“Seeing a median alternative on the Wilsonian territory... that is, to turn Turkey into a tenant of Western Armenia and to expect an income, saying ‘I demand the rights to that land, and not the land itself’, remains incomprehensible to us.” Nora Baroutjian, article A meeting with Ara Papian: A Paper on Resolving the Armenian Question, Nor Haratch Armenian periodical, Paris, 29 December 2009, p. 9 The greatest difficulty in resolving the territorial component of the Armenian Question, aside from the complete absence of Armenians from historical Armenia, is the presence of six and a half million Kurds and Turks in ‘Wilsonian Armenia’. It is clear that, whatsoever resolution the Armenian Question undergoes in future, those people will continue to live in those territories. That is to say, the direct and unquestionable sovereignty of the Republic of Armenia over those territories (the taking over of that land by Armenia, to put it in everyday popular speech) can undermine the Armenian nature of the country itself, and, at the very first national elections, could put it an end to its existence as a nation-state. There are exactly half as many people currently living in the Republic of Armenia - voters, that is - than in ‘Wilsonian Armenia’. Genocide, wars and inept governance by our national authorities have played their part. Therefore, it is necessary to find such a way within international law to accommodate the de jure legal rights of the Republic of Armenia over those territories with the de facto rule by Turkey, whereby Armenia would restore a major part of its rights over ‘Wilsonian Armenia’, shying away, however, from handing over its political fate to Kurds or Turks. Simultaneously, in order that the resolution be practicable, it is necessary that the reality on the ground not change to a degree. That is, the resolution must be such that it presents a dignified exit to Turkey for the given circumstances, and not something forcibly imposed under the watchful eye of a stern taskmaster. One possible solution involves a territorial lease. (To render it more palatable, such a project could receive some other name, such as “The Path to Reconciliation”, or something like that.) Thus, the ruler over the territory of ‘Wilsonian Armenia’ (Turkey) would take on a long-term lease of that land from its rightful owner (Armenia). Correspondingly, the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey, with the participation and guarantee of world powers, would sign a bilateral treaty which would guarantee the free movement of people and capital through ‘Wilsonian Armenia’ for both parties, as well as providing the right to transport goods for free and without hindrance through there. At the same time, the territory would be demilitarised, with the removal of all offensive arms and armaments. Although it would seem at first glance that Turkey would be compromising a great deal, the above items are, however, essentially the preconditions for membership in the European Union for any country, with the exception of the payments for the territorial lease. The conduct of Turkey with regards to the above would also demonstrate just how ready Turkey is in practice for membership to the European Union. A question could nevertheless arise: why would Turkey go for it? Because it is primarily in Turkey’s own interest. A resolution to the Armenian Question is a necessity for Turkey. Without a resolution to this issue (and not the illusion of a resolution, as the current authorities of Armenia and Turkey are undertaking), Turkey cannot fulfill its main goal at present, to be or at least to be considered a regional power. In spite of all efforts, the ship of the Turkish state has been unable to and cannot yet set sail. The unresolved Armenian Question remains a small sandbar underwater, ever hindering and continuing to hinder the movement of that ship. In a word, in order to achieve regional stability and prosperity, it is necessary to put in place a piece of the European Union between Armenia and Turkey, a territory which, instead of dividing, brings the two countries and peoples together, a territory within which both countries will have certain codified rights and responsibilities. A few months ago, I had the opportunity to see one of the most ancient Armenian citadels, the excavations at Tigranakert-in-Artsakh. The immense sections of the fortress wall have remained unshaken for centuries as they were attached together with knots, though not very big ones. Even small knots sometimes play disproportional roles in the lives of great walls. A resolution to the Armenian Question - and not the illusion of one - will bear the role of a knot for the entire Middle East, and will consequently benefit the stability of the entire region. Ara Papian Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre 10 January, 2010