Victimization Discourse in Armenia: the History and Its Impact on the Armenian Foreign Policy

CEU eTD Collection

“Victimizationdiscourse In partialIn fulfillment ofthe requirements for the degree Masterof Arts of Department impact on the Armenianon the foreignimpact policy” Supervisor: Professor Michael Merlingen

of Internationalof Relations and European Studies Central European University Budapest, Hungary 2015 Gayane Baghdasaryan Word Count: Submitted to in Armenia: The in Armenia: andhistory its By

15,032

CEU eTD Collection

IR approaches through ideas theConstructivist are socially that intheidentity stating constructed but alsoforeign through discursive policy produces and practices reproducesidentities particular throughcollectiveIR. thenotion of memory the within memory studiesoncollective Most focus implementing foreign policy. and discourse foreignhow victimization analyze research policy, seeks this inArmenia to based beenreproduced produced and by foreignp indivisible. Drawingindivisible. about poststructuralist the interactionbetween assumptions onthe identity on howspecial ofparticular representations chronologicaland historical shape settings population perpetratedand inthe byArmenianOttoman Empireculminated Genocide in1915, not onlyinfluenced hasforeigncountry’s and defined thealso policy implementations, but has which, induces can inturn, theThis assumption field fit be particularof policybest choices. on memoryand representations historical ofsystematic massacr cannot exist independentlycannot by exist articulating mobilized of the practices aand discursive state in poststructuralist approaches highlightcontend the importance ofdiscoursethat and identity relations neighbourTurkey withits strategically and are which crucial important Russia of this argument,this I employwill discourse thevictimization inanalyzing external Armenia’s which, articulate inturn, andmaterialthey intertwineand ideas factorsinaway became of a state and policy influencechoice state’s There isa growing interest in linkagegrowing in interest between identityand foreignpolicy outcomes Moreover, theyshape argueMoreover, thatnotonly foreignpolicy, identities importanceArmen for A olicy of Armenia over the last 20 years.of Armenia20 olicy the over lastTo illustrate bstract i

s. Atthe sameof time, theadvocates

ia.

es andof atrocities Armenian

identity identity

CEU eTD Collection accompanied me. and inspired corrections. I youwriting tosay alsolike Zsuzsanna process.would for Next comments thank her toand Toth I Acknowledgments

would like to thank Professor Michael Merlingen for his help and advice during the thesis thesis the during advice and help his for Merlingen Michael Professor thank to like would

I would like to express my deep appreciation to my family and my friend Marta who Marta myfriend and family my to appreciation mydeep express to like Iwould

CEU eTD Collection Conclusion Chapter 4Armenian Chapter 3Situating Armenian Chapter 2 The identity victimhood of in Armenian consciousness 1.2 Methodology Chapter 1Lite Introduction Contents of Table 4.3 “And,and” or “one end” 4.2 dual The discourse portraying Russia 4.1 Introduction 3.3 Unacceptable circumstances 3.2 New start 3.1 Armenian 2.3 Explaining trauma 2.2. Framing Armenian identity victimhood of 2.1. Theoretical framework 1.1Literature review Chapter outline Limitations The research purpose Context to the victimization discourse Armenianin foreign policy 3.3.1 Deadlock 3.2.2 Further deliberations 3.2.1 Domestic contradiction

......

...... rature review andmethodology

...... -

...... Turkish Turkish relations before 2009

......

- ......

Turkish relations

......

...... -

...... Turkish relations in the victimization discourse

......

...... iii ......

......

...... 52 48 46 45 45 41 39 37 35 31 26 26 19 18 15 15 13

9 9 7 6 4 3 1

CEU eTD Collection Memoire’ de Lieux Les History: and 5 4 3 2 1 testimony, and literatur survivor and witness hand, one the on commemoration remembrance, with preoccupies memory work much perspective, this From societies. contemporary in itself manifests p and history studies, cultural sociology, of fields the in memory on focus The social. inevitably is which memory the of construction identity and formationinthe during crucia a play to appeared event traumatic analysis. social of category a became eventually collec traumatic of notion the on focus to began scholarship the century, 1990s. past the nation”. no identity, no identity; no memory, no say: almost might “one succinctly: point the puts Smith Anthony memory. and history in embedded significantly in role unprecedented an plays Introduction

Edkins J. EdkinsJ. Weedon C. and Jordan G. ‘Collective memory: theory and politics ‘ Social Semiotics Vol.22, Issue 2, 2012, p. 2012, Issue 2, Vol.22, Semiotics ‘ Social politics and theorymemory: ‘Collective G. Jordan C.and Weedon p. 22 1992) press, Chicago of (University Memory, Collective A.L. On Coser M, Halbwach Ibid. A. D. Smith,

One can argue that the recent interest around around interest recent the that argue can One past the which in time a boom”, “memory a through living are we that claimed often is It At the same time, afterAt thesame many world time, the witnessed history pages20 ofhuman dark inthe is a recent phenomenon. It started only in the late 1980s and developed fully in the the in fully developed and 1980s late the in only started It phenomenon. recent a is Trauma and the Memory of Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2003) and and 2003) Press, University (Cambridge Politics of the Memory and Trauma National Identity, Identity, National

(London; New York: Penguin Books, 1991), p. p. 3. 1991), Books, Penguin York: (London; New e on the other, all of which highlight memory as a social practice. social a as memory highlight which of all other, the on e

University of Colombia Press Colombia of University

hpn te rsn. dniy n iett frain are formation identity and Identity present. the shaping aftermath of waraftermathcatastrophe. or of l role in national identity and influenced and identity national in role l ltc i lrey ie a aayig o memory how analyzing at aimed largely is olitics 1

In particular, these collective memories of a of memories collective these particular, In m , No. 26, Spring 1989, Spring pp7 1989, 26, No. , emory is concentrated on the discursive discursive the on concentrated is emory 1

However, this orientation to orientation this However,

Nora P. ‘betweenP. MemoryNora ie eoy which memory tive -

24 has been been has

the process of process the done on done 144 th 5

CEU eTD Collection 9 p. 133 (2002) Geopolitics, 8 ed., 7 6 years.whichof Armenian has thecore been the foreign policy over last20 asconsistentstruggle denial wellfor as came toconstruct Turkish recognition, identity Armenian century. twentieth the in identity Armenian in factor significant most the became instantly and homeland the of southward them of most and one almost months, few In Empire. Ottoman in Armenians of murder mass the century, the of identity of “equaliser an calls Libaridian what the massa Armenian The struggle. national and victimhood of narrative historical the on grounded lost was what reclaim to moment decisive a as era new the saw and statehood with experience no had 1918, in Armenia Eastern on republic first its build and 1375 in statehood independent last its of deprived which Armenia, respect, this In representations. historical the of reconstruction and construction the through identity national stat and national interests of notions the within dimensions policy foreign their accommodate and develop to independent building of for struggle as much memory asfight ofchange isapart the for political political intensely is remembering that argued is it context, this In identit Armenian of Dimensions Nation: Three as past R.‘The cited in Panossian (1981) Libaridian Gerard

Libaridian G.J, G.J, Libaridian 16 p. Edkins2003, Panossian R. ‘The past as Nation: Three Dimensions of Armenian identity’ Geopolitics, (2002) p. p. 136 (2002) Geopolitics, identity’ Armenian of Dimensions asNation:Three past ‘The R.Panossian Human Rights & Rights Human Democracy - 19th andthe beginning of a - half million Armenians were killed and the rest of the population was forcibly expelled, forcibly was population the of rest the and killed were Armenians million half Since the Since The The

collapse of the Soviet Union, Soviet the of collapse Challenge of Statehood : Armenian Political Thinking since Independence since Political Thinking Armenian : Statehood of Challenge e 9

- The memory of these dramatic events combined with Armenians with combined events dramatic these of memoryThe building.

s towards Syria. It caused mass displacement and the loss of a huge part part huge a of loss the and displacement mass caused It Syria. towards tatehood. In doing so, it was important for newly independent countries independent newlyfor important was it so, In doing tatehood. (Watertown, Mass.: Blue Crane Books, 1999). CraneBooks, Blue (Watertown,Mass.: 7

the 20thcentury the

For this reason, among others Armenia began to reassess its its reassess to began Armenia others among reason, this For

. known as Genocide theArmenian ofknown 1915became ” its former constituent republics faced a challenge challenge a faced republics constituent former its 2 8 . 6

In 1915 the world witnessed the first genocide first the witnessed world the 1915 In cres in Ottoman in cres

Empire , 1st ,

’ managed to managed

continuous .

the end of end the y’ - CEU eTD Collection Armenians 10 its to regards with legacies historical complicated possessing hand other the on and Azerbaijan, Nagorno in engaged being hand one the On policy. having not strong while the statehood towards path its declared Armenia country landlocked small a As agenda. policy T 1991. in Bolshevik of was Unionin1921. Bolshevik Soviet incopoated pressure Aremnia intothe result a As Armenia. current the of lands o share lion ill the graped the and army Armenian over advantage took soon Turks alone, bleed to Armenians left Bolsheviks re and Anatolia of control Tukish disunity the used Ataturk Kemal Mustafa byled nationalists Turkish re could which camefirst Russian underanddo Persian thenin1828under Armenia, Eastern and rule, Turkish the the under came Since country the subjugation. of foreign most century under seventeenth fallen had Armenia the and the century, collapsed, fourteenth had the kingdom of end the By security. its to challenges serous posed continuously thus and South and North West, and East of “crossroads” the on been has ArmenianContext discourse in to thevictimization policy foreign

Bloxhem Donald BloxhemDonald Only after the collapse of the Soviet Soviet the of collapse the after Only of days last the In it times ancient Since Caucasus. South in situated country landlocked small a is Armenia gain its statehood in the small part of Ea of part small the in statehood its gain , (Oxford University Press 2005) p.7 2005) Press University (Oxford e cnmc ed ad euiy ocrs ae o oiae h cutys foreign country’s the dominate to came concerns security and needs economic he The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman theOttoman of Destruction the and nationalism, Imperialism, Genocide: of Game Great The

h Otmn mie n drn te osei rvlto Armenia revolution Bolshevik the during and Empire Ottoman the

la preto o is ainl neet ad usqet foreign subsequent and interests national its on perception clear

- started the offense against the Armenian state in 1920. While While 1920. in state Armenian the against offense the started .

f the republic reducing it to the barren, landlocked landlocked barren, the to it reducing republic the f Union Armenia re Armenia Union 3 stern Armenia in 1918. in Armenia stern

- Karabakh conflict with the neighboring neighboring the with conflict Karabakh - Kemalist concert and subsequent subsequent and concert Kemalist - established its independent state state independent its established minion. minion. of Allied and re and Allied of

However,

at Armenian last

- the revived the established - prepared CEU eTD Collection and scholars, institutions, international 217 p. 2008), Oxford, (OUP Charles Tilly Goodin, by E. Robert edited leaders, world 11 by concerns such to devoted histories. reconciliation reseThe Russia. towards policy foreign Armenia’s on conditioned indirectly or directly were relation Turkish While Republic. Armenian the of im the as Russia with relations perceived governments successor the Turkey, with relations of normalization the through only eliminated old its of frameworks the within sovereignty the and genocide the of memory imperative of security preservation the inthe issue ofNagorno embed by imposed choices policy of lack the so re compromise adopted establishing and to attempt priority including policy “complementary”, foreign the on the recognition brought government genocide incumbent and second the genocide, the of issue the from starting else nothing be to turned which precon “without Turkey with relations establish to willingness its affirmed Armenia of ext

Assmann A. ‘Memory, Individual and collective’, in The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Political ofContextual Handbook Oxford The in collective’, and A.Individual ‘Memory, Assmann ernal relations, put the country in a serious foreign policy dilemma. While the first ruling elite ruling first the While dilemma. policy foreign serious a in country the put ernalrelations, ay itmzd epe r loig o aoois Akoldeet compensation, Acknowledgement, apologies. for looking are people victimized Many

Meanwhile, in contrast to the first elite, considering Russia Russia considering elite, first the to contrast in Meanwhile, arch purpose arch 11

Indeed, the last three decades have witnessed a vas a witnessed have decades three last the Indeed, - these are but some of the goals persecuted groups seek as they grapple with their their with grapple they as seek groups persecuted goals the of some but are these

than compromising everything i everything compromising than ,

s t ol b age ltr i bt css h Armenian the cases both in later, argued be would it as perative of the time deriving from vital security needs needs security vital from deriving time the of perative - fashioned policy of Imperialism, which could be be could which Imperialism, of policy fashioned 4

lations with Turkey, in order to to order in Turkey, with lations t and global increase in attention in increase global and t - n favor of economic benefits economic of favor n Karabakh. as a threat to the Armenian the to threat a as

- ald oiy of policy called

ditions” ditions” - ,

CEU eTD Collection 13 12 discursive practices. pol foreign consideration. geopolitical and concerns security th analyze to approach prevailing a is there Second, independent policy foreign Armenian of examination severa are There relations. Russian Armenian as dimensions external crucial such in Armenia of choices inherently political. reinterpr through redefinition national to is identity national of maintenance and formation the in narratives historical of role the ignore To identity. national the on artic to memory need vital the traumatic from deriving choices collective policy foreign of of polarization impact the on attention less is there recovery, and focused fore. traumati arena politics international significant practitioners. p. 210 Ibid Edkins 2003, p. 15 p. Edkins2003,

. D . The primary goal of this research is aimed at giving an inward look at the foreign policy foreign the at look inward an giving at aimed is research this of goal primary The is victimhood oncollectiveAt thesame majority work time, whilethe memory done of of

c past and bringing perpetrators of human rights abuses to justice have not come to the to come not have justice to abuses rights human of perpetrators bringing and past c on the relationship between a victim and a perpetrator in the context of pursuing justice pursuing of context the in perpetrator a and victim a between relationship the on espite the fact that it is difficult to find a co a find to difficult is it that fact the espite .

icy of Armenian based on its on based Armenian of icy nlec o cletv m collective of influence 12

These actors have engaged in debates and hav and debates in engaged have actors These .

has not received the systematic the received not has

ignore

an important component of collective identity. The processes of of processes The identity. collective of component important an l

reasons for this. First, little attention has been given to the to given been has attention little First, this. for reasons etation, rediscovery or creation of historical narratives are narratives historical of creation or rediscovery etation, emory.

inter connection with a with connection oee te mat f olcie m collective of impact the However 5

