Jump to content


Photo

PROTOCOLS


  • Please log in to reply
260 replies to this topic

#1 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 16 September 2009 - 07:49 AM

http://news.am/en/news/3438.html
RA MFA issues Armenian-Turkish Protocols
00:22 / 09/01/2009

Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued two protocols signed by Armenia and Turkey under Swiss mediation. NEWS.am releases the full text of the protocols.
Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.
The Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.
Desiring to establish good neighbourly relations and to develop bilateral cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and other fields for the benefit of their peoples, as envisaged in the Protocol on the development of relations signed on the same day.
Referring to their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe,
Reconfirming their commitment, in their bilateral and international relations, to respect and ensure respect for the principles of equality, sovereignty, non-intervention in internal affairs of other states, territorial integrity and inviolability of frontiers,
Bearing in mind the importance of the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere of trust and confidence between the two countries that will contribute to the strengthening of peace, security and stability of the whole region, as well as being determined to refrain from the threat of the use of force, to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes, and to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Confirming the mutual recognition of the existing border between the two countries as defined relevant treaties of international law,
Emphasizing their decisions to open the common border,
Reiterating their commitment to refrain from pursuing any policy incompatible with the spirit of good neighbourly relations,
Condemning all forms of terrorism, violence and extremism irrespective of their cause, pledging to refrain from encouraging and tolerating such acts and to cooperate against them,
Affirming their willingness to chart a new pattern and course for their relations on the basis of common interests, goodwill and in pursuit of peace, mutual understanding and harmony,
Agree to establish diplomatic relations as of the date of the entry into force of this Protocol accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and to exchange Diplomatic Missions.
This Protocol and the Protocol on the Development of Bilateral Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey shall enter into force on the same day, i.e. on the first day of the first month following of instruments of ratification.
Signed in (place) on (date) in Armenian, Turkish and English languages authentic copies in duplicate. In case of divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.
For the Republic of Armenia
For the Republic of Turkey
Protocol on Development of Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.
The Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.
Guided by the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey signed on the same day,
Considering the perspectives of developing their bilateral relations, based on confidence and respect to their mutual interests,
Determining to develop and enhance their bilateral relations, in the political, economic, energy, transport, scientific, technical, cultural issues and other fields, based on common interest of both countries,
Supporting the promotion of the cooperation between the two countries, in the international and regional organi9zations, especially within the framework of the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the BSEC,
Taking into account the common purpose of both States to cooperate for enchancimg regional stability and security for ensuring the democratic and sustainable development of the region,
Reiterating their commitment to the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes and the conflicts on the basis of the norms and principles of law,
Reaffirming their readiness to actively support the actions of eth international community in addressing common security threats to the region and world security and stability, such as terrorism, transnational organized crimes, illicit trafficking of drugs and arms,
-----
1. Agree to open the common border within 2 months after the entry into force of this Protocol,
2. Agree to conduct regular political consultations between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the two countries;
implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations;
make the best possible use of existing transport, communications and energy infrastructure and networks between the two countries, and to undertake measures in this regard;
develop the bilateral legal framework in order to foster cooperation between the two countries;
cooperate in the fields of science and education by encouraging relations between the appropriate institutions as well as promoting the exchange of specialists and students, and act with the aim of preserving the cultural heritage of both sides and launching common cultural projects;
establish consular cooperation in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 in order to provide necessary assistance and protection to the citizens of the two countries;
take concrete measures in order to develop trade, tourism and economic cooperation between the two countries;
engage in a dialogue and reinforce their cooperation on environmental issues.
3. Agree on the establishment of an intergovernmental bilateral commission which shall comprise separate sub-commissions for the prompt implementation of the commitments mentioned in operational paragraph 2 above in this Protocol. To prepare the working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commissions, a working group headed by the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs shall be created 2 months after the day following the entry into force of this Protocol. Within 3 months after the entry into force of this Protocol, these modalities shall be approved at ministerial level. The intergovernmental commission shall meet for the first time immediately after the adoption of the said modalities. The sub-commissions shall start their work at the latest 1 month thereafter and they shall work continuously until the completion of their mandates. The timetable and elements agreed by both sides for the implementation of this Protocol are mentioned in the annexed document, which is integral part of this Protocol.
This Protocol and the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey shall enter into force on the same day, i.e. on the first day of the first month following the exchange of instruments of ratification.
Signed in (place) on (date) in Armenian, Turkish and English authentic copies in duplicate. In case of divergence of interpretation, the English text shall prevail.
For the Republic of Armenia
For the Republic of Turkey
Annexed document: Timetable and elements for the implementation of the Protocol on development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.
Timetable and elements for the implementation of the Protocol on development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey
Steps to be undertaken Timing
1. to open the common border within 2 months after the entry into force of the Protocol on the development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey
2. to establish a working group headed by the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs to prepare the working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commission 2 months after the day following the entry into force of the Protocol on the development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey
3. to approve the working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commissions at ministerial level within 3 months after the entry into force of the Protocol on the development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey
4. to organize the first meeting of the intergovernmental commission immediately after the adoption of the working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commissions at ministerial level
5. to operate the following sub-commissions:
the sub-commission on political consultations;
the sub-commission on transport, communications and energy infrastructure and networks;
the sub-commission on legal matters;
the sub-commission on science and education;
the sub-commission on trade, tourism and economic cooperation;
the sub-commission on environmental issues: and
the sub-commission on the historical dimension to implement a dialogue with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archive to define existing problems and formulate recommendations, in which Armenian, Turkish as well as Swiss and other international experts shall take part. at the latest 1 month after the first meeting of the intergovernmental commission






