Footprints » armenian-turkish relations

Should Armenia Have Withdrawn Its Signature?

editor — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 08:14:15 +0000

A week after President Serge Sarkisian announced that the National Assembly would put the ratification process of the Turkish-Armenian protocols on the backburner, harsh criticism is coming to light from the opposition and even former government heads.

The comments I’ve read that are perhaps most troubling come from former Minister of Foreign Affairs Vartan Oskanian, who seems convinced that Armenia is now doomed in its new position, claiming that Turkey has more ammunition to meddle in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.

In a statement that appears on the Civilitas Foundation web site he expresses the following:

I am astonished by two things, however. First, the government is openly acknowledging that for one whole year they watched as Turkey placed preconditions before them, Turkey exploited the process for its own benefit, and they not only tolerated this, but continuously insisted that this is not happening and that this whole process is a big success and an unprecedented diplomatic victory.

Second, if there were half a dozen possible exit strategies from this situation – from doing nothing to revoking Armenia’s signature – the government has chosen the option least beneficial to us… The Armenian side did that which is most desirable for Turkey: neither ratified the protocols nor revoked them thus giving Turkey the opportunity to continue to remain actively engaged in the Karabakh process.

Criticism by former heads of government is a normal thing, but Oskanian seems a bit too emotional in his text and offers no new approaches for how to move forward. He advocates that the government acknowledge its mistakes (he instead craftily used the phrase “avoid accepting the truthfulness of the criticism”) first, in language akin to a naughty child being scolded by his mother.

The Armenian National Congress last week said:

“By suspending the ratification process and at the same time expressing readiness to continue it, the regime is, in effect, acknowledging that it has found itself in deadlock … and is trying to save face before the domestic public and the international community with deficient, unprincipled and inconsistent actions.”

The last part is a bit perplexing to me. Just how was suspending the ratification process “deficient, unprincipled and inconsistent?” Would that action have been described that way had Levon Ter-Petrosian been in Sarkisian’s position and done the same? Who can say whether the situation would have been any different?

I think that it was a wise decision for Yerevan to at least suspend the ratification process. But I disagree with the former Foreign Minister—the worst thing the government could have actually done was to relent to Turkey’s preconditions and open the border on Ankara’s own terms. It would have been better perhaps as the opposition points out for Armenia to withdraw its signature in light of the circumstances, but you can take that sentiment a step further and say that Armenia should never have signed the protocols to begin with, and none of the opposition forces should have ever allowed that to happen when they had plenty of time to stop it. Instead, they remained divided and disorganized.

By suspending the ratification process Yerevan casts Ankara in shadow of doubt, making the Turkish side look totally uninterested in opening the border at all—this is fairly obvious by now to the international community, and for me at least it was a long time ago.
Also regarding speculation being expressed in the media, I don’t see how the OSCE would allow a Turkish diplomat to become a member of the Minsk Group given that the reconciliation process is frozen, and how Armenia would ever go along with Ankara becoming a player in the peace negotiations to begin with. Then again, I am not a political analyst nor am I a politician looking for a future role to play in government.

Oskanian, the Congress and other opposition parties can say what they want, but rather than simply cast blame, let them propose new initiatives in the National Assembly for the governing authorities to consider moving forward. You see both sides criticize each other separately in press conferences and written statements, but very rarely do you see them engage each other in the public eye through debate and an exchange of ideas.

The Sarkisian administration and the opposition need to see eye to eye on the future steps towards reconciliation, because the longer they ignore one another, the ever more confused and disillusioned the public will be. Without some practical consensus on the Turkish-Armenian state of affairs the Armenian position will never appear to be very strong. The Armenian government needs to weigh the position of its foes on this issue before it makes any more decisions.

Photo credit: Andrew C.

Renewed War Over Nagorno-Karabakh?

editor — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:49:41 +0000

I just read the following report on RFE/RL about the escalation of chances for war breaking out again between Azerbaijan and Armenia/Nagorno-Karabagh over control of the self-declared republic. Here’s a segment of the article:

The likelihood of another Armenian-Azerbaijani war for Nagorno-Karabakh has increased as a result of the U.S.-backed rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey, according to America’s top intelligence official.

“Although there has been progress in the past year toward Turkey-Armenia rapprochement, this has affected the delicate relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and increases the risk of a renewed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh,” Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair warned late Tuesday in written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee.

