On the occasion of the Armenian Genocide Centennial, Turkish reporters insistently inquired about Armenia’s territorial claims from Turkey.
In an interview published on April 25, 2015, in the Turkish Hurriyet newspaper, a reporter asked President Serge Sarkisian if Armenia had territorial demands from Turkey. Below is my translation of Hurriyet’s Turkish text of Sarkisian’s response:
“Since its independence, the Republic of Armenia has not had any territorial claims from Turkey or any other country. Our government’s foreign policy agenda has not had such an issue, and does not have it today. This is clear. We are a full and responsible member of the international community. As a U.N. member state, we understand our role in the international community; we respect the principles of international law. … If you pay close attention, Armenia’s demands for land from Turkey are discussed in Turkey, not in Armenia! As to why this is so, I let everyone draw their own conclusions.”
During a meeting with representatives of the Armenian-American community on May 7 in Washington, D.C., I asked Sarkisian to clarify his comments to Hurriyet, which were misunderstood or misinterpreted by some Armenians and Turks. The president explained that he had not said that Armenia did not have territorial demands from Turkey. He had simply stated that Armenia did not present such demands, and added, “We have no right to say that we have no territorial demands from Turkey. We also have no right to say that we have such demands.” The president went on to say that “Armenian political parties in the diaspora are free to present such demands.”
Sarkisian is clearly indicating that as a head of state, demanding land from Turkey—a powerful and menacing neighbor—could have serious consequences on Armenia’s national security, which is not the case when such claims are made by individuals or organizations.
Earlier that same day, the morning of May 7, during Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian’s press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., another Turkish journalist asked the same question about Armenian territorial claims from Turkey. Nalbandian gave the same answer as the president: “Armenia has not made territorial claims from Turkey.” He also wondered why this issue is being raised in Ankara rather than Yerevan.
Four years ago, on July 23, 2011, Sarkisian gave a firmer answer when an Armenian student asked him about the eventual return of Mount Ararat and Western Armenia: “It all depends on you and your generation. I believe my generation fulfilled its task when it was necessary in the early 1990’s to defend a part of our homeland—Karabagh—from enemies. We were able to do that. … My point is that each generation has its own task, and it must be able to carry it out, and carry it out well.”
The Armenian president’s answer created a huge storm of controversy in Turkey and Azerbaijan. Journalists and officials in both countries mounted hysterical attacks on Armenia, accusing Sarkisian of “urging Armenian youth to occupy Mt. Ararat and Eastern Turkey.” Insulting adjectives were hurled at Sarkisian by Turkey’s then-Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc, Minister Egemen Bagis, President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan, and the foreign ministries of both countries.
Erdogan even demanded an apology from Armenia’s president. To incite the masses, protests were organized in Turkish cities where photographs of Sarkisian were burned!
It is understandable that Turkish leaders are so apprehensive when the issue of Armenian territorial demands is raised. Knowing full well that their ancestors eliminated the Armenian population from their native lands, Turkish officials are haunted by the fear that Armenians will reclaim their historic homeland of Western Armenia, today’s Eastern Turkey!
In order to unite Armenians around the same set of demands, I believe we should adopt the slogan “Seeking Justice,” which includes all Armenian claims from Turkey as expressed in the Pan-Armenian Declaration of the Armenian Genocide Centennial adopted in Yerevan on Jan. 29, 2015, by the governments of Armenia and Artsakh, and leaders of major diasporan organizations. Paragraph 6 of that declaration calls for “restoring individual, communal, and pan-Armenian rights and legitimate interests.” Furthermore, the declaration’s preamble specifically mentions “the dispossession of the Homeland,” the Treaty of Sèvres of Aug. 10, 1920, and President Woodrow Wilson’s Arbitral Award of Nov. 22, 1920, which granted Armenia a territory several times larger than today’s Armenian Republic.
