MORE BALLS GOING INTO THE GOALPOST OF THE ARMENIAN DIPLOMACY
Karine Mangasaryan

Yerkir
September 26, 2008

According to Dr. Armen Ayvazyan, Director of Ararat Center for
Strategic Research, the first stage of Armenia-Turkey dialogue
proceeded in unequal conditions, with the Turkish side taking the
upper hand. But we may see Turkey scoring many more goals into the
goalpost of the Armenian diplomacy, so that, in Ayvazyan’s words,
soon we may be talking of a hockey rather than a football game. In
an interview with Armen Ayvazyan, we present his answers to a range
of questions on the Armenian-Turkish issues.

– Almost a month has passed since the Turkish President’s visit and
the famous soccer match. However, over that period and to this moment
we have been up against a constant flood of information against the
Armenian interests by the Turkish-Azeri propaganda machine. Do you
think this is a result of our weak diplomacy, or is the aforementioned
united propaganda machine just too strong for us?

– Turkey and Azerbaijan have always had a united stand on these issues.

Since 1991 Turkey has been leading the efforts of in developing
and implementing anti-Armenia and anti-Armenian policies. We fail
to perceive this, and many people among us repeatedly reiterate the
misconception that Turkish policy on Armenia is dominated by, or even
held hostage to Azeri interests. Nothing of that sort! Both Turkey and
Azerbai jan have it on their agenda to destroy Armenia. Our political
authorities have consistently ignored this agenda ever since 1991;
they won’t acknowledge and give it due political assessment. And
without proper assessment of the full extent of this threat, our
policy towards Turkey becomes irrational, abnormal, resulting in
dire mistakes. A single fact: Armenia agrees to Turkey’s proposal
to to fascilitate an Armenia-Azerbaijan settlement. Following this,
the president of the country says that those who object to such
assistance are not normal. Let’s analyze this.

Thus, we have two allied nations that have a clear agenda of strangling
Armenia economically, diplomatically, militarily, and by means of
information warfare. In this situation, one of the stranglers says,
"Let me help the two of you to get along well." Armenia thanks in
return, saying "Carry on strangling me, I don’t notice it." And, she
agrees to a three-partite meeting, in which Turkey plays the role of
a facilitator. (They say "facilitator, not a mediator", but it’s hard
to tell the difference between the two.) This is a glaring example
of Armenia’s "normal" foreign policy, which cannot withstand to a
critique. By calling the expert opinions "abnormal", the Administration
is trying to take the debate out of the realm of logic, and using its
administrative authority corner serious debates, replacing them with
Western clichés like "football diplomacy", "thaw" and "rapprochement
in Armenian-Turkish relations" and so on. The fact is that there are
no Armenian-Turkish relations per se; we face the Armenian-Turkish
conflict. The Turkish policy is either not assessed and analysed at
all, or receives a profoundly inaccurate evaluation. Take this recent
example, for a comparison: this is how the Israeli President Simon
Peres, in his 24 September speech at UN, retaliated to the Iranian
president Ahmdinejad, who happened, once or twice, to question and
deny half-heartedly the Jewish Holocaust: "Their despicable denial of
the Holocaust is a mockery of indisputable evidence, a cynical offense
to survivors of the horror."[1] Peres continued with a list of sharp
and offensive remarks on Iran’s policy and leadership, who he fairly
considers an enemy. While our administration takes a friendly stand
toward hostile Turkey’s entire anti-Armenian policies, which threaten
the very existence of Armenia and the Armenian people: It invites the
Armenian Genocide denier Abdula Gul to Armenia, meanwhile urging our
people to respect the enemy flag and national anthem. The terminology
alone used by Armenia’s high ranking politicians and statesmen is a
clear indication that Armenia’s Turkish policy has adopted, with one
to one match, US State Department’s positions, which in no way reflec
t the interests of Armenia and the Armenian people. In other words,
the Armenian foreign policy views Turkey through Washington’s glasses."

– One of the abnormal policies, that you have mentioned, is the
constantly trumpeted idea in Armenia that the Armenian-Turkish border
should be opened, creating the impression that it is Armenia that
has closed that border!

– Of course such an impression will be created, due to the complete
lack of analyses, in our society, of the deep complexities of the
Turkish-Armenian conflict. Actually, and paradoxically, Turkophile
propaganda was carried instead, as a number of our national symbols
were distorted: Mt Ararat was removed from our coat of arms on
footballers shirts, the floodlights were turned off in Tsitsernakaberd
Genocide Memorial during the football match and, most puzzlingly, the
incomprehensible call to stand up while the Turkish national anthem was
being played! But who said this is a requirement! And why should any
Armenian respect the anthem of a country whose policy towards Armenia
and the Armenians is hostile, aggressive and offensive – denying the
Genocide, blockade, encouragement of, and assistance to Azerbaijan in
the latter’s preparations to resume war, trampling on Armenian pride
and dignity in the international arena, distortion and smearing of
Armenian history and culture … ! Whereas to this day Jewish people
generally avoid buying German-made products;20for instance, hardly
any Jew will drive a "Mercedes". They remember what Germany has done
to them, even though that country has accepted its responsibility and
given billions of dollars in retribution, through which they’ve been
able to develop the Israeli economy. Despite that, the Jews value their
national dignity above and beyond these. And that’s because the Jews
realise that national dignity is an essential state-building factor. By
compromising on that you cede your identity, you weaken your resistance
propensity and your strategic memory, you fail to orient yourself in
the current situation, you make elementary mistakes, and, of course,
you get punished with new massacres. Unfortunately, this chain of
events has repeatedly struck our people in the past. But now that we
have statehood, repeating the same mistake is just unacceptable.

