Turkey-Armenia Protocols Signed: Understanding the Existential Concerns From the Armenian Side

Armenia and Turkey signed protocols on the normalization of relations on 10/10/09. Reaction from Armenians throughout the world ranged from opposition, “demanding justice, not protocols,” to support and a belief that it is the only resolution to the conflict. Following the signing of the protocols, Armenia’s President Serge Sargsyan said, “And let no one ignore the fact that, contrary to any slogans, the Armenian nation is united in its goals and is strong with its sons and daughters. And let no one try to split Armenia and our brothers and sisters in the Diaspora in presenting their concern over the future of Armenia as an attempt to impose something on the Republic Armenia.” In fact, it’s false that there is no resistance on this
issue within Armenia and the Diaspora.

There are serious rifts over the protocols and Armenians and Diasporans' concerns are based on different issues. For Armenians living in Armenia, the concern is about how the protocols will impact the Nagorno Karabakh conflict while Diasporans' concern is about the restoration of historical justices. Representing both the Diaspora and Armenia, we share these concerns with the hope that it will lay the groundwork for dialogue between these communities.

The modern history of independent Armenia started with war over Nagorno Karabakh and its unresolved status continues to influence social and political life in the country. Genocide recognition, while an important element of identity in Armenia, is subordinate to more pressing issues such as Nagorno Karabakh. Most Armenian citizens have strong memories of the war and understand that the unresolved Nagorno Karabakh conflict can go either way. The situation is further complicated with the recent legitimacy crisis facing
the country’s unpopular leadership. Many people see protocols as another tool to be used against Armenians in determining the future of Nagorno-Karabakh – the only real victory Armenia has had since
medieval times. All of these factors make Armenians not only distrustful of the protocols, but also concerned about the country’s future.

For a Diasporan, the Genocide and seeking Turkish recognition of what happened in 1915 is at the core of one’s identity. Any threat to obtain recognition is seen as an attack to one’s identity. Thus, for Armenian Diasporans, the formation of a historical commission as a part of the protocols could potentially question the Armenian Genocide as a historical fact. For that reason, there has been an intense and emotional reaction from the Diaspora, which has even caused some people to call President Sargsyan a “traitor” and “Turk.” The concern with the historical commission is that in the end, Turkey will have its way and force Armenia to retract from the use of the word genocide.

Obviously, there is a contrast of opinions within the Armenian side. Whether protocols are ratified or not, these concerns are raised in both communities. Moving forward, there is a need for further discussion and dialogue amongst Armenians throughout the world on the differences that exist in reality and not seek artificial unity through an overarching concept of “Armenianness.” Only through dialogue will the Armenian side begin to understand its own internal existential concerns, preventing further division as the protocol process moves forward.