Turkish Forum

Category: Armenian Question

“The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations from different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary

  • Nationalists Launch Hunger Strikes Against Turkey Reconciliation Deal

    Nationalists Launch Hunger Strikes Against Turkey Reconciliation Deal

    by Marianna Grigoryan
    17 September 2009

    Nagorno-Karabakh and genocide claims could divide Armenian public opinion on the diplomatic breakthrough. From EurasiaNet.

    The tentative Armenian-Turkish plan for diplomatic normalization has sparked Armenia’s oldest political party, the nationalist-oriented Armenian Revolutionary Federation, to take to the streets with sit-down protests and hunger strikes. Public support for the party’s criticism that the Armenian government risks selling out Armenia’s national security interests appears to be spreading, even though it remains far from uniform.

    Bearing red party flags and banners proclaiming “Don’t forget, don’t surrender, let’s rebel!” 74 party activists, including 24 hunger strikers, kicked off their campaign in front of the Foreign Ministry and the prime minister’s office in downtown Yerevan on 15 September. The protests will continue until the end of the six-week period envisaged for discussion of the protocols within Armenia and Turkey before the documents’ ratification, the party’s TV ads state.

    President Serzh Sargsyan plans to start consultations on the protocols on 17 September with the leaders of Armenia’s major political parties.

    Supporters claim that the 31 August protocols imply that Armenia should recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, accept the current Armenian-Turkish state border, and, by agreeing to “implement a dialogue on the historical dimension,” potentially backtrack on the country’s longstanding demand for international recognition of Ottoman Turkey’s 1915 mass slaughter of ethnic Armenians as genocide.

    The documents, however, make no such specifications on these topics. Written in broad language, they commit the two sides to opening their joint border within two months of the protocols’ ratification and to establishing bilateral government commissions to work on expanding cooperation in fields ranging from education to energy. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has emphasized in media interviews that border recognition is the first step in the reconciliation process, but the protocols do not mention border recognition.

    That, however, does nothing to reassure many Armenians. “We will fight until the end since [the protocols signed with Turkey] contradict our national interests,” one male protestor in his late 20s told EurasiaNet. “We will do everything that promotes our national interests.”

    Statements from Turkish government officials that the border will not open until Armenia and Azerbaijan make progress in settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict suggest that attention on the Karabakh issue will increase in the coming months, opined political analyst Yervand Bozoian. “That’s the most dangerous thing,” he said.

    The governing Republican Party of Armenia counters that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation is using the protest to score self-interested political points. The 119-year-old party left Armenia’s coalition government in April in protest at President Sargsyan’s Turkey policy.

    “The Armenian Revolutionary Federation and other political forces have the right to choose what way to fight,” commented Republican Party parliamentarian Eduard Sharmazanov, the party’s spokesperson. “Any preconditions from Turkey are unacceptable for us.”

    Other members of the governing coalition have echoed those comments. “I think we just need good will and courage. We see it in the actions of this president [Sargsyan]. We’ll help the president to settle this issue,” declared Heghine Bisharian, head of the Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law) parliamentary faction.

    But many Armenians do not see any manifestation of “good will” in the protocols’ provisions. “Turks are so cunning, they will do everything to serve their interests. We know it perfectly well,” asserted 70-year-old Anzhela Garanian, whose parents survived the 1915 slaughter. “How can I believe in their sincerity when I have heard all these stories from my father?”

    The Tsitsernakaberd memorial in Yerevan to the Armenian victims
    of Ottoman Turkish violence.

    Philologist Mkrtich Hambardzumian similarly equates the Turkey of the Ottoman past with the Turkey of the present. He takes issue with Turkish assertions that Turkey’s border with Armenia cannot be reopened until Armenian forces withdraw from Azerbaijani territory surrounding Karabakh. “What are we talking about? Turkey forgetting its bloody history now tries to interfere with the Karabakh issue,” he fumed. “I’m not a political scientist, but the protocol is worrying.”

    Suspicion in Yerevan about Turkey’s motives is far from universal, however. Some passers-by at the protest commented on the irony of a former government coalition member now staging hunger strikes to block a government policy. Other Yerevan residents said protestors should consider the future. “I don’t say we need to forget the past,” said 25-year-old designer Emma Babaian. “But two neighbors cannot live with closed borders forever. Bilateral relations will help Armenia economically and will offer an alternative route to Europe.”

    The protests are not limited to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. The Heritage Party, the only opposition party represented in parliament, has written Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian about holding a referendum on the protocols. Earlier, Heritage Party leaders proposed a vote of confidence in the president, and a petition to the Constitutional Court. On 15 September, the party called on all members of parliament to appeal for “radical” changes in the protocols.