#2 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 16 September 2009 - 08:26 AM

Pros and cons.
Btw, the definition of “protocol”=an original draft or record of a document, negotiation etc.
Some sources are using the following as the Armenian description.
Հայ-Թուրքական Արձանագրութիւններ
------
http://www.reporter....urkey-protocols
Editors in Armenia are split over the newly unveiled Armenia-Turkey protocols
by Tatul Hakobyan
Published: Thursday September 10, 2009
Yerevan - Armine Ohanyan is the editor of the daily Hraparak. She is one of the few editors in Armenia who has consistently supported the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey - even when the simplistic formulation, "the Turk remains a Turk," was popular in Armenia's political culture and found official favor.
"Our newspaper has a positive attitude toward the protocols that have been initialed," she said. "In them I see possibilities for the development of the country and for progress. Having an open border with neighbors, trade, good-neighborly relations, and tourism in both directions is normal; the opposite is not normal. In the end, centuries of enmity cause greater harm than the nonrecognition of the Genocide causes," she added.
Ms. Ohanyan thinks that the recognition of the Genocide by Turkey too must be achieved by normalizing relations and overcoming enmity.
Asked whether Armenia was paying too steep a price for the improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations, Ms. Ohanyan said, "If you are talking about that infamous commission, then I see no great danger there." The protocols provide for a commission on the "historical dimension" that is expected to examine the veracity of the Armenian Genocide, a matter that specialists consider settled.
"If you are talking about returning the territories adjacent to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic," Ms. Ohanyan continued, "I think we will have to return them sooner of later, independently of Armenia-Turkey relations." She was referring to the repeated statements of Turkish officials that they would not agree to normalize relations with Armenia unless an Azerbaijan-favorable resolution to the Karabakh conflict is agreed to.
16 years of Turkish hostility
Most of the mass media in Armenia have kept pace with the government; whereas in the past they joined the administration of former President Robert Kocharian in being critical of Turkey and its hostile actions against Armenia, they are now joining the administration of President Serge Sargsian in advocating normal relations and praising the protocols that have been negotiated.
An exception is the Yerkir Media television station, which is focused on persuading viewers that the protocols strongly favor the interests of Turkey over those of Armenia and the Armenian people. Gegham Manukian, who heads the station's news and political programming, said Turkey is getting much more out of the bargain than it was reasonable to expect.
"For 16 years, Armenia drew the attention of the international community to Turkey's deliberate blockade; there were numerous calls by Armenia and its friends to end the blockade," he said. "Now the government signs on to the formulation that Armenia and Turkey ‘agree to open the common border.' But Armenia never closed the border. In one fell swoop, Turkey is absolved of 16 years of unilateral hostility, of being the blockader, of trying to strangle Armenia."
Mr. Manukian believes that if the protocols are ratified, Turkey will see all three of its longstanding preconditions met: first, the recognition of existing borders and their inviolability and, moreover, a confirmation of the Treaty of Kars; second, a blow to the Armenian side in the Karabakh conflict through the endorsement of the principle of the inviolability of borders - with no mention of the key right of self-determination of peoples; and third, the historical commission, which is supposed to engage in "an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives" - as if scholarly research hitherto has been biased.
A $12 ride in 1976
Hakob Avedikian, the editor of the daily Azg, does not think it's a time to panic or get excited. Rather, it's a time for cold, thoughtful approaches. It is a historic moment, he said, because Turkey is expressing "a willingness to enter diplomatic relations with Armenia, reopen the border with our country, and to end its blockade of Armenia, encouraging Azerbaijan to take a similar step."
Mr. Avedikian is one of the few Armenians who crossed the border in question back in 1976 on his way from Lebanon to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic - a reminder that the border was open even during the Cold War. He said he paid $12 to take the Kars-Akhurian train. Mr. Avedikian said few Armenians took that train. It was mostly used by Turks going to Baku. If the border is opened, "Armenia will immediately receive a range of economic opportunities," he said.
Open borders will allow Armenia to take advantage of new routes for communications, energy, and cargo, Mr. Avedikian argued. The burden of the Russian military presence will be lightened, Armenia will become less dependent on the economic and political whims of Georgia, and broad possibilities for the diversification of the economy emerge, he added.
But the protocols in their present state, he said, also contain "strong risks, massive concessions, pregnant with fateful consequences.
"A strong psychological and practical blow is being delivered against the Armenian Cause - Hai Tahd. The protocols in effect force our people to give up on the Great Dream, and they undermine the solidarity of Armenia and the diaspora, as well as the solidarity of the people and the state," he said.
Mr. Avedikian concludes with a rhetorical question: "Do we want the great Armenia of our dreams, or the small but real Armenia we have?"

© 2009 Armenian Reporter






#3 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 16 September 2009 - 08:40 AM

Another view.
------
http://www.hairenik....rkey-protocols/
ARF CC Urges Wide Community Support for AYF Protest
By Weekly Staff • on September 15, 2009 •
Scheduled to Meet with Ambassador Markarian to State Concerns
The ARF Eastern Region Central Committee (CC) issued a statement on Sept. 13 denouncing the protocols recently announced by the foreign ministers of Armenia and Turkey for the normalization of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia.
The statement notes that while the Central Committee agrees that Armenia and Turkey “must take steps to normalize relations,” any protocols between the two neighboring countries must be free of preconditions that are dangerous to Armenia’s national interests.
The protocols “only codify grave errors in Armenia’s current foreign policy,” the statement asserts. “As issued, the protocols reveal that Armenia has willingly accepted establishment of relations with Turkey based on preconditions that are dangerous to Armenia’s sovereignty, safety, and integrity, and that benefit long-held official Turkish government interests, including denial of the Armenian Genocide and destruction of the protected self-determination rights of Nagorno-Karabagh’s citizens.”
The Central Committee has called on all Armenians residing in communities throughout the eastern United States to support a “Protest for Justice” this Sat., Sept. 19 from 12-3 p.m. at the Republic of Armenia’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, 119 East 36th St. in New York.
The protest is sponsored by the Armenian Youth Federation (AYF) Eastern Region to support recognition of the Armenian Genocide and protest efforts to undermine genocide recognition and the relinquishing of reparation rights.
“We support the AYF’s protest,” said CC chairman Antranig Kasbarian. “All concerned Armenians should find a way to be present in New York City on Sept. 19 to support the AYF’s effort to bring wide attention to this issue and pressure the government of Armenia to go back to the drawing board with Turkey and remove all preconditions dangerous to the Armenian nation.”
In addition to supporting the AYF’s Sept. 19 protest, the CC has established an “e-card” campaign, is mobilizing its local committees for action, and will lead a national delegation to meet with Armenian Ambassador to the United States Tatoul Markarian to present and discuss the ARF Eastern Region’s position on the current state of the protocols.
======
ARF Begins Protest Against Armenia-Turkey Protocols
By Weekly Staff • on September 15, 2009 •
A poster released by the ARF asking Armenians not to give in.
YEREVAN—The Supreme Council of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) on Tues., Sept. 15 kicked off its month-long protest against the protocols between Armenia and Turkey with a hunger strike and sit-in at the foreign ministry and government headquarters, reported Yerkir.
As 24 ARF members—symbolizing April 24—began their hunger strike at the foreign ministry, some 60 members began a sit-in at the government building. Chanting “No concessions to Turkey!” and “Nalabandian must resign,” the protesters also initiated a petition campaign against the protocols, collecting signatures from passersby in high-traffic Republic Square.
ARF Supreme Council of Armenia chairman Armen Rustamian told those gathered outside that the sit-in and the hunger strike would continue until provisions of the protocols are amended.
“These demonstrations are meant to reject the preconditions forced on us, and demand that the provisions of the document that jeopardize Armenian interests are reviewed,” Rustamian said. “No matter how hard the government is trying to say that there are no preconditions in the document, we believe they serve only Turkish interests. They say the Kars Treaty is not mentioned in the protocols; then why does it say that we have to recognize the current boundaries? These borders are described only in the 1921 Kars Treaty. No other treaty speaks of the borders.”
“We demand that authorities include our proposed changes in the protocols. These documents are anti-Armenian and cannot be signed in their current format. We’ll continue the protest and hunger strike unless all our proposals are considered,” echoed ARF parliamentary bloc member Artyusha Shahbazyan.
ARF Bureau member and parliamentary bloc leader Vahan Hovannesian said that the authorities had agreed to the protocols because they did not understand the inherent dangers and consequences to their actions.
“Officials also have national responsibilities,” he said. “They are responsible for our future generations.” The ARF has not abandoned its calls for Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian to resign, he added. For while in Turkey, the government has reached out to political forces on the matter, such efforts by Armenian officials have not been made in earnest. “The public at-large is not aware of the full scope of the developments,” Hovanessian said.
The ARF’s political affairs director, Giro Manoyan, said the authorities had not intention of amending the protocols.
“We are not given a chance to present our concerns to the people. There are two key provisions that disturb us: the recognition of the borders and the establishment of a commission tasked with addressing historical issues that would enable Turkey to discuss the issue of the genocide,” he said.




