Armenian Reporter:

For civil discourse as we face the future

Published: Friday October 09, 2009

Protesters near the hotel where President Serge Sargsian met with representatives of American-Armenian and Canadian-Armenian groups, New York, Oct. 3, 2009. Armenian Reporter

Turkey has been an exceptionally hostile neighbor to Armenia. Through its ongoing illegal blockade, it has sought - and seeks - to harm Armenia. It provides Azerbaijan with wholehearted military and diplomatic support in its effort to thwart the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh. It falsifies history to deny the Armenian Genocide and to wash its hands of the genocide's ongoing consequences and of its responsibility for reparations and restitution. None of these hostile activities will stop if and when the agreement is signed; and among them only the blockade is supposed to end if the agreement is ratified.

Under these circumstances, any agreement with Turkey was bound to arouse a passionate response. This particular agreement, which recognizes the existing border with Turkey and - as President Serge Sargsyan acknowledged in his interview with the Armenian Reporter last week - will create "certain complications" for the campaign for universal affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, was bound to face intense opposition.

In their talks, Armenian and Turkish officials had agreed to leave six weeks between announcing the protocols they had initialed and signing them, to allow "internal political consultations" to begin, ahead of parliamentary consideration. Such consultations inside Armenia have included a meeting between the president and the representatives of over 50 political parties, hearings organized by the parliamentary Commission on Foreign Relations, and constant discussions in the media.

President Sargsyan recognized that the Armenian diaspora has a profound stake in Armenia-Turkey relations, and to his credit, dedicated a week to traveling to key diaspora communities to discuss those relations. The significance of this unprecedented action should not be underestimated. It serves as a welcome rejection of the view long espoused by some that the diaspora should be a silent partner to Armenia, offer support, and otherwise keep out of Armenia's affairs.

It is true, as some critics have noted, that the diaspora tour came after the protocols were negotiated and after the president had decided that his administration would sign them. But the tour was certainly not the beginning of consultations; practically all diaspora organizations with an interest in politics have weighed in throughout the process of "soccer diplomacy" between Armenia and Turkey. Nor will these consultations be the last. Properly understood, the presidential tour was a chance for the president to explain the policy he has chosen and to discuss where Armenia and the diaspora, together, are to go from here.

Because of the policy choices that have been made by the president of Armenia - subject to ratification by the National Assembly - Armenian political actors, including advocacy groups, will probably have to review strategy and tactics. If an intergovernmental historical commission is to deal with the Armenian Genocide, how can we turn that commission into an asset rather than a liability? Can we increase our outreach to Turkish society? Numerous such questions arise. The presidential tour offered an opportunity for diaspora Armenians to come to terms with a changing situation and to begin consideration of how best to promote our collective interests going forward.

Uncivil discourse

Concerns about the terms negotiated by Armenia, strong opposition to some of the terms, and anger about the protocols have been expressed in a variety of appropriate ways. These range from thoughtful analyses and position papers to demonstrations of various kinds, including an ongoing sit-in and hunger strike in Yerevan and a September 27 rally in Glendale, Calif., organized by the three traditional political parties and a major youth group. The president and members of the National Assembly need to know how various constituencies think and feel about the terms of the protocols.

But the behavior of some people in Armenia and some diaspora Armenians has been deplorable and, we might add, counterproductive.

A radical group associated with a veteran of the Karabakh War, at a rally at the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan, tried to burn a picture of the president.

At each stop on his tour, the president was greeted by demonstrators questioning his patriotism and taunting him. Some invitees to the meetings with the president showed an absence of decorum and a misunderstanding of the respective roles of president and advocate.

The kind of abusive language and actions that we witnessed were reminiscent of the abuse heaped on President Obama by the nastiest of his critics: attacks on his patriotism and his fitness to serve. The people making such attacks are not part of the solution to the problems facing the American nation. Responsible Armenians should not emulate this tactic.

Equally deplorable, we might add, was a statement this week by a senior member of parliament from the governing party, calling uncivil protesters "scum."

Send to a friend

Printer-Friendly Single Page

[1] 2 Next

Rhode Island State House. Wikimedia

Rhode Island House supports NKR recognition

On May 17, RI state representatives passed a resolution calling on the U.S. Government to formally recognize the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, the NKR Office in the United States reported.