    “The development of Armenian-Turkish relations cannot directly or indirectly be linked to the establishment of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,” asserted the Heritage Party’s parliamentary faction secretary, Larisa Alaverdian.

    Meanwhile, Suren Surenyants, a senior supporter of ex-President Levon Ter-Petrosian, the head of Armenia’s main opposition coalition, argues that Turkey wants to take on a leadership role in the South Caucasus, and will, therefore, try to play the role of an impartial mediator on Karabakh. The documents pose no danger to Armenia, he continued. Those casting doubt on Turkey perhaps are trying to conceal their own private agenda, he hinted. “Political groups should be sincere,” he said. “Either we want [to establish] diplomatic relations [with Turkey], which means we need these protocols, or we do not.”

    Marianna Grigoryan is a freelance reporter in Yerevan. A partner post from EurasiaNet.

  • Bloody Turk! by ORHAN KEMAL CENGİZ

    Bloody Turk! by ORHAN KEMAL CENGİZ

    Orhan Kemal Cengiz appears to be on the way to nobel price as Orhan Pamuk.

    ALSO SEE THE RELATED ARTICLE BY  Armen Hareyan

    Top Turkish Newspaper Openly Writes of Armenian Genocide

    Turkish Forum

    —————————————————————————————————-

    I am not a religious person. I am not Kurdish. I am not gay. I am not Christian. I am not Armenian. I am not Roma. But I have spent all my life defending these people’s rights

    I am a human rights defender. When I describe myself, I say I am a human rights defender, a lawyer and a writer. It was during my first time in London in 1998 that I realized, no matter what I do, I was a “bloody Turk” for some people. Ironically, I was working for the Kurdish Human Right Project there, and we were taking cases to the European Court of Human Rights, as a result of which I felt deeply threatened by the deep state elements in my country. When I met with the Armenian community in London, I turned into a representative of Turkey. It was the first time my “Turkishness” took precedence over all my qualifications.Massacres of Armenians were orchestrated and organized by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) — which came to power through a military coup — while the Ottoman Empire was falling apart. After these massacres and as a result of the lack of confrontation with our past, the CUP and its gangs changed their format and turned into the “deep state” in Turkey. These deep state elements continued their massacres and manipulations and drenched Turkey with blood during the Republican era. We have these deep state elements, but we also have many people fighting against them with or without knowing the history. The Ergenekon trial, in this sense, is a turning point in this endeavor in Turkey. You can think of the Ergenekon gang as the armed wing of the CUP in today’s Turkey.

    The massacres of Armenians were carried out by a certain mindset, by a political movement. Unfortunately, this political movement also created the official Turkish history, one in which there is no place for Armenians. And the state is in complete denial of what happened in Turkey in the past. This denial unfortunately gives strong support to a racist approach toward Turkey and its people.

    I was in Toronto last year attending an extremely interesting course on genocide. For two weeks we went into all the details of different genocides that took place in various parts of the world. All lecturers gave exemplary presentations, and I felt I had really learned something. However, I also realized that there was a fundamental difference in the way in which the Armenian genocide is being handled. When we spoke about the Holocaust, we spoke of the Nazi regime; when we discussed the genocide in Cambodia, we talked about the Khmer regime; when it came to the Armenian genocide, though, we only heard the word “Turks.”

    Complete and blanket denial feeds complete and absolute labeling. This is a vicious circle. It is very unfortunate that some Armenians, while believing they are seeking justice, have turned into hopeless racists. They do not want to believe that there are many good people in this country. They do not want to remember that there were also Turks who lost their lives while trying to protect Armenians. They hold tightly on to this image of the “bloody Turk.” Every Turk, every individual living in Turkey, is just a murderer for them.

    The pathology of amnesia and the pathology of blind hatred are two sides of one coin. They both serve the same purpose: Both leave Turks and Armenians as deeply neurotic people.

    In the midst of all this madness, Hrant Dink was a safe haven of reason, wisdom and compassion. He had a deep understanding of Turkey and the trauma we have been suffering for so long. He was killed because he was the hope in the face of this madness. He could have been killed by an Armenian racist. But instead, he was killed by Turkish racists, of course, under the guidance of the deep state. Dink was a bloody Turk for Armenian racists and an Armenian traitor for racist Turks. He was a dangerous figure for all who wanted to continue this vicious circle of hatred. During his funeral, we chanted, “We all are Hrant Dink.” We all need to be Dink if we wish to contribute to reconciliation. I bow respectfully before his memory.

  • Top Turkish Newspaper Openly Writes of Armenian Genocide

    Top Turkish Newspaper Openly Writes of Armenian Genocide

    Written by Armen Hareyan
    Founder of HULIQ.com

    {6769EB17-9FBE-47D6-99F9-056F06D9EBA0}In a very rare news article published by one of the top newspapers in Turkey Today’s Zaman the author openly speaks about the Armenian Genocide and how they were orchestrated.

    In the beginning it was total silence and denial. Then in the recent two years we started seeing phrases like “so called Armenian Genocide,” “Armenian claims of genocide,” and so on. In any case the word genocide was always written in quotation marks. Yet today, one of Turkey’s premier newspapers Today’s Zaman published a rare story about how the Armenian Genocide was organized and orchestrated by the ruling elite of the Turkish government in 1915.

    Orhan Kemal Cengiz, a human rights advocate writes that the “Massacres of Armenians were orchestrated and organized by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) — which came to power through a military coup — while the Ottoman Empire was falling apart. After these massacres and as a result of the lack of confrontation with our past, the CUP and its gangs changed their format and turned into the “deep state” in Turkey. These deep state elements continued their massacres and manipulations and drenched Turkey with blood during the Republican era. We have these deep state elements, but we also have many people fighting against them with or without knowing the history.”

    True the word genocide is not used in that paragraph. Instead Cengiz is using the phrase Massacres of Armenians. However, in the 5th paragraph he openly talks about the Armenan genocide in the following way. “I was in Toronto last year attending an extremely interesting course on genocide. For two weeks we went into all the details of different genocides that took place in various parts of the world. All lecturers gave exemplary presentations, and I felt I had really learned something. However, I also realized that there was a fundamental difference in the way in which the Armenian genocide is being handled. When we spoke about the Holocaust, we spoke of the Nazi regime; when we discussed the genocide in Cambodia, we talked about the Khmer regime; when it came to the Armenian genocide, though, we only heard the word “Turks.”

    While his sincerity is most appreciated he does have a point that when the world refers of the Jewish or Cambodia national tragedies we do refer to regimes. However, we speak of the Armenian Genocide Turks are indeed pointed. But why is this?

    It is the 90 years of the denial of the truth and the fear to face its own history that has made things come to this place, where a Turk is pointed when speaking of the Armenian Genocide. Why is it taking Germany only 20 years to face the Jewish Holocaust, say thank you and compensate, but when it comes to the Armenian Genocide even the past 90 years are not enough?

    It is believe that if Turkey had earlier recognized the genocide and condemned it the following generations would have blamed it to the ruling regime of the time not the nation. In fact, I have heard many stories that many Turkish families have risked their lives hiding the Armenian families, their neighbors from massacres and killings in and around 1915.

    A historic moment is upon us. Today the president of Armenian, meeting with the leaders of various Armenian parties and discussing the pre-signing of the Turkey Armenia normalization protocols, despite much criticism, said that “we want to show that even the nation that has fallen a victim to a genocide can be the first to offer a hand of normalization of relationship.” Arming themselves with sincerity, honesty and the sense of fairness and justice the Armenian, Turkish and Azerbaijani nations should look to a new South Caucasus, building a better future for their children and themselves.

    Written by Armen Hareyan
    Founder of HULIQ.com

    Armen Hareyan is the Publisher of providing daily news on topics of personal health, finance and health insurance.

    Related Articles

    • The best defense for Turkey against Armenian Genocide is to simply state the truth
    • President of Armenia: ‘I Am Going to Solve Problems’
    • Armenia, Turkey Agree On Protocol To Establish Diplomatic Relations
  • International Conference on Genocide, International Law Concludes in Beirut

    International Conference on Genocide, International Law Concludes in Beirut

    BEIRUT—A two-day international conference on “The Armenian Genocide and International Law,” organized by Haigazian University and the Armenian National Committee of the Middle East (ANC-ME), concluded on Sept. 4.

    A scene from the conference.

    The conference drew in 13 experts in genocide and international law from the U.S., Canada, Switzerland, Ireland, Armenia, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon, who joined more than 80 local political scientists, activists, sociologists, historians, religious leaders, educators, international correspondents, journalists, and students in addressing the consequences of the Armenian Genocide and promoting a fair perspective through international law.

    It covered such topics as genocide denial and recognition, Turkish nationalism, and the politics of denial, as well as the economic aspect of the genocide and the issue of lands and assets. Within the framework of international law, the conference discussed the general topic of genocide and crimes against humanity, retribution, and the preservation of the Armenian cultural heritage.

