Principles of resolution of Armenian-Turkish Knot

[MJ]

Apparently, there are two polar approaches in resolving the Armenian-Turkish knot:

 

1. Armenians drop any claims, whatsoever, and friendship is established;

2. Turks return the historic Armenian lands and pay retribution for the Genocide.

 

The implicit presumption associated with the first solution is that Armenia grows so week, that it drops not only the claims, but also forgets any aspirations. As to the Diaspora – it totally assimilates in a generation or two, and the numbers of those interested in the Armenian Cause become even more negligible.

 

 

The presumption associated with the second solution are based on a premise that the economic problems of Turkey become so overwhelming, that when accompanied with the external pressure on the grounds of its criminal history, Kurdish “rebellion,” and the current violations of Human Rights, Turkey disintegrates and the enforcement of the Sevres Treaty becomes a renewed possibility.

 

In my view, neither of these “solutions” has serious merit, and are just based on anger or arrogance from one or another side. Both feelings – the anger and the arrogance make both nations pay very high cost, and it benefits neither side. The issue has become a race of survivability qualities – which nation is more survivable. I don’t know who is more survivable, but the history shows that Armenians are quite survivable.

 

Those who pursue the resolution of the knot not for the purposes of obtaining emotional satisfaction from the corresponding exclamations would perhaps recognize that there might be a whole host of solutions somewhere in between the two poles mentioned above. Formulation of those middle-of-the-road alternatives, in my view, raises one important question – package deal or a stage-by-stage deal.

 

The package deal requires that the mutual demands be formulated and agreed upon in advance, while the stage-by-stage deal may assume that the deal may be formulated as we go, and meanwhile, we can achieve some small results in improving the mutual relationship.

 

Clearly, the problem at hands is of much larger scale than the one of Karabagh. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that its resolution may involve much greater degree of details, thus making the achievement of any tangible results along the lines of the resolution very torturous and long process.

 

However, I think the principles of the resolution may already be discussed at this stage.

The discussion assumes recognition of the problem from both sides – if there is no problem, then there is nothing to resolve. However, as it appears, the recognition, or at least the declaration of the recognition of the problem from the Turkish side has become hostage to the outcome of the resolution.

 

Where does this lead, you think?

 

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[Boghos]

I believe that the resolution of this question will necessarily mean a stage-by-stage process. Actually it can be argued that most negotiations towards conflict resolution do not bring about a final solution, they evolve around the objective conditions of the parties involved.

 

There is actually one really major issue at stake here from the Armenian side, realistically speaking: Genocide recognition. Admittedly, if ever Turkey recognizes the Genocide, a far fetched possibility at the moment (in spite of the fact that some liberal sectors in Turkey are for it), it would want to see the issue of reparations dealt with as well. And this is where things become more complicated.

 

How can any Armenian government give up on that ?

It cannot. Maybe Levon T-P had a window to get to that, but there was not enough time. Moreover that Karabagh conflict became a major obstacle for the Armeno-Turksih relationship, not because Turkey is really interested in Karabagh, and by now not even Azerabaijan (which was mostly a playground for Grew Wolves and a vehicle for the mainstream Turkish rightist politicians to appease the ultra right), but because it weakens the Armenian position and its demands.

 

Anakara´s position is very inflexible. I don´t believe Genocide recognition is a possibility in the near future. The reason is that whenever Turkey feels vulnerable, either externally or internally, it moves to the right. And the right in Turkish terms is fascism. Turkey is in a very difficult economic situiation now, and this will evolve into problems in other area as well. The Kurdish problem has temporarily cooled off, but it is not reasonable to expect that it has been resolved. It has not, it will re-emerge, as all unsolved conflicts have the tendency to do.

 

It is amazing how much energy the Turkish state puts on attacking the Armenians in the diaspora. This is dealt with at the highest levels of the state. Turks perceive themselves as the victims of slander and prejudice. Of course that is very far from the truth, but it also means that there is no willigness to negotiate at all. At all.

