Tweet
NOTHING SHOULD BE OFF THE NEGOTIATION TABLE
Friday, May 16th, 2014
Armenian and Turkish foreign ministers Eduard Nalbandian and Ahmet
Davutoglu sign the Turkish-Armenian protcols in Geneva in 2009
BY VARANT MEGUERDITCHIAN
In April this year, French President Francois Hollande declared that
"genocide" was the only word that could appropriately characterize the
events of 1915; the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations passed a
resolution affirming the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide;
Australia's newly appointed Human Rights Commissioner condemned
the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide; Members of the European
Parliament declared that the attacks on Kessab were reminiscent of
the historic deportation and massacre of Armenians; and the American
Jewish Committee urged Turkey to address the Armenian Genocide. These
were some of the political developments that marked the commemoration
of the Armenian Genocide this year.
The shift in the media's positioning toward Armenian Genocide
recognition, however, was more significant than the political
affirmations. Al Jazeera noted that Turkey has lost the battle of
truth on the Armenian Genocide; CNN denounced Obama's broken promise to
use the "G" word; and Al Monitor ran the story of one popular Turkish
political commentator who rejected years of denial to finally accept
the Turkish state's responsibility in the Armenian Genocide.
Going even further, The Jerusalem Post and other news outlets
criticized Erdogan for referring to the "shared pain" of Armenians
and Turks in his first ever official statement on the occasion of
the April 24 commemoration.
There have been many instances of third party recognition of the
Armenian Genocide over the years and it is likely that the next round
of political affirmations are just around the corner; on the 100th
anniversary of 24 April 1915.
A number of commentators have remarked that recognition is not
necessary for reparations and this has been proven to be true at
least in the cases of AXA and New York Life insurance claims.
However, if we accept that recognition is not necessary to bring
about the beginning of reparations, we must equally accept that
reconciliation will bring about their end. This is the reason why
Turkey has been seeking to "reconcile" with Armenia as quickly and
as expediently as possible. This year Turkey again attempted to
position itself as a promoter of reconciliation. Erdogan's statement
and Davutoglu's subsequent opinion piece in The Guardian offered
condolences to the descendants, while stopping short of recognizing
the Genocide and accepting ownership of its consequences. As the
Armenian Genocide Centenary approaches, we should expect Turkey to
make numerous similar attempts to water down its historical reality
and present-day implications.
This year, more than in previous years, brave Turkish citizens gathered
to publicly commemorate the Armenian Genocide in various cities across
Turkey. It is encouraging to see that internal pressures are now adding
to the mass of external pressures. Ultimately, it is the combination
of these two forces that will eventually lead Turkey to acknowledge
the Armenian Genocide, and it will be critical for Armenia and the
Armenian Diaspora to be prepared.
While reparations can be achieved through the court of law, a
negotiated resolution is more likely to deliver enduring peace.
Lasting reconciliation between the two nations is conditional upon
the fulfillment of three key deliverables: that substantive justice
is done to address the crimes committed; that the Armenian and Turkish
states agree to the outcome; and that the respective societies, through
dialogue and direct engagement with each other, accept these outcomes.
The 2009 Turkey-Armenia protocols were particularly unpopular in
Armenia and eventually failed because they did not satisfy the first
and third deliverables. In reality, the protocols should not have
been satisfactory to the Armenian government either.
Today, the Armenian state is landlocked and blockaded. It is unable to
fully cater to some of the basic societal needs of its citizens or the
cultural and political needs of the Armenian Diaspora. It is plagued
by emigration, it is militarily and economically vulnerable, and as
a consequence, it is heavily reliant on Russia, with its domestic and
foreign policies closely tied to the Kremlin. The fragility of Armenia
today traces its roots back to the Genocide and as such Armenia should
be the primary beneficiary of reparations offered for the Genocide.
As a state, Armenia is more vulnerable to pressure to reach a
negotiated solution without substantive justice. It is critical,
therefore, for the people of Armenia and the Diaspora to support the
Armenian state in its undeniable right to reparations.
