By Raffi K. Hovannisian
The history of the Armenian people has been an ordeal of suffering, tragedy, and genocide. In this millennial series of misfortunes, however, never has the nation invited destruction upon itself.
But today it stands at the brink, with a small group of improperly elected leaders apparently racing toward a forsaking of both identity and interest.
With the stroke of a pen, the Armenian president and his foreign minister have crossed the line of danger and dignity; in Zurich, Switzerland on Oct. 10, they resigned from a long-standing national quest to preserve the fundamental rights, security, and integrity of an ancient land and its native heirs.
The signing of the two diplomatic “protocols” between Armenia and Turkey might indeed constitute the latest entry in the ledger of crimes committed, and covered up, against the Armenian nation.
Core values are not commodities
As a servant of the Armenian nation, reflecting both prior office and present opposition, I am appalled by this latest offense. As an Armenian citizen, for many years denied that honor by successive authorities, I ache as the soul of our nation is traded away for illusory promises of “goodwill” and “open borders” with Turkey.
Our vital values, from our collective responsibility as heirs of the genocide to our individual expression of liberty and belonging, are not commodities. That unrequited murderous conception of 1915—the original plan to drive to extinction the Armenian people, the Armenian homeland, and so the Armenian species—is one of the principal sources of our modern identity, just as its equitable resolution is the anchor of our future national security.
This is duplicity, not diplomacy
What will “open borders,” a courtesy commonly extended at no cost to all civilized nations, cost the Armenians?
Of course every Armenian seeks peace, prosperity, and good neighborly relations. But what we have in these protocols is only an expensive illusion of them.
The ends, generally stated, are sound: Open borders and normal diplomatic relations among neighbors are pure and prudent goals. But the means we use must be as pure and prudent as the ends we seek. Unfortunately, the secretive diplomatic process launched by the Armenian and Turkish administrations is defective at the fundaments, sourced as they are in bloody soil, where a pronounced asymmetry of power survives to this day.
First, the protocols stipulate that Armenia relinquish its lawful historic rights and extend an unlimited de jure recognition of Turkey’s de facto borders, which were drawn and defined on the very basis of the eradication and violent dispossession of the Armenian people from its ancestral heartland. In so doing they demand, and have received, the Armenian presidency’s endorsement of that fantastic crime against humanity which has deprived generations of Armenians of its civilization, heritage, and patrimony.
Second, the protocols entail a joint condemnation of terrorism, yet fail to include any corresponding renunciation of the broader criminal outrage of genocide.
Third, the protocols impose a requirement for a “dialogue on the historical dimension” of relations. This measure, representing a unilateral attempt at imprisoning the Armenian genocide in a bilateral echo chamber, not only challenges the untouchable veracity of the genocide, but secures the complicity of the Armenian state in absolving Turkey of any responsibility for its genocidal actions.
Once these terms are brought to life, absolutely little will remain of the legitimate expectation to secure Turkey’s and the world’s reaffirmation of and redemption for the genocide. Turkey will forever deflect and delay liabilities for its genocidal acts by leveraging the infinite and inconclusive nature of the bilateral “dialogue.”
Normalization or not, these protocols move us not one inch toward reconciliation, that pure and total communion based on the truth—a brave recognition of all aspects of shared Turkish-Armenian history, including the great genocide and national dispossession of the Armenian people.
The protocols in the proper perspective
In all the pomp and circumstance of diplomatic “breakthroughs,” we cannot forget that the burden of “normalization” rests, as it always has rested, with the Turkish republic. The decisions to close the border with Armenia and to withhold normal diplomatic relations—violations, both, of all viable international norms—were decisions that Turkey made and realized on its own. Hence, each of the Turkish “concessions” reflected in the protocols represents only the most basic minimum commitment of a decent and civilized country.
Turkey’s bare and stated readiness to open borders and normalize relations—the extent of its responsibilities in the framework of the protocols—is, therefore, a non-event. No international initiative should have been necessary for those moves. And that Turkey has made that determination now—only after accepting the sacrifice of an entire nation—deserves not praise but continued skepticism in the substance behind its diplomatic flourishes, whether they relate to the European Union or broader geopolitical objectives.
From protocols to parliaments
Now that the Armenian and Turkish sides have signed these protocols, the second stage, of ratification, is set for the parliaments at Yerevan and Ankara.