Blair also warned of broader security and stability threats persisting in the South Caucasus. “The unresolved conflicts of the Caucasus provide the most likely flashpoints in the Eurasia region,” he said. “Moscow’s expanded military presence in and political-economic ties to Georgia’s separatist regions of South Ossetia and sporadic low-level violence increase the risk of miscalculation or overreaction leading to renewed fighting.”

The United States has strongly supported and at times mediated in the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement that began nearly two years ago and led to the signing last October of two “protocols” envisaging the normalization of relations between the two historical foes.

I don’t know if this is something to worry about. Sure, Ilham Aliyev likes to spew war rhetoric ever now and then, threatening to pummel Armenian forces and take back control over Nagorno-Karabakh, but no one ever took it seriously–at least not Moscow, Paris or Washington. But Dennis Blair begs to differ. He must know information that no one else does–perhaps not even Yerevan–even something that hasn’t been revealed in his written testimony.

Is this for real?

Turkey’s Parliament Receives Protocols

editor — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:10:47 +0000

On Wednesday, the protocols were formerly introduced to the Turkish parliament for deliberation and anticipated approval. Anticipated primarily by the West I should add. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan promised that the parliament would not ratify them.

Hetq reported Deniz Baykal, who is the leader of Turkey’s Republican party, stating the following:

“We believe Turkey’s problems with Azerbaijan have gone beyond being a problem of discourse and have headed in a more serious direction. I see who is right and who is wrong regarding this issue. Turkey failed to manage the process of opening its border with Armenia and is now faced with grave problems.”

The article then points out that:

The main opposition party leader criticized the recent signing of two protocols between Turkey and Armenia, which call for the opening of the border, closed since 1993, and the restoration of diplomatic relations.

Mr. Baykal added that the main opposition party will not sacrifice Turkey’s friendship with Azerbaijan because of the bad policies of the government.

Meanwhile, Armenia claims that its National Assembly will not deliberate on the protocols until Turkey’s parliament ratifies them.

So judging by this information, Turkey’s friendship with Azerbaijan is far more important than the budding one with Armenia. This was already assumed before the protocols were signed with similar statements made in the Turkish Press, including those previously stated by Prime Minister Erdogan. So why were the protocols signed, what did the signing actually accomplish? That Turkey is indeed a peace-loving, yet hypocritical nation?

Given the recent developments in the ongoing plight to accept the “gestures of goodwill,” you have to wonder what the point to this hype is. I find it hard to believe that the Turkish parliament will indeed reject the protocols since Turkey indeed has lots to gain from an opened border with Armenia and “free” commerce, not to mention a possible stronghold on Armenian’s far from stable economy. There’s also the paranoid, nevertheless legitimate fear of Pan-Turanism taking root once the border opens.

I really don’t think that Turkey—including its hardliner politicians—give a damn about how the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict will play out in the end, yet Prime Minister Erdogan claims the opposite. He’s shown his deceitful side several times in the past so I can’t really believe his words until the Turkish parliament ends up rejecting the protocols, but again, I doubt that will actually happen.

Yet let’s consider that I am wrong and the protocols are not ratified. Again, what was the point of signing them in the first place—a simple, feeble demonstration of good will? Was President Sarkisian simply gambling by agreeing to the protocols knowing quite well that they wouldn’t be approved, or was he indeed sincere about implementing them? And what was all that congratulating about on President Sarkisian’s part every time Turkey scored during the football match on October 14? (Armenia lost 2-0.) Armenians didn’t take too kindly to his behavior. Was that part of his chess-like charade, assuming there is one?

Personally I stopped caring about this process the day the protocols were signed. I realized then and there that I did all I could in the effort to stop the protocols from being signed by repeatedly writing about the dangers for Armenia on this blog and in other articles. And after judging the rather weak protests that have been ensuing in Armenia against the protocols during the last four weeks, I became even more indifferent.

I join millions of others wondering what the end-result will be from all this, without really caring that much about the outcome. Armenian citizens who are opposed to an opened border under the current circumstances should be more vocal about their beliefs, and their silence is convincing me that nothing about this process really matters.

Turkey and Armenia Sign Protocols

editor — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 23:17:34 +0000

Armenian Prime Minister Eduard Nalbandyan, left, shaking hands with Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu

No comment.

Let’s Open The Border!

editor — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:45:05 +0000

As you’ve undoubtedly read in the news during the last week, President Serge Sarkisian visited many cities around the world where large communities of Armenians exist, namely New York, Paris, Los Angeles, Beirut and Rosdov-on-Don. In the first four cities cited he was met with hundreds or else thousands of angry protestors before meeting with community leaders behind closed doors.

