IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GAIN NORMALIZATION OF ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS ON THE BASIS OF PROTOCOLS
David Stepanyan

ArmInfo
2010-05-17 16:25:00

Interview of Larisa Alaverdyan, Heritage Party Faction Secretary,
with ArmInfo news agency

Mrs. Alaverdyan, Heritage Party qualifies suspension of ratification
of the Protocols as a half-measure. What steps should Armenia take
with respect to Turkey in Heritage Party’s opinion?

I think suspension of ratification of the Protocols is insufficient
because the Protocols are contrary to the law, for they do not
reflect the ways of settling the problems that Armenia, specifically,
the National Assembly has faced. The Heritage Party and its faction
disagree with the Protocols because they are illegal. The point is that
the Armenian Parliament is to adopt a resolution on ratification of an
obviously illegal document. The Protocols contain some articles that
are at least strange for a document on establishment of good-neighborly
relations between the two countries. This concerns mutual recognition
of the borders, the hidden dangers already mentioned by Ankara, which
will allow Turkey to involve Armenia in absolutely inefficient disputes
around the NKR and the Genocide problem. I say a problem because
now the point is not recognition of the fact that Turks, to put it
crudely, slaughtered Armenians, but the fact of the crime committed
against humanity. There are all facts proving that crime. Turks have
already started involving us in inefficient disputes bringing silly
and unconvincing arguments.

Armenia should have rejected such a document even before signing. Now
that Armenia has already signed these documents, our authorities have
to recall signatures from the Protocols without refusing to normalize
relations with Turkey, and to offer a new mutually acceptable format
of normalization. Turkey has not concealed from the very beginning
that when establishing relations with Armenia it comes out as the
stronger party, like when blocking the border or giving its consent to
establishment of normal relations. That is why Heritage thinks that
suspension of ratification in Armenian parliament is a half-measure,
which may lead to negative consequences.

What hinders Armenian authorities to recall the signatures from the
Protocols, besides the external pressure?

I think that external pressure in this case is restricted to
coordinated participation of external forces both in this process
and in the developments in our region. The interests of the external
forces and the national interests of Armenia have not coincided in
the Armenian-Turkish process from the very beginning. However, their
participation in the process continues despite some disagreements
after the president of Armenia suspended ratification of the
Protocols. However, despite this, US President Obama did not say
the magic word we were eager to hear from him. I am convinced that
signing the Protocols was not a one-step combination for the West,
since the Protocols and the developments around these documents are
a complex of various combinations for the West. In general, the West
needs such combinations to show Turkey its place because the latter
claims the role of almost the leader in the region making the mighty of
this world angry. In the meantime, the psychological component of the
situation shows that the open enthusiasm of the Armenian authorities
at the moment of signing the Protocols, when the signature implied one
thing and the face of the Armenian foreign minister expressed quite
another thing, has turned into understanding of the fact that the
Protocols have not brought Armenia what the external forces expected
when signing them.

Does it mean that Turks have come off clear once again?

The Turkish diplomacy is definitely in an advantageous situation at
the given stage despite its rough methods. Turkey is not obliged to
make any responsive steps, like many in Armenia think for some unknown
reason, because of the principle "who holds the ball he holds the key".

Thanks to the Protocols, Turkey would gain "mutual recognition of
its present borders". Why has Ankara refused to ratify them if the
Protocols contained hidden dangers only for Armenia? Has it refused
doing this just because of Azerbaijan?

Actually, thanks to the Protocols, Turkey would really gain recognition
of its present borders, which is rather a hard problem for it. Hereby,
Turkey could easily gain actual affirmation of the illegal borders,
for no single signature affirming the existing borders of Turkey was
put by the USSR or the Armenian SSR. They in Moscow were well aware
that it was not just a moral problem, as the unrecognized borders
of Turkey are a good card for a geopolitical game. That is why all
the statements by political experts regarding the final decision of
the USSR on this issue are so equivocal. I think that this ambiguous
domestic political situation in Turkey, particularly, the factor of
a possible military coup and change of the political course of Turkey
had their role in the process.

Do you mean the irretrievable islamization?

