Turkish Forum

Category: Armenian Question

“The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary

  • Does Andranik Mihranyan Take His Cue From Pro-Turkey Neocons?

    Does Andranik Mihranyan Take His Cue From Pro-Turkey Neocons?

    DIASPORA’S MOST WIDELY ACCLAIMED & CIRCULATED

    INDEPENDENT ARMENIAN WEEKLY
    Issue #1174 October 7, 2009


    By Appo Jabarian
    Executive Publisher / Managing Editor
    USA Armenian Life Magazine

    Friday,  September 25, 2009

    appo

    In a September 19 article in Azg Daily of Armenia, Hasmik Harutunyan reported Mihranyan as saying that “The Genocide and the issue of Armenian-Turkish relations are a rotten nail in the head of the Armenian people.” Harutunyan then goes on listing Mihranyan’s diatribes about the worldwide Armenian activists that are opposed to the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.

    Long-established is the fact that Mihranyan is a devoted apologist of failed presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrossyan’s damaging foreign policy during the latter’s tenure as President until his resignation in February 1998. Ter-Petrossyan fell from grace and lost his mandate because he officially toyed with the idea of surrendering major chunks of newly liberated Armenian territories of Artsakh to Azerbaijan, and of outright handing over Meghri, Armenia to Baku.

    Apparently, Mihranyan has either forgotten or refuses to recognize the fact that Ter-Petrossyan’s self-defeating policies and ideas caused him the loss of power. And now, he is eager to liken Ter-Petrossyan to the current President, thus giving Pres. Sargsyan a suffocating political bear hug by attempting to misguide Pres. Sargsyan into the newest Turkish trap by sugar-coating the content of the grossly unfair and unjust preconditions imposed by Turkey?

    Mihranyan has also characterized Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian as a veteran diplomat who is widely criticized for having initialed the Protocols.

    How can anyone forget the fact that Mihranyan is one of the individuals who attempted to promote the defrauding “Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission” in early 2000? Thanks to a worldwide outcry by Armenians in Armenia, Artsakh and the Diaspora, TARC was derailed.

    How can a clear-thinking Armenian ever accept Mihranyan’s false notion that the signing of the Protocols will constitute a victory for Armenia and its worldwide Diaspora and their Cause?

    According to Azg Daily, Mihranyan went on to criticize former Pres. Kocharian for not giving in to the Washington-based neocons, alleging that Kocharian “lost” a historic opportunity in Key West, Florida in April 2001 on settling the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict with Azerbaijan. But in reality, to his credit, Kocharian refused to give into the pressures applied on him by the neocons to “return” Artsakh to Azerbaijan.

    I hope Mihranyan remembers that he was an active member of the same Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission which produced the conclusion of a 3rd party report that TARC had commissioned on “whether the actions of the Ottoman authorities constituted genocide.” The conclusion of the International Center for Transitional Justice report was that yes, it did.

    So, how can Mihranyan convince the Armenians to accept the current Protocols agreement which calls for the establishment of a joint commission between Armenia and Turkey to find out “whether the actions of the Ottoman authorities constituted genocide.”

    Contrary to TARC I members’ repeated assurances that it has terminated its activities, it apparently was kept alive, well, and plotting in the “comfort” of total darkness.

    In TARC II’s days in 2004, it was TARC I all over again. Now it’s all too clear that neither TARC I nor TARC II ever vanished into oblivion and somehow continued to join forces with Ankara in order to produce the current Protocols.

    Finally, one wonders if Mihranyan takes his cues from pro-Turkey neocons in Washington and elsewhere?
  • Armenian DIASPORA horrified by treaty with Turkey

