CONSEQUENCES OF ARMENIA-TURKEY PROTOCOLS
nalysis/caucasus/264-consequences-of-armenia-turke y-protocols.html
Friday, 09 October 2009 13:10 |
Analysis / Caucasus
Questions That Need Answers: The Diaspora was loud, forceful and
often not even civil when it delivered its message to President
Serzh Sargsyan during his five-city visit intended to explain the
government’s position on the protocols and ostensibly to rally support.
What began inauspiciously in Paris continued in New York, Los Angeles
and Beirut, and concluded in Rostov, albeit more mildly. At the end,
one thing is clear. The organizers miscalculated. The content and the
intensity of the reactions, responses and reception were different
from what was customary and what was expected.
As a result, the government’s – more specifically, the president’s –
message was not effective. The consequence of all of this is that
the Diaspora is not on board. The Armenian public was already not
collectively on board. Yet this is a policy and an action that
requires solid support from a people who have lost much and who
therefore believe they have much to lose still.
At the end, there are several old, and several new questions that the
Armenian government must be able to answer regarding the signing of
these protocols:
Does the Armenian government truly believe that any opening with
Turkey is necessary at all cost?
Is the economic incentive of an open border truly so great and so
realistic that it outweighs the strategic and political concessions
inherent in these documents?
Is there the will to postpone the process, set aside the odd,
artificial time line and re-negotiate a document that indeed sets us
on a path to the future?
Is there the will to address the Diaspora, again, this time with a
view to removing the chasm that now exists?
The Diaspora was loud, forceful and often not evenQ civil when it
delivered its message to Q Serzh Sargsyan during his five-city visit
intended to explain theQ government’s position on the protocols
and ostensiblyqqwdsdWhat began inauspiciously in Paris continued
in New York, Los Angeles and Beirut, and concluded in Rostov,
albeit more mildly. At the end, one thing is clear. The organizers
miscalculated. The content and the intensity of the reactions,
responses and reception were different from what was customary and
what was expected. As a result, the government’s – more specifically,
the president’s – message was not effective. The consequence of all
of this is that the Diaspora is not on board. The Armenian public was
already not collectively on board. Yet this is a policy and an action
that requires solid support from a people who have lost much and who
therefore believe they have much to lose still.At the end, there are
several old, and several=2 0new questions that the Armenian government
must be able to answer regarding the signing of these protocols:Does
the Armenian government truly believe that any opening with Turkey
is necessary at all cost?Is the economic incentive of an open border
truly so great and so realistic that it outweighs the strategic and
political concessions inherent in these documents?Is there the will
to postpone the process, set aside the odd, artificial time line and
re-negotiate a document that indeed sets us on a path to the future?Is
there the will to address the Diaspora, again, this time with a view
to removing the chasm that now existsQuestions