2003 Declarations

[Guest Fadi]

I accepted every demands you made. I gave myself as title Whitenoise, I wont talk about things I dont know enough about, and see I have shaved my mustache... do you see any here ?

 

http://www.e-cadfael.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/images/larger/75x100/75_001.jpg

 

 

So I respected what you said, if you don't want to answer me, then answer for the other readers that may question of whatever or not there is such thing that I question about.

[MJ]

The Armenian Government has not financed any Chairs in any academic institutions - it simply is not able to. Each Chair requires about $2 million.

 

The well known philanthropists who have financed the Armenian Chairs have also financed much of the Armenian Statehood Institutions - they have bought buildings for the Armenian embassies, allocated funds for the functioning of these institutions, including salaries, have covered their traveling expenses, and so on. Therefore, I think the comparison is inadequate by the issue being turned a little bit upside-down.

 

Whether the Armenian government should sponsor such Chairs or not is a different issue. I think not. However, the said Armenian Chairs have conducted research on the same grounds as if the Armenian government would have sponsored them for. Not that I am saying that they have done something wrong. In fact, all of the Chair-holders are highest caliber professionals. However, if those Chairs had not been sponsered by the said philanthropists, they simply would have not been established.

 

The lack of support from Turkish philanthropists for Turkish Chairs may be only indicative of their lack of interest in the subject and the Tukish government being the only counterparty with vested interest.

 

In which case, I see nothing wrong with doing so. After all, American government and corporations or other philanthropists sponsor variety of Chairs, Chinese government sponsors Chairs in America, and so on. What is wrong is the hiring of non-qualified people (such as Heath Lawrey) on such capacity. But that is, in fact, good for us.

Edited April 26, 2003 by MJ

[Sasun]

MJ, when talking about questions related to politics, especially to international politics, you need to learn realpolitics. I didn't invent this concept, just open your eyes and you will see that the world is not fairy-tale and the State Department is not the center of it.

By the way, I don't have a carreer in politics but I have studied political science and international relations, so I know what I am talking about, and those are not my personal opinions unless I say they are.

Second, when talking to people, you need to learn to respect. All your questions and comments have answers, but I am not going to answer because you are quick to arrogantly describe my character and that is very unpleasant (even if your narcissic view of yourself and the world was actually true).

I am sorry for you.

No you are not. You are unable to debate with logic and face disagreement.

Your political thoughts are simply illiterate. If you don't believe me show this thread to a professional political scientist, specifically someone who has taken at least a few courses in international relations. Not someone whose thoughts are based on obscure and unreliable assumptions gotten from who knows from where. Actually, you have some points that are somewhat truthful (ironically ). But because you are quick to misunderstand or not understand (due to lack of training or will) you think people who disagree with you are from the kindergarten.

 

For ther record, I made an error regarding Western Armenia which I corrected and you ignored or didn't see. But I was not too far, Turks have put forward a 4th pre-condition to make constitutional changes. That has been in the news which you can find in the last year or so on one of the internet sites, I can't tell you exactly where and when to find and need not.

[MJ]

Yes, I am. Not becasue I care about you but becasue people like you claim "profesionalism in political sciences" and drive Armenia into the misery that she in is now, without giving themselves adequate account while doing so. To a blind man the world is dark.

 

As far as your other "arguments" are concerned, a political scientist does not make claims on the basis of some news which he cannot even reference but, first, reads and studies the constitution of his own country in order not to speak nonsense.

 

As to an "error" you were talking about, I don't even know which one were you referring to.

 

A final comment and I will go to bed: if you want someone discuss anything with you, as I have attempted before, and demonstrate respect towards you, you should first demonstrate that you deserve it. First, by stopping to insult the people who you have never met or know enough about, especially when you are urged to do so. Second by making qulified arguments - at least when you say something stupid, you quickly retract it, not enforce it further. Then you would see that others would be most respectful towards you. No one has interest in "insulting" you. In fact, when one comes here, inherently one is interested in reading something worthwhile and having a qualified discussion - that is if you can have such.

