Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kotchikian: The Turkish-Armenian Protocols And 'Public' (Dis)Content

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kotchikian: The Turkish-Armenian Protocols And 'Public' (Dis)Content

    Kotchikian: The Turkish-Armenian Protocols and 'Public' (Dis)Content

    http://www.hairenik.com/weekly/2009/ 09/30/kotchikian-the-turkish-armenian-protocols-an d-public-discontent/
    September 30, 2009

    The past three weeks have witnessed increased attention, condemnations,
    and justifications to the protocols as announced by the Armenian
    and Turkish governments on Aug. 31. Not surprisingly, what received
    the most attention was the section of the protocols that called for
    the establishment of "a sub-commission on the historical dimension
    to implement a dialogue with the aim to restore mutual confidence
    between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination
    of the historical records and archives to define existing problems
    and formulate recommendations..." Yet another clause that received
    attention states: "... recognition of the existing border between the
    two countries as defined by the relevant treaties of international
    law." Both of the above points received the most attention and
    criticism from those opposing the protocols on the Armenian side-and
    for a good reason, as both these points are the ones that carry the
    most nationalist sentiments.

    The aim of this opinion piece is neither to justify nor to condemn
    the protocols. Rather, it is to raise some questions and offer some
    alternative reading of the protocols by focusing on such issues as:
    Who is opposing the protocols? Is such opposition viable? And is it
    possible to link the opposition in the Armenian Diaspora with the
    one in Armenia?

    Perhaps the first obvious question would be: Are these protocols a
    fait accompli and if so, can parties criticizing them introduce any
    changes? If history is any indicator, policymaking in Armenia is
    far from being a democratic process. It is, and has always been,
    a monopoly in the hands of a few in Armenia. During the last 18
    years, most if not all of the decisions made by successive Armenian
    governments have rarely swayed, no matter how "disastrous" or "naive"
    these policies were, and no matter how much opposition came from the
    diaspora. The fact that all three previous Armenian administrations
    lacked legitimacy because of fraudulent elections had led them to
    operate from a position of insecurity and lack of compromise, as they
    continued to view any dialogue with the opposition within Armenia as
    a manifestation of weakness.

    The above observations lead to the next question: Is there any mass
    opposition against the protocols in Armenia? Again, a quick glance
    over the past decade or so rarely shows the presence and operation of
    a viable opposition movement against the dominant system. Political
    control in Armenia is based on hegemony, and no matter how much
    discontent exits regarding any given policy, the authorities have
    rarely reconsidered their policies. In today's political atmosphere in
    Armenia, especially after almost a decade of no coherent and distinct
    opposition, the task of the government is much easier as there are
    no official leverages (parliamentary groups, civil society activists,
    etc.) that any group opposing the government can utilize.

    Related to the issue of the existence of an opposition, a
    relevant question remains over the number of people opposing the
    protocols. While it is clear that there are a number of Armenians
    opposing this specific issue, it is far from being sizeable. This is
    true not only in Armenia but also in the diaspora, where opponents to
    the protocols are small in number. This does not mean that the majority
    of Armenians support the government or its decisions; rather, it is a
    manifestation of widespread political apathy and a disconnect of the
    masses from politics and political discourse. At the end of the day,
    the playing field in Armenia(n) politics remains polarized between
    two relatively smaller groups, the decision makers and their opponents.

    Finally, an interesting point recently brought up by a political
    analyst is the necessary distinction that should be made between
    the normalization of relations and reconciliation. While the former
    is a Turkey-Armenia issue, the latter is a Turkish-Armenian one. If
    Armenia decides to normalize its relations with Turkey then it is
    a simple state-to-state issue, one that the nation does not and
    should not have any say in. However, if the issue at hand is about
    reconciliation, then it becomes a topic that requires the ownership of
    all Armenians. The problem with the interpretation of these protocols
    is that it is both about normalization and reconciliation-hence merging
    the two sometimes non-overlapping ideas of the nation's interest and
    the state's interest.

    One thing that strikes an observer of this process is the complete
    inability of the Armenain government to articulate its position on
    the protocols-a fact that many people would promptly attribute to
    the notion that Armenia is under pressure and hence its government
    has no option but to sign the protocols.

    President Sarkisian's recent announcement that he intends to visit
    diasporan communities and centers for consultative purposes is clearly
    an attempt to articulate his position regarding the protocols. The
    hope is that this time around, he will be better prepared than the
    consultative meetings he had in Armenia with the local political
    parties.
Working...
X