    Armenian DIASPORA horrified by treaty with Turkey

    Robert Fisk: Genocide forgotten: Armenians horrified by treaty with Turkey
    A new trade deal is set to gloss over the murder of 1.5 million people
    In the autumn of 1915, an Austrian engineer called Litzmayer, who was helping build the Constantinople-Baghdad railway, saw what he thought was a large Turkish army heading for Mesopotamia. But as the crowd came closer, he realised it was a huge caravan of women, moving forward under the supervision of soldiers.
    The 40,000 or so women were all Armenians, separated from their men – most of whom had already had their throats cut by Turkish gendarmerie – and deported on a genocidal death march during which up to 1.5 million Armenians died.
    Subjected to constant rape and beatings, some had already swallowed poison on their way from their homes in Erzerum, Serena, Sivas, Bitlis and other cities in Turkish western Armenia. “Some of them,” Bishop Grigoris Balakian, one of Litzmayer’s contemporaries, recorded, “had been driven to such a state that they were mere skeletons enveloped in rags, with skin that had turned leathery, burned from the sun, cold, and wind. Many pregnant women, having become numb, had left their newborns on the side of the road as a protest against mankind and God.” Every year, new evidence emerges about this mass ethnic cleansing, the first holocaust of the last century; and every year, Turkey denies that it ever committed genocide. Yet on Saturday – to the horror of millions of descendants of Armenian survivors – the President of Armenia, Serg Sarkissian, plans to agree to a protocol with Turkey to re-open diplomatic relations, which should allow for new trade concessions and oil interests. And he proposes to do this without honouring his most important promise to Armenians abroad – to demand that Turkey admit it carried out the Armenian genocide in 1915.
    In Beirut yesterday, outside Mr Sarkissian’s hotel, thousands of Armenians protested against this trade-for-denial treaty. “We will not forget,” their banners read. “Armenian history is not for sale.” They called the President a traitor. “Why should our million and a half martyrs be put up for sale?” one of them asked. “And what about our Armenian lands in Turkey, the homes our grandparents left behind? Sarkissian is selling them too.”
    The sad truth is that the 5.7 million Armenian diaspora, scattered across Russia, the US, France, Lebanon and many other countries, are the descendants of the western Armenians who bore the brunt of Turkish Ottoman brutality in 1915.
    Tiny, landlocked, modern-day Armenia – its population a mere 3.2 million, living in what was once called eastern Armenia – is poor, flaunts a dubious version of democracy and is deeply corrupt. It relies on remittances from its wealthier cousins overseas; hence Mr Sarkissian’s hopeless mission to New York, Los Angeles, Paris, Beirut and Rostov-on-Don to persuade them to support the treaty, to be signed by the Armenian and Turkish Foreign Ministers in Switzerland.
    The Turks have also been trumpeting a possible settlement to the territory of Nagorno-Karabagh, part of historic Armenia seized from Azerbaijan by Armenian militias almost two decades ago – not without a little ethnic cleansing by Armenians, it should be added. But it is the refusal of the Yerevan government to make Turkey’s acknowledgement of the genocide a condition of talks that has infuriated the diaspora.
    “The Armenian government is trying to sweeten the taste for us by suggesting that Turkish and Armenian historians sit down to decide what happened in 1915,” one of the Armenians protesting in Beirut said.
    “But would the Israelis maintain diplomatic relations if the German government suddenly called the Jewish Holocaust into question and suggested it all be mulled over by historians?”
    Betrayal has always been in the air. Barack Obama was the third successive US President to promise Armenian electors that he would acknowledge the genocide if he won office – and then to betray them, once elected, by refusing even to use the word. Despite thunderous denunciations in the aftermath of the Armenian genocide by Lloyd George and Churchill – the first British politician to call it a holocaust – the Foreign Office also now meekly claims that the “details” of the 1915 massacres are still in question. Yet still the evidence comes in, even from this newspaper’s readers. In a letter to me, an Australian, Robert Davidson, said his grandfather, John “Jock” Davidson, a First World War veteran of the Australian Light Horse, had witnessed the Armenian genocide: “He wrote of the hundreds of Armenian carcasses outside the walls of Homs. They were men, women and children and were all naked and had been left to rot or be devoured by dogs.
    “The Australian Light Horsemen were appalled at the brutality done to these people. In another instance his company came upon an Armenian woman and two children in skeletal condition. She signed to them that the Turks had cut the throats of her husband and two elder children.”
    In his new book on Bishop Balakian, Armenian Golgotha, the historian Peter Balakian (the bishop’s great-nephew) records how British soldiers who had surrendered to the Turks at Kut al-Amara in present-day Iraq and were sent on their own death march north – of 13,000 British and Indian soldiers, only 1,600 would survive – had spoken of frightful scenes of Armenian carnage near Deir ez-Zour, not far from Homs in Syria. “In those vast deserts,” the Bishop said, “they had come upon piles of human bones, crushed skulls, and skeletons stretched out everywhere, and heaps of skeletons of murdered children.”
    When the foreign ministers sit down to sign their protocol in Switzerland on Saturday, they must hope that blood does not run out of their pens.
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-genocide-forgotten-armenians-horrified-by-treaty-with-turkey-1799302.html

    __._,_.___

  • WHAT DOES PROTOCOLS BRING TO TURKEY

    WHAT DOES PROTOCOLS BRING TO TURKEY

    A DISCUSSION: From: Ergun [[email protected]]

    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: [email protected]


    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, [email protected] 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 <[email protected]>

    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.”

