THE TURKEY-ARMENIA AGREEMENT IS A FARCE
New America Media
ticle.html?article_id=977ea914b26e80143e57858fd998 4726
Oct 27 2009
There is, in essence, one issue that defines the Armenians’ anger
toward the agreement signed by the Turkish and Armenian governments
and currently awaiting ratification by both nations’ parliaments. It
is the matter of Genocide.
This issue has hung over Turkey like a blight, a moral disease that has
infected the state, forcing its logic of revisionism and denial upon
an entire nation. Penal codes, persecutions, millions for lobbying
and even assassination have been the unfortunate result, burdening
a struggling secularism and democracy with the specter of state terror.
Of course, there is reason to worry. Admitting to Genocide is not
only a historical issue, laying questions of failure and shame at the
heart of a nation’s identity. There are also material and other costs
involved. Punishment and retribution for a crime can take many forms,
from prosecution of the historical legacy of those responsible, to
apologies, to monetary compensation, to the return of land to victims.
There are certainly many examples of reparation by states over the
past few years for victimizing their citizenry.
The cost is also high for the survivors. Most Armenians living outside
Armenia have a direct family connection to the Genocide, and would
simply not be living dispersed across the globe today were it not for
the Genocide. Whereas more than 2 million Armenians lived in Turkey
before 1915, mostly in Eastern Turkey, today that number is less than
100,000. Are there claims to land, are there deeds of property, are
there receipts of bank accounts, are there reams of official testimony
of forced marches and of vast killing fields? Of course there are. And
there are also painful memories of human loss, of atrocities and of
an unimaginable crime denied. The Armenian Diaspora has not forgotten
its bloody genesis and has been vocal for recognition and restitution.
Since the re-establishment of the Republic of Armenia, Turkey has made
every effort to address the issue of the Genocide with the Armenian
state. Two issues have been at the center of Turkey’s effort. The
first has been to find a way to dismiss the Genocide as an issue on the
agenda of relevant international bodies (e.g. the U.S. Congress, or the
International Criminal Court), where it might lead to determinations
of guilt and possible punishment for Turkey. The second is to limit
potential compensation, at least in terms of any return of land.
But how to do this?
What if Turkey were to close the border with Armenia in 1993,
subject Armenia to economic hardship for more than a decade, and
then, as a condition to reopen the border, require that Armenia
accept Turkish demands regarding the Genocide? And what if, just in
case of last-minute reluctance, it made sure that the Americans, the
French and the Russians were there to pressure the process? That is
the farce that these protocols are. This is what Turkey wanted and
that was the scene in Zurich, where a grim-faced Armenian Foreign
Minister Edward Nalbandian signed these agreements beside a jubilant
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, surrounded by a phalanx of
enforcers: Hillary Clinton, Bernard Kouchner and Sergei Lavrov.
The Diaspora rightly saw these protocols as capitulation. Here’s why.
Firstly, why should Turkey make any demands for reopening its border
with Armenia? The two nations are not at war, and just as Turkey
unilaterally closed the border, it should simply reopen it to its
neighbor.
Secondly, why place a condition in the protocols to establish a
commission between the two nations to study the Genocide? There have
been hundreds of studies already on the historical events of the
Genocide, and the matter is largely settled by historians, despite
unrepentant Turkish denialist efforts. So what is the purpose of a
commission to study what has already been determined? This is simply
a means to relieve pressure on various governments (e.g. the U.S.
Congress) or bodies (e.g. the European Union) to make determinations
of Turkish guilt and possible reparation for the Genocide. As long as
Armenia and Turkey are engaged in official dialogue on the Genocide,
any international action regarding the Genocide will be indefinitely
postponed.
Thirdly, why force Armenia, as part of signing the protocols, to
recognize the current border with Turkey as final? This matter refers
to potential territorial reparations. By signing these protocols,
Armenia is seen to be signing away any future claims to lands that
for more than 2,500 years have been inhabited by Armenians. These
Eastern Turkish provinces are now, of course, empty of Armenians as
a result of the Genocide, but the claim to land reparation and a new
border are current issues. There are more than 200 border disputes
across the globe between countries that have, nevertheless, open
borders. The only reason for this precondition in the protocols is
to limit potential future land compensation to Armenia.
There is good reason why most Armenians, not just those in the
Diaspora, are up in arms about these protocols. Protests in Yerevan
(50,000+), Los Angeles, New York, Montreal, Paris, Beirut, Athens
and elsewhere are testament to the outrage. These protocols are an
example of how skilled diplomacy and geopolitical interests allow one
to commit a crime and then get away with it. In a world where we want
to see justice, we cannot allow geopolitical interests and expediency
to reprieve crimes. And when the sin is against humanity, as in the
case of the Armenian Genocide, the responsibility is on all of us,
not just Armenians, to demand justice.
Hayg Oshagan, an Armenian, is director of Media Arts and Studies and
professor in the Department of Communication at Wayne State University
in Detroit. He is also director of New Michigan Media.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
