Armenia Should Return Occupied Territories to Azerbaijan

Biography:
Born in 1931; graduated from the Political Science Faculty of Ankara in 1954. After post graduate studies at the Sorbonne University in Paris, he joined the Ministyry of Foreign Affairs. He was Ambassador of Turkey in Jakarta (1981-1984), Permanent Representative, Ambassador of Turkey to the European Communities (1984-1987) in Bruxelles and to UNESCO (1989-1995) in Paris; he was Director General for Cultural Affairs of the MFA ,HE IS A MEMBER OF TURKISH FORUM ADVISORY BOARD(2006-),(1987-1989) He published several books : “Cultural rights in the world and the proposal of a model for Turkey” ; “Terror and democracy”, which was awarded the Yunus Nadi Social Sciences Research Prize in 1999; “ The Control of nuclear weapons”; “Financing of the politics” “ UNESCO, is she useless like Mozart?” ; and many essays in several periodicals on the topics of: cultural rights; the good governance of multiculturalim; relations between Turkey and the European Union; and the crime of genocide.

AT: On 10 October, Turkey and Armenia signed protocols in Switzerland on normalization of relations. How important are these protocols for Turkey?

P.T.: The signing of the protocols with Armenia reflects a change of direction with regard the Turkish position on relations with Armenia : The main issues may be summarized as follows : the opening of the territorial borders , the establishment of regular diplomatic missions , the creation of expert groups to discuss common problems including the historical aspects.

The new Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Professor Davutoglu tried to explain the background of this new approach with the words “ zero conflicts with the neighbours” . Most probably this step is put forward by the Turkish Government after a new evaluation of the situation in the South Caucasus . One can guess that the concerns with regard the stability of the region prevailed. Especially after the Russian intervention in Georgia and the new de facto created in Abhazia and South Ossetia the Turkish Government positioned itself taking into account the facts of the “realpolitik” there. This includes of course the security of the oil and gas pipelines. One should add that the position of the new President of the United States as well as the pressures of the US legislative bodies with regard the Armenian genocide allegations played also a certain role .

The Turkish Government made it clear more then once its concerns about and the priority it attaches to the stability in the region and decided to try an alternative path to find solutions to the conflicts between Armenia and Turkey Having also in mind the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. This new and conciliatory approach is supported by almost all the actors of the international areana.

On the other hand, -as far as I am informed – Turkish Government members and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkey briefed the Azeri authorities on the negotiations of the Protocols with Armenia. Let me add that the same openness can not be claimed with regard the sharing of information concerning the going on Azerbaijan-Armenia negotiations.

Finally , Turkey always underlined that the Azeri territories occupied by Armenia should be returned back to Azerbaijan . The actual Government of Turkey do believe that the Protocols will help to find a peaceful solution to the conflicts not only between Turkey and Armenia but also between Azerbaijan and Armenia .

AT: There has been some change in the US policy in the South Caucasus and the Middle East under the new administration. How could this change influence the strategic partnership between the United States and Azerbaijan, and also the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?

P.T.: United States policy in the South Caucasus is directed -among others- to the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. – The aim of this policy is to create a just and sustainable balance between Armenian and Azerbaijan interests as well as to secure energy transportation lines. The role of Russia and the relations between Russia and Azerbaijan as well as with Armenia, are other important factors of this simultaneous equation.

I guess that the final solution of Nagorno-Karabakh will take some more years and a step by step approach must be expected. Probably the returning of the five rayons will be the first step which will be followed by others. The solution there will most probably take into account the de facto situation in South Caucasus and the vital interests and the compromise willingness of the parties concerned.

Moreover I think that relations called “ partnership, alliances and strategic partnerships” are closely attached to the interests of the States in question. The “strategic partnership between The United States and Azerbaijan” you refer in your question will abide to the necessities of “mutual interests”.

AT: Do you think that Armenia will give up its efforts to secure international recognition of the genocide if it normalizes relations with Turkey?

P.T.: In the short term, the Armenian diaspora will not give up its efforts to secure international recognition of the genocide allegations. On the other hand, the Armenian Governments will most probably continue to underline that the events of 1915 should be considered as a crime of genocide. For , “to be the victim of genocide” has become a part of their created identity. The word “genocide” is a taboo for them and the “ Armenian genocide” “ a historical truth which can not be denied, nor can be discussed” . According to the Armenians, those who qualify the tragic events of 1915-1916 with other words then genocide, should change their position and accept the genocide accusation without any discussion or argument . Even the word “Metz jegern” -which means “the great tragedy” in the Armenian language and which the Armenians themselves use to name the tragic events of 1915, if pronounced by some apologists in Turkey and the President Obama becomes a deviation of the Armenian “holy war” and is rejected.

But, the Armenians know that as long as this question is on the agenda of a mixed commission of historians , experts and/or jurists foreseen by the Zurich Protocols their chance to convince new governments and/or parliaments to recognize the genocide allegations will decrease. That is the reason why the diaspora Armenians reject the protocols signed in Zurich. The Armenian side also will try everything in its power to delay the meeting of the so called historian commission by not agreeing on the terms of its agenda. The weak side of the protocols (for Turkey) is that the creation of the said commission is foreseen only after the normalization of the relations including the opening of the borders.