 

Naturally a middle ground solution, where Turkey would recognize the Genocide and Armenia would give up its reparation claims would be probably the best one could expect, but even that is unlikely. Let´s not forget finally that there is a major distinction to be made between the claims of the Armenian Republic and those of the diaspora.But that is a whole different issue altogether.

[nairakev]

I thought Kocharian said already Armenia's position on lands. It seems to me he announced once that Armenia has no territorial pretentions regarding Turkey.
I thought Turkey doesn't want to recognise armenian state, untill it won't drop accusations of Genocide commited in Ottoman Turkey in 1915.
Are there folks who have studied this issue closely?

[Boghos]

I think Kocharian has said that. But the issue is not only the Armenian state but also the Armenian diaspora. How can a state of which one is not even a citizen give up his/her rights ?

When will the diaspora give up on Genocide recognition ? Never, unless it completely assimilates.

So this is not a state to state issue only. It is not quite clear how much of a role the diaspora plays in Genocide politics. But it certainly has increased after Levon left.

Are there folks who have studied this issue closely?

Yes, there are. But this is essentially realpolitik.

[nairakev]

I agree. It is not only state to state issue. However talking about state-to-state relationship Armenia-Turkey.
Turkey did not recognise yet the state of Armenia. And I think the good and may be tha bad thing of it, is that it reclaims from Armenia "Genocide Recognition" issue. And this is a question which should be never droped by Armenia without positive answer.

I think the land reclamation is a "ill" part of Genocide recognition movement.
It's my position, though I understand why Armenian Disapora leaders would like to bring this issue on the frontline as well.

For me the whole point is in fact of Recognition of Genocide by Turkey itself. I see how many armenian activists are determined in the fight for the Recognition of Armenian Genocide by the USA. I like their determination, and I think it is a key decesion that should bring us to the next step.

The recognition of Genocide by Turkish Parliament and official excuses of Turkish Government.

This is the culmination of my fight. It's may sound horrible, what I'm going to say next.

But I beleive in what I'm going to say.
I care less about the lands.
I'm for the recognition of Genocide by Turkey itself, followed by excuses accompanied by actions in commemoration of victims. The question of Recognition of Genocide for me is rather a moral question than material.
It's not about money, it's not about lands lost. It's first of all about the relief. Its for those from my grand-grand fathers and mothers who lost their lives because of their ethnic difference.

[MJ]

Naira,

 

It is not quite accurate that Turkey has not recognized the state of Armenia. It has. It has refrained from establishing diplomatic relationship, however. Additionally, the claim of Kocharian on not having territorial claims towards Turkey has no implications on the expectations of the Armenian Statehood regarding the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Approximately half of the population of Armenia (I have no precise statistics for supporting the exact proportion) is of the survivors of the Genocide.

 

 

Regarding te lands ... One of our great Western Armenian satirics of the late 19th and early 20th century, Hakob Baronyan, has writen something like this: "They say Turks are going to give our lands back. I am also giving them back. If you can - come and take it."

[Boghos]

Dear Naira,

Turkey was one of the first states to recognize Armenian statehood. But that doesn´t really mean much.

Giving up the lands claim is smart move. Why ? Because this is the only way we can advance. For a sovereign country to give up territory it is an unusual situation, either because it sees a major advantage in doing that a quid-pro-quo, or most often because of war. In any case the problem of Armenian does not seem to be land at the moment. Arguably a way out to sea would be very important, but that is a different approach to this matter.

I do understand your point, and I share it. But I give up on the lands claim because it is counterproductive.

Just on a sort of doctrinary sense, borders are temporary, by definition. It is only because we are used to 50 or so years of more or less stable borders that we think that the worls is and will always be like that.

Another point, I think that Turkey has much more to gain from genocide recognition than we Armenians do. That will help them cleanse their nation, they will eventually be respected and not blamed, its like repentence. In any case it was an Ottoman crime. It will force them to look for other scapegoats. For us apart from the moral victory it will also force us to look under the hood and deal with other issues. But Turkey is a very insecure country, so it will take a long time for it to happen, it seems to me. They need first to get rid of the Army into politics.