In Paris things became ugly when people were taken away by police for attempting to thwart the president from laying a wreath at the memorial to Gomidas Vartabed there. Naturally he didn’t comprehend what he was up against when he said at a meeting on Thursday in Yerevan that “I expected that we will put on display our unity and position on this issue with a massive demonstration, rather than a provocation by 100 persons.”

An article by RFE/RL reported this:

The president nonetheless found the trip useful, saying that he received “very important messages.” “I had a chance to once again feel just how different we are depending on our birthplace, community of residence, organizational affiliation and at the same time just how similar we are with our collective Armenian identity,” he said.

Sarkisian spent most of his speech again defending his policy of rapprochement with Turkey and trying to allay serious concerns expressed by his some Diaspora groups. He insisted in particular that the planned establishment of a Turkish-Armenian panel of historians will not stop Yerevan from pressing more countries of the world to recognize the 1915 mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide.

“On the question of the recognition and condemnation of the genocide, we have an obligation and we will fulfill that obligation till the end,” he told the advisory body comprising Armenia’s top state officials.

Nationalist groups in Armenia and the Diaspora believe that such recognition should be eventually followed by Armenian territorial claims to parts of what is now eastern Turkey. They say that the Sarkisian administration precludes such possibility by agreeing to formally recognize Armenia’s existing border with Turkey.

“Making territorial claims is not the best way to start normalizing relations,” countered Sarkisian. “There are realities of the 21st century political culture which we must take into account.”

Sarkisian again brushed aside opposition allegations that as part of the Western-backed deal with Ankara he also agreed to ensure greater Armenian concessions in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. “We will never opt for unilateral concessions in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, regardless of what we could be offered in return,” he said.

The president also scoffed at suggestions that the reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border would make Armenia economically dependent on Turkey and hurt domestic manufacturers. “It is like suggesting that the best remedy against headache is decapitation,” he said.

Those damn nationalists…

So basically the president didn’t take anything into consideration when he met with concerned, even pessimistic leaders of Armenian communities in private wherever he went. Seems that Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan will definitely have the go ahead in signing the protocols on Saturday (Oct. 10), then of course it’s up to the parliaments of Turkey and Armenia to verify them. The Republicans and junior coalition partners Prosperous Armenia and Orinats Yerkir have pledged their support for the protocols, so they are sure to be ratified in the National Assembly without a doubt.

I suppose the only hope for those who don’t want the border open, I would say the majority of Armenians worldwide (and even among apathetic or distressed Armenian citizens, who likely hold the majority opinion that the border should remain closed under the given circumstances despite government propaganda claiming the opposite) is that the Turkish parliament with its powerful nationalist hardliners will reject the protocols. That is most likely not to happen: the Turks have plenty to gain from an opened border. The Armenian economy will most certainly be totally controlled by Turkish business interests after some time, despite the president’s unconvincing arguement to the contrary. After all, I don’t think he really cares about Armenia’s long-term future. None of Armenia’s leadership does, otherwise they would consider what’s really at stake.

Yet I couldn’t help think this morning that as a surprise move Turkey would have perhaps even more to gain should it recognize the Armenian Genocide just before or even shortly after the protocols are ratified. Turkey will certainly make huge sums of money in tourism with hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the diaspora returning to their homeland for a visit. Emotional ones would probably buy land in their hometowns, perhaps even build a house. Before long, Armenians will find themselves in the situation they were in 100 years ago and long before–living as serfs under Turkish hegemony.

But to hell with all that. Open the border! Let’s make as much money as possible by buying and selling Turkish-made crap in the Armenian marketplace! Let the Turks come in and spend money. Let’s go to Turkey in the summer for vacationing! Let our businesses grow and prosper–that is, of course, until we are bought out completely by Turkish business rivals.

Good luck, Armenia. You’ll definitely need it.

Protocols to Be Signed on October 10

editor — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:58:06 +0000

I just found an interesting article about the signing of the protocols on the BBC News web site. Seems Prime Minister Erdogan is stating that Turkey will sign the protocols on October 10–the signing was originally set for October 13 as I previously posted. It could happen even sooner if they keep things under wraps like they did just before the protocols were unveiled. Take a look at the complete text below:

Turkey, Armenia to restore ties

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said his country will sign a deal to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia on 10 October.

Mr Erdogan said the deal would still need parliamentary approval in Turkey and Armenia after being signed by their foreign ministers.

