For a victim nation (Armenians) to agree to sit down with the perpetrator (Turkey) - a country which. moreover, denies the genocide - is an absurdity. No one, and I mean no one, has explained why it was necessary to include such an abomination in the protocols. Even the IASG (International Association of Genocide Scholars) ridiculed the Turkish proposal for a joint commission. See here: http://adlandag.blogspot.com/2007/10/appendix-1-iags-letter-to-turkish-prime.html Is the joint commission something about which any intelligent Armenian would say "What a great idea a joint commission - let's be sure to sit down with genocide deniers and debate the events of 1915 so that they can fuzz up the issue" ? Turkey went into the negotiations with demands. Armenian went into it with a corrupt president and NO DEMANDS whatsoever. That the corrupt president may have managed to soften Turkish demands a bit does not mean that these protocols are beneficial to Armenia. And notice how some proponents of the protocols dishonestly write as if the only Armenians who oppose the protocols reside in the diaspora. They need to do that because they can't come up with logical arguments as to why certain clauses of the protocols need to be in there. Watch, someone is going to tell me that I have never been to Armenia (not true) and that I don't have to suffer like Armenia does. As if the opening of the Turkish border will necessarily bring prosperity to Armenia. The issue is not necessarily the opening of the border. It is the text of the protocols. Another curious thing is that the Diaspora is being accused by some in Hayastan of being ultra-nationalist and hateful toward Turkey. Excuse me, but it was Armenia that marched in 1965 chanting "Our Lands" and that started the Karabagh which led to the war with Azerbaijan and the expulsion of a million Azeris and the rendering of entire swathes of land "Azeri free." Seems to me that Armenia is at least as nationalistic as the Diaspora. If, as some people say, we should let the genocide issue die, then why not let the Karabagh issue die? If you don't desire any land from Turkey after 90 years, why demand any land at all from Azerbaijan after 20 years? Let it go and make peace with Azerbaijan. Forget Sumgait. Sign protocols with Azerbaijan why don't you? Come to think of it, if some in Hayastan do not like the Diaspora expressing opinions about Armenia, then what gives Hayastan the right to make decisions for Karabagh which is exactly what is happening?

Areg: If Armenians decide to continue international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, it is their choice, the Protocol does not preclude that option. The path towards further recognition may be altered, however. David Davidian www.regionalkinetics.com

An excerpt from Prof. Roger Smith’s Open Letter to President Sarkisian "I and other scholars, who have no personal, ethnic or political motive for affirming the Armenian Genocide, feel we must point out one significant aspect of the Protocols, the clauses that call for a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations and the establishment of an intergovernmental bilateral commission which shall comprise subcommissions for the prompt implementation of the commitments mentioned in operations paragraph 2 above in this Protocol. Does “the historical dimension” article refer to the Armenian Genocide, and does the “intergovernmental bilateral commission” article refer to a historical commission? If not, then how can Armenia hope to have normal relations with Turkey while ignoring a major cause of the tension between the two countries? If so, then they are a source of grave concern, because there is a broad scholarly consensus that genocide unquestionably occurred in the case of the Armenians. You are well aware, Mr. President, that numerous distinguished historians, political scientists, sociologists, legal scholars, and authoritative institutions around the world have investigated the Genocide many times over, issued academic publications, and even made public declarations. These scholars have devoted their professional lives to conducting scientific research with the highest levels of academic integrity. As a result of their work, scholars have identified the Armenian Genocide as the archetypal case of modern genocide, whose pattern has many similarities with subsequent cases. Therefore, any commission that purports now to conduct “an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives” in effect dismisses all of the extensive research that has already been conducted for decades and implies that none of it was impartial or scientific. This is offensive to all genocide scholars, but particularly non-Armenian scholars, who feel their work is now being truly politicized." And yes this is the end of any demand by the Armenian Diaspora to recognize the Genocide. This will only strengthen Turkey's "there are two sides to a coin" policy and convince more people that the facts of the Genocide are questionable.And yes I read the damned protocols and if this thing is signed and ratified then it will be yet another black day in out history. Mekhk anonts vor zohvetsan vor ays eshereh abrin!

What amazes me is that with all the emotions flying, very few people actually bother to read the protocols. Everyone seems to be convinced that the protocols involve Armenia stopping lobbying for Genocide recognition -- despite the fact that there is nothing like that in there.

