A PREDICTABLE FAIT ACCOMPLI IN YEREVAN

Team Keghart Editorial
12 January 2010

As expected, the Constitutional Court of Armenia has upheld the
constitutionality of the Protocols. Now the documents will be forwarded
to the parliament of Armenia for ratification, and then President
Serzh Sargsyan will have a final say.

Several Protocols-related matters are particularly worrisome. Although
the Protocols are not ordinarily dealt as treaties, in this instance
they are being accorded all the fanfare and prestige of a treaty,
thus making it even more difficult to either bypass their provisions
or abrogate them by a subsequent administration. Usually Protocols
are dealt as "letters of agreement", which are much less restrictive
in parameters.

As to whether the Protocols represent Armenian national interests
(Armenia, Diaspora or Western Armenia) remains a moot point at best
and is wide open for discussion.

Article 11 of the Declaration of Independence, dated August 23,
1990, states, "The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the
task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in
Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia." The measured wording does not
explicitly mention our legitimate land claims from Turkey. Hence,
those who have forwarded the thesis that the Protocols violate the
intent of the Declaration of Independence are at least partially wrong.

As to constitutionality, there are only two main articles in the
constitution that are relevant to the case, while the second is
remotely related:

"Chapter 1: The Foundations of Constitutional Order Article 9 The
foreign policy of the Republic of Armenia shall be conducted in
accordance with the principles and norms of the international law,
with the aim of establishing good neighborly and mutually beneficial
relations with all states.

According to the above article it can be posited that the intent of
the Protocols is to establish "neighborly and mutually beneficial
relations".

"Article 100 The Constitutional Court shall, in conformity with
the procedure defined by law: 2) prior to the ratification of
international treaties determine the compliance of the commitments
stipulated therein with the Constitution."

This is remotely relevant, and unfortunately–as said earlier–the
Protocols have been elevated to the status of treaties.

The only solace for those who object to the constitutionality is
dependent on how the preamble of the constitution is interpreted
(bolded by Keghart).

"The Armenian People, recognizing as a basis the fundamental principles
of the Armenian statehood and national aspirations engraved in the
Declaration of Independence of Armenia, having fulfilled the sacred
message of its freedom loving ancestors for the restoration of the
sovereign state, committed to the strengthening and prosperity of the
fatherland, to ensure the freedom, general well being and civic harmony
of future generations, declaring their faithfulness to universal
values, hereby adopts the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia."

Here too, the constitution does not make land claims. There is only
a vague reference to "national aspirations" and "restoration of the
sovereign state"

Thus, it should not come as a surprise that the Court upheld the
constitutionality of the Protocols.

The answer to land claims and what descendents of Genocide
survivors define "national aspirations" lie elsewhere. Only through
re-organization of the Diaspora, and making use of all its potentials,
can the Diaspora hope to achieve what it aspires, in tandem with what
Armenia as a state can do.

Fortunately, such positive developments are blossoming in various
Armenian communities and organizations around the globe. The upcoming
12 months could determine whether Diaspora-driven initiatives regarding
our legitimate land claims are on the right track. To quote a wise
Armenian saying, "If you have fingernails, scratch your own head"
Yeghounk ounis, kloukhet kere.

Yes, we do have fingernails–no thanks to Serzh Sargsyan and Co.
From: Baghdasarian