Armenian Radio Hour of New Jersey (ARHNJ)
Metro New York area – Sundays from 2 p.m. to 4 p. m. on 89.5FM WSOU
15 Hart Drive
South Orange, NJ 07079
Fax: 973-761-1450
Email: ARHNJ@aol.com
Web: http://www.arhnj.com/
South Orange, NJ: Van Krikorian, a member of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC), appeared on the October 14 broadcast of the Armenian Radio Hour of New Jersey (ARHNJ) on 89.5FM WSOU. Mr. Krikorian gave a detailed interview regarding TARC that is presented here in its entirety.
Mr. Krikorian joined Vedder, Price, Kaufman & Kammholz in 1998 as a partner in the Corporate and Project Finance Practice Groups. He is an international attorney who has done extensive work in structuring investments, negotiating agreements and resolving disputes for clients primarily in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Caribbean. His clients’ projects include energy, textiles, transportation, agribusiness, banking, trade, mining, investment funds and trading matters.
Mr. Krikorian has participated in numerous international conferences and is a frequent public speaker on legal, political and economic issues in the Commonwealth of the Independent States. His articles on legal aspects of doing business in the Transcaucasus, Ukraine, Central Asia and Russia have been widely published, and he has testified before Congress.
He is a former Director of Government and Legal Affairs of the Armenian Assembly of America in Washington and in 1992 was the Republic of Armenia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations. In 1991 he served asa member of the official United States delegation to the Moscow CSCE metings. He currently serves as chairman of the U.S.-Armenian Business Council and Chairman of the Armenian Assembly’s Board of Directors. Mr. Krikorian is listed in the 1998 edition of “Who’s Who in American Law.”
Mr. Krikorian is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (International Law Committee); Armenian Bar Association; and a former member of the Vermont Bar Association (Professional Responsibility Committee) and he teaches an annual seminar on legal ethics for the association.
NM: Norayr Meguerditchian
VK: Van Krikorian
VA: Vartan Abdo
GK: Garbis Kazanjian
JC: Jack Chekijian
NM: How and when was the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission formed?
VK: It is fair to say that this commission was not actually formed
until July of 2001. Until then, there had been discussions amongst
the members of the Commission with other concerned parties and we did not know if we were going to form it when we got to Geneva. It could have all fallen apart. When we got to Geneva we finally decided to create this commission.
NM: Who was the catalyst behind this? Was there a third party or a super power? Some say it could be the White House, and others say the White House and the Russians together.
VK: I can not give a definitive answer. Each of us have come into
this with our own reasons and motivations. Did the Department of
State support it? Yes, absolutely. They were up front about saying
that right from the beginning from their press office in July. Did
the Russian government support it? I cannot comment. We have a
member of our commission from Moscow who’s very prominent there, Antranig Mikranian. You can ask the Russian government and Antranig.
From Armenia and Turkey, you can say that both governments were definitely aware of it and it would not have gone forward otherwise. I think President Robert Kocharian fairly said yes, we were informed about it.’
NM: There were conflicting articles in the papers where Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian knew or didn’t know about it. But you are
affirming that the Armenian government knew about this commission.
VK: Absolutely, and I think they have said that. What we are really doing are two different things.
One is a classic kind of Track Two diplomatic effort. Not by government officials having formal negotiations, but by people with some experience and creative ideas talking about relations between Armenia and Turkey and Armenians and Turks in an atmosphere where you have more room to say things that, in an official meeting you would not have because someone would come in and read three bullet points off of a piece of paper, go back, and report to his government. That is one part of what we are doing. Governments are free to accept our wisdom or lack of wisdom as they see fit.
The other part of what we are doing is more generally dealing with the differences between Armenians and Turks. We know what a lot of them are, but speaking from experience, we do not know what all of them are.
NM: Do you have a set of goals for a year’s time, a second year, and so on?
VK: As an Armenian team, the four of us have goals. We also have shared goals as a commission, as a group. I can talk about them more than I can the Armenian team’s specific goals. I think we share the belief that because of the Soviet Union and the Genocide and a lot of reasons, Armenians and Turks have not had the kinds of mature discussions that they need to have to resolve their differences. For the Diaspora, we can talk about the consequences of the Armenian Genocide and the emotions we all bring to that.
