Armenia will never compromise over Genocide issue for resolution of Karabakh conflict

This legislation is important not only for Armenia, the diaspora, and other potential victims of genocide, but also for the United States. The Resolution includes 30 findings which accurately recount the United States' own record in response to and in recognition of the Genocide. The sooner Congress acknowledges that record the better—until then the United States is a legitimate target of criticism that it will even change its own history for the sake of short term political expediency, in this case because of fear of the Turkish retaliation. That does not help the United States, nor is it reflective of the American people and the type of government they want. For Armenia, the sooner the United States reaffirms its record and stays on the right side of the issue, the better the United States--Armenia relationship will be.

Prime Minster Erdogan and his AK party had the opportunity to put their principles of religious tolerance and honest government into practice. Instead, they have followed the traditional nationalist political path of blaming other people and groups to divert attention from reality. The Armenian Genocide is an open wound; we do not talk about it to harm Turkey. To the contrary, we believe that Turkey needs to come to terms with its past if it is to be honest with its people and help them to a better future. Lately, Turkey has called for the creation of a joint commission to divert attention from dealing honestly with Turkish Armenian relations. Yet, we went through the three years Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission process, and Turkey has not implemented the recommendations to the concerned governments—that failure is what is doing harm to Turkey.

It makes sense for Armenia and gives it the diplomatic high ground. Improvement in Turkish Armenia relations is going to need a deeper basis in civil society, and the establishment of diplomatic relations not only helps in official relations but also in fostering civil society contacts. Turkey has at various times put forward different conditions and changed those conditions as well as the emphasis on different conditions.
At some points it has emphasized the need for Azerbaijan's consent to the establishment of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia and at other points it has raised issues of border recognition and dropping discussion of the Armenian genocide as conditions. Once again, it is worth noting the victory of nationalist politics over statesmanship. Ironically, the Treaties of Moscow and Kars which set the current border also contain requirements that Turkey give Armenia free access across Turkey. Turkey's continuing breach of those treaty requirements is a clear indicator that it is not really interested in territorial issues but has manufactured issues to appease domestic political forces holding the country back. Similarly, even though Turkey's interest in the Turkish presence on Cyprus is great, it has diplomatic relations with Greece. The problem is not Armenian policy, the problem is in implementation and by that I mean in countering the interests which are interested in maintaining or even exacerbating differences rather than solving them.

No.

We finished what was set out to do, and that is the only reason. We initially expected our agreed work to take one year, it stretched to almost three years before we could conclude the joint recommendations to the governments. That process also saw the joint issuance of the legal opinion on the applicability of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention by the International Center for Transitional Justice finding the legal definition of genocide applied, and several other joint accomplishments. Of course, we recognize how many mischaracterizations of the process and the products took place, but the participants knew what was really taking place and were able to conclude the work.

I am not on the admission committee, but it seems to me that Turkey is going through another fundamental identity crisis. I know I would be pleased if it emerges as an EU country one in which principles of tolerance are observed. But, we should be aware of the risks if it does not. For example, after the initial outpouring of sympathy following Hrant Dink's assassination, we have seen some ugly developments. The conflicts between Islamism, secularism, and other domestic "isms" are far from over. Turkey's policies with respect to the fluid future of Iraq and other regional developments all have to be taken into account. For those in Turkey and outside, the closer Turkey gets to respecting human rights, religious tolerance, reconciling with its past, and good government, whether that be as an Islamic government or as a member of the EU, the better.