The great majority of the Turks are convinced that the tragic events of 1915 can not be qualified as genocide. Ottoman Turks, Kurds and Armenians suffered great losses at the beginning of the XX century. But the accusation that the Ottoman Turks destroyed the Ottoman Armenians on racial and/or religious ground,which means because they were Armenians is not reflecting the truth and this dolus specialis is not supported by evidence.

Personally I insisted and underlined the fact that genocide is an international crime clearly described by the 1948 Convention and that this legal issue can only be solved by the competent tribunal foreseen by the Article VI of UN Convention. on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Politicians, parliaments and other instances – even national tribunals without competence- have no authority to decide or to declare that a crime constitutes genocide.

But let me add another important and humanitarian aspect of the Protocols signed in Zurich. I consider this as an important step towards the reconciliation of the Armenian and Turkish peoples. It focuses the problematic of collective memory Thr collective memory does not necessarily tell the truthful history of the past, is tendentious, provides a story that is very often distorted; it tries a selective reading of the past; it presents the own group as being the victim of the opponent. It is true that some of these beliefs are formed over a long period of sufferings and losses. . Selective memory focus especially on violence, atrocities, cruelty, lack of concern for human life and viciousness of the other side,

How this vicious cycle can be broken?

I admit that this is not easy. Generally it takes long years. Because, years of indoctrination cause internalization of the beliefs. They are held with great confidence and considered as central. Any progress requires an emphatic approach and a change of the beliefs which support the continuation of the conflict.

But the beliefs, attitudes, created images anchored in the memory do not change overnight. Usually they continue to inhibit the development of peaceful relations and may even create obstacles to the mutual understanding.

The overcoming of the difficulties depends on formal and informal conciliatory acts by both parties. The determination of leaders involved in peace making is crucial. Their moves are often met with opposition within their own group in the form of pressure, public mobilization, sometimes smear campaigns and violence. The success of the process depends on the activism and strength of those who support it.

Reconciliation requires changing the psychological repertoire which dominated society members for many years. Peace between States depends on peace between people. That is the reason why I consider the move of the Zurich protocols as an important attempt towards reconciliation

AT: Members of the OSCE Minsk Group are making a lot effort to get the Turkish-Armenian border reopened. What kind of impact would the reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border have on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
Turkish closed its border with Armenia after the occupation of Azerbaijan’s Kalbajar District by Armenian forces in 1993. How would you assess reopening of the border before the resolution of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

P.T.: The closing of the border between Turkey and Armenia is described by some as an embargo. This is wrong. The air border between Armenia and Turkey is open . Iran and Georgia borders with Armenia are open as well. Under these conditions one can not describe the closing of the eastern Turkish borders to Armenia as an embargo. This has been a protest act and a political step taken by Turkey because of the occupation of Azerbaijan’s Kalbajar District. But this political act did not pressured Armenia with regard the resolution of the conflict of Karabakh and the handing over of the occupied territories to Azerbaijan.

Now, I sincerely hope that the signing of the protocols between Turkey and Armenia may help the creation of an atmosphere of peace and trust . It may also indirectly help the conclusion of the negotiations within the Minsk Group.

The Turkish Prime Minister and other Turkish officials clearly declared that the opening of the eastern border of Turkey to Armenia will depend on the improvement of the Nagorny Karabakh issue, which means the return of the occupied territories to Azerbaijan.

My interpretation of these statements is that the Turkish Government will not request its Parliament to give green light for the ratification of the protocols between Turkey and Armenia before a settlement with regard the occupied territories is agreed upon between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
If there is no improvement on the question of N.K., the protocols will continue to stay on the agenda of the Turkish Parliament and their ratification will be delayed . This delay of course will trigger new international pressures on Turkey and Armenia.

AT: The Azerbaijani authorities are very concerned about the prospect of the Turkish-Armenian border being reopened. They think that this would toughen Armenia’s position on the Karabakh issue. Do you share this concern?

P.T.: The signing of the protocols caused a certain disappointment in Azerbaijan and in Turkey. I have an understanding for it, because it was interpreted as a policy change by some. But, personally I consider this as emotional reactions rather than reactions attached to solid reasoning. I hope that the leaders as well as the public opinion will not forget that the ties fastening our countries are stronger than ever. The only factor which can toughen the Armenian position is the image of an existing conflict, tension and misunderstanding between Turkey and Azerbaijan. So I believe it is high time to join our efforts and present an unified and stronger image.

Turkey wants more than any other the return of the occupied Azerbaijan territories to their owners and the diplomatic steps foreseen by the protocols as well as the statements by the Turkish Government members with regard the entering into force of the Protocols do aim to attend this objective. Finally let me underline again that stability in our region will improve the security and the living standards of all of us.