Harut Sassounian
*** That day will come., when Armenian territory will be several times larger than today’s Armenian Republic.***
*** LONG LIVE STRONG/PROSPEROUS/INDEPENDENT ARMENIA ***
The historic land of beautiful people and culture
In the ancient land of Armenia
Peaches and apricots bloomed
The leaves grew emerald green
Then the luscious fruits loomed
Orchards of pomegranates
Adorned the slopes of the hills
Gold, black and purple vineyards
Were overwhelming the fields
The sunshine was gloriously sparkling
On the snows of Mount Sipan
The splendor of the Garden of Eden
Was reflecting in beautiful Lake Van
The farmers ploughed the fertile soil
The carvers carved intricate cross-stones
The bells of churches tinkled
And children played and screamed
The smoke of the bread-baking oven
Rose to the cloudless sky
The shepherds herded lamb and cattle
The teachers read poems and rhyme
The sun rolled behind the mountain
The dinner table was set
The farmer and the preacher, the carver and the teacher
Sat at the table with freshly baked bread
In spring of in 1915
There came dreadful storms
The rain and thunder were raging
Ravaging the gardens and homes
In spring of 1915
Peaches and apricots bloomed
The leaves were red, not green
And the fruits never loomed
The ancient land of Armenia
Was wrecked in 1915
The teachers and preachers perished
In spring of 1915
Given what appears to be at least an understanding, if not qualified defense, of Pres Sargsian’s reply to Hurriyet by this author, wonder if Mr. Sassounian can now be included in the select group of part-time legal experts who comprised the ad-hoc team coming to the President’s “rescue”.
Forgive me, Avery, but could you please clarify your comment? Are you criticizing Pres Sargsian or Mr. Sassounian?
Personally, I think this is very shrewd constructive ambiguity by Sargsian. Saying Armenia may have, but will not present, territorial demands is analogous to how Israel may have, but will not “introduce”, nuclear weapons to the Middle East. It’s a serviceable position.
Well done. I don’t suppose the UN would agree and we all know the political reasoning behind why etc etc.
It is a tragedy indeed but it is only Armenia so who cares?
So Sarkissian & Nalbandian wash their hands & pass this important issue to our next generation? Well, I am all for it as long as they let our young generation to do whatever is necessary to achieve this.
Sarkisian Is a very smart President. His statements work well to seek peace for the country he leads while pressing my generation to act. My ancestors built clock towers in Asia Minor that are still there. My family owned a good chunk of Yozgat. I will have justice. We have not lost our homeland, we have merely gained the world.
“Sarkisian is clearly indicating that as a head of state, demanding lands from Turkey- a powerful and menacing neighbor- could have serious consequences on Armenia’s national security.” Actually, even if the Republic of Armenia were to not demand the return of those stolen Armenian lands from Turkey, as it’s been doing up to now, the national security of Armenia still continues to be threatened by Turkey. More precisely, regardless of whether the Republic of Armenia presents territorial claims or not, Turkey wishes to destroy Armenia no matter what. But yet, with the Russian military present on Armenia’s soil, there’s absolutely no possible way for Turkey to launch a military attack against Armenia. So again, I don’t see why the Armenian head of state, Serzh Sargsyan, can not stand up like a brave, patriotic Armenian, and publicly talk about the Armenian Nation’s territorial demands upon Turkey.
“It all depends upon you and your generation. I believe my generation fulfilled its task when it was necessary in the early 1990’s to defend a part of our homeland- Karabagh- from enemies. We were able to do that. My point is that each generation has its own task, and it must be able to carry it out, and carry it out well.” Truly speaking, I find this answer by Sargsyan to be a very weak answer in regard to that Armenian student’s question about obtaining back our stolen Armenian lands from Turkey. By delivering this kind of a wrongful response, Sargsyan is suggesting that this particular issue only affects the younger Armenian generation, but does not affect him, nor his generation. Hey, this particular issue affects all Armenians on this planet, regardless of their generation.
“In order to unite Armenians around the same set of demands, I believe we should adopt the slogan, “Seeking justice.” I like that slogan; but even better would be, “Seeking justice by any means necessary.”
What are you expecting that Sargsyan become the next King Tigran?
Somehow you don’t want to accept that in the region, all the issues we are facing are complex and intertwined. Armenia’s relations with Russia, Russia’s relations with Armenia’s two enemies, Armenia’s relations with the USA while under Russia’s watch, Armenia’s relations with Iran under USA’s watch, the security of Artsakh, the plight of the Armenians of Javakhk, the NKR and its views on Crimea, Armenia’s interest in Nakhichevan, Russian-Turk treaty to keep Armenia out of Nakhichevan, and whatever else.