This is not even islamization, the matter concerns even more
turkization of modern Turkey, i.e. returning to the Ottoman Empire’s
ideology, particularly, the absurd idea about the Great Turan. This
idea is alive and, like any other nationalistic idea, it may fade for
a little time, but can never die out. As regards the islamisation
factor, which is so much spoken about, I do not think Turkey will
be islamised some day; on the contrary, it will always use Islam
for more turkism, which is already prevailing in all the political
plans of Ankara. As regards Azerbaijan’s role in the Armenian-Turkish
relations, it is perceived dually in Turkey. I belong to the people,
who do not consider Azerbaijan an independent state since the moment
of its formation. Azerbaijan is the first pre-Cyprian experience of
formation of a Turkish state outside the territory of the Ottoman
Empire. This was a quite successful policy, as even sovetization
of Azerbaijan failed to prevent this territory from turning into a
pro-Turkish one.

At the same time, accordance in the actions of Turkey and Azerbaijan
at the top level does not let Ankara see normalization of the
Armenian-Turkish relations outside the context of the Karabakh conflict
and the Armenian Genocide problem. Karabakh was the first reason
for blockading Armenia. For this reason it will be very hard for the
authorities of Turkey to explain to their own party and the people
why having started the blockade because of the Karabakh conflict they
suddenly stopped it gaining nothing. Moreover, if the year of 1993
promised any possible success to Azerbaijan, today these hopes for the
military resolving of the Karabakh conflict are disappearing day by
day. This is taking place not because Azerbaijan is not strengthening
its army, it is happening contrary to this process. Just the same
way as fascism, placing stake only on force, Turkey and Azerbaijan
have already broken their back.

They in Armenia have started speaking of the legal aspects of
Nakhijevan’s status after suspension of ratification of the
Protocols…

Armenia’s stance, its silent consent to Azerbaijan’s illegal dominion
over the territory that does not belong to it is wrongful. It is just
independent Armenia that could quite tactfully raise the issue of
Nakhijevan in terms of the law and regional stability. From the legal
point of view, Nakhijevan cannot belong to Azerbaijan, the status of
Nakhijevan must return the situation either to the Treaty of Sevres
or to revision of the given problem by Russia and Turkey. Nakhijevan,
Zangezour and Karabakh in line with their last international legal
status are disputable territories between Armenia and Azerbaijan,
as the treaty on Nakhijevan between Russia and Turkey is rather
vulnerable from the legal point of view. Hence, I think that the issue
of Nakhijevan’s status must be raised sooner or later. This issue is
already raised in Armenia, since it is very important to lift the
factors weakening the Turkish-Azerbaijani party to the surface in
the context of the existing state of affairs of Armenia.

Taking into account that Turkey controls Nakhijevan by 90%?

Naturally, of course. Therefore, it is very important today to bring
all these links, which clearly indicate illegal attempts to solve
regional problems, into one chain. Armenia should raise this issue at
a diplomatic, official level, as the subject of Nakhijevan is still
relevant at the widest level, since our region borders on the Arab,
Muslim and Christian world. So, in order not to make Nakhijevan an
apple of discord for the next war, one should discuss this issue at
the table, having returned it the status of a disputable territory
at least.

How do you see the future of Armenian-Turkish relations, unless on
the basis on the Protocols?

There are also processes outside politics in the world. These hidden
processes in the general normalization process between Armenia and
Turkey preceding the radical political decision have already been
updated. By the way, this process was initiated by the Turkish
intellectuals, however, it was not properly assessed in Armenia.

Nevertheless, the process has started and will continue against
the will of politicians in Turkey. Armenia is ready for a dialogue
and contacts with the Turkish public. That is why the normalization
process will go on. As regards the political process, it will have
a contradictory nature, for Armenia and Turkey have already faced
the first deadlock, but I am sure not the last. Passivity in ideas,
actions and conceptual passivity were and are still peculiar to the
Armenian diplomacy. Therefore, it is not possible to gain normalization
of the Armenian-Turkish relations on the basis of the Protocols. The
protocols will either lead the process to another deadlock or aggravate
the situation.