AGBU PRESIDENT BERGE SETRAKIAN ADDRESSES QUESTIONS ON THE PROTOCOLS FOR THE PROCESS OF NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONS BETWEEN ARMENIA AND TURKEY
AGBU Press Office
10/23/2009
On Friday, October 16, 2009, AGBU President Berge Setrakian and
members of the AGBU Central Board of Directors attended a special
forum at the AGBU Center in Pasadena, California. The event was
attended by leaders of AGBU’s chapters and committees in Southern
California and it provided local Armenian Americans the opportunity
to ask about AGBU’s position in support of the Protocols for the
Process of Normalization of Relations between Armenia and Turkey.
The following are the key issues discussed during the event and
President Setrakian’s responses to the questions.
Q: AGBU was one of the first organizations that took a stand in
support of the Armenia-Turkey normalization process, and it was also
one of the five signatories of a joint statement in support of the
process. Why did AGBU extend its support to the initiative of the
Armenian government?
Berge Setrakian: In connection with the normalization process of
relations between Armenia and Turkey and the opening of the borders,
we believe that the President of the Republic of Armenia has exercised
strong leadership and a realistic understanding of the state of
affairs of regional and international diplomacy. He has acted as a
responsible leader taking a bold and somewhat difficult step forward.
We know that this process was not easy to engage, as it represents
significant challenges for the President and for all Armenians. We
believe it is important for the Armenian authorities to have the trust,
support, and feedback of the people in order to be able to negotiate
from a position of strength, and face any difficulties ahead. We
all know that this will be a long and arduous exercise, which will
involve hard choices and diplomatic maneuvers that Armenians will
have to understand in order to navigate. Though the end result is
still unknown, the initiative and the attempt to resolve our issues
at hand are worth a genuine effort. We must remember the past and
fight realistically for our rights, while looking forward to build
a strong future.
Q: How do you evaluate the RA President’s visit to the diasporan
communities and don’t you think that this issue has caused division
among our people and threatens to disconnect Armenia from the diaspora.
Setrakian: The recent visit of the president of Armenia to the main
communities and organizations of the diaspora presented an opportunity
for sincere and sometimes heated exchange of viewpoints by various
sectors of the Armenian Diaspora. In the final analysis, we believe
that President Sargsian will weigh all the various arguments and
concerns and decide a course of action that reflects the best interests
of Armenia and Armenians.
It became apparent from the perspectives conveyed about the initiative
for the normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey that
the Armenian diaspora, insofar as its notion of the status quo is
concerned, is not a monolithic society and it is not possible to
force it to act like one. However, it is necessary to distinguish
between diversity regarding procedural issues and positions on matters
of principle. Differences in approach to the issues at hand should
all be respected, and do not necessarily mean a split when there is
unanimity concerning the ultimate outcome. We, for instance, take a
pragmatic stand and believe that in this era of global geopolitics
it is more realistic for us to try to pursue our rightful demands
through diplomacy and direct negotiations with neighboring states,
rather than through other means, which, so far, for almost a century,
have not yielded any concrete positive results.
Q: You mentioned that the protocols do not constitute preconditions
yet they set predetermined steps charting the process of opening the
borders and normalization of bilateral relations. Don’t you feel that
at least three items of the protocols imply potential concessions
regarding the issue of the Genocide, Armenia’s territorial demands of
Turkey and the ongoing negotiations regarding the status of Karabakh.
Setrakian: We all understand that the protocols regulating the process
of normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey are the
result of lengthy negotiations involving Armenia, Turkey, and other
states that have a stake in the geopolitical developments of the
region. The current documents are not perfect and should be viewed as
a possible compromise reached between the parties involved. However,
what they primarily signify today is the fact that they put Turkey
under the obligation to open the borders and pursue the development
of normal diplomatic relations between the two countries prior to
any further steps.
We are well cognizant of the fact that Turkey is a state that
committed genocide against the Armenian people and has consistently
and systematically denied it for the past hundred years. It has
conducted a hostile policy with regard to the Armenian people and
Armenia. Over the past 15 years, through the closing of the borders,
it has exerted pressure on the Republic of Armenia to force it to
relinquish the pursuit of the issue of Genocide recognition, as well as
the independence and self-determination of Karabakh. We have no doubt
that when the development of relations takes course, according to the
dispositions of the protocols, Turkey will continuously try to push its
own agenda in connection with the issues at hand. However, faced with
that possibility, the solution is not the refusal to negotiate and the
isolation of Armenia; rather, it is the promotion of dialogue, as a
modern civilized nation exercising diplomatic expertise and using the
leverage of the international powers that have a stake in the outcome.
It has been repeatedly confirmed by the President of Armenia and
the major mediating nations that the process of normalization of
relations between Armenia and Turkey are not conditioned by the
process of determining the status of Karabakh. This process has
no negative bearing on its independence, security, and right of
self-determination. The people of Karabakh and Armenia have fought
hard and their leaders will under no circumstance forfeit their
territorial rights and their claim for self-determination.
As far as the matter of Genocide recognition is concerned, if the
Turkish parliament ratifies the protocols, Turkey will be forced to
realistically face the existence of the Genocide issue after ignoring
it and attempting to distort it over the past hundred years. In the
final analysis, in connection with the Genocide issue, the process
that may drive the Turkish people to become aware of, explore, and
acknowledge the historical reality of the Genocide and consequent
reparations, is equally, if not more important than the recognition
by other countries.
The commission referred to will constitute a forum where both sides
can share, and either party will be able to walk away if a fair and
just solution to the recognition of the genocide is not reached.
The issue of the existing borders is determined by the international
community of nations and Armenia faces the reality of having
inherently accepted these borders through its membership in the UN or
the CIS. Again, Armenia will not be able to affect the resolution of
the issue of territorial demands and legal borders by isolating itself
from the international diplomatic stage. As a full-fledged legitimate
state, it is by participating in negotiations and promoting dialogue
in defense of its demands that Armenia will pursue its historical
rights. The pulling together of the energies of all Armenians towards
such a process will be more productive than a dismissive stance.
A contract is never a perfect document. It is the result of
negotiations between parties pursuing their respective interests. I
would like to reiterate, that in this era of globalization, Armenia
cannot isolate itself. That would lead to eventual disintegration. It
is through self-confidence, the creation of stable legal and economic
structures for an independent and democratic statehood, and opening
additional paths in a free-market economy that Armenia will be able
to face the challenges of our times.
Armenia cannot ignore the importance of the involvement of Russia,
the USA, France and other powers in this process – powers that have
long supported Armenia and its interests. This is a negotiation those
parties endorse, making it highly imprudent for Armenia not to engage
and refuse to be part of the process.
Q: Why did AGBU, a non-political organization, choose to be involved
in this matter, which is perceived as political in nature.
Setrakian: The Armenian General Benevolent Union is a non-political
all-Armenian organization. By its very nature, issues of Armenian
national interest such as the survival and security of our people,
development and prosperity of Armenia, and the preservation of our
heritage and identity with all that it entails, have been at the core
of its existence and mission.
All along its history, AGBU’s policies and activities have necessarily
involved civil political involvement. The Armenian General Benevolent
Union was instrumental in pressing for a number of Armenian claims
during the international political negotiations in the aftermath of
World War I and during the tenure of the first Armenian Republic.
Boghos Nubar Pasha headed the Armenian National Delegation at the
Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Later, during the Soviet period, AGBU
maintained, as a Diasporan Armenian organization, a representation
office in Armenia and its representative was victimized by the regime;
nevertheless, Boghos Nubar undertook major projects in Armenia,
including the establishment of major medical and educational
facilities in Yerevan, and developing the ambitious plan of the
town of Nubarashen, tirelessly working through the operational and
political challenges for its construction.
Years later, Calouste Gulbenkian, then President of AGBU, was
instrumental in negotiating with representatives of the French Mandate
in Lebanon and Syria, the establishment on a permanent basis of
Armenian refugees, including the creation of Bourdj Hammoud, Ainjar,
and numerous other Armenian quarters.
During the presidency of Arshag Karageozian, in 1946 the AGBU financed
under difficult political circumstances the repatriation of more
than 100,000 Armenians to Armenia. It was a major political effort
with a historical impact for the future of our nation. It was later
the foresight of Alex Manoogian to continue AGBU’s support of the
motherland through the treacherous years of the Cold War, creating
infrastructure that would strengthen Armenia through its independence
while preserving and promoting the Armenian identity and heritage in
the diaspora.
During the presidency of Louise Manoogian Simone, AGBU was one of
the first organizations to come to the aid of Armenia after the
catastrophic earthquake of 1988. Those efforts helped to maintain
our cultural and religious infrastructures and strengthen the
newly-independent Republic of Armenia. The organization further
extended its support to Karabakh in its struggle for independence
and self-determination.
AGBU continues to play a critical role in Europe by developing
awareness about the historical rights of Armenians in the Republic
of Nagorno Karabakh, through collaboration with scientific research
organizations and international political forums.
At this juncture, it is not unusual but, in fact it is AGBU’s duty
to speak up and express its viewpoint on the Armenia-Turkey Protocols.