In turn this leads this turn In

attention in either the academy or the policy policy the or academy the either in attention on untry or region where region or untry e Armenian foreign policy based on its its on based policy foreign Armenian e

its engagement in regional geopolitics. regional in engagement its e initiated policies that surfaced the surfaced that policies initiated e particular national identity national particular

to the gap in gap the to - uks ad Ar and Turkish ulate and rearticulate rearticulate and ulate

working through a a through working

analyzing the the analyzing mr in emory menian

within within -

CEU eTD Collection previous the of overview an gives it although Second, perceptions. mutual include to aim our the accepting While Russia. it Russia and and Turkey of intentions policy the and factors Turkey external the of importance with relations its over consideration domestic Limitations Armenian nationalsecurityforeign perceptions about and policy. wit present and past the between connection discursive the presenting only not aimed is study This particular. in concerns, security its in and overall, consciousness Armenian the in has genocide t However, Russia. towards that and relations, Turkish core of the at survival national and interest national the brings which Armenia in redefinition national of processes in role critical a played has genocide Armenian the of commemoration the on based is is It interest. what national safeguarding its be at to perceived aimed relations external state’s the of set complex a as considered the in role decisive eve these that assumed external is it the turn, In in country. the place of dimensions taken political recently have that events key the on focusing Union Soviet the hin Armenia, but, what is more important, the role of the victimhood identity in the current current the in identity victimhood the of role the important, more is what but, Armenia, hin

is, hs eerh s iie b aayig rein oeg plc die b solely by driven policy foreign Armenian analyzing by limited is research this First, Armenian of element crucial a is Genocide Armenian the of issue the that new not is It independencefrom its Armeniasinceforeign of the policyexamines researchpresent The Armenia’s relation withthe outsideworld.Armenia’s relation

uue external future

Armenian her i a lre udrtnig of understanding blurred a is e

retto o Amna I ti rset frin oiy is policy foreign respect, this In Armenia. of orientation security concerns and geopolitical situation push Armenia push situation geopolitical and concerns security argued that the re the that argued 6

- articulation of historical narratives historical of articulation

ht lc te eoy f the of memory the place what nts appeared to have a a have to appeared nts

self, it is not is it self, - CEU eTD Collection come denial Turkish towards sensitivity with combined genocide the of memories concludesthat Ottoman the in Armenians of cleansingethnic conduct to attempts previous given importance, crucial the of was Armenia in memory that argued is It events. past to ascribed importance political subsequent the theoret This narratives. historical of reproduction and recovery the through redefinition national of process a in engaged actively Soviet became Armenia in over spilled further and Diaspora in emerged initially and genocide the by caused post the into memory traumatic collective of notion the situate to aimed is and memory collective Chapter outline foreign policy and collective internal self. discursive its of context the within itself. examined is conflict conflict the the Instead study to work this of intention the not is it Armenia, concerning analysis first victimization of discourse respect. in this performance overall the illustrate and importance crucial of be to believed the show occ to events key recent articulation the around policy sticks it variation, of practices discursive president’s first particular, in and, - and foremost, as a vital security concern for Armenia which cannot be abstracted from any from abstracted be cannot which Armenia for concern security vital a as foremost, and 1915 Armenian identity. This chapter is intended to illustrate how the id the how illustrate to intended is chapter This identity. Armenian 1915 This work consists of three chapters. Chapter 1 lays out a theoretical framework of of framework theoretical a out lays 1 Chapter chapters. three of consists work This Nagorno the of importance the considering while time, same the At

mie n eaiae h Amna nto fo is oead Te chapter The homeland. its from nation Armenian the eradicate and empire

ical outline is aimed at providing a context of context a providing at aimed is outline ical urred in Armenia’s external life which are are which life external Armenia’s in urred implications on Armenia’s on implications - Karabakh conflict, conflict, Karabakh

entity of trauma trauma of entity CEU eTD Collection perspective“Turkaphobia”. Armenian of towards Armenian the conditioning concerns security and geopolitical Armenia’s from apart that show to seeks Arme the of light the under relations particular inaway meaning their foreign policy fitswithin choices. it victimizat of frames the in operate and governmental official the of although which practices, discursive Diaspora)Armenian the representsalso (which oppositional analysis discourse employs chapter The development. to government sidelining of cost Armenian the at Turkey with current relations establish the by attempts failed the analyzes chapter This ratified. national interests. truth for searching identity victimhood Armenian the reinforce to utemr, h tid hpe i dvtd o h eaiain f Armenian of examination the to devoted is chapter third the Furthermore, Armenian the examining is chapter Second

usa Ti catr xmns rei’ dcso t etr utm Uin rm the from Union Customs enter to decision Armenia’s examines chapter This Russia. - Russian relations, the victimization discourse indirectly affects Armenia’s inclination Armenia’s affects indirectly discourse victimization the relations, Russian

ion discourse, actively reshape its elements through ascribing ascribing through elements its reshape actively discourse, ion nian -

Turkish deadlock and Armenia’s search for security. It security. for search Armenia’s and deadlock Turkish 8

- Turkish protocols signed in 2009 but never but 2009 in signed protocols Turkish the genocide issue in favor of economic of favor in issue genocide the - recovery and protection protection and recovery

- Russian Russian of of CEU eTD Collection 2005 05/07, No 15 Behavior Policy Foreign A.Hey, K. Jeanne 2013), (Routledge, Asia, Central and theCaucasus 14 Nagorno Ar as much as Moreover, capabilities. relative country’s the by foremost and first driven is policy foreign country’s a that argue and pursuinga self actors primary are states that arguing approaches Realist the within fit best policy. foreign Armenia’s of determinants main the are concerns security the under these states are simply engaged inexternal relations. policy, foreign a having rather that argue even scholars some respect, this In Russia. and West policy foreign subsequent power. of construction global and regional the in position country’s assess policy foreign Armenian analyzing scholars that seems it time, same the At issues. economic and social as well as elections, transformation, democratic as such issues, domestic of variety a with occupied is 1. Chapter 1

Giragosian R. ‘Toward a New Concept of Armenian National Security’ (Armenian International Policy Research( Research( Policy International (Armenian Security’ National Armenian of Concept Newa R.‘Toward Giragosian Berts 1 Literaturereview ch G.K.,Cassady B. C., Scott A. Jones, Michael D.B Crossroads and Conflict: Security and Foreign Policy in Policy Foreign and Security Conflict: and Crossroads D.B Michael A.Scott Jones, C., B. chG.K.,Cassady At the same time, due to the fact that Armenia is a small and weak country surviving surviving country weak and small a is Armenia that fact the to due time, same the At much Union, Soviet the of republicconstituent former a As - aaah Raim ol se h cutys taei rltos ih usa as Russia with relations strategic country’s the see would Realism Karabakh, blockade imposed by the neighbors, one can argue that the geopolitical position and position geopolitical the that argue can one neighbors, the by imposed blockade Literature review and methodology and Literature review

- help behavior and behavior survival. focus are Realists concernedhelp about factors onmaterial

(Boulder: Lyn (Boulder: ing

t bhvo a a post a as behavior its as a “post a as

ne Rienner Publishers, 2003) Publishers, Rienner ne - Soviet” country that country Soviet” ei i eggd n h cmlctd ofit over conflict complicated the in engaged is menia 9 -

oit onr ad rm h vepit f the of viewpoint the from and country soviet 14

is engaged in bigger game betwee game bigger in engaged is Small States in World Politics : Explaining Explaining : Politics World in States Small of the of

This labels Armenia and its and Armenia labels This

15 work done on Armenia Armenia on done work

in the anarchic world world anarchic the in This assumption will assumption This

n the the n CEU eTD Collection 2006) Press, University Columbia York: R. Panossian (2002), Geopolitics, 20 Publishers, CA: Mazda Mesa, Abrahamian L., No.3(1999/2000), 17 16 identity. national with interaction its and makers policy the of system believe the emphasize outside or world, the of perceptions state’s the in implications its and construction identity of process fl the and conditions as far Post in Identities Commissars, and Merchants to Nation: Levon beliefs and ofbehavior. andconstructs interest, accepted norms increased hi specific of product malleable highly a as states of interest and material. the and ideal the between interaction of nature a offer and ideas of impact constructivist the the emphasize that within frameworks accommodated theoretical be may turn, in This, behavior. state on identities to provide their secu smal that assumptions the by driven straightforward,

Suny R.G. R.G. Suny 110 No. Policy,1998), (Foreign Many Theories’ World, One Relations: ‘international M. S. Walt Abrahamian’s Abrahamian’s they address an important issue of the identity transformation in changing historical historical changing in transformation identity the of issue important an address they several terms, this In normscollective and impact ignores ofbeliefs, largeextent the However, thisapproach to Three Dimentions of Armenian identity” and “ and identity” Armenian of Dimentions Three

attention to the dominant discourse(s) in society since discourse reflects and shapes shapes and reflects discourse since society in discourse(s) dominant the to attention ‘ Provisional - Soviet Eurasia” Soviet ritybandwagonrely at sovereignty. andthe onothers expense oftheir

iiy f itrcl narratives. historical of uidity Stabilities: Armenian Identity in a in Identity Armenian 06), Panossian R. ‘the Past as Nation: Three Dimentions ofidentity’ Armenian Dimentions as Nation:Three R.‘thePast 06), Panossian The Armenians : From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars and Merchants Priests to and Kings From : Armenians The Armenian Identity in a Changing World Changing a in Identity Armenian

publications

The Politics of Identities in Post ofIdentities Politics The as well as Ronald Sun Ronald as well as

can be accommodated within the Constructivist perspective as perspective Constructivist the within accommodated be can

ht ae en rdcd i produced been have that Changing World Changing 10

17 l states that states l

y’s oee, hy ihr xmn a one a examine either they However, The 16

“ -

Soviet Eurasia’ International SecurityVol.24 SecurityVol.24 International Eurasia’ Soviet Provisional Constructivists consider the identities the consider Constructivists

Armenians: From Kings and Priests and Kings From Armenians: , , Armenian Studies Series ; No. 8 8 No. ; Series Studies Armenian

Razmik Panossian’s “the Past as Past “the Panossian’s Razmik do not have material capabilities materialhave not do storical n the recent years namely namely years recent the n

Stabilities: une ve o the on view nuanced rcse. hy pay They processes.

The Politics of Politics The

(New (New (Costa (Costa

way

CEU eTD Collection 1999/2000) 19 18 so, doing In policy. foreign in practices security, and interests national of understanding the to linked indirectly or directly are that events the interpret also theforeign operates withinac policy itself but implementation, policy foreign of practices discursive particular the through reconstructed Hansen discourse Following society. particular a in identity national of concepts socio the between interconnection by presented approach discursive the historical contexts. socio various within nationalism Armenian the of evolution the pro the emphasizes and history Armenian arenas. events historical vario employ to capable are actors political that argues foreign He policy. and internal of practice the and formation national within function they as identities chara post Armenia’s in “particularity”’ of workings post the in dynamics identity and movement,

Suny, RG.”The Politics of Identities in ofIdentities Post Politics Suny,RG.”The L Abrahamian (2006) cteristics of the Armenian identity. Armenian the of cteristics I ar I , For this reason, the research is looking at how the members of society remember and and remember society of members the how at looking is research the reason, this For follow extensively I research, my for point starting a as works these considering While Abrahamian pro Abrahamian 19

aosa, daprn rein i both in Armenian, diasporan a Panossian,

how the meaning of the past is articulated and rearticulated through the discursive discursive the through rearticulated and articulated is past the of meaning the how u ta te rein identity Armenian the that gue

and by elites that shape their attitudes and actions in domestic and international and domestic in actions and attitudes their shape that elites by and

vides insights into the anthropological aspects of the Armenian national Armenian the of aspects anthropological the into insights vides

- political processes, political agents and the dominant discursive dominant the and agents political processes, political - Soviet Eurasia”, (International Security, Vol. 24, No. 3, No.3, Winter 24, Vol. (InternationalSecurity, Eurasia”, Soviet 18 cess of identity creation or reformulation. He analyzes He reformulation. or creation identity of cess

In turn, Suny analyzes the fluidity and multiplicity of multiplicity and fluidity the analyzes Suny turn, In

t s nlzn te continued the analyzing is it

ertain discursive ofnational construction ertain identity. 11 post - -

of victimhood is not only constructed and and constructed only not is victimhood of ind Soviet period. He is analyzing the internal internal the analyzing is He period. Soviet - tutrls alwn to allowing structuralism pnec cnet and context ependence of i wrs oue o te modern the on focuses works his us identities, identities, us - political, geographical and and geographical political,

analysis theory of Lene of theory analysis

outline vlto o the of evolution

formed by both by formed trap into the the into trap s

h main the

CEU eTD Collection 20 self. collective internal and policy foreign Armenia’s on implications discursive its of context to work this of intention to impossible that policy foreign Armenia’s for consequential so is conflict The situation. current genocide the of memory collective the of perspective the from Armenian question the approach we considerations, securityphysical it to influencesregards with affairs foreign it how and dilemma security Armenia’s of lenses the through conflict Nagorno over Aze conflict unresolved the is Armenians of Armenia toseek that Turkey with of co psychologically and historically that aspects show to here aim my is it Meanwhile, certain constrained also has memory genocide the recognition, for struggle a simply longer no is it and Armenia of agenda policy foreign the in genocide of sense years.has changes the over discourse the genocideissue, the of implications the about decades several for country the in place taking have the namely had, has genocide the Armenian of memory collective that implications controversial most the to perhaps importance giving choices policy certain constrains time same the at and in constituents various its reshaping and shaping through discourse victimization

Suny, RG. (1999/2000), p. 157 (1999/2000), Suny,RG. rbaijan. It is important to mention that one of the key factors determining today’s national identity determining today’s factors thekey of thatone mention It to isimportant capacious more a empower and enable both to used being now is discourse the While - uks pooos f 09 I 2009. of protocols Turkish 20

remains present remains lhuh ot eerh eln wt ti issue this with dealing research most Although detect

security and inclinetowards Russia security lo fet h ise f Nagorno of issue the affect also

policy a study the conflict. It instead preoccupies itself with the issue within the within issue the with itself preoccupies instead It conflict. the study

in the majority of these policy and cultural debates, but its impact its but debates, cultural and policy these of majority the in from from rei’ psto o te ofit Hwvr i i nt the not is it However, conflict. the on position Armenia’s i age ta alongsid that argued is t 12

. - aaah hv drcl and directly have Karabakh,

and how it shapes perceptions of the of perceptions shapes it how and - Karabakh between Armenia and and Armenia between Karabakh

e s oue o expl on focused is

h ogig icsin that discussions ongoing the mplicated relations relations mplicated

a way it opens opens it way a

indirectly led led indirectly tt policy. state

it is almost almost is it iig the aining CEU eTD Collection on texts media quoted frequently Armenian most of examination the on based is analysis discourse representations the by found are and of number upon larger by articulated draw are result, a as representations, whose decision policy foreign the situating through seen one tocreate through other value elements relating and, produce the thus, meaning. to is juxtaposition research this in opposite, its over valued is element one that means juxtaposition assum is it Although “thing”. a to of meaning gives model language which the through juxtaposition employs It structures. material and being, living, subject, objects, to meaning representations link to aimed is policy foreign that assumption the on based is It Hansen. Lene by developed 1.2 and redefine continuously to government Armenia’s important forces turn, in all This, decisions. for policy foreign test Litmus and identity victimhood of point reservation the be to appears a by caused are. self of practice continuous a as policy emphasi the of importance the and identity of question the to leads inevitable This Methodology

As suggested by poststructuralist methodology, the the methodology, poststructuralist by suggested As analysis discourse the is project this in employed tool methodological main The Therefore, - Turkish protocols and Armenia’s decision to enter Customs Union. This includes includes This Union. Customs enter to decision Armenia’s and protocols Turkish

the question of identity.the question hie f h Amnas f aaah o use h pt o self of path the pursue to Karabakh of Armenians the of choice

f dniy n pooe plc truh the through policy proposed and identity of

it is argued that the conflict of Nagorno of conflict the that argued is it individuals, institutions, and institutions, individuals,

