That is why the new narratives of Armenian-Turkish relations must unite memory and common sense, without loss of vigilance, without weakening of will, without illusions. They are meant to liberate the Armenian memory from the narrow circle of opposition and return to it the creative power and political height, making that memory a source of new national self-recognition and dignity. Within the framework of the "+1" doctrine of safety accumulation, we should be able to move from the memory of pain to the memory of dignity. This does not mean giving up on the past. This means transforming memory into strength, reflection and political maturity. The inevitable question One question inevitably stands before us. how to stay faithful to the historical truth and at the same time not to allow the past to block the way to the future? The answer to that question should not turn into a call to "start everything from scratch".
History is not canceled, tragedy is not nullified, justice cannot be a subject of trade. The Armenian Genocide is not a topic to be discussed, nor is it a tool of pressure. It is a historical truth and the moral core of our national memory. But Armenian history is not only a history of trials.
It is also a story of creativity, culture, spiritual endurance and work. Nations survive not only through trials, but also through creation, preservation and establishment. Armenians as a key component of the creative history of the region Armenians have made a significant contribution to the formation of the cultural, economic and intellectual image of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey. The work, craftsmanship and spiritual culture of Armenians have become an organic part of the history of the region, reflecting the richness of the cultural heritage. This truth is as great as the memory of the crime.
It gives us back the strong attitude and voice of a nation-builder, not just a victim. Acknowledging this reality is not a manifestation of goodwill, but an act of maturity and historical honesty, which creates the basis for a dialogue based on mutual respect. Today, we must prioritize our creative power and cultural heritage. We preserve memory not to accuse, but to preserve the truth. Not for revenge, but for life and the future.
We are fully authorized to raise the need to preserve the Armenian historical and cultural heritage in the current territory of Turkey, to talk about the preservation of Armenian sanctuaries and monuments, access to archives, scientific dialogue and preservation programs of Armenian monastic complexes, cemeteries, old neighborhoods. It is also important to support the Armenian communities operating in Turkey, the programs that reveal the role and contribution of Armenians in the history of the region. Armenia and Turkey can implement joint educational, research and cultural initiatives aimed at studying and restoring the Armenian historical presence. This is a form of respect for our memory and our identity.
We must reach such a situation when the security of Armenia and respect for our memory are not words, but reality. They can also be achieved through border infrastructure projects, cultural and tourism initiatives. It is important to understand that this is necessary not only for Armenians, but also for Turks. Realism and strategic caution Openness to dialogue should not mean naivety or loss of vigilance. Modern Turkey pursues a neo-Ottoman and pan-Turkist policy with the aim of expanding its influence and building a "Turkic world".
That strategy directly concerns the interests of Armenia and its security. We cannot afford illusions. The future is possible only where there is strength, institutional stability, a clear understanding of national interests and subjectivity. We are not looking for trust. we form the basis on which we are counted. That is why memory cannot be perceived as a weakness if it is combined with dignity and the ability to stand.
It should be obvious that real reconciliation is possible only with a combination of dignity, strength, strategic maturity and vigilance. After the Karabakh disaster, Armenia should be guided by a strategy of restrained trust and responsible interaction, where openness is accompanied by sobriety and readiness to defend itself.
Memory as power In this context, it is impossible not to remember Israel's experience. A people who managed to turn the memory of the Holocaust into the basis of statehood, national dignity and security. Israel not only did not forget, but also did not forgive. He did not allow the historical tragedy to become a tool for other people's interpretations. Israel turned memory not into an emotional response, but into a moral support and a factor of strength. Of course, this does not refer to the justification of Israel's policies of the last decades. Armenia should not repeat someone else's models. It is important to combine memory with state thinking, and history with responsibility for future generations. Memory can be not a burden, but an internal weapon and a guarantee of subjectivity.
It is necessary to highlight another important aspect of Israel's experience: the role of the diaspora. For centuries, Jewish communities around the world have protected memory, supported the establishment of the state, and formed intellectual and political influence. This was not only a historical mission, but also a tool of national security.
For Armenians, the diaspora is not only a keeper of memory. It is a huge creative resource, a source of education, culture, economy, diplomacy and international relations. New meanings cannot be born only in Yerevan. They need the voice of the diaspora, the participation of our intellectual centers around the world.
A nation that has a diaspora also has a second diplomatic corps, a second intellectual space and a second system to protect its memory. This is an advantage that we should appreciate and turn into a permanent mechanism for the protection of national identity and dignity. In conclusion Armenia should remain a nation of memory, but not a prisoner of the past. It is not about recognizing the genocide as a precondition, but about accepting the Armenian contribution to the general history of the region. The new conversation begins not with the rejection of tragedy, but with the recognition of one's own strength and right to exist.
