THE TURKISH SIDE HAS REACHED WHAT IT WANTS

168 Zham
April 30 2009
Armenia

Armenian Foreign Minister Edvard Nalbandyan briefed the chairmen
of standing parliamentary commissions and factions on the current
situation in the negotiations on the normalization of Armenian-Turkish
relations and the latest developments late on Tuesday [28 April].

In particular, the 22 April joint statement of the Armenian, Turkish
and Swiss ministries of foreign affairs was discussed, which mentioned
a document called "road map". The meeting between Nalbandyan and MPs
lasted for over two hours and was held behind closed doors. Moreover,
Nalbandyan had consented to meet MPs and to speak with them "frankly"
only provided that they keep details of the discussions secret. The
MPs had given the promise, and they did not disclose any details
about their conversation with the foreign minister, except from
assessments. Thus, even after this meeting, the public does not know
what concrete issues the Armenian authorities are discussing with
Turkey and with leaders of other states and entities, interested in
Armenian-Turkish relations. Although the Armenian foreign minister
promised to speak "frankly", the concrete details of the talks were
not disclosed to the MPs. For instance, no details were provided on
what provisions or actions the "road map" contains. Especially a few
MPs representing the [opposition] Heritage party and the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation – Dashnaktsutyun were not satisfied with
Nalbandyan’s "frankness". Moreover, both Heritage and Dashnaktsutyun
continue to disagree with the authorities over the normalization
of Armenian-Turkish relations. Without disclosing details of the
meeting and the disagreements, representatives of these two parties
commented on over what issues they disagree with the authorities –
with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in this case.

"Our and the government’s assessments regarding this process continues
to be different. We do not see the project as trustworthy, but our
authorities do. The authorities provide explanations to the conduct of
the Turkish side which are different from what we have. The authorities
see one motive behind the conduct of the Turkish side, and we see a
different one. And these impact very seriously the further process,"
Heritage MP Stepan Safaryan said.

Anyway, the MP believes that such type of discussions is more
useful than mutual accusations voiced in the media. The Heritage
representative believes it is also correct to organize such discussions
with various layers of the population in order to understand their
attitude towards the process. "Because it is impossible to understand
contemporary Turkey, Azerbaijan and their intentions from just one
window. Therefore, the likelihood of being mistaken is rather big,"
the MP said.

Nalbandyan’s explanations did not satisfy Dashnaktsutyun either. The
latter went into opposition three days ago. Representatives of this
faction stress that they got convinced after the meeting that their
assessments are correct and that Dashnaktsutyun’s being in opposition
is a matured necessity for Armenia at present. Dashnaktsutyun was more
angry at the tripartite statement, made public on 23 April. Although
Dashnaktsutyun does not see anti-Armenian approaches in the content
of the talks, it has different approaches anyway.

"The strategic, key issues are different, and the threats, which we
see, are very tangible for us. I understood from the explanations that
the word should be not that much about a ‘road map’ but rather about
a memorandum of intentions. But the major issue for us was that why
that day [the eve of 24 April – the day of commemoration of killings
of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1918] was selected for making
the statement, why it happened in this context, when the Turkish side
made statements not favourable for us. In general, was this statement
necessary or not?" [Dashnaktsutyun MP] Armen Rustamyan said.

Last week Turkish newspaper Sabah reported that the "road map"
consists of five provisions – recognition of the [1921] Kars Treaty
[that sets the current borders between Turkey and South Caucasus
states] by Armenia, opening of the [Armenian-Turkish] border and
diplomatic representations, setting up a commission of historians
[to study the 1918 killings] and ratification of the "road map" in
Turkish parliament. Stepan Safaryan has noticed resemblance between
the content of this report of the Turkish newspaper and the statement
of the International Crisis Group [ICG] issued two weeks ago. "These
are two edited versions of proposals of the same crisis group. It
is definite that the content of Sabah’s and the ICG’s provisions is
identical. I know that the ICG is not making its own proposals but
introduces to the societies what is on the negotiating table, and
I am not going to change my mind. I believe that Sabah’s report is
quite close to reality. I am saying this based on information from
many other sources," the MP said.

Both MPs [Safaryan and Rustamyan] believe that the gravity force
in Armenian-Turkish relations and the process of establishment of
relations is so far on Turkey’s side. "I strongly believe that the
statement could be used much more in Turkey’s interests and not in
other interests," Rustamyan said. "The Turkish side has achieved what
it wanted – neutralizing the Armenian issue in the US policy. The
defeat in football by a score of two-nil in September [2008, when
Turkish President Abdullah Gul visited Armenia to watch football game
between the Armenian and Turkish national teams, at the invitation
of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan] was followed by Armenia’s
diplomatic defeat by a score of three-nil. We want the authorities to
understand the importance of the current moment, their responsibility
and obligation to inform their own society about these processes and
not make especially optimistic statements," Safaryan said.
From: Baghdasarian