Armenia under Diplomatic Siege

But the more massive political pressure came at the NATO seminar, which began in Yerevan on March 12. Participants from different countries and international agencies ganged up on Armenia advocating Turkish-Azerbaijani positions on a host of issues. The chairman of the International Crisis group, Sabena Fraser, Azerbaijani Tabib Husseinov, a member of the same group, and Sunat Kiniglioglu, the vice chairman of Turkey’s ruling party’s foreign relations group, essentially held the same positions. Tabib Husseinov and Kiniglioglu reiterated the Turkish condition that Ankara can open the border only after the settlement of the Karabagh issue.

Bernard Fassier, the French Co-Chair of Minsk Group, stunned the audience with his verbal gymnastics, when he first stated that yes, Karabagh should participate in the negotiations. When he further expanded on the topic it became obvious that he was endorsing Baku’s position, because by Karabagh he meant also the participation of the Azeri refugees after they settle in their former homes and after Armenia evacuates the five Azeri regions under its control. He further spoke about the dissimilarities of Kosovo and Karabagh.

It was not clear if Mr. Fassier was expressing his own views or those of the Minsk Group or the position of the French government.

This also explains why a scheduled press conference was cancelled following the meeting between President Serge Sargisian and Nicholas Sarkozy in Paris.

After forcing the two parties to sign the Protocols, Clinton had to predict the outcome. When the US State Department abandons its even-handed position, the Protocols cannot lead anywhere but into a quagmire. Only when Turkey’s bluffs are ignored and a genuine desire is restored in the US for reconciliation efforts that the Protocols may take a positive turn.

On the Armenian front it is not true that the protocols pitted Armenia against the diaspora.

That statement assumes that the diaspora is under ARF control, which is far from the truth. The division occurred along the traditional fault lines, between the forces supporting the government position and those who intend to unseat the present administration. Yet any division does not help to advance our cause when we need unity most.

On the issue of the Genocide recognition, Prof. Ashod Melkonian, head of the History Department of the Academy of Sciences, has offered some interesting comments which need to be taken seriously by our diplomats and lobbying groups. He states that we have to go beyond the recognition issue and explore the solutions to deal with the results of the Genocide, because the Armenian Genocide is not denied nor disputed by any party in the US and 42 states have already recognized it. He further focuses on the fact that “in many legislatures, where the Armenian Genocide is discussed, a crucial definition is missed. Except for the Russian Duma resolution, the venue of Genocide is defined as the Ottoman Empire, whereas the legal term should be historic Armenia.”
Recent developments in Armenia’s domestic politics have not been helping to formulate a coherent stand against this diplomatic siege.

Opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian had toned down his rhetoric in recent moths to give a chance to the government to negotiate a favorable deal for Armenia. But at the most recent rally of the Armenian National Congress it was again vintage Ter-Petrosian advocating a regime change.

International diplomatic pressure compounded by domestic instability has made it a daunting task to run Armenia’s government.

At this juncture, no individual statesman nor group can follow a partisan policy if they are concerned with Armenia’s future. The Karabagh problem is at a stalemate, the Protocols are in quagmire, domestic stability fractured and foreign diplomatic pressures are amassing.

We wished that there would be a more optimistic perspective for the situation, but there is none.