Perhaps Armenia is not yet making territorial demands because Armenia has too much on its plate at the moment. I can’t see Armenia making any demands on Western Armenia without fist solving the Artsakh issue, and next and more complex, the Nakhichevan issue. In short, Azerbaijan needs to be taken care of first for Armenia to proceed with demands for the rest of Armenian territories.
You are claiming that the pan-Armenian community is demanding territories back, but can you define those territories and their Associated Armenians? Some Armenians want Kars, Ardahan only, some want the former “six vilayets”, some want Cilicia, some want “Wilsonian Armenia” etc. To date, only the ARF has a clear demand, and that is the restoration of Wilson’s binding arbitral award.
Thus Sargsyan stated what he believes to be true at this moment, whether it is right or wrong:
“We have no right to say that we have no territorial demands from Turkey. We also have no right to say that we have such demands. Armenian political parties in the diaspora are free to present such demands.”
Of course, this has to eventually change and can only be effective when both the diaspora and Armenia have one voice. But other things need to be taken care of first, Artsakh, Nakhichevan, and Genocide recognition which will lead to results.
And somehow, you don’t want to accept that the issues in the South Caucasus region have nothing to do with Sargsyan making a simple presentation of territorial demands upon Turkey. Again, where’s the harm in doing this? If the president of Armenia has the right to demand Armenian Genocide recognition from Turkey, then he most definitely has the right to make territorial demands upon Turkey as well. And since you’re unaware of what these territorial demands consist of, they consist of the details specified in the “Wilsonian section” of the Treaty of Sevres (the provinces of Erzurum, Van, Bitlis, and Trebizond, with an outlet to the Black Sea). Also included, are the lands of Ardahan, Ani, Kars, Artvin, and Mount Ararat which were illegally given away to Turkey by the former Soviet Union.
“But other things need to be taken care of first, Artsakh, Nakhichevan, and Genocide recognition.” Making a simple presentation of territorial demands upon Turkey by Sargsyan, does not take anything away from those three things.
“What are you expecting that Sargsyan become the next Tigran?” Certainly not! That’s too unreasonable for an expectation. After all, fifty Sargsyans stacked on top of one another, would still be nowhere close to equaling the greatness of King Tigran. However, as the president of Armenia, I do expect him to at least have a little bit of courage and fight for the justice owed to the Armenian people.
{” I do expect him to at least have a little bit of courage and fight for the justice owed to the Armenian people.”}
We do expect keyboard warriors and armchair generals who question the courage of Armenian men and women who actually participated in the (bloody) NKR war to actually go and serve at the LOC and defend RoA and NKR before they give themselves the right to call our war veterans names.
It’s rather comical how a keyboard warrior/armchair general, like yourself, becomes so enormously irritated whenever any kind of criticism is given in regard to your beloved hero (Serzh Sargsyan), and then proceeds, as always, to shout that he participated in the Artsakh War. So what? Just because he happened to be a participant in that war, does not make him a good president, nor does it minimize the horrible failures of his administration. And what’s even more comical about all this, is the fact that Sargsyan, who happened to be a participant in that war, doesn’t even have the courage to publicly recognize the independence of the land (Artsakh) which he claims to have participated in the liberation of. Now that’s really shameful! And the excuse that Sultan Aliyev will immediately start an all-out war upon the moment of Sargsyan’s recognition of the Artsakh Republic’s independence is nonsense. The only reason why Aliyev hasn’t started an all-out war in all this time, is because he knows for a fact that his military, regardless of all those expensive toys that it possesses, just doesn’t have the ability to overpower the much better trained and much more shrewd Armenian military. As a matter of fact, he even knows that the Armenian military has the capability of knocking out his oil pipelines within three days of a possible war, which would devastate Azerbaijan’s economy.
Anyway, going back to the recognition of the Artsakh Republic’s independence, the perfect time for Sargsyan to have done this, was right after Hungary’s release of Ramil Safarov over to Sultan Aliyev. And, Sargsyan failed to do it. Last summer, was also another golden opportunity to do this, right after that failed, disastrous Azerbaijani terrorist invasion, consisting of twenty raids. And again, Sargsyan failed to do it. Hey, this is again the definition of being a coward.
I have the original deeds to my grandmother’s house and lands in Bandirma on the Marmara Sea. My aunts took me and showed me their childhood home. Yes, I would like to claim the house in the town and land in the countryside.
[Alex]:
First, nobody needs to forgive anybody in this forum: we exchange views. Sometimes sharp views, but just views: nobody hurt.
And I have a very thick skin: only people who get under my skin and to whom I strongly object to are Denialists and people who spread disinformation about our Armenian Nation (..RoA, NKR, Armenians, our ancestors, our history,…)
Second: I am criticizing neither Pres Sargsian nor Mr. Sassounian: quite the opposite.
The reference to “…part-time legal experts…” is from another thread (see below*).
Poster [Sarkis] did not like my arguments in defense of Pres Sargsian and decided to take the low road.
My contention here is that Mr. Sassounian, a public figure, an Armenian Patriot of record since the tragic Spitak earthquake, and an intellectual par excellence, appears to argue in the same vein: that President Sargsian, being the President of a UN member State and responsible for the safety and security of RoA (and NKR) , answered the only way possible to the provocative question of a reporter from a nationalist, denialist news outlet (yes: Hurriyet _is_ an Anti-Armenian, radical, nationalist Turkic denialist web site).
And in case people are wondering: if Pres Sargsian had answered to the question with “No comment”, it would have been very bad.
Under the circumstances, he gave an excellent answer.
You are correct: “…very shrewd constructive ambiguity…”: but fellow poster [Sarkis] did not agree, hence my alluding to the exchange in the other thread.
As I noted in another thread: Armenians are too honest for our own good.
We need to learn to be a little devious to survive in this world.
(just a little: we do not want to lose our unique Armenian character).
—-
*
http://armenianweekly.com/2015/05/06/arf-sarkisian-dc/
As long as Armenia exists, then Western Armenia’s occupied land does exist.
Turkey’s media and government want to label Armenia as aggressor and instigator in volatile South Caucasus region, politically, where most world politicians have no clue how to solve Artsakh situation.
Turkey’s AKP bosses know exactly how a fake land transaction took place between Soviet Union Boss, Lenin, and Ottomans Pashas, otherwise Mr. Erdughan would have never dared to rush the picture of Moscow treaty to Russia’s president, Medvedev.
In order, Armenia claim Western Armenian occupied land, Russia must reject Moscow treaty of 1921, that Mr. Erdughan, fears the most. This is why, when Russia’s Putin in Yerevan criticized Turkey, for not recognizing Armenian Genocide, Erdughan criticized Putin’s comments publicly..
http://www.arfd.info/2011/03/16/protesters-urge-russia-to-reject-1921-moscow-treaty/
http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/opinion/10397767.asp?scr=1
Alex,
According to your bizarre logic, what could possibly be shrewd and constructive about Serzh Sargsyan continuing to not present any kind of territorial demands upon Turkey, which is further delaying the process of justice that the Armenian Nation is seeking? By continuing to avoid presenting any kind of territorial demands, Sargsyan is again showing that (1) he’s deeply frightened of Turkey, and (2) seeking the long overdue justice owed to the Armenian people is of very little value to him.
Exactly where’s the shrewdness and constructiveness in all of this? On the contrary, this is the definition of cowardice and weakness.
Yerevanian,
“Constructive ambiguity” is a term of art in diplomacy. In the context of treaty-making, it refers to the adoption of an intentionally ambiguous term, which all countries seeking to conclude the treaty can interpret to their advantage in order to convince their domestic legislatures to ratify the treaty. By hiding disagreement among the countries, constructive ambiguity avoids a bad outcome–no treaty at all–in favor of a better one–a treaty with possibly divergent interpretations by the parties.
That is exactly what Sargsian and Nalbandian did here. If they said Armenia has territorial claims today, Turkey would face serious pressure from its nationalists to take reprisals against Armenia, which would be easily justifiable to the international community as a defense of Turkey’s territorial integrity. This would be a bad outcome for Armenia. But by adopting an ambiguous position, Armenia not only avoids this bad outcome, removing any pretext for Turkish reprisals, but also reserves the right to present such territorial claims in the future, for example when it is geopolitically stronger and can insulate itself from Turkish reprisals.
