Category: Main Issues

  • Yes We Can! Part II

    Yes We Can! Part II

    By Henry Astrajian

    BY HENRY D. ASTARJIAN M.D.

    So, this is Turkey inside out, with the inside being its underbelly; exposed, soft, and vulnerable. Despite its genuine structural weaknesses, Institutional Turkey continues to colonize the non-Turkic inhabitants of Turkey; the Kurds and other minorities, who suffer ethnic, cultural and educational oppression.

    For nearly a century we have been in a wake, mourning our 1.5 million dead in the Genocide, but have forgotten, mostly ignored, our “living dead”; a million or so Armenians who have been forcefully converted to Islam, carrying the ID of a Turk.

    For nearly a century we have ignored the cries of these people; “Please save us!”, which had resonated in our post-Genocidal conscience. The Nation, which had barely survived the Genocide and in shell shock, could barely care for itself, let alone rescue the lamb from the jaws of the wolf. Despite that, there were some rescues, but not from Turkey. Some Arab tribes, mainly the Mujhhims (Shammars), had saved some Armenian children from the Syrian Desert, Der-el-Zor. My uncle by marriage Dickran, was an accomplice in “Kidnapping” some of these girls from their Arab “Savers”, and bringing them to Mosul.

    That was a triumph, but that was all. There were some similar, sporadic anecdotes, but not more.

    As time passed their cries echoed fainter and fainter, until now, when, despite the loudness of their cry; “Please save us!” it faintly echoes in the empty chambers of our memories.

    Diaspora is oblivious to their calls, and the leadership is ignorant, more correctly inept in handling the problem; they are busy pursuing the cause of the dead in a bloody Genocide, ignoring the cause of the victims of the bloodless Genocide (My uncle called it ‘Red Genocide and White Genocide’) ignoring their inherent duty to do something, something which could take many forms.

    We have to learn from the others: the United States Armed Forces do not leave any soldier, dead or alive, behind. Israel has one captive soldier with Hamas, and they are raising hell to get him back. The issue holds a prime importance in their conduct of diplomacy to bring Shallet home. They negotiated the release of a thousand Palestinian prisoners for the release of their single soldier.

    In Kurdish American meetings, which I have attended, at least two dozen Kurds have anonymously confided in me that their grandmother, sometimes grandfather, is Armenian, and they consider themselves both Kurds and Armenians. They invariably have questioned, rhetorically, “What have we gained from being Muslims?” These few words speak volumes. I had Kemal, a polite semi-educated “Turk”, who said his mother was Armenian, but “Please keep it a secret”; even though he had become a naturalized American, he was afraid of some kind of retaliation against his relatives in Turkey. A doctor friend of mine from Elazig (Kharpert) told me that his grandmother was Armenian, and the only word he learned from her was “Parehgam” (Friend). There are the Hemshins in the Trabizon area, who have collectively converted to Islam, but they are Armenians, and proud of it too.

    Demographic diversity in Turkey- unlike the United States where it is an asset- spells disaster for the country, because of Turks hegemony and colonization of its minority citizens, especially of the not-so-minor population of Kurds who constitute approximately one third of Turkey’s population.

    The persecution of this large segment of the population creates nothing less than resentment, hatred, contempt, and armed struggle, the way it has been conducted by the armed Kurds. The dynamics of their rebellion is the same as that of the Armenians who had no choice, but to bear arms to defend their hamlets and villages.

    Another persecuted notable group is the Alevis, the Shi’a, not Sunni Alevis who gladly accepted the converted Armenian into their Islamic fold.

    There is no doubt that the converts to Islam, though half or quarter Armenian, given the freedom that they deserve, will claim their ethnic origin as theirs, and join forces with the Kurds to reclaim their land. The Kurds realize, and I have articulated this in my speeches to the Kurdish Parliament in Exile (Brussels), that our causes meet, and that our causes are intertwined, that we have a common enemy, and that we are a de-facto presence in Anatolia, and that our rights on the land is reserved by the Sevres Treaty, which also gave us the Wilsonian Map. It is clear that a unilateral rapprochement between the Kurds and the Turks, must not be at the expense of Western Armenia. Given all that, we should have no problems with the Kurds.

