Tweet
US ENVOY TO TURKEY SAYS PROTOCOLS RECOGNIZE KARS, DO NOT TOUCH ON GENOCIDE
Asbarez
http://www.asbarez.com/77797/us-envoy-to-turkey-s ays-protocols-recognize-kars-do-not-touch-on-genoc ide/
Feb 24th, 2010
ANKARA-During an interview last week with the Turkish Sabah newspaper,
the US Ambassador to Turkey said the Armenia-Turkey protocols recognize
the Kars Treaty and do not touch on the Genocide, explaining the
Armenia's Constitutional Court ruling did not negate any of the
aforementioned issues.
Asbarez reported last week that US Ambassador James Jeffrey told
the Turkish parliament that if Turkey did not ratify the protocols,
the Congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide could
be approved.
Below is a transcript of the Jeffrey's interview with Sabah
correspondent Nur Batur:
Nur Batur: The protocol signed with Armenia has been one of the most
important pillars of the "zero problems with neighbors" policy. Is
the protocol dead now?
Ambassador James Jeffrey: No. The Armenian Constitutional Court has
given the green light for the implementation of the protocol.
[Turkey's] Foreign Minister [Ahmet] Davutoglu is in contact with
[Armenia'] Foreign Minister [Eduard] Nalbandian. We are working with
the Turks almost every day. We are trying to make progress with regard
to Karabakh. Actually, these two are separate processes. But, Turkey
considers them the same. Conflicts in the Caucasus must definitely be
settled. These issues may keep different paces but all of them are
important. These are parallel processes. US Ambassador in the Minsk
Group was in Ankara last week. Nothing is dead.
However, Foreign Minister Davutoglu found the decision to be in
contradiction with the spirit of the protocol. He wants an assurance
that would protect the spirit of the protocol. Some expressions in the
decision caused discomfort for Turks but we think that the decision
is a positive one. It opens the way for passing the protocol at the
Parliament. I know, for instance, that when a constitution court
reviews a decision, some paragraphs can be found to be in violation
of the Constitution in some states. This is not the case with the
Armenian court decision. We believe that both sides are serious about
their commitment to the protocol.
N.B: Nonetheless, the Constitution says that "the genocide is
undeniable". The court has made references to paragraph 11. They do
not recognize the agreement that defines borders.
J.J.: Paragraph 11 does not contain the term "border." The decision
says that "Armenian Government shall not interpret the protocol in
a way in contradiction with the genocide that occurred in 'Ottoman
Turkey and the Western Armenia.' We had jurists review the decision.
The protocol contains a clear commitment that the existing borders
shall be mutually recognized in accordance with Kars agreement and
others. There is not a covert reference to the events defined as
"genocide" that took place somewhere in West Armenia, whereabouts
of which are not really clear at all. We do not think there is a
legal obstacle that would put the recognition of borders at risk. At
any rate, the protocol does not touch on the genocide issue in any
way. It only mentions a committee of historians that could be set
up to investigate the 1915 events. That is, it does not introduce a
limitation to the positions. Turks would not have signed the protocol
if it had meant a change in borders.
N.B.: What happens if borders are opened and Armenians say that the
genocide is indisputable?
J.J.: These are all intertwined steps in the protocol. Steps are being
taken, including the establishment of a committee. These are linked
to each other. Davutoglu underlined the spirit of the protocol. I
understand that. Whenever the position of Armenia and the approval of
protocol come up on the agenda, it creates a stir in domestic policy.
We have similar problems in the U.S. Senate. But in legal terms, we
think that the decision is only giving a green light to the approval
of the protocol and that there is nothing else to read into it.
Moreover, Armenian government has also stated that it stands by
the protocol.
N.B.: Could Turkey get a written assurance?
J.J.: We are trying to understand what both sides exactly want. We
would like to understand how the spirit of the protocol comes across.
N.B.: Do you mean mediation? Could there be a way out soon?
J.J.: It is not being a mediator. We are in touch with all parties
only. Everyone exerts efforts.
Asbarez
http://www.asbarez.com/77797/us-envoy-to-turkey-s ays-protocols-recognize-kars-do-not-touch-on-genoc ide/
Feb 24th, 2010
ANKARA-During an interview last week with the Turkish Sabah newspaper,
the US Ambassador to Turkey said the Armenia-Turkey protocols recognize
the Kars Treaty and do not touch on the Genocide, explaining the
Armenia's Constitutional Court ruling did not negate any of the
aforementioned issues.
Asbarez reported last week that US Ambassador James Jeffrey told
the Turkish parliament that if Turkey did not ratify the protocols,
the Congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian Genocide could
be approved.
Below is a transcript of the Jeffrey's interview with Sabah
correspondent Nur Batur:
Nur Batur: The protocol signed with Armenia has been one of the most
important pillars of the "zero problems with neighbors" policy. Is
the protocol dead now?
Ambassador James Jeffrey: No. The Armenian Constitutional Court has
given the green light for the implementation of the protocol.
[Turkey's] Foreign Minister [Ahmet] Davutoglu is in contact with
[Armenia'] Foreign Minister [Eduard] Nalbandian. We are working with
the Turks almost every day. We are trying to make progress with regard
to Karabakh. Actually, these two are separate processes. But, Turkey
considers them the same. Conflicts in the Caucasus must definitely be
settled. These issues may keep different paces but all of them are
important. These are parallel processes. US Ambassador in the Minsk
Group was in Ankara last week. Nothing is dead.
However, Foreign Minister Davutoglu found the decision to be in
contradiction with the spirit of the protocol. He wants an assurance
that would protect the spirit of the protocol. Some expressions in the
decision caused discomfort for Turks but we think that the decision
is a positive one. It opens the way for passing the protocol at the
Parliament. I know, for instance, that when a constitution court
reviews a decision, some paragraphs can be found to be in violation
of the Constitution in some states. This is not the case with the
Armenian court decision. We believe that both sides are serious about
their commitment to the protocol.
N.B: Nonetheless, the Constitution says that "the genocide is
undeniable". The court has made references to paragraph 11. They do
not recognize the agreement that defines borders.
J.J.: Paragraph 11 does not contain the term "border." The decision
says that "Armenian Government shall not interpret the protocol in
a way in contradiction with the genocide that occurred in 'Ottoman
Turkey and the Western Armenia.' We had jurists review the decision.
The protocol contains a clear commitment that the existing borders
shall be mutually recognized in accordance with Kars agreement and
others. There is not a covert reference to the events defined as
"genocide" that took place somewhere in West Armenia, whereabouts
of which are not really clear at all. We do not think there is a
legal obstacle that would put the recognition of borders at risk. At
any rate, the protocol does not touch on the genocide issue in any
way. It only mentions a committee of historians that could be set
up to investigate the 1915 events. That is, it does not introduce a
limitation to the positions. Turks would not have signed the protocol
if it had meant a change in borders.
N.B.: What happens if borders are opened and Armenians say that the
genocide is indisputable?
J.J.: These are all intertwined steps in the protocol. Steps are being
taken, including the establishment of a committee. These are linked
to each other. Davutoglu underlined the spirit of the protocol. I
understand that. Whenever the position of Armenia and the approval of
protocol come up on the agenda, it creates a stir in domestic policy.
We have similar problems in the U.S. Senate. But in legal terms, we
think that the decision is only giving a green light to the approval
of the protocol and that there is nothing else to read into it.
Moreover, Armenian government has also stated that it stands by
the protocol.
N.B.: Could Turkey get a written assurance?
J.J.: We are trying to understand what both sides exactly want. We
would like to understand how the spirit of the protocol comes across.
N.B.: Do you mean mediation? Could there be a way out soon?
J.J.: It is not being a mediator. We are in touch with all parties
only. Everyone exerts efforts.