    More specifically, Dr. George Charaf (University of Lebanon) lectured on the problem of minorities and majorities, discussing the case of the Ottoman Empire. Dr. Ugur Ungor (University of Sheffield) talked about demographic engineering in the Ottoman Empire and the genocide. Dr. Mohammad Rifaat (University of Alexandria) discussed the Armenian Question according to Arab sources. Dr. William Schabas (National University of Ireland) discussed the problems and prospects of the genocide and international law, 60 years after the International Genocide Convention. Dr. Alfred De Zayas (Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations) elaborated on the issues of justice and international law regarding the genocide. Khatchig Mouradian (Ph.D. student, Clark University) lectured on the Armenians, Raphael Lemkin, and the UN Convention. Dr. Taner Akcam’s paper, entitled “Turkish Nationalism and the Armenian Genocide Issue in Turkey Today,” was presented in absentia. Dr. Ragip Zarakolu (vice president, Human Rights Association of Turkey) tackled the issue of genocide denial and law in Turkey.

    Mouradian, Manoyan, Schabas, and De Zayas.

    In the same context, Dr. Seyhan Bayraktar (University of Zurich) covered the evolution of Armenian Genocide denial in the Turkish press. Bilgin Ayata (PhD. Candidate, John Hopkins University) discussed Kurdish-Armenian relations and the Armenian Genocide. Dr. Roger Smith (professor emeritus of government, College of William and Mary) lectured on professional ethics and the denial of the Armenian Genocide. Dr. Henry Theriault (Worcester State College) discussed restorative justice and alleviating the consequences of genocide. And finally, Dr. Richard Hovannisian (UCLA) covered the issue of universalizing the legacy of the Armenian Genocide.

    The sessions were moderated by Dr. Arda Ekmekji, Dr. Naila Kaidbey, Giro Manoyan, Dr. Rania Masri, Dr. Joseph Bayeh, Dr. Ohannes Geukjian, Antranig Dakessian, and Dr. Haig Demoyan. Conference organizers have announced that the presentations will be published in a volume.

    Rev. Dr. Paul Haidostian, the president of Haigazian University, said that such conferences keep the genocide issue alive and add to the increasingly growing international momentum toward recognition. “The topic of genocide, and this conference in particular, will hopefully open the door to further academic studies and research, activating deeper study in the economic, social, and legal aspects of inter-state relations,” he said.

    “The Armenian Genocide is not simply an Armenian problem but essentially an international burden,” he added. “The victim carries a strong sense of ownership of pain, but human civilization cannot be considered as highly developed if it does not embrace a sense of advocacy for the victimized.”

    Haidostian spoke about four key points. First, “that injustices of any nation against any other nation are part of the same human manifestation of evil that require joint and effective global action.” Second, “that this international conference convenes in a country, Lebanon, which continues to be a unique land of dialogue and culture despite the ever-present seeds of misunderstanding.” Third, giving the example of Haigazian University, and more specifically the name of Armenag Haigazian, a victim of the genocide, Haidostian emphasized that “our calling has been and continues to be standing up for new life not only for Armenians but especially for our Arab brothers and sisters, and really, all people of the world.” Finally, Haidostian explained that given the fact that the conference was being held at a university no academic community can be value-neutral. “A university may be a neutral medium of dialogue, but it is essentially a forum of passion for deeper knowledge, responsibility, and enlightenment.”

    In her message, Vera Yacoubian, the executive director of the ANC-ME, spoke about the efforts of the ANC in highlighting the Armenian community’s role throughout the Middle East, its coexistence with surrounding Arab and Islamic communities, and its efforts in addressing the Armenian Cause.

    Yacoubian expressed hope that the conference would provide a significant breakthrough in analyzing the Armenian Genocide, as it brought together a large group of specialists in the arena of genocide and international law.

    Regarding Turkish-Armenian relations, Yacoubian noted, “We cannot ignore or disregard recent developments and address these pending issues without resolving past history between the two nations. Indeed, Turkish-Armenian relations carry the heavy burden of the Armenian Genocide and there is high level of doubt and mistrust regarding Turkish intentions.”

    Yacoubian concluded by questioning Turkey’s responsibility towards acknowledging the Armenian Genocide and the future of the Armenian Cause.

    Marios Garoyan, the president of the House of Representatives of Cyprus, gave the inaugural speech at the conference on Sept. 2. His presence as the guest speaker, he said, was driven by his country’s “commitment to international law, peace, security, and stability, but also the determination to continue to condemn, on every possible occasion, any infringement of international law by acts of genocide.”