    It is incumbent upon our leadership to pursue the matter in earnest and fight for it as if the White Genocide is the continuation of the red Genocide. We are already a century late.

    Some say it takes a miracle. Others who have the faith say yes we can! Yes we can take back Western Armenia, but only if we have the resolve, if we have the guts, and if we mobilize our forces, in toto. Yes we can succeed in re-creating Western Armenia, which then can fulfill the promise of Miatsial Azad Angakh Hayastan (United, Free, and Sovereign Armenia) in earnest. Until then the title remains as it is; a slogan.

  • Conference Turkish- Armenians Relations

    Conference Turkish- Armenians Relations

    Conference: “Turkish- Armenians Relations” 29 January 2010 – LSE  …   Servet Hassan

    You are kindly invited to attend an evening conference entitled

    ‘TURKISH – ARMENIAN RELATIONS’

    Friday, 29 January 2010, 6 pm for 6.45 pm*

    *6.00 pm Refreshments available in the Senior Dining Room, Old Building, 5th Floor,

    6.45 pm Conference (Hong Kong Theatre – St Clement’s Building)

    Hong Kong Theatre

    St Clement’s Building,

    London School of Economics,

    Houghton Street,

    London WC2A 2AE

    GUEST SPEAKERS

    Prof. Türkkaya Ataöv

    “What Really Happened on April 24, 1915?”

    “The overwhelming majority of Armenian, European and American writers argue that the Armenian armed revolt of 1915 never posed a genuine threat to the security of the Ottoman state during the First World War and that their removal from eastern Anatolia was almost totally uncalled for, and hence could and should have been avoided. There exist, nevertheless, some researchers, including myself, who examined the lines of communications and the logistics disposition of the Ottoman command and concluded that the security of the three Ottoman armies in Caucasia, Syria-Palestine and Mesopotamia had been indeed very much jeopardized, not only by Armenian guerrilla attacks but also on account of participation as belligerents in the Allied armies against whom the Turks fought in several fronts. On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman Ministry of Interior sent a circular to 14 provinces and 10 counties, ordering the closure of the Armenian committees and the arrest of some of their leaders notorious for dissident activities…”

    Asst Prof Bestami Sadi Bilgiç

    “The Question of “Genocide” in Turkish Foreign Policy: The Cases of Armenians, Pontic Rums and Assyrians”

    Due to the activities of the Armenian Diaspora mainly in North America and Europe, the Armenian question has become one of the most important issues of Turkish Foreign Policy. Despite recent moves by Turkish and Armenian decision-makers for a rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia, the Armenian Diaspora’s efforts for recognition of the so-called “Armenian Genocide” by countries with which Turkey has close relations have not lost any momentum. As a matter of fact, the Armenian Diaspora is still working to build upon its past “successes.” The Armenian Diaspora’s “successes” seem to have inspired other anti-Turkish political groups in America and Europe. Recently, the Pontic Greek and Assyrian Diasporas have been forming alliances with Armenian groups and striving to have their host countries recognise the so-called “Pontus and Assyrian genocides”. In this paper, an attempt will be made to illustrate the collaboration of various anti-Turkish Diaspora communities in America and Europe and examine its impact on Turkish Foreign Policy…

    Chaired By

    Dr Andrew Mango

    The Way Forward

    *****

    This conference has been organised in the memory of 34 Turkish diplomats and other innocent victims who were murdered by various Armenian terrorist groups between 1973 and 1985. Most of the perpetrators have never been brought to justice, and of the few that were, only some were imprisoned and given very light sentences.

    *****

    Non – Members Welcome

    Attendance is free but by registration only.

