“Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan contributed to the adoption of this resolution at the Bundestag as he made trade with Germany and Europe on the issue of migrants and and tried to blackmail them,” Expert of Turkish Studies Andranik Ispiryan said this during the discussion on “The Political Consequences of the Adoption of the Armenian Genocide Resolution by the Bundestag” at Media Center. “The adoption of the Armenian Genocide Resolution at the Bundestag was a slap to Turkey. Even the Turkish deputies voted for the resolution. One MP who abstained from voting did not think that there was not genocide, but noted that the issue should be discussed in Turkish Parliament,” Ispiryan said and added that there was a political decision about the adoption of the resolution.
Doctor of Political Science Haik Martirosyan said that it is better that such a resolution would not be recognized at all than adopted with such a weak and dangerous formulations: “The first paragraph tells about the genocide of the Armenians and other Christian nations. The word Christian is dangerous. There is no such thing that the Armenian Genocide happened because the Armenians were Christians but in 1915, there was ethnic cleansing. The Bundestag had no right to make such a blunder. The bad point is that it is said to support the process initiated by Turkey to restore the Armenian monuments and cultural heritage. Germany has swallowed the bait of the Turkish propaganda, according to which they renovated Akhtamar church and Tigranakert a bit which was confiscated after. It is unacceptable to put this in the resolution. It is unacceptable to refer to Tsurich Protocols that are dead. A clear distinction is made between the Holocaust and other genocides, considering that the Holocaust is unique. There is a context in the resolution that today's Turkey is not responsible for the events that took place in 1915, so why did today's Germany assume responsibility for the Holocaust? This shows that this is not a slap, but a slight tweak to the back of the body,” political scientist said.
The founder of the Institute for International and Security Affairs, political analyst Stepan Safaryan disagreed with such an assessment. He stressed that this was one of the strongest of such resolutions adopted so far. “Can you imagine what a tremendous job should be conducted in the country like Germany to reach a consensus for every word and phrase in 3-4 pages of the text. Such a thing is difficult even in a country like Armenia. And if the majority of MPs of one of the powerful EU states joined this text then it is the position of this country. Recommendations were unprecedentedly many compared to other resolutions,” Safaryan said.
As a reply to Hayk Martirosyan’s remark that it was a documet not clearly worded, without the "sorry" word, and with the term “genocide” used only once in the title and once in the text and with a number of dangerous recommendations which has no legal effect, Safaryan said: “The Resolution of the French Parliament was too brief, now what, is it right to complain why it is not 3-4 pages as in case of the Bundestag resolution? Our difference is that you expected a verdict from the German Bundestag while it is a political body which, in my opinion, made a fantastic step,” the speaker said and added that we would see its follow-up.
Andranik Ispiryan said. “The cosequences will be hard for Turkey. That state is in a complicated situation as its main ally recognizes the Armenian Genocide and emphasizes its fault. Maybe after that they will make Turkey understand the need for compensation when it would be beneficial for them. As for Turkey's reaction, Erdogan will go to the suspension of relations with Germany in no case.”
Arevik Sahakyan, Program coordinator at “Media Center”
To contact the author please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org