Updates
Press releases
17
09, 2009
President Sargsyan invited the debate on the “Current stage of the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations”
Today, President Serzh Sargsyan invited the leaders of the Armenian political parties to conduct the third thematic debate on the “Current stage of the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations”.
In his opening remarks, the President of Armenia, Chairman of the Republican Party of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan said,
“This is our third meeting in this format. As you remember, the first two meetings of this kind were dedicated to the peaceful resolution of the NK conflict and mitigation of the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis. For me personally, and as I have been told for many of the participants, these discussions were important and necessary not only for sharing views but also for making certain adjustments in our course of actions.
Today, I propose the discussions the current stage of the Armenian-Turkish relations. I expect that this topic will be debated in different formats. In the coming weeks there will be various formats of discussion, I will be initiating and participating in some of them myself and so I’ve decided to start the series with this meeting. Undoubtedly, with many of you we will also meet during similar discussions elsewhere. I believe in your public activities you will be having opportunities to present your views, while I see today’s meeting as a fitting format for continued deliberations on a political dispute which has started some time ago.
The process, which has started after issuing the joint declaration and the pre-signed protocols on the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations, is really a positive and important one. And I mean this stage of public and political discussion.
During these days I have familiarized myself with a spectrum of different opinions, took notice of some positive, encouraging calls, some criticism, including harsh one, and I took notice of some concern. Surely, I see the risks as well and I have concerns too. But to evaluate our concerns, to give a proper assessment to the risks and to understand that there are some things we have to do, we should put all our considerations on the table.
By inviting the President of Turkey to Armenia and by initiating this entire process, I have been trying to open a window of opportunity for Armenia and Turkey to normalize bilateral relations, to show that the nation, which went through the devastation of Genocide and the Armenian state – sturdy and faithful to its people’s pain – is strong enough to reach out and point out the irrationality of moving against the flow of the global development.
At this point I would like to invite your attention to the following: Many would say that it is necessary to negotiate with Turkey, however there is no need to do it openly and publicly. You all know that there have been a number of attempts to do it and this last one indeed differs from the previous ones by its openness. I believe, nevertheless that it should be an open process since tension, which exists between us, is not imaginary, not situational; that tension is not, so to say, war of the elites. It is between our societies and that tension, or to be straight, that animosity is the result of the darkest page of our history – the Armenian Genocide perpetrated in the Ottoman Empire. If we are to normalize our relations with Turkey at all then above and beyond the political will of Armenia’s and Turkey’s leadership it is necessary to engage both societies. Otherwise, the problem will not be solved. I realize that publicity has its problems because if the process comes to a dead end then quite naturally, contradictions and animosity I referred to will deepen.
In these first days of public debate, I haven’t heard yet an opinion expressed by a political force in opposition to opening the borders. Possibly, it will be voiced today, I don’t know, however I am confident that such a stance, at least in the political field, will not be a dominating one, it is not spoken about directly. Viewpoints that oppose the establishment of diplomatic relations with Turkey are few or even non-existent. And if this is the starting point for our line of reasoning then we must be able to figure out where we are, what we have, and where we are going.
Where we are: This is the stage of discussing the pre-signed documents, of signing and possible ratification. Yes, I think it is possible that regarding certain parts of the documents some people find the explanation not very convincing, though I am confident that when it is examined from every angle and with no prejudice, it wouldn’t be that way. But even in that case, does it mean that we have lost over some issue? Or rather it means the opening of a working field for debating all issues and solving them? Do we actually conclude or commence with this stage? Let’s talk it over today and understand it thoroughly.
What do we have? We have two pre-signed documents and an active process. Let’s us reckon together what these documents give or take. I am sure you’re aware of the details. How to evaluate them? As the answer to the existing problems or the acts which create conditions for the resolution of the problems? Let’s us think together whether we sacrifice our principles and our understanding of truth, or instead of confining ourselves in immaculate self-absorption we open the way to bring them to resolution, opening an area for work. Let’s think about it.
These days many people ask me questions and the question is the following: what’s the minimum and maximum you want to achieve? Establishment of diplomatic relations with Turkey I view neither as minimum, nor as maximum. I view the outcome of these processes only as the establishment of minimal conditions which would allow to start a dialogue with the Turks. We have many issues in the realm of the Armenian-Turkish relations that need solving – ranging from economic and political to historical.
Where are we going? Personally I am headed for the resolution of the problems. If for the resolution of any problem we have closed the door of opportunity, please point it out. Let’s assess those problems together. If we sincerely want to normalize relations, and I repeat, so far not a single political force has announced publicly that it opposes the normalization of our relations with Turkey, then let’s understand who is going to do what and, in general, what we are going to do together. I think this is the most important issue.”