    Places are limited so please register at [email protected]

    or telephone 07788 908 803

    Organised by

    THE FEDERATION OF TURKISH ASSOCIATIONS UK

    www.turkishfederationuk.com

    Speakers’ Biographies

    Dr Andrew Mango: Born in 1926 in Istanbul, where he started his education at the English High School for Boys, going on to the School of Oriental and African Studies, London , to study Classical Persian and Arabic. Ph.D. in 1955 for a thesis on the legend of Alexander in Persian Islamic poetry. Joined the External Services (now World Service) of the BBC in 1947, and was in charge of broadcasts in Turkish between 1958 and 1972, before being promoted Head of the South European and then also of the French Language Services. After his retirement from the BBC in 1986 has worked full-time as researcher, writer and consultant on modern Turkey. His principal publications are Turkey (Thames and Hudson, 1968); Discovering Turkey (Batsford, 1972); Turkey: The Challenge of a New Role (Praeger 1994); Atatürk (John Murray, London 1999 & Overlook Press, New York); The Turks Today (John Murray, 2004, & Overlook Press, New York); and Turkey and the War on Terror (Routledge, 2005). From the Sultan to Atatürk, his book on the treaties of Sèvres and Lausanne was published in July 2009 in the series on the treaties concluded after World War I, brought out by Haus Publishing, London . Contributed the chapter on Atatürk to vol.4 of the Cambridge History of Turkey, published in 2008, and a chapter on Turkey ’s regional relations to Turkey in the Twentieth Century, ed. E.J.Zürcher, Klaus Schwartz Verlag, Berlin , 2008. Member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London, and of editorial boards of academic publications in London, Paris, Ankara and Israel. Decorated with the Distinguished Service Medal of the Turkish Foreign Ministry; Hon.Ph.D. Middle East Technical University, Ankara and Süleyman Demirel University , Isparta.

    Prof Türkkaya Ataöv: Türkkaya Ataöv is Professor Emeritus in International Relations at Ankara University, Turkey. He did his graduate work in the United States, where he received two MAs (NYU & Syracuse Univ.) and a PhD (1959, Syracuse U., NY). He taught at Ankara Univ. for more than four decades and lectured in several American, British, Russian, German, Dutch, Indian, Chinese, Middle Eastern, African and Australian universities. He is the author of close to 140 books, a few hundred academic treaties, and a few thousand newspaper articles. His writings have been translated into 20 different languages. He was elected to central executive positions of UN-related international organisations, dealing with racial discrimination, human rights, terrorism, nuclear war, and exchange of prisoners of war. Professor Ataöv published 80 books/ booklets on the Armenian issue, was invited as “witness of authority” by the Paris court to the two (1984 & 1985) trials of Armenian terrorists, participated in the UN (1985) Geneva meetings of the Human Rights Commission on the Genocide Convention, and partook in several meetings of the European Parliament that dealt with the Armenian issue.  He is the recipient of 18 prestigious academic awards/medals: Italian Presidential Medal of Knighthood ; Yugoslav Presidential Medal of Golden Wrath; Potchyomaya Gramata Award of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Academic Award of the University of Bophuthatswana, Republic of South Africa;  Palestinian Medal of Honour; Cuban Felix El Musa Medal; Hungarian Medal of Culture; UN-IPO Golden Medal of Honour; UN Special Peace Award; Macedonian Medal of Historical Research; Shield of India; Afghan Medal; 1989 Shield of the Promotion Society of Turkey; ADD European Scientific Award for 2001; Shield of the Turkish Grand National Assembly; Shield of Selcuk University, Shield of Inonu University, Award of the Kadikoy (Istanbul) Municipality (for Contribution to Republican Principles)

    Dr Bestami Sadi Bilgiç: Dr. Bestami S. Bilgic is an Assistant Professor of International Affairs at the Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University. Currently he is taking part in a research project on the Ottoman minorities at the Turkish Historical Society in Ankara. Dr. Bilgic’s research interests are Modern Greek History and Politics, Late Ottoman-Early Republican History and Minorities. Dr. Bilgic is a graduate of Bilkent University where he earned a B.A. in International Relations in 1997 and a M.A. in International Relations in 1999. After spending the academic year of 1999- 2000 in Greece doing research on the history of Turkish-Greek relations, he went to the United States for his doctoral studies and in 2004 he got his PhD in the field of Modern History at the George Washington University. Dr. Bilgic has published on the history of Turkish-Greek relations, and Turkish Foreign Policy. Dr. Bilgic speaks English, Greek, German and Macedonian, and reads Ottoman paleography.

