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

  • Critical thinking – 1919>1923

    Critical thinking – 1919>1923

    ”Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.”

    Ruhat Mengi
    Yazara ulaşmak için : [email protected]

    ***
    Ermeni tasarısına “1923” nasıl girdi?

    Türkiye’nin “Ermeni soykırım iddiası ve Ermeni sınır kapısı” ile ilgili olarak bir kumpasa getirilmesi hep beklendiği için millet de gergin ve şüpheli gözlerle izliyor olayları…

    Almanya’dan yazan Nermin Irmak isimli okurumuz ABD’de Türk lobisinin önemli bir parçası olan Turkish Forum’dan Hande Özdinler’in bir yazısına dikkat çekmiş.

    “Yazılmak istenen yeni tarih budur” başlıklı yazıda Özdinler “Amerikan Meclisi’ne sunulan sözde Ermeni soykırımı yasa tasarısının ilk maddesindeki ‘1915-1919 yılları arasında’denilen kısmın çıkarılıp yerine ‘1915-1923 yılları arasında’ibaresinin getirildiğini, bunun kağıt üzerinde küçük ama tarihsel olarak çok büyük bir değişikliktir olduğunu” anlatıyor. Ve bunu şöyle açıklıyor:

    “Ermenistan Cumhurbaşkanı Sarkisyan 24 Nisan’da ne demişti:

    ‘Türk halkını sorumlu tutmuyoruz. O dönem baştakiler sorumludur’, tarih 1919’dan 1923’e taşınınca baştakinin kim olduğunu söylemeye gerek var mı? Bu ‘olaylar Kurtuluş Savaşı zamanında oldu’ demektir, bu savaşın başkumandanı ise Atatürk’tür. Bu iki rakam değişikliğinden Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Başbakanı ile Cumhurbaşkanı’nın haberi yok mudur? Onların ister olsun, ister olmasın bizim hepimizin haberi olmak zorundadır, lütfen yeni dökümanı okuyun, inceleyin.”

    (Yeni düzenlenmiş dosyanın internet adresini de veriyor.

    Hande Özdinler “Türklerin tarihleriyle yüzleşmesi” istekleri Atatürk’te bitecek, hatta arkadan “Zamanında size yapılanı şimdi Kürtlere yapıyorlar suçlaması gelirse şaşırmayalım” diyor ve ekliyor: “Sarkisyan konuşmasında ‘Türkiye Ermeni soykırımını kabul ederse Türkiye’de laik sistem yıkılır’ dedi, bu cümle son derece güzel bir analizin damıtılmış öz sözüdür, suç Atatürk’ün üstüne yıkılırsa Atatürk 20. yüzyılın ilk azılı katili ilan edilecek ve Kurtuluş Savaşımızın, Cumhuriyet’in meşruluğu bile tartışmaya açılabilecektir.”

    Olaylar adım adım öyle güzel geliştiriliyor ki Türkiye’nin tartışılmaz önderi, kahramanı Atatürk’ün adını 1’inci ve 2’inci Ergenekon iddianamesi’ne bile koyma cüreti gösterilebildi. Zamanla “soykırım” iddiasının Atatürk’e yıkılarak, “Ermenilerin katili” gösterilerek kabul ettirilmesi de hiç imkansız görünmüyor. Türkiye’nin Başbakanı ve Dışişleri Bakanı Amerikan Meclisi’ne sunulan yasa tasarısında 1919 tarihinin nasıl 1923’e dönüştürüldüğünü hemen araştırmak ve itiraz etmek zorundadır. Onların ihmalinin faturasını kuşaklar boyu bu toplum ve ülke ödeyecek yoksa!