[nairakev]

I didn't know that Turkey had recognised armenian state. That should be smth, I've missed when i droped FOR A WHILE my armenian issues and let myself involved in some crazy "liaisons amoureuses".

 

 

------------

well, I agree with your point on lands and borders. And I think, too, that Turkey is a very militarised state for one to be called democratic.

Recently, I've seen a turkish female journalist participating in a debate around Mid East conflict on French satelite tv chanell 'TV5'

She compared 'palestinian' kamikadze with kurd kamikadzes in Turkey. She said full compassion and comprehension to her Israeli colleagu: "Oh, we know what is it suicide terrorists, we got them in Turkey as well. ouff! It's horrible..."

And that lady was supposed to be one of Turkey's progressiste reporters abroad.

This is a militarised society with a camoufflated democratic legislation. I'm often shocked the way turkish intelligentsia behaves. Only once i read a turkish journalist trying to think over the Armenian Genocide issue. Not the positive way, but at least, calmly, without accusations and sided blames.

And that was an article in a non-turkish newspaper.

Sad society!

 

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: naira ]

[Boghos]

As the Che said: "Hay que endurecerse pero sin perder la ternura jamas".

Liaisons amoureuses, ça veut dire presque toujours des liaisons dangeureses .

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: Boghos ]

[nairakev]

NON, pas toujours "liaisons dangeureses"!
Not for me definetely, I don't mind danger.
It's mostly 'safe' liaisons...

[ThornyRose]

I am surprised how many Armenians think Turkey doesn't recognize Armenia because of nonexistence of diplomatic ties. I guess, in that case, we do not recognize half of South America, either.

[nairakev]

LOL.
Let's hope that one day Armenia-Turkey will have, at least, diplomatic representations. And the realtions between two countries won't turn only arround funerals. Like it was last time when Ter-Petrossian came for Turgut Ozal's funerals.

[MJ]

Terms of Reference

 

TURKISH - ARMENIAN RECONCILIATION COMMISSION

 

 

Terms of Reference are agreed to on this 9th day of July 2001 between Armenians and Turks from civil society who, working in an individual capacity, agree to establish The Reconciliation Commission.

 

The Reconciliation Commission grew out of meetings held at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna.

 

The Reconciliation Commission seeks to promote mutual understanding and good will between Turks and Armenians and to encourage improved relations between Armenia and Turkey.

 

The Reconciliation Commission appreciates that there are serious differences between Armenians and Turks, as well as obstacles to normal relations between Armenia and Turkey.

 

The Reconciliation Commission hopes, through its efforts, to build on the increasing readiness for reconciliation among Turkish and Armenian civil societies including members of Diaspora communities.

 

The Reconciliation Commission supports contact, dialogue and cooperation between Armenian and Turkish civil societies in order to create public awareness about the need for reconciliation and to derive practical benefits.

 

The Reconciliation Commission will directly undertake activities and catalyze projects by other organizations.

 

The Reconciliation Commissionwill develop recommendations to be submitted to concerned governments.

 

The Reconciliation Commission will support collaborative track two activities in the fields of business, tourism, culture, education and research, environment, media, confidence building, and other areas which are to be determined.

 

The Reconciliation Commissionwill secure expertise based on project requirements, and may include specialists on historical, psychological and legal matters, as well as other topics.

 

The Reconciliation Commission will review progress after one year.

 

The Reconciliation Commissionis established by:

 

Gunduz Aktan (Ankara)

Alexander Arzoumanian (Yerevan)

Ustun Erguder (Istanbul)

Sadi Erguvenc (Istanbul)

David Hovhannissian (Yerevan)

Van Z. Krikorian (New York)

Andranik Migranian (Moscow)

Ozdem Sanberk (Istanbul)

Ilter Turkmen (Istanbul)

Vamik D. Volkan (Charlottesville)

 

September 3, 2001

Statement by the Armenian Members of the Commission

 

 

The announcement of a private Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission has already opened new possibilities for Armenians and Turks. From around the world, most Armenians have offered support, both publicly and privately. They share with us the belief that if Armenians and Turks talk directly and in a structured fashion, addressing the numerous issues that divide us, some progress may follow. Thank you for your support.