#4 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 19 September 2009 - 07:20 AM

Has anyone read the so called “protocols”? Do we understand it article by article, “pre-conditions“ or none?
Let’s take a look at some of the symbolisms.
Symbolism # 1. On April 22, 2009, less than two days before April 24, a “loud and clear” declaration about the ongoing so called “dialogue” was announced. It was deemed that two days was long enough time for Pres. Obama to edit his Declaration and change some of the wordings, I.e change the G word to “Mets Yeghern”.
Symbolism # 2. See below. The so called “protocol” will be signed on Oct. 13, 2009, only one day before Pres. Sargisian’s anticipated attendance of the “football match” on Oct 14, 2009.Which also, not by mere coincidence is the 88th anniversary of the so called ill fated Kars Treaty.
----
Is that why that son of a canine dancing?
Kochari ala Mustafa- Celebrating the Kars treaty?
http://www.sumerezgu...62008231615.JPG
http://www.asbarez.c...ty-anniversary/

Protocols Will be Signed on Kars Treaty Anniversary
Posted By Ara Khachatourian On September 17, 2009 @ 11:50 am In Armenia, Commentary, Featured Story, International, Opinion, Top Stories, Turkey-Armenia Protocol
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey, dancing.
Neither the Turkish nor the Armenian foreign ministries refuted reports by the Milliyet newspaper that the dangerous Turkey-Armenia protocols are scheduled to be signed on October 13.
It is interesting that the news came from unnamed officials at the Turkish foreign ministry and, once again, Turkey—and not Armenia—is setting the course and the agenda for normalizing relations.
And what an agenda it is. October 13 is not merely the day before the scheduled Armenia-Turkey European qualifier soccer match, it also marks the 88th anniversary of signing of the Kars treaty, on which the recognition of the current boundaries provision of the protocols is based.
With neither country refuting the report on the signing of the protocols, Turkey is poised to capitalize on its past misdeeds, while Armenia legitimizes a clandestine treaty through which Turkey annexed historic territories of Armenia, among them Ani, Kars, Ardahan and, of course, Mt. Ararat.
What Serzh Sarkisian thought to be a shrewd political move when he invited his Turkish counterpart to Armenia in June 2008 has evolved into a national disaster with detrimental consequences for the future of the Armenian Nation.
Now, that nation is divided, especially in Armenia, where the authorities are utilizing the protocol-imposed six-week public discussion period to forcefully convince the people of Armenia that the protocols will not endanger Armenia’s national security nor the future of the nation.
In his customary patronizing manner, Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian, having returned from a “crucial” jaunt to China, finally addressed the parliament regarding the protocols and expressed his surprise at inquiries regarding the provisions of the protocols. In conclusion, in his often demeaning rhetoric, he simplified the matter by saying that the protocols cannot be changed because they are agreed upon documents by both sides and it is incumbent on the parliament to make the final ratification.
Similarly, on Thursday, President Sarkisian, in meeting with political forces, after acknowledging that the protocols had pitfalls, nevertheless pushed ahead with his belief that the move to normalize relations with Turkey would eventually benefit Armenia.
In his presentation to parliament, Nalbandian asserted the Turkey had made significant concessions in the final document. The foreign minister did not clarify what those concessions were.
So we are left to read between the lines of this crucial document and not to judge when provisions of the protocols call for the recognition of current boundaries, respecting of territorial integrity, the creation of a sub-commission on historical issues and now the announced date for the signing of the protocols.
In his remarks Thursday, Sarkisian said: “By inviting Turkey’s President to Armenia, I intended to open a window of the possibility to normalize relations and to demonstrate that a people who have suffered Genocide, and the Armenian nation, have enough courage and the will to be the first to extend a hand.”
Announcing of a “roadmap” on the eve of the Genocide anniversary, the provisions of the protocols and now, scheduling the signing of the defeatist documents on a day that symbolizes an historic setback for Armenia do not speak to the “courage” of a nation that survived a Genocide, but rather they demonstrate the “will” of a new generation of misguided leaders who are prepared to undermine historic justice and national dignity.
While Mr. Nalbandian is adamant that the protocols cannot be changed, perhaps he can be assertive in ensuring that when he signs the protocols he does not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Article printed from Asbarez News:

-----
On another note, please notice the “new and improved” definition of “Diaspora”. What’s the matter? Hs he forgotten how to spell “Dashnak”?
http://news.am/en/news/4686.html
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan touched upon Armenian-Turkish relations amid other issues at Ramadan dinner with the participation of Turkish media representatives, Turkish Milliyet daily reports.
“We will not open the border unless Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is settled, like we already said. Aliyev-Medvedev-Sargsyan meetings are currently more frequent. We are very close to Karabakh conflict settlement. OSCE Minsk Group activities should be intensified. Armenian-Turkish normalization process under Swiss mediation progresses, however MG should add urgency to its work. We will not take a step forward without Karabakh conflict settlement. It is necessary for Armenia to cut out Diaspora impact, as it is of no benefit for it”, Erdogan stated
.



#5 gamavor

gamavor

    -= Nobility =-

  • Nobility
  • 4,811 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 23 September 2009 - 08:41 AM

These so-called Protocols are very strange in nature, because they are trying to replace the lack of diplomatic relations for more than 90 years. There is tremendous pressure on the Armenian authorities exerted by the State Department to get into some type of dialog with the Turks. We should always remember that Turkey is US's pupet and every time America had something in mind about Armenia or the Armenians the outcome was disastourous. Lets not forget that USA is one of the few "civilized" countries that officialy denies the Armenian Genocide. Through all those years the USA has always backed Islamic and anti-Armenian sentiments within Turkey. That way the State Department was trying to please the government of Turkey and soften their frustration on the US policy in the Middle East towards the rest of the Moslems. Basically it has always been a game for Washington. In reality the Turkish-Armenian issues are small fragment of what and how Washington invisions for the Caucasus. Accidentaly Russia is also interested in normalization of the relations, because Russians also felt the need to expand their cash flow by incrising their crude and gas export capabilities.

