ALSA president, Stella Pogosyan, surrounded by the panel. Photo courtesy of Garen Aliksanian.
On October 10, foreign ministers from the nations of Armenia and Turkey signed a historic set of protocols aimed at normalizing relations between the two countries. Hostilities between the two nations have been in existence since Armenia gained its independence in 1992, and ties have been severed completely since 1993.
The path to negotiations began in August with the announcement of a roadmap towards normalizing relations, and culminated in the signing of the protocols. Nevertheless, there is much contention about whether the protocols are causing more harm than good. Much of the Armenian Diaspora, in the U.S. and around the world, believes that the Armenian nation is making too many sacrifices. (Insert Quote)
In response to the heated debates surrounding the issue, Southwestern’s Armenian Law Student Association (ALSA) held a discussion on November 5 to discuss the topic. Stella Pogosyan, ALSA President and moderator of the discussion called the talks “One of the most important and beneficial events the Southwestern Armenian Law Student Association (ALSA) and the Southwestern Law School’s Diversity Affairs Office held this academic year.”
Pogosyan then introduced the two speakers. First was Yeghig Keshishian, Director of the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA) Western Region, who spoke in support of the protocols. He was followed by Steve Dadian, former Chairman and current adviser of the Armenian National Committee Western Region Board, who spoke out against the document.
Keshishian’s speech concentrated mainly on getting the audience to understand that both sides were making concessions during the negotiations of these protocols, and that the document was beneficial despite opposition from political parties and interest groups in both countries. “In Turkey there is lots of opposition,” said Keshishian, “but we will get more from opening the borders, if we don’t then Turkey wins.” Keshishian is referring to the economic blockade Turkey currently enforces against Armenia, and the hopes that lifting the blockade will bring economic prosperity to the Armenian people. Keshishian did state, however, that we should still “proceed with caution,” because to do otherwise would “be naive.”
Dadian’s speech was far more skeptical of the negotiations. He described the protocols as “an issue that has shocked this community since its announcement.” Dadian stressed that the protocols were first and foremost a legal document that would be controlling in both states, and that this controlling nature might constrain Armenian interests in the future. “The two states are of unequal bargaining power and really unequal political, military and economic power,” said Dadian.
Throughout the discussion both men brought up some of the more controversial paragraphs in the protocols, such as the call for “an impartial and scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations.” This point is clearly in reference to the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, a cause which Armenians have been working towards for many years. While Keshishian was adamant that the AAA would continue to push for the recognition of the Genocide in the U.S., and that the sub-committee would be fair due to the involvement of the Swiss who already accept the Genocide, Dadian urged that it would be dangerous for the Turks to be allowed to take what has been a political controversy and revert it back to a historical controversy.
Towards the end of their speeches Keshishian insisted that the “Armenian community should be forward looking … should look for short, mid, and long-term goals.” In Keshishian’s perspective, the signing of the protocols would open up new opportunities for both nations. In contrast, Dadian warned that the passing of the protocols would “eliminate the possibility of Armenia becoming a viable state in the future.”
With Dadian’s final words, the discussion then opened up to questions from the audience, who seemed truly engaged in the topic. “The event successfully achieved its goal, in that it presented student an objective analysis of the issue, and allowed them to formulate their own opinions on the issue,” said Pogosyan, “only through such open, honest, and balanced talks can we achieve progress and results.”
Written by Garen Aliksanian, Writer/Editor 2L
