According to Aghasi Yenoqyan, Turkey does not want to recognize the Genocide because it is an important moral guarantee that it will not reoccur, to start from the questions around which it is possible to find mutual interests.
At the seminar titled “Settlement of Armenia-Turkey relationship: challenges and prospective” held from October 29 to 30 in Tsaghkadzor, which was jointly organized by “The Civic Consent NGO” and the Embassy of the Great Britain in Yerevan, conflictologist, graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Artak Ayrunts delivered a speech, who spoke about conflict transformation, approaches to peace-building touching upon art of negotiations, conflict resolution and peace-building principles, efforts of the civil society towards peace-building in the Armenia-Turkey relationships. Like previous speakers, the speaker separated the settlement of Armenia-Turkey and Armenian-Turkish relationships and highlighted their separation.
“If we speak about the settlement, we speak about Armenia-Turkey relationships, if we speak about the Armenian-Turkish relationships, we speak about reconciliation, which is a complicated and long-lasting process, it may take decades when the sides, after finding solutions to certain issues, can take up the discussion of more complicated issues such as for example the Armenian Genocide. Is it possible to make any changes on certain issues in the relationships between Armenia and Turkey or settle those relationships as long as there is the question of the Armenian Genocide? It is impossible to do anything, i.e. providing Turkey has not recognized the Armenian Genocide, it is impossible to settle the Armenia-Turkey relationships… I think it is possible but it does not mean at all that the question of the Genocide is not important, but you if start negotiations from the question on which there are completely different perception both on the official and social level, then it would be very difficult to reach a solution of a certain question. For that it is should be started from those questions around which it is possible to find mutual interest.”
The Swiss mediation was implemented with high professionalism. Touching upon the Armenia-Turkey protocols, Artak Ayrunts reminded that even at that time there were people who had doubts and insisted that the settlement of the relationships between Armenia and Turkey would be impossible , if there was no certain progress in the process of NK conflict, if no one spoke about Karabakh, then it was not a realistic process, it was an imitation.
“Those people, fortunately or unfortunately, appeared to be right because though the Turkish side did not insist on the NK issue as a prerequisite, and the Armenian side did not insist on the issue of the Armenian Genocide, yet those provision somehow appeared in the Armenia-Turkey protocols. Nevertheless the sides pre-signed the two Armenia-Turkey protocols. This testifies that the Swiss mediation was implemented professionally on high level. They could succeeded not only in bringing the sides at the table but also the sides signed those protocols.”
The authorities should be public opinion creator: political scientist, editor in-chief of the “First Informative” website Aghasi Yenoqyan drew attention to the removal of the “emotional background” in the negotiations and putting forward the interest, adding;
“The emotional background is very important since it can be used in the further process of the negotiations, for example, in this case, particularly, on the verification of the protocols. Serzh Sargsyan after signing the Armenia-Turkey protocols went to consultations with the Diaspora, for which there was no need because it was a settlement process between Armenia and Turkey and not a reconciliation process, and in the Diaspora as it was expected there were demonstrations, and all that become a very serious argument for him to announce later that ‘ see the people disagree with the verification of the protocols’.”
Aghasi Yenoqyan believes that the governments should never become the prisoners of the public opinion, the authorities should be the creator of the public opinion and in this case he did not exclude that our authorities had gone thought that direction, i.e. they made steps that could later be used after signing the protocols. Aghasi Yenoqyan stated that he also participated in the negotiations in the “second track diplomacy” format, and the NK issue was the primary question when two countries are trying to clarify their relationships by their attitude towards a third country, i.e. “removing the emotional part did not work out”. Touching upon the recognition of the Genocide, the political scientist noted;
“The recognition of the Genocide is an issue for all the countries, it is an international issue, it is important for us so that it would not reoccur anymore.”
To the questions raised by the young people whether reparation should be demanded from Turkey, the political scientists said that such thing did not exist.
“Firstly, the Republic of Turkey from the first day of its establishment has announced that it is not the legal successors of the Ottoman Empire. Secondly, there is not any note in the international law that there reparation should be paid in case of the Genocide recognition. And thirdly, in fact, the court of the Republic of Turkey condemned those responsible for the Genocide in organizing the mass atrocities, just at that time the term “genocide” did not exist.”
The young people asked the logical question, “In that case why Turkey does not recognize the Armenian Genocide?”
According to Aghasi Yenoqyan, “It has a moral consequence, Turkey does not want to take moral responsibility, morality has a great significance in politics, that’s why Turkey does not want to take that burden because the recognition of the Genocide first of all give a moral guarantee that it would not reoccur.”
EMMA GABRIELYAN