- definition and necessity to answer the question of who we we who of question the answer to necessity and definition - makers within a larger political and public sphere public and political larger a within makers 13

discourse of victimization is analyzed is victimization of discourse - Karabakh, apart from be from apart Karabakh, media outlets. For this reason, the reason, this For outlets. media

language

construction

- determination, determination, s on foreign on s ing directly directly ing

ht gives that re - answer answer ed that that ed

CEU eTD Collection Russian 2013, Unionin Customs is analyzed enter key as event. the to decision Armenia’s respect, this In identity. victimized of implications f Armenian the that argued is it since Armenian of analysis interpretative an of consists largely it however sources, decision in elites governmental the of performances discursive the between difference Armenian the before issue the to related events 1915 mass Armenian of Genocide as Armenian the in culminated Empire, Ottoman such the under deportations and atrocities representations dominant the of genealogy trace and background online. conducted debate,the in engagedscholars political as well representatives,as senior oppositional addition In government. web official the accessing by examined Armenpress.com, news.am, A1+, Lexis and Aravot.am, PanArmenian.am, namely English, and Russian Armenian, in the Armenian by provided is evidence textual the respect, with this In relations. Turkish preoccupied intellectuals and parties opposition the elite, ruling Armenian statements, press speeches, official I addition, In . The chapter 3on Armenian rese the Further, - making.

most significant works produced works significant most arch

the analysis is supported by personal interviews with governmental and and governmental with interviews personal by supported is analysis the

is supplemented by historical sources in order to provide historical historical provide to order in sources historical by supplemented is - ei dtbs, rm 08 o 05 Dfeet oiy et were texts policy Different 2015. to 2008 from database, Nexis - Russian relations also includes discourse analysis includesanalysis relationsRussian discourse also parliamentar - rin oiy oad Rsi i dpnet n indirect on dependent is Russia towards policy oreign pages of Ministry of of Ministry of pages 14

- y debates and published interviews of the the of interviews published and debates y Turkish protocols are included to show the the show to included are protocols Turkish

on Armenian foreign policy analyzing the the analyzing policy foreign Armenian on

Foreign Affairs of Armenia and Armenia of Affairs Foreign

media outlets reporting reporting outlets media - Russian relations Russian

h poes of process the of

the same - t led he -

CEU eTD Collection 22 Question Macedonian 21 couldindividuals fact. social a as memory consider to first the was who aimed at inthe social finding order. place its meaning new a gives which of construction discursive the Armenians, of identity national the shapes genocide the of memory the that argues chapter this tra of reproduction and production the through construction memory on focused is it so, In doing 1915. in genocide Armenian the of narratives historical the on based victimhood of identity Armenian que these answer to came memory self the influence memories tothe past relationship identityandunderstanding the own oftheir representation collective of reproduction the for elements key the as serve events historical societies, different Within memory. and history on based largely are formation identity and identity that argued is it However, genocide. forgetting of century 2.1. T Chapter 2

Nora (1984), 7,(1984), Nora Assmann p. andJ. Czaplicka ‘CollectiveJ. Memory IdentityCultural (1995),65 and No. p.127 Collective V. Roudometof umatic events exercised by a community. While analyzing the case of Armenian genocide, Armenian of case the analyzing While community. a by exercised events umatic heoretical fram only not itself manifested century twentieth The The concept of collective memory was employed and discussed by Maurice Halbwachs Maurice by discussed and employed was memory collective of concept The

The identity of victimhood Armenian identityof The in co not establish any memory. Therefore, all memories are built up, developed, and and up,developed, Therefore, arenot establishany built all memory.memories (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002), p. p. 5 2002), Group, Publishing (Greenwood

e work Memory, National Identity, and Ethnic Conflict: Greece, Bulgaria, and the and Bulgaria, Greece, Conflict: Ethnic and Identity, National Memory, -

ecpin o pol a a olciiy Te oin f collective of notion The collectivity? a as people of perceptions

stion. This chapter is aimed at laying out the grounds for for grounds the out laying at aimed is chapter This stion.

nsciousness nsciousness as 22

a century of genocide but also but genocide of century a codn t Hlwcs isolated Halbwachs, to According

remembering th remembering s which shape the contemporary contemporary the shape which s . 21

But, in what historicalBut, ways in

e genocide and is is and genocide e

a CEU eTD Collection 25 24 in. ( Tilly Charles Goodin, E. Robert 23 subjective the to contributes nation of it construction discursive memory”, “historical of archive the from element specific recalls memory collective as much as time, same the At changes. historical important signaled of lives the affected have which narratives historical collective of reconstruction periodical the through maintain and shaped is memory collective participation. collective maintain and memory the reactivate systematically that public by represented commemorat and monuments and as such signs visual historians and verbal involved This by narratives. reconstructed is it and homogenous more much kn shared of forms the into transformed is memory collective representations, historical selective embracingfactors. While presenceseveralnational memory in of occurs the notionofpolitical or Lockhart,and 1986). Craik e.g. beliefs or behavior in changes subsequent with associated are and rehearsed actively are reactions, emotional provoke unique, are they if remembered usually are facts away. or objects, fading and change to vulnerable remained it live, we where the the in since about environmentthe reconstructedin rearticulatedand memory not the if is time, same talked the family.At crucial are they became if grandparents memory their with the memories some of share grandchildren reproduction the process this In generation. to generation from passes and exchange social the via contexts collective a within maintained contex of handbook Oxford the in collective’ and individual ‘Memory, A. Assmann Ibid 214 p. Ibid, weg ad olcie dniiain n participation. and identification collective and owledge .

Collective memory which which memory Collective

Oxford Handbooks Online, 2008) 213 p. 2008) Online, Handbooks Oxford al identity, especially concerning the question of question the concerning especially identity, al eie fo sca mmr ad s ntttoaie through institutionalized is and memory social from derives 16

lre emn o te ouain and population the of segment large a 24

oevr cletv mmr is memory collective Moreover,

tual political analysis edited by edited analysis political tual 23

M mre fr events, for emories 25

In other words, Inother what “national ive rites ive

CEU eTD Collection 29 28 27 26 restitution. are catastrophe or iniq suffered a of memory awakethe keep to areseeking who defeat of performances victims of perception the on identity Meanwhile, their founded nations by pathos great with commemorated future. the in goals political self positive a strengthen to order in past the of pages heroic and victories as such referents historical positive only involves memorialization th in identity top institutionalized bottom fuzzy and heterogeneous, implicit, nature. transgenerational its is Assmann, to according memory, political of constituent crucial The participation. collective for repeated occasions and education of modes various on as well as monuments, and th museums, on libraries, rely they representations; material and symbols external of carriers durable more the on established memory of form mediated a is which memory political collective calls Assmann me stabilized and context. social the by fixed until fluid, but stabile not are identity and memory collective that mention to important make linkage historical intheir subjective narrative. they events which between and recollect, they how and what tell, citizens nation’s a history”

Assmann A (2008), A(2008), Assmann p. 1 EdkinsJ.(2003) p.215 A(2008). Assmann p. 8 Edkins(2003), As a form of political memory, researchers emphasize the role of collective memory and memory collective of role the emphasize researchers memory, political of form a As hl adesn te usin f discurs of question the addressing While 29

n hs otx, ruai eprecs ht r ebde i a martyrological a in embodied are that experiences traumatic context, this In cntutos r eosrcin f ain states. nation of reconstruction or constructions e .

26 mory that can be transmitted from generation to generation. This is what what is This generation. to generation from transmitted be can that mory .

p.217 -

down memory.

For this reason, collective memory needs to be transformed into long into transformed be to needs memory collective reason, this For .

The latter is realized t realized is latter The - up memory into an explicit, homogeneous, and and homogeneous, explicit, an into memory up - 17 mg o a tt ad a the lay and state a of image

v cntuto o ntoa iett, t is it identity, national of construction ive uity in order to require apology and and requireapology orderto in uity hrough the shift from embodied,from shift the hrough 28

o ti rao, often reason, this For rud o certain for ground

- term e CEU eTD Collection 33 32 20 31 136 p. 2012), ofCriminology, journal (European 30 20 the blurred, whic event a and continuingwith Constantinople in intellectuals of arrest the with 1915 April 24 on starting citizens, Armenian alike.was themindsetofstatevictims and a precedent, shaping killings 1909 and 1890s the of fact verythe counterparts, later their as authoritycentralized close the of ideologies guiding the as earlier the 1915, and different, of were perpetrators genocide the with 1890s the of massacres the 200 than more of deaths caused and tolerance of one but forbearance equals, of one not was relationship discriminative “The of insecurity. variety and a policies to subjects were Armenians Christian centuries nineteenth and 19 the during rose gradually 2.2 genocidesuch asArmen the of history, of victims the to refer usually perpetrator the of guilt and shame manifest and narrative Akcam,T. Panossian R. (2002),p. 136 R.(2002),p. Panossian BloxhamD. Armenia’, on observations Some victimization: of the and dynamics ‘Genocide S. Walklate and Rafter N. 04) , p. 23 , 04) . Framing Armenian identity of victimhoodFraming identityof Armenian However, the 20 the However, The victimized identity of identity victimized The From Empire to republic: to Empire From h marked a turning point in Armenian identity. Armenian in point turning a marked h

. (2005) p. p. 1912. (2005) ” 31 th

Meanwhile, the persecution and pogrom of Ar of pogrom and persecution the Meanwhile, century Armenian identity based on the traumatic collective memory of killings, of memory collective traumatic the on based identity Armeniancentury

centralized . th

century atrocities century th

century. ians in the dying days of theians inthe dyingdays Ottoman Empire. of

,000 Armenians ,000 Turkish Nationalism and The Armenian Genocide Armenian The and Nationalism Turkish

programme of deportations and murder until 1922 until murder and deportations programme of

Armenians living under the Ottoman Empire was found and and found was Empire Ottoman the under living Armenians 30

As it has been already shown throughou shown already been has it As

killings were not conducted under the same sort of of sort same the under conducted not were killings and, in particular, the particular, in and, 18 . Although there is no straight line connecting line straight no is there Although .

As long as identity is not stable, but stable, not is identity as long As 32 menians that began in the 1890s the in began that menians

annihilated up to 1.5 million 1.5 to up annihilated , , (London:Zedbooks,

t the eighteenth the t was the very very was the CEU eTD Collection 38 37 137 36 35 34 succinctl order point the puts Edkins exist. we social where the is matters what and from, comes violence of threat the where understand to crucial is Therefore, it trust. betrayalof a includes andelse something entails importantlyit More p utter of situation a just than more are trauma of symptoms or events traumatic collectively. narrate to difficult proving event shocking or disturbing particular defining 2.3 themselves asfirst ofgenocidetwentieth “thevictims century”. inthe moment defining the symbol became authorities, Turkish by denial subsequent its core.” very its at Genocide the situating without identity impossible is “It Genocide. 1915 the to tied inexorably Post Exile: identity. in Nation “A national of identity Armenian Armenian an distinguishes modern of core the at placed e is Armenia) (Western homeland the of destruction complete and torture

Ibid., p.4. Ibid., p.16 Edkins(2003) 121 7:2, Geopolitics, (2002), identity”, Armenian of Dimensions Three asNation: past R.“The Panossian 137 p. Ibid, Ibid

Explaining traumaExplaining

— t s rus ht n man in that argues is It .

atr eie fo a ruai event. traumatic a from derives factor of contemporary Armenian ide Armenian contemporary of

isacs a i te rein case Armenian the in as instances, y ntity”. Armenians, and, particularly, in diaspora, found found diaspora, in particularly, and, Armenians, ntity”. y: “Who we think we are is sifting and fluid until until fluid and sifting is are we think we “Who y: 19 37

rua a b udrto a a eut from result a as understood be can Trauma 35

In this way, “The Genocide itself, and itself, Genocide “The way, this In o nesad 20 understand to 34 - Genocide Diaspora” which is is which Diaspora” Genocide

n hs otx, Panossian context, this In 36

, collective memory as a a as memory collective ,

ssential and need to be be to need and ssential th

century Armenian Armenian century

— owerlessness. h founding the

Meanwhile, Meanwhile, - 146, p. 146, 38

CEU eTD Collection 40 39 as recognized been long has witnessed has survivors “what it puts Edkins As testimony. surv to listen to willingness a is there before or publically manifests memory before years take may it world the from come may what of danger a and fear mistrust, feel victims order, of constan societyof trust towards the world. ontheloss based tur In assumed. they what 1915 from particular, in 20 the throughout exacerbated been extensively had and consciousness Armenian maj of loss the with accompanied helplessness and weaknessof sensewouldmelt”. The it it,use to triedpaper,we wheneverof madewas scoop our “Everybody point: the of description striking ignored. were protection their for provisions include to delegation Armenian of attempt the all 1878, in Stefano Christian other While nati Russia. and powers European Ottomans, the of triangle the between bargaining a became Question Eastern larger of part a as Question Armenian the when someus in way,wesurvive physically may mean butthe betrays order Ifthat existence. our dignityto and givesmeaningwhich context social the in fixed

Hovhannisian R.G. The Armenian Genocide in Perspective, (Transaction Publishers,2009) p. 23 p. Publishers,2009) (Transaction in Perspective, Genocide Armenian The R.G. Hovhannisian 8 p. Ibid, n, aey h Blas wr gatd needne n atnm b te ray f San of treaty the by autonomy and independence granted were Balkans, the namely ons, s rsl, n post a in result, a As t fear of its return. return. its of fear t In this respec this In

h ha o te rein eeain Amna rlgos l religious Armenian delegation, Armenian the of head The

t, Armenians felt betrayed by the whole system of values they believed in believed they values of system whole the by betrayed felt Armenians t, - 1917. They can no longer be who they were and the social order is not is order social the and were they who be longer no can They 1917. Therefore, rather than viewing the world as a good place with a sense a with place good a as world the viewing than rather Therefore, , h feig f en btae cue opeso ad nit in anxiety and oppression causes betrayed being of feeling the n,

- eoie eid a uvvr f uh ruai eet lvs n a in lives events traumatic such of survivor a period, genocide was 20

given a normal scoop to taste the dinner, but dinner, the taste to scoop normal a given

ority of the homeland, came to dominate in in dominate to came homeland, the of ority ing of our existence ofourischanged.” ing

ae gv the gave eader

century and, century 39

ivors’

point

CEU eTD Collection 44 43 42 41 inclusive more on conditioned and by driven Armenian, Soviet and it, access have to least at it regain to need the and homeland” “lost a with associated thus and homeland the retrieving direction two in developed nationalism Armenian on discourse the and themselves Armenians Union, Soviet the into Armenia Eastern of incorporation the of because symbolism. and frameworks discursive the into incorporated became This “justice”. for and negotiations Ar international subsequent and Question Armenian the define to came the resolutions, through Genocide the of and compensation and recognition restitution recognition, political 19 Armenian territoryinthe on focused th of division the with connected process are political the context, this In responsibility.(Booth). and forgetting” of oblivion b which Armenians, the main constituentsofpost mountain established. victims the of some least at of identity the and up, set museums and memorials named, are Events shape. takes neither imagining nor speakingabout it it.” for excuse an as serve often descriptions these although “unspeakable”, and “unimaginable”

