US embassy cable - 05YEREVAN707

C O N F I D E N T I A L YEREVAN 000707 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SNEC (AMB MANN) AND EUR/CACEN 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/21/2015 
TAGS: PREL, PBTS, TU, AM 
SUBJECT: KOCHARIAN RESPONSE TO ERDOGAN LETTER 
 
Classified By: Ambassador John M. Evans for Reason 1.5 (b) and (d). 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
1.  (C) On April 20, FM Oskanian told us that President 
Kocharian had drafted a response to PM Erdogan's letter and 
the letter would be transmitted on April 21.  Oskanian 
described the letter as agreeing to some of the substance in 
PM Erdogan's letter, but proposed -- instead of creating a 
joint group of historians -- an inter-governmental commission 
which could push forward on a range of issues, including a 
study of the events of 1915.  While we have not seen the text 
of the letter, if FM Oskanian's representation is accurate, 
it represents a step forward from the combative stance 
Armenia previously articulated.  End Summary. 
 
2.  (C) PM Erdogan's April 10 letter to President Kocharian 
made the news in Yerevan, despite the cacophony of competing 
high-profile events to commemorate the Armenian tragedy of 
1915.  DCM met with FM Oskanian on the margin of one such 
event on April 20 and pressed him about whether President 
Kocharian had received PM Erdogan's letter and asked whether 
a response would be forthcoming. 
 
3.  (C) FM Oskanian said that President Kocharian had 
received the letter, but only recently.  A response had been 
drafted and would be sent to Ankara on April 21.  Oskanian 
said that Armenia would not dismiss the Turkish proposals. 
He acknowledged that Armenia's response to previous calls for 
"study groups" had been dismissive, since these calls were 
viewed by Yerevan as distractions and a smokescreen for EU 
critics of Turkey's stance on the events of 1915. 
 
4.  (C) But Armenia recognized that PM Erdogan's letter 
deserved a more careful response.  He said that President 
Kocharian's response agreed with much of the first paragraph 
of PM Erdogan's letter.  Turkey and Armenia do share a common 
history and geography.  Rather than reject Turkey's 
interpretation of the Armenian Tragedy, Kocharian's letter 
simply agreed that Turkey and Armenia have diverging 
interpretations of events.  Oskanian said that the Armenian 
response then posed a rhetorical question: How many states in 
Europe which share a border do not have such diverging 
interpretations of events while still maintaining diplomatic 
relations and open borders? 
 
5.  (C) Oskanian said that Armenia proposed to form with 
Turkey an inter-governmental commission to work toward 
resolution of all the issues preventing a return to normal 
diplomatic relations, including a study of events of 1915. 
Oskanian summarized Kocharian's letter as saying "both yes 
and no" to PM Erdogan's letter.  "Yes" to the fact that 
Armenia and Turkey have -- and will almost certainly continue 
to have -- differing views of events of 1915.  "No" to 
creating a joint historical study group outside of a 
structure to discuss other issues aimed at restoring 
diplomatic relations and opening the border. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
6.  (C) We will work to get the final text of the Kocharian 
letter.  If it tracks with Oskanian's description (and we 
expect it will), then it shows a more measured approach 
toward insisting on Turkey's recognition of events of 1915 as 
genocide.  While Armenia would never publicly "agree to 
disagree" with Turkey on recognition, we can certainly 
imagine a scenario in which -- if Turkey would open the 
border and/or agree to discuss establishing diplomatic 
relations -- Armenia would agree to find a way to de facto 
put the issue on hold. 
EVANS