    “On the one hand, governments and parliaments should act together and closely cooperate in terms of assessing the progress made with regard to the implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and identify measures to be taken at all levels,” he said. “On the other hand, it is the states that must cooperate for the prevention and punishment of those responsible for the crime of genocide.”

    Garoyian questioned Turkey’s role as mediator, peacemaker, and peacekeeper in the wider Middle East, while Turkey continues to deny the truth of the crimes perpetrated by its Ottoman predecessors.

    He noted that Cyprus has always stood by the Armenian people in their struggle for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In 1975, the Cyprus House of Representatives was one of the first parliaments in the world to adopt a resolution calling the atrocities inflicted upon the Armenians “genocide.” Garoyian added that Cyprus and its people have many more reasons to understand the injustice of the genocide due to “the implementation of Turkey’s policy of ethnic cleansing against Cyprus’ population during the 1974 invasion and the continuing occupation of 37 percent of Cyprus’ territory.”

    Among the capacity audience were Minister Alain Tabourian, representing the Lebanese president, Michel Suleiman; parliament member Hagop Pakradouni, representing the parliament speaker, Nabih Berry; Minister Jean Oghasabian, representing the president of the Council of Ministers, Fouad Sanioura; parliament member Sebouh Kalpakian, representing the appointed president of the Council of Ministers, Saad Rafic Hariri; parliament member Shant Chinchinian; ambassadors of the United Kingdom, Cyprus, Uruguay, and the Czech Republic; the president of the Union of Armenian Evangelical Churches in the Near East, Rev. Megrdich Karagozian; the Prelate of the Armenian Apostolic Church of Lebanon, Bishop Kegham Khatcherian; the president of the Armenian Protestant community in Syria, Rev. Haroutune Selimian; representatives of embassies, Armenian and Lebanese political parties, and cultural associations; former members of parliament; ministers; religious leaders; and guests of the conference.

    The inaugural session of the conference took place at the hall of the First Armenian Evangelical Church of Beirut. Public lectures by some of the participants of the conference took place during the first week of September.

  • NORMALIZING TUKISH-ARMENIAN TIES: WILL DAVUTOGLU’S GAMBLE PAY OFF?

    NORMALIZING TUKISH-ARMENIAN TIES: WILL DAVUTOGLU’S GAMBLE PAY OFF?

    Svante E. Cornell and M. K. Kaya

    14 September 2009 issue of the Turkey Analyst at http://www.turkeyanalyst.org

    In its laudable attempts to reduce tensions with its neighbors and to gain a greater influence in the South Caucasus, the AKP government has made itself dependent on forces that it cannot control. Unless Armenia and Azerbaijan strike a deal rapidly, Turkey will inevitably be forced to choose between reneging on its commitment to normalize relations with Armenia or risk a breakdown in its relations with Azerbaijan. In either situation, Moscow will be the geopolitical winner. Western, in particular American, activity to support an agreement on principle between Armenia and Azerbaijan is urgently called for.

    BACKGROUND: On August 31, the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministers announced they had agreed to sign two protocols on establishing diplomatic relations and on broader bilateral ties. This breathed new life into the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process, which had been ongoing for months, mediated by the Swiss Foreign Ministry. But it also opened wounds from last spring, when hard opposition both from Turkish public opinion and the Azerbaijani government and public forced the AKP government to halt the rapprochement. As was the case then, the main issue that Turkish opposition political parties and the Azerbaijani government oppose is the planned opening of the Turkish-Armenian border. Last spring, the timing of the first protocol for April 2009 was planned to fall before April 24, Armenian Remembrance Day in the United States, but after the Turkish local elections of March 29. But as it happened, the electoral setback the AKP suffered in those elections made it more, not less vulnerable to tough opposition coming from the Nationalist Action Party (MHP) and Republican People’s Party (CHP), and in fact contributed to the postponement of the announcement of the concrete protocols. The campaign initiated in Turkey by the Azerbaijani government was the other reason that forced the AKP to step back. Indeed, Azerbaijani parliamentarians visited Turkey to argue their case, appealing to Turkey not to open the border as long as Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani territories continued. In a spectacular move, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev canceled a planned trip to Istanbul during the summit of the Alliance for Civilizations, in spite of repeated pleas for his attendance by U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In an act of damage control, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan then visited Baku and made clear in his address to the Azerbaijani Parliament that the Turkish-Armenian border will remain closed until a mutually acceptable solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is found. In effect, Turkey had reverted to its long-standing policy of linking its relationship to Armenia with the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. During the summer of 2009, three important developments contributed to changing the regional atmosphere. Following the electoral setback, the AKP in May announced a broad cabinet shakeup. (See May 8 issue of the Turkey Analyst) The long-time architect of the AKP’s foreign policy, Ahmet Davutoğlu, was appointed Foreign Minister. His elevation from being Erdoğan’s chief foreign policy advisor cemented his influence over Turkish foreign policy. (See June 5 issue of the Turkey Analyst) Second, partly as a result of the same cabinet shakeup that included the appointment of a new Minister of Energy, Ankara became much more constructive on the Nabucco pipeline negotiations. (See May 22 issue of the Turkey Analyst). This contributed to the signing on July 13 of an Inter-Governmental Agreement on the Nabucco pipeline, in which Azerbaijani President Aliyev, significantly, did not participate, sending instead his energy minister. Almost immediately, Moscow went on a counter-offensive to this move, with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin visiting Ankara on August 6, where he managed to get a Turkish signature to a Protocol on the rival South Stream pipeline. (See August 17 issue of the Turkey Analyst) It is in this complex and rapidly shifting geopolitical environment that the Protocols were announced on August 31, and introduced to the respective publics of the region. The plan appeared to be to allow for public debate of the Protocols, and to present them for ratification by parliament at the end of September. This again raised the political temperature, with acrimony concerning not so much the prospect of establishing diplomatic relations, but of opening the Turkish-Armenian border without progress on the Karabakh conflict.

