Armenia-Turkey Protocols Signed

by Vartan Oskanian, Aravot Daily

Wednesday, 14 October 2009 07:17

First Step – Capitulation: The ill-constructed protocols signaling the beginning of formal relations
between Armenia and Turkey received an uncertain and inauspicious signing in Zurich. The
parties themselves and the representatives of the world powers, all were present but all
remained silent. When such a ‘historic’ moment goes by with none of the sides or the witnesses
able to say anything acceptable to the rest, either about the long-awaited event itself or the
content of the documents being signed – it becomes obvious that these documents are in fact
full of the contradictions and expectations that do not engender the serious trust and respect
necessary for stable and respectful relations between countries. Those within and outside
Armenia who support this process label all those against it as nationalists, extremists or those
who categorically reject all relations with Turkey. But I, and others like me, who have for
decades wanted and continue to believe in the importance of Armenia-Turkey rapprochement
are neither extremists or nationalists.

We are not afraid to recognize the enormous challenges of creating a new relationship in the
context of overwhelming political, psychological, practical challenges. It is for fundamental
political and security reasons that we oppose these protocols. We want the documents that
define our reciprocal relationship to be respectful, farsighted and most of all, sustainable. These
protocols are not. We want the documents to define a 21st century relationship that is as honest
about past grievances as it is about contemporary political realities. These protocols are not.

Instead of an acknowledgement of the historic divide and mutual distrust that separates us, or at
the very least circumventing that topic, the documents place one-sided conditions and receive
one-sided concessions. Normalization has thus begun with the capitulation of the Armenian
side.

Indeed these protocols – barely signed and not even ratified – have already damaged, possibly
irrevocably, Armenia’s positions on the three most significant issues of national security and
national identity.

First, they will hamper the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. The reason for this is simple. Any
Armenian insistence of no-linkage between Armenia-Turkey and Armenian-Azerbaijani is not
credulous. The linkage between the Turkey border opening and the resolution of the Karabakh
conflict was clear from the beginning. Now, it’s inarguable. If the presence of the Minsk Group
co-chair countries’ foreign ministers at the signing wasn’t enough, there were the last minute
frantic attempts at the signing ceremony to prevent Turkey from speaking of that linkage at that
forum. But the coup de grace was the Turkish Prime Minister’s unequivocal conditional
announcement the day after, buttressed by the strength of his ruling party whose meeting had
just concluded, that the Turkish Parliament won’t ratify these protocols until territories are
returned.

Any acceptable resolution will require certain compromise on the Armenian side – including

1/5
Armenia-Turkey Protocols Signed

by Vartan Oskanian, Aravot Daily

Wednesday, 14 October 2009 07:17

compromise on the territories surrounding Karabakh. Many would say that such compromise
would have been necessary eventually regardless of Armenia-Turkey relations. This is true. But
in this conditional environment, when Turkey at every opportunity refers to the return of
territories without the resolution of Karabakh’s status, even the most reasonable compromise
that Armenia would have been prepared to make will be more difficult for this or any
administration to make, because it will be viewed domestically as a concession made under
pressure, in exchange for open borders, not for the independence of Karabakh. Even if the
Turkish parliament ratifies the protocols and opens the border with the mere expectation that
Armenians will return those territories in the near future, still, in the context of the forceful and
repeated admonitions by the Turkish leadership, those expectations will themselves become
conditions that the border opening was in exchange for possible future concessions.

Second, the nature of the genocide debate has been deeply altered. The ink on the protocols
was not even dry before major news outlets and international figures began to couch their
terminology, retreating from the use of the term genocide, citing the protocol’s provisions that a
commission will determine what the events of 1915 really were. In other words, we have offered
the international community the formalization of official Turkey’s position. If earlier, Armenians
and international experts had defined the political and historical events as genocide, while the
official Turkish side insisted on denying the term and the history behind the term, today, the
official Turkish “doubts” have been sanctioned and will internationalize the denial of the events,
their causes and consequences, and thus strengthen the historic and demographic status quo.
Armenians will now be dragged into a new cycle of denial – struggling against the machinery of
a state bent on rewriting history and consolidating the consequences of genocide.