I really don't understand the meaning of those Protocols. Eighter they should agree to have open border or they should not. Armenia should not rush or expect any major developments. The best tactic would be wait and see. Even better, keep the border close and wait until Europeans open their borders to Turkey.


#6 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 23 September 2009 - 04:17 PM

Who wrote this poem?
Կեանքի նաւակը հետք չի թողուց իր ետին
Մոռացումը առաւ ինձմէ ամեն բան,
Հին երազներն ամպերու պէս կանհետին
Յիշատակն ալ կանցնի երգի մը նման:

Who was born yesterday? Who remembers? Are Armenians suffering with Alzheimer’s? Is it time for a dose or two of Aricept?
Good points Gams.
How fast we forget!
Closing/opening of borders? ohmy.gif biggrin.gif The latest is that the border was closed in 1993. Oh yeah!
When was the border open?
QUOTE (gamavor @ Sep 23 2009, 03:41 PM)
These so-called Protocols are very strange in nature, because they are trying to replace the lack of diplomatic relations for more than 90 years. There is tremendous pressure on the Armenian authorities exerted by the State Department to get into some type of dialog with the Turks. We should always remember that Turkey is US's pupet and every time America had something in mind about Armenia or the Armenians the outcome was disastourous.
....
I really don't understand the meaning of those Protocols......

Was in the year 1000 AD?
Yes. Only as a one way highway to let the Asiatic hordes to invade our lands.
Was it during the 14th-15th c. for osman to walk to boku?
Was it in 1877-78 during the Russo-furkish war?
Was it in 1895, 1909, 1914, 1915, or maybe in 1917 when that sob ivan ran away with its tail between their legs? Was it in 1918 (Sardarapat) when, once again mehmet tried to open the highway between ankakara and boku?
Was the border open in 1939 when mehmet joined hitler in war? How about 1945 when the so called “cold war” and the “iron curtain” came down? Remember that at time there was no Armenia so to speak.
Was it in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992? And now we and everyone else repeats the same nonsense that the BORDER WAS CLOSED in 1993.
WHEN WAS IT OPEN?



#7 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 September 2009 - 10:38 PM

QUOTE (gamavor @ Sep 23 2009, 10:41 AM)
Lets not forget that USA is one of the few "civilized" countries that officialy denies the Armenian Genocide.


That's innacurate, non recognition does not mean denial. UK is the only 'civilized' country which has ever explicitly denied it. Of course I am not including uncivilized countries like Israel here.


#8 gamavor

gamavor

    -= Nobility =-

  • Nobility
  • 4,811 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 24 September 2009 - 05:43 AM

Without going into semantics, whenever a formal request has been placed before any body of power initiated by a group of citizens, organizations or else and whenever such request has been turned down or disregarded, to me it means DENIAL. As oppose to that, non-recognition of an event, or in this case, a crime against humanity could mean a state where such actions has not been taken and consequently the crime has not been recognized as such. Non-recognition as well as denial could be overturned by a decision of the respective body before which such petition or plea has been made.

That said the United States Federal Government denied the fact of the Armenian Genocide and that fact has been boldly underlined in all actions of the State Department throughout the years concerning this matter.


#9 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 September 2009 - 11:53 AM

QUOTE (gamavor @ Sep 24 2009, 07:43 AM)
Without going into semantics, whenever a formal request has been placed before any body of power initiated by a group of citizens, organizations or else and whenever such request has been turned down or disregarded, to me it means DENIAL. As oppose to that, non-recognition of an event, or in this case, a crime against humanity could mean a state where such actions has not been taken and consequently the crime has not been recognized as such. Non-recognition as well as denial could be overturned by a decision of the respective body before which such petition or plea has been made.

That said the United States Federal Government denied the fact of the Armenian Genocide and that fact has been boldly underlined in all actions of the State Department throughout the years concerning this matter.


I don't disagree with you, I just don't want any 'civilized' country to be compared with UK in this matter, which is the only 'civilized' country which explicitly claimed it does not constitute genocide. They've stole Armenians to pay war debts, then they dare being the only so-called civilized country to deny it. No other nation can compare. They shall remain the less 'civilized' of the so-called civilized, or if that means being civilized as it's defined in the anglo-saxon culture, then the more civilized of all.

#10 gamavor

gamavor

    -= Nobility =-

  • Nobility
  • 4,811 posts
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 25 September 2009 - 04:15 AM

Domino you are right, however their denial (Anglo_Saxons) is a complex issue. A mixture of politics and civilizational approach. In their understanding, the human life has no value per se. It has only value whenever there is a duty or responsibility attached to it. The Ottomans according to "them" had no duty not to kill the Armenians. I've stated in many occasions that Turks and Anglos are civilizationally much closer than say Europeans. Combine these with their Imperial status for few centuries and the common enemy, i.e. Russia and you will get the picture. Anglos go even further. The vast loss of human life on the part of the Armenians is perceived by Anglos as inflicting damage to the Russians. This mentality as sick as it can be is still evident in the decision making process with regard to international disputes. The British are sick nation. My hope is that Pakis and Turks will put an end to their existence. For that matter I firmly support Turkey in the EU. tongue.gif

Edited by gamavor, 25 September 2009 - 05:47 AM.