    IMPLICATIONS: The rationale for the rapprochement with Armenia is as clear today as it was in April. From Armenia’s perspective, the normalization of relations with Turkey will result in the revival of the Armenian economy which has been under a heavy burden, and the reduction of the gravest perceived threat to Armenia’s security. Although the border is closed, approximately 70,000 Armenians work in Turkey. Clearly, that number would grow if relations were normalized. More importantly, Armenia would be relieved of its regional isolation. The opening with Turkey would do a lot to counter the last decade’s tendency of depopulation and isolation of Armenia. Armenian nationalist and Diaspora organizations are nevertheless hostile to the rapprochement, since it includes the recognition by Armenia of Turkey’s territorial integrity and the current Armenian-Turkish border. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation last spring left the governing coalition precisely over this issue. As for Turkey, such a rapprochement conforms with Davutoğlu’s “zero problem” approach to relations with Turkey’s neighbors. In fact, after successive rapprochements with formerly antagonistic neighbors including Greece and Syria, Turkey’s relationship with Armenia stand out as the one in need of attention. Secondly, the rapprochement with Armenia fits directly into Ankara’s relations with both the United States and the European Union, both of whom are putting pressure on the AKP government on the issue. American pressure in particular affects the AKP, since the Turkish-Armenian opening was President Barack Obama’s main justification for reneging on electoral promises to acknowledge the Ottoman-era massacres of Armenians as genocide. Finally, the AKP sees the opening to Armenia as a way to reinvigorate its presence in the South Caucasus following the Russian invasion of Georgia last year. The problem from Ankara’s vantage point, of course, is that the closure of the Turkish-Armenian border was the main concrete way in which Turkey supported Azerbaijan following the 1992-93 Armenian occupation of close to a fifth of Azerbaijan’s territory and the ensuing ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis from their homes. As such, as long as the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is unresolved and Azerbaijani internally displaced persons are unable to return to their homes, Turkish policy towards Armenia cannot be dissociated from its relations with Azerbaijan. Whether one likes it or not, this implies that Turkish moves toward Armenia cannot avoid affecting its relations with the several times larger, richer, energy-endowed, and more strategically located Azerbaijan, which on top of everything is a brotherly Turkic country. Indeed, Azerbaijani as well as Turkish leaders have adopted the phrase “one nation, two states” to indicate their closeness. In that context, an opening to Armenia that is generally perceived as detrimental to Azerbaijan is explosive stuff in Turkish domestic politics, let alone in Ankara’s relationship with Baku. This conundrum is replicated in the AKP government’s recent statements, which are contradictory. On the one hand, at least judging by the available draft text, the government in signing the protocol effectively commits to opening the Turkish-Armenian border within two months of ratification. Indeed, Davutoğlu himself publicly suggested the border could open by the end of the year. Meanwhile, Davutoğlu and other officials have stated that no move hurting the interests of Azerbaijan will be taken, including explicit references to the border opening. The only way these conflicting statements can be reconciled is if the parallel process of conflict resolution between Armenia and Azerbaijan reaches concrete goals. Indeed, the AKP’s only hope to calm both its domestic opposition and Azerbaijan lies in the anticipated conclusion of a preliminary deal between Baku and Yerevan envisaging the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the five occupied provinces of Azerbaijan outside Nagorno Karabakh itself. If that were to happen, the AKP would come off as a winner, and could take credit for contributing to this important process.