  • Armenia warns of breakdown in Turkey reconciliation

    Armenia warns of breakdown in Turkey reconciliation

    Z

    By Mariam Harutunian (AFP) – 7 hours ago

    YEREVAN — Historic efforts to establish ties between Armenia and Turkey may break down, the Armenian foreign minister warned on Friday, blaming Ankara for obstructing the process.

    “If Turkey is not ready to ratify the protocols, if it continues to speak in ultimatums, to set preconditions and to obstruct the process, then I do not exclude that negotiations will break down,” Eduard Nalbandian said at a press conference.

    His comments came after Armenian and Turkish efforts to establish ties after decades of hostility hit fresh snags this week as the two sides traded accusations of trying to modify the landmark deal.

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan accused Yerevan of trying to “doctor” the agreement, saying that a ruling by Armenia’s Constitutional Court this month had set new conditions.

    Nalbandian dismissed Ankara’s accusations as “absurd.”

    “Statements by Turkey that the Constitutional Court’s decision creates preconditions or contradicts the principles of the protocols… do not correspond with reality and are absurd,” he said.

    “These statements will not be believed, not only in the international community but also in Turkey itself,” he said.

    Yerevan has accused Turkey of trying to set new conditions on the deal by linking it with Armenia’s conflict with Turkish ally Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorny Karabakh region.

    Nalbandian said he did not expect a breakthrough in talks on Karabakh in the near future.

    “It is difficult to say what will happen in 2010. If the Azerbaijani side shows a more constructive approach then there may be changes. But I cannot say that in the near future we can expect a breakthrough,” he said.

    Turkey and Armenia signed two protocols in October to establish diplomatic ties and reopen their shared border, in a deal hailed as a historic step towards ending decades of hostility stemming from World War I-era massacres of Armenians under Ottoman Turkish rule.

    Armenia’s Constitutional Court on January 12 upheld the legality of the agreement, but also said the two protocols “cannot be interpreted” to contradict a paragraph in Armenia’s 1990 declaration of independence that refers to “the 1915 genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.”

    Turkey’s refusal to establish ties with Armenia stems in part from Yerevan’s attempts to have the massacres internationally recognised as genocide.

    References to “Western Armenia” are also sensitive as some in Turkey see use of the term as making territorial claims on areas in eastern Anatolia.

    Neither country’s parliament has yet ratified the two protocols.

    Turkish officials have repeatedly said the agreements will not be ratified without progress in the dispute over Nagorny Karabakh.

    Backed by Yerevan, ethnic Armenian separatists seized control of Karabakh and seven surrounding districts from Azerbaijan during a war in the early 1990s that claimed an estimated 30,000 lives.

    Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in a show of solidarity with Azerbaijan — with which it has strong ethnic, trade and energy links — against Yerevan’s support for the enclave’s separatists.

    The head of Armenia’s parliament said last month that it will not ratify the deal before the Turkish parliament does.

  • The Show is Over…  The Protocols are Dead!

    The Show is Over… The Protocols are Dead!

    sassounian32

    By Harut Sassounian

    Publisher, The California Courier

    The show is finally over! The international community is no longer buying the endless Turkish excuses for refusing to ratify the Protocols. Armenian officials, who naively believed that Turkey would open its border and establish diplomatic relations with Armenia, are beginning to question the Turks’ sincerity and contemplating the possibility of the Protocols’ collapse.

    Now the blame game starts! Whose fault is it that the Protocols are not being ratified? In my view, the Turks are the ones to be blamed for deceiving the international community all along. It was never the intention of the Turkish leaders to carry out their publicly stated plans to normalize relations with Armenia. They were simply engaged in a ploy to obstruct what they believed to be Pres. Obama’s solemn pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide, and to facilitate Turkey’s admission to the European Union (EU), since open borders are one of the key prerequisites for EU membership.

    Without taking a single positive step, Turkey created the false impression of reconciling with Armenia, thereby dissuading Pres. Obama from using the term “Genocide” in his April 24 statement. Turkish leaders also succeeded in exploiting the Protocols to generate favorable worldwide publicity for their country.

    During long and difficult negotiations, Turkey demanded that in return for opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations, Armenia withdraw from Karabagh (Artsakh), set up an international commission to study the facts of the Genocide, and acknowledge the territorial integrity of Turkey.

