Armenian-Turkish Relations

[Mukuch]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Opposition Leader Quits Armenian Parliament

Armenia -- Opposition leader Raffi Hovannisian.
07.09.2009
Tigran Avetisian

Raffi Hovannisian, the leader of a major Armenian opposition party, has decided to end his membership in the country’s parliament, a senior party source said on Monday.
The source, who asked not to be identified, declined to comment on reasons for the unexpected move, saying that Hovannisian himself will explain his motives in the coming days. The spokesman for his Zharangutyun (Heritage) party, Hovsep Khurshudian, refused to confirm or refute the resignation.

A former U.S. citizen, Hovannisian, 50, relocated to Armenia from California with his family in 1990 and served as the newly independent country’s first foreign minister in 1992. He founded Zharangutyun in 2002 and remains its de facto top leader despite holding no formal positions in the party leadership at present.

Zharangutyun won seven seats in Armenia’s 131-member National Assembly in the last parliamentary elections held in May 2007. Hovannisian tried unsuccessfully to earn his party an extra seat when he contested an August 2007 repeat election in a single-mandate constituency in central Armenia.

Zharangutyun chose to support former President Levon Ter-Petrosian in the February 2008 presidential election after Hovannisian was controversially disqualified from the race. The party has increasingly distanced itself from Ter-Petrosian’s Armenian National Congress over the past year. In an early July statement, Zharangutyun said it has decided to act more independently in the political arena after failing to get Armenia’s leading opposition forces to join forces.

[Lucin]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Wasn't it Raffi Hovanessian who refrained cowardly from using the word Genocide, as a foreign minister (?) during Levon's times in a meeting with his Turkish counterpart? I remember having read on that somewhere. If so, then this is quite hypocritical of him. He has never been a shrewd and smart politician.

[Mukuch]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Wasn't it Raffi Hovanessian who refrained from using the word Genocide, as a foreign minister (?) during Levon's times in a meeting with his Turkish counterpart? I remember having read on that somewhere. If so, then this is quite hypocritical of him. He has never been a shrewd and smart politician.

LOL Russians say: "slishal zvon da ne znayet gde on"..

It was Rafi Hovhanissyan (Oh Yes) who was removed from his post of FM by Levon FOR BRINGING UP THE GENOCIDE in his speech in Turkey.Armenian parliament and governament are full of hypocrites. Rafi is the one of very few that are not.

[Joseph]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Wasn't it Raffi Hovanessian who refrained cowardly from using the word Genocide, as a foreign minister (?) during Levon's times in a meeting with his Turkish counterpart? I remember having read on that somewhere. If so, then this is quite hypocritical of him. He has never been a shrewd and smart politician.

No, it was quite the opposite. He was sacked from his job for calling for Genocide recognition.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Honestly, I do not find Armenian Diaspora helpful for Armenia and Turkey to establish relations both on govermental and societal level.

Its interesting how in Turkey, you guys can freely discuss the actions of our diaspora, but you're not allowed to discuss why we are living in the diaspora. This censorship seems to be at the root of Turks' misunderstanding of Armenians. The diaspora, being the heirs of hundreds of years of janissary and harem slavery, and of genocide, doesn't want to compromise on our lands and on the issue of genocide (neither do the Armenians in Armenia). These points are non-negotiable, and Turkey's (and most Turks') real wish is that we give up on these two issues. So again, the problem seems to be with Turkey, not with the Armenian diaspora. If Turks aren't even allowed to discuss how Armenians came to live in the diaspora, how can they begin to understand our psyche and our point of view? They can't. If Turks cannot discuss Armenians in their own past, how can they discuss their future in regards to Armenians? They can’t. They have to educate themselves, and unfortunately there is only so much Armenians can do to help them in this regard.

Why can't we just have diplomatic relations without discussing those sensitive issues? Armenia is ready, they have been saying they are ready for nearly 20 years, despite the fact that we probably should ask for preconditions out of concern for our national security, but we are not. So whats the problem? Turkey insists we give up land and that we stop talking about the genocide. So you see, the diaspora does not oppose dialogue with Turkey in principle. We oppose it because Turkey wants to finish the job it started more than 100 years ago by stripping us of land, and by making us keep quiet about Turkey's crimes. Its Turkey’s own insecurity that holds back progress, the only thing the Armenian diaspora does is point out Turkey’s BS in regards to these and other important issues.

Thats why our diaspora is used as a scapegoat by Turkish nationalists, when in fact the diaspora should be the starting point of a conversation about Turkey's own history. But Turkey, being the immature and primitive state it is, cannot discuss its own history outside of Ataturk worship. And so they blame people like me in the diaspora. Our only crime is that we "got away" from the genocide, and that we refuse to shut up about Turkey's crimes of the past and present. Thats the bottom line, sephirosuy.

Unfortunately, where you call Western Armenia is largely inhabited by Kurds who are good at populating, each family raising at least 10 kids.

So you concede that western Armenia is not a Turkish land. This is a good start.

