TURKISH MFA'S CONCERNS OVER ARMENIAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 000196

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT ALSO FOR EUR/SE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/03/2020
TAGS: PGOV PREL AM TU
SUBJECT: TURKISH MFA'S CONCERNS OVER ARMENIAN
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION

REF: A. ANKARA 28

B. 09 ANKARA 1569

C. YEREVAN 22

Classified By: DCM Doug Silliman for reasons 1.4(b,d)


1. (C) Summary: On February 3 MFA DG for Research and
Intelligence Aydin Sezgin spoke with the DCM about Turkish
concerns over the Armenian Constitutional Court decision.
Sezgin focused on two main points. First, he argued that the
court decision requires the GOAM to engage only in a sterile
polemical discussion of the events of 1915 in the historical
sub-comission rather than the flexible dialogue the Turks
thought had been orally agreed and thus removing all
"creative ambiguity" from the protocols. Second, that the
court decision reaffirms that Armenia does not accept the
Treaty of Kars and Moscow, putting Armenian intentions over
Turkish borders into question. On February 3, CHP MP and
former MFA Undersecretary Sukru Elekdag added to this
argument, asserting that the rejection of the Treaty of Kars
was significant because it contains a provision supposedly
absolving Turkey of responsibility for events of 1915, and a
provision allowing Turkey to provide security to Nakhichevan.
U/S Sinirlioglu, Sezgin, and the MFA's Acting Legal Advisor
will meet with the Swiss in Bern February 5 and want meetings
in Washington February 15-16. End Summary.

--------------
MFA: RULING TIES GOAM'S HANDS...
--------------


2. (C) Sezgin told the DCM that the Armenian Constitutional
Court decision creates a legal link between the Armenian
Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the
Turkey-Armenia protocols. This link, combined with other
statements from Yerevan, ties Armenian hands in implementing
the historical commission in the way Turkey expected. The
link also removes the "creative ambiguity" initially present
and that is critical to the GOT selling the protocols to the
public. According to Sezgin, the protocols initially left
out a direct reference to the events of 1915 to avoid
political difficulties for Armenia, and the ambiguity allowed
Turkey and the Turkish public to keep the idea that both
parties could come to the commission to openly discuss
historical differences over the events of 1915. The court
decision, he asserted, directs the GOAM only to seek
recognition of genocide and thereby 1) casts doubt on the
most important point of the protocols to Turkey and 2)
detracts from the GOT's biggest selling point of the
protocols to the public.

-------------- ---
...AND UNDERCUTS BORDER RECOGNITION, KARS TREATY
-------------- ---


3. (C) The second issue for Turkey is the question of
borders and how the court decision affects them. Sezgin said
the decision reaffirms Article 6 of the RA Constitution,
ruling out the Kars and Moscow treaties as "relevant
treaties" per the protocols because they do not apply to
Armenia. Without these treaties, Sezgin argued there is no
formal recognition of the border by Armenia. Sezgin said
Turkey cannot separate these legal concerns from their
political consequences since legal issues such as border
treaties are very easily translated into political obstacles
in the Parliament and public opinion.


4. (C) Adding to the argument, Sukru Elekdag, current CHP
member of Parliament and former MFA undersecretary, told the
Ambassador on February 3 the real problem with the court
decision is not the border issue, but that Foreign Minister
Davutoglu presented the protocols to Parliament with the
argument that through signing them, Armenia acknowledged the
Kars and Moscow treaties. This is important not because it
confirms the borders -- he does not believe the court
decision demonstrates non-recognition of the borders -- but
because article 15 of the Treaty of Kars gives Turkey (and
the former Soviet Republics) amnesty for "crimes and
offenses" committed during the "war on the Caucasian front."
This purportedly absolves Turkey of responsibility for the
events of 1915. Elekdag also asserted that the Treaty of
Kars gives Turkey a security guarantee for Nackhichevan,
which they used when Armenia "invaded" Nakhichevan in 1992.

ANKARA 00000196 002 OF 002



--------------
GOT LOOKING FOR A WAY FORWARD
--------------


5. (C) Despite these concerns, Sezgin said the GOT has no
intention of withdrawing from the protocols; "we are looking
to be convinced." The GOT is "embarrassed" (politically) by
this latest development, however, and needs to find a way to
address both its own and the public's fears of what the court
decision could mean for Turkey and the protocols. Sezgin
said they will formally present their arguments first to the
Swiss, and then to the U.S. during meetings in both capitals
in the coming weeks.

--------------
COMMENT
--------------


6. (C) Most of these allegations have clear
counter-arguments. On the issue of the events of 1915,
although Armenia may indeed come to the historical commission
with its own point of view on what actually took place, so
too will Turkey. The protocols do not stipulate that either
side needs to give up their own positions, rather that they
come to the table and participate in a discussion and
investigation of the historical events, which both sides have
agreed to do. The Armenian Constitutional Court ruling
approved the protocols, and thus Armenian participation in
such a commission. On the question of borders, the protocols
do not specifically define "relevant treaties" as only those
ratified by both countries, it only indicates that they are
treaties that exist and are related to the border.
Furthermore, the references to "the existing border" in the
court decision, and "the common border" in the protocols,
which Armenia signed, indicate that Armenia recognizes a
pre-existing border. As colleagues in Yerevan have also
pointed out, Armenian membership in regional and
international organizations required that it recognize
neighbors', including Turkey's, borders. The fastest way for
Turkey to resolve any doubts over the borders would be to
open them.
Jeffrey

"Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at http://www.intelink.s
gov.gov/wiki/Portal:Turkey"