Tweet
A Policy of Consistent Deceit
Ara Papian
Head, `Modus Vivendi' Center
19 January 2010
When the highest officials of Turkey - the president, the prime
minister, the foreign minister -linked the Armenia-Turkey protocols
(the ill-omened nature of which is becoming clearer and clearer) to
`progress on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh' at every political turn,
our authorities either remained silent, or said that such
pronouncements `were aimed at a domestic audience'. Of course, such a
claim is meant for the naïve, as international law (in particular,
clause 2(a) of article 7 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties) manifestly codifies the unqualified rights in the area of
foreign policy to a country's president, prime minister and foreign
minister. That is to say, their powers with regards to foreign policy
are so widespread that, without any additionnal authority, they hold
the capacity to sign treaties on behalf of the state, to say nothing
of making declarations. In a word, the statements of these three
officials can never be viewed simply as `only for domestic
consumption'.
Now let's have a look at what we have today. The Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Armenia - in accordance with the constitution
of our state - has taken a decision on the two protocols signed by the
foreign minister of our country. In this case, we may truly say `for
domestic consumption', as the legal position expressed in the decision
will have no application or significance in foreign relations unless
it be included in the instruments of ratification. It is another
matter that the president of the Republic of Armenia is obliged to
take the legal position of the Constitutional Court into consideration
and his representative likewise is obliged to present the protocols in
question, now with reservations, to the National Assembly for
ratification. Not to do so would be to violate the decision of the
Constitutional Court itself, a court whose decision is mandatory both
for the president of the Republic of Armenia and for the foreign
minister. Nevertheless, the decision itself of the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Armenia has absolutely nothing to do with any
foreign country. It is our right and a requirement of our
constitution, a purely internal affair.
Turkish diplomacy bears certain characteristics, some of which are
worthy of emulation. For example, the provision of corresponding
resources to deal with the issues being faced by the foreign ministry.
Even in its most difficult early years, the Turkish Republic would not
treat its foreign ministry as some illegitimate child. However, the
most revealing feature of Turkish diplomacy is its consistent deceit.
It is necessary to bear in mind always that the traditions of the
diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey, even before its recognition, have
been based on holding hostages and on freeing war criminals in
exchange. In 1919, the Kemalists, having dismissed the obligations
borne by their country by the Armistice of Moudros (of the 30th of
October, 1918), treacherously captured more than sixty members of the
British observer mission (including their families, as well as Colonel
Sir Alfred Rawlinson, who had negotiated at Erzurum), who were then
exchanged for more than 150 war criminals in custody on Malta. The
process of negotiations and especially their implementation are worth
studying. Although on the 16th of March, 1921, the British and the
Kemalists signed an agreement whereby the Turkish side would
`immediately' release the British captives,1 the last Briton was let
go almost six months later, on the 31st of October, 1921. At the same
time, regardless of the tentative agreement - that the same number of
Turks would be released for 64 British hostages - it turned out that
the British released them all, and even ended up somewhat behind. And
just how did that happen? Very simply. The British, in accordance with
the agreement, would release the corresponding captives, while the
Turks, in their consistent deceit, would not only renege on their
promise, but would raise new demands each time. The script seems
familiar, doesn't it? We might call them preconditions today. Do you
remember a statement from Turkey, that `there were no preconditions
when we signed, but Armenia must now show progress on the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue for our parliament to ratify the protocols'?
This is a policy of consistent deceit at work. Nothing and no-one can
be forgotten. To rely on any promise made by Turkey, whether verbal or
written, implies standing on the same razor's edge every time.
Today's Turkey is carrying out that very hostage policy. It's just
that, this time, instead of holding a group of people in custody,
Turkey has held captive an entire state, a whole people. Despite that,
Turkey is allowing itself to teach us a lesson.
The statement by the foreign ministry of Turkey on the decision by
the Constitutional Court is simply a direct and crude intervention in
the internal affairs of the Republic of Armenia. As long as that legal
position has not moved from the area of constitutional law to
international law, the decision is solely a domestic matter. Has our
foreign ministry ever officially declared anything on the necessity of
reforming the criminal code of Turkey, without which it would be
impossible to fulfill the obligations to be borne by the protocols?
The principles of reciprocity and equal rights are among the key
pillars of international relations.
If the highest authorities of the Republic of Armenia do not provide
an equivalent response to the foreign ministry of the Republic of
Turkey, it would mean that we accept the Turkish policy of treating us
as a colony. If we don't put Turkey in its place today, we shall
regret it all the more tomorrow, as Turkey has evidently not given up
on its policy of consistent deceit.