    CONCLUSIONS: In its laudable attempts to reduce tensions with its neighbors and to gain a greater influence in the South Caucasus, the AKP government appears to have made itself dependent on forces that it cannot control. Indeed, negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan have gone on for a decade and a half without reaching concrete results. Even if recent months appear to have seen greater progress toward an agreement in principle on a process of resolution to the conflict, it is far too early to assume that such an agreement on principle is about to be signed. As earlier attempts have shown, there is much that could derail the process at the last minute. By apparently indexing its hopes on that prospect, Ankara is taking a significant risk. Should presidents Sarkisian and Aliyev fail to reach an agreement on principle in coming weeks, the AKP will be forced either to renege on its commitment to normalize ties with Armenia, or to fulfill them but causing a breakdown in its relations with Azerbaijan – itself hardly consistent with a zero-problem policy with its neighbors. In either situation, Ankara loses – and the sole winner in geopolitical terms would be Moscow, which has long courted Azerbaijan and seems to feel that it is on the verge of ‘capturing’ Baku from the West, just as it ‘captured’ Uzbekistan in 2005. Azerbaijan’s foreign policy is considerably more stable, but may be reaching the limits of its balancing capacity. Two conclusions can be drawn from Ankara’s delicate balancing. The first is the urgency for Western, in particular American, activity to support a possible agreement on principle between Armenia and Azerbaijan. In spite of much disillusionment in earlier negotiations, the alignment of stars appears of a different order now, more conducive to progress. And in that sense, Turkish activism could be the key ingredient to achieving success on both fronts. A second and unrelated conclusion is that the Turkish parliament’s role in this process should not be underestimated. Indeed, it is very doubtful if the AKP, despite its large majority in parliament, could get the votes for an opening of the Armenian border without progress on Nagorno Karabakh. Indeed, strong voiced within the party are in strong disagreement with the leadership. In this sense, the situation is reminiscent of the 2003 vote on the Iraq war. Back then, the party leadership allowed members to vote freely according to their conscience, thereby avoiding having to enforce party discipline on an unwilling parliamentary group – and giving itself an exit strategy. Once again, the Turkish parliament could fulfill much the same function should Davutoğlu’s gamble not pay off.

    Svante E. Cornell is Research Director of the CACI & SRSP Joint Center and Editor-in-Chief of the Turkey Analyst. M.K. Kaya is a contributing editor.

  • Didier Billion: “ARMENIAN DIASPORA SHOULD LEAVE LIVING IN THE PAST”

    Didier Billion: “ARMENIAN DIASPORA SHOULD LEAVE LIVING IN THE PAST”

    BILLION: ARMENIAN DIASPORA SHOULD LEAVE LIVING IN THE PAST
    HISTORY OF TRUTH
    Tuesday, 15 September 2009
    Deputy chairman of the Paris based International and Strategical Relations Institute (Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques -IRIS) Didier Billion said, “I hope Armenian diaspora does not prevent realization of protocols.”
    Deputy chairman of the Paris based Institut de Relations Internationales et Stratégiques, Didier Billion evaluated the process of normalization between Turkey and Armenia. Billion observes Turkey and Turkish world closely and has two books and several articles about Turkey.
    Turkey specialist Didier Billion stated that the protocols that are initialized with Armenia is a great opportunity. Billion stressed that Nagorno-Karabakh problem should not be forgetten and that it should be resolved meantime. Billion stated that Armenian diaspora should stop growing hatred with using the pain in the past and intead of trying to prevent the solution, it should focus on the future.
    French expert stated that most of diaspora Armenians are traditionally against rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia. He said that diaspora Armenians demand recognition of so called Armenian genocide as a precondition for establishment of good relations between two countries. Billion said, “In my opinion, that is a great mistake. Turkish and Armenian administrations were so clever to not to propose any preconditions. They do not hide anything. As we see in the protocols, a  sub-committee will be established that include historians from Turkey, Armenia and third countries to make researches on 1915 events. That is a perfect method. I hope Armenian diaspora does not prevent realization of this protocols.”
    Billion said, “Even we do not agree on the term of ’genocide’, massacres and terrible events had happened. But i believe that we cannot live in the past. We should look to future.”
    Stating that there are politic circles in Armenian diaspora who are interested to use the pain in the past, Billion said, “They do all they can to prevent Armenians to learn about Turks.”
    NAGORNO-KARABAKH SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PROCESS
    Stating that the process of normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia should not be independent of Azerbaijan, Billion said, “Prime Minister Erdogan had stated that they will not open borders unless Nagorno-Karabakh problem is resolved. But we see that there is no such thing in protocols. There we witness a political struggle there. I believe in the dynamism of Turkish diplomacy. With usage of the dynamism that emerges with the efforts of OSCE Minsk Group, Nagorno-Karabakh problem will be brought to the center of discussions.”
    Billion stated that Turkey should be one of the co-chairs in the OSCE Minsk Group with Russia, United States and France. “Nagorno-Karabakh conflict should not be ignored because if that problem remains nothing else could be solved. Normalization of relations, opening of borders, unzipping Armenian diaspora and responding to the demands of Azerbaijan; those should be solved all together.”

