RAFFI HOVANNISIAN IS APPALLED
raffi-hovannisian
05:53 pm | October 12, 2009
Politics
Heritage Party founder Raffi Hovannisian issued an open letter today
with regard to the Armenian-Turkish Protocols signed in Zurich on
October 10.
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ARMENIAN NATION
The history of the Armenian people has been an ordeal of suffering,
tragedy, and genocide. In this millennial series of misfortunes,
however, never has the nation invited destruction upon itself.
But today it stands at the brink, with a small group of improperly
elected leaders apparently racing toward a forsaking of both identity
and interest.
With the stroke of a pen, the Armenian president and his foreign
minister have crossed the line of danger and dignity; in Zurich,
Switzerland on October 10, 2009, they resigned from a long-standing
national quest to preserve the fundamental rights, security, and
integrity of an ancient land and its native heirs.
The signing of the two diplomatic "protocols" between Armenia and
Turkey might indeed constitute the latest entry in the ledger of
crimes committed, and covered up, against the Armenian nation.
Core Values are Not Commodities
As a servant of the Armenian nation, reflecting both prior office
and present opposition, I am appalled by this latest offense. As an
Armenian citizen, for many years denied that honor by successive
authorities, I ache as the soul of our nation is traded away for
illusory promises of "good will" and "open borders" with Turkey.
Our vital values, from our collective responsibility as heirs of
the Genocide to our individual expression of liberty and belonging,
are not commodities. That unrequited murderous conception of 1915-the
original plan to drive to extinction the Armenian people, the Armenian
homeland, and so the Armenian species-is one of the principal sources
of our modern identity, just as its equitable resolution is the anchor
of our future national security.
This is Duplicity, Not Diplomacy
What will "open borders," a courtesy commonly extended at no cost to
all civilized nations, cost the Armenians?
Of course every Armenian seeks peace, prosperity, and good-neighborly
relations. But what we have in these protocols is only an expensive
illusion of them.
The ends, generally stated, are sound: Open borders and normal
diplomatic relations among neighbors are pure and prudent goals. But
the means we use must be as pure and prudent as the ends we
seek. Unfortunately, the secretive diplomatic process launched by the
Armenian and Turkish administrations is defective at the fundaments,
sourced as they are in bloody soil, where a pronounced asymmetry of
power survives to this day.
First, the protocols stipulate that Armenia relinquish its lawful
historic rights and extend an unlimited de jure recognition of Turkey’s
de facto borders, which were drawn and defined on the very basis of
the eradication and violent dispossession of the Armenian people
from its ancestral heartland. In so doing they demand, and have
received, the Armenian presidency’s endorsement of that fantastic
crime against humanity which has deprived generations of Armenians
of its civilization, heritage, and patrimony.
Second, the protocols entail a joint condemnation of terrorism,
yet fail to include any corresponding renunciation of the broader
criminal outrage of genocide.
Third, the protocols impose a requirement for a "dialogue on the
historical dimension" of relations. This measure, representing
a unilateral attempt at imprisoning the Armenian genocide in a
bilateral echo chamber, not only challenges the untouchable veracity
of the Genocide, but secures the complicity of the Armenian state in
absolving Turkey of any responsibility for its genocidal actions.
Once these terms are brought to life, absolutely little will remain
of the legitimate expectation to secure Turkey’s and the world’s
reaffirmation of and redemption for the Genocide. Turkey will forever
deflect and delay liabilities for its genocidal acts by leveraging
the infinite and inconclusive nature of the bilateral "dialogue."
Normalization or not, these protocols move us not one inch toward
reconciliation, that pure and total communion based on the truth-a
brave recognition of all aspects of shared Turkish-Armenian history,
including the great genocide and national dispossession of the
Armenian people.
The Protocols in the Proper Perspective
In all the pomp and circumstance of diplomatic "breakthroughs,"
we cannot forget that the burden of "normalization" rests, as it
always has rested, with the Turkish republic. The decisions to
close the border with Armenia and to withhold normal diplomatic
relations-violations, both, of all viable international norms-were
decisions that Turkey made and realized on its own. Hence, each of
the Turkish "concessions" reflected in the protocols represents only
the most basic minimum commitment of a decent and civilized country.
Turkey’s bare and stated readiness to open borders and normalize
relations-the extent of its responsibilities in the framework of the
protocols-is, therefore, a non-event. No international initiative
should have been necessary for those moves. And that Turkey has made
that determination now-only after accepting the sacrifice of an entire
nation-deserves not praise but continued skepticism in the substance
behind its diplomatic flourishes, whether they relate to the European
Union or broader geopolitical objectives.
>>From Protocols to Parliaments
Now that the Armenian and Turkish sides have signed these protocols,
the second stage, of ratification, is set for the parliaments at
Yerevan and Ankara.
Regrettably, dispensing with a parliament’s traditional role of
advice and consent in the foreign policy of state, the executives
have imposed a prohibition on amending or altering these protocols
in any way. While this stands in clear contradiction with democratic
standards and practices, it also denies the public and its members
in each country the right to exercise or engage their opinions in
this process. This extraordinary methodology flies in the face of
customary diplomatic practice, which calls for the establishment of
official relations through a simple exchange of notes.
The scheme here is plain, perfectly tailored, and aimed at tying down
for good history’s loose ends. Soon the Armenian National Assembly,
too, will be called upon to bear complicit responsibility in giving
legislative validation nearly 90 years after the fact to the illegal
Bolshevik-Kemalist pacts which crowned the genocidal process and
sought to seal the fate of the Armenian nation.
What is more, not content with pursuing this official acceptance
of Turkey’s long-standing occupation of the Armenian homeland,
its leaders will continue audaciously to abuse every turn of the
ratification process in order to deflect their own culpability by
linking implementation of the protocols and lifting of the Turkish
blockade with what they pitch as the "occupied territories of
Azerbaijan." Clearly, that would be a disingenuous and inapposite
reference to the freedom-loving people of Mountainous Karabagh, its
odds-defying liberation and constitutional decolonization from the
Turco-Stalinist legacy, and its resultant territorial integrity.
In the final analysis, Armenian and Turkish citizens have been refused
both voice and choice in determining the outcome of an immensely
significant process that will forge the future course of both
countries. This is especially distressing, because on the judgments
to be made in the coming weeks and months shall turn the fate of
generations to come-and their imperative to face history, remember
collectively, and bridge in earnest the great Turkish-Armenian divide.