The Armenian side simply ‘suspended the ratification process of the protocols’, that is, it did not create any new conditions, but formalised the current reality. And by “the Armenian side”, I mean only Serge Sargsyan. Of course, this step was sugar-coated with ‘in light of the numerous pleas of the workers’, that is to say, prefaced by ‘taking into account the joint statement of the 22nd of April, 2010 of the boards of the parties forming the coalition in the National Assembly’, but it is nevertheless clear that the decision was unanimous. Even after this, if Serge Sargsyan orders the parliament to ratify the protocols tomorrow, they would enthusiastically do so like obedient schoolboys. The speeches might be a little different in content in that case, but the expressions on the faces of those who recite them would remain just as heroic. It is tragic that we do not have a parliament. The state is running away from under our feet and, in general, we are finding ourselves in possession of less and less of a state. The political will of one official has completely removed the state’s function of political decision-making today. This is unfortunately not a new phenomenon. A process is now coming to a close, something which began and was tending to become entrenched during the times of the previous two presidents. The two ill-boding protocols simply rendered the ridiculousness of these circumstances more evident. Nevertheless, the fact itself of suspending the ratification process of the protocols must be appreciated as a step in the right direction; necessary, but not enough. Let us hope that such steps will continue to take place, as every journey begins with but a single step. What is most important here? I believe we must focus on the consequences and the lessons to be learnt. In its most recent history, the newly-independent Armenian state was subject to a serious political experience for the first time, and it clearly failed. It is not the time for long-drawn speeches; one must accept the fact that the failure was complete and absolute. How else to classify this result, as the state took on two issues – the establishment of diplomatic relations and the opening of the border – and both ended up with an output of zero? And could it really have happened any other way? I think so. The real mistake was not in the intent of the protocols, but in their content. They were replete with ambiguous wording and mutually-unacceptable clauses. I believe that these protocols will go down in diplomatic history as an outstanding example of an irresponsible attempt to resolve the most complex issues with the single stroke of a pen. In the beginning was the word, and the word was wrong. If the protocols were to state those ends declared in two paragraphs, we would be in a different place today. An argument against such a notion might be that the Turks would never go for it. Well, they would not, and we would not sign either, just as we have not signed on for at least fifteen years now. There are still other ways to open the border. The blockade of Armenia by Turkey ultimately conflicts with its own international obligations. Of course, many will place laurels on their own heads in the coming days, but one must confess with all honesty that the credit and blame of suspending the ratification process of the protocols belongs to Turkey, and also to those who negotiated the protocols on our behalf. If Turkey were to be satisfied with the de jure affirmation of occupation of some territory of the Republic of Armenia (which would be codified by the recognition of the existing border) and with sounding the death knell of Armenian Genocide recognition (which would be codified by the establishment of a commission on the historical dimension of relations), then the protocols would have certainly been ratified. But Turkey demonstrated, as always, a ravenous policy. Besides its breakfast and lunch, it wanted to add the Nagorno-Karabakh issue for dinner. It is necessary to bring two things up at this point: a) why do so?, and b) what was the basis for doing so? a) The goal of Turkey has been and continues to be the destruction of the Armenian state. I must clarify that this destruction does not only mean death marches and the sale of women and children and all that, as it was in the past. The world has changed. The destruction of Armenian statehood today involves the neutralisation of state functions. When the Republic of Armenia finally gives up on the desire to restore its territorial, material and moral losses, that is when it would cease being a state. Statehood is not required for renovating sewers or water pipes, managing pensions or collecting taxes. That can be taken care of at the province or vilayet level. Armenia can be destroyed by the creation of a listless and anti-national Turkish protectorate bearing the name “Republic of Armenia”. It is clear for Turkey that Nagorno-Karabakh is an insurmountable obstacle on this path. As long as the Armenians have not agreed to hand Nagorno-Karabakh over to Azerbaijan – and that process will commence with the destruction, under sweet words, of Nagorno-Karabakh’s already-established defence systems – then they are yet clutching on to the final straws of the desire to remain a nation. The continual Turkish claims aiming at literally and figuratively sacrificing the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic for the sake of Armenia-Turkey relations have nothing to do with Azerbaijan’s interests. If it was only a question of Azerbaijan’s interests, then Turkey would auction them off with the greatest pleasure, as it did in April, 1920. The Turkish policy of imposing compromises on Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is based on the interests of Turkey itself, which is the goal of rendering the Armenians a stateless nation with a state. Statehood is not the sheathe of the state, but the will to pursue national interests and the capacity to see them through. b) And what motivations did Turkey have for such endeavours? I believe they truly exist and that we have provided them ourselves. When we so easily relinquished our homeland with these protocols and even rendered our greatest tragedy into a mere bargaining chip, the protocols suddenly became very appetising. L'appétit vient en mangeant; ‘the appetite comes in eating’. To place such a morsel before Turkey, which is so famous for its political gluttony, and then to expect restraint, was and is naïveté at the very least. It is no coincidence that the Turks venerate the grey wolf as a totem, as it is the only animal which kills not to eat, but for the sake of killing. Thus, we share with the Turks, if disproportionately, the failure of the beginning of inter-state relations between Armenia and Turkey (it is ridiculous to refer to it as “reconciliation” or “normalisation”). By “we”, I mean those officials who negotiated and authenticated the infamous protocols. Protocols, in which many slow-acting mines were placed from the start. Our country’s de-miners did not do their job, for which reason we were undeservingly hurt, and are yet to be wounded. Also bearing their responsibility are all those officials of the state, including parliamentarians and those so-called specialists who receive their income from the taxes we pay and who ought to have spoken and pointed out those mines, given their positions, but who self-servingly stayed silent. All those who helped in the creation of this condition, either through their actions or through their negligence, must bear responsibility. If, by the decree of the President of the Republic of Armenia, a governmental commission be created, including the National Assembly and relevant state bodies and agencies, in order to examine how such a relevant idea – that is, the establishment of diplomatic relations and the opening of the border – was spoilt and led to its sorry end, then we are still a state and a nation. If such a commission were to make clear and state plainly to us how the negotiation and authentication process of the unfortunate protocols took place in utter violation of the law, how the protocols got to contain anti-constitutional clauses (recall that the Constitutional Court provided its legal position and decision, and only taking that into consideration did it come to a positive conclusion), then the President truly intends on salvaging the situation. If not, then the President’s order on suspending the Armenia-Turkey protocols is merely a formality and, as usual, it is just the way Charents puts it, “Greetings, comrade Ali!” “Victory to the work of Ilyich!” Ara Papian Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre 23 April, 2010