LET US FIRST OF ALL CLARIFY OUR ATTITUDES
Lilit Poghosyan

Hayots Ashkharh
Dec 20 2007
Armenia

Before demanding clear-cut assessments

In response to our questions, ARMEN ROUSTAMYAN, Head of the NA
Committee on Foreign Relations, gives details on the goals and motives
of convening yesterday’s parliamentary hearings devoted to the theme
"Armenian-Turkish Relations: Problems and Perspectives", as well as
touches upon the possible "dividends" expected from those discussions

"It is necessary for us to have conceptual approach towards this
issue. This is our principal goal and expectation: to finally
elaborate a clear-cut attitude towards all the problems regarding
the Armenian-Turkish relations. With regard to the fact that these
relations are extensive and are related not only to interstate but also
regional problems, I don’t think any divergence of opinions is possible
here. All this must be summed up and coordinated, and that can be
achieved only by way of organizing hearings and interested discussions.

Let’s recall the precedent of the parliamentary hearings devoted
to Karabakh. Before that, we, as a state, appeared in different
international tribunals and particularly in parliamentary assemblies in
quite a different status. There were certain contradictory approaches,
so to say.

When the results were summed up and enshrined in a relevant fundamental
document, our delegations began to appear in international tribunals
with much more coordinated approaches.

If we don’t try to elaborate a united, coordinated attitude with
regard to this issue as well, we’ll be vulnerable and weaker in terms
of solving our problems and pursuing our interests."

"Isn’t it strange that the initiative of discussing the ‘entangled
strips’ and prospects of the Armenian-Turkish relations was made by
Armenia again, considering that Turkey has not absolutely waived the
‘fundamental’ policy of advancing preconditions and ultimatums to
Armenia. Moreover, it accuses us of destructivism, saying that Armenia,
which makes ‘declarative’ statements, actually lays obstacles to the
Armenian- Turkish dialogue".

"It is, certainly, true. But we are facing no problem in terms of
being dissatisfied with the others. First, we must try to understand
what we failed to do; what it is that we haven’t done in harmony with
our state and national interests.

Therefore, let’s first of all discuss, sum up and finalize our
approaches and only thereafter express full, solid viewpoints both
in interstate relations and in international tribunals. This is the
problem; otherwise, we can say that we had the regular discussions,
listened to one another and persuaded ourselves into certain
things… Yes, we must clarify everything for ourselves in advance.

After making the clarifications we must submit them to the
relevant tribunals in a relevant manner, i.e. in compliance with the
international standards, rules and laws, and demand clear-cut answers,
clear-cut assessments and attitudes."

"What do you think we failed to do? What have we done to make our
viewpoints more perceivable to the international community?"

"First of all, it is necessary to guide the process in a proper
manner; distinguish the things in between. After all, there is
official diplomacy, parliamentary diplomacy and, why not, people’s
diplomacy. Each of them works in our reality on its own, and there
is no link and coordination among them. This is the greatest failure
that must be corrected. And to achieve that, it is necessary to speak,
to listen to all the viewpoints and synthesize them deciding what to
do, when and with what methods."

"In his speech, Peter Semniby, EU Special Representative in
South Caucasus, expressed satisfaction that Turkey followed its
recommendations and made steps of ‘mutual concession’, meeting Armenia
half-way. And he appealed to the Armenian side to do the same. How to
understand this? Has Turkey really done anything to meet us half-way?"

"Unfortunately, there is some confusion at this point as well. The
European structures follow the logic that it is necessary to create
an artificial balance between the two parties for having the image
of a fair judge.

What does a mutual concession mean? A mutual concession is not
an end in itself. A mutual concession must have a goal to reveal
the truth. And to achieve that, it is first of all necessary to
communicate in a proper manner. If we are speaking about the current
stage of the Armenian-Turkish relations, we must state that there are
absolutely no relations here. They are, in their natture, conflicts
rather than relations. Therefore, it is necessary to find relevan
solutions to them.

That’s to say, the minimum the parties should do is to negotiate, as
it is done in case of conflicts. Whereas the position of the Turkish
side is absolutely unclear; Turley is totally unwilling to accept
Armenia as a party to the negotiations. This is the main obstacle
towards the regulation of the Armenian-Turkish relations.