Eastern Anatolia inAnatolia Turkey Eastern p. Ibid, p. 2 Edkins(2003) where according to the Bible, Noah’s Ark came to rest and which plays a significant role in Armenianculture in role significant playswhich a and rest Arkto came Noah’s the Bible, whereto according t h sm tm, ih h eegne f rein isoa l oe te ol, and world, the over all diaspora Armenian of emergence the with time, same the At of existence the to meaning new a attached victim a being of memory the way, this In while, a after However,

Arar

at 43

together with the idea of liberation of Western Armenia Western of liberation of idea the with together ecame aimed at ensuring that historical injustices would not vanish into the the into vanish not would injustices historical that ensuring at aimed ecame

42 th

- th of and homeland ancient the of sacredness the respect, this In Genocide identity. Armenian

and 20 usually when there is a change in the political arena, a narrative narrative a arena, political the in change a is there when usually th

centuries aimed at reunion of the ancient Armenia, and the Armenia,andancient the the centuries at of reunion aimed 41

menian Trial as a struggle a as Trial menian 44 - isoa, ba Diasporan,

ascribed with strong with ascribed appeared to became to appeared

e on sed

- or or e e CEU eTD Collection Ethnica) Europa 48 47 46 45 T deportations. and raping the atrocities, the about talk to unwilling were genocide the by traumatized survivors, immediate the when Armenians for case the be to three Armenians took 1915. of it events the process to generations Meanwhile, evidence. collect to difficulty the with accompanied Armenian national identity. Ar of component crucial a as victims being of mentality the Armenia, Soviet in exploded movement nationalistic Armenian the 1970s nationalism Armenian of wave new the with past, Soviet early the memory the Although regions. the Western the of from fled refugees amount immense the by given least at genocide the of memory the by influenced not Armenian the Armenia, Soviet national identity was being constructedmostly of inaccessibility relative the and authorities soviet the by suppressed were consciousness national of expressions Union, Soviet the in that fact the to due “poles”: two of consisted be to appeared Union Soviet the in Armenia Easter of integration the further and genocide the of result a as incorporated frameworksascribed intothe discursive symbolic withunbelievable and strength. statehood of notion narrowed further was which identity Diaspora’s of discourse petakanutyun Avedian, V. ’Recognition, Responsibility and Reconciliation: The Trinity of the Armenian Genocide’ Armenian ofthe Trinity The Reconciliation: and Responsibility ’Recognition, V. Avedian, ibid ( Return’, and ofHomeland Myths Societies: inModern ‘Diasporas SafranW ,

Almost half a century the issue of the genocide was efficiently silenced and often often and silenced efficiently was genocide the of issue the century a half Almost was identity national of construction the Armenia Soviet in that say to not is it However, O ne needs to highlight an important distinc important an highlight to needs ne

70 (3/4) .

. p.77 45

- n pt o ti dvrec, l tee lmns ee immediately were elements these all divergence, this of spite In 86 47

ein olcie osiuns cm t apa i the in appear to came consciousness collective menian

the Diaspora and the homeland. the and Diaspora the 48

The phenomenon of “the third generation” appears generation” third “the of phenomenon The

in diaspora. in 22

tion: the Armenian nation in the 20 the in nation Armenian the tion:

on n icroae it the into incorporated and down of 1915 was a political taboo in taboo political a was 1915 of Diaspora he second generation avoided generation second he raising 46 . 1991.), pp. 1991.), .

In this regards, and regards, this In Di

aspora, and the and aspora,

83 , (201, (201, , th –

99 century

CEU eTD Collection 50 49 centers, community in ceremonies remembrance holds diaspora the and memorial, genocide 24 Every commemoration. public of practices ritualized sets different producing Republic, Armenian the in representation national of code moral the marked national memory. Empire Ottoman the in memory Armenians collective of transformation of deportations and atrocities mass Genocide. the of memories tes visual and oral gather and to possibility the with Together narratives own their recover to began history indigenous narrative”. Sovie the of dissolution the in embedded was memory political the into sphere Yerevan. inSoviet also but genocide, i the the characterized of memorialization for frameworks political the only not remarked Genocide the of martyrs the memorizing of symbol main the became which 1967 in Yerevan) in the recognize to genocide. government Soviet the from demanding streets 100.000 the about to Union, went Soviet demonstrators the in event unprecedented an as when, 1965 until unspoken t was this statehood and independence Armenianof lack the with Together events. those about speak and learn to dare was and distance the had generation third the However, experiences. traumatic their about parents their ask to

Abrahamian, p. 74 p. Abrahamian, Ibid.

As a result, and in part in and result, a As memory social of conversion the to regard with event important more probably Another, 49 50

Furthermore, the const the Furthermore, s rsl, rein, mn ohr, h wr dpie o ter national their of deprived were who others, among Armenians, result, a As .

srpin f rein os n tam it eeya lf ad h public the and life everyday into trauma and loss Armenian of nscription

icular, after 1995, yeghern (the big catastrophe) became a crucial a became catastrophe) big (the yeghern 1995, after icular, ruction of the Genocide museum Genocide the of ruction

o f the Armenian genocide into political and, in particular, particular, in and, political into genocide Armenian the f he main reason why Armenian genocide was quite quite was genocide Armenian why reason main he 23

th timonies and documents confirming the confirming documents and timonies

of April, the population marches to the to marches population the April, of - memorial (Tzitzernakaberd memorial t Union and its “grand its and Union t

CEU eTD Collection 2007) Publishing, 52 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/22/turkish at 51 t of concept the of memory, its theoriginslargely past and remembrance onthe is focused of can notion this assume interna the of “duty” a as presented be to appears remembrance of notion the time, same the At future. the in relationship mutual for foundation viable a as chosen is remembering shared of claim the events, traumatic of aftermath shared of notion perpe and victims the between forgetting around mutual than rather centered remembering now are which memories collective of forms the in time. the of imperative moral and social unavoidable other of languages ofremembrance. installation particular the through forms mediated and externalized in memory this as such events, memory the as much As times. those in ageown her or his one to connect cantoday of children Armenian that so Genocide of museum the in installed being exhibits interactive in manifested is “duty” T This monuments. various and exhibitions, stop. museum films, literature, first VIPs foreign visiting the is Yerevan in Genocide memorial the Vashem, Yad Jerusalem’s Like d’etre. raison state’s the of part a is Holocaust duty. national a as presented be to appears memory of cultivation The monuments. Genocide local and churches o the future. “The memory of the past which will shape future and, if the past is forgotten, the the forgotten, is past the if and, future shape will which past the of memory “The future. the o

Fournet C. Fournet Available ’1April 2015. today, Armeniaof the shaped genocide how bignation: a but country small ‘A Guardian, t h sm tm, t s rud ht h “uy f eebac” rl represents truly remembrance” of “duty the that argued is it time, same the At The Crime of Destruct Crimeof The

genocide, becomes abs becomes genocide, 51 m

emory does not only imply remembering the past but rather it is an injunction injunction an is it rather but past the remembering imply only not does emory commemorat the where Israel, with drawn be can parallel The

ion and the Law of genocide: Their impact on Collective Memory on impact Their genocide: of Law the and ion tional society that has to remember. Moreover, although one one although Moreover, remember. to has that society tional tract and distant, it is now being replaced by translating translating by replaced being now is it distant, and tract 24 - silence

52 -

fans In this context this In - century - he striking example is the new new the is example striking he of - armenian , there is a worldwide shift worldwide a is there , trators. Therefore, in the the in Therefore, trators. - grief

- over , (Ashgate ,

of traumatic traumatic of - genocide o o the of ion

an an CEU eTD Collection 53 be to fail genocides past If mistakes. past of remembered, repetition the witness to bound is future

Ibid.

they are bound tohappenthey again.” are bound

53 25

Thus, it nowentailsThus, it actions and prevention.

CEU eTD Collection and Armenia 54 between Relations Turkey. with relations its became policy foreign Armenia’s of Armenia be to possibility regained legitimacy, its to challenges with combined 1915, of events traumatic the adequa an as policyforeign formulating in result also can which optic, interpretative specific a within issues policy foreign place identity the of post of employment the through interlinked. ontologically as conceptualized therefore are identity and Policy constructed. are subjectivities is it subjectivities, an problems of constructions particular on dependent is discourse policy while that assumed is it foreignpolicy, turn, in and,identity the of understanding discursive providinglanguage in of regio national, a of identity the on as well as peoples, states, other of identities particular on rely and articulate policies reason, this For it. within object the construct to and situation the to meaning attach to needs it address, 3.1 Chapter

Hansen L. Hansen

play

Armenian ed As soon as Armenia declared its independence from the Soviet Union, the key aspect of of aspect key the Union, Soviet the from independence its declared Armenia as soon As ident of nature political and discursive the about assumption the on Drawing be to seen is policy foreign as much As 3

out in particular discursive practices and serve to keep up the memory in the forefront forefront the in memory the up keep to serve and practices discursive particular in out

Security As Practice As Security n

- Situating ArmenianSituating Turkish relations. Turkish relations. - Turkish Turkish relations before 2009

also due to a particular discourse through which these problems and and problems these which through discourse particular a to due also , (The new international relations, 2006) p. 17 2006) relations, newinternational (The ,

nal, or institutional Self. institutional or nal,

- structuralist theoretical framework theoretical structuralist - Turkish relations in thevictimization relations in discourse Turkish 26

te response, this chapter is aimed to answer how answer to aimed is chapter this response, te

odtoe by conditioned

Moreover, relying on the critical role critical the on relying Moreover, .

, particular

arguing that representations that arguing

sus t ek to seeks it issues

te, and ities,

CEU eTD Collection 56 p. 18 No.2, (2010), 12, Vol. Relations’ 55 decision the of performances policy different the with overlap re and articulated was victimization of discourse the present, ps and legal political, intertwined and complicated involves genocide three the of narrative historical the as much As all independence. the since presidents Armenian of Turkey towards policy of articulation the in o differed narrative significantly has historical Genocide the on based victimization of practices discursive the However, Armenia. of Republic the and Turkey of Republic the between relations determine to came providing overlapped, important international backing for attempts. these Union European and States United the Russia, of interests the where Armenian the importantly, Most region. the stabilize Georgian 2008 with Combined importance. crucial of was which Turkey with relations its itse found which Post dimensions. new took countries two the between relations the border, its on state Armenian new a of emergence the With dimensions. security pragmatic with powers Afte community. international the Forfacing aseach they thistime, other legitimatemembersof were ofnew the possibilities start. carried have to appeared 1993 to 1991 from period the ties, diplomatic no were there Although re were Turkey Minasyan, S. ‘Prospects for Normalization between Armenia and Turkey: A View from Yerevan’ insight Turkey, Turkey, insight Yerevan’ fromA View ArmeniaTurkey: and between Normalization for ‘Prospects S. Minasyan,

Libardian (2004), p. 192 (2004), Libardian vs.Historica Policies A. ‘Pragmatic Iskandaryan and S. Minasyan At the sam the At , Yerevan: Caucasus Institute Caucasus Yerevan: , - - usa Wr te einl topee rmtd n nrae n necess in increase an prompted atmosphere regional the War, Russian lf economically destroyed and in search for security, took the path of improving of path the took security, for search in and destroyedeconomically lf salse we Tre rcgie te indep the recognized Turkey when established e time, the Genocide debate was already an issue in international relations, andrelations, international in issue analready was debate Genocide the time, e

. .

,(2010) p. p. 18 ,(2010) te od War Cold the r .

55 ,

Turkey became one of the major regional regional major the of one became Turkey - Turkish dialogue appeared to be the place the be to appeared dialogue Turkish l

Cons traints: Analyzing Armenian Analyzing traints: - makers. In this respect, the role of role the respect, this In makers. ychological implications in the the in implications ychological - articulated in a way it would would it way a in articulated endence of Armenia in 1991. 1991. in Armenia of endence

the -

oit Armenia, Soviet aftermath of aftermath - Turkish Turkish t to ity the f

the 56

CEU eTD Collection 59 th 136) 1991, (Ishkhanian rationality” in over prevailing emotionalelement and issue genocide simplistic “a the and state pragmatic of of notion the to opposing as attachment considered elite leading the the Armenia of independence Moreover, 111). 1999, (Libardian political”. not but issue moral and “historical as defined was genocide which in 1915 of genocide Armenian the of narrative discursive them with Question. associated and genocide, Armenian homeland, of concepts of centrality the questioned national, and nation the of post hegemonic the mythical of system and conceptual whole the challenged thinking” “new This ambition. memory, national collective and the emotion to with pragmatism controversies in placed was thinking strategic way, narrowe this dramatically In and choices. hostage policy spirit Armenia’s national the hold to seemed tragedies past the of “reliving” and survival state’s the secure to considered not was past the of reproduction The nation. Armenian the of right inalienable an as natio of part integral an as seen was This (petakanutyun). statehood nation, Armenian the of 58 57 Nagorno over conflict armed of intensification the with destroyed further and Turkey of borders current the recognize undoubtedly would Armenia Armenian some and Diaspora of resistance na the provoked it independence, Armenia’s of years first Turk for partner flexible made rhetoric this Although Armenia. of agenda policy foreign the in situated be cannot thinking”. Ter reason, this For state Armenian of process the complicate only would that development political and t sideline to meant which preconditions” “without the Ter context, this with In state. a it building of necessity accommodated and Armenia of identity national of concept the down narrowed time. that of dimension policy main a as Turkey with relations discursive practices. incor its and identity national

Libaridian (1991) Libaridian ultimateaspiration ofthe realization the successful to obstacle as an was perceived history the thinking newInthis 190 p Ibid. inlsi fre o Armenia. of forces tionalistic e te is peiet f rei, eo Ter Levon Armenia, of president first the Yet - 58 Turkish reconciliation Turkish

In this respect, the Armenian genocide was considered to be a moral issue which issue moral a be to considered was genocide Armenian the respect, this In

n atclr te oin f e independ new of notion the particular, In

- ersin eiiie isl b dvlpn a ocp kon s “new as known concept a developing by itself legitimized Petrossian ey and facilitated the establishment of Armenian of establishment the facilitated andey - g enocide project of national identity, reformulated and narrowed down the meaning meaning the down narrowed and reformulated identity, national of project enocide poration into the idea of state of idea the into poration

, these endeavors were hinder were endeavors these , 59

lhuh Petr Although 28 -

Petrossian promoted the dialogue with Turkey Turkey with dialogue the promoted Petrossian he issue of the Genocide in favor of economic of favor in Genocide the of issue he sin otne t ipeet his implement to continued ossian - Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan. and Armenia between Karabakh - ersin elrd h etbihet of establishment the declared Petrossian ent statehood was contrasted with the central central the with contrasted was statehood ent - building seems to be at the center of of center the at be to seems building

ed by Turkey’s expectations that expectations Turkey’s by ed 57

n d In - Turkish ig o te president the so, oing nal identity and defined defined and identity nal

relations in the in relations e Declaration of of Declaration e

- poli building. building.