    After Russia, the United States, and Europe applied intense pressure on both sides, Armenia and Turkey made a series of compromises. Armenia reluctantly agreed to establish an ambiguous “historical commission,” which was not explicitly linked to the Genocide. Armenia also had to accept a reference in the Protocols to prior international treaties that confirmed Armenian territorial concessions to Turkey, but did not specifically mention the capitulatory Treaty of Kars. Furthermore, the Protocols included a clause that called for non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states, implying that Armenia could no longer support Artsakh, because that would be construed as interference in Azerbaijan’s domestic issues.

    Since the Protocols signed on October 10 did not fulfill all of Turkey’s demands, its leaders started threatening not to ratify the Protocols or open the border with Armenia until the Artsakh conflict is resolved in Azerbaijan’s favor. In other words, Turkey was trying to make up for any deficiencies in the Protocols by holding their ratification hostage to its precondition on Artsakh.

    The ratification of the Protocols became even more complicated when Azerbaijan began to threaten its “Big Brother” Turkey for considering the opening of the border with its archenemy — Armenia. The Azeris wanted the Turkish blockade to continue until Armenia is forced to acknowledge Azerbaijan’s jurisdiction over Artsakh. The Azeri threat of raising natural gas prices to Turkey and redirecting some of its oil to Russia made Turkish leaders even more reticent to consummate their agreement with Armenia.

    To appease Azerbaijan, Turkey demanded that Russia, Europe and the United States pressure Armenia into making concessions on Artsakh. This Turkish request, however, fell on deaf ears. The international community realized that the attempt to simultaneously resolve two thorny issues — the Artsakh conflict and Armenia-Turkey Protocols — would lead to solving neither one!

    Realizing that hardly anyone outside Turkey and Azerbaijan was supporting their demands on Artsakh, Turkish leaders set their sights on another convenient scapegoat: The Constitutional Court of Armenia. Although the Court decided on January 12 that the obligations stipulated in the Protocols complied with the constitution, it also issued several clarifications and limitations that restricted the Turkish government’s loose interpretation of the Protocols.

    Prime Minister Erdogan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu brazenly threatened to abandon the Protocols outright, unless the Armenian Constitutional Court “corrected” its decision — an impossible task under Armenian laws! The State Dept. quickly sided with Armenia, rejecting the Turkish claim that the Constitutional Court’s ruling contradicted the “letter and spirit” of the agreement. Of course, the State Department’s true intent was to forestall the Armenian Parliament from adding any reservations on the Protocols at the time of ratification.

    Since the Chairman of the Armenian Parliament had already announced that he would not take any action until the Turkish Parliament ratified the Protocols first, the ball is now in Turkey’s court. The Protocols have been collecting dust in Ankara ever since they were submitted to the Parliament on October 21, 2009. The Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Turkey had stated in their joint announcement of last August that the Protocols should be ratified “within a reasonable timeframe.” Armenian officials recently reminded Turkey of that loose deadline, adding that Armenia would be forced to take unspecified counter-actions should Turkey not ratify the Protocols by February or March, at the latest!

    At this juncture, neither Armenia nor Turkey is willing to back down from its recalcitrant position. Should Turkey’s leaders remove Artsakh and the Constitutional Court as preconditions, they would risk not only losing Azerbaijan as an ally, but seriously jeopardize their party’s majority in next year’s parliamentary election. Similarly, Armenia’s leaders can neither give up Artsakh nor “correct” the ruling of the Constitutional Court. No amount of outside pressure can therefore force the two governments to reverse course. That is why I believe the Protocols cannot be resuscitated!

    Turkey came very close to deceiving Armenia and the rest of the world with these infamous Protocols. Fortunately, they failed before causing lasting damage to Armenia’s national interests.

  • Armenians, Just as Bulgarians, Should Demand Compensation from Turkey

    Armenians, Just as Bulgarians, Should Demand Compensation from Turkey

    Armenians, Just as Bulgarians,

    Should Demand Compensation from Turkey

    sassounian31

    Publisher, The California Courier

    Bojidar Dimitrov, Bulgaria’s Minister in charge of the Agency for Bulgarians Abroad, stirred a hornet’s nest at the start of the new year by threatening to block Turkey’s accession to the European Union (EU), unless it paid billions of dollars in compensation for Bulgarians who were forcefully displaced during the Ottoman era.