Second, we need to talk about how the differences can be addressed through dialogue rather than through proxies. One of the standard approaches of Armenians has been to deal with these issues through proxies. We lobbied the United States government to accept the Armenian position and impart that to the Turkish government and other countries. That work continues, but what has been ignored is direct contact between Armenians and Turks. The whole Commission is anxious to achieve that, not just on political issues, but as a healthy means to a better future.
NM: Some articles say that the work of your commission will somehow weaken the efforts of the Armenian Assembly and other lobbying organizations. How do you address this concern?
VK: It is nonsense, and I can leave it at that. One of the things we issued in our statement said to people making those criticisms that we would be happy to take our records on that issue–and I will personally take my record on that issue–and match it up with anyone’s. I would be happy to take the Assembly’s leadership role in all of that, the Assembly’s commitment to the Genocide Museum. The amount of resources, progress, and effectiveness that the Assembly brings to that issue in Washington and match it with anyone’s.
NM: There was an article by Dennis Papazian where he said something to the effect of `to have great gains we need to risk.’ Are we risking anything by going through this?
VK: I am sure we are. I can say that we know we shocked a lot of people when we started this. We knew that would happen, as we knew that people would be offended, confused, and jealous for not having been involved. We felt that we could handle it, and we have shown that we can handle that as a community and as Armenians. That was one risk.
The Turks themselves are taking risks too, because of the prospects of sitting down with a guy like myself, who a few years ago, was identified as the number one enemy of the Turkish people in some quarters.
NM: Why would there be six Turkish representatives and four Armenians? Is there any importance to that?
VK: I will say that we did not appreciate how people would react to that. As a working matter, the four of us work fine and match up with the six of them fine. As a matter of appearance, we understand that it is better if the sides are equal. As a practical matter, we understand that we could compliment our four with some other people. Since in our terms of reference we said that it is a flexible process that may contract, we have the room and a list of people who have expressed interest in being on the Commission. We went through the list in Istanbul and we are talking to people now. I expect we will increase our number from four to six. I want to assure people that we do not vote on issues in the Commission so there is no chance of us being out-voted six to four.
VA: So far I have not heard anything new or exciting. What is your personal view of the outcome of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission?
VK: I see the future as broadening the work that we are doing to include more people. We agreed in Istanbul to form a group of psychologists and psychiatrists to explore how the issues that divide us effect Armenians and Turks to see if we can find some common ground. Some work has been done on that already at Fordham University, when they brought together Armenian and Turkish students together to share their experiences. But the goal is to do it even on a bigger scale, on an international scale, to start exposing these issues rather than going into the routines we have been going into for generations.
Secondly, we are going to work on the legal issues that divide Armenians and Turks and we are going to do that with the assistance of the International Center for Transitional Justice so we can put a framework to the legal issues surrounding the border closing, the visa regime, the lack of diplomatic relations, the loss of Armenian property, and other Armenian damages. We have a concrete plan and a very reputable organization assisting us with that.
Third, we are going to look at other models of reconciliation to try and see what activities make sense. In 2001, we have seen that the reconciliation process has taken place in other countries. This one is a little different for a variety of reasons, because it also
deals with Track Two issues and historical and contemporary issues. It also does not deal with just a purely international situation between Armenia and Turkey, but also with the Diaspora. So what activities make sense in that regard? Are there cultural activities that may create the atmosphere that improves the relations between Armenians and Turks? Are there educational issues?
Next, either within our one year term or before then, we are going to issue recommendations to the concerned governments–to have a group of Armenians and Turks sit down and write recommendations. If you want to improve relations, what would you do? Armenians have this conversation with themselves quite often. They have it with the United States government, in other countries, and in their host governments. But we are not having conversations between civil society members that are Armenian and Turkish, where they come up with reasons or ideas which will be non-binding but that will hopefully contribute to both countries’ faiths. We have, as a commission, very specific goals and projects that we are pursuing.
VA: Why was New York selected for the TARC commission as opposed to Armenia, and what are some of the setbacks as a result of the first meeting?