After the Presidential speech the discussion were continued behind the closed doors and lasted for five hours.
In his opening remarks, the President of Armenia, Chairman of the Republican Party of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan said,
“This is our third meeting in this format. As you remember, the first two meetings of this kind were dedicated to the peaceful resolution of the NK conflict and mitigation of the consequences of the global financial and economic crisis. For me personally, and as I have been told for many of the participants, these discussions were important and necessary not only for sharing views but also for making certain adjustments in our course of actions.
Today, I propose the discussions the current stage of the Armenian-Turkish relations. I expect that this topic will be debated in different formats. In the coming weeks there will be various formats of discussion, I will be initiating and participating in some of them myself and so I’ve decided to start the series with this meeting. Undoubtedly, with many of you we will also meet during similar discussions elsewhere. I believe in your public activities you will be having opportunities to present your views, while I see today’s meeting as a fitting format for continued deliberations on a political dispute which has started some time ago.
The process, which has started after issuing the joint declaration and the pre-signed protocols on the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations, is really a positive and important one. And I mean this stage of public and political discussion.
During these days I have familiarized myself with a spectrum of different opinions, took notice of some positive, encouraging calls, some criticism, including harsh one, and I took notice of some concern. Surely, I see the risks as well and I have concerns too. But to evaluate our concerns, to give a proper assessment to the risks and to understand that there are some things we have to do, we should put all our considerations on the table.
By inviting the President of Turkey to Armenia and by initiating this entire process, I have been trying to open a window of opportunity for Armenia and Turkey to normalize bilateral relations, to show that the nation, which went through the devastation of Genocide and the Armenian state – sturdy and faithful to its people’s pain – is strong enough to reach out and point out the irrationality of moving against the flow of the global development.
At this point I would like to invite your attention to the following: Many would say that it is necessary to negotiate with Turkey, however there is no need to do it openly and publicly. You all know that there have been a number of attempts to do it and this last one indeed differs from the previous ones by its openness. I believe, nevertheless that it should be an open process since tension, which exists between us, is not imaginary, not situational; that tension is not, so to say, war of the elites. It is between our societies and that tension, or to be straight, that animosity is the result of the darkest page of our history – the Armenian Genocide perpetrated in the Ottoman Empire. If we are to normalize our relations with Turkey at all then above and beyond the political will of Armenia’s and Turkey’s leadership it is necessary to engage both societies. Otherwise, the problem will not be solved. I realize that publicity has its problems because if the process comes to a dead end then quite naturally, contradictions and animosity I referred to will deepen.
In these first days of public debate, I haven’t heard yet an opinion expressed by a political force in opposition to opening the borders. Possibly, it will be voiced today, I don’t know, however I am confident that such a stance, at least in the political field, will not be a dominating one, it is not spoken about directly. Viewpoints that oppose the establishment of diplomatic relations with Turkey are few or even non-existent. And if this is the starting point for our line of reasoning then we must be able to figure out where we are, what we have, and where we are going.
Where we are: This is the stage of discussing the pre-signed documents, of signing and possible ratification. Yes, I think it is possible that regarding certain parts of the documents some people find the explanation not very convincing, though I am confident that when it is examined from every angle and with no prejudice, it wouldn’t be that way. But even in that case, does it mean that we have lost over some issue? Or rather it means the opening of a working field for debating all issues and solving them? Do we actually conclude or commence with this stage? Let’s talk it over today and understand it thoroughly.
What do we have? We have two pre-signed documents and an active process. Let’s us reckon together what these documents give or take. I am sure you’re aware of the details. How to evaluate them? As the answer to the existing problems or the acts which create conditions for the resolution of the problems? Let’s us think together whether we sacrifice our principles and our understanding of truth, or instead of confining ourselves in immaculate self-absorption we open the way to bring them to resolution, opening an area for work. Let’s think about it.
These days many people ask me questions and the question is the following: what’s the minimum and maximum you want to achieve? Establishment of diplomatic relations with Turkey I view neither as minimum, nor as maximum. I view the outcome of these processes only as the establishment of minimal conditions which would allow to start a dialogue with the Turks. We have many issues in the realm of the Armenian-Turkish relations that need solving – ranging from economic and political to historical.
Where are we going? Personally I am headed for the resolution of the problems. If for the resolution of any problem we have closed the door of opportunity, please point it out. Let’s assess those problems together. If we sincerely want to normalize relations, and I repeat, so far not a single political force has announced publicly that it opposes the normalization of our relations with Turkey, then let’s understand who is going to do what and, in general, what we are going to do together. I think this is the most important issue.”
After the Presidential speech the discussion were continued behind the closed doors and lasted for five hours.