#11 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 25 September 2009 - 08:02 AM

Another view. Although the following comes from the Diaspora. The way the writer spells his name is inconsistent with the way “diasporans” usually do.
BTW. How does a subject about the Protocols turn into a debate about the Genocide? Of the half a million words in the Armenian language, of the 36, no 38, no 39 tongue.gif letters of the Armenian Alphabet, is that the only WORD we know?
--------
http://hetq.am/en/politics/16452/
Diaspora Dilemma – The Time for Hard Choices Has Come and Gone!
[ 2009/09/25 | 00:44 ] important politics
A reader from Cyprus sent us the following commentary on the diaspora, its relationship with the RoA and the current rift over the recent Armenian-Turkish protocols – Hetq.
----
"How ironic and sad that this pretentious flare-up between the Diaspora and the RoA remains one of the farce that took place at the Paris Peace Conference when there were two competing delegations vying for scraps at the negotiations table – one lead by Boghos Nubar *****, for the diaspora/western Armenia, and the other lead by Avetis Aharonian for the first RoA.
It was a farce then and low and behold some 90 years later the Armenian nation finds itself in the same predicament. We, as a people, haven’t advanced one iota.
It is high time that all Armenians, whether they consider themselves western or eastern, diasporan or citizens of the RoA, realize that the current political entity called the RoA is the amalgam of both geographical sphere of historic Armenia and as such it remains the sole official representative of the entire nation and its interests.
The Diaspora, or certain elements within it, might think differently but that is the cold reality.
This issue isn’t new and has deep roots, but the Diaspora must face facts. It cannot directly negotiate with the Turkish state; it lacks both the institutions to do so and remains disparate collections of petty organizations and spheres of interest.
The Diaspora and those forces within it who now lambast the protocols and the foreign policy of the current RoA regime need to question their own actions in the matter.
What exactly does the Diaspora want? Who speaks for the Diaspora? These questions remain unanswered and sadly will remain so.
If the Diaspora was sincere about its present outcry and criticism of the protocols, it would need to confess that its arguments against the document are flimsy and superficial at best.
Genocide recognition; fine. Then what? Even if Turkey were to one day recognize the historical truth; then what? Will this lead to the descendants of Genocide survivors to move back to western Armenia and pick up the pieces of their interrupted historical development? Surely NOT!
The Diaspora laments the actions of the current RoA regime but takes little if no interest in changing it. On the contrary, where were the so-called leaders of the Diaspora after the fraudulent 2008 presidential elections in Armenia that ushered in the Sargsyan government?
Most diasporan organizations argued back then that it was better to remain silent rather than to destabilize the country. Dear compatriots, this is unprincipled politics. You can’t have it both ways!
Let the sons and daughters of the Diaspora, led by their leaders, show that they are serious about their convictions.
They should either move to Armenia or actively participate in the political process or they should create a government in exile and send its diplomats knocking on the doors of the European powers.
The ARF once again attempts to deceive the uninitiated that it is the protector of the nation’s interests and declares a hunger-strike in downtown Yerevan.
Does the ARF forget the infamous Treaty of Alexandropol that it signed or the fact that they requested Turkish military help during the 1921 February Uprising to battle the advancing Bolshevik forces?
Where was the Diaspora and the rhetorical nationalists of today when ASALA was taking the fight to the Turkish heartland 25-30 years ago? Back then all one heard was “Amot, Amot” (Shame, Shame).
Let’s get real folks. All this sudden bluster over the protocols is just that – empty rhetoric.
People like former Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian wax eloquently about some imaginary injury to Armenian “self-dignity” if the protocols are signed and that we’d be depriving ourselves of future possibilities vis-a-vis territorial compensation. UTTER RUBBISH!
Let the sons and daughters of the Diaspora take up arms and fight alongside the PKK, that way they might have some moral justification to make territorial demands on eastern Anatolia.
BUT NO! Oskanian lives in a fairy-land of dreams just like the ARF who continue to spout nationalist rhetoric but does piss-all when it comes to real revolutionary work. They call themselves the Armenian “Revolutionary” Federation but don’t have the guts to call for President Sargsyan’s resignation. What utter nonsense.
At least, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, for all his faults, had the pragmatic nerve to say that the Genocide issue had no place in Armenia’s foreign policy agenda. Basically, he told the diaspora to take the lead.
Ponder this as a final thought. When was the last time, prior to these recent protocols, did you hear any discussion or debate regarding the Treaty of Kars? The voices of dissent are so vociferous in Yerevan, Beirut and Los Angeles that one would assume that Armenians for the past 88 years spoke nothing but Kars around the dinner table or at the local coffee shop.
Now however, when there is a real document on the table with real consequences and requiring real decisions to be made, people have literally come out of the woodwork with a variety of opinions. It’s this definition of the issue, of how to proceed into the unknown, which has so many at their wit’s end. Why? Because they have nothing concrete to offer as a viable substitute and haven’t seen the need to for lo these many years. This is what really is at issue. Better to continue along the path of inaction and indecisiveness than actually sit down and hammer out a plan of action. That, however, requires time and effort, and a real set of national values.
Not one Armenian government in power since 1991, the year of independence from the Soviet Union, has ever said that Armenian has territorial claims of Turkey. This seemed palatable to the vast majority, in Armenia and the diaspora. So what has changed now to make so many predict doom and gloom if the protocols are enacted? Mostly it’s the fear of the unknown and the understanding that they have nothing to offer as a substitute. They have been living a lie and are too ashamed to admit it.
I’ve come to the sad realization that as a people we should better concentrate on the here and now rather than continually living a lie and wallow in the dead-end of self-deception.
Historical experience proves we are competent to do no more.
Karapet Tursargisian
Nicosia, Cyprus"