VK: New York was selected only because we received the offer from the International Center for Transitional Justice located in New York. It is headed by Alex Braine who was Vice Chairman of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and we felt that that activity was that important. We have agreed to go to Yerevan to do what we started to do in Istanbul: to meet with civil society members that are Armenian and have them come to the Commission and say these are the six things we think you should do.’ We went through that process in Turkey, and we felt it was beneficial.
We met with people effected by Armenian terrorism in Turkey and yet who harbored no ill will to Armenians. That was significant, because for them to sit down with some Armenian civil society members and to want the situation to improve was emotional. That moved the ball; that was progress. To shut yourself off from those people and not support them, I think, will do more harm than good.
NM: Do you see any difference in these people since you met them in successive meetings? Have they changed at all?
VK: Its a rollercoaster. We have met with different kinds of people,
some who consider from an Armenian perspective to be positive people looking for change. We have also met negative and frightening people. That is a part of their society that we have to know about as well. Within the commission, I am not going to comment; we had a serious problem after our first announcement in July, where some Commission members said some things that were damaging. We addressed them in private in a fairly direct way. We will refrain from commenting on anything that dealt with those comments
GK: I am not satisfied with the press releases that you issue after the meetings. To gain my confidence, I need to be able to read the complete transcripts of the TARC meetings. This has been a taboo subject for the Turkish public, though I think that that might help educate them about Turkish-Armenian affairs.
VK: I think that is a very fair point. What we release to the public is what we all agree on. Could we get a consensus to share detailed minutes of a meeting? Are the meetings tape recorded? No, I doubt it. I think people are saying things there that they do not want released to the public and I think that is exactly the point. We want to have that space to exchange those ideas and release what we can all agree on. I appreciate and acknowledge the point, though–I am cautiously optimistic myself.
VA: What is a typical TARC meeting like? What is the format, and who attends them?
VK: We have an outside person, a Chairman /mediator named David Phillips who is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of Vienna, among other things. He just took up a position at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. He also did a great deal of work between Greeks and Turks in Track Two efforts. He acts as our Chairman and meets with us separately and then as a group to discuss our agenda.
At the last meeting, our primary activities were to decide on the proposals from the International Center for Transitional Justice and to look at models of reconciliation. We received a written proposal
for that and decided to accept it. We also discussed the members of Turkish civil society on that trip. Turkish colleagues briefed us, we met with academics, journalists, business people, and we talked about questions as a commission that we were going to ask them. When we come to New York we are expecting to invite members of the Armenian Diaspora to meet with the commission as well and ask them what they think should be done to promote reconciliation.
JC: Given the fact that such a tumultuous and tragic event has recently occurred in this country, has TARC taken a back seat as a priority for the United States?
VK: The World Trade Center bombing and war on terrorism has effected everything. It has completely displaced what was the Bush administration’s foreignpolicy prior to September 11, and that is not a secret. This is an administration that came to power looking to ditch the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to toughen its relations with China, and to not being committed to nation-building and multilateral activities that the Clinton administration had put so much into. Instead, we see the first policy goal of the Bush administration following September 11 was to put together a coalition and then to act against the Bin Laden group and conduct the war on terrorism, increasing multilateralism and alliances that are formed that remind us of the ones that existed in the Cold War era.
The president was very clear when saying you are either with us or against us.’ When we get into that kind of a rubric,
emphasis on things like democracy and human rights is not going to be as strong as the war on terrorism. We see that most recently in the United States agreement with Uzbekistan, a country who’s human rights record is not very commendable. In ordinary times, the United States would not have made the security commitment that it has now.
The Commission itself is operating independently of the State Department. Whether the Bush Administration has the emphasis or not, it has gathered enough momentum that it does not matter. What happens matters with the participants in the Commission. It has obviously changed the way that everyone on the Commission looks at our work. Resolving issues through terrorism and violence are things that we hopefully all seek to avoid; there is not much of a future in that. It is also producing some unusual alliances.
Everyone would acknowledge that September 11 has fundamentally changed the Bush administration’s relations with Russia. Considering the criticism that Armenia has received from a lot of Turkish and Azeri sources as essentially being a vassal state of Russia now changes because the United States and Russia now have more in common than they did, and Armenia because of its permanent bonds with the US–bonds that we hope to develop even more–and permanent bonds with Russia. Nobody knows how that is going to play out in the next 20 years. We have some opportunities that we did not have before and we are hoping to build on them.
