Mehmet Kalyoncu*
Yerevan’s unilateral decision, as Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu describes it, to put the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement on hold should have had a cold shower effect on those who had long been fed up with the overcooked so-called Armenian genocide debate.
On April 22, Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan signed a decree suspending the ratification of the “Protocol on Establishing Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey” and “Protocol on Opening the Border between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey.”
In his televised address to his fellow Armenians, Sarksyan said, “Our political objective for normalizing relations between Armenia and Turkey remains valid, and we shall consider moving forward when we are convinced that there is the proper environment in Turkey and the leadership in Ankara is ready to reengage in the normalization process.” Referring to Ankara’s demand for Armenia to end its occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan before Parliament ratifies the protocols, the Armenian president charged Ankara with causing the breakup in the normalization process by making the end of Armenian occupation a precondition to the ratification.
While Ankara repeatedly reiterated its wish to continue the normalization of relations with Yerevan, on April 24 Armenian demonstrators burned Turkish flags as well as posters of Turkish President Abdullah Gül, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Davutoğlu during the so-called Armenian genocide commemoration ceremonies attended by President Sarksyan and other Armenian officials.
Like the Armenian officials, some inside and outside Turkey have criticized Ankara for pushing the end of Armenian occupation in Nagorno-Karabakh as a precondition to the ratification of the protocols. Some even argued that there was no relationship between the occupation and the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations and that Azerbaijan stood as an obstacle to normalization.
As a matter of fact, the real obstacle to Turkish-Armenian rapprochement is Armenia’s irredentist attitude toward its neighbors. As such, Armenia’s irredentism not only constitutes a national security threat to Turkey, but also is the major obstacle to any step toward sustainable security and stability in the South Caucasus. So long as Yerevan does not irreversibly change this attitude, it is unlikely to achieve any sustainable relationship between Turkey and Armenia.
Armenia is an irredentist country. That is, it is a country with aspirations on a part of another country’s land, over which it claims to have the political right to control. Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration of Independence reads, “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia,” referring to contemporary eastern Turkey as Western Armenia. Article 12 reads, “This declaration serves as the basis for the development of the constitution of the Republic of Armenia and, until such time as the new constitution is approved, as the basis for the introduction of amendments to the current constitution; and for the operation of state authorities and the development of new legislation for the republic.” So obviously, the crux of the Armenian Constitution and of the guideline for the state authorities is Yerevan’s unrelenting aspirations to seize eastern Turkey as well as other possible monetary and political reparations.
Yerevan has proven its characteristic as such by invading and occupying 20 percent of a neighboring country — Azerbaijan. Consequently, another neighboring country, Turkey, which has long been the main target of Yerevan’s irredentist aspirations, closed its common border with Armenia. Although Turkey and Azerbaijan do have deep cultural, ethnic, social, economic and political ties and as such Turkey’s closure of the border may seem and has long been portrayed as an emotional response to Armenia’s invasion of Azerbaijan’s territories, Turkey’s response to the invasion is purely a rational one.
*Mehmet Kalyoncu is an international relations analyst
Leave a Reply