Tweet
TURKEY CONSIDERS AZERBAIJAN NOT AS AN EQUAL AND FRATERNAL COUNTRY, BUT AS AN INSTRUMENT CREATING PROBLEMS FOR ARMENIA
David Stepanyan
ArmInfo
2010-05-18 13:09:00
Interview of Head of 'Modus Vivendi' Sociological Studies Centre,
Armenia's former ambassador to Canada in 2000-2006, Ara Papyan,
with ArmInfo news agency
Mr. Papyan, five treaties determining the Armenian-Turkish border
were signed over the period from 1918 to 1923: the Treaties of Sevres,
Alexandropol, Moscow, Kars and Lausanne. Actually, all these treaties
consolidated the existing political reality. But how much grounded
were they from the legal point of view?
Each science has its own criteria. Codification of these criteria in
the international law is made primarily via international conventions.
Since conventions codify the already existing provision of the
international law, consequently, they are compulsory for all the
states irrespective of their participation in the given convention.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) defines a treaty
as "an international agreement concluded between states in written
form and governed by international law". It becomes obvious from
this definition that to be considered a treaty, any written agreement
signed between the parties should meet two criteria at least: a) it
should be signed between states, b) it should not at least conflict
with the international law.
Out of the five above-mentioned treaties the ones of Alexandropol,
Moscow and Kars were signed by not the legally existing and recognized
Ottoman Empire, but a rebellious criminal movement, which violated
both domestic legislation and international law. The Turkish Court
proved the criminality of the Kemalist movement in 1919. As regards
the violation of the international law, it is proved by the fact that
Kemalists roughly broke the Armistice of Mudros dated 30 October 1918.
The Treaties of Alexandropol, Moscow and Kars are illegal, so, they
cannot have legal consequences. The Treaty of Lausanne was not signed
by Armenia, so, it cannot create commitments for Armenia. Only the
Treaty of Sevres out of the five is legal.
Does the Arbitral resolution on the borders of the former Ottoman
Empire signed by US President Woodrow Wilson on 22 November 1920 have
a legal force?
Certainly, it does. Any arbitral resolution is mandatory without
reservation. Moreover, arbitral resolutions are final and not subject
to cassation as stipulated by Article 54 of the Hague Convention
on the pacific settlement of international disputes. I'd like to
emphasize that the Armenian-Turkish border was determined by the
Arbitral resolution by President Woodrow Wilson dated Nov 22 1920 and
not by the Treaty of Serves as many people suppose. It was adopted on
the basis of the Agreement of the Supreme Council of Allied Powers
(Great Britain, Italy, France) dated April 26 1920. Already on May
17 1920 President Wilson gave a positive response and undertook the
responsibilities and powers of the arbiter determining the border
between Armenia and Turkey. The agreement on the arbitration was
repeated also by Article 89 of the Treaty of Sevres which stipulates
that the parties accept the arbitral decision "immediately and without
reservations". That is to say, unlike other articles of the Treaty,
the date and conditions for execution of this article were different.
Having signed the Protocols with Armenia, Turkey seemed to be
interested in their prompt ratification, as the Protocols directly
mentioned recognition of its existing borders, which are disputed by
Armenia. What are the true reasons of Ankara's refusal from such a
beneficial proposal?
Turkey's diplomacy may be compared with a bulldog's behavior: the
latter is not satisfied with one bite, and if it bites once, it will
bite to death. Being maximalists, Turks have made it their mission
to fulfill at least three tasks. They are protracting the process,
since they cannot yet force Armenia to transfer Nagorny Karabakh to
Azerbaijan for gutting. After all, a suspended situation is beneficial
for them. I have serious concerns that Turks are striving to achieve
their goal with Russia's support.
How much strong is Azerbaijan's factor in Turkey in the context of
political decisions concerning the relations with Armenia?
There is only one factor in Turkey - the interests of the leadership
of Turkish armed forces. Turkey protects Azerbaijan for the sake of
not Azerbaijani but its own interests. Any step to weaken Armenia is
within interests of Turkey. Consequently, Turkey considers Azerbaijan
as not an equal and fraternal country, but as an instrument creating
problems for Armenia. Turkey has repeatedly betrayed Azerbaijan. It
will do that again if needed.
What developments can we expect from the Armenian-Turkish process? Do
the Protocols have any prospects?
The parliamentary election will be held in Turkey in November 2011.