 

We anticipated that certain parties would criticize us and our undertaking. But we hope they will now take the time to thoughtfully reconsider and give us a chance. We ask our critics to report what they have done and what they intend to do in order to deal with the issues we are addressing and to create a better future for our people. This discussion is long overdue. We appreciate your understanding that the early, sensitive stages of discussion had to be negotiated confidentially. Now that the Commission is launched, we will try to answer the many questions you have raised to the best of our abilities and in a way that promotes our shared goals.

 

Let us first state categorically that this is not an “historical commission” and there is no debate about the validity of the Armenian Genocide; it is an internationally recognized fact. But the legal, psychological and political issues that grew from it have long called out for rational, structured discussion. The lack of direct dialogue has only worsened a bad situation. There is also no question that other countries’ recognition of the Armenian Genocide is important in its own right. Each country must come to terms with its own record on this issue. It is a critical process which reconciliation efforts such as this one in no way impede.

 

We agree with those who say there can be no true reconciliation until Turks acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. The question is how best to achieve this result. Our view is that reconciliation is a process, not an event. Our public Terms of Reference speak for themselves.

 

We are not so presumptuous as to think that the Commissioners have a monopoly on good ideas or solutions and we in no way suggest that this body is a substitute for direct Armenia-Turkish government relations. The Commission’s first agreed activity is to listen and consider the advice of others. At the same time, we believe the Commission will be an example that will spark similar efforts and encourage others to deal with the past and improve our future.

 

The Armenian people have lost faith in the false promises of demagogues. No third country has or will put its own national interest aside and force Turkey to reconcile. And Armenian historians have noted that in retrospect naïve belief in third countries in the late 19th and early 20th centuries did not save our nation.

 

The Armenian Genocide is not the only issue that divides Armenians and Turks. We intend to look at differences and areas of common ground. We are treating our fellow Commissioners with respect and we believe they deserve credit for engaging in this good faith effort.

 

In this Reconciliation Commission, the four of us are acting in our individual capacities but working as a team. Our backgrounds and current situations are diverse; while we expect to be given a fair chance, we do not pretend to represent all Armenians or the Armenian Government. Armenia’s leaders have fairly acknowledged that they were informed of this process and have correctly stated that this is not a governmental effort. We are nevertheless grateful for the support we have received. One of our goals is to promote much needed improvement in official relations. We have not decided when to increase our number from four, but more people will need to be brought into the process. The progress we have made so far gives us grounds for hope.

 

Commissioner Alexander Arzoumanian

Commissioner David Hovhannissian

Commissioner Van Z. Krikorian

Commissioner Andranik Migranian

Mr. Van Krikorian, Chairman

Board of Directors

Armenian Assembly of America

122 C Street, NW

Suite 350

Washington, DC 20001

 

Statement by Henry Morgenthau III

 

 

Welcome news from Geneva recently announced that a private Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission is at work with the tacit approval of both governments. I commend the high level and respected Turkish and Armenian citizens who agreed to serve, as well as those who initiated this long overdue effort in promoting mutual understanding and good will.

 

While I appreciate the need during the sensitive early stages for not putting the matter of Turkish recognition of the Armenian Genocide on the agenda, as the grandson of Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of World War I, I believe firmly that the festering mistrust on both sides stems from Turkish denial of that event.

 

The Turkish people could benefit from the example of modern Germany, which has struggled successfully to come to terms with its Nazi past. Not until the Turks learn to accept their own history as a self-fulfilling act of redemption can long-standing wounds begin to heal.

