The concept of the Armenian state must be different from that of the diaspora

Interview with Denis Maksimov, especially for Vestnik Kavkaza

On the eve of the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire, the central themes being discussed in the political and expert circles of Armenia are the national, state and international aspects of the genocide. The debate around the recent statements by the first president, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, occupies a special place. The ex-President expressed concern about the content commissioned by the authorities of the Pan-Armenian Declaration and pointed to the need for the publication of this document. Ter-Petrosyan said that Armenia should not make international recognition of the "genocide" the cornerstone of its foreign policy and should not confront Turkey with demands for recognition of "genocide", seeing it as an internal affair of the latter. Political scientist Arman Gevorgyan answered the questions of Vestnik Kavkaza regarding the position of Ter-Petrosyan and the position of the authorities.

- How can the approach of the first president on the genocide issue generally be described?

- To understand the position of Levon Ter-Petrosyan, you need to understand the philosophy of the authors of the declaration, which proceed from the necessity of worldwide recognition of the genocide, including the recognition of the genocide in Ankara, Turkey, on the basis of which the lost territories must be returned to the Armenians and to compensate the descendants of the victims of genocide for property damage. This view prevails in the Diaspora, and it's conventionally called the diaspora concept. Actually, in the declaration the approaches of ARF Dashnaktsutyun (ARF) are reflected, which is a kind of supporter and conductor of the Diaspora's concept. But the concept of the state in this matter, according to the first president, should be different from that of the Diaspora.

Another point of view, which is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia (DND) adopted on August 23rd 1991, should be recalled. The vision set out at the bottom was adopted after a long discourse in parliament by the first legislature. According to the logic of the bottom of the text, Armenia, as a state which condemns genocide and supports the demands of the Armenian Diaspora (formed as a result of the genocide) of international recognition of the crime. However, the issue of international recognition of this fact, as well as the requirement for Turkey to recognize the genocide, are not part of public policy. The bilateral format provides for the establishment of relations without any precondition

- What threats does the Pan-Armenian declaration hold?

- It is a question of the security of Armenia. The contracts that define the borders of Armenia today were concluded in the early 1920s. According to these documents, Armenia has lost a significant part of its historical territory. Turkey recognizes these borders. At the OSCE summit in Istanbul in December 1999, the second president Robert Kocharyan signed the final document, which includes a clause stating that Armenia has no territorial claims against any state. Thus, the adoption on the 100th anniversary of the genocide of the Pan-Armenian declaration contradicts a number of international commitments of Armenia, as well as the Declaration of Independence as a fundamental public document.

The Republic of Armenia has always insisted on the right of nations to self-determination, but never before has it had territorial claims. Due to the Pan-Armenian Declaration, Armenia became a country that has territorial claims. Accordingly, the state to which these requirements are addressed may, according to a number of international documents, including the contracts defining the borders of Armenia, put international diplomatic pressure on Armenia. This will create problems for Armenia in foreign policy and security.

- How would you describe the position of the world's political centers, primarily the United States, on Armenian-Turkish relations? It is known that the negotiations between the Armenian and Turkish sides were closed due to the interference of the US mediatiors.

- Yes, indeed, since the beginning of the 2000s American diplomacy has actively led the negotiation process, beginning at the expert level (in particular, we are talking about the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission), then at government level. Then, in the framework of these initiatives followed by "football diplomacy" and the signing in October 2009 of the Armenian-Turkish protocols. But US diplomacy has failed. The main mistake of the American intermediaries was that they tried to combine two completely different processes: reconciliation and normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. The first involves a very complicated and long process that can last for decades, and the second is a state legal process. Mixing these two processes up has led to useless documents being signed by the Parties. New negotiations and new protocols are needed.

- Does the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA) not see any threats in some of the approaches set out in the Pan-Armenian Declaration?

- The RPA acts according to the ideological doctrine of the party, which is much more rigid than the ARF party's doctrine. At least in the Republican Party's initial doctrine there was an item on the revision of the treaties.

- Why do the Armenian authorities suddenly need to change approaches in foreign policy, as set out in the basic public document - the Declaration of Independence of 1991?

- In order to implement its main project - the reproduction of power through constitutional reforms - President Serzh Sargsyan needs political allies, in this case we are talking about the ARF. The Declaration was adopted in the interests of the ARF party, which holds its political line.

The President is trying to solve the problem of his faltering reputation in the Diaspora. Because in the minutes there was a clause about the establishment of a joint commission of historians to study the events of the last century. In fact, these were the Turkish preconditions which were agreed by the Yerevan authorities in 2009, and it has caused a huge wave of indignation in the Diaspora. The birth of the Pan-Armenian Declaration was the result of internal processes. The Declaration, which bears the signature of the president, has no serious political force. There is no guarantee that future Armenian authorities will stick to the policy approaches set out in the Declaration. The concept of the Armenian state should be different from the concept of the Diaspora.