National, International, Armenia, and Community News and Opinion

More documents

Recommendations

Info

16 The Armenian Reporter | May 2, 2009ArmeniaARF leaves Armenian government, citingdisagreements on Turkey policyby Vincent LimaYEREVAN – The Armenian RevolutionaryFederation (Dashnaktsutiun)on April 27 withdrew from Armenia’sgoverning coalition, citing“insurmountable disagreementson matters of principle” regardingArmenia’s foreign policy. A partydeclaration referred specifically tothe timing and substance of a jointstatement of the foreign ministriesof Armenia and Turkey on the eveof April 24.The withdrawal of the party,which controls 16 seats in the 131-seat parliament, will not cause thecollapse of the four-party coalition,but has significantly expanded theparliamentary opposition, whichuntil now included only the HeritageParty, with seven seats, andone or two unaffiliated members ofparliament.“The ARF can acquiesce in manythings, but not when it comes toissues and ideas it holds sacred,”Armen Rustamian, representativeof the ARF’s Supreme Body ofArmenia, told reporters on April 27.Mr. Rustamian, a member of theNational Assembly, has resigned aschairperson of the parliamentaryStanding Committee on ForeignRelations.Also resigning from portfoliosallocated to the party through thecoalition agreement are Ministerof Education Spartak Seyranian,Minister of Agriculture AramaisGrigorian, and Minister of Laborand Social Affairs Arsen Hambartsumian.Deputy speaker of parliamentHrair Karapetian and thechairperson of the parliamentaryStanding Committee on Defense,National Security, and InternalAffairs Artur Agabekiansubmitted their resignations onMonday.[Under a parliamentary rule adoptedsome months ago with ARFsupport, members of oppositionparties are to chair some parliamentarycommittees. The rule wasmeant to come into effect with thenext parliament, but the Speakerinvoked it on behalf of the coalition,“urging the Armenian RevolutionaryFederation faction to withdraw,while being in opposition, ArmenRustamian’s and Artur Agabekian’sresignations.” The ARF agreed andthe two men will retain their posts.]Turkey policyThe ARF has repeatedly expressedmisgivings about Armenia-Turkeytalks initiated by Armenia’s PresidentSerge Sargsian. It organizedstreet demonstrations to protestthe visit of Turkey’s PresidentAbdullah Gül to Armenia on September6, 2008.As the talks continued, Armenianobservers, including the ARF,expressed concern that Turkeywas sticking to its preconditionsfor the normalization of relations.These preconditions have includedArmenian concessions in Nagorno-Karabakh and the removal of theinternational recognition of theArmenian Genocide from Armenia’sforeign-policy agenda.Mr. Sargsian on April 20 told theWall Street Journal that his governmentand “the Turkish side in thenegotiations supported the ideathat we are negotiating withoutany preconditions.” But, he added,“I think already now the motivationof Turkey has decreased, because. . . Prime Minister Erdoganis now offering preconditions.”Indeed, on April 19 Mr. Erdoganhad announced, “If the Armenianoccupation of Azeri territory continues,Turkey will not open itsborder gate.”Nonetheless, two days later, Armenia’sForeign Ministry and itsTurkish counterpart issued a jointdeclaration claiming the “two partieshave achieved tangible progressand mutual understanding” inthe process of normalizing theirbilateral relations.The statement, coming on theeve of April 24, the day Armeniansworldwide commemorate the ArmenianGenocide, was widely seen asintended to serve a single purpose:to allow President Barack Obamato cite progress in Armenia-Turkeydialogue as a reason to hold off onrecognizing the Armenian Genocide.During his election campaign,Mr. Obama had pledged to recognizethe Genocide as president.“We find unacceptable and condemnthe issuing of a joint declarationof the Ministries of ForeignAffairs of Armenia and Turkey onthe eve of April 24,” the ARF declarationread. It emphasized thatthe joint declaration came at a timewhen “the leaders of Turkey aremaking anti-Armenian announcementsand restating preconditionsfor the normalization of relations.”Armenians have succeeded overthe years in “internationalizing”the recognition of the ArmenianGenocide, Mr. Rustamian said, referringto the recognition of therace-extermination campaign of1915–17 as genocide by the EuropeanParliament and numerousgovernments and parliaments. TheTurkish government seeks to makethe Armenian Genocide a bilateralissue between itself and the Armeniangovernment and that is unacceptable,he added.Whereas the joint statementof the Turkish and Armenian foreignministries did not refer to theGenocide, its timing, according toMr. Rustamian, was a major blowto Armenian interests.Asked about the timing, ForeignMinister Edward Nalbandian onMonday told Armenpress that