 

Henry Morgenthau III

Cambridge, Massachusetts

July 25, 2001

 

 

Statement by the Armenian World Alliance

 

 

ARMENIAN WORLD ALLIANCE

ALLIANCE MONDIALE ARMENIENNE

 

Aug. 8, 2001

 

Mr. Van Z. Krikorian

Commissioner

Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission

 

Dear Mr. Krikorian,

The formation of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission has been the most logical and worth while effort towards the rapprochement, considering the current political climate both in Armenia and Turkey.

 

The Armenia Commissioners, based on their professional experience, past conduct, integrity, dedication and service to the Armenian people, are certainly very credible and capable individuals, acceptable to the vast majority of the Armenian people, both in Armenia and the diaspora.

 

We sincerely believe that, this Commission, no matter what the result at this stage of contact and discussions, is destined to play a major and significant role in any future direct government to government talks.

 

We are very proud of each and every Armenian Commissioner. We are confident that given their track record, they will be able to enhance the quality and substance of the dialogue.

 

The Armenian World Alliance Canadian Central Board of Directors, fully supports the efforts of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission and wishes all Commissioners success in their efforts and deliberations.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Haig Misakyan

President

 

Statement by the Knights of Vartan, Inc. Grand Council-Avaktivan

 

 

Dear Mr. Krikorian:

 

The Grand Council of the Knights of Vartan is cognizant of the recent formation of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission.

 

Having closely followed the published comments made by numerous individuals and organizations, we are of the opinion that the concept behind the Commission, to establish a dialogue between Armenians and Turks, is a favorable alternative. While we are aware of the difficulties of such negotiations, we support the purposes of the current Commission and wish it well.

 

Our support of the Commission's activities, however, should not be construed as a relaxation of our continued efforts to bring about a just resolution of the Genocide issues. The Knights of Vartan Organization remains faithful in its commitment to support all efforts that favorably address the universal recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

 

We congratulate you, as a member of the Commission, for your willingness to accept the heavy burden of diplomatic responsibilities that may have a profound effect on the lives of the Armenian people.

 

Attested, Yours Truly,

Vartkes Barsam Robert E. Barsam

Grand Recorder Grand Commander

 

"An Undue Reaction to the Formation of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission"

Armenian Reporter, August 11, 2001

 

To view the editorial in its entirety, please visit the Armenian Reporter's Web site.

 

 

"The ARF/ANC is once again in full attack mode -- this time against a high-level dialogue between Armenian and Turkish private citizens, known as the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC). This course of conduct has once again placed the ARF/ANC beyond the mainstream judgement of the Armenian people.

 

TARC is now the most visible, but certainly not the only recent, effort by Armenians and Turks to explore historic and contemporary issues that divide the two peoples. All such efforts -- known generically as track-two contacts -- have one thing in common. These structured dialogues have the highly desirable effect of defeating the government of Turkey's policy of refusing meaningful dialogue with the government of Armenia...

 

The Armenian Commissioners are either seasoned and senior former officials of the Republic of Armenia or experienced and recognized political activists. Each deserves credit for taking on this challenging responsibility. Since TARC was publicly launched, they have collectively commented on the praise and the criticism responsibly and transparently."

 

There are a couple of more statements in *.PDF format, which I obviously couldn’t paste here. Visit http://www.aaainc.org/TARC/tarc.html for those materials. - MJ

 

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[khodja]

Martin,

 

You understand my premise exactly. Your further anaysis of the situation is right on the mark.

[aurguplu]

dear everybody,

 

i think the turkish state at the moment has the following approach as far as genocide recognition is concerned:

 

when i was young (i am 34 now), i.e. in the 80s, the very word genocide was enough to get you into prison. begining with özal's later years, many things have changed.

 

as you know, i have been contributing to this site for the best part of a year by now, and had recognised the genocide at the outset. i also do that in discussions in turkey wher ex-military types are present. so far nothing at all happened to me.

 

meanwhile, i understand vahakn dadrian's book was translated into turkish four years ago with the title "jenosit" and can be freely bought in this country. several armenian professor of history (i only know of grigor ssouny) have been to turkey to give lectures reflecting their version of the story. nobody gets arrested.