Ara Papian
Head, `Modus Vivendi' Center
19 January 2010
When the highest officials of Turkey - the president, the prime
minister, the foreign minister -linked the Armenia-Turkey protocols
(the ill-omened nature of which is becoming clearer and clearer) to
`progress on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh' at every political turn,
our authorities either remained silent, or said that such
pronouncements `were aimed at a domestic audience'. Of course, such a
claim is meant for the naïve, as international law (in particular,
clause 2(a) of article 7 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties) manifestly codifies the unqualified rights in the area of
foreign policy to a country's president, prime minister and foreign
minister. That is to say, their powers with regards to foreign policy
are so widespread that, without any additionnal authority, they hold
the capacity to sign treaties on behalf of the state, to say nothing
of making declarations. In a word, the statements of these three
officials can never be viewed simply as `only for domestic
consumption'.
Now let's have a look at what we have today. The Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Armenia - in accordance with the constitution
of our state - has taken a decision on the two protocols signed by the
foreign minister of our country. In this case, we may truly say `for
domestic consumption', as the legal position expressed in the decision
will have no application or significance in foreign relations unless
it be included in the instruments of ratification. It is another
matter that the president of the Republic of Armenia is obliged to
take the legal position of the Constitutional Court into consideration
and his representative likewise is obliged to present the protocols in
question, now with reservations, to the National Assembly for
ratification. Not to do so would be to violate the decision of the
Constitutional Court itself, a court whose decision is mandatory both
for the president of the Republic of Armenia and for the foreign
minister. Nevertheless, the decision itself of the Constitutional
Court of the Republic of Armenia has absolutely nothing to do with any
foreign country. It is our right and a requirement of our
constitution, a purely internal affair.
Turkish diplomacy bears certain characteristics, some of which are
worthy of emulation. For example, the provision of corresponding
resources to deal with the issues being faced by the foreign ministry.
Even in its most difficult early years, the Turkish Republic would not
treat its foreign ministry as some illegitimate child. However, the
most revealing feature of Turkish diplomacy is its consistent deceit.
It is necessary to bear in mind always that the traditions of the
diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey, even before its recognition, have
been based on holding hostages and on freeing war criminals in
exchange. In 1919, the Kemalists, having dismissed the obligations
borne by their country by the Armistice of Moudros (of the 30th of
October, 1918), treacherously captured more than sixty members of the
British observer mission (including their families, as well as Colonel
Sir Alfred Rawlinson, who had negotiated at Erzurum), who were then
exchanged for more than 150 war criminals in custody on Malta. The
process of negotiations and especially their implementation are worth
studying. Although on the 16th of March, 1921, the British and the
Kemalists signed an agreement whereby the Turkish side would
`immediately' release the British captives,1 the last Briton was let
go almost six months later, on the 31st of October, 1921. At the same
time, regardless of the tentative agreement - that the same number of
Turks would be released for 64 British hostages - it turned out that
the British released them all, and even ended up somewhat behind. And
just how did that happen? Very simply. The British, in accordance with
the agreement, would release the corresponding captives, while the
Turks, in their consistent deceit, would not only renege on their
promise, but would raise new demands each time. The script seems
familiar, doesn't it? We might call them preconditions today. Do you
remember a statement from Turkey, that `there were no preconditions
when we signed, but Armenia must now show progress on the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue for our parliament to ratify the protocols'?
This is a policy of consistent deceit at work. Nothing and no-one can
be forgotten. To rely on any promise made by Turkey, whether verbal or
written, implies standing on the same razor's edge every time.
Today's Turkey is carrying out that very hostage policy. It's just
that, this time, instead of holding a group of people in custody,
Turkey has held captive an entire state, a whole people. Despite that,
Turkey is allowing itself to teach us a lesson.
The statement by the foreign ministry of Turkey on the decision by
the Constitutional Court is simply a direct and crude intervention in
the internal affairs of the Republic of Armenia. As long as that legal
position has not moved from the area of constitutional law to
international law, the decision is solely a domestic matter. Has our
foreign ministry ever officially declared anything on the necessity of
reforming the criminal code of Turkey, without which it would be
impossible to fulfill the obligations to be borne by the protocols?
The principles of reciprocity and equal rights are among the key
pillars of international relations.
If the highest authorities of the Republic of Armenia do not provide
an equivalent response to the foreign ministry of the Republic of
Turkey, it would mean that we accept the Turkish policy of treating us
as a colony. If we don't put Turkey in its place today, we shall
regret it all the more tomorrow, as Turkey has evidently not given up
on its policy of consistent deceit.