A DISCUSSION: From: Ergun [ergun@cox.net]
Dear Orhan,
It is unfair to characterize being agaisnt the protocls “no solution is good solution” approach.
I have read both protocols and seen point-by-point analysis of it, have you?
I have serious reservations on these two protocols. Armenia brings nothing to the table to cause these protocls to be signed and gets a “kiss of life” from Turkey in return. I feel Turkey is short-changed and out-smarted by the Armenians and/or pressured real hard by the real powers behind these protocols, namely the U.S. and the E.U.
I am a businessman who believes in give-and-take. Diplomacy and international relations are all give-and-take. I feel like these protocls are give-and-give. I do not see any “take” on the table, do you? (What you may think will happen in future is an “expectation”, that may or may not pan out, not a “take”.)
Let’s do this mental exercise wioth you:
Suppose the protocols are signed on October 10, 2009.
The Turkish parliament ratifies them, despite fierce opposition in and out of the parliament, six weeks after that.
And the borders are opened two months after that.
That’s the sequence of events described in the protocols.
Technically, by February or March, Turkey-Armenia border can be opened with no tangible gain for Turkey.
1- Is there any reason left as to why Armenia should take any step towards peace in Karabakh + 7 provinces after that point?
2- Can Turkey dare to close the borders if Armenian insists on making no moves citing million reasons or excuses?
3- Would not Turkey be under even more pressure by the US, EU, and UN not to close the borders then?
4- And if Turkey closes the borders anyway–like Turkey resisted international pressure on the Cyprus issue in 1974–would not Turkey be isolated further?
5- Aren’t we boxing ourselves into another TRNC situation here where Turkey looks like the cruel bully of a neighbor who takes sadistic pleasure in punishing the cute, little, poor, helpless kid next door, e.g. Armenia?
6- Do you see any signs of toning down of the genocide rhetoric now, or coveting of Turkish lands, or changing Armenian constitution?
7- Why give so much upfront while receiving little more than empty promises in return?
8- What if we lose Azerbaijan because of this? Who will fill the oil and gas pipelines on which so much of Turkey’s new policies of being the “new energy hub” depends?
9- Doesn’t this feel like the “soldier’s promise to Evren” by the American chief of staff, General Rogers, back in 1981 when Turkey removed its objection to Greece’s return to NATO? Greece kept none of the promises since and our only capital in negotiations with Greece was wasted. Our only capital in negotiations with Armenia is opening the border. That is being wasted away on vague promises in a couple of loosely worded protocols.
Dear Orhan, if I did such poor trades in my business, I would be bankrupt by now.
I am not against dialog, negotiations, raproachment, and normalization. But I believe, this just ain’t it.
If Armenia vacated 5 of the 7 provinces immediately, for instance, and agreed to turn over security of the remaining 2 provinces along with that of Karabakh to UN security forces; and allowed the return their home of Azeri refugees, I could see signing of the first protocol.
And if Armenia promised to remove reference to Western Armenia in its constitution (code for Eastern Anatolia,) agree to turn over the genocide claims to a joint historians’ committee, and stop coveting Turkish lands, I could agree to sign the second protocol.
It is as simple as that.
Last word: I am not against normalization; I am against a poor business deal.
Best regards,
Ergune
—–
From: OGURBUZ@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 10:27 PM
Dear Javid and Ergun,
It is unfortunate that many Turkish Americans are reacting negatively to the protocols to be signed by the Turkish and Armenian governments. I am no fan of the Erdogan government, but this is a right step long overdue. We need to change the “no solution is a good solution” mentality.
I know the path forward will be difficult. There are many people who will be threatened by any reproach between Turkey and Armenia; Armenian diaspora comes to mind. The Middle East is known for many conflicts that are never resolved. I hope in a few years there will be one less problem and Turkey and Armenia will show the way.
Both governments should be applauded for taking this giant but dangerous step. I hope they will not be stuck in the past and will find a win-win solution.
Orhan Gurbuz
In a message dated 10/05/2009 11:46:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, javid@azeris.com writes:
Excellent comments Ergun bey.
I have to say that I am disappointed by ATAA and TCA support for the protocols initiated in the Armenian Foreign Ministry. Especially in ATAA case, was the decision behind the official support letter based on the opinion of community conducted through an open poll?
These documents would bring no benefits to Turkey in return to far bigger losses in regional foreign policy. From a moral standpoint, this is the first time in the history of Turkish Republic when a deal is concluded on enemy’s terms.
Best,
Javid
2009/10/4 Ergun Kirlikovali <ergun@cox.net>
Dun Los Angeles Times ile yarim saatlik bir gorusme yaptik. Bugun haberlerde cok kucuk bir kismi cikti. Buna da sukur.
Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
Tentative deal between Armenia, Turkey brings opposition from both sides
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-oct-04-me-armenia-protest4-story.html
Armenian Americans and Turkish Americans both say the governments in their homelands are giving too many concessions. A commission that would study the Armenian genocide is a sore point for some.
Upset over an agreement that would establish diplomatic ties between Armenia and Turkey and reopen their common borders, members of the Los Angeles Armenian community plan to rally in Beverly Hills today.
Organizers of the demonstration say they will call on Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan to refrain from signing protocols with Turkey that they believe would threaten Armenia’s interests and security.
Sargsyan is scheduled to visit Los Angeles today.
A deal that would essentially normalize relations between the long-estranged nations is expected to be signed this month. But the agreement faces opposition from both Armenian Americans and Turkish Americans, who argue that the governments in their homelands are making unreasonable concessions.
“We’re not against normalization and peace with Turkey,” said Arek Santikian, a UCLA student and chairman of the Armenian Youth Federation of the Western United States. “We really would want peace. But we can’t have peace with preconditions.”
Among the agreement’s provisions is the creation of a historical commission that would evaluate the bloody history between the two countries. The Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1918 claimed the lives of about 1.2 million Armenians under the Ottoman Empire, which became the modern republic of Turkey. The Turkish government disputes that a genocide took place.
A historical commission would allow Turkey “to question the veracity of the genocide,” Santikian said. “We know that it happened. We can’t put a question mark on that.”
Turkey disputes the number of those killed and argues that Armenians were equally brutal in slaying Turks when they revolted against their Ottoman rulers and aligned themselves with invading Russian troops.
Armenian American critics of the agreement also argue that the protocols would allow Turkey to keep eastern territories they say are historically part of Armenia.
They are also concerned about the future of Nagorno-Karabakh, a disputed enclave populated mainly by ethnic Armenians but within the borders of Azerbaijan, which has close ethnic and political ties with Turkey.
“The protocols are not proportional,” said Caspar Jivalagian, a student at Southwestern Law School and an Armenian Youth Federation member. “It is a very pro-Turkish document.”
But many Turkish Americans disagree.
“Turkey is giving too much and getting too little in return,” said Ergun Kirlikovali, West Coast director of the Assembly of Turkish American Assns.
Some believe the Turkish government is selling out Azerbaijan by reconciling with Armenia before the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh has been settled. Others fear Turkey might be forced to give back land.
Kirlikovali said Turks are also tired of being defamed by Armenians who were “constantly pushing a bogus genocide claim . . . and distorting and misrepresenting history.”
He argued that a historical commission would allow experts to come to a “nonpolitical” verdict on the issue, and said that’s why Armenians were opposed to the creation of such a panel. It could debunk their main indictment against Turks, Kirlikovali said.
Gunay Evinch, the assembly’s Washington, D.C.-based president and a Fulbright scholar, said that despite the concerns over the consequences of the accord between Turkey and Armenia, the agreement presented “a unique opportunity to move forward for these countries and their people, but not without risks.”
ann.simmons@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times