 

the assyrian priest (i forgot his name) who was arrested about a year ago for claiming the genocide took place, was released later on.

 

all these seem to confirm what i had said in an earlier posting:

 

i think the state is currently preparing the turkish society for the psychological effects of an eventual recognition of genocide. remember that a survey showed that 11% of turks believed in the genocide? that is almost one member of each turkish family, statistically speaking. i think the state first wants the people to be exposed to the other side's version of the story, so that they start to think that it really "might" have occurred. after all, this is how comon people think: if there are so many people who maintain that such a thing occurred, and if they are the descendants of the victims and survivors, there must be a grain of truth in it somewhere.

 

note that turks do not deny that the killings occurred, or fail to condemn them, what they deny is that it was a planned, deliberate action to exterminate the armenians from anatolia and the armenian uprisings were not the major motivation behind it.

 

but for this to come to the desired conclusion, namely the recognition, repentance, and compensation, one significant obstacle has to be definitively moved out of the way for good: perceived threat from the armenian side on turkey's territorial integrity. if this persists, and worse, if it temporarily subsides just to gain new groud (so it will be interpreted by the turkish hardliners) only to resurface once the genocide is recognised, it will backfire, turkey will shut itself up again and we will all be back to square one.

 

mind you, turkey can go a long way avoiding the recognition as it is a strategically important country with a dynamic economy (never mind the current shambles). it is also a country of 65 million people that no market-minded state would like to lose.

 

so i was actually relieved to read some of the postings here, as i was dismayed to read some others elsewhere in the forum.

 

most turks (i regret to include myself) are anxious that genocide recognition will bring about land claims from the armenian side. by this i do not mean the physical return of the land to the descendants of survivors, but rather an official demand that part of eastern anatolia be given to karabagh. some of you may find this anxiety of ours (and mine) ludicrous, or at least far-fetched, but it is a sincere one and a substantial proportion of the material that we keep encountering only reinforces it.

 

not that we genuinely fear that such a secession could ever take place, but that some inept politician may really mess things up and the situation can get out of hand and end up inflicting new damage to both parties who have suffered so long.

 

i wish i had never felt i had to write these last lines.

 

regards & peace to all,

 

ali suat

[aurguplu]

[aurguplu]

gosh, i did it again. and again, it is the second posting that is the edited one.

 

sorry, mj. i belong to the pre-electronic era of mankind and currently trying to evolve.

 

cheers,

 

ali suat

[khodja]

Ali Suat's latest post confirms my understanding exactly. The main fear of Turks is not restitution to the progeny of Genocide survivors, but that a portion of territory of the Republic of Turkey will be ceded to Armenia. The Triumvirate did not settle the Armenian Question, but only made it much more complicated. The Armenians, such as my family, who resided outside of historical Armenia, considered themselves primarily Christian citizens of a Turkish state. Istambul or Giligia were not under consideration as Armenian territory. Therefore, the issues of restitution to individuals and the ceding territory to Armenia are seperate ones.

[MJ]

Ali,

 

No problem. You can edit/delete them even now, at your choice.

 

I would like to rise in support of the premise of Khodja, assuming that I understand him correctly, that the recognition of the Genocide and territorial secessions to Armenia are two very different (even unrelated to large degree) issues.

 

The issue at hands is not that Turkey has committed Genocide against Armenians on Armenian lands, and has annexed its territories, but it has done so on a de-facto and de-jure Turkish territory, against its own citizens/subjects.

 

There are two aspects of the issue, which in my view make the problems so much tangled from both sides.

 

From the Turkish side, the resistance of the recognition of the Genocide and the linkage of it to the issue of land retributions is more of along the lines of preserving the status quo of Turkish internal totalitarianism, and the delay of the establishment of climate for respect towards Human Rights and free society. In my view, the Armenian Genocide is the Achilles Heal of the Turkish totalitarianism, and the primary obstacle on its way towards a civil society. Once the Genocide is recognized and condemned, it would be hard to close the Pandora’s Box, which would open the way of other reforms in Turkey.