Edited by Arpa, 25 September 2009 - 11:29 AM.


#12 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 September 2009 - 11:35 AM

As I said in another topic that there are too much doom and gloom around the protocols, which is the fear of the unknown. These protocols are not written on stone it can be shaped and rewritten. Look at the Turks they sign something and say something different alltogether, who is stopping us from doing the same.

#13 Z'areh

Z'areh

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 517 posts

Posted 26 September 2009 - 12:05 PM

QUOTE (Yervant1 @ Sep 25 2009, 12:35 PM)
As I said in another topic that there are too much doom and gloom around the protocols, which is the fear of the unknown. These protocols are not written on stone it can be shaped and rewritten. Look at the Turks they sign something and say something different alltogether, who is stopping us from doing the same.


The President's signature followed by the ratification by the Armenian Parliament. The content of the protocols become a internationally binding document.

I am not an expert on international law, but to me it is a no brainer that the enemies of Armenia will use this as a card. Considering Armenia does not have friends to rely on, you can understand the ramifications of Sarkisian's stupidities.

Sometimes I think if this could be a case of quid pro quo, i.e. secretly agreed pro-Armenian resolution of Artsakh problem in return to compromise on AG and borders issue, then I remind myself not to dream in colors.











#14 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2009 - 12:36 PM

The protcols are written in such a way that every country will interpret the way it suits their agenda. The reason they reached to it because it's ambiguous and they can sell it as a starting point. If it's such a good agreement for Turkey, why there is a strong opposition to it in Turkey.
It's all in the interpretation of it, these protocols are written on elastic sheets you can strech it the way you like it.

#15 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 26 September 2009 - 04:18 PM

OK, now that we are talking about the so called “protocols”, let us take one article a time and see what we understand.
The definition of “agree”. The Armenian word for “agree” is “hamadzaynil/համաձայնիլ”, literally meaning “unison/uni-son”.
http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/agree
QUOTE
Main Entry: agree
Pronunciation: \ə-ˈgrē\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): agreed; agree·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French agreer, from a gre at will, from a (from Latin ad) + gre will, pleasure, from Latin gratum, neuter of gratus pleasing, agreeable — more at grace
Date: 15th century
transitive verb 1 a : to concur in (as an opinion) : admit, concede <agrees that he is right> b : to consent to as a course of action <agreed to sell him the house>
2 chiefly British : to settle on by common consent : arrange <I agreed rental terms with him — Eric Bennett>intransitive verb 1 : to accept or concede something (as the views or wishes of another) <agree to a plan>
2 a : to achieve or be in harmony (as of opinion, feeling, or purpose) <we agree in our taste in music> b : to get along together c : to come to terms <agree on a fair division of profits>
3 a : to be similar : correspond……etc.

Protocols Articles
"#1. Agree to open the common border within 2 months after the entry into force of the Protocol on the development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey"
Above we see the word “agree”, just as we see the word in each and every article.
To the uninitiated it will sound like the closed borders was a matter of mutual agreement and that it remains closed as an agreement and that it will open as result of “agreement”. What will the Armenian part of the agreement be? That they will remove the warning signs that advise to not trespass, as the land is mined and boobytrapped, or one will be shot with no questions asked?





#16 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2009 - 09:20 PM

QUOTE (Z'areh @ Sep 26 2009, 02:05 PM)
Sometimes I think if this could be a case of quid pro quo, i.e. secretly agreed pro-Armenian resolution of Artsakh problem in return to compromise on AG and borders issue, then I remind myself not to dream in colors.


Secret resolutions have no value, because no one is forced to respect them.


#17 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2009 - 09:23 PM

QUOTE (Yervant1 @ Sep 26 2009, 02:36 PM)
The protcols are written in such a way that every country will interpret the way it suits their agenda. The reason they reached to it because it's ambiguous and they can sell it as a starting point. If it's such a good agreement for Turkey, why there is a strong opposition to it in Turkey.
It's all in the interpretation of it, these protocols are written on elastic sheets you can strech it the way you like it.


Why is there such a strong objection?

Because they're continuating the Ottoman mentality in what regard Armenia, subconsciensly they still can't accept there is an Armenian state in the Eastern frontier. Their behavior is actually the most disgusting and show how their society is sick, they all have the reason to feal shame yet they act as if they can dare having such a sentiment toward us. Well, that's nothing compared to the more pathological disease their Azeri brother suffer of.

