LONDON—Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian, in a speech at the renowned Chatham House, said that he would send the protocols for ratification to Armenia’s parliament, adding that the Turkish parliament should ratify them first.

“After this meeting at Chatham House I intend to instruct my personnel to send these documents to Armenia’s National Assembly for starting the ratification process,” said Sarkisian during his speech, which was part of his official visit to the United Kingdom.

During a press briefing following his remarks, Sarkisian said that he expected the Turkish parliament to ratify the documents before Armenia moves forward.

“The parliament of Armenia will vote on the protocols if the Turkish parliament goes ahead with that,” he said, reported the Thomson-Reuters news agency. “Otherwise we can find ourselves in a situation where the Armenian parliament ratifies and the Turkish parliament fails to.”

In outlining Armenia’s commitment to the protocols process, Sarkisian reiterated his commitment to normalization by saying, “We have agreed to move forward without any pre-conditions, not making our relations contingent upon Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide.”

“However, if, as many suspect, it is proven that Turkey’s goal is to protract rather than to normalize relations, we will have to discontinue this process,” he asserted.

“I reaffirm that as the political leader of the parliamentary majority, I exclude a failure by Armenia’s parliament to ratify the protocols in case of their ratification by Turkey without preconditions in accordance with our understandings,” he said.

During the post-speech briefing, Sarkisian also commented on Turkey’s continued contention with a ruling last month of Armenia’s Constitutional Court, which paved the way for Sarkisian to submit the documents to parliament.

“It’s only the Turks that are trying to find something in it,” said Sarkisian, reported RFE/RL. “Nobody else, no other involved party, sees anything strange in that decision.”

Armenia’s high court ruled that the protocols were in line with Armenia’s constitution, adding the Turkey-Armenia normalization process should not be linked with the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution process—a widely articulated pre-condition by official Ankara—and that based on Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, Yerevan would not be deterred in pursuing international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

“Would the Turks have been happy if our Constitutional Court had ruled that these protocols do not conform to Armenia’s constitution?” he said. “Maybe they would have been happy, seeing as they are trying to use every opportunity to torpedo the process.”

“I can’t understand why the Turks … attach so much importance to the Constitutional Court’s decision. It’s an integral part of our domestic decision-making process,” added Sarkisian.

“Did we say in those protocols that the Republic of Armenia calls into question the genocide?” emphasized Sarkisian. “Did we ever say during the negotiations that we are going to hamper the process of international recognition of the genocide? If the Turks think we did, it’s not our fault.”

To demonstrate his administration’s commitment to regional stability and peace, Sarkisian told the audience at the Chatham House British Institute of International Affairs that he would invite his Azeri counterpart, Ilham Aliyev, to the “potential opening ceremony of the Turkish-Armenian border.”

Karabakh Was Never Part of Azerbaijan

In one of the most assertive discussion on the Karabakh conflict, Sarkisian told the Chatham House gathering that Karabakh was never part of Azerbaijan, and ruled out any “pressure-driven concessions” in the Karabakh process that could threaten the security and physical existence of the people of Karabakh.

“The truth is that Karabakh was never a part of independent Azerbaijan. It was forced into Azerbaijan by a decision of the Soviet Union party authority, which, defiant of the League of Nations decision and the popular referendum as a means of determining the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, decided in its Caucasus Bureau session in 1921, under Stalin’s direct pressure, and in violation of the procedure, to annex Mountainous Karabakh on the condition of forming a national autonomy on these Armenian territories within the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan,” explained Sarkisian.

The Armenian president also outlined the many instances of Soviet Azeri attempts to depopulate Karabakh of its Armenian residents and the vehement resistance by the Armenian population, which continuously rejected the Soviet model of its existence.

Sarkisian cautioned about making out of context public declarations about Karabakh, saying that the Karabakh conflict was multi-dimensional in scope.

“The problem can only be resolved in the context of the international law principles of the self-determination of nations, territorial integrity, and the non-use of force. All the stakeholders now realize this truth. Whenever one refers to the Mountainous Karabakh conflict, the notion of territorial integrity should not be emphatically underlined, especially that even if that notion is perceived to be the only one applying in the case of the Mountainous Karabakh conflict, it would not lead to its application in the form envisioned by Azerbaijan,” explained Sarkisian.

“I would like to pose a rhetorical question to all who consider themselves advocates of territorial integrity. Where were they when the Soviet Union collapsed and the borders changed? Where were they when Yugoslavia was falling apart? Why do you think that Azerbaijan could secede from the USSR, but Mountainous Karabakh could not? Why do you think that large empires should disintegrate, but small ones should persevere? What is the basis? Instability? I cannot perceive it. I do not accept it. Because unfair decisions are the very cause of instability,” added the president.

Sarkisian warned of Azerbaijan continued “war rhetoric” and its stockpiling of weapons, urging Western powers that are spending billions on Azeri oil to be vigilant, saying “they cannot remain indifferent to how their moneys are being spent.”

“The fact is that these very proceeds can become a source of threats, something that has happened elsewhere in the past,” cautioned Sarkisian.

“Armenia and Karabakh have never unleashed and never will unleash a war. We despise war, as our generation was forced to look death straight in the eyes, and has seen and lost more than can be imagined,” said Sarkisian.

“However, we realize that we must be ready for war in case others wish to fight. We cannot turn a blind eye to recurrent belligerent threats coming from a neighboring state, whose President’s New Year address to his people sounded no different from the speech of an army commander motivating his units for a battle. The war rhetoric is intensifying in the Caucasus. Armenia predominantly refrains from responding to the threats. Quoting John Kennedy: ‘we do not need to utter threats to prove that we are firm. However, it does not solve the problem. Threats also amount to violence, and violence usually begets violence,’” explained Sarkisian.

“Our belief is that the settlement of the Karabakh conflict should be based on human rights and the will of the Karabakh people as an expression of their collective identity. It is the only way to achieve lasting, feasible, and peaceful settlement. The alternative to this settlement is the forcing of the Karabakh people back into Azerbaijan, which will inevitably lead to attempts of new ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Karabakh. There is no alternative here, especially given that Azerbaijan has labeled the vast majority of the Karabakh population as “criminals” over the last two decades.  Hence, in view of the consequences of this alternative, we clearly rule out any pressure-driven concessions in the Karabakh process that would threaten the Artsakh people’s physical existence, security, and right to live in dignity,” countered Sarkisian.



18 January 2010, Press Release Regarding the Recently Published Grounds of the Decision of the Armenian Constitutional Court on the Protocols Between Turkey and Armenia

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia has declared its decision of constitutional conformity on the Protocols between Turkey and Armenia signed on 10 October 2009 with a short statement on 12 January 2010. The Constitutional Court has recently published its grounds of decision. It has been observed that this decision contains preconditions and restrictive provisions which impair the letter and spirit of the Protocols.

The said decision undermines the very reason for negotiating these Protocols as well as their fundamental objective. This approach cannot be accepted on our part.

Turkey, in line with its accustomed allegiance to its international commitments, maintains its adherence to the primary provisions of these Protocols.

We expect the same allegiance from the Armenian Government.

Republic of Turkey Ministry of Foreign Affairs

http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-14_-18-january-2010_-press-release-regarding-the-recently-published-grounds-of-the-decision-of-the-armenian-constitutional-court-on-the-protocols-between-turkey-and-armenia.en.mfa

The Decision of the Constitutional Court of Armenia (12 Jan. 2010 – Non-official translation):

http://concourt.am/english/decisions/common/pdf/850.pdf

On January 12, 2010 Republic of Armenia’s (ROA) Constitutional Court examined the constitutionality of the responsibilities undertaken by the Armenian side according to the signed Armenian-Turkish protocols.

Thus started the process of ratifying the Protocols that endanger out national interests and contradict the founding principles of our state, as stipulated in the Constitution.

The ARF had, from the start, rejected the three main points in the protocols which it considered to be preconditions aiming at: undermining the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide; legitimizing the current border between Armenia and Turkey; and linking the normalization of the relations between Armenia and Turkey with the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in Azerbaijan’s favor.

We were, and still are, convinced that the signed protocols contradict with Armenia’s constitution to a degree sufficient to provide the Constitutional Court with valid legal basis to consider the protocols unconstitutional.

While, unfortunately that didn’t occur, we are convinced that the mounting resentments expressed in Armenia and the Diaspora against the protocols is yielding results. First, as the decision reached by the Constitutional Court also indicates, the signing of the protocols is the result of the poor performance of Armenia’s Foreign Minister. Second, the Constitutional Court has indicated that the establishment of relations with Turkey should be strictly diplomatic in nature, and has accepted the opening of the border between Armenia and Turkey. Moreover the Constitutional Court did refer to the expressed concerns regarding the protocols and has provided enough legal basis for ROA to express reservations regarding some of the points in the protocols.

The Constitutional Court specifically passed a decision that the protocols are considered to be a bilateral agreement between Armenia and Turkey and that the Republic of Armenia could not speak on behalf of a third party, in this case Nagorno-Karabakh.

On the issue of the Genocide, any responsibilities that Armenia should undertake based on the provisions of the protocols could not contradict the preamble of ROA’s constitution and the 11th point of ROA’s declaration of independence which explicitly mentions that ROA will support the international recognition of the Genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and in Western Armenia.

As far as defining the border between Armenia and Turkey is concerned, the protocols do not have any legal premise to the determine that. Hence this is still an open issue, and one that could be resolved solely based on a future inter-state agreement.

Having the Constitutional Court’s decision, the ARF is convinced that the decision could diffuse the dangers expressed in the protocols IF at the time of the ratification, the reservations expressed by the Constitutional Court become an integral part of the ratified protocols.

Fellow compatriots,

We consider that the decision reached by ROA’s Constitutional Court is the successful end product of a struggle that has brought together the efforts of the ARF, other political and social groups as well as the whole nation. However the challenge still, lies ahead. We have to increase our efforts exponentially and force the authorities of ROA to bring this process to a conclusion

Our final goal is to normalize Armenian –Turkish relations without undermining the interests of the nation and the state and specifically without giving any concessions from the rightful demands of generations of our people.

Armenian Revolutionary Federation

January 12, 2010

Shahan Kandaharian
Editor-in-chief
`Aztag’ Daily Newspaper

The criticism of the prominent Swiss newspaper against its government
is characteristic. The “Neo Zuricher Zeitung” newspaper criticizes the
country’s foreign ministry, for mediating between Armenia and Turkey
in the process of normalization of their ties as well as signing of
the protocols. The main issue of the criticism is Turkish denialist
policy. In other words, official Bern shouldn’t have mediated such a
process as long as Turkey doesn’t recognize the Armenian Genocide.

We’re not talking of a casual phenomenon here where a
media representative would criticize Turkey for its denial of history.
First of all, we’re talking about the most popular newspaper in a
given country. Second, we’re talking about Switzerland; a country that
has been given a mediatory role by geopolitical powers for a long time
now. It’s true that the criticism didn’t come from a government
official, however, after all we’re talking about a major contradiction
between the state and the public opinion.

It shouldn’t be surprising to state that by taking up this
mediatory role Switzerland also manifested intra-state contradictions.
And the rationale is this: We all know that the then president of the
Turkish Historians’ Union Yousouf Haladjoghlu and after him historian
Doghou Perincek were taken to court one after the other for denying
the fact of Genocide based on Swiss Criminal Law. The judicial odessy
is familiar to our readers.

Let’s continue the attempt of developing the rationale.
The same Switzerland was mediating secret talks between the Armenian
and Turkish foreign ministry delegates which was developing in rounds.
Most probably during those secret talks the Turkish delegates must
have denied the Armenian Genocide several times.

The question about the contradiction doesn’t end here
though. According to media reports, on the day of the signing of the
protocols it was decided for the two ministers to address the
reporters. The written address of the Turkish foreign minister
included a section which to say the least doubted the Armenian
Genocide and which even if not presented, nevertheless was read and
examined not so far from the spotlights and the reporters’ cameras. In
other words, a Swiss law-countering step was taken in the courts of
University of Zurich.

Still, the historic subcommittee mentioned in the
Protocols opens doors for Turkey to assure the examination of the
facts of the Genocide. The examination itself is the indirect denial
of the truth; a unique way of denial. So, there goes the third
explicit violation of Swiss Law.

The issue, therefore, isn’t about state-public opinion
contradiction, but the screaming contradiction between Swiss judicial
and political sectors seen in the mediation of the for normalizing the
Armenian-Turkish relations. And that was seen in three occasions; too
many occasions.

This issue has no relation with the success or collapse of
the process. The Swiss foreign affairs high directorate must give an
explanation to the official judicial sector about the violations
committed until now if it’s really true that in countries like
Switzerland the judicial sector is independent of the political
sector.

I read with interest the text of your speech of the 21st of October at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. My impressions were mixed. However, I mainly felt that you wished to present what was desirable, instead of what was real. To begin with, it was astonishing to hear of “occupation” from the foreign minister of a country which has itself been occupying 37% of the territory of Cyprus for more than three decades now, not to mention three-fourths of my homeland – the Republic of Armenia – for almost nine decades.

I would like to stress that I am not referring to some abstract “Armenian lands”, but solely the territory granted to the Republic of Armenia through a document of international law, that is, the arbitral award of US President Woodrow Wilson of the 22nd of November, 1920. I shall elaborate on the arbitral award later, but for now I would simply like to say that, in accordance with international law, arbitral awards are “definitive and without appeal.”

Respected Minister, while commenting on the fifth clause of protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey , you drew the conclusion that the Republic of Armenia recognises “the existing border” according to the treaties of Moscow (of the 16th of March, 1921) and Kars (of the 13th of October, 1921).

This is a very arbitrary conclusion indeed. The document in question does not cite the aforementioned so-called treaties. The protocols refer only to “the relevant treaties of international law”. That is, evidently, the treaties in question must be governed by international law, at the very least not being in violation of it. Simultaneously, by referring to “the relevant treaties of international law” and not simply “international treaties”, the protocol provides a more inclusive definition, and thus brings in “the instruments of international law” in general, regardless of the kind of document, as, given the present case, we have a document known as a “protocol”. Accordingly, a “treaty” must be understood in a way separate from the term for the document, purely as a legal, written international agreement. [“Treaty” means an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law – Article 2.1(a), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969].

It is evident that “the existing border” mentioned in the protocol is not the illegal dividing line which came about as a result of Bolshevik-Kemalist actions. Ex injuria non oritur jus, illegal acts cannot create law. “The existing border” implies that which exists in international law and in accordance with international law. And there is no only one such border between Armenia and Turkey: the border decided by the arbitral award of US President Woodrow Wilson.

The treaties of Moscow and Kars which you mentioned in your speech are not treaties at all from an international law point of view. In order for them to be considered as treaties, they ought to have been signed by the plenipotentiary representatives of the lawful governments of recognised states. Neither the Kemalists, nor the Bolsheviks, to say nothing of the Armenian Bolsheviks brought to power in Armenia, fulfilled the above requirement in 1921. And so, the act of signing those treaties were in violation of the basic principles of international law – jus cogens – at the very moment they were signed. And according to Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, which you yourself cited in your speech, “A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law.”

Do you really believe that two unrecognised, and consequently illegal self-proclaimed administrations, as the Bolsheviks and Kemalists were in 1921, could, through a bilateral treaty (of Moscow), nullify a legally negotiated international document signed by eighteen recognised states (the Treaty of Sèvres)? Do you believe that the Molotov- Ribbentrop Pact, for example, is a legal document? I don’t think so, because two countries, namely the USSR and Germany, could not decide the borders of a third country. Then why do you believe that two rebel movements, as, I repeat, the Bolsheviks and Kemalists were in 1921, had the authority to decide in Moscow the borders of some other country, the Republic of Armenia, even if it were occupied?

Do you really believe that the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, as well as the Georgian and Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic ever had the capacity to make treaties under international law? Of course not. Since April of 1920 (for Azerbaijan), December of 1920 (for Armenia) and February of 1921 (for Georgia), these countries were rendered simply territories of different administrative units under Russian Bolshevik occupation. In Armenia’s case, the Senate of the United States adopted outright the following by Resolution #245 on the 3rd of June, 1924: “Turkey joined with Soviet Russia in the destruction of the Armenian State.” If there were no Republic of Armenia from the 2nd of December, 1920, how could it sign an international treaty in Kars in October of 1921?

It is an indisputable fact of international law that no legal consequences are held for an occupied country by the acts of the occupiers, as “a cession of territory during occupation is not effective.” There is no ambiguity in this matter.

The fact that the protocols do not make legal the situation created as a result of the Armenian Genocide and that they do not recognise any frontiers was stated outright in the address of the President of the Republic of Armenia, Serge Sargsyan, on the 10th of October, 2009: “Any sort of relationship with Turkey cannot cast into doubt the reality of the dispossession and genocide of the Armenian people”, and “The issue of the current frontier between Armenia and Turkey is subject to a resolution as per prevailing international law. The protocols say nothing more than that.”

Clear and simple. Now let us see what this “prevailing international law” is exactly, according to which “the issue of the current frontier between Armenia and Turkey is subject to a resolution.”

In order to understand this, one must return to the not-too-distant past, during that short period of time, when the Republic of Armenia was recognised as a state by the international community. When, on the 19th of January, 1920, the Supreme Council of the Paris Peace Conference, that is, the British Empire, France and Italy, recognised the Republic of Armenia, it was done so with a certain condition, that the borders of the Republic of Armenia were to be determined soon afterwards. The US also recognised the Republic of Armenia with that same condition on the 23rd of April, 1920.

When it came to the borders of the Republic of Armenia, naturally, the most important was the question of the Armenia-Turkey frontier. And so, at the San Remo session of the Paris Peace Conference, alongside other issues, this particular question was discussed during the 24th to the 27th of April, 1920, and, on the 26th of April, the US President Woodrow Wilson was officially requested to arbitrate the frontiers of Armenia. On the 17th of May, 1920, President Wilson accepted and took on the duties and authority as the arbiter of the frontier between Armenia and Turkey. I would like to especially emphasise that this was almost three months before the Treaty of Sèvres was signed (which took place on the 10th of August, 1920). Whether the Treaty of Sèvres would come to pass or not, the compromis of a legal arbiter existed, and consequently, the arbitral award deciding the border between Armenia and Turkey would take place. It is another matter that the Treaty of Sèvres consisted of an additional compromis.

It is necessary to note that the validity of the compromis only require the signatures of the authorised representatives and that no ratification is required for compromis. Accordingly, based upon the compromis of San Remo (of the 26th of April, 1920), as well as that of Sèvres (of the 10th of August, 1920), US President Woodrow Wilson carried out his arbitral award on the borders between Armenia and Turkey on the 22nd of November, 1920, which was to be enforced thereupon and without reservations in accordance with the agreement (compromis).

Two days later, on the 24th of November, the award was officially conveyed by telegraph to the Paris Peace Conference for the consideration of the League of Nations. The award was accepted as such, but remained unsettled, because the beneficiary of the award – the Republic of Armenia – ceased to exist on the 2nd of December, 1920.

The issue of the current status of Wilson’s arbitral award It is necessary to state, first of all, that any arbitral award is a binding document to be carried out without reservations. Moreover, arbitral awards are “final and without appeal”. “The arbitral award is the final and binding decision by an arbitrator”.

The final and non-appealable nature of arbitral awards is codified within international law. In particular, by Article 54 of the 1899 edition and Article 81 of the 1907 edition of the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. And so, by the arbitral award of the President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, the frontier between Armenia and Turkey has been decided for perpetuity, being in force to this day and not subject to any appeal.

Therefore, when the fifth clause of the protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey mentions “the mutual recognition of the existing border between the two countries as defined by the relevant treaties of international law”, then that can only take into consideration the border defined by the only legal document in force to this day, the arbitral award of US President Woodrow Wilson. There is no other legal document “of international law”, as the protocol says.

 There is another important issue to consider here. Have the authorities and public bodies of the United States ever expressed any position with regards to President Wilson’s arbitral award deciding the border between Armenia and Turkey?

The position of the executive branch- The highest executive power of the United States not only recognised Wilson’s arbitral award, but has also ratified it and, therefore, it has become part of the law of the land of the United States. The President of the United States Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State Bainbridge Colby ratified the award of the arbitrator Woodrow Wilson with their signatures and The Great Seal of the United States. According to international law, the personal signature of the arbitrator and his seal, if applicable, are completely sufficient as ratification of an arbitral award. Woodrow Wilson could have been satisfied with only his signature or as well as his presidential seal. In that case, the award would have been the obligation of an individual, albeit a president. However, the arbitral award is ratified with the official state seal and confirmed by the keeper of the seal, the Secretary of State. The arbitral award of Woodrow Wilson is thus an unqualified obligation of the United States of America itself.

The position of the legislative branch – Arbitral awards are not subject to any legislative approval or ratification. They are governed by international public law. So the Senate, which reserves the right to take up matters relating to foreign policy according to the US Constitution, never directly discussed the arbitral award deciding the Armenian-Turkish frontier. Nevertheless, in the course of discussing other matters, the Senate of the United States explicitly expressed its position on this award on at least one occasion.

On the 18th of January, 1927, the Senate rejected the Turkish-American treaty of the 6th of August, 1923, for three reasons. One of the reasons was that Turkey “failed to provide for the fulfillment of the Wilson award to Armenia”. Senator William H. King (D-UT) expressed himself much more clearly in an official statement on this occasion, “Obviously it would be unfair and unreasonable for the United States to recognize and respect the claims and professions of Kemal so long as he persist in holding control and sovereignty over Wilson Armenia.” The vote in the Senate in 1927 testifies without a doubt to the fact that Wilson’s arbitral award was a ratified award and had legal bearing in 1927. Nothing from a legal perspective has changed since then, and it thus remains in force to this day.

The position of public bodies- The most important public bodies in the United States are political parties. The main clauses of party programmes are to be found in party platforms, which are approved by the general assemblies of political parties.

The Democratic Party of the US (the party of current President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton) has official expressed a position on Wilson’s arbitral award on two occasions, in 1924 and in 1928.

In its 1924 programme, the Democratic Party included a separate clause of the “Fulfillment of President Wilson’s arbitral award respecting Armenia” as a platform and goal. The 1928 platform went even further, referring to the US as a state and, as per the “promises and engagements” of the Allied Powers, “We favor the most earnest efforts on the part of the United States to secure the fulfillment of the promises and engagements made during and following the World War by the United States and the allied powers to Armenia and her people.” The only “promise and engagement” of the United States to the Republic of Armenia was and continues to remain the arbitral award of Woodrow Wilson on the border between Armenia and Turkey.

Respected Minister,

As opposed to the current generation of Americans and Europeans, we know the Turks well, and we therefore do not harbour any illusions. I believe that you, in turn, know us well, and must therefore bear no illusions of your own. If you Turks believe that by arm-twisting Armenia you can force anything upon the Armenian people, you are much mistaken. Our history is proof of quite the contrary.

 We – the Armenians and the Turks – are condemned together to find mutually-acceptable solutions. Such solutions may come in many forms, but one thing must be clear, that they have to benefit the establishment of a stable peace for the entire region, the development of a diverse economy, the creation of a co-operative atmosphere, while serving as well the realisation of certain interests of global powers and their greater inclusion in regional issues. And so, that solution must be such that it dispels the security concerns of the Armenian side, while providing conditions of sustained economic growth and development for the Republic of Armenia, as well as guaranteeing the preservation of Armenian cultural values. Simultaneously, the solution must not go against the core interests of Turkey, and the proposal must be appreciable by the Turkish side as a dignified solution to the given circumstances.

Respected Minister,

We are willing to co-operate, but do not take that as a sign of weakness and do not force us to raise a white flag of surrender. That will never occur.

Accept, Minister, the deepest assurances of my consideration.

Ara Papian

Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre,

Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary 2000-2006 of the Republic of Armenia to Canada 23 October, 2009

On this occasion, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation declares:

a) Consultations, which took place over the last several weeks after the protocols were made public, although not always under free and transparent conditions, proved that there are serious concerns and great counteraction regarding these documents; that the homeland and the Diaspora have the same approach to fundamental issues concerning all Armenians. It was made clear that the struggle for the Armenian Cause is simultaneously a struggle for the fate and development of our independent statehood.

b) The consultations proved that the protocols and the process include provisions satisfying the three fundamental preconditions which Turkey has put forth since the first days of the independence of the Republic of Armenia. It also became apparent that the same concerns existed in those Armenian circles who were defending the Armenian President’s policy.

c) These concerns were finally clearly expressed by the President of the Republic of Armenia in his address to the Armenian people on October 10.  The President of Armenia disclosed the existence of those very same dangers and preconditions that the Dashnaktsutyun had expressed. In particular, the President of the Republic of Armenia affirmed that:

1. Any kind of relations with Turkey cannot put into question the veracity of the Armenian Genocide and the fact that the Armenian people have been dispossessed of their homeland.
2. There exists a border issue between Armenia and Turkey.
3. The signed documents cannot in any way be related to the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.
We are convinced that had the president expressed these positions earlier, it could have steered the consultations correctly and could have resulted in the refusal to sign the protocols. At any rate, this position must guide all the representatives of the Armenian authorities, as well as those who defended the now-signed protocols.

d) Turkey’s unconstructive position during the signing ceremonies of the protocols is an  eloquent testament that Turkey is realizing the process in favor of accomplishing its own preconditions, which was sufficient foundation for Armenia to refuse to sign. The scandal that occurred during the signing ceremony is a testament to the failure of our diplomacy in Armenia-Turkey negotiations. The presence of the foreign ministers of the United States, the Russian Federation, France, the European Union and Switzerland and the efforts to ensure the signing of the protocols at any cost is in fact pressure being brought to bear, especially on the Republic of Armenia. We are convinced, that Armenia should not have succumbed to those pressures. It is equally unacceptable for the world’s power centers to exert pressure on small nations, through political, economical or other means.

e) We are entering a new stage of the struggle following the signing of the protocols. The new announcements being made from Turkey are a testament to that country’s objective, which is to weaken Armenia and the Armenians and to enforce new concessions.

Under these conditions it is necessary, through all possible means to prevent the ratification of the protocols which are a blow to the interests of our state and nation. That objective demands the widening and deepening of our pan-Armenian unity; not to open the door to any expression of national discord and to be prepared to endure potentially dangerous new developments that await pan-national issues.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation is steadfast in its struggle to ensure the failure of the ratification of the protocols. For that objective, the Dashnaktsutyun will use all political and constitutional means all the way to regime change, if necessary.

The Armenian Revolutionary Federation is appealing to the all Armenians to arm themselves with confidence and resolve. We are compelled to prevent the ratification of the protocols with our combined powers and by doing so to neutralize the real dangers threatening Armenia and the Armenians, in the name of the Republic of Armenia, liberated Artsakh, the unity of our people and the right of our generations to live in dignity in the world.

ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION

12 October 2009

Yerevan

The ATAA predominantly focuses on denying the Armenian genocide.  Their president-elect Ergun Kirlikovali says recognizing the Armenian Genocide is racist, because is ignores the Turkish dead. ATAA also links to the hateful site of “tallarmeniantale”.

It’s frustrating and unpatriotic to see some Armenian organizations’ statements (Armenian American Assembly, click here) in tune with ATAA.

President Serzh Sargsyan Discusses Importance of the Armenian Turkish Protocols at New York City Meeting with Representatives of the Armenian Diaspora

President Serzh Sargsyan clearly articulated that the Protocols initialed on August 31st by Armenia and Turkey include no preconditions and that they make no mention of the Nagorno Karabakh issue or the Armenian Genocide. While President Serzh Sargsyan acknowledged that there are risks and potential problems ahead in negotiations with Turkey, he indicated that the challenge and historic opportunity to establish diplomatic relations and open borders with Turkey must be realized.

Sargsyan addressed about 40 representatives of major Armenian organizations from the Eastern United States and Canada on Saturday, October 3, at the Palace Hotel in New York City. The meeting was the second stop of President Sargsyan’s tour of the Armenian Diaspora.

Representatives of Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), and its affiliated groups were the only opponents of the protocols and objected to several of its provisions. These objections were led by Kenneth Hachikian, Chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), whose remarks were inappropriate and insulting to the President of Armenia. Hachikian called the president’s action “naïve”, “reckless” and “simply irresponsible.” He also inferentially attacked the Armenian Assembly of America (Assembly) reciting past actions that he inappropriately characterized as consistently supporting the U.S. State Department. Furthermore, he accused President Sargsyan of acceding to Turkish blackmail and characterized those supporting the Armenian Government’s efforts to establish relations with Turkey as a minority “no longer having political relevance in our community.” Other speakers representing groups affiliated with the ARF objected to the protocols as well, but without the rancor or being disrespectful to Armenia’s president.

In their turn, representatives of the Assembly, Armenian General Benevolent Union (AGBU), Diocese of the Armenian Church, Knights of Vartan, Ramgavar Party, Tekeyan Cultural Association, Congress of Canadian Armenians, and Primate of the Armenian Church of Canada, presented comprehensive statements of support for the pending Armenia-Turkey negotiations. Each explained the necessity to proceed with the negotiating process.

Assembly Chairman Hirair Hovnanian challenged ANCA’s assertion that ARF represented the majority views of the Armenian Diaspora, adding that he protested the crude tone and discourtesy of Hachikian’s remarks toward President Sargsyan and his hostile attack on the Assembly, AGBU, Eastern and Western Dioceses of the Armenian Church, and the Knights of Vartan, whose joint statement welcoming the Armenian President’s initiative seems to have provoked Hachikian’s extreme and angry assertions.

Assembly members Anthony Barsamian, Bryan Ardouny, Noubar Afeyan and Jirair Haratunian also addressed the meeting.

Barsamian challenged as false the assertion made that any one person or organization has the right to speak for victims of the Genocide. Barsamian also stated that we collectively share the responsibility for ensuring affirmation of the Armenian Genocide. Bryan Ardouny spoke to the political dynamics in Washington to the Armenia-Turkish initiative and its effects on the Armenian Genocide resolution currently pending in the U.S. Congress and actively promoted by the Assembly.

Noubar Afeyan addressed the necessity of economic progress in Armenia and the prospects ahead with the establishment of diplomatic and economic relations with Turkey. Afeyan stated that many of the arguments presented against the protocols remind us of the cold war between the Diaspora and Armenia that existed for the previous 70 years. He encouraged those present to “not work against Armenia.” Afeyan also urged the group to “trust but verify” in Armenia’s dealing with Turkey and called on the Diaspora to help build a bright future for Armenia.

Jirair Haratunian congratulated the President on the success of his “football diplomacy,” which brought Turkish President Abdullah Gul to Armenia. He reiterated that this move radically changed the political landscape in the South Caucasus, for the better, and made the current diplomatic initiative possible. Finally, Haratunian urged the process to proceed and if it fails it should not be because of any lack of effort by Armenia.

Organized by

• A.R.F. “Soghomon Tehlirian” Gomide (Tashnagtsoutioun)
• S.D.H.P. Central Executive of Canada (Hunchakian)
• A.D.L.P. Central Executive of Canada (Ramgavar)

Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Armenian Youth Centre of Toronto
50 Hallcrown Place, Victoria Park Ave. and Highway Heroes

To watch this event live on the Internet, please visit www.armenian.ca or www.anctoronto.org.

This public gathering further reinforces that the main political forces in the Toronto-Armenian community are opposed to provisions of the protocols, which they believe will endanger Armenia’s national security and violate the nation’s historical rights.