Finally, this document succeeds in touching what had heretofore been a dormant but sensitive
issue – the subject of borders and territorial claims. No Armenian administration had ever made
such a claim of Turkey. Today, this sensitive issue has become a front-line issue. When Turkish
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says these protocols reaffirm the provisions of the Lausanne
Treaty, that means the issue of reparation and compensation is now on the table. I do not
demand my ancestral home in Marash, but if that demand were really so illusive, then why is
Turkey forcing me to renounce my historic links with that home?

It is important to understand that the claim on land is not merely a sentimental issue having to
do with Armenian properties in Turkey 100 years ago. The issue of lands is also an important
element of the Karabakh conflict. If a mere 100 years later, Turkey is able to formalize and
legalize its control of lands taken forcibly, then what’s to prevent Armenians from waiting if that
offers them the opportunity to formalize their control of the lands surrounding Karabakh?

On Saturday, October 10, we heard President Sargsyan’s address to the Armenian people,
issued just hours ahead of the scheduled signing, the content of which was directly
contradictory to the content of the protocols. It can even be said that the president’s arguments
were the best reasons to reject the protocols. The address insisted that there are irrefutable

2/5
Armenia-Turkey Protocols Signed

by Vartan Oskanian, Aravot Daily

Wednesday, 14 October 2009 07:17

realities and we have undeniable rights; the protocols on the other hand question the first and
eliminate the second. Armenia, without cause and without necessity, conceded its historic
rights, both regarding genocide recognition and what the address so justly called
‘hayrenazrkum’ – a denial and dispossession of our patrimony.

The administration said one thing and signed another. Normalization of Armenia-Turkey
relations, as an idea even, has been discredited.

The processes – both Armenia-Turkey, and the Karabakh peace talks – are going to become
more complicated and more intense, and not at all to our advantage. If Armenia does not bring
this process to a halt, and return to square one, the consequences will be grave not just for the
administration, but for the Armenian people.

First Step – Capitulation: The ill-constructed protocols signaling the beginning of formal
relations between Armenia and Turkey received an uncertain and inauspicious signing in
Zurich. The parties themselves and the representatives of the world powers, all were present
but all remained silent. When such a ‘historic’ moment goes by with none of the sides or the
witnesses able to say anything acceptable to the rest, either about the long-awaited event itself
or the content of the documents being signed – it becomes obvious that these documents are in
fact full of the contradictions and expectations that do not engender the serious trust and
respect necessary for stable and respectful relations between countries.

Those within and outside Armenia who support this process label all those against it as
nationalists, extremists or those who categorically reject all relations with Turkey. But I, and
others like me, who have for decades wanted and continue to believe in the importance of
Armenia-Turkey rapprochement are neither extremists or nationalists.

We are not afraid to recognize the enormous challenges of creating a new relationship in the
context of overwhelming political, psychological, practical challenges. It is for fundamental
political and security reasons that we oppose these protocols. We want the documents that
define our reciprocal relationship to be respectful, farsighted and most of all, sustainable. These
protocols are not. We want the documents to define a 21st century relationship that is as honest
about past grievances as it is about contemporary political realities. These protocols are not.

Instead of an acknowledgement of the historic divide and mutual distrust that separates us, or
at the very least circumventing that topic, the documents place one-sided conditions and
receive one-sided concessions. Normalization has thus begun with the capitulation of the
Armenian side.

3/5
Armenia-Turkey Protocols Signed

by Vartan Oskanian, Aravot Daily

Wednesday, 14 October 2009 07:17

Indeed these protocols – barely signed and not even ratified – have already damaged, possibly
irrevocably, Armenia’s positions on the three most significant issues of national security and
national identity.