    [email protected]

    Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

  • UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION of the PROTOCOL

    UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION of the PROTOCOL

    FULL TEXT OF THE PROTOCOLS SIGNED BY TURKEY AND ARMENIA

    1 | P a g e
    10/6/2009
    S E P T E M B E R 0 1 , 2 0 0 9
    31 August 2009 | Ankara, Yerevan, Berne
    Press Release of The Ministries of Foreign Affairs of The Republic of Turkey, The Republic of Armenia and The Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

    UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION of the PROTOCOL
    Ankara, Yerevan, Berne 31 August 2009
    The Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Armenia have agreed to start their internal
    political consultations on the two protocols – the “Protocol on the establishment of
    diplomatic relations” and the “Protocol on the development of bilateral relations” – which
    have been initialled in the course of their efforts under Swiss mediation.
    The two Protocols provide for a framework for the normalization of the bilateral relations
    within a reasonable timeframe. The political consultations will be completed within six
    weeks, following which the two Protocols will be signed and submitted to the respective
    Parliaments for the ratification on each side. Both sides will make their best efforts for the
    timely progression of the ratification in line with their constitutional and legal procedures.
    The normalization of the bilateral relations will contribute to regional peace and stability.
    The Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Armenia are committed to pursuing their joint
    efforts with the assistance of Switzerland.
    FULL TEXT OF THE PROTOCOLS SIGNED BY TURKEY AND ARMENIA
    Tuesday, 01 September 2009
    Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and
    the Republic of Turkey.
    The Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.
    Desiring to establish good neighbourly relations and to develop bilateral cooperation in the
    political, economic, cultural and other fields for the benefit of their peoples, as envisaged in
    the Protocol on the development of relations signed on the same day.
    Referring to their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act,
    the Charter of Paris for a New Europe,
    Reconfirming their commitment, in their bilateral and international relations, to respect and
    ensure respect for the principles of equality, sovereignty, non-intervention in internal affairs
    of other states, territorial integrity and inviolability of frontiers,
    Bearing in mind the importance of the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere of trust
    and confidence between the two countries that will contribute to the strengthening of peace,
    security and stability of the whole region, as well as being determined to refrain from the
    threat of the use of force, to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes, and to protect
    human rights and fundamental freedoms,
    Confirming the mutual recognition of the existing border between the two countries as
    defined relevant treaties of international law,
    2 | P a g e
    10/6/2009
    Emphasizing their decisions to open the common border,
    Reiterating their commitment to refrain from pursuing any policy incompatible with the spirit
    of good neighbourly relations,
    Condemning all forms of terrorism, violence and extremism irrespective of their cause,
    pledging to refrain from encouraging and tolerating such acts and to cooperate against
    them,
    Affirming their willingness to chart a new pattern and course for their relations on the basis
    of common interests, goodwill and in pursuit of peace, mutual understanding and harmony,
    Agree to establish diplomatic relations as of the date of the entry into force of this Protocol
    accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and to exchange
    Diplomatic Missions.
    This Protocol and the Protocol on the Development of Bilateral Relations between the
    Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey shall enter into force on the same day, i.e.
    on the first day of the first month following of instruments of ratification.
    Signed in (place) on (date) in Armenian, Turkish and English languages authentic copies in
    duplicate. In case of divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.
    For the Republic of Armenia
    For the Republic of Turkey
    Protocol on Development of Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of
    Turkey.
    The Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.
    Guided by the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic
    of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey signed on the same day,
    Considering the perspectives of developing their bilateral relations, based on confidence and
    respect to their mutual interests,
    Determining to develop and enhance their bilateral relations, in the political, economic,
    energy, transport, scientific, technical, cultural issues and other fields, based on common
    interest of both countries,
    Supporting the promotion of the cooperation between the two countries, in the international
    and regional organi9zations, especially within the framework of the UN, the OSCE, the
    Council of Europe, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the BSEC,
    Taking into account the common purpose of both States to cooperate for enchancimg
    regional stability and security for ensuring the democratic and sustainable development of
    the region,
    Reiterating their commitment to the peaceful settlement of regional and international