In this regard it is most important to consider what we want. A
balanced stakeholder consultation process with the participation
of Armenian advocacy organizations, political parties, church
denominations, cultural, business and legal groups from Armenia and
the Diaspora alongside representatives of the Armenian state should
guide the establishment of Armenian expectations. It may even be that
Armenian Diaspora organizations need to lead this activity.
In negotiating a just resolution of the Armenian Genocide, nothing
must be off the negotiation table.
Everything that Armenia is entitled to, everything that the Armenian
Diaspora is entitled to, everything that the descendants of Armenian
Genocide survivors in Turkey are entitled to, must be placed on the
negotiation table.
This includes: Return of lands, return of churches, the right of return
for Armenians, the right of hidden Armenians to live freely and openly,
monetary compensations to Armenia, our churches, Diasporan institutions
and individuals who choose to seek it. Additionally, there must be an
unreserved apology by Turkey for the crime and for years of denial,
a repeal of anti-Armenian laws in Turkey, the placement of Armenian
Genocide memorials in Turkey, and a correction of the Turkish account
of history in the country's education system.
We must also seek a reduction in Turkish military presence on the
Armenian border, an acknowledgement that Azerbaijan's anti-Armenian
agendas in Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhichevan have been the result of the
long-standing absence of a just resolution of the Armenian Genocide,
and a commitment by Turkey to apply pressure on Azerbaijan to recognize
the right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to self-determination.
These are the top-line demands that Armenia and Armenians are entitled
to in the form of reparations and none of these rights should
be compromised prior to negotiations. Undoubtedly a stakeholder
consultation process among Armenians would lead to the development
of a far more comprehensive list of rights.
What the final outcome of negotiations would be is, of course,
uncertain. It is important to keep in mind, however, that when US
President Woodrow Wilson was asked to draw the border between Turkey
and Armenia, his primary consideration was that Armenia be secure
and sustainable.
Ultimately whatever the outcome of the negotiation, Armenia must
be sustainable, independent of reliance on other countries for its
defense and economic security and be able to fulfill its purpose of
serving the needs of Armenians both at home and in the Diaspora.
http://asbarez.com/123159/nothing-should-be-off-the-negotiation-table/
Friday, May 16th, 2014
Armenian and Turkish foreign ministers Eduard Nalbandian and Ahmet
Davutoglu sign the Turkish-Armenian protcols in Geneva in 2009
BY VARANT MEGUERDITCHIAN
In April this year, French President Francois Hollande declared that
"genocide" was the only word that could appropriately characterize the
events of 1915; the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations passed a
resolution affirming the historical reality of the Armenian Genocide;
Australia's newly appointed Human Rights Commissioner condemned
the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide; Members of the European
Parliament declared that the attacks on Kessab were reminiscent of
the historic deportation and massacre of Armenians; and the American
Jewish Committee urged Turkey to address the Armenian Genocide. These
were some of the political developments that marked the commemoration
of the Armenian Genocide this year.
The shift in the media's positioning toward Armenian Genocide
recognition, however, was more significant than the political
affirmations. Al Jazeera noted that Turkey has lost the battle of
truth on the Armenian Genocide; CNN denounced Obama's broken promise to
use the "G" word; and Al Monitor ran the story of one popular Turkish
political commentator who rejected years of denial to finally accept
the Turkish state's responsibility in the Armenian Genocide.
Going even further, The Jerusalem Post and other news outlets
criticized Erdogan for referring to the "shared pain" of Armenians
and Turks in his first ever official statement on the occasion of
the April 24 commemoration.
There have been many instances of third party recognition of the
Armenian Genocide over the years and it is likely that the next round
of political affirmations are just around the corner; on the 100th
anniversary of 24 April 1915.
A number of commentators have remarked that recognition is not
necessary for reparations and this has been proven to be true at
least in the cases of AXA and New York Life insurance claims.
However, if we accept that recognition is not necessary to bring
about the beginning of reparations, we must equally accept that
reconciliation will bring about their end. This is the reason why
Turkey has been seeking to "reconcile" with Armenia as quickly and
as expediently as possible. This year Turkey again attempted to
position itself as a promoter of reconciliation. Erdogan's statement
and Davutoglu's subsequent opinion piece in The Guardian offered
condolences to the descendants, while stopping short of recognizing
the Genocide and accepting ownership of its consequences. As the
Armenian Genocide Centenary approaches, we should expect Turkey to
make numerous similar attempts to water down its historical reality
and present-day implications.