To Kostan: Let me see if I can re-gain your respect. Your point 1 -- ending recognition of the genocide is not a precondition in the Protocol, not even close. Further, there is no reason to conclude that Armenians are going to stop demanding genocide recognition and further, reparations. It’s not going to stop me in the least. The text on www.regionalkinetics need only need to be slightly modified after mid-October. Point 2, recognizing the border is not so much a precondition than the reason these Protocols exist. If you wish it to be a precondition it gets a check mark in both Turkish and Armenian columns. Today’s given is an existing demarcation between Turkey and Armenia, although closed. The Protocols call for its opening, period. There is no explicit or implicit references in the Protocol made for dropping territorial claims, or demanding any, for that matter. Since Armenia has never made official land claims against Turkey, a clause in the Protocols to that affect would look as foolish (and would be diplomatic unacceptable) as Armenia demanding that Turkey renounce any claims against Armenian lands, also never officially made. We agree that the historical commission can drag out for quite some time, but it has its time limits regardless of Nalbandian claiming a half century of delay. Anything that does not look a reasonable time line, perhaps a maximum of a couple of years will be categorized as a Turkish delay, and Turkey will have to live with the consequences of enhanced international pressure. Armenians simply need to sharpen their pencils with the basketball in Turkey’s court. As to what will precisely happen once the border is open, after several months to a year, is really an unknown. If the past actions of Armenian monopolists is any indication, an uncontrolled frontier may not bode well for the Armenian people. As you know there is huge Russian leverage and substantial investment in Armenia. If for no other reason than maintaining a healthy a forward base, Russia would not allow rampant Turkish inroads, although they share coincidental intention at the present. If this article initiates a level of dialog that is above the existing ranting and hysteria, a honorable goal has been achieved. I encourage others to take to their keyboards and engage in the furthering of cold, sober evaluation. -David Davidian

I have great respect for David and for all his work (e.g., visit his website at www.regionalkinteics.com), but after reading the analysis, I found it faulty. There have been from the early 90's three Turkish preconditions for lifting the blockade: (1) End international recognition of the genocide; (2) Explicitly recognize the de-facto Turkey-Armenia border; and (3) Withdraw Armenian forces from Nagorno-Karabakh. The questions the analysis should address are (i) Which of these three preconditions are addressed in the protocols? (Answer: (1) and (2)); Which are addressed explicitly? (Answer: (2)(This explicit recognition also implicity renounces any territorial claims either based on the de jure border of the Wilson arbitration award or on a genocide reparations theory); Which are addressed implicitly (Answer: (1) (through the establishment of the historical subcommission - while Armenia and Turkey are talking history, any foreign government under pressure to recognize the Armenian genocide will have cover not to do so (consider the period when TARC was in play or last April's announcement of the roadmap); David sees this as a delay but not fatal - Nalbandian in his meeting with Parliament said that there was no time limit on the sub-commission "because this process can last very long - maybe 10 years, maybe 20 years, maybe 50 years, or maybe longer." The delay therefore is really long-term or permanent); Which preconditions are achieved? (Answer (1)and (2)). It's clear that Turkey achieves at least two of its preconditions through the protocols. Withdrawing troops from Karabakh is not in the protocols either explicity or implicitly. The analysis has to be then with implementation of the protocols what levers does Turkey gain over the Armenian political leadership given the poor state of Armenian democracy and the kingmaker role played by the economic oligarchs? Analysis will probably lead to the conclusion that this Turkish precondition will not be met by the Protocols themselves, but will be made possible through their implementation. The analysis then needs to assess the harm of (i) explicity recognizing the de facto border (and implicity renouncing territorial claims), (ii) halting the genocide recognition process and (iii) the effect on the Karabakh process of providing Turkey immense economic levers over the Armenian oligarchy under conditions of an authoritarian government which draws it power from and is one with that oligarchy. These issues have been discussed at length on this web-site and elsewhere. David's conclusion therefore is way off base. The Protocols will deal a huge blow to Armenia, its statehood, its future and possibly its very existence.

I read the paper and I have to admit that it is an over-analysis. Some parts are so theoretical that they loose touch with reality.

Sargis, good points, FYI Hovnanian passed away last week.

Good paper David. I think that whatever ones opinion is of the protocols, they should at least read this paper. We are Armenians, which mean we are intelligent and should understand the dynamics of such a situation. I will argue that a benefit of all this "diaspora rage" that has been generated by these protocols, could be in bringing certain segments of the Armenian diaspora closer to the Republic of Armenia. Or at least make them go to Armenia once, twice, three times, &c. Hell if the guy from Led Zepplin (Armenianow news story) goes to Armenia twice, why aren't Armenians doing this. Armenians (nationalist or not nationalist) need to stop calling for mass migration of diaspora Armenians, and rather call for a strategic migration of certain segments. If the diaspora wants to yield influence in Armenia's domestic affairs it needs to send intelligent diasporans and sign them up as Republican party members, etc. until they form a portion of these parties' foundation. Why isn't Hovnanian or the other philanthropists investing is such goals?