ARMENIAN DIPLOMACY SCORES MORE OWN GOALS!
by Karine Mangasaryan
Yerkir
September 26, 2008
Interview by Armen Ayvazyan to Yerkir weekly, 26 September 2008
According to Dr. Armen Ayvazyan, Director of Ararat Center for
Strategic Research, the first stage of Armenia-Turkey dialogue
proceeded in unequal conditions, with the Turkish side taking the
upper hand. But we may see Turkey scoring many more goals into the
net of Armenian diplomacy, so that, in Ayvazyan’s words, soon we may
be talking of a hockey rather than a football game. In an interview
with Armen Ayvazyan, we present his answers to a range of questions
on the Armenian-Turkish issues.
– Almost a month has passed since the Turkish President’s visit
and the famous soccer match. However, over that period and to this
moment we have been up against a constant flood of information
against the Armenian interests by the Turkish-Azerbaijani propaganda
machine. Do you think this is a result of our weak diplomacy, or is
the aforementioned united propaganda machine just too strong for us?
– Turkey and Azerbaijan have always had a united stand on these issues.
Since 1991 Turkey has been leading the efforts in developing and
implementing anti-Armenia and anti-Armenian policies. We fail to
perceive this, and many people among us repeatedly reiterate the
misconception that Turkish policy on Armenia is dominated by, or even
held hostage to, Azerbaijani interests. Nothing of the sort! Both
Turkey and Azerbaijan have it on their agenda to destroy Armenia. Our
political authorities have consistently ignored this agenda ever since
1991; they won’t acknowledge and give it due political assessment. And
without proper assessment of the full extent of this threat, our
policy towards Turkey becomes irrational, abnormal, resulting in
dire mistakes. A single fact: Armenia agrees to Turkey’s proposal to
facilitate an Armenia-Azerbaijan settlement.
Following this, the president of the country says that those who
object to such assistance are not normal. Let’s analyze this.
Thus, we have two allied nations that have a clear agenda of strangling
Armenia economically, diplomatically, militarily, and by means of
information warfare. In this situation, one of the stranglers says,
"Let me help the two of you to get along well." Armenia thanks in
return, saying "Carry on strangling me, I don’t notice it." And, she
agrees to a three-partite meeting, in which Turkey plays the role of
a facilitator. (They say "Facilitator, not a mediator". But it’s hard
to tell the difference between the two.) This is a glaring example
of Armenia’s "normal" foreign policy, which cannot withstand the
critique. By calling the expert opinions "abnormal", the Administra
tion is trying to take the debate out of the realm of logic,
and by using its administrative authority corner serious debates,
replacing them with Western clichés like "football diplomacy",
"thaw" and "rapprochement in Armenian-Turkish relations" and so
on. The fact is that there are no Armenian-Turkish relations per se;
we face the Armenian-Turkish conflict. The Turkish policy is either
not assessed and analyzed at all, or receives a profoundly inaccurate
evaluation. Take this recent example, for a comparison: this is how
the Israeli President Simon Peres, in his 24 September speech at UN,
retaliated to the Iranian president Ahmedinejad, who happened, once
or twice, to question and deny half-heartedly the Jewish Holocaust:
"Their despicable denial of the Holocaust is a mockery of indisputable
evidence, a cynical offense to survivors of the horror."[1] Peres
continued with a list of sharp and offensive remarks on Iran’s
policy and leadership, who he fairly considers an enemy. Whereas
our administration takes a friendly stand toward hostile Turkey’s
entire anti-Armenian policies, which threaten the very existence of
Armenia and the Armenian people: It invites the Armenian Genocide
denier Abdullah Gul to Armenia, meanwhile urging our people to
respect the enemy flag and national anthem. The terminology alone
used by Armenia’s high ranking politicians and statesmen is a clear
indication=2 0that Armenia’s Turkish policy has adopted, with one to
one match, US State Department’s positions, which in no way reflect
the interests of Armenia and the Armenian people. In other words,
the Armenian foreign policy views Turkey through Washington’s glasses."
– One of the abnormal policies, that you have mentioned, is the
constantly trumpeted idea in Armenia that the Armenian-Turkish border
should be opened, creating the impression that it is Armenia that
has closed that border!
– Of course, such an impression will be created, due to the complete
lack of analyses in our society, of the deep complexities of the
Turkish-Armenian conflict. Actually, and paradoxically, Turkophile
propaganda was carried out instead, a number of our national symbols
were distorted: Mt Ararat was removed from our footballers’ traditional
logo and shirts, the floodlights were turned off in Tsitsernakaberd
Genocide Memorial during the football match and, most puzzlingly, the
incomprehensible call to stand up while the Turkish national anthem
was being played! But who said this is a requirement! And why should
any Armenian respect the anthem of a country whose policy towards
Armenia and the Armenians is hostile, aggressive and offensive –
denying the Genocide, blockade, encouragement of, and assistance to
Azerbaijan in the latter’s preparations to resume war, trampling
on Armenian pride and dignity in the international arena, distor
tion and smearing of Armenian history and culture … ! Whereas to
this day the Jews generally avoid buying German-made products; for
instance, hardly any Jew will drive a "Mercedes". They remember what
Germany has done to them, even though that country has accepted its
responsibility and given billions of dollars in retribution, through
which they’ve been able to develop the Israeli economy. In spite of
that, the Jews value their national dignity above and beyond these
retributions. This is because the Jews realize that national dignity
is an essential state-building factor. By compromising on that you
cede your identity, you weaken your resistance propensity and your
strategic memory, you fail to orient yourself in the current situation,
you make elementary mistakes, and, of course, you get punished with
new massacres. Unfortunately, this chain of events has repeatedly
struck our people in the past. But now that we have statehood,
repeating the same mistake is just unacceptable.
