VZCZCXRO4881
PP RUEHLN RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHYE #0008/01 0041457
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 041457Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY YEREVAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6829
INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY 1408
RUEHIT/AMCONSUL ISTANBUL PRIORITY 0624
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 0496
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 0539
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 0126
RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 YEREVAN 000008 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/CARC, AND EUR/SE (PAUL MALIK) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL TU AM
SUBJECT: PARLIAMENTARY HEARINGS ON TURKISH-ARMENIAN 
RELATIONS:  A VENTING SESSION OF WIDE-RANGING VIEWS 
 
 
YEREVAN 00000008  001.2 OF 004 
 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) On December 19-20, the Foreign Relations Committee 
of Armenia's parliament held public hearings on 
Turkish-Armenian Relations titled "Issues and Perspectives." 
Viewed as a positive step to discuss the delicate issue of 
improving Turkish-Armenian ties, the hearings quickly morphed 
into a public vent session where a diverse range of 
officials, opinion makers, and analysts voiced sometimes 
forceful views on the topic.  While disagreements remained on 
many subjects, including the genocide question, territorial 
issues, and Armenia's treaty obligations, there was unanimity 
on one issue: Armenia continues to perceive Turkey as a 
threat.  End summary. 
 
--------------------------- 
ATTENDANCE AND ATMOSPHERICS 
--------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) The Speaker of Parliament and Armenia's Foreign 
Minister opened the hearings, which were attended by 
journalists, academicians, think tank analysts, NGO 
representatives, parliamentary staff, marginal politicians, 
and a handful of representatives from the opposition Heritage 
party and pro-government Armenian Revolutionary Federation 
(Dashnaks).  Some figures from the Armenian Diaspora also 
attended.  After the hearings' much-heralded opening session, 
no Armenian officials attended the hearings, apart from a few 
parliamentarians.  Surprisingly, not even the MFA's Turkey 
desk attended (as a speaker duly noted).  Although 20 Turkish 
representatives were invited, none of them showed up. 
 
¶3. (SBU) With the exception of one especially charged session 
where ultra-nationalistic views were expressed, the hearings 
proceeded calmly.  Devoid of interactive floor discussions, 
the hearings took the form of a series of monologues, where 
40 speakers spent between five and 30 minutes, one after 
another, sharing their views.  Only FM Vartan Oskanian's 
speech was followed by a question/answer session, and 
spontaneous discussions mainly took place in the corridors. 
Hearings materials included, among other things, a chronology 
of Armenian-Turkish ties beginning with Turkey's recognition 
of Armenian independence in December 1991, and a list of 
countries that have recognized as well as condemned the 
alleged Armenian genocide. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
HEARINGS SEEK UNDERSTANDING OF VIEWPOINTS 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) MP Samvel Nikoyan, secretary of the ruling 
Republican Party faction, told poloffs that the purpose of 
the hearings was for Armenia's parliament to better 
understand the viewpoints of different segments of Armenian 
society, coordinate common approaches, and present these 
approaches internationally.  He regretted the absence of 
Turkish representatives, especially parliamentarians, since 
he thought they were freer than GOT officials to express 
Turkey's own set of diverse views on Turkish-Armenian 
relations. 
 
----------------------------- 
NO PRECONDITIONS TO RELATIONS 
----------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) In their opening remarks, which were aimed at 
creating a dialogue on ways forward in Turkish-Armenian 
relations, FM Oskanian and Speaker Tigran Torosyan 
nonetheless criticized Turkey for imposing preconditions for 
normal ties.  Torosyan said the two countries should instead 
work together on joint principles of cooperation and leave 
other issues for future consideration.  Oskanian reiterated 
the GOAM's official position that Turkey and Armenia must 
establish diplomatic relations and work toward an opening of 
their border before other issues can be addressed.  Oskanian 
emphasized that this was not a precondition, but rather the 
"zero" starting point for any two nations' relations. 
Oskanian regretted that two neighboring countries which share 
a common past were wasting valuable time that could instead 
be used to create a new history of relations. 
 
YEREVAN 00000008  002.2 OF 004 
 
 
 
¶6. (SBU) FM Oskanian and other speakers spoke in detail about 
each of the three preconditions they see having been set by 
Turkey before normalizing relations:  solving the 
Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) issue in favor of Azerbaijan; 
recognition of Turkish borders through a one-sided 
ratification of the Kars Treaty; and an end to efforts to 
gain recognition of the genocide.  On NK, most agreed that it 
contravened international legal norms to mix third country 
interests into the relations of two independent states. 
Regarding the Kars treaty, FM Oskanian said that since 
Armenia had inherited the ratified treaty from Soviet Armenia 
and had taken no action to annul it, the treaty remained 
valid.  On genocide recognition, he said that whatever the 
Armenian Diaspora chose to do abroad, it was Armenia's 
official position not to get involved in such efforts (a 
broad assertion not borne out by statements made by several 
other speakers). 
 
