Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 16 2010
Court decision on protocols a real test for Armenia
Armenia’s Constitutional Court has ruled that protocols signed with
Turkey on normalizing relations and establishing diplomatic ties
between the two neighbors are constitutional, a move seen as a real
test showing the Armenia government’s determination to move forward
with the protocols.
The court issued its ruling on Tuesday, ending a dispute over whether
the protocols equate to betraying Armenian statehood, as the
opposition had claimed. Most of the opposition parties in Armenia
based their claims on the assumption that the protocols are a `big
compromise’ with Turkey, which has yet to recognize the so-called
Armenian `genocide.’
The ruling means the protocols can now move on to the Armenian
Parliament for ratification. According to Armenian law, every
international treaty the Armenian government signs must follow the
same process. Ratification of the protocols, however, comes with a
prerequisite: Turkey must ratify them first.
The protocols, designed to end decades of hostility between the two
countries, were a real challenge to both nations. Turkey devoted a
great deal of effort to assure a close ally, the oil and gas-rich
Azerbaijan, that it will protect its interests throughout the process.
Turkey imports gas and oil from Azerbaijan at prices considerably
lower than the global average. Armenia, in contrast, was supported by
its historic ally Russia and faced growing opposition from both the
worldwide Armenian diaspora and local groups.
Armenian Constitutional Court President Gagik Harutyunyan announced
that the protocols `conform to the constitution of Armenia’ amid
protests from those present in the courtroom and those waiting
outside. The opposition described the court decision as a `betrayal.’
Speaking to Today’s Zaman, Richard Giragosian, director of the
Yerevan-based Armenian Center for National and International Studies,
said the Armenian Constitutional Court’s decision comes as no
surprise. Noting that the protocols were widely expected to be
approved by the court, he said the timing of the next stage of
Armenian action on the protocols depends on Turkey. `The status of the
protocols has now clearly been delayed and is now hostage to domestic
Turkish politics. The fact that the fate of the protocols now depends
on the course of domestic politics within Turkey also means that no
one — not the Americans, not the EU, not Russia nor even Armenia —
can influence the outcome,’ Giragosian said.
Stressing the importance of the court’s ruling, the director of
Yerevan’s leading think tank said the decision was a political hurdle
and a test for the Armenian government, adding that it clearly showed
that authorities in Yerevan are just as committed to the protocols as
before. To support his argument, Giragosian said Armenian authorities
could have, had they wanted to, used the court ruling as a graceful
way to back out of the protocols.
Evaluating the consequences of the ruling to Today’s Zaman, Laurence
Broers, the Caucasus projects manager of the London-based Conciliation
Resources, said the ruling `was a development to be expected,’
pointing to the determination of President Serzh Sarksyan to take his
Turkey policy forward and the general subordination of the judiciary
to the executive in Armenia. While noting that the opposition’s
arguments, with the expectation of continued isolation, do not offer a
viable or desirable alternative, Broers described the situation as one
where `a weak president is pushing through an internationally popular
policy that is quite divisive at home. In this context I would expect
those institutions more or less under presidential influence [the
ruling party, the judiciary and governmental media] to support the
policy.’
Emphasizing the ruling’s significance as a signal of the continued
determination of the Sarksyan administration to take the policy
forward, Broers said people in Armenia are aware that the alternative
— continued regional isolation, contested and unenforceable claims to
territory and the continued politics of mutual suspicion and
alienation with Turkey — is not appealing.
While ruling out any `political message to the world’ that the
decision may convey, Giragosian said it does demonstrate the contrast
between the two sides, as Armenia stands quite ready and willing to
fulfill the protocols while Turkey now seems to be stalling. In
contrast, speaking about the message sent to the world by the court’s
decision, Broers said the political message to the Western world is
that the Sarksyan administration has not lost its determination to
take this forward. `So one message of this ruling is that this is
Armenia’s issue [and not that of the Armenian diaspora]. Armenian
state structures will push it through. With regard to the diaspora,
one certainly hopes that one day a structure for addressing their
claims will be created — but this can only happen in a context of
transformed Turkish-Armenian relations,’ Broers concluded.
Noting that the ruling will not weaken the arguments of the
opposition, Broers said only continued, visible and constructive
engagement between the Turkish and Armenian governments and convincing
arguments about the benefits of Turkish-Armenian rapprochement can
weaken the opposition. Voicing a similar opinion, Giragosian said the
decision `will most likely bolster efforts by the opposition Armenian
Revolutionary Federation [ARF, Dashnaktsutiun] to introduce a new
legislative initiative that would essentially prohibit Turkish and
other foreign companies from purchasing land in Armenia’s border
regions.’
16 January 2010, Saturday
MAHIR ZEYNALOV BAKU
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