– In that case what did this misguided policy gain (for the Armenian
people) and what did Turkey gain?
– The people didn’t gain anything. This is a problem of statehood.
Armenia gained nothing, except for a few words of praise from a
couple of American and European diplomats. Instead, the process
of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is now under
the threat of being torpedoed. The agreement exp ressed by Armenia’s
president about the Turkish proposal to create a joint Armenian-Turkish
commission of historians is not only a blow against the recognition
process, but it could also cast doubt in the minds of third parties
as to the validity of the fact of the crime. The Turkish Foreign
Minister has already explicitly stated that third countries have no
right to discuss this question anymore since Turkey and Armenia have
found a common ground! In the meantime, the deputy leader of Turkish
Prime-Minister Erdogan’s ruling party, Egemen Bagis, declared that,
Turkey will never accept the Armenian assertions that Turks have
already examined over a million documents which, supposedly, show
that there was no genocide, and that actually it may become clear
that it were the Armenians who massacred the Turks! Mr. Bagis made
this statement at the European Economic Forum held in Krynica, Poland,
on 10-13 September. Therefore Turkey is already reaping the benefits
of this new situation, while Armenia has gained nothing.
– Currently the view is being circulated that the opening of the
border will benefit Armenia (more than it can cause harm). Do you
share this approach, and how well-founded is this view?
– The Armenian-Turkish conflict has many other layers, ignoring
which may have even far worse consequences. Even if the two countries
establish diplomatic relations and the Turkish blockade is lifted,
the p roblem still will not be resolved. Turkey will continue its
hostile policies through other means – namely economic, propaganda and
cultural infiltration, renewed opportunities for triggering demographic
shifts (unfavourable to Armenia), and through other means. As far as
the economy is concerned, the local producers will certainly suffer
from border opening as the imported goods will be much cheaper, and
secondly, opening of the border will serve as a tool in the hands
of Turkey to exert all sorts of pressures on Armenia. In fact, the
three preconditions that Turkey has put forward on Armenia are only
preliminary preconditions! As we know in the past 15 years various
other preconditions have also been raised, among others, taking the
"Meghri corridor" out of Armenia’s control, closing the Kurdish
Workers Party’s (PKK) non-existant bases in Armenia, and other demands.
This is a tried-and-tested old politics, and not just Turkish
politics. One often hears these days that ‘we are weak and have no
options’. But if one makes concessions on life and death issues, one
might as well dig one’s grave! If it’s your life that’s threatened,
and the big powers tell you to make concessions, you shouldn’t heed,
as you reduce your chances of self-defense and resistance, without
getting any serious security guarantees. Unfortunately, we have
already started making concessions.
– Dr Ayvazyan, not long ago our National Assembly approved Armenia’s
National Security Strategy. Does that document adequately serve our
foreign policy, especially as it relates to the disentanglement of
Armenian-Turkish relations?
– In that document the definitions are vague, the Armenian-Turkish
conflict has not been defined as such, and most importantly the
Armenian Question has been ignored, as far as its core fundamental
parameter – the territorial aspect – is concerned. Before opening
up to Turkey, Armenia must get reliable security guarantees from
Turkey. The real issue is not the lifting of the Turkish blockade
alone, but termination by Turkey of its hostile policies against
Armenia and Armenians. Whereas today an impression is being created
as if we have no confidence-building problem, that we trust the
Turks and desire to start everything from a "blank page". But who
can vouch that Turkey will change its hostile policy after opening
the border? No, they won’t, but will set off instead an ideological,
economic and cultural invasion. It is us who need confidence building
mechanisms, not the Turks! We pose no threat to the Turks, they pose
a threat to us. Both economically and demographically, we are just
about the size of a Turkish vilayet, and can be easily absorbed,
especially if we turn a blind eye on the Armenian-Turkish conflict
and are preparing to give up our national dignity and identity. I’ve
stressed many times before, that it should be us, Armenia, that puts
forward preconditions and not Turkey.
Those preconditions are the very security guarantees. We must demand
proofs from Turkey that it should stop its hostile policy towards
us. Meanwhile, today Turkey’s worldwide anti-Armenian propaganda
includes very powerful ideological elements, about which we don’t
speak in Armenia.
Today our government thinks that it conducts pragmatic foreign
policy. But pragmatism takes into account the goals, ideology,
and strategic thinking of the opposite side. Our foreign policy
doesn’t take these parameters into account; they see neither Turkey’s
objectives, nor their underlying strategy and ideology.
– Do our statesmen take any interest in the concerns you express in
your public pronouncements, say, any phone calls inviting you to sit
down with them to discuss these issues?
– This question is of critical importance. Armenia’s foreign policy,
since 1991, has been under profound and disorienting influence of
foreign, especially American and European strategies. As far as
national security is concerned, there is practically no interaction
or contacts with our own home-grown national thought: it is being
ignored and left unnoticed. Today we harvest the bitter fruits of that
influence. Armenia’s foreign policy today has drifted so far from its
national fou ndations – particularly in regards to conceptualizing
the territorial nature of the Armenian Question – that it has lost the
ability to see the enemy and its political objectives. This weakness
is fraught with dire consequences for Armenia.
[1] "Peres blasts Iran in UN address," BBC NEWS:
_east/7634642.stm,
2008/09/24 19:45:27 GMT.
–Boundary_(ID_hKn8ldzcTqTKwTySPt15RA)–
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle