InternationalHrant Markarian: Correcting course would be “a sign of self-confidence, not weakness”
ARF leader says genocide recognition has been taken off Armenia’s agenda
Published: Thursday July 16, 2009
Related Articles
President Serge Sargsian urged not to endorse “updated Madrid Document”
President Sargsian suggests Turkey is misleading international community
U.S. urges no Karabakh link for Armenia-Turkey relations
Richard Hovannisian: “A joint historians’ commission is a dangerous trap”
Turkey, Armenia acknowledge that border will not be opened anytime soon
President Serge Sargsian categorically rules out historians' commission for 1915
For Turkey, relations with Armenia are still linked to Karabakh
Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh - Participants in a pan-Armenian conference held July 10-11 in Stepanakert expressed concern about the course of Armenian-Turkish "soccer diplomacy," claiming that Armenia's authorities have made three "mistakes": The first is President Serge Sargsian's June 23, 2008, announcement in Moscow that Armenia would not be opposed to the establishment of a commission of Armenian and Turkish historians. [He later ruled out the establishment of such a commission.] The second is the joint statement of the foreign ministries of Armenia and Turkey, released on April 22, 2009, announcing that they had agreed on a framework for an "on-going process" toward normalization. The third is allowing Turkey to insert itself into the Karabakh negotiations, or steps toward linking the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations to the Karabakh issue.
ARF Bureau representative Hrant Markarian gave an opening address at the conference, after which he spoke to Armenian Reporter Senior Correspondent Tatul Hakobyan.
Tatul Hakobyan: Mr. Markarian, what steps would you have the Armenian authorities take to come out of the current situation with Armenia-Turkey relations?
Hrant Markarian: Whenever you stop a mistake, that's a good thing. I think that they should return to the original positions. If they have a preliminary understanding with the Turks, they should declare the understanding null and void, and emphasize that they seek normal relations without preconditions. [If Turkey insists on keeping the border closed, that means it is setting preconditions for normalizing relations. It is not honoring any commitment it may have made to proceed without preconditions.]
Meanwhile, the pursuit of recognition of the Genocide must return to the foreign-policy agenda. As a result of Armenia-Turkey negotiations, the process of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide has been suspended and interrupted. We must return to it.
To come back to all this requires will, and I would want our authorities not to be stubborn. If you stop a mistake, that's good, and it would be a sign of self-confidence, not weakness.
TH: Some people are saying Armenia's leadership initiated dialogue with the Turks because of serious domestic issues. As evidence, they point to the encouragement coming from Europe and the United States. Do you consider the tragic events of March 1, 2008, and the domestic political crisis forced President Sargsian to initiate Armenia-Turkey talks?
HM: There is a lot of evidence of that. The Armenian side has made serious mistakes in its "soccer diplomacy." The first was the meeting in the fall of 2008 [on the sidelines of the opening of the United Nations General Assembly] between the foreign ministers of Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. It was a mistake because [through this meeting] Armenia allowed Turkey to become a party to the Karabakh conflict.
The second mistake was the April 22 statement [of the foreign ministries of Armenia and Turkey announcing that they had agreed on a framework for an "on-going process" toward normalization]. This statement was adopted under U.S. pressure. It is understandable that Armenia sought to improve relations with the United States. The opposition led by Levon Ter-Petrossian, too, softened its criticism of Serge Sargsian, with Ter-Petrossian saying he did not want to undercut the normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations. In this way, government and opposition cooperated in the matter of Armenia-Turkey relations.
This was a tax from the government to the opposition. What Ter-Petrossian had wanted to do for years, Serge Sargsian tried to do. We think that in inviting Turkey's President Abdullah Gül, Serge Sargsian was taking the initiative. We did not have a negative estimation of that step – as long as it was not followed by concessions and tactical errors.
It was those errors – and not the simple fact of negotiating with the Turks – that changed this whole thing to a negative. We tried to help, so that the errors would be corrected. Then we withdrew from the governing coalition. Now we try to help, have influence in this way so the authorities can correct their course. I think it would be a sign of their strength.
TH: You drew parallels between the first and third presidents. But, in contrast to Mr. Ter-Petrossian – who, it is true, was opposed to treating the Armenian Genocide as a political issue – Mr. Sargsian went so far as to once say he may not be opposed to forming an Armenian-Turkish commission of historians [proposed by Turkey to determine the truth about the events of the First World War].
HM: What matters today is fixing errors and returning to the correct path. If I were to compare, I would say Ter-Petrossian had a different direction entirely. Let's remember the conference in Yerevan organized in 1995 on the 80th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. I was in jail at the time [on political charges that were dropped upon the resignation of Mr. Ter-Petrossian as president] and was following from jail. Ter-Petrossian questioned the very nature of the Genocide. He placed responsibility for the Genocide not on the perpetrator state, but more so on the ARF. Ter-Petrossian pursued a different direction, and it is not possible to compare his policy with the policy pursued by today's authorities, which are [simply] making tactical errors.