 

From the Armenian side, the emotional atmosphere systematically created around the thesis of “Our lands” has been the primary mechanism of preservation of Armenian identity in Diaspora, so that to inject a degree of self-importance preventing the rapid assimilation into other nationalities. To a certain degree this tactics has succeeded in the past. However, the very reality of the independent Armenia has changed the cultural and emotional landscape. Gradually, the Republic of Armenia is becoming the center of Armenian self-consciousness. One is far from celebrating the victory of this new centralization, since there is still a resistance by inertia, primarily directed at the preservation of the now bogus pseudo-political structures of Diaspora. But one or another way, those who resist too much to the new axis of Armenian self-consciousness risk becoming a small and peripheral clan in the complicated structure of Armenian reality.

 

The basis of now traditional Armenian claims for territorial reparations is the Treaty of Severs, even though the Treaty of Severs has nothing to do, at least explicitly, with the Genocide. This Treaty, as it pertains to the Armenian paragraphs, has been overwritten in Losagn. There are still Armenians who think that one can revive the Sevres Treaty. That mentality reminds my the mentality of the Armenian Revolutionaries of the late 19th century – “Europe wants to disintegrate Turkey, in parts to diminish the American influence in the region, and we have to be far-sighted and patient, to finalize our centuries old dream of getting our lands back.” In my view, the representatives of this wing of political thought are the real disaster for the future of Armenia. Not in terms of a fear of Turkish retaliation, but in terms of the danger that hey may present if by some irony of history they become influential in Armenia. We need to have realistic, thoughtful and visionary leaders paving Armenia’s way to irreversible progress.

 

One has to notice that the UN Resolution on the condemnation of the Genocide doesn’t provide one with mechanisms of reparations, nor provides with mechanisms of enforcement of pressure on the guilty party. By in large, the Resolution on the Genocide is a declarative document. In my view, the mechanism of resolution of the issues resides in Turkey’s own understanding of its own good. And there is much more for Turkey to gain from it rather than to lose. Armenia has no incentive not to see Turkey as part of the EU. To the contrary, Turkey’s membership there is in Armenia’s best interests. The recognition of the Genocide will only iron out few hurdles on its way to that union.

 

To be continues if/when I am in mood.

 

[ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[MJ]

Statement by Ambassador Edward Djerejian, Director of the

James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

 

 

September 5, 2001

 

"The creation of a private group, the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, which seeks to foster cooperation and communication leading to recommendations for the consideration of the Armenian and Turkish governments that address historical and contemporary issues of fundamental importance to both peoples, is a welcome and positive development.

 

There are important trends in the region. Russia under its new President, Vladimir Putin, is seeking to strengthen Russia's ties with the West, and especially the United States. Turkey is seeking to be part of the European Community, while strengthening its ties in the Middle East and Central Asia. Georgia and Azerbaijan are actively pursuing stronger relations with the West. Even Iran under President Khatami has made initial moves toward opening a window to the West and the United States. Armenia's hope for security and prosperity will be shaped in no small part by these major trends toward regional and global integration. Armenia cannot risk being "the odd man out" in the region. Indeed, Armenia should rediscover its historic role as a bridge between the North and South, and the East and West. An enhanced Armenian-Turkish dialogue can play an important role in this overall direction. Edward P. Djerejian"

 

Edward P. Djerejian is the founding Director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, as of 1994. He is one of our country's most distinguished and experienced diplomats. His career has spanned the administrations of eight U.S. Presidents.

 

Prior to his nomination by President Clinton as United States Ambassador to Israel (1993), Ambassador Djerejian served both President Bush and President Clinton as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (1991-1993) and President Reagan and President Bush as U.S. Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic (1988-1991).

http://www.aaainc.org/TARC/djerejian.htm

[khodja]

Cilicia was not part of historical Armenia. It was only when historical Armenia was conquered that Armenians established a nation there. If anyone would want this to be part of Armenia, it would be me, whose family of Hye Catholics is descended from a noble family of Giligia. It would not be realistic for us to have any claims on this territory.

