RECOGNIZING GENOCIDE OR RAISING THE ARMENIAN ISSUE?
Kima Yeghyazaryan

Hayots Ashkhar Daily
Published on April 24, 2008
Armenia

Political scientist ARMEN AYVAZYAN, Director of "Ararat" strategic
planning center, was the guest speaker of "Hayatsk" (view) club
yesterday. The topic of the discussion was: "Recognizing the Genocide
or Raising the Armenian Issue? Possibilities of Adopting New Positions
in Armenia’s Foreign Policy".

The political scientist finds that the international recognition of
the Armenian Genocide, a process that has become an agenda issue
for our country’s foreign policy since 1998, was perceived by the
organizations of Armenia and Diaspora in a very narrow sense, i.e. as
a matter of moral assessment. With regard to this issue, the Republic
of Armenia actually adopted the policy of the Diaspora-Armenian
organizations. Such policy was elaborated and conducted before the
collapse of the Soviet Union. And by force of some momentum as well
as due to inadequate response, the same policy is being uncritically
pursued up to date.

A. Ayzvazyan is convinced that, "the use of such policy in the
present-day conditions is obsolete; it leads to a deadlock. The
recognition of the Genocide is viewed separately from all the strategic
security issues concerning Armenia, whereas the Karabakh conflict,
the Turkish blockade and refusal to establish diplomatic relations,
the Turkish-Azerbaijani information-psychological war, the planning of
a new Azerbaijani aggression under the auspices of Turkey, the current
demographic crisis in Armenia and the vulnerable condition of the
Armenians of Javahk are the direct continuation of the Genocide policy.

According to the speaker, this has led several dozen countries to
recognize the Genocide on the level of different structures. Such
recognitions, however, make no direct contribution to Armenia’s
security issues which stand acute. "They do not, in any way, touch
upon the current situation of the Armenian-Turkish relations; they do
not demand accountability and redress for the heinous crime against
humanity. All those recognitions remain on the moral level.

Whereas Genocide has created the gravest regional problem in terms of
the Armenian people’s secure existence. And since the early 1990s,
the problem has been consistently ignored by the international
community. And the speaker again expressed belief that "Armenia
and Diaspora do not gain serious dividends as a result of pursuing
this policy".

The political scientist believes it’s time to shift the policy
recognizing the Genocide to the plane of recognizing and raising
the Armenian issue. And what is the Armenian issue? Both in the
past and at present the heart of the matter has been the same –
creating territorial and political conditions for the Armenian
people to live in their homeland, i.e. the Armenian plateau, freely
and independently. "The Armenian issue can have only one solution:
restoration of the full Armenian statehood at least in such a vast
territory where the long-term secure existence of the Armenian
statehood will be guaranteed. In other words, the Armenian issue is
the issue of the security of the Armenian people," Mr. Ayvazyan said.

Going into detail, the speaker said that there were two preconditions
required for the solution of the problem:

First: creating a full and strong Armenian statehood.

Second: territorial guarantees for the security and viability of that
statehood. Furthermore, ensuring one of these guarantees without the
other is unfeasible.

Thus, "The solution of the Armenian issue does not absolutely consist
in the recognition of the Genocide of Armenians, as some people
mistakenly believe. The Armenian issue is first of all a land issue."

As to why we refuse to make claims for lands, this approach is
unconceivable for the political scientist. And this happens in a
situation when there are still acute territorial disputes among one
another, in addition to a great number of states having land problems
which continue for decades. And the speaker enumerated several cases
familiar to the public: Turkey-Syria, Turkey-Greece, Turkey-Cyprus,
Israel-Syria, Israel-Lebanon, Syria-Lebanon, India-Pakistan,
Russia-Japan and so on.

"As you see, this dispute covers big and small, strong and weak states,
but it doesn’t occur to any of them to waive their rights to and claims
for lands ‘just for nothing’. As, unfortunately, is the leadership
of Armenia trying to do," A. Ayvazyan noted.

The speaker is surprised by the fact that the Armenian side does
not advance its preconditions. "Turkey has advanced preconditions
to us. We say we have no preconditions for Turkey. To what extent is
such policy effective?

As shown by the experience of the past 17 years, this policy is
absolutely worthless. Whereas we ourselves should have a great number
of preconditions and speak about them."