The two countries remain deeply divided over the fate Armenians suffered under Turkish Ottoman rule.

A roadmap for normalising relations between them was agreed in April.

Anticipation of a diplomatic breakthrough had been growing ahead of a planned visit by Armenian President Serge Sarkisian to Turkey on 14 October.

He is due to attend the return leg of a World Cup qualifying football match between the two countries.

Turkey has resisted widespread calls for it to recognise the mass killing of Armenians during World War I as an act of genocide.

Armenia says 1.5 million people died. Turkey insists it was not genocide and that that figure is inflated.

This means Turkey is ready to go through with it despite repeated calls for a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabagh issue before the protocols can be signed. One is lead to believe that the peace deal make come through by October 10, or Turkey is simply desperate to push the protocols through to resolve the Armenian question once and for all. The sooner the protocols are signed, the sooner that international Genocide recognition will be irrelevant, especially with the formation of the historical commission to determine whether genocide indeed occurred. There won’t be any claims for land reparations either. Then with Armenia playing ball, Turkey will incorporate it under its hegemony and socioeconomic sphere. Russia won’t care about Armenia anymore since it is forming tight bonds with Azerbaijan. In the meantime the Armenian nation will fade into the twilight of assimilation, thereby erasing the Armenian identity. Say goodbye to the Republic of Armenia within the next 50 years. Armenians will become a classic textbook case of a forgotten people. It will be a true demonstration of genius on the part of Turkey. That is, assuming the protocols are ratified.

Am I wrong? Somebody write a comment.

Protocols to Be Signed on October 13

editor — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 06:58:11 +0000

According to RFE/RL the Turkish newspaper Milliyet has reported that the protocols are scheduled to be signed on October 13. Incidentally that is the date when the Treaty of Kars, which defined the present day border between the two countries, was endorsed. Apparently history is symbolically repeating itself to the date. The agreements will most likely be signed in a neutral country and not in Turkey where Armenian President Serge Sarkisian is due for a visit to watch football next month on October 14th. Maybe in a gesture of “goodwill and in pursuit of peace, mutual understanding and harmony” as the protocols stipulate, the Turks will let the Armenian team win, but don’t count on it.

Interesting times we are living in. Let’s see what the Armenian nation will decide by the day before the protocols are supposed to be signed (this could be a ploy, they could always be signed in secret sooner).

Time’s running out.

ARF Begins Sit-in Protest and Hunger Strike

editor — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 07:38:56 +0000

A sit-in protest and hunger strike in opposition to the protocols was initiated yesterday by the ARF-Dashnaktsutiun. So far about 75 party members are camped out in front of the government building on Republic Square. They are expected to stay on site until the date of the protocols’ signing which will be in about a month.

The party has already made several draft changes several points of the protocols that it has distributed to parliament members, particularly to those of the pro-government block. Unsurprisingly they were dismissed as being “unacceptable” by Galust Sahakian, the head of the Republican party majority, and not “very serious” by Orinats Yerkir’s Heghine Bisharian, who has been very enthusiastic about the protocols in public. Naturally the ARF is opposed to the forming of a historical commission to study the events that amounted to genocide, which Turkey fails to recognize. Also they are adamant about changing the point that calls for Armenia’s recognition of the current Turkish-Armenian border. The party is scheduled to meet the president with members of other parties on Thursday to discuss the proposals. Why he didn’t meet with them two weeks ago is anyone’s guess.

The ARF in Armenia has been calling for the protocols to be signed without preconditions—in other words anything that Turkey is expecting, such as Armenia’s recognition of the current border, should be omitted or revised. However, the party has been sending mixed signals as the ARF bureau is insisting that preconditions should be attached by the Armenian side, namely Turkey’s recognition of the Genocide. In that case, since that stipulation is certainly not in the protocols, it doesn’t make sense for the party to submit its revisions to the Armenian government for consideration. We know there is nothing in the protocols about Turkey’s required recognition of the Armenian Genocide, which means that they should be categorically rejected by the party according to its statements, not revised. So it’s not exactly clear what the ARF expects, particularly from the hunger strike. Many Armenian citizens do not take the ARF seriously, considering its influencial members sell-outs. The fact that they left the government didn’t seem to impress non-supporters.