    Dimitrov said Turkey owed Bulgaria $20 billion for expelling hundreds of thousands of ethnic Bulgarians in 1913. The Republic of Turkey, which was founded in 1923, had assumed the obligations of the Ottoman Empire and agreed to make reparations in a 1925 treaty. However, thus far, Bulgaria has received no compensation from the Turkish government.

    “Turkey is surely able to pay this sum, after all, it’s the 16th largest economic power in the world,” Dimitrov said, capitalizing on a statement that Turkish officials often make, bragging about their country’s economic strength!

    Dimitrov disclosed that the payment of compensation as required by the 1925 treaty is one of Bulgaria’s three pre-conditions in order not to veto Turkey’s admission to the EU. The other two pre-conditions involve energy and water management issues.

    Veselin Ninov, a Bulgarian government spokesman, confirmed to the EUobserver on January 4, that Dimitrov’s announcement represented official state policy. He revealed that the dispute was being handled by a “Bulgarian-Turkish intergovernmental working group” and that Prime Minister Boyko Borissov would raise the compensation issue during his upcoming visit to Turkey.

    Turkish officials reacted quickly and harshly! Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, repeating the same baseless accusations that Turkish leaders often make regarding the Armenian Genocide, alleged that the Turks suffered as much as the Bulgarians during that period. According to Zaman newspaper, Davutoglu warned that Bulgaria’s demands for compensation might harm bilateral relations, although, he confirmed that the two countries have been discussing “issues relevant to the mass transfers of Turks and Bulgarians during the last days of the Ottoman Empire.”

    Bulgarian officials immediately backed down realizing that an open confrontation with Turkey on this issue may not be as beneficial to them as quiet, behind closed doors negotiations. Bulgaria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Marin Raykov sought to downplay Dimitrov’s demands by stating that his country did not make Turkey’s EU bid conditional on the resolution of the compensation issue for displaced persons. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Borissov rebuked Dimitrov, threatening to fire him should he make a similar statement in the future without first consulting him.

    Minister Dimitrov quickly apologized in order to retain his job. Press official Veselin Ninov, however, was not as fortunate. He was fired for endorsing Dimitrov’s earlier statement.

    For the time being, Bulgaria’s leaders may find it premature to openly link their demands for compensation from Turkey to its bid for EU membership, even though many Bulgarians have persistently demanded such reparations for decades. Consequently, this issue is bound to remain on the agenda of the two countries, undermining Turkey’s oft-stated claim that it has zero-problems or disputes with its neighbors.

    Despite Prime Minister Borissov’s disclaimer, Bulgaria has now added yet another wrinkle to Turkey’s bid for EU membership which is becoming increasingly elusive. Already several European countries such as France, Germany, Holland, and Austria strongly oppose Turkey’s EU membership bid. Greece and Cyprus would not allow Turkey to join the EU, unless its troops withdraw from Northern Cyprus. Furthermore, it would be impossible for Turkey to join the EU without fulfilling one of its key requirements — open borders with all neighboring states. Turkey, thus, cannot become an EU member, unless it opens its border with Armenia, independently of the fate of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.

    Beyond the obstacles in joining the EU, Turkey is swamped with a large number of lawsuits filed against it in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Should it refuse to compensate Bulgaria for the 1913 refugees, it is likely to face more legal troubles.

    However, Turkey’s record on winning lawsuits in the ECHR is not very good. It has already lost several major court cases for its occupation of Northern Cyprus. Also, Greek and Armenian minority foundations in Turkey have successfully recovered through the ECHR some of their real estate assets that were confiscated decades ago.

    Encouraged by these successful lawsuits, Armenians living in Turkey and throughout Europe should seek legal redress through the ECHR for their countless losses suffered during the Genocide. Claims could be filed for the loss of personal property, bank accounts, real estate, monuments and churches.

    No peace without justice!

    No reconciliation without restitution!

