MENSOIAN: IF THE ARF FAILS TO CONFRONT THE CHALLENGES, WHO WILL?
By Michael Mensoian
/mensoian-if-the-arf-fails-to-confront-the-challen ges-who-will/
February 22, 2010
Deja vu. Again we anxiously wait to see if the resolution recognizing
the Armenian Genocide will be favorably voted out of the House Foreign
Relations Committee. If Turkey with its coterie of paid lobbyists,
academic surrogates, and other associated anti-genocide proponents
fails to defeat congressional passage of the resolution, another moral
victory may be added to the two dozen or so moral victories in hand
from foreign governments that have recognized the genocide.
Several years ago it was opined that Turkey was sufficiently emboldened
to launch a diplomatic offensive that was geared to placing Yerevan in
a compromising position based on its obsessive desire to normalize
relations and have an open border (see "Normalization Can Never
Be Worth Turkey’s Asking Price," the Armenian Weekly, Dec. 6,
2008). Secret negotiations between Ankara and Yerevan during 2008
culminated in President Serge Sarkisian’s "surprise" invitation to
Turkish President Abdullah Gul to attend the soccer match in Yerevan.
Thus began the "soccer diplomacy" charade leading to the signing
of the protocols and Sarkisian’s invitation to witness the second
meeting of their nation’s soccer teams in Bursa, Turkey.
At the same time in the United States, the Armenian electorate was
euphoric when candidate Obama recognized the Armenian Genocide as
a historic fact. Why those who supported his candidacy should have
been dismayed when this charming eloquent politician qualified his
explanation is difficult to understand. As president, he adroitly
side-stepped his acceptance of the Armenian Genocide by essentially
saying that it was his personal belief and not the basis for United
States foreign policy (see "President Obama’s Message to Turkey: Let’s
Agree to Disagree on the Armenian Genocide," the Armenian Weekly,
April 18, 2009).
Rapprochement is the Turkish Trojan Horse of their diplomatic offensive
whose acceptance will marginalize Armenia as an effective political
entity. Its concomitant objective is to eliminate the political,
economic, and psychological "millstone" that Hai Tahd represents
and by association the influence of the Dashnaktsutiun that has been
Hai Tahd’s historic proponent. Recently Sarkisian not only challenged
recalcitrant Turkey to ratify the protocols, but has spoken forcefully
with respect to Karabagh’s right to independence. Hopefully this is not
more "planned spontaneity." Time will tell. However, the ARF remains
the principal Armenian organization opposed to the ratification of
these documents. Individuals and organizations that have accepted
the view "Let’s see what happens" or "It’s in the best interests of
Armenia" represents a grasping for straws which places faith in a
process that has yet to show how the Armenian nation will benefit. It
is this group that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton encourages to
continue their support of Yerevan.
Normalization with an open border provides absolutely no benefit
for Armenia. No explanation has yet been offered by proponents
to contradict this assessment. Any benefit that might be conjured
would come at an exorbitant cost (see "Sarkisian’s Faustian Bargain,"
Armenian Weekly, Oct. 24, 2009). While the United States continues to
press Yerevan, the Minsk Group (United States, France, and Russia),
representing the interests of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), continues to seek a settlement of
the Karabagh conflict that will deny de jure independence to the
Karabaghtsis (see "The Key to Armenia’s Future Political and Economic
Future," the Armenian Weekly, January 2010 magazine). Political
stability and economic development in the south Caucasus is a laudable
goal, but should it come at the expense of Armenia’s interests and
those Armenians who live in the historic Armenian regions of Artsakh,
Javakhk, and eastern Anatolia?
Since independence in 1991, a maelstrom of events has battered
Armenia and the Armenians of Artsakh and Javakhk. The protocols and
rapprochement are the most recent issues to confront the Armenian
nation. The ARF has recognized the inherent dangers to Armenia
posed by these protocols. The Jan. 12, 2010 ruling by Armenia’s
Constitutional Court tangentially confirmed the ARF’s concerns, but
does not prevent the protocols from being presented to parliament
for ratification. Ankara views the decision as hindering their
insidious plot to use the protocols’ suggested historic commission
to redefine the Armenian "Genocide." The Turkish end-game has always
been to marginalize Armenia, eliminate the moral issue of genocide
that besets the nation, and in the process nullify Hai Tahd and
the influence of the Dashnaktsutiun. According to their reasoning,
whatever else remains will easily fall into place.
