opinion by historians, we know a
consensus on the lexicon to describe this history will remain elusive.
This is precisely why we so strongly favor the interaction, exchange
and communication that opening the border and establishing basic
diplomatic relations would promise.
We also are well aware of the formidable pressures that come to
bear on Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Armenian
President Serge Sarkisian. The Armenian diaspora that basically
funds the day-to-day operation of Armenia (through, for example, a
$100 million infrastructure check from U.S. financier Kirk Kerkorian)
is for the most part passionately opposed to this accord. Similarly,
nationalist settlement in Turkey has fused with the extreme opposition
of Azerbaijan, which has many points on which it can apply pressure
in Turkey - chief among them energy.
Politicians from both sides are all over the map on this issue, often
disingenuously so. For example, the Armenian side is correct when it
argues that the language of the constitutional court brief - which
approved the forwarding of the now-famous protocols for parliamentary
ratification - is extraneous to the binding legal process. It is,
but it is also a sop to the opposition in the Armenian parliament
who will exploit it in ways easy to imagine.
Erdogan is right when he argues that Armenia imposed an intermediary
stop in the approval process, namely the court's review. That Turkey
did not require similar judicial review is evidence of our sincerity,
Erdogan says. But this intermediate step, a relic in Armenian law
carried over from its Soviet-era constitution, is a requirement in the
ratification process of all international treaties and accords. More
disingenuousness.
These protocols are in the deep interests of both Armenia and Turkey.
Failure at this point would have recriminations we do not want to
even ponder, particularly as it would relate to an American president
spiraling downward in the polls as we approach that nettlesome date
of April 24.
What to do? Let's at least suspend the disingenuousness.
Hurriyet
Jan 21 2010
Turkey
The diplomatic effort to "normalize" Turkish-Armenian relations, the
long set of incomplete steps that began with a football match played
in Yerevan last year, would appear all but lost. The political straw
set to break the back of this diplomatic camel: language in a brief
by the Armenian constitutional court that salutes the ever-problematic
word "genocide."
As readers know, this is a description of the death and destruction
attending the collapse of the Ottoman Empire that we do not accept.
The reasons for our rejection of the term are many, and well known.
But we also realize and respect the historical weight of the
asymmetrical trauma experienced by the Armenian people and understand
why the symbolism of this word is at the core of Armenian identity.
So despite the convergence of opinion by historians, we know a
consensus on the lexicon to describe this history will remain elusive.
This is precisely why we so strongly favor the interaction, exchange
and communication that opening the border and establishing basic
diplomatic relations would promise.
We also are well aware of the formidable pressures that come to
bear on Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Armenian
President Serge Sarkisian. The Armenian diaspora that basically
funds the day-to-day operation of Armenia (through, for example, a
$100 million infrastructure check from U.S. financier Kirk Kerkorian)
is for the most part passionately opposed to this accord. Similarly,
nationalist settlement in Turkey has fused with the extreme opposition
of Azerbaijan, which has many points on which it can apply pressure
in Turkey - chief among them energy.
Politicians from both sides are all over the map on this issue, often
disingenuously so. For example, the Armenian side is correct when it
argues that the language of the constitutional court brief - which
approved the forwarding of the now-famous protocols for parliamentary
ratification - is extraneous to the binding legal process. It is,
but it is also a sop to the opposition in the Armenian parliament
who will exploit it in ways easy to imagine.
Erdogan is right when he argues that Armenia imposed an intermediary
stop in the approval process, namely the court's review. That Turkey
did not require similar judicial review is evidence of our sincerity,
Erdogan says. But this intermediate step, a relic in Armenian law
carried over from its Soviet-era constitution, is a requirement in the
ratification process of all international treaties and accords. More
disingenuousness.
These protocols are in the deep interests of both Armenia and Turkey.
Failure at this point would have recriminations we do not want to
even ponder, particularly as it would relate to an American president
spiraling downward in the polls as we approach that nettlesome date
of April 24.
What to do? Let's at least suspend the disingenuousness.