  • Constitutional Court Limits Protocols’  Damage to Armenian National Interests

    Constitutional Court Limits Protocols’ Damage to Armenian National Interests

    sassounian3

    Constitutional Court Limits Protocols’

    Damage to Armenian National Interests

    By Harut Sassounian [[email protected]]

    Publisher, The California Courier

    After months of bickering among Armenians the world over about the Armenia-Turkey Protocols, the Constitutional Court of Armenia on January 12 pronounced its judgment on whether the obligations stipulated by the Protocols comply with the constitution.

    The Court’s task would have been relatively easier, if it were to simply deal with the legal aspects of the Protocols which would have required a yes or no decision followed by a brief explanation. Yet the fact that the Court’s verdict was eight pages long and contained scores of clarifications, interpretations, explanations, and restrictions, indicated that the Justices of the Court had to walk a tightrope between safeguarding Armenia’s relations with major foreign powers and minimizing the potential damage the Protocols could cause to the Armenian national interest.

    Since the Court was apparently reluctant to reject outright these badly-negotiated and poorly-worded Protocols, it did the next best thing: accept the Protocols after placing a large number of restrictions on their legal interpretation and implementation. Thus, the Court’s decision partially vindicates all those who have been expressing their serious reservations regarding the negative aspects of the Protocols.

    Here are some of the main interpretations and limitations that the Court placed on the Protocols:

    1) The Court made all clauses of the Protocols conditional on the implementation of two main obligations: “establish diplomatic relations” and “open the common border.” The Justices thus made these two actions a necessary prerequisite for the fulfillment of all other obligations to be undertaken by Armenia and Turkey.

    2) The Court narrowly interpreted the “open the common border” clause of the Protocols, indicating that Armenia was simply making a commitment “to resolve legal-organizational and institutional issues connected to safeguarding the normal operation of border checkpoints.” Significantly, the Court used the term “checkpoint” rather than “border,” thereby indirectly refusing to accord legal recognition to Armenia’s present boundary with Turkey. Since it was Turkey that closed the border, it alone is responsible for re-opening it. Armenia’s obligation, on the other hand, is limited to simply making the necessary administrative arrangements to permit passage through a checkpoint.

    3) The Court ruled that only those international treaties that have been ratified under the constitution of the present Republic of Armenia could be considered legally valid. The clear implication is that border issues regulated by treaties pre-dating the Republic’s existence cannot be considered valid. This interpretation contradicts frequent Turkish declarations that the Protocols reconfirm Armenian territorial concessions to Turkey, specifically referencing the 1921 Treaty of Kars. Indeed, the Court pointedly downplayed the overall significance of these Protocols by mandating that all future treaties that establish and further develop relations between Armenia and Turkey require its specific approval.

    4) The Court countered the text of the Protocols which included specific language about multilateral obligations, by asserting that the documents in question were “exclusively of a bilateral interstate nature.” The Justices thus precluded Turkey from interfering in the Karabagh (Artsakh) negotiations and making the improvement of Armenia-Turkey relations conditional on the resolution of that conflict.

    5) The Court took issue with Turkish statements that the aim of the historical commission envisaged by the Protocols is to review the facts of the Armenian Genocide. The Justices clearly stated that the provisions of the Protocols could not contradict the preamble of the constitution which includes a reference to Armenia’s Declaration of Independence. Article 11 of the Declaration stated: “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.”

    The key question now is what happens next?

    At a minimum, the Constitutional Court has limited some of the damaging aspects of the Protocols by ruling that any laws emanating from the Protocols, after parliamentary ratification, cannot violate the constitution of the Republic of Armenia.

    Of course, it would be far more preferable if the Parliament were to reject these Protocols outright. Regrettably, this is unlikely, as the Parliament is dominated by pro-government deputies. If rejection is not a possibility, the President of Armenia and the Parliament should at least consider specific reservations or changes to these Protocols in line with the Constitutional Court’s decision.

    Failing that, Armenians who oppose the Protocols must pin their last hope on the Turkish Parliament’s insistence that it would not ratify the Protocols until Armenia withdraws from Artsakh. Should the Turkish Parliament not ratify the Protocols, it would be highly ironic if Armenians had to rely on Turkish actions in order to protect their national interest!