I suppose we will see if both countries can get close to each other towards the end of the year. I hope the protocol will be approved by both parliamtens, as we do not have any other chance to see if it will work.

Unless Turkey somehow changes a centuries-old policy against the Armenians, don't expect there to be an agreement. Even this tainted protocol is not extreme enough for Turkish nationalists and Pan-Turkists, and their parliament will probably reject it before Armenia even comes to a consensus about it. Most of the Turkish officials who have commented on the protocols do not like it, mainly because it doesn't say anything about Karabagh, and because it doesn't explicitly state that we have to sign the illegal Kars Treaty. Again, it comes down to land and censorship.

[Anoush]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

As a matter of fact I am cynical about turkey's dark and moot intentions with opening the border, so I am not for signing the protocols. I vehemently do not trust anything that turkey says, how can I when they are demanding preconditions, when instead Armenia should and must ask for preconditions. Exactly like ArmSurvival said we are in the Diaspora because turkey didn't kill 800,000 out of 3,000,000+ Armenians in turkey on or before 1915 as they were lucky enough to escape the Genocide. Our fathers/mothers and grandparents survived the Genocide and that's why we are here in the Diaspora. Turkey must accept the systematic annihilation of more than 1.5 Million Armenians, they must give our lands back and stop the lyings and the real politik with Armenia. Turkey's intentions are never honest or thrutful. Their only wish and intention is to take complete control of our lands that belonged to the real owners (the Armenians) to not pay any monies to the survivor's heirs who suffered the Genocide and finally to help "azerbaijan" getting hold of Artsakh's lands that never belonged to the "azeris" in the first place as Stalin to appease Attaturk gave it away to the turks. They were Armenian lands for thousands of years. A well known fact. The world must look into the true historical facts fabout Artsakh, and must see to it that not even an inch of land is returned to the made up "azerbaijan" when in fact and in reality it was and is Armenian lands. Turkey is playing this deceitful games with Armenia to be able to get into the European Union and to get her way 100% by getting hold of all our lands.

Turkey and "azerbaijan" together they are continuing their pursuit of Pan-Turkism hysterical dreams. Turkey is in complete denial of the Armenian Genocide which is the last phase of the Genocide and the next step is more Genocide towards Armenians and Armenia.

[Jos]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Why can't we just have diplomatic relations without discussing those sensitive issues? Armenia is ready, they have been saying they are ready for nearly 20 years, despite the fact that we probably should ask for preconditions out of concern for our national security, but we are not. So whats the problem? .

The problem is not 'pre-conditions' but 'post-conditions' of which Armenians have many. That is recognition, reparations, restititution that lay dormant for now. So the Turks would be asking themselves, why would they engage in a dialogue, establish trade and political relations with a people that covets territory and seeks to undermine their international standing at every available opportunity? Why would they facilitate the economic development of Armenia with very little corresponding economic benefit to their own economy and compromise relations with one of their closest allies? The problem is the lack of trust and lack of incentives. They know Armenian politicians speak with forked tongues, that is, they have make no territorial or financial demands on Turkey now but they don't preclude their future rights to making claims when the time is 'right'.

[Mukuch]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

The problem is not 'pre-conditions' but 'post-conditions' of which Armenians have many. That is recognition, reparations, restititution that lay dormant for now. So the Turks would be asking themselves, why would they engage in a dialogue, establish trade and political relations with a people that covets territory and seeks to undermine their international standing at every available opportunity? Why would they facilitate the economic development of Armenia with very little corresponding economic benefit to their own economy and compromise relations with one of their closest allies? The problem is the lack of trust and lack of incentives. They know Armenian politicians speak with forked tongues, that is, they have make no territorial or financial demands on Turkey now but they don't preclude their future rights to making claims when the time is 'right'.

Well you are absolutely right. We (Armenians) must change this all, or at least some, "post conditions" into "preconditions". And let’s see how turks- who are the only interested side in this process as they need to blow dust in to the eyes of international community, so let’s see what "turks would be asking them self" than.

[Federate]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Getting This Wrong Will Be Unforgivable


We are at a crossroads in our history. We have on the table the first bilateral document that the independent sovereign Republic of Armenia intends to sign with the Republic of Turkey. This is an unprecedented process that is far-reaching and irreversible.

Yet, the debate on the issue is going in the wrong direction. It is hugely insulting that high-level government officials can be this dismissive and trivializing on a matter that is so critical for our people.

There is no sense whatsoever in telling us that what we see is not what we get. It is not reasonable to spell out a set of specifics and then defend an incongruous but desirable interpretation. That is not how political documents work. It is indeed possible to write flexibly and loosely in order to allow both sides to interpret things differently. But this is not that document. This document, perhaps good intentioned, is formulated badly.