In that case what did that misguided policy gain (for the Armenian
people) and what did Turkey gain?

The people didn’t gain anything. This is a problem of
statehood. Armenia gained nothing, except for a few words of praise
from a couple of American and European diplomats. Instead, the process
of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is now under
the threat of being torpedoed The expressed agreement of Armenia’s
president to the creation of a commission of historians is not only
a blow against the recognition process, but it could also cast do
ubt in the minds of third parties as to the validity of the fact
of the crime. The Turkish Foreign Minister has already explicitly
stated that third countries have no right to discuss this question
anymore since Turkey and Armenia have found common ground! This while
Erdogan’s spekesman on party matters, Egemen Bagis, declared that,
Turkey will never accept the Armenian assertions, that Turks have
already examined over a million documents which, supposedly, show that
there was no genocide, and that actually it may become clear that
it were the Armenians who massacred the Turks! Erdogan’s spekesman
made this statement at the European Economic Forum held in Krynica,
Poland, on 10-13 September. Therefore Turkey is already reaping the
benefits of this new situation while Armenia has gained nothing.

-Currently the view is being circulated that the opening of the border
will benefit Armenia (more than it can cause harm). Do you share this
approach, and how well-founded is this view?

– The Armenian-Turkish conflict has many other layers, ignoring
which may have even worse consequences. Even if the two countries
establish diplomatic relations and the Turkish blockade is lifted,
the problem still will not be resolved. Turkey will continue its
hostile politics through other means – namely economic, propaganda and
cultural infiltration, renewed opportunities for triggering demographic
movements (unfavourable to Armenia), and thr ough other means As
far as the economy is concerned, the local producers will certainly
suffer from border opening as the imported goods will be much cheaper,
and secondly, opening of the border will serve as a tool in the hands
of Turkey to exert all sorts of pressures on Armenia. In fact, the
three preconditions that Turkey has put forward on Armenia are only
preliminary preconditions! As we know in the past 15 years various
other preconditions have also been raised, among others, taking the
"Meghri corridor" out of Armenia’s control, destroying the Kurdish
Workers Party (PKK) bases allegedly stationed in Armenia, and other
demands. This is tried and tested old politics, and not just Turkish
politics. One often hears these days that ‘we are weak and have no
options’. But if one makes concessions on life and death issues, one
might as well dig one’s grave! If it’s one’s life that’s threatened,
and the big powers tell you to make concessions, you shouldn’t heed
as you reduce your chances of self-defence and resistance, without
getting any serious security guarantees. Meanwhile, we have already
started making concessions.

– Mr Ayvazyan, not long ago our National Assembly approved
the country’s National Security Strategy. Does that document
adequately serve our foreign policy, especially as it relates to the
disentanglement of Armenian-Turkish relations?

0A- In that document the Armenian-Turkish conflict has not been
defined, its limits obscured, and most importantly the Armenian
Question has been ignored, as far as its core fundamental parameter –
the territorial aspect – is concerned. Before opening up to Turkey,
Armenia must get decisive security guarantees from Turkey. What is at
issue is not the lifting of the blockade, but termination by Turkey of
its hostile policies against Armenia and Armenians. Whereas such an
impression is created today as though we have no confidence-building
problem, that we trust the Turks and desire to start everything
from a "blank page". But who can tell whether Turkey will change
its hostile policy after opening the border? No they won’t but will
set off an ideological, economic and cultural invasion. It is us
that need confidence building mechanisms not the Turks! We pose no
threat to the Turks, they pose a threat to us. Both economically and
demographically, we are just about the size of a Turkish vilayet,
and can be easily absorbed, especially if we turn a blind eye on
the Armenian-Turkish conflict and are preparing to give up our
national dignity and identity. I’ve stressed many times before,
that it should be us, Armenia, that puts forward preconditions and
not Turkey. Those preconditions are the very security guarantees. We
must demand proofs from Turkey that it is abandoning its ho stile
policy towards us. Meanwhile, today Turkey’s worldwide anti-Armenian
propaganda includes very strong/powerful idealogical elements, about
which we don’t speak in Armenia.

Today our government thinks that it conducts pragmatic politics. But
pragmatism takes into account the goals, ideology, and strategic
thinking of the opposite side. Our policy doesn’t take these into
account; they see neither Turkey’s objectives, nor their underlying
strategy and ideology.

– Do our statesmen take any interest in the concerns you express in
your public pronouncements, say, any phone calls inviting you to sit
down with them to discuss these issues?

– This question is of critical importance. Armenia’s foreign policy,
since 1991, has been under profound and disorienting influence of
foreign, especially American and European strategies. As far as
national security is concerned, there is practically no interaction
or contacts with our own home-grown national thought, which is
ignored and left unnoticed. Today we harvest the bitter fruits of
that influence. Armenia’s foreign policy today is so far from its
national foundations – particularly in regards to conceptualising
the territorial nature of the Armenian question – that it has lost
the ability to see the enemy and its political objectives, which
weakness is pregnant with extreme consequences for Armenia.

–Boundary_(ID_NLmY/PyP+04oO9mNb/k41A)–