A Policy of Consistent Deceit
[ 2010/01/20 | 11:51 ]
When the highest officials of Turkey – the president, the prime minister, the foreign minister -linked the Armenia-Turkey protocols (the ill-omened nature of which is becoming clearer and clearer) to ‘progress on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh’ at every political turn, our authorities either remained silent, or said that such pronouncements ‘were aimed at a domestic audience’. Of course, such a claim is meant for the naïve, as international law (in particular, clause 2(a) of article 7 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties) manifestly codifies the unqualified rights in the area of foreign policy to a country’s president, prime minister and foreign minister. That is to say, their powers with regards to foreign policy are so widespread that, without any additional authority, they hold the capacity to sign treaties on behalf of the state, to say nothing of making declarations. In a word, the statements of these three officials can never be viewed simply as ‘only for domestic consumption’.
Now let’s have a look at what we have today. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia – in accordance with the constitution of our state – has taken a decision on the two protocols signed by the foreign minister of our country. In this case, we may truly say ‘for domestic consumption’, as the legal position expressed in the decision will have no application or significance in foreign relations unless it be included in the instruments of ratification. It is another matter that the president of the Republic of Armenia is obliged to take the legal position of the Constitutional Court into consideration and his representative likewise is obliged to present the protocols in question, now with reservations, to the National Assembly for ratification. Not to do so would be to violate the decision of the Constitutional Court itself, a court whose decision is mandatory both for the president of the Republic of Armenia and for the foreign minister. Nevertheless, the decision itself of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia has absolutely nothing to do with any foreign country. It is our right and a requirement of our constitution, a purely internal affair.
Turkish diplomacy bears certain characteristics, some of which are worthy of emulation. For example, the provision of corresponding resources to deal with the issues being faced by the foreign ministry. Even in its most difficult early years, the Turkish Republic would not treat its foreign ministry as some illegitimate child. However, the most revealing feature of Turkish diplomacy is its consistent deceit. It is necessary to bear in mind always that the traditions of the diplomacy of the Republic of Turkey, even before its recognition, have been based on holding hostages and on freeing war criminals in exchange. In 1919, the Kemalists, having dismissed the obligations borne by their country by the Armistice of Moudros (of the 30th of October, 1918), treacherously captured more than sixty members of the British observer mission (including their families, as well as Colonel Sir Alfred Rawlinson, who had negotiated at Erzurum), who were then exchanged for more than 150 war criminals in custody on Malta. The process of negotiations and especially their implementation are worth studying. Although on the 16th of March, 1921, the British and the Kemalists signed an agreement whereby the Turkish side would “immediately” release the British captives (British Foreign Office Dossiers on Turkish War Criminals (ed. By V. Yeghiayan), Le Verne, 1991, p. 470), the last Briton was let go almost six months later, on the 31st of October, 1921. At the same time, regardless of the tentative agreement – that the same number of Turks would be released for 64 British hostages – it turned out that the British released them all, and even ended up somewhat behind. And just how did that happen? Very simply. The British, in accordance with the agreement, would release the corresponding captives, while the Turks, in their consistent deceit, would not only renege on their promise, but would raise new demands each time. The script seems familiar, doesn’t it? We might call them preconditions today. Do you remember a statement from Turkey, that ‘there were no preconditions when we signed, but Armenia must now show progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue for our parliament to ratify the protocols’? This is a policy of consistent deceit at work. Nothing and no-one can be forgotten. To rely on any promise made by Turkey, whether verbal or written, implies standing on the same razor’s edge every time.
Today’s Turkey is carrying out that very hostage policy. It’s just that, this time, instead of holding a group of people in custody, Turkey has held captive an entire state, a whole people. Despite that, Turkey is allowing itself to teach us a lesson.
The statement by the foreign ministry of Turkey on the decision by the Constitutional Court is simply a direct and crude intervention in the internal affairs of the Republic of Armenia. As long as that legal position has not moved from the area of constitutional law to international law, the decision is solely a domestic matter. Has our foreign ministry ever officially declared anything on the necessity of reforming the criminal code of Turkey, without which it would be impossible to fulfill the obligations to be borne by the protocols? The principles of reciprocity and equal rights are among the key pillars of international relations.
If the highest authorities of the Republic of Armenia do not provide an equivalent response to the foreign ministry of the Republic of Turkey, it would mean that we accept the Turkish policy of treating us as a colony. If we don’t put Turkey in its place today, we shall regret it all the more tomorrow, as Turkey has evidently not given up on its policy of consistent deceit.
Ara Papian
Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre
19 January, 2010
