Thus, on May 6, the Latvian parliament recognized the Armenian genocide, gathering around a group of 30 countries around the world that have done so, including the United States, France, Germany, Russia, and Lithuania. However, the unanswered question – why right now?
Unanswered questions
The issue of the Armenian genocide appeared on the agenda of the Saeima’s Foreign Affairs Committee in mid-March, because when the new Saeima began its work, deputies submitted their proposals on the issues to be considered in the next four years, and the Armenian genocide was one of them (presented by Nikolai Kabanov). This year, in the foreign policy debate, this issue was also raised by the Member of the Saeima Dagmar Beitner-Le Gall (JKP), For the day explains Richard Kohl (NA), head of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The first meeting with the representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was closed. The Foreign Affairs Commission has agreed on a specific procedure – it will hear both Turkish and Armenian diplomats, historians and academics. Two meetings have already been devoted to this topic and two more are planned. Then an alternative project – initiated by the JKP – appeared, which was submitted to the Saeima on April 23, or the day before the Armenian Genocide Memorial Day, after collecting the signatures of 41 deputies. The first signatures on the document, dated 8 April, belong to Jurash and Beitner-Le Gall (both JKP) and Maria Golubeva (A / P). Linda Medne, Member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and JKP Representative For the day nor did it answer the question of why it had not warned colleagues about the JPP’s parallel work in this direction, either on 17 March or at subsequent meetings when the commission discussed the Armenian genocide, once the JPP had begun work on the issue in February, as alleged. There is also a version that it has been done for two years.
Medne also did not answer which experts had been consulted at the time the declaration was drafted, whether the position had also been explained to the Turkish side and whether 1923 had been deliberately included in the declaration. Also Juras For the day did not answer why an initiative to recognize the Armenian genocide had just come from the JPP and whether the publication of his declaration, even though the Foreign Affairs Committee had already begun work on the issue, was linked to his recent business partner, Armenian businessman Roman Osipyan. The question of whether Jurash had discussed the draft declaration with Osipyan, its content and vote remained unanswered.
The meaning of each word
Days The information available indicates that the draft declaration was also discussed at a co-operation meeting on 26 April at the request of the JV and the NA. A / P and JKP have rejected any objections and an invitation to the Foreign Affairs Committee to complete the work started, stating that its submitted project will not be withdrawn. Indications that there are significant shortcomings in the draft declaration have also been ignored. As in foreign policy documents, every word and number has a meaning in this. There were two important nuances in the development of the JKP: the statement that “there is not the slightest doubt about the evidence” and the statement that the Armenian genocide in the Ottoman Empire took place “from 1915 to 1923”. The Ottoman Empire ceased to exist in 1922, but the Republic of Turkey was proclaimed on October 23, 1923. If such a declaration were adopted, Latvia would insult modern-day Turkey in the Armenian genocide, most likely with much more serious foreign policy consequences.
The draft JKP was announced on the agenda of the Saeima on April 29, Kols objected, therefore, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure of the Saeima, it was included in the May 6 sitting. As this draft declaration would probably have received sufficient support from deputies, Kols offered the commission colleagues to decide on an alternative draft declaration prepared by him the day before the Saeima sitting. Although the word “genocide” did not appear in the title, the text acknowledged and condemned the genocide (version of the title of the original document – Declaration in memory of the Armenians killed during the Ottoman Empire). The majority of the Foreign Affairs Committee rejected it. At the initiative of commissioner Ojārs Kalniņš (JV), another option was later proposed, without changing the content of the document developed by Kola, but by including the word “genocide” in its title. By convening an extraordinary meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee on the evening of the same day, the draft declaration was supported.
Thus, the variants of both declarations were on the agenda of the Saeima on May 6, the first vote being for the version prepared by the Foreign Affairs Committee. If it were rejected, the other would most likely receive support. The most correct declaration of the Foreign Affairs Committee was supported by 58 deputies of the Saeima. However, this cannot be considered a vote in which strict party discipline is observed. All JV and JKP present, as well as the majority of A / P deputies, voted in favor. With the exception of Kola and Saeima Speaker Ināra Mūrniece, NA deputies opposed, expressing in the debate that they would not vote for any of the proposed versions of the declaration, as this was not the time to do so, and recalling that Armenia had never recognized the Baltic occupation. In turn, in the KPV LV, ZZS and S panelas faction and among the independent deputies, one was for, someone against, another did not vote or abstained.
A turn or an exception?
Minister of Foreign Affairs Edgars Rinkēvičs (JV) For the day did not want to comment on Parliament’s decision. Adviser to the Minister Mārtiņš Drēģeris reiterated what Rinkēvičs said in an interview on TV24 shortly before the parliamentary vote: “This is a moral-political decision of the Saeima.” However, it should be reminded what Rinkēvičs said about this topic to LETA three years ago: “I do not think that such declarations would be beneficial for the stability, security or common position of Latvia in the region.” Asked if the Minister would say so this year as well, Dregeris alone added that “this is a decision of the Saeima”.
Significantly, on the day when the parliament adopted the declaration, the Latvian counterpart was met remotely by Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks (A / P), who, in parallel with criticism of US President Joe Biden’s position, had previously called on Latvian parliamentarians not to sacrifice national interests. Pabriks For the day He acknowledged that the declaration had not been discussed because the Turkish Minister of Defense knew his position and therefore did not blame the Latvian Government. “When someone says it is a matter of morality, ethics or human rights, everyone is trying to be the first to bear the bar. From an international perspective, the US President had a very long conversation with the Turkish President before the Armenian genocide was announced,” he said. Pabriks. “Did Jurash call a faction in the Ankara parliament? What suddenly aroused our passion for morality on this issue?”
Māris Andžāns, a senior researcher at the Latvian Institute of Foreign Policy and an assistant professor at RSU, emphasizes that this is a political decision that will have consequences: “The Armenian community and Armenia itself will appreciate this, but can expect a more unfavorable attitude from Turkey.” The main issue is where Latvia’s foreign policy is heading. “Is this a turning point or an exceptional situation? This decision means that we are more value-oriented than interest-oriented. Will Latvia be able to maintain such a line, or will society be ready to take such a position if it has to choose between economic considerations and values?” the researcher shares his thoughts.
Turkey is a member of NATO. Andžāns says: “When there are decisions about the Baltic states in the future, Turkey could put its foot down. Precedents have already been set [kad NATO lēma par Baltijas valstu aizsardzības plānu], but, of course, the significance of the declaration cannot be overestimated. Turkey may be more concerned about the domino effect and the growing number of countries recognizing the Armenian genocide internationally. “
–