Regrettably, dispensing with a parliament’s traditional role of advice and consent in the foreign policy of state, the executives have imposed a prohibition on amending or altering these protocols in any way. While this stands in clear contradiction with democratic standards and practices, it also denies the public and its members in each country the right to exercise or engage their opinions in this process. This extraordinary methodology flies in the face of customary diplomatic practice, which calls for the establishment of official relations through a simple exchange of notes.
The scheme here is plain, perfectly tailored, and aimed at tying down for good history’s loose ends. Soon the Armenian National Assembly, too, will be called upon to bear complicit responsibility in giving legislative validation nearly 90 years after the fact to the illegal Bolshevik-Kemalist pacts which crowned the genocidal process and sought to seal the fate of the Armenian nation.
What is more, not content with pursuing this official acceptance of Turkey’s long-standing occupation of the Armenian homeland, its leaders will continue audaciously to abuse every turn of the ratification process in order to deflect their own culpability by linking implementation of the protocols and lifting of the Turkish blockade with what they pitch as the “occupied territories of Azerbaijan.”
Clearly, that would be a disingenuous and inapposite reference to the freedom-loving people of Mountainous Karabagh, its odds-defying liberation and constitutional decolonization from the Turco-Stalinist legacy, and its resultant territorial integrity.
In the final analysis, Armenian and Turkish citizens have been refused both voice and choice in determining the outcome of an immensely significant process that will forge the future course of both countries. This is especially distressing, because on the judgments to be made in the coming weeks and months shall turn the fate of generations to come—and their imperative to face history, remember collectively, and bridge in earnest the great Turkish-Armenian divide.
Oct. 12, 2009
Yerevan
Guest Contributor
The so called protocols have been signed by Armenia under DURESS! Any agreement or dcocument signed under duress or coerce is unenforceable.
Armenian must file complaint in a forum that has proper jurisdiction on the case to declare the said agreement unlawful and unconstitutional thereby to set aside.
Raffi, where is your legal power?
Long Live Armenia and Armenians!
It’s all talk. Why does Raffi Hoavanissian, ARF or any other group that thinks and talks nothing but Genocide and occupied land. You think by chanting “we are victims of the first Genocide…” Turkey will turn around and say “here, take your lands.” Hardly any criminal admits to the crime charged. Why would Turkey? At some point you either take the matter to court (international court) or talk directly with the person, group or state that has committed the crime. I don’t hear anybody saying “lets take the matter to the International Court or let’s talk to Turkey and clarify what we want – as restitution, reparation etc. of the Genocide.” Since the individuals and the groups making the loudest protest against the protocols are not taking concrete steps to move towards a lasting solution, the matter of Genocide and occupied lands is just a religion. What would they do if some resolution was rendered? They will not have something grand to stand for or to struggle for. If you want the map of Armenia to look like what President Wilson drew, than pray you have enough arms, power and stamina to take it back by force. No one will give it back by chanting “recognize the Genocide”.
International court participation becomes more powerful after official recognition takes shape. This has been a long process against many odds. Why throw away what we have done already for some “historical commission” nonsense? Scholarship has clearly spoken at this time on this issue. This is a setback on those terms.
Artashes Bashmakian, your logic does not go too far. For example, today’s Armenia became independent free of charge. The time will come that justice will take Turkey in parts. Then, we should be around with an entitlement to control Western Armenia, if until then Armenia had not been so powerful that she has taken Western Armenia by force.
One thing is clear. All those parties who appeared in signing of those so called protocols have stakes in the upcomming deal between Armenia and Turkey. Why not take this opportunity and demand what we are entitle too.
I have basic problem with this administration. They never call our liberated territorires as such. They call them security zone. I rarely hear them to make an statement that pertains to all Armenians, except Mr. Sarkisian’s address on last Saturday.
Furthermore, the core and objective of protocols is to kill the spirit of Diaspora because the real independent power of Armenians is located in Diaspora. The Republic of Armenia has no independent role. I do not believe Mr. Sarkisian when he claims that all of these inititives have been his. In fact I do not trust him anymore. If Mr. Sarkisina wants us to close our eyes and instead hear his claims that there are no preconditions in the protrocols, then how am I able to believe him about something that there is nothing in writing. For example, he still claims that he would be the last Armenian in the world that let Karabakh go. I have news for you. He has agreed everything we are hearing from enemy. The problem is that the Armenia herself is in danger as long as these people are in power. Armenians must change the system of government not only the president.
The real change must come from Diaspora because no matter who becomes the president must keep others happey.
Long Live Armenians and Armenia.