Unfortunately, neither preventing the ratification of the protocols
nor genocide recognition by the United States Congress will provide
the proverbial "silver bullet" that will smite Turkey and allow final
victory to be declared. (To what political end has genocide recognition
by France and Russia served?) A universe of legitimate issues
exist-many are long-standing-that must be vigorously confronted and
resolved before Armenia’s future is secure. The singular problem for
the ARF is to determine the how and when and where it may efficiently
and effectively respond to these challenges. This is no easy matter.
This universe of issues encompasses the harsh unjustified political,
economic, and cultural policies that the Georgian government imposes
upon the Javakheti Armenians. Yerevan is not aggressively confronting
Tbilisi on these policies and actions that contravene the required
economic, political, and core democratic value changes in its treatment
of minorities agreed to by Georgia in 2006 as a member of the European
Union’s "European Neighborhood Policy" (ENP). And this by a government
that the United States steadfastly maintains is the beacon of democracy
in the south Caucasus. If these discriminatory policies by Tbilisi
are not challenged (hopefully by the ARF) within the next several
generations Armenian Javakhk will be irretrievably lost.
Linked to this "harassment" is the perversion of justice perpetrated on
the Javakheti Armenian activist Vahagnn Chakhalyan (sentenced in 2009
to 10 years in prison) that has been visited upon two other activists:
Gurgen Shirinyan, who was given a 3-year sentence in October 2009 in
addition to a 17-year sentence originally handed down in 2008, both
trials in absentia; and the ongoing trial of Aram Batoyan, again in
absentia, who is being tried on charges that date back to 2005 (see
"Javakheti Activist Vahagn Chakhalyan: Justice Denied by Georgia,"
the Armenian Weekly, Sept. 19, 2009). This police and judicial
misconduct has been documented by Yerkir Union and acknowledged by
the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).
Then there is Karabagh. Since the 1994 ceasefire, the imperative to
resettle strategic areas of Karabagh has languished. What happened to
the government’s program to increase the population by some 100,000
people? During the 14 years of de facto independence, the population
has basically remained unchanged (see "The Political-Strategic
Resettlement of Karabagh’s Security Zone," the Armenian Weekly, June
30-July 7, 2007). On another front, what is being done to lay the
requisite foundation to support Karabagh’s right to be recognized
as an independent political entity? It will take more than public
declarations that the Karabaghtsis have this inalienable right. It
would be a logical initiative for the ARF to convene a conference of
recognized scholars who would discuss the legal and human rights basis
for the former Soviet autonomous region of Karabagh to be independent.
Coincidentally, what is being done to influence sympathetic
journalists, political leaders (especially members of the U.S.
Congressional Armenian Caucus), business leaders, leaders of advocacy
groups, and the public at large (including Armenians) by visits and
reports to support Karabagh’s right to recognition? Azerbaijan and its
enabler Turkey are being allowed to describe the conflict in terms
of terrorist activity and the claim for independence as an Armenian
irredentist ploy.
And now Turkey. There are so many issues that have been left to
languish. Where to begin? The destruction and seizure of religious
and educational property and its restitution or indemnification have
not been forcefully and continuously challenged in appropriate venues.
Neither has government policy allowing for the physical decay of
cultural artifacts or for their planned destruction. What of the
Armenian farmlands, businesses, and homes that were involuntarily
abandoned when the Ottoman Turkish government carried out its
genocidal plan to empty historic western Armenia (eastern Turkey) of
its inhabitants resulting in the systematic murder of some 1.5 million
innocent Armenian men, women, and children? At best only sporadic,
uncoordinated, and ineffectively implemented actions have been made
to challenge these issues to which Turkey is vulnerable.
And finally, what of the tens of thousands of children and young women
who were "taken" by tribal villagers (under varying circumstances)
and required to live within an alien cultural environment. During
the ensuing 90 years, these "lost" Armenians of the genocide became
the progenitors of successive generations who presently populate the
Turkish western provinces of historic Armenia. Has thought been given
to what should or could be done with respect to these "forgotten"
Armenians still connected by blood to the martys of the genocide?
It is obvious that this universe of issues contains more than the
protocols and genocide recognition. In accepting the challenge, the ARF
faces a Herculean task that far transcends anything the Dashnaktsutiun
may have attempted in the past. In charting its course of action, the
ARF must continue its active engagement of the Armenian Diaspora for
the moral and financial support required to achieve its mission. And
it must harness the expertise of those dedicated Armenian men and
women who can assist in formulating and implementing the initiatives
necessary to achieve its objectives. Now is the most critical period in
the modern history of the Armenian nation. If the Dashnaktsutiun fails
to vigorously and effectively confront these challenges, who will?