Mutual Understanding or the Demise of a Cause?

There has been much discussion and disappoint at President Barack Obama’s failure to use the word “genocide” in his first annual April 24 statement to the Armenian American community. Although the term “Medz Yeghern” was used in its place—an Armenian term used only in the context of the Armenian Genocide—and has never before been written or spoken by a U.S. president, many were outraged, and rightfully so. Nevertheless, that Obama did not use the “G-word” should have been expected as only a few weeks ago he was visiting Turkey to reinforce ties between the U.S. and its crucial ally in the Middle East, during a time when the U.S. wages its desperate “war on terrorism” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A far more serious issue must be concentrated on by the entire Armenian nation at this juncture, namely the agreement of “mutual understanding” between Armenia and Turkey that was signed on April 22. The agreement was backed by the U.S., and Obama specifically referred to the recent diplomatic talks being held between the two countries as the main reason for abstaining from properly acknowledging the Armenian Genocide in a press conference held in Turkey. Obama did not want to disrupt the discussions by antagonizing Turkey. Yet, had the president properly recognized the genocide he would in reality have done Armenia a favor had the talks broken down.

Here’s why: Although the Armenian government still refuses to reveal what exactly was stipulated in the “road map” and what the two nations believed to be mutually acceptable in continuing to improve relations, the points of the agreement were leaked to the press, which published the information online. Subsequently the information was printed in Armenian oppositional newspapers, but the points contained in the agreement have yet to be discussed on news programs of television stations that are virtually all government controlled. The five points of the “road map” as published by Trend News on April 24 are as follows:
 
1. Armenia should accept the Kars agreement signed between Turkey and the former USSR in 1921;

2. A joint commission of historians is to be formed to investigate genocide claims, with the participation of a third country, if necessary;

3. The border between Armenia and Turkey will open and relevant documents will be signed to begin trade relations;

4. Diplomatic relations will be established when the ambassadors of Armenia and Turkey present their credentials to each other’s governments;

5. The parliament [assumingly of each country] will discuss and approve the stipulations contained in the “road map.”
Naturally, the first two points are the most disturbing. The acceptance of the current Armenian-Turkish border as defined in the Treaty of Kars would be absurd. Without dedicated, secure access to the Black Sea, Armenia would forever be dependent on its neighbors for ensuring that foreign trade continues unabated. Armenia’s economy is already highly dependent on Turkey’s willingness to do business despite a closed border. As is obvious to Armenian consumers, most clothing, construction materials, and domestic products are imported from Turkey with all products being trucked into Armenia through Georgia. They are purchased in huge quantities because the prices of these products are very cheap, although their quality is usually mediocre or poor. Armenia would need to have the boundary redrawn so that its interests are served in a final agreement.

The formation of a joint Armenian-Turkish panel to research whether the Armenian Genocide indeed occurred would be a mockery to the 1.5 million victims who fell beneath the Turkish sword. Indeed, it is no longer in the hands of historians to decide whether genocide was committed. Non-denialist historians who have researched the matter have already unanimously determined that genocide did occur. Twenty-one nations around the world have acknowledged the genocide. Therefore the creation of such a body defies logic and wholly undermines worldwide efforts by Armenian activists to have the genocide understood and acknowledged.

These two points are detrimental, or rather are lethal, to the Armenian cause. If diplomatic relations between these two countries are established with these conditions in place, then all that the thousands of Armenian freedom fighters and political activists have fought and died for will have been in vein. Justice will not have been served to the remaining genocide survivors and to the offspring of those deceased. The Armenian cause will no longer be relevant, as there would be no need whatsoever for the Turkish government to finally address the genocide issue with the Armenian government washing its hands of the matter. All hopes of land reparations and a redrawn border similar to if not exactly defined by the Treaty of Sèvres will evaporate instantly. The Armenian cause will become pointless and moot.

Furthermore, although not stipulated as a point, Turkey will have influence in the peace negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabagh—influence that Armenia has always categorically rejected.

This worst-case scenario can naturally be avoided should Armenia keep the diplomatic “road map” in check, or rather redefine it. If Armenia tosses it into the wastebasket it will lose nothing, for the Armenian economy indeed boomed in the last five years with a closed border. But if the charted map becomes a reality, Armenia can only lose. The Armenian cause will become irrelevant and the nation’s subsequent cemented borders will be geo-strategically weak. Armenia will also lose control of its own economy, which it has regenerated from ashes.

Armenian political activists worldwide must refocus their agendas to address these points of the agreement and categorically condemn them. The Armenian government must never be allowed to downplay or renounce the Armenian cause. Further discussions between Armenia and Turkey based on these points of “understanding” will weaken the case for continued genocide recognition by world nations, especially by Turkey. The shared border that exists today, which serves more as a cultural border than an economic one, is not a boundary that will serve the long-term interests of the Armenian republic and therefore should not be accepted unequivocally.

Armenia’s leadership must not be allowed to give in to Turkey’s preconditions for the sake of establishing diplomatic relations.

• Bio
• Latest Posts

Christian Garbis

Christian Garbis is a writer and experimental filmmaker born and raised in Greater Boston. He received his BA in English and Certificate in Film Studies from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. He has been contributing to the Armenian Weekly since 1994 and has served as an assistant editor for the paper. He lives in Yerevan with his wife and son and maintains two blogs documenting his impressions: Notes From Hairenik and Footprints Armenia. His first novel is partly based on his experiences in Armenia.

Latest posts by Christian Garbis (see all)

• Clara Russian, Genocide Survivor, Dies at 101 - October 11, 2016
• Questions Remain Unanswered for the Fate of Confessed Killer of Gyumri Family - January 20, 2015
• Yerevan’s Bus Fare Protests: A Timeline - July 29, 2013