VK: There are a lot of people in the Turkish government who are anti-Armenian. My reaction to that is not that we ought to shun those people, but rather we should engage them. We have to find out if we have differences in public opinion in Turkey and if there is a hostile, pre-Genocidal mentality. Not one of us does not understand that Armenia has real security threats. Nagorno Karabagh has real security threats. Our approach is not to ignore the people in Turkey who would like nothing better than to finish the job, but rather to engage and expose them to try to find people who disagree with them.
The world is a different place, not only on account of September 11, but also because of the information age that we are in. We have to adapt our tools to deal with those. Because of September 11, the United States military relationship is going to be stronger than it was. We cannot pretend that that does not exist. We are going to be sharing the same concept but we have to come up with one different way of dealing with it. The different way does not exclude the other ways we have traditional dealt with, but it opens up a different avenue.
I have been involved with the Armenian Assembly since 1977,
lobbying the United States government to do what we want them to do. I can say that I have accomplished more in directly engaging Turks in such a short period of time than almost any other effort I have been involved with, and that is why I took this risk.
We should not forget the Genocide, and we could not if we wanted to. No one is forgetting it. No one is doing anything except calling it the Genocide that it is and dealing with that. The goal, as far as I am concerned, is to ultimately have the Turkish people and the Turkish government recognize the Armenian Genocide and its consequences. We did a fairly careful analysis.
What is going to help Turkish society change? Is it going to be outside pressure? It was very sobering for me to re-read Vahakn Dadrian’s Yale International Law Journal article from 1989 where he analyzed the effect of Armenians asking the European powers to intercede on behalf of Armenians in Turkey, and how, in all likelihood, that made the lives of Armenians there worse. It is a very sobering thought. Those who have relied on foreign countries got fine agreements with the language they wanted. But Armenians got nothing that the Europeans thought they would get and were later abandoned. We have gone through that analysis in private, and we ought to do more of it.
NM: Two weeks ago, the European Parliament discussed Turkey’s
acceptance into the European market, and the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide was set as a pre-requisite of entrance into the
European market. The European community has removed the
pre-requisite, saying that TARC is present to resolve that issue
itself. How can we be sure that TARC will not be a setback for
Armenian interests, primarily recognition of the Armenian Genocide?
VK: We saw the same draft resolution and were a bit surprised by it becauseit inaccurately reported on what the Commission was doing. We also sent out correct information and dealt with Armenian associations in Europe. I can say that the draft resolution to which you refer was amended so that it incorporated the prior resolutions calling for Turkey to acknowledge the Genocide and it also added a new paragraph `24′, which explicitly calls for Turkey to lift the blockade on Armenia as a first concrete step for pacification of the region. In fact, it was not the European community that passed the resolution, but the European Parliament, whose decision is completely non-binding.
When I first read about the European Parliament putting a hold on Turkey’s acknowledgment to the European community based on the Genocide, I was pleased–as I think all Armenians were. I thought it was a real form of leverage. But in fact, the terms for Turkey’s admission into the European Union are listed in the Helsinki document. In that document issued long before our commission was formed, the document which really mattered, there had not even been consideration for it as a serious issue. That returns us to the question of whether we engage them or ignore them and rely on others to do our work for us.
NM: Why would you personally be involved in this?
VK: Why do any of us show commitment to those whom we consider our family? At one particularly heated moment, I found myself thinking about my kids; for a very long time, we have been doing this lobbying work in Washington. When my kids grow up, are they going to be doing the same things, using the same strategies, and hitting the same brick walls? Or will there arise something that may change the path they take and the path available to Armenians in Armenia who are being strangled by the blockade in Turkey on account of current relations? At a point where we could have easily chosen not to pursue it, that
question resonated with me.
This year is the 23rd anniversary of the Armenian Radio Hour of New Jersey (ARHNJ). It continues to serve the Armenian-American community of the metro New York area on Sundays from 2 p.m. to 4 p. m. on 89.5FM WSOU. Write ARHNJ at 15 Hart Drive, South Orange, NJ 07079, fax (973) 761-1450, and e-mail ARHNJ@aol.com. Visit ARHNJ on the web at www.arhnj.com.
Yorumlar kapatıldı.