[MJ]

Edward,
1. Please formulate the essance of Cilician and Western Armenian claims, and I will try to address it.

2. I beg to differ with you significantly. What's the basis of your such statement?

[edward demian]

Khodge

Why are you so ready to cede Cilicia by saying that it was never considered Armenian territory. A lot of Cilicians will differ with you. Armenians may have settled Cilicia in the beggining of the second millanium, but we still resided there far longer than the Turks. I am appaled on how inconsiderate Eastern Armenian leaders, political and religious, are of Cilician and Western Armenian rights and claims. They suffer from the mentality that we are lost to the nation.

I would like to remind them that our culture is intact, our language vibrant, rich and unadultarated. Culturally, I think the population of Armenia has lost much more of their culture and linguistic purity than the Western Armenians.

[aurguplu]

khodja,

 

you say it would be unrealistic to have any territorial claims on cilicia, just because it was not part of historic armenia.

 

it would be unrealistic to have any territorial claims for any part of the current turkish republic, because armenians would not be able to get it, for the following reasons:

 

1) military. turks are a good deal more numerous, stronger, with a longer military history and have recently turned into one of the best counterguerilla fighters thanks to the kurdish insurgence inte southeast with a counterguerilla/guerilla ratio of 1:1.7, as opposed to 1:7 for a trained counterguerilla army with no actual combat experience.

 

in addition (this should really have been put first), turkey is the southeastern flank of nato, and nato cannot afford to lose it or watch it turn into something else. past greco-turkish tensions over cyprus and the aegean have already given nato's southeastern flank some damage, and cannot be tolerated for world safety.

 

2) political. i) turkey is the only muslim country that has political, social and economic systems that vaguely resemble western-style democracies. cessation of territory would mean the end of the turkish republic, and relations between the christian and muslim worlds (muslims are about 1/4-1/3 of the world's population) would go back several centuries. israel would find itself in an infinitely more difficult position with no muslim (even potential) allies, and control on middle eastern oil supply would weaken (you will tank at three times the price, and there will be queues. believe me, there will).

iii) it was briefly thought after the fall of the soviet union that since communism is dead, and the west will soon swamp former soviet territory with its ideals and institutions, countries like turkey had become obsolete cold-war anomalies, and thus become redundant, they would diminish in importance. this has not happened. russia is nowhere near moving toward a western-style democracy, the nukes are still there, and putin is an ex-kgb agent with autoritarian tendencies. not much has changed in the region, and this includes turkey's importance. iv) the armenian genocide, though horrible, is neither the first, nor the last, nor the most atrocious of genocides. we (both) tend to focus on it exclusively because it concerns us directly. nor is it the only genocide that hasn't been recognised as such and damages not paid. if turkey's recognition of genocide brings about cessation of territory, this would put a stop on similar movements concerning not countries like turkey, serbia, rwanda, nigeria, russia, china, but ... surprise surprise, the usa (american indians) and france (algeria), for instance. v) cessation of territory would mean the emergence of a new political entity that say i, as a superpower, have no previous experience with, and don't know what it is going to do. now if we look at the armenians, whose most vociferous diasporas are in france and the usa (both nato countries), and who sits firmly on russia's lap because of its row with turkey (another nato ally), they would not seem to me as potentially trustworthy allies whom i would prefer at the expense of the turks.

 

economic: though currently in shambles, the turkish economy has great potential for growth (and hence for producing prosperous citizens who are natural customers of western goods) and a decent amount of money invested in the country, facts that no statesman can afford to ignore.

 

all these, and many more, points of course apply to claims on territory that attack a nation's territorial integrity. reclaiming lost personal property, including land, or compensation therefore, is of course a different matter.

 

regards,

[ThornyRose]

Ali, thanks for a lesson of common sense, CS101. Some people need it desperately.