him a a him y of cy d CEU eTD Collection Parliamen (FBIS Resignation," President's Demands Leader Opposition Armenian "Armenia: resignation. president’s demanded “blackmail”and theit callingdeal, rejected the and diaspora prime the including theadministration, theon step based plan most peace recent 1997 4, October On reasons. citingpersonal resigned Libaridian 61 p.3. 60 re identity of borders the existence. physical country’s the of safeguard a as policy foreign Nagorno of preservation the int brought Khocharyan the Meanwhile Armenia. for that priority policy foreign announced a is immediately genocide the of and recognition power to came Khocharyan, Robert show for hisrevolutionary inSarafian (Libaridian,thinking” cited 1998). a obviously, and, framework discursive rejected the of victory very a was war, Karabakh the had, elite the success important only The exalted. be to thing the not happe de completely the and from power removed was Armenia independent of elite first the 1998 in Eventually, relations. presid Armenian Turkey humanitarian dist Kelbajar the in offensive Armenian successful the to response in 1993, April 3 on border Armenian the large of eruption the With

The pressure on the administration to succumb its positions was mounting. In September of 1997, Gerard Gerard of1997, mounting.InSeptember was positions succumbits to theon administration pressure The ‘RemakingNago the Waal, de

LevonTer ned due to the fact that the “new thinking” exalted the state, but at that time the state was state the time that at but state, the exalted thinking” “new the that fact the to due ned

A ordered the positioning of its troops along the Turkish along ofitstroops ordered the positioning fe Ter After t AcceptsTer t tog te salsmn o dpoai rltos perd o e mosbe the impossible, be to appeared relations diplomatic of establishment the lthough

rict. - Petrosyan gave his famous press conference in support of the of OSCE’s in support conference press famous his gave Petrosyan and other aid to Armenia. In addition to its diplomatic pressure on Armenia, Armenia, on pressure diplomatic its to addition In Armenia. to aid other and 60 n cniud o ek o wy twrs mrvmn o Armenian of improvement towards ways for seek to continued ent -

ersa rsge, h fre peiet f Nag of president former the resigned, Petrosyan - Ankara Petrosyan Resignation.", (FBIS Resignation.", Petrosyan

- - rno

scale war f war scale legitimized. - none ta i sldrt wt Aebia i bn te rni of transit the bans it Azerbaijan with solidarity in that announced novd h sca atgns o Pan of antagonism social the involved -

Kharabah Peace Process,’ Process,’ Peace Kharabah - minister, the defense ministry and ministry of the ministryi ministryof and theminister, defense - by - step approach. The overriding majorityof overriding The approach. step - ighting in 1992, Turkey joined Azerbaijan in blockading blockading in Azerbaijan joined Turkey 1992, in ighting aaah needne t h cne o te Armenian the of center the at independence Karabakh 61

n cn ru, ht mn ohr ass te latter the causes, other among that argue, can One - SOV 29

- - SOV 98 Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, Strategy, and Politics Global Survival: - 035, February 7 1998). 7 February 035, - 98 - 029,February 4 1998). "Armenia: Armenian "Armenia: 1998). 4 029,February - Armenian border.

One can argue that in this way way this in that argue can One s “Petrosyan had nothing to to nothing had “Petrosyan s - or Turkism defined as the the as defined Turkism

nterior, the opposition, the opposition, nterior, - Karabakh Republic Republic Karabakh

52:4 (2010), (2010), 52:4 ernational - Turkish Turkish CEU eTD Collection database Academic LexisNexis from 09, Sep 17 Retrieved 0937, in English Yerevan, agency, 63 408 p. 144 No Review, Sociological 62 in reshaped and shaped actively was discourse victimization the how illustrate protocols These Armenian of establishment toward attempt important most the analyzes chapter this reason, this For genocide? 1915 the of issue the relations the of forefront the to brought and grievances historical emphasized normalizatio the connect to moreover, and, genocide the regarding memoryany eliminate to willingness Turkey’s considering victimization of discourse the within performed and conceptualized be relationship fo commitment any undertake to denies consistently that and Genocide Armenian the for responsible regime a of successor political the is that country a with dialogue a constructing of ways find can one How agenda. policy foreign complic and sensitive normative, most the is Turkey with relations Nagorno of conflict the from apart that argued is It relations. projects. regi different from exclusion its and Armenia of isolation further from out way a as seen was This powers. regional different with alliances the in engaged get to necessity and isolation Armenia. proclaimed government in investments latter’s the encouraging with Diaspora relations restore and politics the into back party Dashnaktsutyun bring to president the national Armenian position assertive to This identity. threat permanent the and Genocide of cause political and ideological

Armenia, Turkey to sign to Armenia,Turkey Post Nationhood: ‘Rethinking K. Barseghyan hs hpe i amd t xmnn te ilmtc edok f Armenian of deadlock diplomatic the examining at aimed is chapter This

o Armenian of n

protocols so - called policy of “complementarity” driven by the sense of regional regional of sense the by driven “complementarity” of policy called - uks rltos nml t namely relations, Turkish

on developing ties in mid in ties developingon

had two impo two had - uks rltos ih h ise f Nag of issue the with relations Turkish - Independence Discourse on National Identity in Armenia.’Polish Armenia.’Polish in Identity National on Discourse Independence r its history? How should a possibility of such a a such of possibility a should How history? its r rtant implications, o implications, rtant 30

- October (17 September, 2009) 2009) September, (17 October e “Armenian he - 62 aaah te omlzto of normalization the Karabakh, n

the n h etra lvl the level, external the On ated issue of the Armenia’s the of issue ated

domestic level, it allowed allowed it level, domestic - uks protocols.” Turkish or no

Mediamaxnews - Karabakh which which Karabakh

- Turkish Turkish s the the s onal onal

CEU eTD Collection http://www.president.am/ru/pressrelease/item/2008/04/24/news availa (online) April 24 release press Genocide’, 65 May, 5, on 2015) (accessed 64 resignation, his to led eventually recognition genocide the of cost the of at statehood of importance president first the to contrast in However, estab to ready are alive, we presently victims innocent of memory the keeping “While announces Sargsyan Day, Memorial Turkey. towards preconditions without policy of president current the recognition), Genocide reactions Turkey’s official process. towards affecting statements thenormalization grea to government Armenian the of performances policy the within discourse victimization of reflections and magnitude the that mention to important home. atreceived be would protocols to regard with faced sides both uncertainty the to speaks doors closed behind and level on signed A 3.2 with Turkey only not which preferences, policy certain with correspond to order Serzh Sargsyan. ‘Adress by President Serzh Sargsyan on the Day of Rememberance of Victims of the Armenian the of ofVictims Rememberance Dayof the on Sargsyan Serzh ‘AdressPresident by Sargsyan. Serzh rmenian Serzh Sargsyan’s pre Sargsyan’s Serzh New startNew hl floig h pltcl ieto o hs rdcso o ky sus (Karabakh, issues key on predecessor his of direction political the following While 22 on signed was relations of normalization the on statement first The - the Turkish but also

10 th

of protocols - election campaign program, available at available program, campaign election

constrained certainconstrained process. finally actions and thenormalization closed October in Zurich. The fact that the negotiations largely took place at high high at place took largely negotiations the that fact The Zurich. in October

on the establishment of diplomatic ties and bilateral relations were were relations bilateral and ties diplomatic of establishment the on

lish normal relations with Turkey without any preconditions any without Turkey with relations normal lish While ble at ble this research this

64 31

Armenia Serzh Sargsyan, also subscribed to the to subscribed also Sargsyan, Serzh Armenia

During his statement commemorating Genocide commemorating statement his During

the - 22/ http://www.president.am/hy/election

republic whose overemphasise on the the on overemphasise whose republic (Accessed 25 April,2015) 25 (Accessed

etn wr cniind pn the upon conditioned were extent t not interested in case of Turkey, it is it Turkey, of case in interested not

enabled t enabled

o start a dialogue dialogue a start o nd

program/ April 2009. 2009. April how the the how

. ” 65

CEU eTD Collection 2015) March, 5 (accessedon http://www.lragir.am/index/arm/0/country/view/29689, at available 2009) October, (10 66 thememory solemnize and sufficientofthe victims. to condition necessary a as perceived was generations its for future prosperous a guarantee can that statehood process.” this in steps important the of one be to Turkey including neighbors our with relations of normalization the consider We country. prosperous o future the and victims our of memory “The that stated Sargsyan protocols, the of signature the after people Armenian the to addressed speech his In Genocide. the of victims the commemorate to way best of construction the to Turkey with relations towards choices policy its legitimized and Armenian enabled it way a in discourse the of elements resh but discourse victimhood the of frameworks the within operated elite governmental genocide. the remembering to meaning Sargsya

Serzh Sargsyan’s address to Armenian people ‘on the decision to sign Arme sign to decision ‘on the people Armenian to address Sargsyan’s Serzh

The main mechanism that came to serve this purpose was linking the normalization of normalization the linking was purpose this serve to came that mechanism main The n incorporated the idea of statehood into a wider national identity by attaching a new new a attaching by identity national wider a into statehood of idea the incorporated n - Turkish relations. relations. Turkish f our generations require to have a strong and stable statehood, a powerful and and powerful a statehood, stable and strong a have to require generations our f

oevr oe a asm ta i ti wy the way this in that assume can one Moreover,

a strong statehood, which, statehood, strong a 32

hs ntig le u a but else nothing Thus,

nian ( See - Turkish protocols’, lragir. am, lragir. protocols’, Turkish

igure 1 in turn, seemed to be the be to seemed turn, in )

aped the aped

strong CEU eTD Collection Arme of interest national of issue an as presented thus and dialogue the initiating for gap legitimizing it. normative and emotional the fill to came dead” the before “duty of notion the calculations, pragmatic on simply based was statehood strong a of president, discourse whosefirst the to contrastdramatic Moreover,those events.in of victims the towards dead, the towards obligations our fulfill can we stronger, become we once And stronger. weakness. with that liv associate to us orders actually neverit Moreover, us let but are, we who to crucial is genocide of victim future. the prepare in living are we longer, any past this about care not do we and past, the is this it, beyond get to needs it and genocide the about forget to has Armenia that say to not Figuremain practic governmentaldiscursive elements of 1.The rsdn’ efrs t ceeaig h establishment the accelerating at efforts President’s is It meaning. new a received victimhood the of memory collective the context, this In terrirtorial rights national national interest of the the Armenian of

people Neither

it is to say to is it e up the duty that the past imposes on us, a duty to become become to duty a us, on imposes past the that duty the up e that guarantee for the future (national reconciliation

the past is very important and yes, having been the the been having yes, and important very is past the security) 33

i, oiial ioae ad ec and isolated politically nia,

f eain wt Tre were Turkey with relations of e

the present and we need to to need we and present the apology apology and restitution

onomically CEU eTD Collection Ankara, August, 2009) (31 release press Armenia’, of Republic The and of Turkey Republic the between relations Developmenton of ‘Protocols Affairs, Foreign Department of 68 at available 67 and law international the with accordance in demonstrated preconditions. any lack of determined be would countries two the between borders of issue the that insisted nonetheless, Yerevan, reaffirmed. not were countries border.” existing the recognize jure de to Armenia from expects Turkey that protocols the from clear infamous the of validity the challenging parliament Armenian the in debates the by triggered partly was position This law. international of treaties relevant the by defined as countries two the between identity Armenian aspectof critical a is what compromising by denial validatingTurkishas genocideand f and problems existing define to dimension historical the on dialogue a implement to commission protest. in coalition ruling immedi were reactions The analysts. political and figures public scholars, including Armenia of sphere political domestic coincide,are wetotakes steps, obliged “ border. closed the by harmed ormulate recommendations. ormulate

‘Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan on Armenian on Sargsyan Tigran ‘PrimeMinister Ministries ofFore Ministries nte cnen a aot the about was concern Another the over spilled debate heated a protocols, the of signature the after right However, - 69 the genocidethe recognition.

http://www.7or.am/am/news/view/3360/ Moscow and Kars Treaties, which drew the present Turkish present the drew which Treaties, Kars and Moscow lhuh h tete wr nt omly boae, h bres ewe t between borders the abrogated, formally not were treaties the Although ign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey, the Republic of Armenia and The Swiss federal federal Swiss The Armeniaand of Republic the ofTurkey, ofthe Republic Affairs ign

ate and controversial. In Armenia Dashnaktsutyun withdrew from withdrew Dashnaktsutyun Armenia In controversial. and ate ot f h cnrvry rs oe te gemn t etbih a establish to agreement the over arose controversy the of Most

This was interpreted by many as a direct reference to the issue of issue the to reference direct a as many by interpreted was This If at a particular stage the interests of Armenia and Turkey Turkey and Armenia of interests the stage particular a at If

because our state,because our benefit.” will our citizens

- rvso o mtal rcgiig h eitn border existing the recognizing mutually of provision Turkish protocols’. 7 or (Yerevan), (20 November, 2009), November, 2009), (20 (Yerevan), or 7 protocols’. Turkish , (accessed on 5 May, 2015) 2015) May, 5 on (accessed , 34

Yerevan, Berne Yerevan,

- Armenian border. “It is is “It border. Armenian

e two he the CEU eTD Collection Dashnaktsutyun 72 71 2015) May5, (accessed 70 gener future Armenian Trial”. our of rights refuse wi will people we Armenian documents, the of fate the draw to is entitled government no president, no one, ”No protocols. those by violated badly been had which Ar and Armenians of rights the emphasizing surface into discourse Genocide. memorial of the the to marches and demonstrations organize and etc.) Lebanon, France, US, the in communities (also theArmen thousands in ofArmenians Diaspora, managedsupport wastomobilize inthe of base whose demands territorial Armenia’s and recognition Genocide of issue the towards 3.2.1 number of vitalissues, regardingin general. development the Armenians which without Turkey Easters in regions Armenian four on rights Armenia’s enshrined and Sea Black the to access Armenia gave award, arbitral the by defined Wils in shared generally on rights territorial their ground to continue Armenians Moreover, opinion society. Armenian the be to seem not did This Turkey. to claims territorial no has

Hrant Margaryan, a re a Hrant Margaryan, p. 12 (2010), Minasyan Iskandaryan, Notoprotocols “Dasnaktsutyun denounces the Armenian the denounces “Dasnaktsutyun Notoprotocols on's Arbitral Award", as a necessary constituents of the Armenian Question. Armenian the of constituents necessary a as Award", Arbitral on's Domestic contradictionDomestic As a result, a As t same the At

the opposition, namely Dashnaktsutyun party having a more radical approach radical more a having party Dashnaktsutyun namely opposition, the

(see Figure 2) presentative of the Bureau of the [opposition] Armenian Revolutionary Federation ArmenianRevolutionary the [opposition] of Bureau ofthe presentative

ime, the ime, 71

In doing so, Dashnaks brought up new elements of the victimization of the elements brought upnew Dashnaks In doingso,

governmental officials governmental

35 -

Turkish protocols’, available at at available protocols’, Turkish

made it a point to emphasize that Armenia that emphasize to point a it made tos or civmns efrs of efforts achievements, our ations, hu is consent”. its thout

ei’ ntoa interests national menia’s http://notoprotocols.net/

B sgig the signing "By

70 would face a a face would

The borders, The "Woodrow "Woodrow - ian ian

CEU eTD Collection Armenian with occupied intellectuals and figures political different haslanguage noright the speak to ofpreconditions. and nation our against committed has it crime horrible the recognize should it all of first trust, eventu and mistakes old the repeat would we recognition, genocide the for struggle our and rights our compromised we once Therefore, act? to forced were we way a in acted we again once or choice Armenia’s con these support to appeared France and US the by negotiated was 2009 of deal the that fact The gains. own their for relations Armenian the utilize to considered still are which and loss Armenian caused century 19 the throughout efforts” “mediation whose powers centrifugal disillusionment. and Figure discursive opposition componentsMain of practice 2. It can be argued that the idea behind idea the that argued be can It This perception about the prot the about perception This to to became stonger towards towards the dead normalization of ly ie p n vrtig I Tre ral wns o re to wants really Turkey If everything. on up give ally relations with responsibility oevr hsoia msrs nt ny oad Tre, u as the also but Turkey, towards only not mistrust historical Moreover, neighbors Genocide ocols was reflected not only by the opposition but also by by also but opposition the by only not reflected was ocols

this was embedded in historical practice of mistrust mistrust of practice historical in embedded was this cerns regarding the process itself. Was it actually actually it Was itself. process the regarding cerns duty to establish a strong statehood Memory Memory of the 36

victims

th -

Turkish relations. In a more more a In relations. Turkish century and up to the 21th 21th the to up and century -

sals mutual establish , -

Turkish Russia, Russia, CEU eTD Collection 75 Cause 74 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcVcPn1jkXU 73 over state the effect.” opposite the to have may even contribute it circumstances never will Turkey with border the opening non and monopoly corruption, have you if process: bottom a is foremost and first statehood strong a “building that noticed Manoyan neighbors. s connecting of idea the security.” and interest na our of matter a is what compromise to condition any not were they if “only Turkey with 3.2.2 existence ofArmenians. physical the secure would thus and again happen not will it that guarantee would Turkey by non of stage last a definin scholarly international of frameworks the within conceptualized was linkage directly recognition genocide and security national the context, this mainConstitutionalfulfill its obligation Genocide the to refer not does government recognition Armenian “if that argued was it way radical

Ibid. Interview with Giro Manoyan, Manoyan, withGiro Interview ‘ Youtube, - - Turkic and Christian Armenians o Armenians Christian and Turkic

monopolized and uncompetitive market of Armenia on the one side, an side, one the Armeniaon of market uncompetitive and monopolized

Further deliberationsFurther Office It is important to notice that Dashnaktsutyun also Dashnaktsutyun that notice It to isimportant Ջահերով (online), May 2, 2015 May2, (online), s peodto t nraie h rltos ih uky te uig lt fis to fails elite ruling the Turkey, with relations the normalize to precondition a as genocide on the one hand, and the consistent Pan consistent the and hand, one the on genocide

երթ

tate Ծիծեռնակաբերդ

Among others, the leaders of Dashnaktsutyun among others criticized others among Dashnaktsutyun of leaders the others, Among

one of the leaders of oftheone leaders - building and strong statehood to the normalization of relations with relations of normalization the to statehood strong and building

n the other hand. Therefore, only the genocide recognition genocide the only Therefore, hand. other the n - ’ [march towards Tsitsernakaberd], 23 Aprli, 2010, available at available Aprli, 23 2010, Tsitsernakaberd], towards ’[march

to protect Armenian people’s rights andsecurity. Armenianto protect people’s rights

(accessed on April 20, 2015) Aprilon 20, (accessed

ARF Dashnaktsutyun 37

- democratic government within the coun the within government democratic 75

agreed on the need to establish relations establish to need agreed onthe

This is to say that when you have an have you when that say to is This

and the head ofits head the and -

Turkism threat posed against posed threat Turkism conditioned each other. This other. each conditioned - building. Under such such Under building. d dynamic economic dynamicd

Armenian Armenian

g a denial as denial a g ”

tional 73

try, try,

- up In CEU eTD Collection “ that government the of statement the by followed international the of process the r down slaw and diaspora the and Armenia between wedge recognize to states 22 led which strong and main the is Diaspora the hand, other the On rhetoric. passionate and relentless, existential, more with trust never can one whom enemy historical the as Turkey of perception antagonistic extremely an has the of policy the criticized extensively Stated United the and France in communities Armenians the particular, In diaspora. the and Armenia between the desired ( results to lead would actions its case this in And community. international the by interest nation’s its of freeand fai the through elected is government the if Only state. the of image international the to linked was state the towards obstacle main a as considered was government current dom enormous existing the Moreover, border. the opening before production local its protect to mechanism develop to needs first Armenia best, At border. open the from suffer significantly would Armenia side, other the on Turkey of system ecognitiongenocide respectively. ofthe Internal solutions h dbt sronig h qeto o etbihn a itrcl sub historical a establishing of question the surrounding debate The gap emerging the signal to was discourse opposing the of element striking Another Figure(Sub 3 r elections enjoying support from its citizens, can citizens, its a ber electionsreal enjoying as representative supportfrom perceived see Figuresee 3 force lobbing for the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide Armenian the of recognition international the for lobbing force - elements of opposelementsof strong state )

it. Thus, Turkey was considered to pursue pursue to considered was Turkey Thus, it.

ition discourse)ition

legitimized gov 38 estic issues which extensively de extensively which issues estic

Any relations with Turkey cannot call into into call cannot Turkey with relations Any president. On the one hand, the Diaspora Diaspora the hand, one the On president.

international weight - building, which, in turn, in which, building, the aim of driving a driving of aim the - omsin was commission

recognition - legitimize the the legitimize

CEU eTD Collection 77 march, 2015 web20 Lexisnexis2009, database 10, 76 3.3 Turkish themto audienceand help forget “vital of pressure the under always is perpetrators of memory the as long as recognition genocide the state the to due nations our between occurred events historical real the of of the perpetrators the Armenian not are Turks Today society.” with Turkish communicate nationalists, to need Turkish the emphasized the periodically had by politicians and killed intellectuals Dink Hrant journalist prominent Turkish s the in 2007 in petition Apologize” “We the signed Turks thousands after especially and Therefore, genocide. the of fact the accept groups Kurdish many and society civil Armenians Many recognition. the of process the advantaged only have would relations of normalization the and policy official the of goal ultimate the be to appeared recognition genocide the respect, the question

Dolf Sternberger cited by Assmann (2008), p. 219 (2008), Assmann by cited DolfSternberger with Turkey establishing to ties alternative" "No Unacceptable circumstances Figure 2.Sub acknowledge the changes that have taken place in Turkey, where liberal intellectuals, intellectuals, liberal where Turkey, in place taken have that changes the acknowledge fulness.”

Armenian Dialogue

77 - elements of thegovernmentalof elements discourse

Therefore, the open border would enable Armenians to have access to the to access have to Armenians enable would border open the Therefore, genocide

r de or communication

find outthe “truth” rv te Ar the prive

Armenian leader leader Armenian 39

ein epe f h motherland” the of people menian

(see figure2.) illumination - the genocide, they are simply unaware unaware simply are they genocide, the Mediamax news agency, Yerevan, October October Yerevan, newsagency, Mediamax

- pirit of the Armenian the of pirit level agitation against against agitation level recognition gencide

I this n -

CEU eTD Collection April,2015 web.20 database Lexisnexis 79 April,2015 web.20 Lexisnexis database transcript, 2010, January, 78 and anathema ofeverything tothe spirit Armenian. Sargsyan’ and Armenia, with relations establish to intend not did Turkey that was attitude dominant The mistrust. in rooted be to continued Turkey of perception public The ratification. the forward push to support political the find to difficult diaspor in them against campaigns extensive as well as Protocols, the for support However, Turkey. from same the expecting while relations of normalization responsibilityfor written inthe is what bear to ready are we and genocide Armenian the of recognition international the rejected never the “ timeframes. reasonable in Turkish Parliament bythe protocols the theratification for of andKarabakh pushed denounced Sargsyan claims territorial at hinted and normalization of process the on precondition a as decision court’s the interpreted Ministers Foreign and Prime Turkish partner. negotiation a as the of recognition international ArmenianGenocide seek to government the of obligation the contradict would that stating court constitutional Armenia’sthe d the over reactions Turkey’s Moreover, failure. to doomed became negotiations Nagorno over conflict the of resolution the table,

“ Armenia of warnsofbreakdown “Minister Armenian

protocols Under continuous and strong pressure from below Armenia continued to proceed with theproceedwith to Armeniacontinued below fromstrongpressure and Undercontinuous negotiation the on issue new a brought Turkey signed, were protocols the after Short

president on Turkey ties, Karabakh conflict”, RIA Novosti news agency, agency, news Novosti RIA conflict”, Karabakh ties, Turkey on president b etaeu issues, extraneous by ] h Amna sd rls u te osblt o cniinn te ratif the conditioning of possibility the out rules side Armenian The further undermined Armenian conf Armenian undermined further

the willingness of Turkey to tie the normalization process to the issue of issue the to process normalization the tie to Turkey of willingness the

- - ad agyn Mroe, agyn ttd that stated Sargsyan Moreover, Sargsyan. said Turkey reconciliation talsk” reconciliation Turkey

protocols. the Protocosl could not be applied in a way which which waya in applied be not could Protocosl the 40 ”

s efforts to prove otherwise were humiliating humiliating were otherwise prove to efforts s -

aaah Ti sgae a on wee the where point a signaled This Karabakh.

idence in the process the idencein -

Novosti - Armenia news agency, 22 22 news agency, Armenia Moscow, April 26, 2010, 2010, April 26, Moscow, , and faith in Turkey in faith and , .

78 ecision made by made ecision

ak f public of lack

In response, In ication [of [of ication a, made it it made a, “ We have have We CEU eTD Collection 80 was ratification the for protocols the kept also documents Turkey the that sign fact to the willingness did, Turkey its whenever show to was it Armenia for If ratification. without 3.3.1 also constrainedgenocide infavoreconomicgains. hispolicyof sideliningthe Nagorno of exclusion the regarding precondi without “relations of notion the around stick to Sargsyan for basics normative and ideological the provided victimhood of discourse basic the through values and community the bear of and responsibility remember to need vital the on conditioned fundamentally are relations further victim in remembering shared of logic another re to Turkey for way shortest the that stressed Sargsyan Moreover, repeating. from it prevent to way only the as genocide a remember” to “duty the of concept accepted internationally the to referred president Arm the and Armenia of security for condition of recognition “the that emphasized Sargsyan the deadlock. a in was dialogue the that mind legitimize and preconditions its abandon to Turkey enforce to order

ibid

Armenian

Deadlock o yas h pooos eand n h Amna, s we as Armenian, the in remained protocols the years For in genocide the of discourse the intensify to started elite ruling the time, same the At

genocide

- establish relations with Armeni with relations establish ht a be dn. n cn ru ta i te eeec t te international the to reference the if that argue can One done. been had what

s o ol a ise f etrto o jsie bt s lo n important an also is but justice, of restoration of issue an only not is

- Karabakh conflict from the Armenian the from conflict Karabakh 41 enian people. It is a necessity.” a is It people. enian - a is its recognition of the Genocide. One can see see can One Genocide. the of recognition its is a perpetrator relations based on the idea that their that idea the on based relations perpetrator

ll as in Turkish parliaments parliaments Turkish in as ll its further steps bearing in in bearing steps further its - Turkish relations, it relations, Turkish 80

n this way, the way, this n tions” CEU eTD Collection 2015 March, web25 Lexisnexis database April,2010 22 Yerevan, 81 trust and benefits economic of favor genocidein of issue the sideline of means the st becoming of idea on the prioritized government emerged the If commemoration. disagreement the victimization, of identity of national complexity to Armenian due but remembering, of concept this shared opposition the Interestingly, attempt thefact todispute ofthesuggested Genocide the co via historical would Turkey that fear the on based objections were there Diaspora, the as well as public own trust of process the through implemented and goal ultimate the as reconciliation for constituent key the being of logic the on conditioned be to appeared commemoration important, more is what w remembering of notion the context, discourse elements. keyrejecting the not it shaped activelyrather but discoursethe on Ter Levon president first the of mistakes decisivethe consideration into took also who Armenia, of president relation, Turkish boundary recognition.” ofitsinternational Armenian the symbolizes that day the is April well thatthe24thof they allthe processtoo avoid April, the realityknow should 24thof to of announced: the under signature Armenia’s revoked Armenian Sargsyan the Genocide, of centennial the dedicated events the towards 2015 in Eventually, genocide. use further to way a as Armenia in considered

“Armenian leader says ratification of protocols on ties withsuspended” Turkey tieson ofprotocols ratification says leader “Armenian - buildin n cn ru ta wie utn te itmzto dsore s cr o Armenian of core a as discourse victimization the putting while that argue can One

of victimhood but reshaped what meansimply.of victimhood should of it thesense andit In what this

”If some circles ”If some g. Despite the best efforts of governmental politicians to sell the Protocols to their to Protocols the sell to politicians governmental of efforts best the Despite g.

in Turkey attempt to use our candour to our detriment, to manipulate manipulate to detriment, toour candour use our attemptin Turkey to - Petrossian to abandon the victimization disco victimization the abandon to Petrossian

as given the sense of obligation to become stronger. But stronger. become to obligation of sense the given as 81

them to prevent international recognition of the of recognition international prevent to them genocide

, but in no way shall it mark it shall way no in but ,

protocols -

Mediamax news agency, news Mediamax - building at least at the first first the at least atbuilding I dig o Sargsyan so, doing In . ronger and, thus, had to had thus, and, ronger mmission. mmission. urse, did not gave up gave not did urse, He stayed within the the within stayedHe

the time the - CEU eTD Collection http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/22/turkish at 82 linka discursive the through reinforced was victimhood of discourse embed the and conflict Karabakh between linkage Armenia for unrelated is that issue an not is and Armenians for existence theKarabakhcondition in settlement Armenian of transformation The negotiations. further of feasibility Nagorno of issue the on protocols b partly was this that argue can One world. the over all diaspora Armenian and figurespublic opposition, political demand second the to regard with Ankara to concession acknowledged failure. to doomed became relations the of normalization the victimhood, identified historical a just not is Itissue.” world. the around scattered was and homeland its lost that nation nationa the for MP an Poghosyan, Tevan said need,” we security the have won’t we then Turkey it, do doesn’t if but, fine is recognition “International concerns: security national Armenia’s from the not was trust Turke by genocide the of recognition build to way best the that believed others many and opposition the stage,

Guardian, ‘A Guardian, ded 82 list Heritage party. “It is a security issue because the genocide happened to us. It is our is It us. to happened genocide the because issue security a is “It party. Heritage list h rao fr hs s ht h dsue vr Nagorno over dispute the that is this for reason The issue the brought Turkey time, same the At

in the employment of the past in the present. Historical continuity and the sense of of sense the and continuity Historical present. the in past the of employment the in more radical national identity based on the combination of past and present present and past of combination the on based identity national radical more small country but a big nation: how genocide shaped the Armenia of today, ’1 April 2015. Available Available ’1April 2015. today, Armeniaof the shaped genocide how bignation: a but country small

ht uky a demand was Turkey that ecause of the fact that shortly after Turkey conditioned the ratification of the the of ratification the conditioned Turkey after shortly that fact the of ecause

- Karabakh, Armenians became very suspicious towards the the towards suspicious very became Armenians Karabakh, y itself, but the restoration of the Armenians rights deriving deriving rights Armenians the of restoration the but yitself, became the killerbecame ofthe process. normalization the ing too much. In fact, official Yerevan had made a a made had Yerevan official fact, In much. too ing 43 - silence

f Nagorno of - fans ge between the beginning and the end of of end the and beginning the between ge - century -

- n ta ere i ciiim from criticism it earned that one

Karabakh is a matter of physical physical of matter a is Karabakh itrcl ersnain were representations historical - - of Karabakh - - Turkish dialogue i dialogue Turkish armenian Armenia to the Genocide. The Genocide. the to -

grief n h poes that process the in

- over n government government n

- genocide nto a pre a nto

- CEU eTD Collection 83 implicitl or explicitly was Armenian of normalization the for chance a is there whenever way, this in that argue can one Moreover, for. pay to price high too simply genocide old the of sidelining the justify could one yes, this, justify could one How children. their of families, their of now, them of genocide of possibility the deny to also but Genocide, old the deny to only not Armenians by considered is precondition It thepreventing meaninggenocide. received of a new survival. and struggle for need the into transferred was genocide the of memory collective way, of images the of Aze with identification Turkey’s alongside projection conflict,” Karabakh the onto genocide popular the identity, national Armenian the of coherence and int and war Karabakh the accompanied existence physical for deprivation fears, extreme The leaders. Party and state Azerbaijani the by organized and planned people, Armenian against “genocide” wh 1988 23, February 20 the of end the of ma and ordi Turkey issue, genocide the modulate with relations the improve to tried government Armenian the as “Even leaders. Armenia against genocide of perceived acta wereArmenians new as of TheBaku (1990). in Sumgaitmasskillings and (1988) 20 the

Suny,( ss murders became totheAzerbaijanis, whofor“Turks.” them th ensified the sense of enemy and insecurity. Suny makes the following point: “the power “the point: following the makes Suny insecurity. and enemy of sense the ensified hrfr, o Amnas t s o mc. o u te su o Nagorno of issue the put To much. too is it Armenians for Therefore, and beginning the between discourse the through established was continuity Historical 1999/2000 ) ) 1999/2000 century, namely between Genocide of 1915 and Azerbaijani atrocities againstatrocitiesAzerbaijani Armenians and 1915 of betweencentury,Genocide namely p. 157 p. th

century, namely between Genocide of 1915 and the Sumgait events of of events Sumgait the and 1915 of Genocide between namely century,

r te as iln o Amnas a prevd s nw c of act new a as perceived was Armenians of killing mass the ere sdlnd n re t “re to order in sidelined y n people, planned and organized by the Azerbaijani state and party party and state Azerbaijani the by organized and planned people, n

nary Armenian, particularly in particularly Armenian, nary - Turkish relations, even if the issue of the genocide the of issue the if even relations, Turkish 44

- define mutual trust” trust” mutual define , but this is simply too much, this is this much, too simply is this but , Karabakh, transposed the image image the transposed Karabakh,

the Karabakh issue issue Karabakh the

- Karabakh as a a as Karabakh rbaijan.

In this this In

CEU eTD Collection guarantee for Armenia. governm the by used are Armenian of components these both that argued is it respect, this In demands. security and narratives historical of interplay the on conditioned consciousness Armenian in role discu the regard should on depth, in question this answer To conclusion. oversimplified an be would this but concerns, security and location geostrategic its on simply conditioned is West the by to referred as “Rusaphilia” Armenia’s that argue can particular,Nagorno in and,security national its about Armenia’sperceptions pro a be to Armenia for mean vis security its preserve abo perceptions to need vital Armenia’s by driven natural something but U famous Armenian the whether question the asks It Khazakstan. and decision on taken President’s Armenian the examines it particular, In implementation. policy foreign president’s 4.1 Chapter 4Armen a new strength. re and nation the consolidate to appeared Introduction add chapter This ut consistent Pan consistent ut

the the ian 3 - Turkish relations Turkish . September .

ess Armenian resses ent to define the strategic ties with Russia as the only realistic security realistic only the as Russia with ties strategic the define to ent - - usa tkn it acut h agmns led md on made already arguments the account into taking Russian Turkic threat hanging over Armenia for centuries. What does it does What centuries. for Armenia over hanging threat Turkic 2013 ,

- to join the Customs Unions founded by Russia, Belarus Belarus by Russia, founded Unions theCustoms join to articulated the former concept of national identity with identity national of concept former the articulated Russian relations from the perspective of the current current the of perspective the from relations Russian 45

rsive performativity of Russia and its its and Russia of performativity rsive - turn was actually a U a actually was turn - Karabakh. - Russian relations relations Russian

- Yes, one Yes, à - vis its its vis - turn turn CEU eTD Collection 85 143 p. 2006, Press, University 84 and dependence historical the transcend to necessity the about declared administration eruptedof 1988 and inthe beginning theadvent oftheKarabagh mov re national of culmination The homeland. greater of dream the partly and Genocide the of meaning symbolic the reproduce and produce extent large to could Armenians then, Since purposes same the for Genocide the of issue the as well as Question, Armenian in embedded re which with accordancein done was this that arguesSuny Gencide). with preoccupied (mainly history Armenian the about talk and write to nationalists dissid historians, enabled which glasnost, of policy mentioned the until uncontested people. Armenian the of savior and “grand prevailing the abandon and of narrative” past their reassesses to began Armenians mentioned, been has it as glasnost, of policy Gorbachev’s with Together history. of mobilization political ideologica the to subordinated 4.2

Suny (1999/2000), 156 p. Suny(1999/2000), R Panossian The dual dual The discourse portraying Russia t h sm tm, fe te olpe f h Sve Uin te is peiet n his and president first the Union, Soviet the of collapse the after time, same the At hl a at f oit Union, Soviet of part a While - opened the question of the restoration of the “hi the of restoration the of question the opened The A The Soviet constructed Armenian history in which Russia played the role of liberator liberator of role the played Russia which in history Armenian constructed Soviet rmenians: From Kings and Priests to Merchants and Commissars and Merchants Priests to and Kings From rmenians:

nes f h Cmuit at truh h mnplto and manipulation the through party Communist the of needs l 84

hs itrcl artv o Amna hsoy remained history Armenian of narrative historical This

Armenia and Armenian identity, among others, were were others, among identity, Armenian and Armenia

the post - storical Armenian dichotomic lands” lands” dichotomic Armenian storical Soviet foreign policy towards Turkey Turkey foreigntowards policySoviet ement in Armenia. in ement . New York: Columbia Columbia York: New .

- definition ns and ents

. 85

CEU eTD Collection review p.33 Berkeley, California, 88 2000). (Astourian Armenians ofsecurity in the isinterested Russia that theillusion (Ishkhanian1991 region the conquering before population Armenia emptied ofits be to Armenia western for and completed be massacres to thefor waited but deliberately 1914 December ofSarikamish, the battle at army Ottoman the defeating 87 86 relia its and Russia towards perceptions political dual the to due forces nationalist other and Diaspora the by shared not was approach this Meanwhile, government. the by Armenia of ally main the arms” Russia’s Turkish into Armenia Nagorno of issue the “pushed regard to failed Turkey also as much as Consequently, but Turkey, towards mistrust historical r further only not border Armenian the of one Turkish Moreover, Karabakh. abandon to Armenia on demands Turkish relations. Armenia. of security normaliza the upon conditioned directly was Russia on the dependence Armenia’s ensuring in interested all at not was that force defende Armenia a as importance its lost Russia of way, this In threat. Turkish further the from security Soovietization its preserved practice in that idea the neglecting while state Armenian strong Tur with relations of normalization Ter president first the to according which Armenian in genocide the of ideology”. “false called he what or Armenia, of stereotypes wesofwhole the conquered have easily army could theRussian that was argued example It For Astourian Stephan H., H., Stephan Astourian 111) 1999, (Libardian iiy s “taei prnr. n re t icroae isoas iin o Armenian on visions Diaspora’s incorporate to order In partner”. “strategic a as bility However, as it was already mentioned, these attempts failed because of Turkish assertive Turkish of because failed attempts these mentioned, already was it as However, - r. Moreover, it was defined to be responsible for lost Armenian historical lands, or as a a as or lands, historical Armenian lost for responsible be to defined was it Moreover, r. Armenian relations resu relations Armenian : 45

– 46), 46), Ter

From Ter From

- Petrosian declared that Baku pogroms of Armenians in January 1990 had destroyed destroyed had 1990 January Armeniansin of pogroms that Baku declared Petrosian

- Petrosian to Kocharian: Leadership Change Change Leadership Kocharian: to Petrosian

- Turkish relation, but also to the Armenian reliance on Russia, Russia, on reliance Armenian the to also but relation, Turkish lted in Armenia’s double blockade, Russia came to be seen as seen be to came Russia blockade, double Armenia’s in lted e. usa a re was Russia key. - Petrossian, was possible to overcome only through the the through onlyovercome to possible was Petrossian, einforced the sense of threat posed by posed threat of sense the einforced 47

- eie as defined 86

Thi s referred not only to the issue the to only not referred s in Armenia cited in (University of (University of in cited Armenia in -

sided position and blockade and position sided a constrain, a blockage to to blockage a constrain, - Karabakh apart from from apart Karabakh 87 tion of Armenian of tion

tern Armenia after Armeniaafter tern n hs context, this In the

Turks and Turks 88 -

CEU eTD Collection http://www.rferl.org/content/armenia 90 http://www.armeniaforeignministry.am/htms/speeches/speech_index.html at 2004 Aprilon 4, available 2000, 28, September Yerevan, Conflicts. Coopera AndRegional Transregional For “Prospects On Conference International 89 weight an un of hand, one the On concerns. security country’s the about was it foremost, and First integration policies. country’s from aspects stemming the ontwomajor discourse focused mainly a avoid to futile be would it security, militarycorresponding economicspace. of system one of member a are you once Armenia. of interests step. strategic a as politicians the of majority sign to failure Armenia’s wi in Area Trade Free resulted Comprehensive and Deep and 2013, Association 3, September on Union Customs the in membership its negotiate to the president’sdecision context, In this interest”. and trust mutual on a historically developed been have relations “Our reaffirmed. was survival physical nation’s the of guarantor a as Russia of role the words, other In security. Armenia’s of condition Armenia’sthe same time, policymain rationale Armenian“complementarity”and” foreign“And, for of as or policy. the At 4.3 involved invarious political andeconomic s structuresbased onthe security, theso the elite presented

Radio Radio At Armenia The Of Republic Affairs Of Foreign Minister Oskanian Vartan hisExcellency by Speech V Oskanian “And, and” or “one and” “And, end” Free Europe, ‘Armenia to Join Russia Join ‘Armenia to Europe, Free hs uepce” noneet pre of hae dbt i Arm in debate heated a off sparked announcement “unexpected” This the proclaimed also he power, to came Sargsyan Serzh president incumbent the After - resolved conflict,resolved by “ surrounded

” 90

In this way, the reasoning for the decision was embed in the fact that fact the in embed was decision the for reasoning the way, this In strategic alliance with Russia continued to be presented as the essentialas the continuedRussia tobepresented strategicalliancewith

- customs

- called “policy of complementarity”getcalled “policycountry enabling of to the - - union/25094560.html Led Customs Union,’ 3. September 2013 Availab 2013 September 3. Union,’ LedCustoms

"It is a rational decision stemming from the national national the from stemming decision rational a is "It 48

less - than

(Accessed 5. January2015) 5. (Accessed - friendly” neighbours, landlocked and landlockedand friendly” neighbours,

th the EU was perceived by the the by perceived was EU the th tate’s interest. tion And The Resolution Of The And tion enia. enia.

le at: le 89

nd are based based are nd

The public public The ie the given CEU eTD Collection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwk8OJuDEss 91 the receives Armenia that fact the to referring elite political Armenian the as well as officials, high Russian and CSTO of Secretary the by made statements the following mitigated were guns.” Russian the from them kill to trying is enemy the that realize de his cause to potential its on conditioned “good” our from offensive th for late be may or neighbors of case in country the protect would it mean not does Armenia in presence military it that showed “Russia policy. Soviet wider on blamed was Azerbaijanis Nagorno of the during notion emerged treatment” “unjust the of myth the through with paralleled was internalized It partner”. “unreliable was obstacle, serious most its into security Armenia’s presenting from narrative, the of transformation The Armenians. against Turks conspiracyBolshevikwith of victims the being of discoursereinforced alsothe but r is ”It only not Russia. caused latter The deal?” of this after partner strategic unreliability a as Russia the consider to reasonable to referred opposition the decision, Sargsyan’s behind Azerbaijanworth to sales arms answer explicit the most to questionoforientation. future C the in participation long its and Turkey with border the protecting territory its on located bases Russian co military the to priority give but not could Armenia impoverished, esurfaced skepticism towards Russia referring to its continuous imperial policy in the region, region, the in policy imperial continuous its to referring Russia towards skepticism esurfaced

Youtube, Youtube, nteohrhn,sm poiinpltcas ruh u h ocrsaot Russian about concerns the up brought politicians opposition some hand, other the On - aaah ofit n hc the which in conflict Karabakh “The president Sargsyan’s answer to the question of the Russian ofthe Russian the question to answer Sargsyan’s president “The

STO, which formally defends its members in case of a military attack, gave gave attack, military a of case in members its defends formally which STO,

ree hours”. Moreover, this issue was raised by the president itself president the by raised was issue this Moreover, hours”. ree up to $1bn to up . While some analysts considered it as the man rationalman as the it analysts .Whileconsidered some

- legitimization. “The worst thing is that our soldiers our that is thing worst “The legitimization.

