Tweet
ARMENIA CHANGED THE TURKISH MECHANISM FUNCTIONING FOR FIVE YEARS
Siranuysh Papyan, Interviewer
Interview - 17 February 2015, 16:06
A few months ago Serzh Sargsyan sent the protocols to hell from the
UN floor, and he has now recalled them from the parliament.
There may be an impression that the decision made on February 16
stemmed from the declaration made on January 29. In reality, Turkey's
steps did not let us alternatives. On the other hand, the anniversary
of the genocide accelerated some processes or produced the impression
that any step is automatically linked to April 24. Now let us have
a retrospective look and try to understand whether this step was
inevitable or not. I think national security and dignity are at stake.
In April 2010 it was clear that insurmountable obstacles have occurred
which forced the Armenian president to announce about suspending
the process of ratification of the protocols. During the next five
years Turkey did not take any essential step. Moreover, since Armenia
needed opening of the border, it used every pertinent and impertinent
occasion to remind about its pre-conditions. Turkey led the process
into an impasse, stereotypes were even more crystallized, lack of
understanding deepened, and lack of confidence aggravated.
How will the world react to this step?
The reaction depends on how its presentation to the world will look
like. In reality, this is one of the cases when Armenia has no reason
to worry. Moreover, if the "world" that you mentioned is surprised or
startled, it should recall the steps that it took to prevent this. The
impression was that everybody was fine with the suspended situation
except Armenia. This perceived satisfaction created a misunderstanding
that some process was going on between Armenia and Turkey, and the
sides should not have been disturbed. In reality, Turkey was using
the process to create an impression, and for Armenia the processes
moved not in the best direction. The passive role of the international
community and the tendency to tolerate Turkey's willfulness resulted
in a complicated process. This was the mistake and shortcoming of the
international centers of power. One of the illustrations was September
3 when "choice of civilization" and flexibility was expected from
Armenia in blockade and at war. It is difficult to tell what lessons
the "world" you mentioned has learned from all this and whether it
has learned anything or not.
When did the representatives of the countries and political
organizations standing behind Nalbandyan and Davutoghlu on 10 October
2009 last urge Turkey to fulfill its commitments? How often does the
EU bring up the issue of blockade of Armenia by a country aspiring
to the EU membership? When did the OSCE, the PACE, the CoE and other
organizations last condemn the blockade of Armenia by Turkey?
Unfortunately, all the answers to these questions have negative
answers. The international community left Armenia alone in
normalization of its relations with Turkey, and the bilateral format
failed because the relations between Turkey and Armenia had become
so bad that they needed a third party. Indeed, the United States was
trying to help but the issue of the Armenian-Turkish relations was
deemed secondary to other geopolitical developments, namely the Arab
spring, the civil war in Syria, the Iran-West relations, the rise
of the Islamic State, the Turkey-West controversies etc. Obviously,
there was no room for the problems of Armenia in this line.
How may Turkey react and what should our response be?
Turkey will try to blame the Armenian government indeed, describing it
as a step made in the context of the centenary of the genocide. There
may be an impression that Turkey was happy that Armenia took the lead
and suspended the process. I think it is the contrary. Turkey has a
reason for concerns because Armenia has changed the mechanism of the
Turkish denialism designed and functioning for over five years.
Now that the protocols actually do not exist, Turkey has frozen them,
and we have recalled them, what should the new model of normalization
of Armenian-Turkish relations be? What new projects can be proposed
by us or by them?
At this stage, it is hard to tell what form and content these
initiatives will acquire. One thing is clear - it is necessary to
learn lessons from the past process. It is advisable to refrain from
large-scale commitments in the future initiatives. The previous process
demonstrated that the Armenian-Turkish relations are complicated and
multifaceted. It is difficult to normalize relations with vows and
protocols. Turkey should mature for normalization, the government of
that country must have political will.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/interview/view/33644#sthash.mDCoEGw1.dpuf
Siranuysh Papyan, Interviewer
Interview - 17 February 2015, 16:06
A few months ago Serzh Sargsyan sent the protocols to hell from the
UN floor, and he has now recalled them from the parliament.
There may be an impression that the decision made on February 16
stemmed from the declaration made on January 29. In reality, Turkey's
steps did not let us alternatives. On the other hand, the anniversary
of the genocide accelerated some processes or produced the impression
that any step is automatically linked to April 24. Now let us have
a retrospective look and try to understand whether this step was
inevitable or not. I think national security and dignity are at stake.
In April 2010 it was clear that insurmountable obstacles have occurred
which forced the Armenian president to announce about suspending
the process of ratification of the protocols. During the next five
years Turkey did not take any essential step. Moreover, since Armenia
needed opening of the border, it used every pertinent and impertinent
occasion to remind about its pre-conditions. Turkey led the process
into an impasse, stereotypes were even more crystallized, lack of
understanding deepened, and lack of confidence aggravated.
How will the world react to this step?
The reaction depends on how its presentation to the world will look
like. In reality, this is one of the cases when Armenia has no reason
to worry. Moreover, if the "world" that you mentioned is surprised or
startled, it should recall the steps that it took to prevent this. The
impression was that everybody was fine with the suspended situation
except Armenia. This perceived satisfaction created a misunderstanding
that some process was going on between Armenia and Turkey, and the
sides should not have been disturbed. In reality, Turkey was using
the process to create an impression, and for Armenia the processes
moved not in the best direction. The passive role of the international
community and the tendency to tolerate Turkey's willfulness resulted
in a complicated process. This was the mistake and shortcoming of the
international centers of power. One of the illustrations was September
3 when "choice of civilization" and flexibility was expected from
Armenia in blockade and at war. It is difficult to tell what lessons
the "world" you mentioned has learned from all this and whether it
has learned anything or not.
When did the representatives of the countries and political
organizations standing behind Nalbandyan and Davutoghlu on 10 October
2009 last urge Turkey to fulfill its commitments? How often does the
EU bring up the issue of blockade of Armenia by a country aspiring
to the EU membership? When did the OSCE, the PACE, the CoE and other
organizations last condemn the blockade of Armenia by Turkey?
Unfortunately, all the answers to these questions have negative
answers. The international community left Armenia alone in
normalization of its relations with Turkey, and the bilateral format
failed because the relations between Turkey and Armenia had become
so bad that they needed a third party. Indeed, the United States was
trying to help but the issue of the Armenian-Turkish relations was
deemed secondary to other geopolitical developments, namely the Arab
spring, the civil war in Syria, the Iran-West relations, the rise
of the Islamic State, the Turkey-West controversies etc. Obviously,
there was no room for the problems of Armenia in this line.
How may Turkey react and what should our response be?
Turkey will try to blame the Armenian government indeed, describing it
as a step made in the context of the centenary of the genocide. There
may be an impression that Turkey was happy that Armenia took the lead
and suspended the process. I think it is the contrary. Turkey has a
reason for concerns because Armenia has changed the mechanism of the
Turkish denialism designed and functioning for over five years.
Now that the protocols actually do not exist, Turkey has frozen them,
and we have recalled them, what should the new model of normalization
of Armenian-Turkish relations be? What new projects can be proposed
by us or by them?
At this stage, it is hard to tell what form and content these
initiatives will acquire. One thing is clear - it is necessary to
learn lessons from the past process. It is advisable to refrain from
large-scale commitments in the future initiatives. The previous process
demonstrated that the Armenian-Turkish relations are complicated and
multifaceted. It is difficult to normalize relations with vows and
protocols. Turkey should mature for normalization, the government of
that country must have political will.
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/interview/view/33644#sthash.mDCoEGw1.dpuf