Armenia and the Protocols: Unifier or Destroyer?

Examining the protocols in regards to the Armenian community

By IREN TATEVOSYAN
Irentatevosyan@yahoo.com

Is this the tie that binds us, or is it the thread that pulls at our sinews? This was the underlying question of the panel discussion entitled “Armenia-Turkey Protocols: Pros & Cons.” Panelists included the honorable Grigor Hovhannisyan (Consul General of Armenia), Dr. Razmig Shirinian (Political Scientist), and Dr. Joseph Kechichian (President for the Society of Armenian Studies), with Dr. Richard Hovannisian serving as the moderator.

The Consul General began by reiterating that Armenia is an actor, not a puppet of the protocol process. Plagued by a cited 18 percent economic decline, radical reconstruction was deemed necessary. He argued that open borders, vis-à-vis the protocols, would promote the growth of a modern economy, whereby the “oligarchs” will face competition at the hands of new regional actors (e.g. Turkish businessmen). This may then mitigate the power of these monopolizing tycoons and allow for the rise of small-business entrepreneurs. A progressing domino effect may invariably lead to reduced prices in consumer goods. In this scenario, Armenia becomes an international subject, not a subservient object.

Dr. Kechichian similarly sought to assuage the audience by discussing the noncommittal nature of international protocols. Unlike treaties, he explained, protocols are not binding. Rather, protocols can become the foundation for future treaties. Hence, the protocols are less consequential than is believed. Instead, its significance lies in the fundamental concern it raises, that of the impasse between Armenia and its Diaspora. “The nation is at odds with itself”, said Dr. Kechichian. With seven million Armenian living outside of Armenia and only three million within the nation’s borders, what exactly constitutes Armenia?

Conversely, to Dr. Shirinian the differences between mainland and dispersed Armenians are trumped by a universal problem faced by all Armenians – that of a compromised Armenian history. Dr. Shirinian believed this is because the protocols were approached with the realist perspective of international relations, which considers state actors (e.g. Turkey, Armenia, Russia, etc.) in accordance to their national interest and security; leaving history, ethics, and other perennial factors at the sidelines. For Armenia, such a perspective is not ideal as our identity and our history are one and the same. To compromise our history would be to compromise our nation itself. He believes the protocols are actually “opening up space for Turkish hegemony.”

At the conclusion of the individual remarks, panelists attempted to further elucidate their positions in light of the audience’s questions. Honorable Hovhannisyan especially attempted to clarify misconceptions about the Genocide Commission and the issue of Artsakh. In regards to the Genocide Commission, it was his understanding that the committee is to address issues of church property and other technicalities, not the occurrence of the Genocide itself. In regards to Artsakh, Hon. Hovhannisyan said it had not been an issue until Baku harassed and blackmailed Ankara. It was under this pressure that Ankara buckled and began making additional demands regarding Karabagh; the pursuit of which will lead to Yerevan’s said withdrawal of the protocol process.

Unsurprisingly, almost all of the questions were directed at the Consul General. The majority of which expressed the Diasporan outrage at the lack of dialogue that existed prior to the signing of the protocols. Many felt that their voices had been bypassed, silenced and in some cases ignored. He responded by revealing the secrecy of the entire agreement, confessing that he too was not aware of it till late. These questions he answered.

Others, like any good politician, he deflected. These included the status of Western Armenia, the solidification of boundaries and most prominently if Ararat (under the protocols) would remain with Turkey. One question, above all, represented the sheer frustration and burning indignation at Yerevan’s management of the entire protocol process. Shall Yerevan add insult to injury and sign the protocols on the Eve of the 95th Anniversary of the Armenian Genocide? A warranted concern considering that the protocols were revealed to the public a mere few days before the 94th Anniversary.

At the conclusion of the panelist’s remarks, the audience was both enlightened and bewildered. But such is the state of the protocols. No one on the periphery of Ankara’s and Yerevan’s dealings really understands what is occurring.
Overall, it was both an elating and discouraging experience; elating because it was gratifying to see the Armenian population expressing their concerns unilaterally and discouraging because it takes an issue of this magnitude to unify our people.

Let us hope that the next time such a discussion takes place at least two things will be different. One, the views of the panelists and academics will be more aligned. Second, the pertinent, pressing questions will be properly answered. The time is long overdue for the Armenian Government to properly face its people, citizens in Armenia and in the Diaspora alike.