Expert in Armenia says crisis exaggerated by Turkey

Richard Giragosian, director of the Yerevan-based Armenian Center for National and International Studies, told Today’s Zaman that the court’s ruling was more of a formality.

“According to the terms of the Armenian constitution, it was a necessary first step toward later ratification by the Armenian parliament. Moreover, the lack of independence of the Armenian court system also meant that the court was unlikely to go against the wishes of the Armenian government, which was determined to secure a positive assessment of the protocols,” he said.

Following the Armenian constitutional court’s decision on Jan. 12, which found the protocols signed in Oct. 10 of last year in Zurich in conformity with the constitution of Armenia, the Turkish side has been uneasy because of the court’s detailed reasoning for the decision.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry expressed its anxiety through a statement saying that “the decision contains preconditions and restrictive provisions which impair the letter and spirit of the protocols.”

Ankara is working on an assessment to be sent to Yerevan and third parties to emphasize that Armenia’s constitutional court violated international law by conditionally reaffirming the two countries’ protocols.

Asked about the particular issues of concern, the same source said that “each article” in the reasoned opinion runs against the spirit of the protocols but that the heart of the matter is the court’s reference to Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, which states, “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.”

“Unlike the claims of ‘preconditions’ made by the Turkish side, neither the court’s ruling nor its lengthy opinion makes any direct reference to the genocide whatsoever. And even the Turkish claims of references to [Nagorno-]Karabakh are not reflected in the wording of the ruling. I find the Turkish reaction not only disingenuous but unfair, as there was never any doubt over the Armenian side’s commitment to ensure a speedy and full passage of the protocols,” he said and added that Turkey might be looking to create a new political “pretext” to withdraw from the protocols.

Armenians say 1.5 million Armenians were killed during a systematic campaign in eastern Anatolia, while Turkey rejects the claims of genocide, saying the killings came as the Ottoman Empire was trying to quell civil strife and that Muslim Turks were also killed in the conflict.

The two protocols signed in Zurich do not specifically mention the massacres of 1915 but stipulate that the two sides agree to “implement a dialogue on the historical dimension 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.”

Asked what will come next, Giragosian said the situation is not very promising.

“Turkey has so far only sought to enlarge this into an issue much more divisive than it should be,” he said. “Hopefully, both sides can recover and find a new way beyond this rather exaggerated crisis, but it now remains a test of Turkish political will much more than a challenge for the Armenian side.”