    disputes and the conflicts on the basis of the norms and principles of law,
    3 | P a g e
    10/6/2009
    Reaffirming their readiness to actively support the actions of eth international community in
    addressing common security threats to the region and world security and stability, such as
    terrorism, transnational organized crimes, illicit trafficking of drugs and arms,
    1. Agree to open the common border within 2 months after the entry into force of this
    Protocol,
    2. Agree to conduct regular political consultations between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs
    of the two countries;
    implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence
    between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical
    records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations;
    make the best possible use of existing transport, communications and energy infrastructure
    and networks between the two countries, and to undertake measures in this regard;
    develop the bilateral legal framework in order to foster cooperation between the two
    countries;
    cooperate in the fields of science and education by encouraging relations between the
    appropriate institutions as well as promoting the exchange of specialists and students, and
    act with the aim of preserving the cultural heritage of both sides and launching common
    cultural projects;
    establish consular cooperation in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular
    Relations of 1963 in order to provide necessary assistance and protection to the citizens of
    the two countries;
    take concrete measures in order to develop trade, tourism and economic cooperation
    between the two countries;
    engage in a dialogue and reinforce their cooperation on environmental issues.
    3. Agree on the establishment of an intergovernmental bilateral commission which shall
    comprise separate sub-commissions for the prompt implementation of the commitments
    mentioned in operational paragraph 2 above in this Protocol. To prepare the working
    modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commissions, a working group
    headed by the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs shall be created 2 months after the day
    following the entry into force of this Protocol. Within 3 months after the entry into force of
    this Protocol, these modalities shall be approved at ministerial level. The intergovernmental
    commission shall meet for the first time immediately after the adoption of the said
    modalities. The sub-commissions shall start their work at the latest 1 month thereafter and
    they shall work continuously until the completion of their mandates. The timetable and
    elements agreed by both sides for the implementation of this Protocol are mentioned in the
    annexed document, which is integral part of this Protocol.
    This Protocol and the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the
    Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey shall enter into force on the same day, i.e.
    on the first day of the first month following the exchange of instruments of ratification.
    Signed in (place) on (date) in Armenian, Turkish and English authentic copies in duplicate.
    In case of divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.
    4 | P a g e
    10/6/2009
    For the Republic of Armenia
    For the Republic of Turkey
    Annexed document: Timetable and elements for the implementation of the Protocol on
    development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.
    Timetable and elements for the implementation of the Protocol on development of relations
    between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey
    Steps to be undertaken
    Timing
    1. to open the common border within 2 months after the entry into force of the Protocol on
    the development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey
    2. to establish a working group headed by the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs to prepare the
    working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commission 2 months
    after the day following the entry into force of the Protocol on the development of relations
    between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey
    3. to approve the working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its subcommissions
    at ministerial level
    within 3 months after the entry into force of the Protocol on the development of relations
    between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey
    4. to organize the first meeting of the intergovernmental commission
    immediately after the adoption of the working modalities of the intergovernmental
    commission and its sub-commissions at ministerial level
    5. to operate the following sub-commissions:
    the sub-commission on political consultations;
    the sub-commission on transport, communications and energy infrastructure and networks;
    the sub-commission on legal matters;
    the sub-commission on science and education;
    the sub-commission on trade, tourism and economic cooperation;
    the sub-commission on environmental issues: and
    the sub-commission on the historical dimension to implement a dialogue with the aim to
    restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific
    examination of the historical records and archive to define existing problems and formulate
    recommendations, in which Armenian, Turkish as well as Swiss and other international
    5 | P a g e
    10/6/2009
    experts shall take part. at the latest 1 month after the first meeting of the
    intergovernmental commission

