Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
March 29 2015

The concept of the Armenian state must be different from that of the diaspora

28 March 2015 – 6:18pm

Interview with Denis Maksimov, especially for Vestnik Kavkaza

On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in the
Ottoman Empire, the central themes being discussed in the political
and expert circles of Armenia are the national, state and
international aspects of the genocide. The debate around the recent
statements by the first president, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, occupies a
special place. The ex-President expressed concern about the content
commissioned by the authorities of the Pan-Armenian Declaration and
pointed to the need for the publication of this document.
Ter-Petrosyan said that Armenia should not make international
recognition of the “genocide” the cornerstone of its foreign policy
and should not confront Turkey with demands for recognition of
“genocide”, seeing it as an internal affair of the latter. Political
scientist Arman Gevorgyan answered the questions of Vestnik Kavkaza
regarding the position of Ter-Petrosyan and the position of the
authorities.

– How can the approach of the first president on the genocide issue
generally be described?

– To understand the position of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, you need to
understand the philosophy of the authors of the declaration, which
proceed from the necessity of worldwide recognition of the genocide,
including the recognition of the genocide in Ankara, Turkey, on the
basis of which the lost territories must be returned to the Armenians
and to compensate the descendants of the victims of genocide for
property damage. This view prevails in the Diaspora, and it’s
conventionally called the diaspora concept. Actually, in the
declaration the approaches of ARF Dashnaktsutyun (ARF) are reflected,
which is a kind of supporter and conductor of the Diaspora’s concept.
But the concept of the state in this matter, according to the first
president, should be different from that of the Diaspora.

Another point of view, which is reflected in the Declaration of
Independence of Armenia (DND) adopted on August 23rd 1991, should be
recalled. The vision set out at the bottom was adopted after a long
discourse in parliament by the first legislature. According to the
logic of the bottom of the text, Armenia, as a state which condemns
genocide and supports the demands of the Armenian Diaspora (formed as
a result of the genocide) of international recognition of the crime.
However, the issue of international recognition of this fact, as well
as the requirement for Turkey to recognize the genocide, are not part
of public policy. The bilateral format provides for the establishment
of relations without any precondition

– What threats does the Pan-Armenian declaration hold?

– It is a question of the security of Armenia. The contracts that
define the borders of Armenia today were concluded in the early 1920s.
According to these documents, Armenia has lost a significant part of
its historical territory. Turkey recognizes these borders. At the OSCE
summit in Istanbul in December 1999, the second president Robert
Kocharyan signed the final document, which includes a clause stating
that Armenia has no territorial claims against any state. Thus, the
adoption on the 100th anniversary of the genocide of the Pan-Armenian
declaration contradicts a number of international commitments of
Armenia, as well as the Declaration of Independence as a fundamental
public document.

The Republic of Armenia has always insisted on the right of nations to
self-determination, but never before has it had territorial claims.
Due to the Pan-Armenian Declaration, Armenia became a country that has
territorial claims. Accordingly, the state to which these requirements
are addressed may, according to a number of international documents,
including the contracts defining the borders of Armenia, put
international diplomatic pressure on Armenia. This will create
problems for Armenia in foreign policy and security.

– How would you describe the position of the world’s political
centers, primarily the United States, on Armenian-Turkish relations?
It is known that the negotiations between the Armenian and Turkish
sides were closed due to the interference of the US mediatiors.

– Yes, indeed, since the beginning of the 2000s American diplomacy has
actively led the negotiation process, beginning at the expert level
(in particular, we are talking about the Turkish-Armenian
Reconciliation Commission), then at government level. Then, in the
framework of these initiatives followed by “football diplomacy” and
the signing in October 2009 of the Armenian-Turkish protocols. But US
diplomacy has failed. The main mistake of the American intermediaries
was that they tried to combine two completely different processes:
reconciliation and normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. The
first involves a very complicated and long process that can last for
decades, and the second is a state legal process. Mixing these two
processes up has led to useless documents being signed by the Parties.
New negotiations and new protocols are needed.

– Does the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) not see any
threats in some of the approaches set out in the Pan-Armenian
Declaration?

– The RPA acts according to the ideological doctrine of the party,
which is much more rigid than the ARF party’s doctrine. At least in
the Republican Party’s initial doctrine there was an item on the
revision of the treaties.

– Why do the Armenian authorities suddenly need to change approaches
in foreign policy, as set out in the basic public document – the
Declaration of Independence of 1991?

– In order to implement its main project – the reproduction of power
through constitutional reforms – President Serzh Sargsyan needs
political allies, in this case we are talking about the ARF. The
Declaration was adopted in the interests of the ARF party, which holds
its political line.

The President is trying to solve the problem of his faltering
reputation in the Diaspora. Because in the minutes there was a clause
about the establishment of a joint commission of historians to study
the events of the last century. In fact, these were the Turkish
preconditions which were agreed by the Yerevan authorities in 2009,
and it has caused a huge wave of indignation in the Diaspora. The
birth of the Pan-Armenian Declaration was the result of internal
processes. The Declaration, which bears the signature of the
president, has no serious political force. There is no guarantee that
future Armenian authorities will stick to the policy approaches set
out in the Declaration. The concept of the Armenian state should be
different from the concept of the Diaspora.