90% ARMENIAN AMERICAN OPPOSE
By Steven Dadaian
os15425.html
11:52:47 – 06/10/2009
Mr. President, On behalf of the Armenian National Committee of
America’s Western Region, an organization that has fought to keep
policy makers informed of concerns of Armenian Americans for over
60 years here in the west, I am happy to share with you the thoughts
and concerns of our community.
In September, a nationwide poll was conducted representing a
statistically sound and geographically diverse sample from over 100,000
Armenian Americans households in the United States. The results of
the poll revealed that over 90% of Armenian Americans oppose the
adoption of the proposed Turkey-Armenia Protocols.
A have a copy of that poll and its results here which I am happy to
share with you.
Our organization has always advocated for and supported the Armenian
nation’s right to security, justice, economic welfare, and democratic
aspirations however we find ourselves in the unenviable role of having
to counsel Armenia’s government as to why these protocols do not serve
the Armenian nation’s short nor long term national interests. Just
as the do not serve American long term national interests because
they reward the perpetrator while punishing the victim of the gravest
international crime.
In your explanation you expressed many things that simply are not
reflected in the text of the agreement. The most glaring of which is
your insistence that there are no pre conditions laid out in this
protocol; That is only establishes a mechanism; That Karabakh is
not effected by this document; And that this agreement somehow opens
new opportunities for the Diaspora to interact and persuade Turks of
the genocide.
As to the pre conditions I should first say that I am a lawyer by
training and practice government law so please excuse me if I venture
into a bit of legal parlance from time to time but since this is a
legal document it must be understood within that paradigm otherwise
we are merely fooling ourselves.
I would like to address four significant clauses in the document that
I would like to draw attention to in this short period of time I have:
First. It references itself as a bilateral agreement yet it imposes
obligations outside the bilateral realm in paragraph 3. It states :
"Reconfirming their commitment in bilateral and international relations
to respect the principles of sovereignty and non intervention in the
internal affairs of other states, territorial integrity and inviobility
of frontiers."
Why does a bilateral agreement talk of international obligations
of these two states towards others? The only other states that
frontier Armenia are Iran, Georgia and Azerbaijan. This clause can
have catastrophic consequences to Karabakh, since Armenia has not
formally recognized Karabakh’s independence, yet in this agreement
it confirms the principle of territorial integrity and inviobility of
frontiers. By signing onto this clause the Republic places itself in
a bind if it is to express or be active in Karabakh’s security and
if it ever intends to recognize Karabakh independence those action
are prohibited by this clause.
Second, in clause 5 it states "Confirming the mutual recognition
of the existing border between the two countries as defined by the
relevant treaties of international law"
If no preconditions were actually true Armenia could simply recognize
the existing de facto frontier period. Why was this phraseology
included which adds permanent legal significance to this de facto
delineated border and recognizes the border as defined by international
treaty and law. This is an unacceptable way of resolving Armenia’s
legal title to territories that had been part under the jurisdiction
of the first independent Republic’s such as Kars Ardahan, Igdir and
Surmalu, and territories that Republic arguably still legally holds
title to. Why to are you rejecting the Wilson Arbital Award granted
by the Paris Peace Conference to Armenia. Why are we granting dejure
status to the de facto border? And if there are no preconditions will
you remove those last nine words?
Why will you not simply leave it at that and allow the Republic
the opportunity to seek legal adjudication of its frontiers to the
international court of justice. It is a legal issue not a diplomatic
issue Armenia can win through shrewd bargaining with Turkey. Why
would you prefer to summarily capitulate to Turkey’s number one
foreign policy goal vis a vis Armenia?
Finally the clause on the second page item 2 whereby "the parties
agree to implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with an
aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including
an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and
archives to define existing problems…."
Certainly the drafters did well to attempt to veil what this means to
the ignorant and unassuming 3rd party’s, but it is clear on its face
that this clause achieves Turkey’s 2nd foreign policy goal and that
it to take the political controversy of the Genocide and turn it,
for the first time ever in any country anywhere outside of Turkey,
into an historical controversy.
This clause is not just offensive to any Armenian who has fought for
the universal recognition and justice for the Armenian genocide but
just last night United States Senator Robert Menendez (who exposed and
prevented U.S. Ambassador Richard Hoagland from being confirmed as US
Ambassador to Armenia because he called into question the historical
veracity of the Armenian Genocide), Menendez stated last night in
New York that he found this clause in your proposed protocols to be
"frankly absurd" and "against Armenian national interests" and "an
insult to the Armenian People". Frankly Mr. President how did you
expect we here in this room to see it any differently that that?
Now of course I am reading the English version but that is the
only legally significant version since the last line stipulates that
though it is written in Armenian, Turkish and English…in case of any
dispute regarding its interpretation the ENGLISH text shall prevail.
Mr. President what team of international legal experts fluent
in English advised you on this document? What concerns if any did
they express to you about the significance of the phraseology I have
identified to you? How can you possibly stand here in front of us and
tell us with a straight face that there are no pre conditions herein ,
that this is only establishing a mechanism?
All of Turkey’s final political objectives are met with the adoption
of this document? None of Armenia’s are met.
Tomorrow assuming the border is opened and Armenia economy
somehow miraculously survives in spite of what the experts have
projected. Those projections are that Armenia’s fledgling, little
protected and non subsidized industries will collapse in the face of
a well subsidized and supported Turkish economy. Assume that Turkey
closes the border 6 months after opening it ….will you add a clause
in here to make all provision herein null and void? If not why?
Finally, how is it that you state that you value the Diaspora and find
it to be an indivisible part of the nation yet, when your counter
part in Turkey conferred repeatedly with Pres. Aliev in Baku to set
his mind at ease prior to the public announcement of this protocol,
you made no effort to do the same with you "indivisible Diaspora" a
Diaspora that was ostensibly so important to you that you established a
Ministry of Diaspora with great pomp and circumstance last year. Your
Minister visited communities around the globe to extol the importance
of our unified past and destiny. How can it be that Gul thought more
of a foreign president than you did of your own dispersed nation by
seeking to confer and set Aliev’s mind at ease while the Diaspora
stood dumbfounded and in disbelief by this announcement in late August.
Mr. President this community is unified in its opposition. All three of
the traditional Armenian political organizations as well the younger
recent immigrant community from Armenia stand together against these
protocols. Last week 10000 took to the streets to send you a wake
up call.
You are right that Armenia greatest natural resource is its large
Diaspora which comprises more than two thirds of the Armenian
nation. Please do not sacrifice Armenia and its Diaspora for these
protocols.
Relations with Turkey can and should be established but it was
not Armenia who shut the border and blockaded its neighbor it
was Turkey. Armenia has never taken a belligerent stand against
Turkey. Turkey has laws on the books still making it a crime to utter
the words Armenian and Genocide together . Yes turkey needs to evolve
but these protocols do nothing but reward their belligerence towards
Armenia and Armenians. It bolsters their campaign of drawing the
veracity of the genocide into question and finally isolating Karabakh
from Armenia and preventing Republic of Armenia’s participation in
the security and self determination of Karabakh.
Please stop this madness. Save your legacy. Save our legacy.