  • INTERESTING PROPOSAL BY ARMENIAN EXPERT

    INTERESTING PROPOSAL BY ARMENIAN EXPERT

    ermeni-uzmandan-ilginc-teklif-yukari-karabag_bjpg
    Friday, 01 May 2009
    Founder of Michigan University Armenian Researchs Center and Caucasus expert Associate Professor Ronald Suni said that Karabkh conflict could be solved by giving a self governing status to Nagorno Karabakh while keeping it bounded to Azerbaijan.Giving an interview to Azerbaijani 1News news portal, American scholar said that the problem of Nagorno Karabakh could be solved only by the reconciliation between Azerbaijan and Armenia. He said, “Two basic principle must be applied. The solution should be based on territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and self determination of the people of Nagorno Karabakh. There should be an Armenian administration in Upper Karabakh where mostly populated by Armenians. Upper Karabakh should be given self governing status. But it should remain in the official borders of Azerbaijani state.”

    Caucasia expert claimed that opening of borders might decrease the tension in the region. Suni said, “Opening of the state border between Turkey and Armenia could be a step towards decreasing the tension in the region. Following that development Azerbaijan may remove the embargo to Armenia too. And Yerevan may return the occupied lands back to Azerbaijan. Those are important steps.”

    Armenian expert recognizes that Nagorno Karabakh is Azerbaijani land in his book. Experts writes in his book: “Armenians came to the region which is called as “Ancient Armenia” 2600 years ago. They settled this area after they found Urartu state there. Upper Karabakh is the land of Albanian people. Today grandchildrens of Albanian people is Azerbaijani Turks. Thus, Karabakh is Azerbaijani land.”

  • Bryza on Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan

    Bryza on Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan

     

     
     

    [ 02 May 2009 12:35 ]
    “We have a fair and balanced proposal on the table”

    Washington. Zaur Hasanov – APA. Adviser to US Secretary of State on European and Euarsian Affairs, OSCE Minsk Group US Co-Chair Matthew Bryza’s interview to APA.

    – In the first days of the next week, the MFA of Azerbaijan and Armenia will be in Washington. Is it coincidence or you are setting up a meeting with the ministers?

    – Of course, it is not a coincidence. Secretary of State Clinton as well as the President have both said they want to help bring about significant breakthrough in Naqorno-Karabakh peace process. So we have both foreign ministers here having separate meetings with our Secretary of State and we, the Co-Chairs are preparing for the meetings of the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia on May 7 in Prague.

    – Many think thanks in Washington are raising a concern about the Turkish-Russian rapprochement. They think that Russia helps Turks to find a deal with Armenia but instead may ask Turks to halt any future energy pipeline projects which are planned to bypass Russia. Do you have the same concern?

    – The experts have a right to tell their opinions. As a person who is responsible for our foreign policy toward this region, I can say that Turkey is a key ally and one of our closest friends in the world and is reliable. Turkey should have decent, normal relations with Russia. And we all know that for years there have been very deep business relationships between Turkey and Russia. For example, projects like Blue Stream which aimed to strengthen Russia’s monopoly over gas transit to Europe. But Turkey has been a very active and reliable partner and helped Europe to diversify its energy supplies, both oil and gas, through pipelines linked primarily to Azerbaijan, but also, perhaps, eventually to Turkmenistan and Iraq. So whatever Russia’s ambitions may be, the U.S.-Turkey strategic partnership is strong and will stay strong. Finally, when it comes to Nagorno-Karabakh, all of the Minsk Group Co-Chair countries are one team and are working together to deliver a breakthrough. Russia will no be able to do it alone. In fact, none of the Co-Chair countries will be able to do it alone; we all have to work together.

    – Is there any remark about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the roadmap announced between Turkey and Armenia recently?

    – I am not going to comment on the content of the bilateral agreement between two countries. But what I can say is that there are two processes: Nagorno-Karabakh, or Azerbaijani-Armenian relations, and a separate one for Turkey-Armenian relations. They are two separate processes. In fact, we anticipate they both will move forward simultaneously but at different speeds. We may have more progress on one at one time, and it may slow down at another time. They are separate processes moving forward in parallel, but at different speeds. So I would anticipate that the roadmap focuses on Turkey-Armenian relations. But the last point I am making is that the diplomatic and psychological climate in the region will improve due to Turkey-Armenian normalization. And this will also improve the climate for the Nagorno-Karabakh process.