I will not comment on Sargsian’s handling of domestic affairs, but in foreign affairs he shows why he literally is a good chess player.
Alex,
There’s absolutely nothing constructive about the president of Armenia being ambiguous in regard to territorial claims against Turkey. This is not some sort of a game we’re playing here; on the contrary, we’re talking about the long, overdue justice that’s rightfully owed to the Armenian Nation. This is a very serious issue; and by continuing to not present any kind of territorial demands upon Turkey, Sargsyan is continuing to delay this long, overdue justice.
“If they said Armenia has territorial claims today, Turkey would face serious pressure from its nationalists to take reprisals against Armenia.” To begin with, in terms of reprisals, Turkey wishes to destroy Armenia, regardless of what Armenia does or doesn’t do. Even if Sargsyan were to fly over to Ankara and present Sultan Erdogan with a bouquet of roses, and tell him how much he adores Turkey, that would again change nothing. The bottom line is Turkey wishes to destroy Armenia, no matter what.
Furthermore, what sort of aggression could Turkey possibly commit against Armenia with the Russian military present on its soil? As a matter of fact, Russia happens to view Armenia as being its southern border. Therefore, imagine what would happen to Turkey if it were to launch any kind of military attack on Russia’s southern border (Armenia).
Yerevanian,
You say, “This is not a game.” Respectfully, Game Theory (otherwise known as Realism) is a cornerstone of international relations, and you can bet it is employed by diplomats and policy-makers of all countries, including Armenia.
Let’s see what would happen if Armenia took an unambiguous position:
1: Armenia has zero territorial demands –> Okay, Turkey keeps its territory.
2: Armenia demands territory from Turkey [but is too weak to actually take it] –> Armenia does not get territory; it becomes an international pariah for having threatened the territorial integrity of another nation in violation of the UN Charter; and it gives Turkey a legitimate reason to carry out (non-violent) reprisals.
Do either of these outcomes satisfy you?
Armenia cannot afford to be openly irredentist until it is geopolitically stronger. The ambiguous position is the shrewdest move given its current position in the world.
Alex,
Yes, we all know that a variety of games are employed by all countries, including Armenia. However, what does all of this have to do with making a simple presentation of demands upon Turkey for the return of stolen Armenian lands which you are so against? And if you view all of this as being a game, then it obviously shows that this issue is of little value to you. The Armenian Nation certainly doesn’t feel that way.
“Armenia demands territory from Turkey [but is too weak to actually take it].” When did I ever make a suggestion in regard to Armenia using force against Turkey in order to get back its stolen lands? Again, the only thing I’ve been talking about here, is a simple, harmless presentation of territorial demands upon Turkey. After that, the Republic of Armenia will then proceed to take Turkey to court on this matter.
Yerevanian,
Twice in this conversation you have refused to recognize that I have used special expressions or phrases. “Constructive ambiguity” was one. “Game Theory” was another.
Instead of addressing my argument with a proper understanding of the meaning of these phrases, you intentionally misunderstood my argument by focusing on the individual words within these phrases (“constructive,” “game”). Please look up the meaning of “constructive ambiguity” as that PHRASE (read: both words used together) is used in diplomacy, and look up the meaning of “game theory” as that PHRASE (read: both words used together) is used in international relations theory. Then perhaps we can have an intelligent discussion.
Alex,
In this conversation of ours, you’ve unintelligently and persistently refused to recognize that making a simple presentation of territorial demands upon Turkey for all of the stolen Armenian lands it continues to occupy, has absolutely nothing to do with your special expressions of “constructive ambiguity” and “game theory.” On the contrary, this has to do with seeking justice. And by intensely opposing this, as you’ve been doing up to now, again shows that you’re firmly against any kind of steps being taken to obtain justice for the Armenian Nation.
The headline lacks balance. It’s not just Turkey which is obsessed with the territorial issue. Armenians–especially in the Diaspora–are as obsessed–and rightly so.