This year, more than in previous years, brave Turkish citizens gathered
to publicly commemorate the Armenian Genocide in various cities across
Turkey. It is encouraging to see that internal pressures are now adding
to the mass of external pressures. Ultimately, it is the combination
of these two forces that will eventually lead Turkey to acknowledge
the Armenian Genocide, and it will be critical for Armenia and the
Armenian Diaspora to be prepared.
While reparations can be achieved through the court of law, a
negotiated resolution is more likely to deliver enduring peace.
Lasting reconciliation between the two nations is conditional upon
the fulfillment of three key deliverables: that substantive justice
is done to address the crimes committed; that the Armenian and Turkish
states agree to the outcome; and that the respective societies, through
dialogue and direct engagement with each other, accept these outcomes.
The 2009 Turkey-Armenia protocols were particularly unpopular in
Armenia and eventually failed because they did not satisfy the first
and third deliverables. In reality, the protocols should not have
been satisfactory to the Armenian government either.
Today, the Armenian state is landlocked and blockaded. It is unable to
fully cater to some of the basic societal needs of its citizens or the
cultural and political needs of the Armenian Diaspora. It is plagued
by emigration, it is militarily and economically vulnerable, and as
a consequence, it is heavily reliant on Russia, with its domestic and
foreign policies closely tied to the Kremlin. The fragility of Armenia
today traces its roots back to the Genocide and as such Armenia should
be the primary beneficiary of reparations offered for the Genocide.
As a state, Armenia is more vulnerable to pressure to reach a
negotiated solution without substantive justice. It is critical,
therefore, for the people of Armenia and the Diaspora to support the
Armenian state in its undeniable right to reparations.
In this regard it is most important to consider what we want. A
balanced stakeholder consultation process with the participation
of Armenian advocacy organizations, political parties, church
denominations, cultural, business and legal groups from Armenia and
the Diaspora alongside representatives of the Armenian state should
guide the establishment of Armenian expectations. It may even be that
Armenian Diaspora organizations need to lead this activity.
In negotiating a just resolution of the Armenian Genocide, nothing
must be off the negotiation table.
Everything that Armenia is entitled to, everything that the Armenian
Diaspora is entitled to, everything that the descendants of Armenian
Genocide survivors in Turkey are entitled to, must be placed on the
negotiation table.
This includes: Return of lands, return of churches, the right of return
for Armenians, the right of hidden Armenians to live freely and openly,
monetary compensations to Armenia, our churches, Diasporan institutions
and individuals who choose to seek it. Additionally, there must be an
unreserved apology by Turkey for the crime and for years of denial,
a repeal of anti-Armenian laws in Turkey, the placement of Armenian
Genocide memorials in Turkey, and a correction of the Turkish account
of history in the country's education system.
We must also seek a reduction in Turkish military presence on the
Armenian border, an acknowledgement that Azerbaijan's anti-Armenian
agendas in Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhichevan have been the result of the
long-standing absence of a just resolution of the Armenian Genocide,
and a commitment by Turkey to apply pressure on Azerbaijan to recognize
the right of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to self-determination.
These are the top-line demands that Armenia and Armenians are entitled
to in the form of reparations and none of these rights should
be compromised prior to negotiations. Undoubtedly a stakeholder
consultation process among Armenians would lead to the development
of a far more comprehensive list of rights.
What the final outcome of negotiations would be is, of course,
uncertain. It is important to keep in mind, however, that when US
President Woodrow Wilson was asked to draw the border between Turkey
and Armenia, his primary consideration was that Armenia be secure
and sustainable.
Ultimately whatever the outcome of the negotiation, Armenia must
be sustainable, independent of reliance on other countries for its
defense and economic security and be able to fulfill its purpose of
serving the needs of Armenians both at home and in the Diaspora.
http://asbarez.com/123159/nothing-should-be-off-the-negotiation-table/