    GÜNLÜK BÜLTEN – DAILY BULLETIN
    TARİH / DATE : 15.09.2009 – SAYI / ISSUE : 1

    DİASPORA GEÇMİŞTEN KURTULMALI
    Zaman

    15 Eylül 2009

    Türkiye uzmanı Fransız siyaset bilimci Didier Billion, Türkiye ile Ermenistan arasında diplomatik ilişkileri tesis edecek protokollere sert tepki gösteren diasporanın tutumunu eleştirdi. Billion, Türkiye-Ermenistan yakınlaşmasına başından beri itirazda bulunan Ermeni diasporasını, çözümü engellemeye çalışmak yerine geleceğe bakmaya çağırdı.

    Paris merkezli Uluslararası ve Stratejik İlişkiler Enstitüsü’nün (IRIS) Yardımcı Direktörü Didier Billion, Ermeni diasporasının geçmişin acılarını kullanarak nefret yetiştirmeye son vermesi gerektiğini söyledi. Geleneksel olarak diasporanın Türkiye ile yakınlaşma perspektifine karşı olduğunu ve Ermeni soykırımı iddialarının tanınmasını ön koşul olarak istediklerini dile getiren Fransız uzman, bu yaklaşımı “çok büyük bir hata” olarak nitelendirdi. Türkiye-Ermenistan ilişkilerindeki normalleşme sürecini Cihan’a değerlendiren Billion, “Türk ve Ermeni yönetimleri hiçbir ön koşul öne sürmeyerek çok akıllıca hareket etti. Hiçbir şey saklamış değiller. Protokollerde görüyoruz ki tarihî incelemelerde bulunmak üzere Türk, Ermeni, İsviçreli ve diğer milletlerden uzmanlardan oluşan bir alt komisyon kurulacak.” diye konuştu.

    Türkiye üzerine iki kitabı ve çok sayıda makalesi bulunan Billion, diaspora Ermenilerinin çocukluklarından bu yana Türk nefreti ile yetiştiğinin altını çizerken, “Yalnızca geçmişte yaşanamayacağına da inanıyorum. Geleceğe bakmak gerek.” dedi. Billion, Ermeni diasporası içerisinde acı geçmişi kullanmaktan çıkarları olan siyasî gruplar olduğunu belirterek, “Ermenilerin bugün Türkleri daha yakından tanımamaları için ellerinden geleni yapıyorlar.” ifadelerini kullandı. Türkiye ve Ermenistan’daki bazı kesimlerin müzakerelerin sürmemesi için çalışacağı uyarısında bulunurken sürecin akıbeti konusunda umutlu konuştu: “Bana göre siyasî inisiyatif bağnaz milliyetçiliğin aşılmasını sağlayabilir. ” şeklinde konuştu.

    Fransız siyaset bilimci, Kafkaslar’da kalıcı barış için Azerbaycan-Ermenist an ihtilafının giderilmesi gerektiğinin de altını çizdi. Bu kapsamda, Türkiye’nin Minsk grubunun eşbaşkanlığını sürdüren Rusya, ABD ve Fransa ile birlikte Yukarı Karabağ sorununun çözüm sürecine dahil olması gerektiğini söyledi. Billion, “Yukarı Karabağ sorunu unutulmamalı çünkü o mesele halledilmezse hiçbir şey çözülmez. İlişkilerin normalleşmesi, sınırların açılması, diasporanın direncinin kırılması ve Azerbaycan’ın taleplerinin karşılanması, hepsi bir arada çözülmeli.” ifadelerini kullandı. ZAMAN

    HAKKI ÜNAL STRASBOURG, CİHAN