  • Protocols to be Signed and Ratified With Possible Reservations

    Protocols to be Signed and Ratified With Possible Reservations

    SASSUN-2
    The President of Armenia spent just 24 hours in Los Angeles on October 4, following brief visits to Paris and New York. Angry protesters greeted him in all three cities, accusing him of making unacceptable concessions in a pending agreement with Turkey.
    In a large conference hall in the Beverly Hilton hotel, Beverly Hills, around 60 community leaders were invited to exchange views with the President on the Armenia-Turkey Protocols. They had to first pass through metal-detectors to get into the hall.
    Meanwhile, thousands of demonstrators had gathered outside the hotel waving placards, demanding Pres. Sargsyan’s resignation, and chanting slogans that could be heard all the way inside the 8th floor conference room. A small plane could be seen hovering overhead, flying a large banner with the inscription — “No to Protocols.”
    After the President’s opening remarks, I was called upon to address the issues at hand. In welcoming the President to Los Angeles, I wondered why he had decided to consult with Diaspora Armenians, only after the negotiations with Turkey had been concluded and the Protocols already initialed. What was the purpose of this “consulting tour,” when Armenia and Turkey were just days away from signing the Protocols in Switzerland? If the visit was intended to appease the Diaspora, why was it not done earlier, before most Armenians went into a frenzy, causing chaotic scenes in Paris where demonstrators were violently dragged off by the French police to allow the President to lay a wreath at the feet of the Gomidas Statue?
    Tense confrontations do not lend themselves to calm and meaningful dialogue.
    I also questioned the wisdom of trying to reconcile with Armenia’s long-standing enemies, at a time when Armenians have great difficulty reconciling with each other. Rather than forming an Armenian-Turkish commission, there is a greater need for an intra-Armenian task force to reach a common understanding of their political demands, and agree on a proper division of labor between the Armenian government and Diasporan communities.
    I expressed the opinion that these Protocols were not only poorly negotiated, but also concluded under foreign pressure. Furthermore, contrary to the President’s protestations, the Protocols include several Turkish preconditions, such as acceptance of Turkey’s territorial integrity, and re-examination of the Genocide issue.
    While the Armenian side has negotiated in good faith, Turkish leaders have kept repeating their rejectionist refrain — as seen in Pres. Gul’s recent statement in Nakhichevan — that Turkey would not open its border with Armenia, until the Karabagh conflict is settled. What was the whole point of these negotiations and concessions, if Armenia’s border with Turkey would remain closed?
    Even if the Protocols are signed and ratified, and the border is opened, Armenia could still end up holding an empty bag, should Turkey, under some future pretext, close it down again. I asked Pres. Sargsyan if he would be prepared to add a reservation to the Protocols, stating that Armenia would nullify the agreement, should Turkey close the border again!
    I also expressed my agreement with the President’s concern — stated during an interview with the Armenian Reporter — that some of the provisions of the Protocols were bound to make the pursuit of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide even more challenging. I asked the President if it was wise to make the Armenian activists’ already difficult task of confronting the powerful Turkish state even more difficult!
    I concluded my remarks by urging the President not to rush into signing these flawed and detrimental Protocols. Why attempt to resolve through a single document, decades-long problems between Armenia and Turkey? A one-line document simply calling for the establishment of diplomatic relations and opening of the borders would have sufficed.
    I pointed out that the President’s acceptance of the Protocols, was forcing Armenians to pin their hopes on the possibility that Turkey itself would inadvertently end up safeguarding Armenia’s interests by refusing to ratify the agreement for its own reasons.
    In response to my remarks, Pres. Sargsyan expressed his willingness to accept my suggestion to add a reservation to the Protocols that would call for the repeal of the agreement, should Turkey ever decide to close the border, after opening it.
    In the course of the three-hour-long meeting during which very few of the 29 speakers supported the Protocols, Pres. Sargsyan insisted that he would never accept the re-examination of the facts of the Armenian Genocide by the historical sub-commission referred to in the Protocols. He stated that the main task of this sub-commission would be to discuss the steps necessary for the removal of the consequences of the Genocide. The President expected that the agreement would open new avenues to educate the Turkish public about the Armenian Genocide. He also categorically rejected the possibility of being pressured into making concessions on Artsakh!
    Given Pres. Sargsyan’s refusal to accept the re-examination of the Genocide and rejection of any concessions on Artsakh — two key Turkish demands — one wonders if members of the Turkish Parliament would ever agree to ratify these Protocols and open the border with Armenia!
    Pres. Sargsyan concluded the lengthy session by acknowledging that he himself has concerns about some aspects of the Protocols that have not been fully assessed! He stated that the Protocols could close the door on future demands from Turkey and may cause difficulties in resolving the Artsakh conflict. Similar concerns were also expressed by Arkady Ghoukassian, the former President of Artsakh, who was accompanying Pres. Sargsyan.
    Despite such misgivings, it was clear from the Pres. Sargsyan’s overall remarks that he did not entertain any revisions of the Protocols, and seemed fully intent on seeing them signed and ratified, possibly after adding some reservations.
  • Sarkisian Faces More than 12,000 Angry Protesters in Los Angeles

    Sarkisian Faces More than 12,000 Angry Protesters in Los Angeles

    BREAKING NEWS


    Community Stands United Against Protocols

    .LOS ANGELES, CA – More than 12,000 Armenian Americans from throughout California converged on the Beverly Hilton Hotel to protest the Turkey-Armenia protocols as Armenia President Serzh Sarkisian met with representatives of Armenian American organizations to defend his decision to sign the flawed documents.  The protest was organized by the Stop The Protocols Campaign.

    Blockades and guardrails contained protesters who held signs proclaiming, “Serzh Don’t Betray the Armenian People,” “Turkey Accept the Genocide!” and “No to the Protocols!” Meanwhile, planes overhead were carrying banners which stated “Stop Turkish-Armenian Protocols,” as large moving vans drove around the hotel with billboards picturing presidents Sarkisian and Gul with the slogan “Don’t Betray us.”More…