    – Are you confident that the border opening will change the climate and help foster the negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

    – In diplomacy there is no guarantee except on international legal issues when there are legal guarantees. What we have is a strong opinion by the U.S. in this case, if Turkey-Armenian normalization moves forward, by the way I am not talking about the opening of border, border opening will happen later in the normalization process, but as this normalization process between Turkey and Armenia begins and goes forward, we believe we will see that the prospect for a solution to Nagorny Karabakh conflict will improve. But you don’t have to trust me now. All we can ask is to give us Co-Chairs some times, several months, to work with the parties to achieve a breakthrough. And if we reach the breakthrough maybe next week in Prague or later on in Saint Petersburg, you will know that we are right. Then, every side will be able to move forward together in confidence. If we don’t achieve a breakthrough, if we are wrong, then we know that Azerbaijan will react. So, our job is to focus all our efforts on achieving the breakthrough so everything can move forward smoothly.

    – Do you have any document on table which presidents can sign and reach the breakthrough in Prague?

    – I don’t want to suggest that any document may be signed at that particular meeting. The breakthrough, I am hoping for, does not necessarily require the signing of any documents. We need presidents to agree on a few remaining concepts of our Basic Principals, which will constitute the breakthrough. I don’t think that there is any need to anticipate any document to be signed at this point. The breakthrough, when negotiating the peace agreement, can come in all kind of forms. You can’t get anything on paper unless you worked it out intellectually. The Madrid documents are the last version of the Basic Principals is proposed by the Co-Chairs and they reflect several years of negotiations. From our perspective, our suggestions, in the form of Madrid Documents, remain on the table. We have been working with the presidents and foreign ministers to improve that document and its recommendations, and bring sides closer together. The foundation of our work is the Madrid Document.

    – Ho do you charcaterize the US-Azerbaijan relations?

    – The relationship between Azerbaijan and the USA is a friendship and strategic partnership, and we want to deepen it. We’ve got a whole range of areas where we need to work. Our strategic partnership has been based on security, energy, (where Azerbaijan is one of the important countries anywhere in helping Europe to diversify it supplies of natural gas and oil. Of course, the expansion of the political and economic freedom within Azerbaijan is also important. All those issues are of great importance and are interrelated, and we need to see progress in all three areas at the same time. Right now we are making a major push at the highest level to help to Azerbaijan to address the most important problem, which is the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We have a fair and balanced proposal on the table, which, when implemented will led to return of territories, to return of IDP’s and refugees, and which will bring a sense of security to Armenian and other residents of NK and surrounding territories, and will have a positive impact on stimulating economic growth and prosperity, and lay a foundation for long-term peace.

  • BORDER TURKS WANT DOOR TO ARMENIA KEPT SHUT

    BORDER TURKS WANT DOOR TO ARMENIA KEPT SHUT

    IWPR’S CAUCASUS REPORTING SERVICE, No. 491, May 1, 2009

    Plan to reopen frontier between Armenia and Turkey wins few friends in towns and villages on Turkish side.

    By Sabuhi Mammadli in Igdir, Turkey

    Talk of the possible reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border has left residents in nearby Turkish towns divided on whether such a development is what they need.

    Many say that even if it means certain economic benefits for them, they are not ready to make friends with their Armenian neighbours.

    Igdir is a small town in Turkey. For all its provinciality, it lies in an area of great strategic importance for Turkey, located at an intersection of the country’s borders with Azerbaijan, Armenia and Iran.

    Most of the local people in Igdir are Azeris who moved here from territories in or adjacent to Nagorny Karabakh.

    Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 in sympathy with Azerbaijan, following a series of defeats that the latter had suffered in its war over Nagorny Karabakh.

    There are still no diplomatic relations between the two countries due to the still unresolved Karabakh conflict and Armenia’s demands that Turkey recognise the following: the 1915 mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as a genocide; and the territorial claims of some Armenian political parties to six provinces in Turkey’s north-east.

    But the fact that the opening of the frontier is one of the 35 requirements Turkey needs to meet to be admitted to the European Union has put pressure on Ankara to find a solution.

    Armenia and Turkey, with Switzerland as mediator, have been negotiating behind closed doors on the issue since 2002.

    The unblocking of the border was the top item on the agenda in talks between Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and United States president Barack Obama during the latter’s recent visit to Ankara.

    The issue was also discussed during the Turkish president Abdullah Gul’s short visit to Armenia last September.

    It also featured in the Turkish-Armenian talks being conducted in Switzerland, which resulted in the recent joint declaration of a so-called road map, leading towards hoped-for normalisation of relations.

    Signs that Turkey and Armenia might be moving toward a rapprochement have displeased the Azerbaijan president, Ilham Aliev, however.

    He showed his annoyance by refusing to attend a recent international conference in Ankara, thus sacrificing an opportunity to meet Obama, who attended the event among other high-ranking guests.

    Despite Azerbaijan’s demarches, the Turkish-Armenian road map already envisions reopening two checkpoints on the frontier between the two countries.

    One is located near the village of Alijan in Igdir; the other is in the Kars village of Akyaka.

    Cahid Erol, head of the Igdir department of the National Movement Party, known in Turkey as the MHP, is worried by the momentum leading towards reopening of the border.

    He fears the recent election of a Kurdish mayor in Igdir may have advanced an undesirable, process.

    Erol recently lost the local elections to the candidate of the Kurdish Democratic Society Party, Mehmet Gunesh, whom Erol insists is a sympathiser with the Kurdish Workers’ Party, PKK, deemed a terrorist organisation in Turkey.

    “Now, unfortunately, they’ve appointed a member of the PKK to lead the municipality,” Erol complained.

    He worries that the new Kurdish municipal chief will act on his pledges to open the frontier with Armenia.

    Soon after being elected, Gunesh told a local newspaper he would “open the gates of Alijan”, the village near one of the proposed checkpoints.

    “This will boost the region’s economic development,” he told the same newspaper.

    The idea of trading away Turkey’s alliance with Azerbaijan in exchange for “development” does not appeal to Erol.

    “Our respected [party] chairman, Devlet Bahceli, says, ‘We won’t back off on Karabakh, even if Azerbaijan does,’” he retorted.

    “We would be glad if Azerbaijan took a tough stance on the Turkey-Armenia border reopening issue, and if [President] Aliev upset the plans of Obama and Erdogan.

    “Our party has made its position clear. The border will never be opened, or they will have to step over our dead bodies first.”

    Opinions vary among ordinary residents of Igdir, though many seem as hostile to the reopening of the frontier as Erol.

    Nuri, an employee in the Hotel Barbarossa, in the heart of Igdir, said such a development would stain Turkey’s reputation.

    “I just can’t imagine Armenians traveling freely to Turkey,” he said. “How can it be possible?”

    A local businessman, Ekrem Yesil, struck a similar line. He said the sociology department of the University of Arzrum had recently conducted a survey of 10,000 people, showing the overwhelming majority against reconciliation.

    “Ninety-seven per cent of the respondents said they did not want the border reopened,” Yesil said.

    “Most of the remaining three per cent were members of the pro-government Justice and Development Party.”

    Murat Karademir, of the opposition Popular Republican Party, also adamantly opposes a rapprochement, describing Igdir as “the door to the Caucasus” – a door, he says, that needed to remain firmly shut in Armenia’s face.

    “For Armenians, the town represents a path to Europe via Turkey; in a word, it’s a strategic territory,” he said.

    “Opening this door to Armenians now would mean a catastrophe for Turkey, a threat to its security.

    “Besides, the PKK is very active in this region; it’s not a secret for anyone that many PKK members are trained in Armenia and the occupied Karabakh.

    “It is there that terrorists get their wounds treated. Already it’s very difficult to [prevent them going] crossing into Armenia. Unsealing the border would make it still easier for them to move.”

    Mehmet Aydin, who comes from Alijan and now lives in Igdir, said Ankara had recently made a point of sending envoys to the village to argue for reopening the frontier.

    “They have been saying, ‘You see how Igdir has evolved from a small village into a town after the border with Azerbaijan was opened. That’s what will happen to Alijan, [if the border with Armenia is unsealed]’.

    “Some believe in this propaganda and want [it] to be reopened, but most don’t.”

    But not everyone in Igdir wants the frontier with Armenia to remain shut forever.

    Ahmet Sahin, a local activist of the Democratic Society Party, believes many businesses in Igdir now idling because of economic difficulties could get back on track if the border was opened.

    “I’m an entrepreneur myself,“ he said. “The chemical goods produced at my factory have been collecting dust in storage facilities.

    “What would be wrong if I took my produce to the Armenian market?”

    “The border should be opened, because there are no jobs in Turkey,” agreed Mehmet Broi, a local teacher. “Trade has shrunk too. Armenia is a profitable territory for us.”

    The governor of the area, Mehmet Karahisarli, also sounded a note of optimism about the possible reopening of the border. “[This] would stimulate business activity in both Igdir and the entire district,” he told IWPR.

    But Turkish nationalists continue to reiterate that they will only tolerate seeing the frontier unsealed if Armenia meets a series of conditions.

    These start with Nagorny Karabakh.

    “First of all, Armenia has to un-occupy the territories of Karabakh,” Erol said.

    “Secondly, they should get the genocide demand out of their heads. Thirdly, they should stop asking Turkey for compensation. Fourthly, they should give up their territorial claims regarding Turkey. Fifthly, they should admit to the [February 1992] massacre [of Azeris] in Khojali.

    “Once the Armenians have met all these conditions, Erdogan and Gul can even become related to [Armenian president Serzh] Sargsian for all we care.

    “Until they do, we have nothing to talk about.”

    Sabuhi Mammadli is a freelance journalist.

  • Karabakh Eyes Armenia-Turkey Thaw With Suspicion

    Karabakh Eyes Armenia-Turkey Thaw With Suspicion

    The recent warming in the relations of the two estranged neighbours provokes ambiguous reactions in Nagorny Karabakh.

    By Karine Ohanian in Stepanakert (CRS No. 491, 1-May-09)

    In the Armenian enclave of Nagorny Karabakh, there is only one topic of discussion right now: the possible restoration of the ties between Armenia and Turkey, opening of the borders, and what it all means for people here.

    With the Swiss playing the role of mediators, Armenia and Turkey on April 23 announced they had agreed on a so-called road map leading towards normalisation of relations, broken off by Turkey in 1993.

    Political parties, NGOs and local authorities in Nagorny Karabakh have reacted by maintaining that the problem of Armenian-Turkish relations cannot be resolved aside from the Karabakh conflict.

    They say the border issue, acknowledgement of the 1915 Armenian genocide and the problem of Nagorny Karabakh’s status must be solved in one package.

    The unrecognised republic, which has a population of about 140,000, has been demanding independence from Azerbaijan since 1988.

    At the beginning of the Karabakh conflict, Turkey – which hotly disputes the scale of the killings of 1915, as well as use of the term genocide – proclaimed itself Azerbaijan’s “elder brother” and in 1993 imposed a blockade on Armenia.

    Many Armenians continue to regard Turks and Azerbaijanis as members of the same nation, associating both with the terrible events of 1915.

    Therefore, political experts in Nagorny Karabakh view the problem of Armenia-Turkey relations and the Karabakh issue as elements of a single national issue.

    “It’s a very tricky situation for Karabakh, since we place Armenia-Turkey and Armenia-Azerbaijan relations in one bracket,” Hrachia Arzumanian, a local expert on security issues, told IWPR.

    Arzumanian says local people were surprised to hear that Armenia and Turkey had agreed on a road map towards better relations just before April 24, when Armenians traditionally commemorate the events of 1915.

    They had been expecting to hear the word genocide in a speech by United States president Barack Obama that day. He had promised to use the term during his presidential campaign. In the event, Obama used the Armenian phrase mets yeghern instead, which means great massacre.

    “Now this trump card gives them [the Americans] a good excuse to draw back from recognition of the genocide,” Arzumanian continued.

    “Another strange thing here is whether Turkey has made this step forward towards warming relations without preconditions and whether Karabakh will pay the price for this.”

    David Babaian, head of information for the Nagorny Karabakh president, Bako Sakahian, doubts the entity will be sacrificed on the altar of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation.

    On the contrary, “the thaw in Armenia-Turkey relations simply rules out the rhetoric of one-sided concessions to Azerbaijan”, he said.

    “It’s in Turkey’s interests to emerge as the main geopolitical actor in the South Caucasus; but it must do so without setting any preconditions, because this undermines that whole process,” he went on.

    The information chief noted that in the Azerbaijan-Karabakh conflict, if the balance of power tilted too far against the entity, “this threatens not only us, but Armenia too. The Armenian authorities know this, so I think the [peace] process is for the sake of all Armenians and for Karabakh’s sovereignty as well”.

    Not everyone is convinced that Nagorny Karabakh stands to benefit from a rapprochement between Yerevan and Ankara, however.

    “I am against the border reopening right now, on the eve of anniversary of the genocide, and I’m afraid that in taking this step Armenian diplomacy is losing its advantage,” David Ishkhanian, a representative of Armenian Revolutionary Federation, ARF, in Artsakh (the Armenian name for Nagorny Karabakh), said.

    Ishkhanian said Azerbaijan and Turkey remained united in pursuit of their anti-Armenian policy.

    “It’s time to reopen a ‘Karabakh front’ in diplomacy and unite the efforts of the diaspora, Armenia and Karabakh towards reaching our common goals,” Ishkhanian said.

    Meanwhile, April 24, the 94th anniversary of Armenian holocaust, was marked by extraordinarily active and crowded rallies in Nagorny Karabakh.

    People lit candles all night long while youth organisations arranged a torch-lit procession, which ended with burning of the Turkish flag – notwithstanding the protests of law-enforcement agencies.

    A large number of Nagorny Karabakh residents gathered at the memorial to the genocide victims in the capital Stepanakert in spite of rainy weather.

    “This year, especially with regard to recent political developments, I was particularly eager to take part in the commemoration of the genocide and tell the whole world about the necessity of its recognition,” Anush Gavarian, of the Club of Young Political Analysts, said.

    “It wasn’t Armenia that closed its borders with Turkey but vice-versa. Turkey acted against Armenia and still tries to speak set preconditions.”

    No fan of the current reconciliation process, Gavarian said she feared a repeat of events in the 1920s, when Russia and Turkey “decided to sacrifice Armenians and possibly the whole of Karabakh for the sake of their own interests”.

    Gavarian was referring to Stalin’s decision to place overwhelmingly Armenian populated Nagorny Karabakh within the borders of Azerbaijan.

    Karen Ohanjanian, leader of the Social Justice Party, told IWPR that local people felt uninvolved and marginalised by much of the recent diplomatic activity.

    “The public has no knowledge of the context of the road map or about the talks between Armenian and Russian presidents on the principles of Karabakh conflict resolution,” Ohanjanian said.

    Russian president Dmitry Medvedev recently met his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sargsian near Moscow to discuss energy cooperation and the Karabakh conflict.

    “I hope no preconditions are set at our expense or, as leader of one of the most powerful parties in Nagorny Karabakh, I will take steps to mobilise the masses to prevent any alteration of the Karabakh security system,” Ohanjanian said.

    “Karabakh can’t cede any territories to the detriment of national and physical security of its residents.”

    All political parties in Nagorny Karabakh have released a common statement, urging the international community to acknowledge the genocide of 1915 and recognise the independence of the entity.

    According to Vahram Atanesian, head of the Democracy faction in parliament, “recent processes show Russia and Turkey are trying to solve the problems in the South Caucasus in accordance with their own interests”.

    He urged politicians from Nagorny Karabakh to “remind the international community and the mediators that a resolution of the Karabakh conflict in line with the concept of dividing the South Caucasus into spheres of influence is unacceptable.

    “Any solution that doesn’t envisage our independence within fixed borders is inadmissible for us.”

    But Masis Mailian, chair of Nagorny Karabakh’s Foreign Policy and Security Council, sounds a more cautious note.

    He describes the joint statement of the foreign ministries of Armenia, Turkey and Switzerland on the road map as convenient for Turkey but not as necessarily detrimental to Armenians.

    “If Turkey really claims a regional leadership role, it must no longer remain captive to the senseless ambitions of Azerbaijan,” he said.

    Mailian said he hoped Ankara’s more “pragmatic attitude” towards Armenia might lead to the restoration of diplomatic ties and reopening of the borders.

    “These moves might [then] prompt Azerbaijan to soften its position, leading to more constructive view of the resolution of the Karabakh conflict,” he added.

    Ashot Gulian, speaker of the Nagorny Karabakh parliament, also supports Yerevan’s drive to heal relations with Turkey.

    “The Armenian side is apparently more interested in reopening of the borders [than is Turkey],” he noted.

    But the speaker still describes the thaw in relations as mutually beneficial, adding that it need not undermine moves to gain world recognition of the 1915 genocide.

    “The opening of the Armenian-Turkish border is necessary for both sides,” he said.

    “But since it was stated before that the reconciliation process must lack any preconditions, the efforts to achieve recognition of the Armenian genocide can’t have any influence on the normalisation of Armenia-Turkey relations.”

    Meanwhile, the numerous traders who have been enjoying the more open border regime between Armenia and Turkey for some time – and who sell products brought from Turkey in Nagorny Karabakh – follow events with interest.

    “I have been traveling to Turkey to buy goods for seven years, and frankly, I have never had any problems there,” Marta Arzumanian, a shopkeeper, told IWPR.

    An acknowledged fan of the road map , Arzumanian added, “Personally, I think reopening the border will make our work much easier and will reduce taxes.”

    Karine Ohanian is a freelance journalist in Stepanakert.

  • Turkey and Armenia’s Rapprochement Watched Carefully by Azerbaijan

    Turkey and Armenia’s Rapprochement Watched Carefully by Azerbaijan

    Turkey and Armenia’s Rapprochement Watched Carefully by Azerbaijan

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 82
    April 29, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    On April 22, the Foreign Ministries of Turkey, Armenia and Switzerland issued a joint announcement saying that Ankara and Yerevan had agreed to work toward improving their relations within the framework of a roadmap under Swiss auspices. United States’ diplomats were also closely involved in the talks which preceded the deal. Although the decision appears as a breakthrough in resolving this long-term dispute, significant obstacles remain before the completion of the rapprochement.

    The joint statement read as follows:

    “The two parties have achieved tangible progress and mutual understanding in this process and they have agreed on a comprehensive framework for the normalization of their bilateral relations in a mutually satisfactory manner. In this context, a road-map has been identified” (www.mfa.gov.tr, April 22).

    Subsequent statements from diplomatic sources clarified that no agreement has been signed and that the parties agreed to continue working toward fully normalizing their bilateral relations. Although the content of the ongoing talks were not disclosed officially, the deal is likely to include establishing diplomatic representations in their respective capitals, gradual re-opening of the border, Armenia’s recognition of Turkey’s international borders, and forming a joint committee of historians to examine the disputed events of 1915 (Sabah, April 24).

    Many observers believe that if the process can be concluded successfully, it will not only end the long-standing enmity within the South Caucasus, but it also will redefine the geopolitical map of the region -helping to connect Armenia with Western interests in the region. Therefore, the decision was welcomed by the international community as a constructive step toward reconciliation. A statement from the U.S. State Department commended these efforts and called on the parties to proceed with the talks without any preconditions and within a reasonable time frame.

    Initially this was anticipated against the background of the ongoing dialogue, which had accelerated over the past year. This was given a renewed impetus following Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s historic visit to Yerevan in September 2008. In addition to their various bilateral talks, the foreign ministers of both countries also met within the context of multilateral initiatives, raising expectations that a deal could be achieved. Earlier press reports speculated that the two capitals had agreed on a roadmap in late March, but they were debating the proper timing to announce this decision (EDM, March 27; Hurriyet Daily News, March 30). After Obama’s recent high profile trip to Turkey, Turkish-Armenian reconciliation was considered imminent.

    However, following Obama’s visit, Ankara stepped back from its commitment to find a solution in an effort to allay concerns in Baku. The Turkish Prime Minister and other officials declared publicly that they would avoid steps which might damage Azerbaijan’s interests, and Turkey would not re-open its border with Armenia unless the latter ended its occupation of Azerbaijani territories (EDM, April 17). These developments rendered an agreement less likely.

    The announcement that the parties had held secret talks and committed publicly to a roadmap represented a major breakthrough. Nonetheless, there have been conflicting accounts from each side as to whether concessions were made on preconditions to start the negotiations. The continued mystery surrounding the content of the talks may prove an obstacle to a final settlement. Nationalist forces and the opposition, both within Turkey and Armenia, remain opposed to the way in which the rapprochement is being conducted -in an absence of public scrutiny. Secret diplomacy is the key to achieving a breakthrough in such protracted disputes, and supporters of normalization on both sides insist that the governments should not bow to public pressure to abandon the process (www.ntvmsnbc.com, April 26). Nonetheless, the widening gap between the governments’ rhetoric and reality risks undermining this controversial foreign policy.

    The Armenian government came under intense domestic criticism, and a minor coalition partner withdrew from the government. Similar problems within Turkey have further complicated these efforts. The AKP government proceeded with the normalization without first preparing public opinion for such a radical decision. It has also failed to keep the opposition informed. Turkish opposition parties are now calling on the government to stop conducting diplomacy behind closed doors, and inform parliament of the current standing of the talks (Ortadogu, April 28).

    Moreover, the Turkish government is criticized for failing to give clear answers as to how the Turkish-Armenian roadmap might impact on Azerbaijan. Apparently, Turkey proceeded with the rapprochement without ensuring Armenia’s response to Azerbaijan’s demands, and this stance contradicted Ankara’s earlier statements that it would protect Baku’s interests. For some Turkish observers, this is an indication that the government did not have a genuine desire for reconciliation with Armenia, but it agreed the roadmap only to remove the word “genocide” from Obama’s April 24 message (Sabah, April 27). For others, Ankara’s zigzagging shows that it is acting opportunistically, which undermines the trust of its partners (Hurriyet Daily News, April 24).

    President Gul ruled out any damage to relations with Baku due to the roadmap, and maintained that it will serve the interests of both Baku and Ankara. The Turkish government is attempting to convince Azeri politicians that its efforts toward resolving its problems with Yerevan also promote Azerbaijan’s interests within international forums (Zaman, April 24). Nonetheless, Azerbaijan’s discomfort with these developments is well known.

    After noting that he was not in a position to tell Ankara how to handle its relations with Yerevan, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, said during a visit to Brussels, that Baku reserved the right to revise its policies according to the evolving realities in the region. Referring to the conflicting news about the content of the Turkish-Armenian roadmap deal, Aliyev added “The world, the region and the Azeris want to know whether the Karabakh issue was removed from the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. This is a simple question and has a simple answer” (Cihan Haber Ajansi, April 28).

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-and-armenias-rapprochement-watched-carefully-by-azerbaijan/