THE DEMISED TURKISH PROTOCOLS’ UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
By Appo Jabarian
USA Armenian Life Magazine
February 8, 2010
Now that the Protocols are behind us along with the acrimonious
debates, we can collectively concentrate on healing our intra-national
wounds; review all the shortcomings that our community exhibited,
and troubleshoot them for the purpose of better preparedness in the
face of possible future threats.
The post-Protocols Armenian nation is definitely different than it
used to be. For a moment let’s liken the Turkish-imposed Protocols
to an earthquake, and Armenia with its Diaspora to a building that
has shown some cracks having undergone the shocks of the quake;
and Armenians worldwide to the occupants of the damaged building.
Some occupants may react to the post-quake damage as being hopelessly
irreparable and abandon the building. Whereas optimistic tenants
may simply go outside the building and start assessing the damage
caused by the shocks; begin to make plans to repair; and initiate
the re-enforcement of its structure so as to enable the building to
survive bigger and more destructive quakes in the future.
The good news with the biggest political earthquake called the
Protocols is that the building of the nation did not collapse. That
goes to prove that the nation’s "building" has strong structural base
albeit with some deficiencies. And even the best news was that the
pillars of the "building" – several community-based organizations –
showed coherence and even banded together in the face of a potentially
deadly national catastrophe.
Were the protocols a curse that unwittingly yielded a set of
blessings? Positively, they produced some very tangible unintended
blessings – far-reaching and durable accomplishments by Armenians.
– An unprecedented number of 60,000 (yes sixty thousand) Armenians
took their disapproval of the Protocols to the streets in Yerevan
strongly criticizing the government of Pres. Sargsyan, yet not one
Armenian’s nose bled. Whereas the 2008 post-presidential election
demonstrations by pro-Ter-Petrossyan protesters numbering a mere 20,000
(twenty thousand) caused the ransacking of storefronts in the center
of Yerevan and clashes with Police that contributed to the deaths
of several civilians. In stark contrast, the 2009 anti-Protocols
demonstrations were marked by discipline, law and order;
– The worldwide opposition to the Protocols re-enforced the correct
notion that the Armenian people in Armenia-Artsakh and the Diaspora
are united in their efforts to help protect their national home;
– The Armenian Diaspora gained recognition for its importance as
a strong political power both by Armenia’s president and Turkey’s
Prime Minister. Pres. Sargsyan embarked on a Diaspora-wide visit to
the large centers of the Armenian dispersion not necessarily to pay
homage but to "sell" the Protocols as being a "good deal." Even though
the Armenian Presidential tour was qualified as being a mere show,
it still underlined the importance of the Diaspora. As for Turkey’s
Prime Minister Reccep Tayyip Erdogan, in an October 2009 interview
with The Wall Street Journal, in a pointed reference to the Armenian
Diaspora, he said: "When Pres. Sarkisian was on an international visit,
he was faced by a reaction from the Armenian Diaspora. So what he
does in face of the reaction of the Diaspora is very important. If
he can stand firm, and if it is the government of Armenia and not
the Armenian Diaspora that is determining policy in Armenia, then I
think that we can move forward;"
– The diasporan supporters of Protocols were no more than 10% (ten
percent) of the populace – a tiny minority at best. But they were
misrepresented as being the sizeable "majority" when in fact over 90%
(ninety percent) of the Diaspora Armenians were categorically opposed
to the unfair Protocols. And that was seriously misleading on the part
of official Yerevan along with the Protocols’ main sponsors Russia,
the United States, and Europe. This experience confirmed the need
for an elected body that can accurately reflect the political will
of the Armenian Diaspora. "A Diaspora-wide leadership must be elected
to reflect properly the views of the majority of Armenians on crucial
issues. Such a mechanism would facilitate the transmission of credible
feedback from the Diaspora to Armenia’s leaders and to governments
and international organizations. Further details will be presented
on this important topic in a future column," wrote Harut Sassounian,
The Publisher of The California Courier;
– Just as the 1988 earthquake in Armenia galvanized Armenians worldwide
to collectively rush to Armenia’s aid, the unfair Turkish Protocols
"served" as the unintended catalyst for the formation of a landslide
political majority both in Armenia and its Diaspora that vehemently
opposed the poorly written proposed agreements;
– Back in December 2009, in a USA Armenian Life article this writer
had asked: "Will Gagik Harutyunyan, Constitutional Court’s Chair,
Help Armenia Avoid Becoming a Banana Republic?" To the credit of Mr.
Harutyunyan, the Court magnificently carried out its task as an
independent entity effectively serving as the healthy symbol of one
of the Armenian democracy’s three branches – The Judiciary. Any
normal sovereign state that is guided by democratic principles
shall vigilantly maintain the independence of its three branches
of government a) the Legislature (the Parliament); the Executive
(the President and his Administration); and the Judiciary (the
Constitutional Court and the entire judicial system).
– The emergence of a patriotic opposition that’s loyal to the national
security and interests of the Armenian state. The harmonious opposition
jointly mounted by the three traditional Armenian political parties
has served as a model for healthy and constructive opposition.
Additionally, the new opposition reaffirmed its intention not to
let their disapproval of Armenian leadership’s policies serve as a
reason for cutting aid to the needy; for stopping the investments
in the country’s economy, and for declining to visit or settle in
the homeland.