hehoped Turkey’s leaders would oneday join Armenia’s leaders in layingflowers at the Armenian Genocidememorial monument in Tzitzernakaberd,and he speculated thatthey might do so in the month ofApril. “There can be, I think, a symbolismin that. And in making thatstatement on the 22nd too, perhaps,there is that symbolism,” theforeign minister said.Healing the politicallandscapeThe ARF was in opposition duringthe presidency of Levon Ter-Petrossian (1991–97), who bannedthe party and arrested several of itsleaders. As soon as Robert Kochariantook over as Armenia’ssecond president, the party’s activitiesresumed and its leaders werereleased from prison.The ARF was in the governingcoalition that emerged from parliamentaryelections in 2003. After theArmenRustamian at thepress conferencein Yerevan.Photo: MelikBaghdasaryan/Photolure.2007 elections, it was a partner ingovernment but not formally partof the governing coalition. In theFebruary 2008 presidential election,it fielded its own candidate.After the post-election violence ofMarch 1, the party agreed to enterthe coalition, announcing that itwas participating in a governmentof national unity to overcome thecrisis, which, it said, threatened theindependence and security of Armeniaand Karabakh.Party leaders have repeatedly saidthey felt they could be more effectiveadvocating their views withingovernment than they could be asan opposition party in Armenia’spolitical culture. Now the partyproposes to “become a full-fledgedalternative to the authorities.” Itpromises to reinvent the role of anArmenian opposition party, actingin a way that will “heal and crystallizethe political landscape,” so as“to form civilized relations betweenthe authorities and the opposition.”In his April 27 press conference,Mr. Rustamian spoke of the presidentwith respect, saying that hebelieved the president had good intentionsbut was taking steps thatwere ill-advised.fBy reratifying the Treaty of Kars Armenia would be giving uppotential claims to Western Armenia and NakhichevanIt would be adiplomatic victorynot only for Turkeybut also for its allyAzerbaijanCommentaryby Tatul HakobyanYEREVAN – Between 1918 and 1922,when Armenia was an independentrepublic, three treaties were signedbetween Armenia and Turkey: onJune 4, 1918, in Batumi; on December3, 1920, in Gyumri (at that timeAlexandropol); and on October 13,1921, in Kars. Before studying thesetreaties, it is important to note thatbetween December 1920 and December30, 1922, independent Armeniawas Soviet, and its independencewas formal and symbolic. It is alsoimportant to stress that in Kars thetreaty was signed not only by Turkeyand Armenia, but also by Georgia,Azerbaijan, and Russia, and alsothat the Treaty of Kars was derivedfrom another treaty signed in thesame year by Russia and Turkey, theTreaty of Moscow.The current Armenian-Turkishborder was established by the Treatyof Kars. It is approximately 325kilometers long. Recognizing theindependence of its new neighborin 1991, and as of December 16 ofthe same year, Turkey has alwaysstrived to have Armenia once againrecognize and reaffirm the Treatyof Kars. In other words, it has askedArmenia to recognize the presentdayborders of Turkey. Armenia, forvarious reasons, has not done so.Open bordersFor its part, while talking about theTreaty of Kars, Turkey for the past16 years has been violating thatvery treaty by subjecting Armeniato a land blockade. The 17th articleof the treaty states: “In order to ensurethe continuance of relationsbetween their countries, the ContractingParties agree to take, in acommon agreement, all the measuresnecessary to maintain anddevelop as quickly as possible railway,telegraphic, and other communications,as well as to assurefree transit of persons and commoditieswithout any hindrance.”However, since April 1993, by subjectingArmenia to a land and airblockade (in the spring of 1995, Turkeyopened the H-50 air corridor),Turkey not only violated the Treatyof Kars, but also many internationalconventions. In this way, if Turkeyputs an end to its 16-year policy ofhostility, it will not have showed kindnessor expressed goodwill toward itseastern neighbor, but rather it willhave returned to the 1993 status quo.Current talksIt is still not clear what points Armenianand Turkish diplomatshave been negotiating around forthe past year. It is, however, veryprobable that Turkey has sought,as in the past, a reratification of theTreaty of Kars.Because the last treaty signedbetween Armenia and Turkey wasthe 1921 Treaty of Kars – which onSeptember 11, 1922, Yerevan wasforced to ratify – then it can be saidto follow that this treaty is still inforce today. As much as the Treatyof Kars may be painful for Armenians,today it is the de facto Armenian-Turkishtreaty in force.Aside from this, by becoming amember of the United Nations onMarch 2, 1992, and also by signingthe OSCE Helsinki Final Act, Armeniahas recognized today’s internationallyrecognized bordersof Turkey. It is important to notethat Turkey was doing everythingto obstruct Armenia’s membershipin the OSCE back in 1992.No Armenian government hasthe right to reratify and rerecognizethis treaty. Of course, in its talkswith Turkey, Armenia cannot avoidmutual concessions – but not atthe price of once again recognizingor reratifying the Kars treaty.As much as the reality is painful,and as much as we acknowledgethat the provinces of Kars and Igdir(Surmalu) of Eastern Armenia, andall of Western Armenia, are todaypart of NATO-member Turkey’s territory,it is unacceptable that Yerevanaccede to Turkey’s demands.If Turkey really wants to establishrelations with Armenia, thenthey can do that by establishingdiplomatic relations. Georgia,which is one of the signatories ofthe Treaty of Kars, had territorialclaims, at the very least regardingthe province of Ardahan in Turkey;however Turkey never oncesaid that in 1992 Georgia shouldrecognize the Treaty of Kars andthe modern borders of Turkey.Establishing Armenian-Turkishdiplomatic relations is one thing;recognizing the Kars treaty is somethingtotally different, althoughboth steps would mean that Yerevande jure recognizes Turkey’s internationalborders.Aside from that, when two countriesestablish diplomatic relations,they don’t reratify treaties signeddecades earlier. Yes, a recognizedmember of the international communityas a sovereign country canchoose whether to recognize anewly independent state, but it isunheard of for a newly independentcountry to recognize the independenceof longstanding members ofthe international community.All three presidents of Armeniahave stated or referred to the factthat today’s Armenia has no territorialdemands or cannot havethose demands from modern Turkey.NakhichevanBy re-ratifying the Treaty of Kars,Yerevan would not only give Turkeya very serious diplomatic card,but would also have given one toAzerbaijan, which has kept Armeniaunder a blockade for almost20 years. It was with the Karstreaty that one of Armenia’s regions,Nakhichevan, was given toAzerbaijan. The 5th article of thetreaty reads: “The Turkish Governmentand the Soviet Governmentsof Armenia and Azerbaijan areagreed that the region of Nakhichevan,within the limits specifiedby Annex III to the present Treaty,constitutes an autonomous territoryunder the protection of Azerbaijan.”Certainly, we cannot rule outthat the day will come when Armeniaand Turkey will have diplomaticrelations, and perhaps evensign a new treaty. Turkey wantsArmenia to re-ratify the Treaty ofKars for two reasons: so that Armeniawill today in writing resignfrom its historical rights, and alsofrom Nakhichevan. Aside fromthat, almost nine decades earlier,when the Treaty of Kars was beingsigned, the international situationwas completly different than todayas was Armenia’s condition, possibilities,and challenges. f
The Armenian Reporter | May 2, 2009 17Armenia“A joint historians’ commission is a dangerous trap”Richard Hovannisianwould refuse to takepart in an Armenian-Turkey commissionHistorian Richard Hovannisian ofthe University of California, Los Angeles,met with Tatul Hakobyan ofthe Armenian Reporter on April 24in Yerevan at the Armenian Centerfor National and International Studies(ACNIS), a think tank establishedby Armenia’s first foreign minister,Raffi Hovannisian.Tatul Hakobyan: Professor, inthe early morning hours of April23, Armenia and Turkey, throughSwiss mediation, issued an optimisticjoint statement announcingthat they had charted a roadmaptoward normalized relations, andeven though we don’t know thecontent of the roadmap, it hascaused serious criticism, especiallyin the diaspora. The reality is thatit was signed on the eve of April 24.How would you assess this?Richard Hovannisian: It wouldhave been good if the Armenianside had found a way to wait untilSunday, April 26. Issuing the jointstatement on April 22, can clearlybe tied with U.S. President BarackObama’s address on April 24. It occursto me that the sides, especiallythe Armenian side, were under extremepressure to give their consentto that document, the road map. Idon’t know how the Armenian sidewas forced or gave itself the rightto sign, knowing full well that thatwould have a negative impact onPresident Obama’s statement.Now, I can no longer hope thatPresident Obama will clearly usethe word genocide. [This interviewtook place on April 24, butbefore the president’s statementwas released.] President Obamacould possibly get close to theGenocide word, but it will be justBako Sahakianproposes a meetingbetween leaders ofNagorno-Karabakhand Azerbaijan to cochairsby Tatul HakobyanYEREVAN – Georgi Petrossian,the foreign minister of Nagorno-Karabakhsaid in the NKRparliament that President BakoSahakian had requested organizinga meeting between the leadersof Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijanto the OSCE Minsk Groupco-chairs. Mr. Petrossian expressedthe opinion that the co-chairs, duringtheir last visit to the region, didnot travel to Stepanakert becausethey had to have an answer regardingthat meeting.The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairsduring a one week period (April 21–27) were in Yerevan twice and oncein Baku; however as the French cochairBernard Fassier said, “Wedidn’t go to Stepanakert because ofbad weather.” In its place, all threeco-chairs individually spoke withPresident Sahakian on the phone.After meeting with the leaders ofboth Armenia and Azerbaijan, theco-chairs left the region with “hopesas important for him to say howmany victims there were, that theArmenians and Turks must find adialogue, at the same time praisethe Armenian people, American-Armenians. A few days beforeApril 24, Turkey’s prime ministeronce again stated that Armenian-Turkish relations could not be successfulas long as the Karabakh issuehas not been resolved. I mustadmit, that Erdogan’s statementsdid not affect me adversely. I believethat this can be a good incentiveso that President Obama willno longer have an excuse not touse the Genocide word.We don’t know the inside story;we don’t know what role and influencethe United States and Russiahad on the signing of the April22 document. I can only assumethat there was pressure both onArmenia and Turkey – if you don’tcome to an agreement, then weare going to recognize the ArmenianGenocide. Otherwise I cannotunderstand why Foreign MinisterNalbandian and President Sargsianagreed to sign such a document onthe evening of April 22.TH: Can we say that Armeniaknew that the date of issue was indeedApril 22, on the eve of April 24,and they went ahead and agreed tothe document?RH: Certainly. He wasn’t naïve,he knew. The question now is thefollowing - what will Armenia getin return? We don’t know. If youare really going to concede, thenyou better get something in return.I do not know what Armeniawill receive. We know that Turkishdiplomacy has always beenflexible and shrewd; today theymight come to an agreement butthen find an excuse by saying thatthe Armenians are not willing toadopt a policy where they agree toconcessions, we are not guilty, theArmenians are guilty. The Turksare so flexible, that while theirprime minister will sign an agreement,their parliament will notof a reasonable progress,” toward theresolution of the Karabakh conflict.At a press conference at the FrenchEmbassy in Yerevan, the co-chairsstressed that progress hinges upon,first and foremost the two presidents,Serge Sargsian and IlhamAliyev.Mr. Fassier said that PresidentsSargsian and Aliyev had agreed tomeet in Prague on May 7. This willbe the fourth meeting between thetwo leaders. Previous meetingstook place in June 2008 in St. Petersburg,November, 2008 in Moscow,and January 2009 in Zurich.The U.S. co-chair MatthewBryza said that in the comingmonths a resolution of the Karabakhconflict could be forthcoming.The Russian co-chair YuriMerzlyakov was also optimistic,but more somber and moderate,as always.“The Madrid Principles continueto be on the negotiating table. Wecontinue to discuss them alongSargsian and Aliev to meet in PragueOSCE MinskGroup co-chairs,from left: YuriMerzlyakov,Bernard Fassier,and MatthewBryza. Photo:Hayk Badalyan/Photolure.with the presidents. Naturally, severalpoints [of the Madrid Principles]will be part of the discussionduring the Prague meeting,” Mr.Fassier said.Mr. Petrossian on April 29, said,“Karabakh has very clear disagreementsregarding several fundamentalpoints within the MadridPrinciples,” adding that Karabakhcould become more rigid in its position.Over the last years, Yerevan andBaku, without Stepanakert’s directparticipation, have been negotiatingon the basis of a document thatis called the Madrid Principles andwhich was passed to Armenia andAzerbaijan in November, 2007 inSpain’s capital city. The principalthrust is the following: with thepromise of holding a referendum atsome unknown time in the future,Armenian forces would retreat fromthose regions which Armeniansdeem liberated territories or a securityzone.fratify it, and in this way prolongthe issue.TH: When the April 22 documentwas issued, many analystsexpressed the opinion that Armenian-Turkishdialogue had entereda stalemate. What do you think?RH: Israel and Palestine, in thepast, have signed such documents.But where are they now? Today,their relations are in much worseshape than before. Signing any kindof document doesn’t mean that youhave reached a certain level or thatthe borders will be opened tomorrow.Perhaps the opening of theborders will bring more benefitsto Turkey than Armenia. Of course,open borders will also be beneficialfor Armenia, because we