ARMENIAN MINISTER BLAMES TURKEY FOR TENSE TIES IN INTERVIEW
Der Standard
Feb 28 2012
Austria
[Translated from German]
Interview with Armenia's Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian by
Josef Kirchengast; place and date not given: "'The Turkish Side is
Preventing Normalization'"
[Kirchengast] The French Parliament recently approved a law that
punishes denial of genocide, including the massacre of Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire. Does Armenia consider this law a model that other
countries, like Austria, should also follow?
[Nalbandian] Whether or not it is a model, I am certain that other
countries will also adopt such decisions so long as it is Turkish
government policy to deny the genocide of the Armenians. This genocide
is a crime against humanity that has been recognized as such by several
countries and international organizations. The denial of the genocide
triggers corresponding counter reactions. The French law reflects
the feelings and opinion of the French people. I know that from my
time as ambassador to France.
[Kirchengast] Critics believe the law also has something to do with
the French presidential election and point to the large Armenian
community in France.
[Nalbandian] No, that is not correct. The law enjoys the full support
of the French president, the government, and all relevant political
forces, both left and right. It was adopted by the National Assembly
and the Senate. The adoption of the law therefore expresses the
opinion of the entire French people. That was also the case in 2001
with the adoption of the French law on recognition of the genocide
of the Armenians.
[Kirchengast] But a group of senators and deputies afterwards appealed
to the Constitutional Council, which must now decide whether the
law is compatible with the French Constitution. This was against the
background of the deterioration in relations threatened by Turkey. But
is not the law also counterproductive for Armenia itself in its
efforts to establish normal relations with Turkey?
[Nalbandian] The law can only be helpful to the Armenian-Turkish
normalization. If there is something preventing the normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations it is the action on the Turkish side.
Following the signing of the protocols in Zurich in October 2009,
Turkey took a step backward by refusing to implement the agreements.
(Editor's note: in April 2010 Armenia's President Sarkisian suspended
the ratification of the Zurich protocols on the establishment of
diplomatic relations between the two countries and the opening
of borders, on the grounds that Turkey rejects ratification and
implementation and states prior conditions.) The international
community believes the ball is now in Turkey's court.
[Kirchengast] But the appeal to the Constitutional Council in France
shows that the genocide law is not uncontroversial.
[Nalbandian] I do not believe it is proper for someone to interfere in
the decision-making process of the French Constitutional Council, as
many Turkish representatives are trying to do. They have congratulated
themselves on their successful lobbying with the French senators
who have appealed to the Constitutional Council. They also welcome
Azerbaijan's efforts in this direction. The senators who signed
the appeal to the Constitutional Council were even honoured with an
invitation to Baku. I do not believe such an action could be greeted
in a European country.
[Kirchengast] The Armenian-Turkish relationship was already somewhat
better if you think, for example, of the meeting of the two presidents
Sarkisian and Gul at the WC soccer games in October 2009 in Yerevan
and Bursa. Why has the bilateral commission of historians that Turkey
is urging so strongly not come about?
[Nalbandian] Even before the statement of the Armenian president, the
Armenian-Turkish relationship was at a dead end. We tried to lead it
out of this dead end but the Turkish side does everything possible to
prevent this. There is the agreement to create a bilateral commission
after the opening of the borders and the establishment of diplomatic
relations. Under this commission there will also be subcommittees,
including one on the historical dimension, but not one of historians.
It has the goal of restoring trust between the two nations but not
discussing whether or not there was genocide of the Armenians as
the Turkish side imagines. Under no circumstances is the fact of
the genocide subject to debate. Could you imagine inviting Jewish
representatives to a discussion of whether or not there was the
Holocaust?
[Kirchengast] The dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region is one
of the "frozen" conflicts: nothing is moving. The main barrier to
a solution is that Armenia still occupies a considerable portion of
Azerbaijanian territory.
[Nalbandian] To guarantee physical security to the population of
Karabakh, it self-defence forces were forced to create a buffer
zone around the region after Azerbaijan's aggression. The return
of territories is an element of an overall package as produced
in the Minsk Group (editor's note: co-chaired by the USA, France,
and Russia). But if Azerbaijan says that it is only about a return
of territory and all other aspects of the agreement are ignored or
deliberately circumvented, then this agreement cannot come about. This
is why US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on behalf of
the three co-chairs in Astana that all principles and elements of
a solution were worked out as an integral whole. Separating them or
preferring one principle or another is completely unacceptable.