#18 DominO

DominO

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 September 2009 - 09:32 PM

QUOTE (Arpa @ Sep 26 2009, 06:18 PM)
OK, now that we are talking about the so called “protocols”, let us take one article a time and see what we understand.
The definition of “agree”. The Armenian word for “agree” is “hamadzaynil/համաձայնիլ”, literally meaning “unison/uni-son”.
http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/agree

Protocols Articles
"#1. Agree to open the common border within 2 months after the entry into force of the Protocol on the development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey"
Above we see the word “agree”, just as we see the word in each and every article.
To the uninitiated it will sound like the closed borders was a matter of mutual agreement and that it remains closed as an agreement and that it will open as result of “agreement”. What will the Armenian part of the agreement be? That they will remove the warning signs that advise to not trespass, as the land is mined and boobytrapped, or one will be shot with no questions asked?


International papers are full of words such as ''agree'' and ''agreement'' without having to imply real agreement at all. It's more pathetic when we think that Turkey closed the borders out of their own initiative, without any agreement and could have opened it without agreement too. The word 'agree' just excuse Turkey, implying that the closing of the border implicated both states. That's one other sh!t of this protocol, as if the opening of the border was an agreement between two states when one of those states was an actual observer of the closure of that border. Hit someone on his face, then make the apologizing the result of an agreement. Do you see how it sounds?

#19 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 26 September 2009 - 11:55 PM

oops.gif I couldn't resist.
Hey Boghos, they're speaking in your language, "portukal". Isn't "narinj" the Aremenian word, or is it bamia or lolik? tongue.gif
QUOTE (Yervant1 @ Sep 25 2009, 05:35 PM)
As I said in another topic that there are too much doom and gloom around the protocols, which is the fear of the unknown. These protocols are not written on stone it can be shaped and rewritten. Look at the Turks they sign something and say something different alltogether, who is stopping us from doing the same.

Yervant, are you saying that these so called protocols are not worth the "paper" they're written on? That they are erasable and alterable at will at any time. In fact, I do understand what youre saying, that so many pacts and treaties have been signed and ratified but none of them have been honored (by furkey). And, as to the word', some Armenian sources are using - "արձանագրութիւն", does in fact mean "ëtched in stone". See http://hyeforum.com/...showtopic=22725
Yes, we do understand that these so called “protocols” is only a rough draft, a preface, preconditions «նախաբան, նախապայման» , and that the final draft will be written when it comes to sign the actual final draft, the “treaty” .
We will get back to the other articles and see if we can read and understand.

Edited by Arpa, 27 September 2009 - 08:01 PM.


#20 Arpa

Arpa

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,011 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Culture

Posted 28 September 2009 - 08:52 AM

It is obvious that these articles were written by mehmet, and armen just blindly signed on the dotted lines, probably not understanding a word of it.
-------
Article #2
2. Agree to conduct regular political consultations between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the two countries;
“foreign” is an interesting word. In the Armenian, beside the much hackneyed “otar/Օտար”, the other term is “aylazgi/այլազգի/other national” that was in use, still is to describe “other” people, more often- furks and Arabs. Consider the Latin word “alien”
implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations;

make the best possible use of existing transport, communications and energy infrastructure and networks between the two countries, and to undertake measures in this regard;
“existing”? When? Where?
develop the bilateral legal framework in order to foster cooperation between the two countries;
“legal”? According to whose legalistic laws”?
cooperate in the fields of science and education by encouraging relations between the appropriate institutions as well as promoting the exchange of specialists and students, and act with the aim of preserving the cultural heritage of both sides and launching common cultural projects;
“science and education”? Like inventing a “new and improved fictitious history”?
“science”? Like mehmet and hamid invented it?
“education”? Don’t they mean “re-un-education”?
establish consular cooperation in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 in order to provide necessary assistance and protection to the citizens of the two countries;
“consular”? Don’t they mean a “con-job”?
take concrete measures in order to develop trade, tourism and economic cooperation between the two countries;
“concrete”? This word puzzles me. In every other news item from Yerevan we see the word «կոնկրետ» . What is the matter? Don’t they know the word “hastat/ՀԱՍՏԱՏ”? Speaking of which, had they built those buildings in Gumri and Spitak with real “concrete” rather than sand/աւազ….!!!**
engage in a dialogue and reinforce their cooperation on environmental issues.
“dialogue”? Is that the new definition of “monologue”, i.e. “I speak, you listen. We show you where to sign, place your X, since you don't know how to READ?“??
---
**
QUOTE
Matt.7
[26] And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
Եւ ամենայն որ լսէ զբանս իմ զայսոսիկ՝ եւ ոչ առնէ զսոսա, նմանեսցէ առն յիմարի, որ շինեաց զտուն իւր ի վերայ աւազոյ
26Իսկ ով որ լսում է իմ այս խօսքերը եւ դրանք չի կատարում, կը նմանուի մի յիմար մարդու, որ իր տունը շինեց աւազի վրայ.

Edited by Arpa, 28 September 2009 - 09:23 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users