RA AMBASSADOR TO USA QUESTIONS FRANKNESS OF ERDOGAN’S INITIATIVE IN THE “WASHINGTON TIMES” ARTICLE
WASHINGTON, MAY 18, NOYAN TAPAN. The attention of the American
political and diplomatic circles remains fixed to prospects of the
Armenian-Turkish relations which is connected both with the 90th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocde and the letters exchanged by
the Prime Minister of Turkey and the RA President. The Turkish Prime
Minister’s initiative concerning a joint study of the history that is
even presented as an historic opportunity gave cause of enthusiasm
to many people, and was mentioned by some Congressmen and in the
USA President’s April 24 statement. Going farther, in the article
published on May 3 in the “Washington Times” daily, Logoglu, the
Ambassador of Turkey in Washington, attempted to further support the
Turkish viewpoint and even to orient the proposed process of so called
studying the history. In the article, the Armenians are ascribed
as pretending to a monopoly of presenting their own and one-sided
interpretation of the 1915 events. Also, the Armenian Genocide
victims are put on a level with Muslims allegedly slaughtered during
the World War I. As Noyan tapan was informed from the RA Foreign
Ministry’s Press and Information Department, on May 15, 2005,
in the “Washington Times” daily, the article titled “A Promising
Start?” by Tatoul Markarian, the RA Ambassador to the USA, was
published which touched upon peculiarities of the present stage of
the Armenian-Turkish relations. The article explaines that Erdogan’s
initiative on studying the history can not be enough to reach a
progress in the Armenian-Turkish relations. Not pretending to give
final estimations to the initiative of Turkey’s Prime Minister, the
RA Ambassador points out the problems: establishment of diplomatic
relations and opening of the border. The solution of these problems
would be the evidence of frankness and seroiusness of Turkey’s
intentions. The article puts forward questionings about frankness
and efficiency of the Turkish party’s initiative taking into account
numerous legal and political obstacles present in Turkey tow
ards impartial study of the history. Responding Turkey’s Ambassador’s
public attempt to predestine this process towards a distorted result,
the RA Ambassador distinctly mentions that steps of the Turkish
party to justify the Armenian Genocide for war actions or other
reasons are imadmissible. The complete text of Tatoul Markarian’s
article submitted by the RA Foreign Ministry is presented below:
“A Promising Start? As the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide
approached last month, Turkish Prime Minister Receip Tayyip Erdogan
came up with an initiative in a letter to Armenian President Robert
Kocharian, proposing creation of a joint commission to address the
history. In response, Mr. Kocharian called on Turkey to establish
diplomatic relations and open its border with Armenia without
preconditions, and to form an intergovernmental commission to address
all bilateral concerns. No matter how unconventional this type of
public communication may be between leaders of two neighboring
nations, it is tempting to see Turkey may really open up for
serious dialog. Mr. Erdogan’s initiative, assuming its sincere aim
is normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations, still raises many
questions. A genuine effort by the Turkish government to allow
the Turkish scholars to investigate the dark chapters of Turkish
history would be worthy, though much belated. Such a move by the
Turkish government would undoubtedly be applauded by our nations’ true
friends, as it would indeed begin a process of alleviating the burden
of history in our region. Armenia would be the first to welcome such
a move by the Turkish government. This would allow Turkish scholars
to reveal the truth and help its political leadership accept and
condemn it. Let us hope, however, that Prime Minister Erdogan’s call
to concentrate on addressing the past will not deflect from addressing
pressing issues of the present and the future and that this will not
deepen still further the division on both sides about what happened in
1915. Yet, as long as there are political taboos and legal obstacles
to the free discussion and comprehension of this issue in Turkey,
including criminal penalties in the new Turkish Penal Code for mere
assertion of the term genocide, any investigation mandated by the
Turkish government will have a pre-determined outcome. A Turkish
newspaper, Zaman, noted on April 23 that the Turkish Government
should “lift all legal and other obstacles to the free investigation,
discussion, and comprehension of ‘What happened in 1915?’ ” Also, we
witness the dangerous temptation of modern-day Turkish officials to
present the extermination of the Ottoman Empire’s Armenian population
as a result of World War I. We want to remind all that it was the
exact hope, argument and calculation of the perpetrators that the
massacres and deportations of Armenians would pass unnoticed under
the cover of World War I. Neither war nor anything else can explain or
justify the murder of 1.5 million innocent Armenian children, women,
and men in the Ottoman Turkey. Turkish officials claim Armenians
alone define the history of those days. First, the historical record
is both rich and well-documented. The process for establishing the
truth started in the wake of World War I, as the Turkish military
tribunal sentenced the perpetrators of the massacres and deportation
of Armenians to the death penalty in 1919. That fact is deliberately
bypassed by governments in modern-day Turkey. This process has
progressed very far, especially in the last decade, with a growing
number of countries properly recognizing and strongly condemning
the events of 90 years ago. Turkey coming to terms with its past
has become a test of its willingness to embrace human rights and
fundamental values. And it is Turkey that is “missing the bus,” at
a cost of credibility and time. Second, we should not be blamed for
defining the history alone: Ever since its independence, Armenia has
consistently proposed, without preconditions, establishing diplomatic
relations, opening the border and allowing the people to inte!
ract free ly, thus helping create the proper environment for
a discussion of all issues of bilateral importance. However,
Turkey’s denial of history has not been the only problem. Turkey
has persistently refused to establish diplomatic relations with
Armenia, imposed a blockade on the Turkish-Armenian border and
prioritized ethnic solidarity with Azerbaijan over Turkey’s
international obligations, instead of helping settle the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict. Thus, Turkey’s rejection of not only the past
but also the present left Armenians with no choice but to pursue its
quest for justice — both historical and contemporary — within the
international framework. Armenia is firm on its intent to seize on
the opportunity presented by the exchange between our two countries’
leaders. However, caution is also inspired by the fact Prime Minister
Erdogan’s letter was hurriedly circulated to European capitals and
the United States Congress prior to the April 24 Commemoration Day and
even before Armenian President Kocharian had an opportunity to respond
formally. This left an impression the initiative may not have been
mainly directed at Armenia. Could it have been a tactical maneuver
intended to upstage the 90th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide,
or to sidetrack European and other inquiries? We are interested in
concrete steps and results, never in a vague process for the sake
of process. That is why we proposed and are proposing again the
establishment without preconditions of normal relations between
Armenia and Turkey. As President Kocharian mentioned in his reply,
that will allow an intergovernmental commission to meet and discuss
any and all outstanding issues between our nations, with the aim of
resolving them and reaching an understanding”.