First, they will hamper the resolution of the Karabakh conflict. The reason for this is simple. Any
Armenian insistence of no-linkage between Armenia-Turkey and Armenian-Azerbaijani is not
credulous. The linkage between the Turkey border opening and the resolution of the Karabakh
conflict was clear from the beginning. Now, it’s inarguable. If the presence of the Minsk Group
co-chair countries’ foreign ministers at the signing wasn’t enough, there were the last minute
frantic attempts at the signing ceremony to prevent Turkey from speaking of that linkage at that
forum. But the coup de grace was the Turkish Prime Minister’s unequivocal conditional
announcement the day after, buttressed by the strength of his ruling party whose meeting had
just concluded, that the Turkish Parliament won’t ratify these protocols until territories are
returned.

Any acceptable resolution will require certain compromise on the Armenian side – including
compromise on the territories surrounding Karabakh. Many would say that such compromise
would have been necessary eventually regardless of Armenia-Turkey relations. This is true. But
in this conditional environment, when Turkey at every opportunity refers to the return of
territories without the resolution of Karabakh’s status, even the most reasonable compromise
that Armenia would have been prepared to make will be more difficult for this or any
administration to make, because it will be viewed domestically as a concession made under
pressure, in exchange for open borders, not for the independence of Karabakh. Even if the
Turkish parliament ratifies the protocols and opens the border with the mere expectation that
Armenians will return those territories in the near future, still, in the context of the forceful and
repeated admonitions by the Turkish leadership, those expectations will themselves become
conditions that the border opening was in exchange for possible future concessions.

Second, the nature of the genocide debate has been deeply altered. The ink on the protocols
was not even dry before major news outlets and international figures began to couch their
terminology, retreating from the use of the term genocide, citing the protocol’s provisions that a
commission will determine what the events of 1915 really were. In other words, we have offered
the international community the formalization of official Turkey’s position. If earlier, Armenians
and international experts had defined the political and historical events as genocide, while the
official Turkish side insisted on denying the term and the history behind the term, today, the
official Turkish “doubts” have been sanctioned and will internationalize the denial of the events,
their causes and consequences, and thus strengthen the historic and demographic status quo.
Armenians will now be dragged into a new cycle of denial – struggling against the machinery of
a state bent on rewriting history and consolidating the consequences of genocide.

4/5
Armenia-Turkey Protocols Signed

by Vartan Oskanian, Aravot Daily

Wednesday, 14 October 2009 07:17

Finally, this document succeeds in touching what had heretofore been a dormant but sensitive
issue – the subject of borders and territorial claims. No Armenian administration had ever made
such a claim of Turkey. Today, this sensitive issue has become a front-line issue. When Turkish
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu says these protocols reaffirm the provisions of the Lausanne
Treaty, that means the issue of reparation and compensation is now on the table. I do not
demand my ancestral home in Marash, but if that demand were really so illusive, then why is
Turkey forcing me to renounce my historic links with that home?

It is important to understand that the claim on land is not merely a sentimental issue having to
do with Armenian properties in Turkey 100 years ago. The issue of lands is also an important
element of the Karabakh conflict. If a mere 100 years later, Turkey is able to formalize and
legalize its control of lands taken forcibly, then what’s to prevent Armenians from waiting if that
offers them the opportunity to formalize their control of the lands surrounding Karabakh?

On Saturday, October 10, we heard President Sargsyan’s address to the Armenian people,
issued just hours ahead of the scheduled signing, the content of which was directly
contradictory to the content of the protocols. It can even be said that the president’s arguments
were the best reasons to reject the protocols. The address insisted that there are irrefutable
realities and we have undeniable rights; the protocols on the other hand question the first and
eliminate the second. Armenia, without cause and without necessity, conceded its historic
rights, both regarding genocide recognition and what the address so justly called
‘hayrenazrkum’ – a denial and dispossession of our patrimony.

The administration said one thing and signed another. Normalization of Armenia-Turkey
relations, as an idea even, has been discredited.

The processes – both Armenia-Turkey, and the Karabakh peace talks – are going to become
more complicated and more intense, and not at all to our advantage. If Armenia does not bring
this process to a halt, and return to square one, the consequences will be grave not just for the
administration, but for the Armenian people.

5/5