 

As to the rest of your ventilation, I am not going to engage in 'bodysizing' with you.

Edited April 26, 2003 by MJ

[Dan]

To a blind man the world is dark.

You are wrong, my friend. To some blind men, the world is much much brighter than what those who do see, see...

 

But I guess you're one of those people who "see" but can't discern?

 

Dan

[THOTH]

MJ - I find it very difficult to see any sucess on the Armenian side of TARC. It has obviously been a failure since before it started (well intentioned as it was). I mean - did it cause Turkey to end its blockade of Armenia? Did it cause Turkey to recognize the legitimacy of Armenian Genocide recognition efforts - not to mention did it cause Turkey to recognize the Genocide? Did it cause any economic or cultural exchange agreements to be enacted...etc etc - as far as I know the answer is no to all of these things/ How thatn can you in any way call TARC a sucess or a victory for Armenians? In fact it was clearly the opposite. The existance of TARC was used as an excuse by the US and other Governments to dealy any movement towars Genocide recognition - it was seen as some kind of proof of progress where there was none and where there was no hope for any. Please do enlighten us where this great Armenian victory from TARC occured...

 

And yes - I see Genocide recognition (in its overall sense) as primarily a moral issue and not a political one. Certainly there are related political and perhaps economic isues - and I would agreee the politcal is primarily a state to state function - but the economic - in terms of post Genocide recognition - is - in my mind - more of an individual or group issue outside of state...and I do not see Armenia taking the lead for this. (Its just too bad that we don't have any really worthwhile leaders or organizations with savy and understanding.

 

And Dan - you are correct - I am an American first and foremost (I have no shame in this - quite the contrary) - this is where I live this is where my family resides, where we prosper, where our liberties are protected and where we live in (relative) safety - it is the nation of my first loyalty - without question. At the same time I can be concerned/interested/active in isues concerning my ancestry as well - can I not? I have a strong Armenian identity and interest in (most all) Armenian isses (to varrying degrees) - but an American I am and an American I shall be....BTW - you are an American too (A Canadian American...LOL)

[MJ]

You know what... go get a toy and indulge yourself. And while doing so, find yourself another friend at that and don’t through yourself under my feet.

[THOTH]

Some answer...mr (supposed) know it all...

[MJ]

Some answer...mr (supposed) know it all...

OK, seems like I am having problems to fall asleep tonight. I had decided not to speak on the subject any more, but will try one last time.

 

First, my answer which I assume you have referenced, had nothing to do with you. It would be great if you could get rid of some of your insecurity.

 

Before you can qualify TARC as success, you should find out what its mission was. TARC, in principle, is not in position to do any of the things you have requested. It has no such mission. All of the functions you have requested belong to the governments. TARC was only in the business of shaping a framework for the negotiations of the two governments.

 

TARC’s first task was to give a professional assessment to the Armenian Genocide. As a result of a joint decision, not without controversy, they appealed to ICTJ and provided arguments from both side. It is well publicized as who won. That is all that TARC has done so far. TARC has not convened since.

 

That is all that is relevant to TARC.

 

The other argument of yours regarding lost momentum is incredibly stupid. When a resolution about educating the US Diplomatic corps in the matters of Armenian Genocide was introduced in the House of Representatives, and that is all that was done, and that resolution was about to pass, Clinton pulled it out claiming that “it would jeopardize the security of the US personnel in Turkey.” Then, the US congress pushed the Armenian and Turkish side to the negotiation table. Speaker Hasterd (spelling?) even made a declaration that that should be the next step. At that time, TARC did not exist.

 

Even if TARC came to some deadlock, which is something that one representative of the Turkish side has pushed it to, that is only a positive thing for the Armenian side. That deadlock can only give further momentum to the recognition by the American side. Without that deadlock the US would not have heard the issue, again. However, since 9/11, any conversation about such momentum has become a product of imagination of people like you.

 

Finally, I am tired of your talk from both sides of your mouth. If you can, try to understand what am I referring to.

[THOTH]

So you are telling us that TARC succeded in its mission of "shaping a framework for the negotiations of the two governments"? Please illiterate its success in doing such. And short of it doing this (or resulting in ...well...anything...) how can you claim that it was such a great success for the Armenian side - just because the Turks didn't ultimatly get their way in getting the Genocide issue completely squashed...seems to me they essentially have in many respects - at the very least the very formation of this group caused other things not to happen - such as this diplomatic training you refer to. And I know many of these diplomats - and they require this awarness - by and large they don't have it. And at the very least this would have been a victory for Armenian effots to educate and officially legitimize our Genocide within the US government (sure a small step - but cetainly of more value then anything produced by TARC - IMO). So again what is this great sucess of TARC? That it is essentialy no more? This is a sucess for Armenians? (perhaps eh...certainly many think so...)...and if you really think that TARC has been successful (through deadlock) then I wonder who should be calling who stupid...seems we could have just done without...

 

And if your prior comment - that directly followed my post - was not directed towards me - yet I percieved that it was - as I'm sure any who read it did considering its placement (and lack of any real reference to know otherwise) - then I would expect you to be more apoligetic concerning your lack of clarity in directing your comments...particualrly considering the uncalled for nasty tone in the first place...but no - not from you...and you contend I have issues...(I assume that your latest post is indeed refering to me and my comments as you have quoted me - but if not, I would just ask that you attempt to be more clear in the future). Likewise your stating that my views/etc are "incredibly stupid" and that I "talk from both sides of [my] mouth" I think are more of a reflection of your own problems then any serious commentary concerning my views. Perhaps it is you who need to pay more attention to what others write....

[MJ]

Listen, dude,

 

I already told you that my questioned message had nothing to do with you. When I posted it I had not even seen your material… OK? I am not going to be apologetic about it any more than this.

 

As far as your speaking from the both sides of your mouth is concerned, yes, you do it all the time. You have done it in this thread, too. Maybe it is not just your mouth but the way you think. But, indeed, what you normally say comes from the both sides of your mouth. Frequently, however, few “IMOs” are inserted in between to smooth the transition from one side to the other.

 

About TARC, for the last time (really):

 

I have said that TARC has succeeded in what it has tried to do so far. Here is why. There are no hurdles from the Armenian side for the establishment of diplomatic relations with Turkey. This has been asserted time and again by the consecutive Armenian administrations. The hurdles are created from the Turkish side, and the first one is the ‘allegation of Genocide’ by the Armenian side. Turks say ‘the unfortunate things’ that have taken place in the early 20th century do not constitute genocide, and so that diplomatic and other relations are established, Armenia has to drop such ‘allegations.’

 

In order to address this issue, TARC had come to a consensuse, not without huge controversies and arguments, to appeal to ICTJ for clarifications on the legal basis for qualifying the questioned events as genocide or not. Both sides had presented the events from their perspectives. The Armenian side, as evident, won. For the first time in the history of the efforts of the recognition of the Genocide, a professional legal entity and not a political one, has claimed that using the term genocide to qualify something that has happened before the UN Resolution on Genocide had even been crafted was legitimate. No other legal entity had done it before and the matter had never been studies from a legal perspective. All the prior proclamations where political in nature, and thus had been always attributed to the “Armenian lobby” or to the “foreign conspiracy against Turkey.” It has been very hard to get to this point of resolution. The ICTJ Report creates a legal point of reference which was absent before. This is all TARC has attempted to do so far, at least from the Armenian perspective, and it has been success.

 

If the Turks would come to grips with this reality, TARC will move to the next step. If not, it would be evident that the venue has exhausted itself and new venues would be searched. In particular, the issue may be pushed in the House of Representatives from a stronger basis and would allow to demonstrate Hasterd (who personally is receptive to the issue) and others (who are not receptive) that Turks are not able or willing to resolve the issue through a bilateral relationship, and it requires the pressure from the US, again. Whether it is likely to happen at this stage in history, it is a different issue.

 

Now, about “your views being incredibly stupid…” I have said no such thing. Talking on a very specific argument of yours, I have said that it was incredibly stupid and I stand by it. In a previous message I have explained why. In your last message you repeat the same argument, by attributing “lost momentum” to TARC and alleging that the “Genocide issue has been completely squashed because of TARC.” You are adding more of the same instead of adding reason to your arguments. If in the first message I called similar arguments stupid, I will add here shame on you. I will also add double shame on you for going even further, and starting to demagogue the argument.

 

Go read your last couple of messages to understand why I am saying it. If you still don’t get it, shame on you one more time, and for a different reason, now.

[THOTH]

MJ -

 

You may wish to call the way I express my views "talking from both sides of my mouth" - I feel that it is an indication that I can see the truth of or at least merit to more then one side to an argument - in many cases - and I consider this an attribute and not a liability. And so it is with this. I am all in favor of the concept of such a movement/organization as TARC - but I still believe that - considering the makeup and motivations of the Turkish side and considering the timing of the formation of this group (which directly caused Genocide recognition related effforts to be halted because of its exisistence - and this is fact - regardless of you calling me stupid to believe/assert this) - it was, as enacted more negative then positive - clearly so in my mind (and obviously in the minds of most all Armenians as well - many of whom believed it to be a "sell out" group - though not sure it quite merited this...).

 

As for its sucess and/or progress - I still see nothing at all concrete or of sufficient merit to deem it a sucess. We obviously disagree on the merit of these ICTJ quasi legal (at best) fine points and semantics - perhasp they will lead to something beneficial and perhaps not - most likely this effort will just get buried. There are all sorts of forums that Armenians can point to where the Genocide has supposedly been legitimized and each of these seems just as easily ignored. I will credit this one with sucess when/if it actually amounts to something concrete - and at this point I can't at all see that it has.

 

Thank you for your further explanation of your perspective however - I can at least see where you have the basis for your beliefs - lets just say we disagree - just as I normally don't agree that the Republicans are the lesser of two evils (in most/all cases certainly...though you might be surprised that I line up with them on certain things as well - I have my own mind and I am not at all ashamed of this....)...and again I say its more a reflection on the limitations of vision (and/or emotional balance/confidence/whatever etc) to just call another's ideas stupid then to understand that it is possible to have differences of opinion on an issue.

[MJ]

…considering the timing of the formation of this group (which directly caused Genocide recognition related efforts to be halted because of its existence - and this is fact - regardless of you calling me stupid to believe/assert this) - it was, as enacted more negative then positive - clearly so in my mind (and obviously in the minds of most all Armenians as well - many of whom believed it to be a "sell out" group - though not sure it quite merited this...).

 

This is the argument which I have called stupid. I have done so because it is chronologically inaccurate and procedurally baseless. TARC had started after the House of Representatives had declined the Resolution, which was not even a Resolution. It was just an instruction for education of the Diplomatic Corps, which is fine. However, TARC has been formed after the plug was pulled for the passage of this deceleration by Clinton.

The honesty requires the recognizing of this.

 

 

As for its success and/or progress - I still see nothing at all concrete or of sufficient merit to deem it a success. We obviously disagree on the merit of these ICTJ quasi legal (at best) fine points and semantics - perhaps they will lead to something beneficial and perhaps not - most likely this effort will just get buried. There are all sorts of forums that Armenians can point to where the Genocide has supposedly been legitimized and each of these seems just as easily ignored. I will credit this one with success when/if it actually amounts to something concrete - and at this point I can't at all see that it has.

 

You maybe right here or not. In any case, there is nothing stupid or dishonest here. Therefore, I will just read it and keep your perspective in my mind. I would just add that this is the first time ever the Armenian Genocide has been studied from a legal perspective. And the result is good even from the political perspective.

[Sasun]

MJ, international politics is a jungle and the strong wins. There is only a marginal amount of morality which in no event plays imporant role. Call this black or whatever, but it is the truth. You need to go out of your narrow shell and accept the truth. Actually, you need to go to school.

 

Here is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence of Armenia:

11. The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.

 

And here is the first paragraph of the actual Constitution:

The Armenian people, adopting as a basis the fundamental principles and pan-national goals of Armenian statehood set forth in Armenia's Declaration of Independence, and having realized the holy precept of its freedom-loving ancestors for the reestablishment of a sovereign state, and devoted to the strengthening of the fatherland and its prosperity, adopts, while asserting its faithfulness to the values of all mankind, the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia to secure freedom, overall prosperity, and civil harmony for the generations.

 

As you can see, the constitution is based on the declaration. The Turks have put a precondition to make constitutional changes that will remove any reference of Western Armenia, also any mention of Genocide, in other words anything that would in any way mean land claims. This, as I mentioned, was in the news. I don't need to do research to verify the news which you recommend while it is obvious that you are simply ignorant of the news.

 

As to my error, it was only technical. I said 'mention in the constitution', which is wrong. But then I corrected. But in essence, constitution and declaration of independence have the same legal power, although declaration is more lasting than the constitution. Why they want constitutional changes, because there can't be another declaration of independence, but constitution can be changed.

The above mentioned clause in the Declaration is a trouble for Turkey, because shortly after Armenia became independent Turkey recognized it. So not having diplomatic relations presently sort of minimizes the legitimacy of this clause towards Turkey (although we must understand that the power is this clause is all relative). In my opinion, this is the most important thing in Turkish Armenian relationship and presents the very core of all problems.

 

But this question was not even an important point in my original message. You, anxious to prove me wrong, drifted away from the main topic.

 

Your other ideas are clearly wrong. America can hardly considered a good thing for Armenia. Only a few months ago Armenia almost got listed with terrorist countries. It was only thanks to the campaign of Diaspora organizations (which you lambasted ungratefully) that we got off the hook.

 

When I ask if Armenia morally owes anything to America, you mention money.

 

When I say 'buying American academic institutions', you understand funding chairs. These are different things.

 

Russia vs Turkey, your are comparing a nuclear power with a non-nuclear power whose economy is in shambles and whose international orientation is uncertain. Although Russia doesn't have the military and political might that it had in the past, your reference to Chechnia war has not much relevance because first of all, Russia is predominantly in control of Chechnia. There is always small resistance but that doesn't matter. There are also political questions, army corruption, etc. that complicate the Chechen situation. At any rate, you can't compare it to a war with another country.

Russian soldiers in Armenia, if a war started, are not going to stand and be killed. They are there for a purpose. We have seen in the past that Russians were not always faithful to Armenia. Well, that is realpolitik. What matters is at this moment Russia and Armenia have common strategic interests. America, on the other hand, is an ally of our enemy. Sure America also does good things to Armenia, but that in no way matches to what Russia is doing and has been doing. Russia has also done a lot of damage to Armenia, but that is another question.

 

In realpolitik, there is no international law that works permanently and reliably. It is always up to the players to use or not existing international 'laws'. There is no international court that could impose any laws to countries universally and in a fair manner.

There are conflicting treaties affecting Armenia's vital interests. In such a cituation, it is up to Armenia as to what treaty to adhere. The Kars treaty was signed under a foreign interference, namely the Russian bolshevik pressure. That was an illegitimate, puppet government intalled by the Red Army invasion. Present day Armenia can easily deny that it is subject to the Kars treaty and as easily claim to adhere to the Severs treaty. Becaue those treaties are not more than formalization of existing power relationships. Since those relationships have change since then, any country can walk away from it. If there is objection its not because "international law" is being enforced, but because there are opponents. Should the right opportunities arise, Severs treaty could be a feasible scenario. I am not an expert in international law or history to know the delicate points and dertails, but as a student of political science I can assert that much. And I do not claim that this is the absolute truth.

 

I have answers to all your other questions. I don't think you will accept any of it. You will always try to prove that I am wrong, to you that is debate. Your knowledge is based on some facts, but you don't know how to make sense of the facts and often make unrealistic conlusions. You build your personal theories and present them as truth. Whoever disagrees with you is 'stupid'. That is why it is unpleasant to have a debate with you.

[MJ]

Wow, thank you for the lesson in international politics and the tenets of Armenian Independence.

 

Before you throw out few more boy-scout outbursts, and quote me lines from the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, it would be useful for you to know that I have had active participation in its crafting and changing. And I know very well the circumstances under which the term “Western Armenia” has been introduced there. I will not go into the details with you. It would be good, however, if you could understand the difference of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In general, I can assure you that there practically nothing you can tell me on this subject, from all I have seen, that would be new or of interest to me.

 

Also, before you can talk about my “narrow shell,” you need to transform from your stage of boy-scoutism to maturity, and then I will take your mumbling on the “shells.” I think this is enough on the subject of who needs to go where, though I could add few more lines and give you a couple of directions at that.

 

Constitution is not based on the Declaration. Constitution is referencing a line of a Declaration, which is very controversial in nature. On the merits, it doesn’t go beyond referencing the recognition for the Genocide and it does not reference itself anything like “Western Armenia.”

 

It is an utmost stupid thing to say that the Constitution and the Declaration have the same power. Moreover, that the Declaration has superiority. Even scouts should understand that the Declarations is simply a declaration. Thus its name. It is not a binding law. The law of the land is the Constitution, meanwhile, and it is binding. The fact that the constitution can change and the Declaration cannot is correct, however your implications of Declaration’s priority in view of this are indicative only of your faulty thinking.

 

As to the rest of your mumblings, I have more important things to do than to reply to every single one of them.

 

And if you have ever had any illusions that I have ever had any interest in debating with you or another scout like you anything, it would be useful for you to stop feeding yourself with that illusion from this point on.

 

You can also be better served if you go and teach your grandma about realpolitics. She might be more attentive to your needs.

[Sasun]

Until now I thought you were the author of the US constitution only. It turns out that your pathetic majesty has also cared about writing Armenia's declaration of independence. Good luck convincing people of your illiterate analysis.

 

P.S. Watch your mouth a..hole. You will not get many things free.

[Guest Fadi]

"The Armenian Government has not financed any Chairs in any academic institutions - it simply is not able to. Each Chair requires about $2 million."

 

Thanks Martin, that was what I was after. So the answer is a simple no !

[THOTH]

Domino - to me this issue goes beyond just sponsoring academic postions - it ios the strings attacjhed - the very visible, strict limits placed on academic freedom and intellectual honesty...

[MJ]

"The Armenian Government has not financed any Chairs in any academic institutions - it simply is not able to. Each Chair requires about $2 million."

 

Thanks Martin, that was what I was after. So the answer is a simple no !

Do you also have similar question about the Chinese government sponsoring Chairs? How about if a Turkish philanthropist sponsors it, for example? Would you still feel resentful?

[Guest Fadi]

Martin, I'll let those that the matter interest to accuse China for this, what matters me is what the Turkish government does. Even ATAA that is probably the biggest foreign Turkish association other then those in Germany is financed in part by Turkey. Is the Armenian American assembly financed by Armenia ? Like you said Armenia is in no position to found and finance any such chairs, neither finance diasporan associations, we are in a position where those associations "finance" Armenia.

 

How can we even concieve to have any dialogues with any Turkish organisations, when most of them survive because Ankara permit them to survive, Armenias historians or their methodology may lack of basic professionalism, but on the other side, I believe those diasporan historians are in a position(not all of them of course) to conduct any researchs with more professionalism then those Turkish historians, when other then their title, there is no apparent difference between them and a Turkish embassador.

[MJ]

I don't have time to go into this discussion, now. Have to run.

 

By in large and implicitly, you have answered the questions you have raised.

 

Next month, I will introduce some Turkish professionals and semi-organizations which are not sponsored from Ankara and are manifestations of progressive Turkish thought.

 

In reality, I would confirm, here, Ali Suit's earlier statement that the Turkish government is exploring the possibilities of slowly educating the Turks on the subject of Genocide and opening their minds for the recognition. However, they want to control the pace of these developments.

 

In any case, the Armenian issue is not a priority for them. They have much more serious from their perspective issues. Neither does the Genocide recognition threten them in any meaningful ways, as long as they can control the pace of it, as I mentioned above.