Nver Mnacakanyan: You are watching Harcazruyc on H1. Good Afternoon. Decision of the President of Armenia on the withdrawal of Armenian-Turkish Protocols, has gone public in quite a wide discussion realm. Of course, assessment by Armenia and Diaspora are important and essential, but reaction of the sides, that are directly concerned in opening of the last closed border in Europe, is no less important. Today I will talk to Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Shavarsh Kocharyan. Good afternoon, Mr. Kocharyan.

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Good afternoon.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Now, picturesquely said, in whose court is the ball in this process?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: In the same place – in the Turkish court.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Supposedly, it should be in the court of the third side. Reaction of the third side is much more important here, in other words, those, who were no less interested in normalization of relations.

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Indeed, that step by the President was a very clear message not only to the authorities of Turkey, but also to international community, to all those states, that were interested in normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations; those actions that Turkish authorities apparently undertake over recent period of time, i.e. wave of denial, that was raised on the very eve of the Centennial; it all is not acceptable for the Armenian side, and at the same time, the Armenian side remains committed to moving forward without preconditions.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Mr. Kocharyan, the very question was raised well before, that all you enumerated was really not acceptable not only 6, but 5 and even 4 years before. Was not it possible to resort to, undertake those actions well before, or did actions of the Turkish side not remind us of resorting to that step?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Here is the issue. Let us, nevertheless, analyze the goal, what an aim had Armenian authorities, President of RA pursued, when initiated this process. It is well-known that the process was launched on the initiative of the Armenian side. The aim was quite clear and comprehensible for two neighboring countries, despite such past, it is necessary to move towards normalization of relations.

It is unacceptable, that in the 21st century there are closed borders, no diplomatic relations, and the perspective to step by step normalize them is not seen. The aim was that, the very simple aim was set.

And in order to achieve that goal, taking into account existing difficulties very simple principle was set forth – to move forward without preconditions.

Armenian side had very just preconditions, and could to set forth them at any time. First, “Turkey, to speak about normalization of relations, you are obliged, it is your moral duty, you must accept and recognize Armenian Genocide, that was committed by your predecessors in the Ottoman Empire.”

Second, it would be a very fair claim, in full compliance with the international law, “Open the unilaterally closed border. In the 21st century there could be no closed border in Europe, and we are members of the Council of Europe”, thus we could move forward.

Armenian side, conceiving the difficulties that exist in the normalization process, did not set forth such preconditions, and the same was expected from Turkey. Entire negotiation process was based on it, however, at the time of signing and after that new impetus was given to precondition mode. And the question raised by you is quite to the point, was not it visible at the signing ceremony, when the entire ceremony was postponed for so long, as Foreign Minister of Turkey, who is Prime Minister today, tried to speak the language of preconditions.. Of course, it was visible..

It was also visible later. But the issue here is what was the outcome of those Protocols in the end? On the one hand, Turkey’s real mask was revealed, Turkey’s real approaches, Turkey’s unreadiness to face its history, and second, that can not be underestimated, is the very wave, that was raised in Turkey. Public movement against denial kicked off in very Turkey.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Which of the goals pointed out by you did we pursue?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Our priority goal was to in a frank way reach normalization of relations. But first, we got strong reaction from Turkey’s society, serious wave, where overtly people told “yes, what is told over was an act of genocide, and authorities should recognize it.” And this is no small matter, as our peoples geographically have to leave along each other.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Withdrawal of Protocols was quite probable, and almost everyone was talking about it after Armenia’s President Speech at the UN.

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Yes.

Nver Mnacakanyan: But again stoppage occurred, again time has passed, feels like wait-to-see situation..

Shavarsh Kocharyan: You know, if in the reality one talks about, in general, revoking of signature and says they do not exist, that would be one step. Here we deal with other step. That step reveals our signal not to let those distortions, denial and the attempts to link with the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. To say “give one or two territories”, then “just one territory”.. One may be under the impressions that our most urgent national issue, as Turkish side believes, could become be bargained.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Mr. Kocharyan, during those days, I do not why that went unnoticed, but from the Turkish side and first parties of the authorities we hear, “give us just one territory”..

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Now it is at least one.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Do you follow..?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Yes.

Nver Mnacakanyan: We did not react on that. Is there any need for the reaction?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Because it is unserious. Firstly, from the very beginning the entire process was based on the point that Nagorno-Karabakh issue should not be linked to the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations. This is the very conspicuous example of the fact, that Turkey is guided by the preconditions, but in case of preconditions, we should not even react, we just fix that we are mowing forward without preconditions. Our similar reaction could be “border comes first and talks second, recognition of Genocide first and talks second.” Draw your attention to the fact, that from that point of view Armenian side was decent, playing by the rules and would continue to do so till the perspective of implementation of the normalization process is not entirely closed.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Mr. Kocharyan, for a second, let us go back to the discontent, particularly, discontent in Armenia, that existed straight after the signing of Protocols, when often reference was made, that those Protocols, the way they are, are one-sided and serve Turkey’s interests. Now, let us come to Turkey,if it served Turkey’s interests, then why Turkey did not ratify them?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: It is obvious, that if it served their interests, they would ratify them long ago and would try to bring into live. Hence, this is not the case.

Nver Mnacakanyan: That is why I remind you of discontent in Armenia.

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Yes, there have been some.. Advocates for non-signing of Protocols, fully withdrawal from the process mentioned that by such actions the border is recognized. On the other hand, let us recall those discussions, that were held in Grand National Assembly of Turkey, when Deniz Baykal, leader of one party, overtly said, “What are you doing, why did not you fix current border, why did not you make reference to the Treaty of Kars?” – cherished dream of Turkish side over the negotiation process. Hence, this is the exact case, when for moving forward sometimes there are issues that even should not be clarified… The side may stick to their stances; though contribute to the progress in relations normalization process.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Let us also draw the attention to the moment, when the President withdrew the Protocols. Why this very moment was chosen?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Of course, it was matter of the President, he voiced it at the UN General Assembly, that the behavior, displaced by Turkish authorities, force to think in such direction. On the other hand, quite rapid developments unfolded over that period, both in the region and adjacent territory, and, in general, in the world. On the eve of Centennial of Armenian Genocide, Turkey continues to pursue denial policy in new expressions. Particularly, of course, it was a very indecent step, when in response to the invitation of President of the Republic of Armenia to President of Turkey to participate at the ceremony on April 24, President of Turkey shifted the day of Battle of Gallipoli to the very April 24, and without even responding to the invitation, invited the host to Turkey on that same day. For sure, this step is out of all, even moral norms. This approach once again reveals that, unfortunately, Turkish authorities in their denial approaches are far beyond the realty.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Let us draw the attention to some views in very Armenia. А great deal of talk here is that the withdrawal of Protocols is directly linked to the Declaration on the Centennial. Even fits from the Declaration logic.

Shavarsh Kocharyan: You know, first, Declaration is unique phenomenon in our reality, when one text is adopted, and, in fact, all Armenian structures (be it state, religious, non-governmental, political structure) took part in the process, i.e. drafting of the text, editing, bringing it to its final version. Naturally, this text should have reflected all current positions. Declaration tried to reflect positions of all walks, structures of Armenians over that paramount issue. On the other hand, I would not directly link the Declaration with the President’s step.

Nver Mnacakanyan: How do domestic moods relate to that step?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Domestic moods are very just discontent. When this or that indecent statement is made by Erdogan or Davutoglu.. they offend our Diaspora, or try to present genocide survived Armenian Diaspora as Turkish community. It is rather much offensive for Diaspora, and can not but cause anxiety even in Turkey. Independently political officials, intellectuals, scholars just point at those gross indecent steps, mistakes, that Turkish authorities undertake.

Nver Mnacakanyan: First reaction by the Turkish authorities is known already. I am sure, you are familiar with it. Ministry of Foreign Affairs accuses us of being not honest. It does not directly say so, but what “not honest” mean here in this context?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Very timid reaction that even has no author, i.e. who? Spokesperson? From MFA of Turkey we hear that the step was wrong and not honest. What the hell? About what honesty do Turkish authorities speak, whose behavior goes against even elementary human norms?

Nver Mnacakanyan: Different situation is in media – great significance is attached to and our step is on headlines of first pages of Turkish media outlets, but we would have an opportunity to talk about this over later. As to procedural matters, what comes next? When we say that we withdraw Protocols, does it relate to the signatures?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Does not relate. Here is the issue. After the signing, the process underwent off in Armenia, i.e. according to domestic procedures – decision of the Constitutional Court pursued, then they were introduced in the National Assembly, and the discussions were about to start in committees, plenary session, but it all was stooped for the very reason, when Turkish side started to speak the language of preconditions. In Turkey, formally, Protocols are in National Assembly. But, I would like to recall, that Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Turkish Grand National Assembly Mercan made public statement, that “what is the difference of those Protocols to be in the Government’s shelf or his shelf, anyway, no steps would be undertaken.” For the Armenian side it was out of logic to keep Protocols in National Assembly when no steps were undertaken from the other side.

Nver Mnacakanyan: He spoke about the freeze; he does not undertake steps, but froze them. Diplomatic attitude is such.

Shavarsh Kocharyan: Our President stated that he suspended the process, and the word “suspend” means that Protocols are there where they were at that moment, i.e. National Assembly. As of now, they have been withdrawn from there.

Nver Mnacakanyan: Do we have the second step to make? I would like to clarify our next step.

Shavarsh Kocharyan: We have an opportunity to make different steps. We can simply revoke signatures, or ratify, i.e. everything depends on future developments. What would the development, Turkey’s behavior, be like, will it change, if yes, then which way? Thus, we have steps to make in different directions. But the most important here is that in this case, again, using football terminology, the ball is in their court, and it is apparent, that states concerned, international community will wait steps by Turkey.

Nver Mnacakanyan: They can not but speak out, should say what the future would be like? Now, to the future, does our step imply that we end on Armenian-Turkish relations, or is there possibility of new document?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: If the President revokes signatures, then, only theoretically, new process could be launched.

Nver Mnacakanyan: As conclusion, who benefited those six years?

Shavarsh Kocharyan: I would point out the wave in Turkish society, that was raised and is hard to stop. One should also remember that two states – Greece and Switzerland – criminalized denial over that time. The most important is Armenia’s frank desire to normalize relations and we did not make any step contrary to agreement, unlike Turkish authorities, that continuously speak the language of preconditions. In the result of that behavior of Turkish authorities those 6 years worked against the normalization process.