“unjust” attitudes towards Armenians by the the by Armenians towards attitudes “unjust” 49

journalist” 15 March, 2015, available at at available 2015, March, 15 journalist”

Russia as the main guarantor of of guarantor main the as Russia 91

Although these c these Although - operation factors. factors. operation

- standing standing oncerns - level level The

CEU eTD Collection 2015 May, web13 database lexisnexis 93 ac 92 HeritageArmen PartyMartirosyan said. our danger will agreement Pan of reinforcement the as Armenians among perceived was Armenia on imposed preconditions its and Kazakhstan in further Armenia’s towards obstacle an as seen Turk with ties strong possesses who sign a onArmenia’s treaty process. the from Karabakh of exclusion the to reference direct a whichprinciples Union was officially concerningboundarieswhile joining the fixed theCustoms Sargs asked Nazarbayev Union. the in participation Armenia’s about concerns expressing Aliyev president Azeri from letter the read Kazakhstan of president the side), Armenian the (for sudden a of All discussed. was CU the in Armenia of membership the disqualification ofof security theprocess bearing weight concerns. the the to contribute not did this Union, this lack of a profitability was economic the there regarding although explanation that state to important is it issue, this analyzing in interested came ofmany tooccupytheminds Armenians. Russi towards suspicion extreme ally, an as weapons same

cording to some border criteria. someborder to cording BBC Monitoring quotes from Armenian press, press, Armenian from Monitoring quotes BBC state a recognizes UN that the issuchthing no there simplybecause was denounced claim this InArmenia Astana, in summit Union’s Eurasian the during complicated became situation The not are we While integration. the of aspects economic about was concern Another Although it appeared to be logical that Nazarbayev, as a representative of Turkic nation nation Turkic of representative a as Nazarbayev, that logical be to appeared it Although

- Turkic threat against Armenia which is always there. “The signature of the of signature “The there. always is which Armenia against threat Turkic

joining tothe

ainl neet f ia importance”, vital of interest national

ey and Azerbaijan could bring could Azerbaijan and ey 93 EEU by June 15,2014. EEU by June

Quotes package from BBC Monitoring, October 12, 2013, 12, October Monitoring, from BBC package Quotes

tegration. One can argue that the presence of of presence the that argue can One tegration. a’s overall image of a strategic partner partner strategic a of image overalla’s

the issue on the table, it was was it table, the on issue the

Sargsyan in turn offered to offered turn in Sargsyan euy himn f the of Chairman Deputy a t sik o h UN the to stick to yan

where

of of CEU eTD Collection multilateral even dependenceonRussia ideological ifits and legitimacy basis iscrumbled. Armenia’s reflect to necessity the avoid to elite ruling the by used is turn, in This, demands. the into Russia day on perceptions and of incorporation circumstances by replaced is language the that is policy foreign Armenia’s of point striking most the context, this In Russia. with relations po foreign Armenian the determine and prevail to comes alternatives of Armenian of core the constitute location Pan against victimization of discourse dominant the nationalists, Soviet the of towards elements victimization some containing and Russia of expectations Armenian in mistrust of history of conclusion. following the make Al can one However, partners. its and authorities the between Armenian reached were that deals the in transparency and information of lack the as well 2014. May 29 these that“no the frameworks truthofour one couldstruggle”. stating question why and, conflict the on positions Armenia’s re to opportunity an as it saw politicians the Moreover, implications. further any have ann would the that something but Azerbaijan to addressed massage a as interpreted largely was president Meanwhile, it”. abandon never will and interest national its though the Armenian the though - uks ad usqet over subsequent and Turkism After the deadlines had been postponed several times, Armenia signed the agreement on agreement the signed Armenia times, several postponed been had deadlines the After by guided be “always would Armenia that stated government Armenian the response In

Here an objective analy objective an Here perceptions

- towards Russia have a dual character including a large part part large a including character dual a have Russia towards atn tras moe o Amna y t geopolitical its by Armenia on imposed threats lasting sis was complicated by the complexity of this issue as as issue this of complexity the by complicated was sis - Russian strategic alliance. Therefore, the clear absence absence clear the Therefore, alliance. strategic Russian not, bring the issue to the discussion also within also discussion the to issue the bring not, 51

notion of natural ally due to the security security the to due ally natural of notion - to - a pltcl ed truh the through needs political day ucmn o Kazakh of ouncement iy n ead t its to regards in licy

affirm

CEU eTD Collection of perception the to linked is Russia on dependence military Armenia’s that showed evidence discur direct of lack a was there Although present. the in existence physical the preserve to need vital the affects genocide the on memory entails.it o it how of singleunderstanding no is there Turkey,by recognition genocide for need ultimate the determine to came which remembering, to necessity vital the Given Genocide. illus to us helped performances discursive opposition as well as governmental, the of examination The Turkey. towards choices policy Armenia’s constrain and enable both to appeared which t was aim the protocols, perceptions security. about national its and policy foreign Armenia’s of constituent critical a is discourse victimization the that stated identit Armenian the in present and past of interconnection discursive the on drawing While country. the of policy foreign the in genocide Armenian on memory the of construction Conclusion trate the whole complexity and importance of the legacies driven by the memory of of memory the by driven legacies the of importance and complexity whole the trate The second case dealing with Armenia’s relations with Russia came to determine how the howthe camewith Russia with Armenia’srelations todetermine The case second dealing Armenian on event key subsequent and study case a as Turkey choosing While This

research on the Armenian foreign policy emphasized the role of the discursive discursive the of role the emphasized policy foreign Armenian the on research

o demonstrate the change in the discursive practices of victimization victimization of practices discursive the in change the demonstrate o

sive implications of victimization, the circumstantial the victimization, of implications sive 52

perates and what and perates y, it was was it y, - Turkish CEU eTD Collection Turkey. discourse the of goal ultimate the down slows turn, in which, security national of frames the within constrained discoursebe always would victimization the Armenia, of realm public as well as political, the within interest per clear of absence the given and situation domestic country’s a reflect to considered is policy foreign as much As statehood. and interest national of concept the to linked to beproblematic. appeared gains economic of notion the cases both in notices, was it as However, issue. Karabakh the CU, in embedded of discourse the case of favor in in sidelined be to policy, seemed benefits economic official the delegitimize and discourse the strengthen to came the of memory the case, Turkish the in if contrast, In discourse. the of point decisive the be to appears Nagorno of conflict the respect, this In security. national for prerogative a as operates a First cases. both in discourse victimization making and themmore persuasive. legitimate Pan of ideology broader o discourse victimization the and Turkey by posed threat genocide has been sidelined in favor of economic gains in which Nagorno which in gains economic of favor in sidelined been has genocide Meanwhile, what was most important, in both cases the victimization discourse was was discourse victimization the cases both in important, most was what Meanwhile, the of implications the in differences and similarities certain are there time, same the At

f the opposition is in tension with its discourse on Russia and CU, thus CU, and Russia on discourse its with tension in is opposition the f - h recognit the nd foremost, victimization discourse in both cases both in discourse victimization foremost, nd

ion and commemoration of the genocide by by genocide the of commemoration and ion - uks i ti cnet the context, this in Turkism ception of national national of ception

- Karabakh issue issue Karabakh the Nagorno the - Karabakh Karabakh - CEU eTD Collection Foreign(Routledge, inthe Policy Caucasus Asia, andCentral 2013) BertschG.K.,Cassady Armenia.’Polish Sociological Review, No144. Barseghyan‘Rethinking Post K. Nationhood: Genocide”, Ethnica) (201, Europa Avedian, Vahagn” Responsibili Recognition, in (University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, p.33review Astourian Stephan H., 133. and Czaplicka Assmann J. J. Analysis,Political by edited Goodin, Charles(OUP Robert 2008). E.Tilly Oxford, Assmann A.Individual and ‘Memory, collective’, ofContextual inThe Handbook Oxford (London:Zed books,2004). Akcam, T. Mesa, 2006). Mazda CA: Publishers, AbrahamianL., Bibliography

From Empire to republic: TurkishNationalisman From Empire

Armenian Identity World inaChanging Armenian

B. C., Scott A. Scott C., B. Michael SecurityJones, Conflict: D.B and Crossroads and From Ter From

‘Collective MemoryIdentity,’and Cultural 65(1995), No. pp.125 - Petrosian to Kocharian:LeadershipPetrosian to Change inArmenia cited 70

(3/4) .

p.77 ty Reconciliation: Theand Trinityofthe Armenian - IndependenceIdentityNational Discourseon in

54 - 86

, Armenian Studies Series; Studies Armenian 8 No. d The Armenian Genocide

, (Costa - CEU eTD Collection Armenian IskandaryanMinasyan and Analyzing S. A.‘Pragmatic Policies vs.Historica Constraints: Yerevan’ 21 Vol.12,No.2,(2010), Turkey, insight pp. Minasyan,for between Normalization ArmeniaandA View ‘ProspectsTurkey: S. from 1 Libaridian G.J, (Boulder:Lynne 2003). Publishers, Rienner Jeanne A.K. Hey, HovhannisianArmenian The R.G. Genocide inPerspective,Publishers,2009). (Transaction HansenL. Halbwach OnCollective A.L. M,Coser Policy Research(No 05/07,2005). GiragosianNew a R.‘Toward InternationalArmenian National Concept (Armenian Security’ of Memory Fournet C. Edkins J. Strategy, deNagorno Waal, ‘Remaking the of the OttomanArmenians Bloxhem Donald st

ed., Human Rights &HumanDemocracy Rights , (Ashgate, Publishing, 2007). 52:4 (2010). Trauma andtheTrauma Memory ofPolitics - Turkish Relations’ Turkish Security AsPractice Security The Crime of Destructio The Crime of The Challenge Thinking : Political ofStatehood since Armenian Independence The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, nationalism, The Great nationalism, GameImperialism, and theDestruction ofGenocide: Small States in WorldStates inExplaining ForeignPolicy : Behavior Small Politics

(Oxford University 2005). Press , Yerevan: Caucasus, Yerevan: Institute , (The new international relations, 2006). new, (The international - Kharabah Peace Process,’ Peace Kharabah

n and the Law ofgenocide:n andtheLaw onCollective Their impact (Watertown, Mass.: (Watertown,

Memory, (UniversityMemory, ofChicago 1992). press,

(Cambridge 2003).University Press, 55

- 30.

Blue 1999). Crane Books, . (2010)

Survival: Global Politics and Politics Global Survival:

, CEU eTD Collection pp. 83 Safran ‘Diasporas inModern ,W Societies: ofHomeland Myths ( and Return’, and theMacedonian Question Roudometof V., Armenia’, (Europeanjournal pp. ofCriminology,514 2012), Rafter ‘Genocide N. and and ofvictimization: thedynamics WalklateS. Some observations on pp. 121 Panossian ‘The R. Nation: ThreeofArmenian past as id Dimensions UniversityYork: Columbia Press, 2006) Panossian R. htt available at onApril 4,2004 Transregional AndThe Of Cooperation Resolution Conflicts. Yerevan,28, 2000, September Republic OfInternational ArmeniaAtThe ConferenceForRegional“Prospects On And Oskanyan No. 26,Spring7 1989,pp. NoraLes de ‘BetweenMemoire’andLieux P. Memory History: Yerevan, Berne Republ federal betweenon DevelopmentForeignAffairs, Department ‘Protocols ofthe ofrelations ofMinistries Foreign of theRepublic Affairs ofTurkey, theRepublic ofArmenia and Swiss The p://www.armeniaforeignministry.am/htms/speeches/speech_index.html – ic ofThe Turkeyand Republic ofArmenia’, release 2009) pressAnkara, (31August, 99 - 146. , V. 2000. Speech by, V.2000.Speech hisExc

The Armenians :FromtoMerchants andPriests Kings andCommissars

Collective -

24. Memory, National Identity, andEthnic Conflict: Identity, Memory, Greece, National Bulgaria,

(Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002). ellencyVartan Oskanian Foreign Minister Of Affairs

- 526. University Press ofColombia

entity’ Geopolitics, (2002),entity’

Diaspora

(New . 1991.), , CEU eTD Collection Lexisnexisagency, database 2010 22April, Yerevan, web 25March, 2015 “Armenian says ratificationof leader protocols Lexisnexis database 2015 April 26,2010, 20April, web. “ Academic database Armenia, Turkeytosign Internet Sources 2007). Zehfuss, M. Issue 2,2012,pp. Weedon and G.‘Collective C. Jordan memory: Vol.22, Semiotics and ‘Social theory politics 110. M.‘international S. Walt Many One Relations: World, (ForeignPolicy, Theories’ 1998), No. 1999/2000)No. 3,Winter IdentitiesSuny, RG.”The inPost of Politics SecurityVol.24 No.3(1999/2000). Suny R.G. A.D. Smith, Mediamax newsMediamax agency, Yerevan, inEnglish Armenian

‘ president on Turkey RIAagency,conflict”, ties, Novosti onKarabakh news president Moscow, Provisional WoundsMemory: ThePoliticsWar of of Germany, in National I National

143

- 153.

dentity, Stabilities:

protocols

(London; Penguin NewBooks, York: 1991).

on developing ties inmid The Politics of Identities in Post - Soviet Eurasia”,(Internatio

0937, Retrieved 17 Sep 09, from LexisNexis 0937, Retrieved 17Sep 09,from 57 on ties withTurkeyon suspended”

- October 2009) (17September, (Cambridge University(Cambridge Press, - Soviet Soviet Eurasia’International nal Security,Vol. 24, nal

Mediamax news Mediamax CEU eTD Collection http:// of the ArmenianGenocide’,release(online) press available 24Aprilat Sargsyan.Serzh ‘Adress by Sargsyan President Rememberance Serzh Day ofVictims onthe of http://www.president.am/hy/election Sargsyan’sSerzh pre 2015) at: RussiaRadio Free‘Armenia Europe,toJoin 2015) November,available at 2009), ‘Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan onArmenian http://notoprotocols.net/ Armenian the denounces “Dasnaktsutyun Notoprotocols LexisnexisYerevan, database web 10,20march,2015 October 2009, "No alternative" ties withTurkey toestablishing agency, databaseLexisnexis transcript, 22January, 2010, 20April, 2015 web. of“Minister warnsArmenia of breakdown century April 2015.Available at Guardian, smallcountry ‘A howgenocide buta big nation: shapedtheArmeniaof today, ’1 database12, 2013,lexisnexis web 2015 13May, BBCfrom Armenian quotes Monitoring press, http://www.rferl.org/con

www.president.am/ru/pressrelease/item/2008/04/24/news -

of - armenian - - grief election campaignavailableelection program, at

(accessed May 5,2015) http://www.theguard - over tent/armenia http://www.7 - genocide - program/ -

customs - Turkeyreconciliation talsk” or.am/am/news/view/3360/ - Led Union,’3.SeptemberCustoms 2013Available ian.com/world/2015/apr/22/turkish

(accessed on5,May, Turkish protocols’. 7or(20 Turkish (Yerevan), 58 Quotes packageBBC Monitoring,Quotes from October

Armenian leader union/25094560.html - Turkish protocols’, available at at available protocols’, Turkish - 22/

- (Accessed 25April, 2015) Mediamax news agency, Mediamax 2015)

, (accessed on5May, -

(Accessed 5.January Novosti

- silence Armenia news - fans -

CEU eTD Collection its Interview with Giro Manoyan, its Interview with Giro Manoyan, Inter 2015, available at Youtube,Sargsyan’s “Thequestion of theRussianjournalist” answer 15March, tothe president available at Youtube, ‘ http://www.lragir.am/index/ar October,protocols’,available lragir.(10 at 2009) am, Sargsyan’sSerzh address Armenianthedecision to ‘on tosign people Armenian

Armenian Cause Armenian Cause view

Ջահերով https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcVcPn1jkXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwk8OJuDEss

Office Office

երթ

Ծիծեռնակաբերդ (online), 2,2015. May (online), 2,2015. May m/0/country/view/29689, (accessed on5March, 2015) one of one of oftheone leaders the leaders of the leaders ’ [march Tsitsernakaberd], towards 23Aprli, 2010, 59

ARF Dashnaktsutyun ARF Dashnaktsutyun

(accessed on April 20,2015) (accessed on

and thehead of and thehead of -

Turkish