When the Armenian side says that although the protocol specifies recognition of today’s borders, that does not mean that we are renouncing past borders, that is absurd. That would be commensurate to the Turks saying, for example, that although there is reference to the border opening, that does not mean that Armenians will necessarily receive visas.
Or when the Armenian side says that the formulation about a sub-commission’s “examination of historical records and archives” does not mean they will study the genocide, this is like the Turkish side saying they will open the border, but not at Margara, but some 10-meter space somewhere near the 40th latitude and 45th longitude. Again, this is absurd.
The reality is that a good idea, a needed policy, a necessary move toward rapprochement has been negotiated poorly and framed dangerously. It is irresponsible of our government to force our people to make such choices about our present and our future.

The history of our relations (and non-relations) with Turkey has a pre-history and begins before Turkey’s closing of the Turkey-Armenia border in 1993.

After Turkey recognized Armenia as an independent republic in 1991, it laid down two clear conditions that had to be met by Armenia before it would establish diplomatic relations: Armenia was expected to renounce territorial claims on Turkey, and Armenia was to set aside or dismiss the genocide recognition process. (Turkey’s later proposal of a historic commission was the modification of this last condition.) In 1993, with the border closure in support of its brethren in Azerbaijan, Turkey added a new condition to the other two already existing, that Armenia renounce Nagorno Karabakh’s struggle for security and self-determination by conceding to an Azerbaijani-favorable solution.

To forget this pre-history, or to expect us to forget, or – worse – to pretend that Turkey has forgotten, is not serious. In the context of Turkey’s consistent policies about territorial issues, genocide recognition and Karabakh concessions, our public debate must revolve on the substance of what this protocol gives Armenians and what it takes away.

Even when signed, these protocols merely tell us Turkey’s willingness to enter into diplomatic relations and to open the border. The open border will become reality only after eventual parliament ratification.

But whether ratified or not, Turkey will still have received what it wanted. When signed, this protocol gives Turkey the opportunity to tell the world that Armenians have in fact conceptually relinquished territorial claims and are also ready to offer the genocide for bilateral study, therefore no third-party involvement, recognition or condemnation is in order.

As someone who has worked for such normalization both with Turkey and Azerbaijan, I would want nothing more than to see agreements, knowing full well they must come with difficult concessions. The negotiations about these concessions however should not endanger our future security nor violate our integrity and values.

We can and should, as the protocol says, ‘implement a dialogue on the historical dimension’ with ‘the aim of restoring mutual confidence’ but the way to do that is not by mandating an ‘impartial scientific examination of historical records’ as if all other examinations thus far have been neither impartial nor scientific. In earlier negotiations, we focused on creating an intergovernmental commission with the aim of overcoming the consequences of our tragic past.

Alternate, more dignified, wording is also possible on the border issue. We can and should, as the protocol says, ‘respect and ensure respect for the principles of equality, sovereignty, non-intervention in internal affairs of other states, territorial integrity and inviolability of frontiers.’ The focus on territorial integrity is the international formulation that protects concerns about frontiers, while not diminishing the right to pursue historical injustices. The current formulation about ‘the mutual recognition of the existing border’ should have been avoided.

However, an equal risk in this document is the unwritten one. The link to Nagorno Karabakh. Unwritten perhaps, but clearly spoken at every turn are the repeated, continuing, unabated, undiminished affirmations of the highest Turkish and Azerbaijani officials who insist that Turkey will continue to defend the interests of Azerbaijan and nothing will be done, no border will open, until the Nagorno Karabakh settlement process begins to move in a direction that suits Azerbaijan.

In fact, expecting Turkey to move without considering Azerbaijan’s interests would be similar to expecting Armenia to move without considering Karabakh’s interests. This is not and was not a reasonable expectation.

In which case, if ratification is to take place, and if it’s to take place before the next Obama-April 24 deadline facing Turkey, then we can expect that Azerbaijan has received sufficient guarantees on the return of territories and on the status of Nagorno Karabakh.

These are the worrisome elements – both in the content of these documents, and in the hasty process that accompanies it – that cast doubt on the intent of the document. It also makes clear the readiness to lower the bar to reach an agreement, at questionable cost.

If this implies distrust on our part, that should be eminently understandable. On the Armenian side, those who crafted this document are insisting that it really means something other than what it says. On the other side, Turkey is to ‘refrain from pursuing any policy incompatible with the spirit of good neighborly relations,’ yet it continues to side with one neighbor Azerbaijan, against their other neighbor Armenia.

In other words, on the ground, nothing seems to have changed. Yet, the Armenian bar has clearly moved lower in the Armenia-Turkey negotiations, and therefore it is natural to assume that the same thing may be happening in the Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations.

This is the situation today, as we are presented documents not for and by third parties, as with the countless historical documents of the past where Armenia is a subject and not a party, but for the first time in history, a document in which Armenia is signing on to its own perceived place in history.

This document with such formulations should not be signed. Indeed, no one is authorized to sign this document with such formulations.

http://www.asbarez.com/2009/09/08/getting-this-wrong-will-be-unforgivable/

[Gavur]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

VERY powerful, it does give one pause and reflection.I think its a good time to do that for both sides, and for the President of Armenia to be more forthcoming, since he's all powerful in that little country , I think he can afford it.