Tweet
WHY THEY RECALLED KOCHARYAN
HAKOB BADALYAN
Lragir.am
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments23086.html
25/08/2011
Though with a weaker public focus, WikiLeaks, nevertheless, continues
to reveal interesting details of the internal correspondence of the
American diplomacy.
In particular, WikiLeaks has revealed the letter of the second
president of Armenia, Robert Kocharyan, to the Turkish prime minister,
Erdoghan, which was Kocharyan's reply to Erdogan's letter. This
correspondence was dated to Kocharyan's office. Turkey proposed
consideration of the genocide by the commission of historians and
Kocharyan refused. Instead, the Armenian side proposed discussion
of any issue at an intergovernmental level. "An intergovernmental
commission can meet to discuss any and all outstanding issues between
our two nations, with the aim of resolving them and coming to an
understanding," Kocharyan wrote to Erdogan.
It is not news, of course. So it is hard to say why this story is
refreshed through WikiLeaks. Maybe it is a message to Turkey which
has recently withdrawn from the agenda of its parliament the Zurich
protocols. It may thereby hint to Turkey that should they fail
to return the protocols on the agenda, Armenia's position might
"come back".
The point is that these protocols note the subcommittee of historians.
In other words, what Robert Kocharyan had refused was accepted by
Serzh Sargsyan. It's a reminder of Kocharyan, perhaps hinting that
Serzh Sargsyan may return to Kocharyan's position in case Turkey
fails to maintain the process.
Here the question of the Armenian position rises. Robert Kocharyan
criticized Serzh Sargsyan's position on the Armenian-Turkish
normalization. But apparently some clarification is, nevertheless,
required: is Kocharyan against consideration of the genocide or is he
against consideration by historians? Judging by his reply to Erdogan's
letter, he is not against discussion but he agrees to consideration
at an intergovernmental level, in other words, officially and actually
legally. The difference is obvious, with ensuing political "effect".
Only the question occurs what the Armenian side expected to focus on in
the consideration of the genocide during Kocharyan's office. Would they
consider if the genocide happened or not, what Turks propose or demand,
or would they consider recognition, as well as ensuing contribution.
Notably, Kocharyan had told in an interview with the Turkish journalist
that Armenia has no claims to Turkey. According to Kocharyan, the
Diaspora, Turkish citizens who suffered during the genocide and their
successors, may have similar claims.
If Armenia has no legal claims to Turkey, what should it discuss with
Turkey? If there is discussion, if there is a proposal of discussion,
Armenia should announce its claims to Turkey. Otherwise, a logical
controversy occurs because if Armenia has reason to consider the
genocide with Turkey at an intergovernmental level, it means Armenia
has reason for claims. And it would be ingenuous to think that
Turks are not aware of this. Consequently, they will never agree to
discussion at an intergovernmental level, as it is a trap. But it does
not mean that the Armenians should agree to discuss the question at the
level of historians because this time Armenia and the Armenians would
be trapped. Meanwhile, the point of the Armenian-Turkish protocols
which concerns the subcommittee of historians is a step toward this
trap which Armenia has taken.
The Armenian side must work out the possibility to discuss the issue
of the genocide. Can it be discussed at an intergovernmental or
historical or social level or this issue cannot be discussed at all?
Logically, consideration of this issue should be unacceptable for the
Armenian side. Meanwhile, the ways and timetable of its resolution
and possible consequences could be considered. Consequently,
whenever a proposal on consideration is made or a proposal needs to
be responded, the Armenian side must understand its agenda and focus
of the discussion to prevent further diplomatic speculations and to
avoid theoretical or practical traps.
HAKOB BADALYAN
Lragir.am
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments23086.html
25/08/2011
Though with a weaker public focus, WikiLeaks, nevertheless, continues
to reveal interesting details of the internal correspondence of the
American diplomacy.
In particular, WikiLeaks has revealed the letter of the second
president of Armenia, Robert Kocharyan, to the Turkish prime minister,
Erdoghan, which was Kocharyan's reply to Erdogan's letter. This
correspondence was dated to Kocharyan's office. Turkey proposed
consideration of the genocide by the commission of historians and
Kocharyan refused. Instead, the Armenian side proposed discussion
of any issue at an intergovernmental level. "An intergovernmental
commission can meet to discuss any and all outstanding issues between
our two nations, with the aim of resolving them and coming to an
understanding," Kocharyan wrote to Erdogan.
It is not news, of course. So it is hard to say why this story is
refreshed through WikiLeaks. Maybe it is a message to Turkey which
has recently withdrawn from the agenda of its parliament the Zurich
protocols. It may thereby hint to Turkey that should they fail
to return the protocols on the agenda, Armenia's position might
"come back".
The point is that these protocols note the subcommittee of historians.
In other words, what Robert Kocharyan had refused was accepted by
Serzh Sargsyan. It's a reminder of Kocharyan, perhaps hinting that
Serzh Sargsyan may return to Kocharyan's position in case Turkey
fails to maintain the process.
Here the question of the Armenian position rises. Robert Kocharyan
criticized Serzh Sargsyan's position on the Armenian-Turkish
normalization. But apparently some clarification is, nevertheless,
required: is Kocharyan against consideration of the genocide or is he
against consideration by historians? Judging by his reply to Erdogan's
letter, he is not against discussion but he agrees to consideration
at an intergovernmental level, in other words, officially and actually
legally. The difference is obvious, with ensuing political "effect".
Only the question occurs what the Armenian side expected to focus on in
the consideration of the genocide during Kocharyan's office. Would they
consider if the genocide happened or not, what Turks propose or demand,
or would they consider recognition, as well as ensuing contribution.
Notably, Kocharyan had told in an interview with the Turkish journalist
that Armenia has no claims to Turkey. According to Kocharyan, the
Diaspora, Turkish citizens who suffered during the genocide and their
successors, may have similar claims.
If Armenia has no legal claims to Turkey, what should it discuss with
Turkey? If there is discussion, if there is a proposal of discussion,
Armenia should announce its claims to Turkey. Otherwise, a logical
controversy occurs because if Armenia has reason to consider the
genocide with Turkey at an intergovernmental level, it means Armenia
has reason for claims. And it would be ingenuous to think that
Turks are not aware of this. Consequently, they will never agree to
discussion at an intergovernmental level, as it is a trap. But it does
not mean that the Armenians should agree to discuss the question at the
level of historians because this time Armenia and the Armenians would
be trapped. Meanwhile, the point of the Armenian-Turkish protocols
which concerns the subcommittee of historians is a step toward this
trap which Armenia has taken.
The Armenian side must work out the possibility to discuss the issue
of the genocide. Can it be discussed at an intergovernmental or
historical or social level or this issue cannot be discussed at all?
Logically, consideration of this issue should be unacceptable for the
Armenian side. Meanwhile, the ways and timetable of its resolution
and possible consequences could be considered. Consequently,
whenever a proposal on consideration is made or a proposal needs to
be responded, the Armenian side must understand its agenda and focus
of the discussion to prevent further diplomatic speculations and to
avoid theoretical or practical traps.