need accessto the sea, toward the Westernworld; we will then have an alternativeto the Georgian routes. Openborders is also good for Turkey,because its eastern regions will develop.It is also good for the Turksbecause they will have access to expandto the east; this pull will becomeeasier. The Turks have alwayshad their eye on the east. In 1991,Turkey’s politically and economicallymotivated expansion intoCentral Asia, believing that theycould be the “godfather” in thosecountries, wasn’t so easy. Realizingthat Turkey pulled out.TH: In June 2008, PresidentSerge Sargsian announced in Moscowthat if Turkey opens the borderwith Turkey, then the Armenianside would not be opposed to thecreation of a historians’ commission,which Turkey’s prime ministerhad proposed to PresidentKocharian in 2005. Is this proposalacceptable to you?RH: It is acceptable only undercertain conditions. First of all, theGenocide must be accepted as afact, then we can study as to whythe Genocide happened, what werethe factors, etc. The Turks are relyingupon the 1948 UN Conventionon Genocide, where it statesthat genocides must be premeditated.The Turks will stress that,yes, there were Armenian victims– 200 thousand, 300 thousand, butyou cannot prove that this was premeditated.Second of all, in their archivesand at that time it was alreadyplanned, to send telegrams fromthe villayets, where supposedly Armenianrevolts and desertion fromthe Ottoman army were recorded.Turkish historians can come withthese arguments and try, at leastin part, to place the blame on theArmenians. The Turkish side willnever accept that what happenedwas genocide. The creation of sucha commission is very dangerous.TH: If they asked you to be onthat commission, would you refuse?RH: Yes, I would refuse, I wouldn’tbe part of that commission. Whatis the Turkish side saying? It is sayinglet’s form a commission, let’ssee if the Genocide happened ornot. We know that what happenedwas genocide; the world acceptsProfessorRichardHovannisian.Photo: Photolure.that it happened; the InternationalAssociation of Genocide Scholarsaccepts that it happened. In otherwords, if we agree to the creationof a commission, then that willbe a step backward and will createdoubt. I consider the commissionto be a dangerous trap, which I willnot be a part of. For example whenthey created Turkish ArmenianReconciliation Commission, I wasopposed to it.TH: But that committee had unexpectedresults.RH: Yes, unexpected mixedachievements happened. The InternationalCenter for TransitionalJustice, to which TARC had applied,passed a decision that what happenedat the beginning of the centurywas a genocide, but that the1948 Convention on Genocide wasnot retroactive. After that TARC fellapart. The historians representingthe Turkish side were putting forwarda denialist approach withinTARC. The same will happen withthis commission.fNATO Secretary General in ArmeniaAmbassador Claudio Bisogniero.Mkhitar Khachatryan/Photolure.Ambassador Claudio Bisogniero,NATO’s Secretary General, was inArmenia on April 28 and met withthe country’s leadership.During his meeting with PresidentSerge Sargsian, AmbassadorBisogniero said his visit illustratesthe importance NATO gives to itsrelations with Armenia. PresidentSargsian stated that Armenia’s cooperationwith NATO within theframework of the Individual PartnershipAction Plan program is animportant component of the country’snational security policy. Theinterlocutors agreed that IPAP providedthe opportunity for movingbilateral cooperation forward. Thecurrent phase of Armenia-Turkeytalks was also discussed.The NATO ambassador also metwith the country’s Foreign MinisterEdward Nalbandian. fArmenia’s health ministry preparesitself for Swine FluOn April 29, Armenia’s Health MinisterHaroutyun Kushkian saidthat the ministry is getting readyfor a possible attack of the swineflue, Arminfo reported.Armenian authorities have alreadybegun implementing measureswhich comply with WHOstandards including preventivemeasures at the country’s airports.The minister made assurances thatthe situation in Armenia is undercontrol and there have been no reportedcases of the swine flu here.On April 30, Armenia imposeda temporary ban on the import ofpork from those countries whichhave been affected by the flu. AramaisGrigoryan, Armenia’s agricultureminister told the governmentthat even though there havebeen no reported cases in Armenia,the risk of infection remains high.The minister said that they are consideringplacing restrictions on theimport of fowl as well. f
Page 1 and 2: Atom Egoyantalks abouthis new film,
Page 3 and 4: Number 112May 2, 2009the armenianre
Page 5 and 6: The Armenian Reporter | May 2, 2009
Page 16: 14 The Armenian Reporter | May 2, 2

National, International, Armenia, and Community News and Opinion

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?