From: Baghdasarian
Der Standard
Feb 28 2012
Austria
[Translated from German]
Interview with Armenia's Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian by
Josef Kirchengast; place and date not given: "'The Turkish Side is
Preventing Normalization'"
[Kirchengast] The French Parliament recently approved a law that
punishes denial of genocide, including the massacre of Armenians in
the Ottoman Empire. Does Armenia consider this law a model that other
countries, like Austria, should also follow?
[Nalbandian] Whether or not it is a model, I am certain that other
countries will also adopt such decisions so long as it is Turkish
government policy to deny the genocide of the Armenians. This genocide
is a crime against humanity that has been recognized as such by several
countries and international organizations. The denial of the genocide
triggers corresponding counter reactions. The French law reflects
the feelings and opinion of the French people. I know that from my
time as ambassador to France.
[Kirchengast] Critics believe the law also has something to do with
the French presidential election and point to the large Armenian
community in France.
[Nalbandian] No, that is not correct. The law enjoys the full support
of the French president, the government, and all relevant political
forces, both left and right. It was adopted by the National Assembly
and the Senate. The adoption of the law therefore expresses the
opinion of the entire French people. That was also the case in 2001
with the adoption of the French law on recognition of the genocide
of the Armenians.
[Kirchengast] But a group of senators and deputies afterwards appealed
to the Constitutional Council, which must now decide whether the
law is compatible with the French Constitution. This was against the
background of the deterioration in relations threatened by Turkey. But
is not the law also counterproductive for Armenia itself in its
efforts to establish normal relations with Turkey?
[Nalbandian] The law can only be helpful to the Armenian-Turkish
normalization. If there is something preventing the normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations it is the action on the Turkish side.
Following the signing of the protocols in Zurich in October 2009,
Turkey took a step backward by refusing to implement the agreements.
(Editor's note: in April 2010 Armenia's President Sarkisian suspended
the ratification of the Zurich protocols on the establishment of
diplomatic relations between the two countries and the opening
of borders, on the grounds that Turkey rejects ratification and
implementation and states prior conditions.) The international
community believes the ball is now in Turkey's court.
[Kirchengast] But the appeal to the Constitutional Council in France
shows that the genocide law is not uncontroversial.
[Nalbandian] I do not believe it is proper for someone to interfere in
the decision-making process of the French Constitutional Council, as
many Turkish representatives are trying to do. They have congratulated
themselves on their successful lobbying with the French senators
who have appealed to the Constitutional Council. They also welcome
Azerbaijan's efforts in this direction. The senators who signed
the appeal to the Constitutional Council were even honoured with an
invitation to Baku. I do not believe such an action could be greeted
in a European country.
[Kirchengast] The Armenian-Turkish relationship was already somewhat
better if you think, for example, of the meeting of the two presidents
Sarkisian and Gul at the WC soccer games in October 2009 in Yerevan
and Bursa. Why has the bilateral commission of historians that Turkey
is urging so strongly not come about?
[Nalbandian] Even before the statement of the Armenian president, the
Armenian-Turkish relationship was at a dead end. We tried to lead it
out of this dead end but the Turkish side does everything possible to
prevent this. There is the agreement to create a bilateral commission
after the opening of the borders and the establishment of diplomatic
relations. Under this commission there will also be subcommittees,
including one on the historical dimension, but not one of historians.
It has the goal of restoring trust between the two nations but not
discussing whether or not there was genocide of the Armenians as
the Turkish side imagines. Under no circumstances is the fact of
the genocide subject to debate. Could you imagine inviting Jewish
representatives to a discussion of whether or not there was the
Holocaust?
[Kirchengast] The dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh region is one
of the "frozen" conflicts: nothing is moving. The main barrier to
a solution is that Armenia still occupies a considerable portion of
Azerbaijanian territory.
[Nalbandian] To guarantee physical security to the population of
Karabakh, it self-defence forces were forced to create a buffer
zone around the region after Azerbaijan's aggression. The return
of territories is an element of an overall package as produced
in the Minsk Group (editor's note: co-chaired by the USA, France,
and Russia). But if Azerbaijan says that it is only about a return
of territory and all other aspects of the agreement are ignored or
deliberately circumvented, then this agreement cannot come about. This
is why US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated on behalf of
the three co-chairs in Astana that all principles and elements of
a solution were worked out as an integral whole. Separating them or
preferring one principle or another is completely unacceptable.
From: Baghdasarian