Based on statements that pro-government politicians are making, especially by Bisharian, it seems they are quite positive about the protocols as they stand and the Armenian parliament will be sure to ratify them once they are signed. I don’t expect any progress to be made tomorrow during the meeting with the president, which means the Armenian opposition is going to have to be a lot more active and vocal in protest to the protocols. The Armenian National Congress has been fairly silent recently, with no rallies being held in Yerevan to activate its followers, so it’s not clear why they are asleep. No one from that opposition block has been facilitating any kind of public protest to date.

Things will be clearer on Friday or even Monday (politicians usually take the weekend off) about where the opposition really stands. But one thing’s for sure—the ARF cannot follow the route they have chosen alone; they need the backing of other political parties to stop the signing of the protocols, if the party is indeed intent on doing just that.

More Criticism Of The Protocols

editor — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 05:51:56 +0000

I just wanted to post a link to an excellent critical assessment of the protocols presenting the legal aspects of the language used and what the implications will be for Armenia, the entire Armenian nation, and Karabagh if the protocols are ratified. It is published by the Switzerland – Armenia Association (SAA) and its assessment is both thought provoking and educational, as it presents a concise, completely valid argument against the ratification of the protocols. This document should find its way to the desk of the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Edvard Nalbandyan as vital food for thought.

It can be read here.

Protocols For Relations Between Armenia and Turkey, Pt. 2

editor — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 14:02:49 +0000

Below is the full text of the second protocol slated to be signed by authorities from Turkey and Armenia in five weeks time. Many of these points seem to be repeated from the first protocol, which I criticized in my previous post. My comments appear in italics.

Protocol on Development of Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.

The Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.

Guided by the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey signed on the same day,

Considering the perspectives of developing their bilateral relations, based on confidence and respect to their mutual interests,

Determining to develop and enhance their bilateral relations, in the political, economic, energy, transport, scientific, technical, cultural issues and other fields, based on common interest of both countries,

Supporting the promotion of the cooperation between the two countries, in the international and regional organi9zations, especially within the framework of the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the BSEC,

Taking into account the common purpose of both States to cooperate for enchancimg [stet] regional stability and security for ensuring the democratic and sustainable development of the region,

Reiterating their commitment to the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes and the conflicts on the basis of the norms and principles of law,

Reaffirming their readiness to actively support the actions of eth international community in addressing common security threats to the region and world security and stability, such as terrorism, transnational organized crimes, illicit trafficking of drugs and arms,

1. Agree to open the common border within 2 months after the entry into force of this Protocol,

What is the rush? Let’s assume that the protocols are signed and ratified by the Armenian and Turkish parliaments and that Armenians and Turks are all happy about it. Why should the border open so soon? What about the logistics behind opening it, trade regulations, legal issues, transportation fees and so forth? First and foremost, diplomatic relations would need to be formalized, embassies would have to be established and staffed, administrative matters would need to be planned and enacted. There is a lot of work to do beforehand. How much can realistically be accomplished within only eight weeks?

2. Agree to conduct regular political consultations between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the two countries;

implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations;

make the best possible use of existing transport, communications and energy infrastructure and networks between the two countries, and to undertake measures in this regard;

develop the bilateral legal framework in order to foster cooperation between the two countries;

cooperate in the fields of science and education by encouraging relations between the appropriate institutions as well as promoting the exchange of specialists and students, and act with the aim of preserving the cultural heritage of both sides and launching common cultural projects;

establish consular cooperation in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 in order to provide necessary assistance and protection to the citizens of the two countries;

take concrete measures in order to develop trade, tourism and economic cooperation between the two countries;

engage in a dialogue and reinforce their cooperation on environmental issues.

The first paragraph of this point is naturally the most controversial of both protocols. It calls for establishing a joint historical commission of Turkish and Armenian “experts,” whether they will be historians or people from other professional backgrounds is not clear, which will essentially determine what exactly took place in the beginning of the 20th century, in the spirit of goodwill, forging friendly relations, and so forth. In other words, they will deliberate whether the Armenian Genocide actually happened by studying documents while sipping Turkish coffee I assume. President Sarkisian has been putting a spin on this issue, claiming that the Armenian Genocide is a fact that cannot be disputed, but it wouldn’t hurt to discuss the topic with Turkey in a gesture of good will. This information has been circulating in the press in recent months so it’s nothing new.

For this very point alone both protocols should be rejected. The Armenian authorities should not even bother returning to the table. There’s enough debate going around in public circles both in Armenia and the diaspora finding this point to be unacceptable. It defies logic for the Armenian government to agree on deliberating with anyone about whether the events of 1915-1923 constituted genocide. If Armenia is claiming that the genocide topic is hands off, then it naturally should not discuss the issue with denialists. Genocide happened, it was committed by the Turks against the Armenians, and this has been accepted time and time again by historians, including Turkish ones (who are in exile because of it). Twenty nations have acknowledged the Genocide. American congressmen have been advocating for decades that the Armenian Genocide be recognized by the US executive and legislative branches. What is there to talk about?

3. Agree on the establishment of an intergovernmental bilateral commission which shall comprise separate sub-commissions for the prompt implementation of the commitments mentioned in operational paragraph 2 above in this Protocol. To prepare the working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commissions, a working group headed by the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs shall be created 2 months after the day following the entry into force of this Protocol. Within 3 months after the entry into force of this Protocol, these modalities shall be approved at ministerial level. The intergovernmental commission shall meet for the first time immediately after the adoption of the said modalities. The sub-commissions shall start their work at the latest 1 month thereafter and they shall work continuously until the completion of their mandates. The timetable and elements agreed by both sides for the implementation of this Protocol are mentioned in the annexed document, which is integral part of this Protocol.

This Protocol and the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey shall enter into force on the same day, i.e. on the first day of the first month following the exchange of instruments of ratification.

Signed in (place) on (date) in Armenian, Turkish and English authentic copies in duplicate. In case of divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.

For the Republic of Armenia

For the Republic of Turkey

There is also an “annexed document” indicating a timeline of events that are to take place after the protocols are signed, the first being the opening of the border. The border should open within a two-month period after having signed the protocols, even before the commission and various sub-commissions are formed to work out the logistics of opening he border, which is dangerous and totally irresponsible in my opinion. Then again, the intentions of these protocols are dubious to begin with.

Summing up, no further discussions about establishing diplomatic relations should be held at all until Turkey recognizes that it committed genocide against the Armenian people. You cannot have mutual trust and understanding without resolving this issue once and for all from the start, and it is preposterous to believe that this issue should be separated from deliberations to normalize relations. The Armenian Genocide issue is a political one now, it is not something for historians to deliberate on any longer—that’s already been done. Turkey has to understand this and repent for its unleashed calamity, then discussions about understanding and mutual trust can be held. If these protocols are signed using this verbiage, there will never be any way of pressuring Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide again.

Secondly, the border between Armenia and Turkey cannot ever be opened before the Nagorno-Karabagh issue is finally resolved. It would be irresponsible for the Armenian leadership to endorse the initiatives outlined in both protocols, not to mention an absolute foreign policy disaster, before a peace agreement is signed. They are two distinct, entirely separate issues that cannot be lumped together to establish peace in the region. Armenia was at war with Azerbaijan in the early 1990s, not with Turkey. And Armenia does not demonstrate antagonism towards Turkey, not when trips to Antalya are promoted on billboards in Yerevan and Turkish goods are purchased in tons per week. The two issues cannot be combined into an all-inclusive package deal for developing relations with Armenia’s neighbors, they need to be negotiated upon and resolved separately and conclusively.

Armenians worldwide cannot let these protocols be approved in five weeks. Armenia has a lot to lose in these protocols, first and foremost the satisfaction of Armenian Genocide recognition by Turkey. Armenia cannot refuse its right to claim lands by accepting the current border as being an absolute line of demarcation. Once these documents are signed, there can never be any further discussion about the return of historic Armenian lands, before the topic has even been opened.

Millions of Armenians since the dawn of the 20th century have struggled for a set of principles and ideals that are well known as the Armenian Cause. It has been fought in countless forums and stages—from the battlefront at Sardarabad in 1918 to classrooms in Massachusetts where students learn about the Armenian Genocide as part of the school curriculum. Several thousands died during the Nagorno-Karabagh war to secure the self-determination of Armenians living there. Activists worldwide still campaign for realizing the cause, mostly by persuading governments and various official or non-governmental bodies of influence to recognize the Armenian Genocide as a factual, historic event. There are also discussions now and then about making valid claims for the return of Western Armenian lands controlled by Turkey to this day. Their efforts have been fantastic and the Armenians have enjoyed much success in having their case heard globally, especially in the US and Europe in recent years. All of that is about to go down the drain. With the signing of these protocols the Armenian Cause will be effectively dead for the reasons I have already mentioned in my comments.

Armenians have to decide what they want out of their own future as a nation in pursuit of receiving due justice for past tragedies that it had been made to endure time and time again. At present, the fate of the Armenian nation is in its own hands, and it is a make or break moment. The cause cannot die, not when we still have the chance to save it.