¶7. (SBU) According to Haik Demoyan, director of the Genocide 
Museum, and many other speakers, Turkish preconditions for 
normalizing relations constituted ultimatums in Armenian 
eyes.  Coupled with the closed border, one could view the 
situation as being akin to military confrontation.  Demoyan 
declared that Turkish authorities could not yet accept the 
genocide, out of fear that it would overturn the country's 
perpetuated legend of a strong and just state, and fear that 
doing so could create a national crisis.  Demoyan said he saw 
this in the faces and tears of the few Turks who visit the 
museum. 
 
------------ 
BORDER ISSUE 
------------ 
 
¶8. (SBU) Virtually all presenters agreed that the opening of 
borders with Turkey was important for Armenia.  Gayane 
Novikova from the "Spektrum" Research Center nevertheless 
cautioned that the opening of the border would do more 
short-term harm than good to the Armenian economy, since 
Turkish goods would flood local markets and overrun local 
production.  She also worried about the cultural expansion of 
Turkey.  Manvel Badeyan, a prominent businessman and 
Republican Party MP, echoed the concern, asserting that 
Armenia had little to gain since it had nothing to export to 
Turkey.  He also said it was a myth to expect transportation 
costs for exports and imports across an open border to fall 
significantly.  Other speakers criticized the government for 
its lack of serious study concerning the impact of an open 
border on the Armenian economy. 
 
------------------------------- 
EU REP SAYS COMPROMISES ARE KEY 
------------------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) Peter Semneby, the EU's Special Envoy for the South 
Caucasus, was the only representative from an international 
organization who spoke at the hearings.  Stressing the 
importance of normalizing relations, he said the EU was the 
best example of compromises between countries, and encouraged 
Turkey and Armenia to move in that direction.  They should 
work to overcome the past, without forgetting it, and take 
gradual steps to achieve progress in their relations.  He 
encouraged bilateral and multilateral meetings between 
Yerevan and Ankara, suggested creating an open forum for 
permanent contacts under the auspices of a European body, and 
offered EU assistance in all areas. 
 
---------------------------- 
REACH OUT TO TURKISH SOCIETY 
---------------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) According to Vahan Hovhannisyan (Dashnak party 
leader, Deputy Speaker of the parliament, and a current 
presidential candidate), Armenia should start communicating 
with Turkish society, which he said was hungry for truth 
about its past.  He contended that Armenia could never get 
along with a despotic neighbor that deprived its citizens of 
access to its history.  As long as the organizers of the 
genocide were revered as heroes, Turkey's 70 million 
population would never be ready to accept the genocide and 
other historical facts, he said.  The idea of reaching out to 
 
YEREVAN 00000008  003.2 OF 004 
 
 
Turkish society was echoed by others.  Artak Shakaryan from 
the National Academy of Sciences' Institute on Eastern 
Studies passionately harangued the GOAM for its passivity 
toward Turkey.  He argued that new global communications 
could be harnessed to soften Turks' negative perceptions of 
Armenians, and urged the use of the internet, blogging, 
Turkish language websites, public diplomacy, and working with 
Turkish students in the West. 
 
-------------------- 
GREEN LIGHT FOR NGOS 
-------------------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) FM Oskanian, Speaker Torosyan, and other speakers 
expressed the necessity of a Turkish-Armenian dialogue on all 
levels.  According to Karen Bekaryan, an expert from the 
Foreign Relations Committee who also leads the prominent NGO 
"European Integration," the hearings gave civil society 
representatives the green light to start working with their 
counterparts in Turkey without fear that their work would be 
viewed as contravening GOAM policy.  Tevan Poghosyan, the 
head of two separate think tanks in Yerevan, reflected on the 
warm relations between Armenians and Turks he has witnessed 
at international events, and offered the assistance of NGOs 
as interlocutors in advancing people-to-people contacts. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
TURKEY'S EU MEMBERSHIP:  YES BUT NOT YET 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) Virtually every speaker who touched on the issue of 
Turkey's EU membership agreed that an EU neighbor would be 
beneficial to Armenia.  However, there was unanimous concern 
that Turkey should enter the EU only after it recognized the 
genocide and affirmed its European values, including 
guarantees for the rights of its religious and national 
minorities.  Several speakers, including FM Oskanian, argued 
that Turkey would never repent for its past atrocities of 
Armenians if it were admitted to the EU without first 
embracing EU values. 
 
------------------ 
FORCED COOPERATION 
------------------ 
 
¶13. (SBU) Artur Aghabekyan, a Dashnak party member and the 
former deputy Defense Minister, talked about ongoing 
cooperation between Turkey and Armenia within the NATO and 
OSCE frameworks.  Both Armenia and Turkey, for example, have 
obligations under the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe 
Treaty.  Aghabekyan stated that while Turkey takes full 
advantage of the provisions within this treaty to regularly 
inspect Armenian armed forces, Armenia has inspected Turkey 
only once.  On Armenia's positive experience within the NATO 
Partnership for Peace program, Aghabekyan regretted that the 
closed border with Turkey limited greater opportunities for 
Armenia to increase its NATO ties. 
 
------------------------------- 
TURKEY BASHING AND HIDDEN AGENDAS 
------------------------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) According to Ruben Safrastyan, head of the 
Institute on Eastern Studies at the National Academy of 
Sciences, Turkey's stance towards Armenia belies a hidden 
agenda.  He alleged Turkey is using the blockade to weaken 
Armenia, promote out-migration, and create such national 
discontent that political forces would come to power in 
Yerevan who would be willing to accept Turkish preconditions. 
 He also posited that Turkish National Security institutions 
controlled debate on the genocide issue in Turkey, and 
therefore the issue lays outside the purview of politicians 
or civil society. 
 
--------------------------------- 
TREATY OF SEVRES - STILL DREAMING 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶15. (SBU) Ara Papyan, Armenia's former Ambassador to Canada, 
analyzed all of the treaties that regulate Turkish-Armenian 
relations (Sevres, Kars, Moscow, Lausanne, and 
Alexandropoulos), and found that only the treaties of Sevres 
 
YEREVAN 00000008  004.2 OF 004 
 
 
and Lausanne remain legally valid.  According to Sevres, 
Armenia's legal borders should encompass the current Turkish 
territories delineated in President Woodrow Wilson's 
arbitration decision.  (Note:   storm of applause followed 
his presentation.  End note.)  During a different session, 
Papyan noted that according to archival documents, the damage 
Turkey caused to Armenians during the period 1914-1919 is 
estimated at about USD 41.5 billion. 
 
------------------ 
MORE RADICAL VIEWS 
------------------ 
 
¶16. (SBU) Another presenter whose speech was greeted with 
cheers was the ultra-nationalist Armen Aivazyan of the Ararat 
Center for Strategic Research.  By far the most radical 
speaker at the hearings, Aivazyan even used the occasion to 
blame the Dashnak organizers of the hearings for their 
"pro-Turkish" sentiments.  He also blamed the authorities for 
having forgotten the "Armenian Issue" (the issue of returning 
Armenian historical lands), and accused Armenia's 
post-independence presidential administrations of conducting 
flawed foreign policy.  He called on the authorities to 
develop repatriation programs, and to recall from Turkey all 
Armenian citizens, whom he claimed were living as "hostages" 
there. 
 
-------------------- 
CULTURAL DESTRUCTION 
-------------------- 
 
¶17. (SBU) Samvel Karapetyan of the Research of Armenian 
Architecture NGO that specializes in documenting Armenian 
historical monuments, gave a photo presentation on the 
Armenian patrimony in Eastern Turkey allegedly destroyed by 
the Turkish authorities.  He asserted that while Turkish 
authorities destroyed the majority of historical monuments 
between the 1940s and 1960s, destruction of monuments 
continues even today.  Karapetyan argued that such 
reconstruction projects as Akhtamar Churchwere mere 
window-dressing aimed to placate Europe. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
EXECUTIVE BRANCH EXHAUSTED ITS ARSENAL 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶18. (SBU) In concluding remarks, Armen Roustamyan, chairman 
of the Foreign Relations Committee, noted that the 
authorities in Turkey and Armenia are deadlocked on 
normalizing ties, and it was up to parliamentary diplomacy to 
get the process moving again.  He promised that the hearings' 
materials would be published in book form by March, and that 
a special subcommittee would be formed to continue work on 
these issues.  Together with the Foreign Ministry, his 
committee planned to develop a concept paper on 
Armenian-Turkish relations which would envisage future 
actions by parliament, the government, and Armenian society. 
The sub-commission will include MPs and independent experts. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶19. (SBU) Despite the awkward format, some nationalistic 
chest-thumping, and dreamy rhetoric, the hearings represented 
a moderate step forward in Armenian society's discussion of 
relations with Turkey.  The fact that the parliament took the 
unusual step to hold these hearings, and open them to society 
at large, is significant.  Although many speakers expressed 
views we would regard as out of touch with current political 
reality, this kind of debate needs to happen here if 
Armenians are going to deal more realistically with their 
regional circumstances.  In that respect, any discussion is 
better than none at all. 
PENNINGTON