The pre-election fight has already started. In this situation no
Turkish party will ratify any protocol with Armenia without settlement
of the Karabakh problem in favor of Azerbaijan. I am sure that in the
matter of the Karabakh conflict settlement the people of Armenia will
not betray their interests. Any territorial compromise will lead to
the turnover in Armenia with severe consequences. I don't know any
politician in Armenia who does not understand it.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
David Stepanyan
ArmInfo
2010-05-18 13:09:00
Interview of Head of 'Modus Vivendi' Sociological Studies Centre,
Armenia's former ambassador to Canada in 2000-2006, Ara Papyan,
with ArmInfo news agency
Mr. Papyan, five treaties determining the Armenian-Turkish border
were signed over the period from 1918 to 1923: the Treaties of Sevres,
Alexandropol, Moscow, Kars and Lausanne. Actually, all these treaties
consolidated the existing political reality. But how much grounded
were they from the legal point of view?
Each science has its own criteria. Codification of these criteria in
the international law is made primarily via international conventions.
Since conventions codify the already existing provision of the
international law, consequently, they are compulsory for all the
states irrespective of their participation in the given convention.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) defines a treaty
as "an international agreement concluded between states in written
form and governed by international law". It becomes obvious from
this definition that to be considered a treaty, any written agreement
signed between the parties should meet two criteria at least: a) it
should be signed between states, b) it should not at least conflict
with the international law.
Out of the five above-mentioned treaties the ones of Alexandropol,
Moscow and Kars were signed by not the legally existing and recognized
Ottoman Empire, but a rebellious criminal movement, which violated
both domestic legislation and international law. The Turkish Court
proved the criminality of the Kemalist movement in 1919. As regards
the violation of the international law, it is proved by the fact that
Kemalists roughly broke the Armistice of Mudros dated 30 October 1918.
The Treaties of Alexandropol, Moscow and Kars are illegal, so, they
cannot have legal consequences. The Treaty of Lausanne was not signed
by Armenia, so, it cannot create commitments for Armenia. Only the
Treaty of Sevres out of the five is legal.
Does the Arbitral resolution on the borders of the former Ottoman
Empire signed by US President Woodrow Wilson on 22 November 1920 have
a legal force?
Certainly, it does. Any arbitral resolution is mandatory without
reservation. Moreover, arbitral resolutions are final and not subject
to cassation as stipulated by Article 54 of the Hague Convention
on the pacific settlement of international disputes. I'd like to
emphasize that the Armenian-Turkish border was determined by the
Arbitral resolution by President Woodrow Wilson dated Nov 22 1920 and
not by the Treaty of Serves as many people suppose. It was adopted on
the basis of the Agreement of the Supreme Council of Allied Powers
(Great Britain, Italy, France) dated April 26 1920. Already on May
17 1920 President Wilson gave a positive response and undertook the
responsibilities and powers of the arbiter determining the border
between Armenia and Turkey. The agreement on the arbitration was
repeated also by Article 89 of the Treaty of Sevres which stipulates
that the parties accept the arbitral decision "immediately and without
reservations". That is to say, unlike other articles of the Treaty,
the date and conditions for execution of this article were different.
Having signed the Protocols with Armenia, Turkey seemed to be
interested in their prompt ratification, as the Protocols directly
mentioned recognition of its existing borders, which are disputed by
Armenia. What are the true reasons of Ankara's refusal from such a
beneficial proposal?
Turkey's diplomacy may be compared with a bulldog's behavior: the
latter is not satisfied with one bite, and if it bites once, it will
bite to death. Being maximalists, Turks have made it their mission
to fulfill at least three tasks. They are protracting the process,
since they cannot yet force Armenia to transfer Nagorny Karabakh to
Azerbaijan for gutting. After all, a suspended situation is beneficial
for them. I have serious concerns that Turks are striving to achieve
their goal with Russia's support.
How much strong is Azerbaijan's factor in Turkey in the context of
political decisions concerning the relations with Armenia?
There is only one factor in Turkey - the interests of the leadership
of Turkish armed forces. Turkey protects Azerbaijan for the sake of
not Azerbaijani but its own interests. Any step to weaken Armenia is
within interests of Turkey. Consequently, Turkey considers Azerbaijan
as not an equal and fraternal country, but as an instrument creating
problems for Armenia. Turkey has repeatedly betrayed Azerbaijan. It
will do that again if needed.
What developments can we expect from the Armenian-Turkish process? Do
the Protocols have any prospects?
The parliamentary election will be held in Turkey in November 2011.
The pre-election fight has already started. In this situation no
Turkish party will ratify any protocol with Armenia without settlement
of the Karabakh problem in favor of Azerbaijan. I am sure that in the
matter of the Karabakh conflict settlement the people of Armenia will
not betray their interests. Any territorial compromise will lead to
the turnover in Armenia with severe consequences. I don't know any
politician in Armenia who does not understand it.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress