Category: Main Issues

Protocol between Turkey and Armenia

—————————————————
Full text of the protocol is as follows:

“The Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Armenia,

Desiring to establish good neighbourly relations and to develop bilateral cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and other fields for the benefit of their peoples, as envisaged in the Protocol on the development of relations signed on the same day,

Referring to their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe,

Reconfirming their commitment, in their bilateral and international relations, to respect and ensure respect for the principles of equality, sovereignty, non-intervention in internal affairs of other states, territorial integrity and inviolability of frontiers,

Bearing in mind the importance of the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere of trust and confidence between the two countries that will contribute to the strengthening of peace, security and stability of the whole region, as well as being determined to refrain from the threat or the use of force, to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes, and to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Confirming the mutual recognition of the existing border between the two countries as defined by the relevant treaties of international law,

Emphasizing their decision to open the common border,

Reiterating their commitment to refrain from pursuing any policy incompatible with the spirit of good neighbourly relations,

Condemning all forms of terrorism, violence and extremism irrespective of their cause, pledging to refrain from encouraging and tolerating such acts and to cooperate in combating against them,

Affirming their willingness to chart a new pattern and course for their relations on the basis of common interests, goodwill and in pursuit of peace, mutual understanding and harmony,

Agree to establish diplomatic relations as of the date of the entry into force of this Protocol in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and to exchange Diplomatic Missions.

This Protocol and the Protocol on the Development of Bilateral Relations between the Republic of Turkey and the Republic of Armenia shall enter into force on the same day, i.e. on the first day of the first month following the exchange of instruments of ratification.”

============================

what benefits protocols bring to Turkey?

1. Image making? None. No one in the West cares if Turkish-Armenian border is opened and, excuse me, but no one in EU will open doors for this favor either.

2. Attempting to get “genocide resolutions” out of U.S. House or Senate? Foul play. It’s not Sarkisian that brings them to House, it’s the Diaspora, which does not intend to pull back. For Diaspora “genocide” is raison d’etre, and no Sarkisyan or his protocols will cure the problem, they will only prolong the bleeding.

3. Peacemaking? – Losing any trust Turkey has built in Caucasus in return to untrustworthy Armenia, rewarding it for continued occupation and harassment of its neighbors (now they heckle Georgia too). To be honest, I don’t see what Turkey has gained so far by spoiling the trust of Israel, Georgia, and now Azerbaijan in return to new friends … like Syria and Armenia.

All these protocols prove is that Turkey will step back from its principles under pressure, hope that Armenia will soften, while Armenia will not compromise an inch and Diaspora (the real plaintiff) will not recognize any commissions.

Javid

————————————————–

ian-we-prepared-the-text-and-ankara-approved-4104.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> NALBANDIAN: “WE PREPARED THE TEXT AND ANKARA APPROVED”
>>> Saturday, 03 October 2009
>>> Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stated that the text of the protocols that initialized by Turkey and Armenia on August 31 is totally written by Armenian authors. The protocols that are initialized by Turkey and Armenia towards establishment of diplomatic ties and developing bilateral relations are expected to be signed on October 10 by the Foreign Ministers of two countries in Switzerland.
>>> Addressing to Armenian Parliament, Nalbandian said, “The pro tocols that aim normalization of relations with Turkey is committed to paper by Armenian authors. Nobody in Armenia should have doubt about that. Turkish party read the text and made small and short adjustments before they approve it.”
>>>
>>> Once again making statements about Turkey’s precondition of resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for opening of borders, Armenian Foreign Minister said, “The process of normalization of relations with Turkey is substantially the initiative of Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan . Sarksyan clearly said to Turkish party before the dialog starts that the dialogue can be held without preconditions only. And Ankara accepted Sarksyan’s offer. There was not any precondition about Nagorno-Karabakh and there will not be.”
>>> When he is asked whether Armenia will be recognizing Turkey’s territorial integrity indirectly by signing the protocols, Nalbandian said, “If you are getting prepared to establish diplomatic relations with a country, the first thing you have to do is recognizing current borders. There is not another way.”
>>> Criticizing some circles in Armenia that still discuss the treaty of Sevres, Armenian Minister said, “If anybody comes up with only oneclause of Sevres that is on effect now, then our administration will do everything that i t can to defend our interests., butthere is not.The documents of Wilson have no effect. U. S. Congress did not approve treaty of Sevres too.”

October 6, 2009
Tentative deal between Armenia, Turkey brings opposition from both sides

Armenian Americans and Turkish Americans both say the governments in their homelands are giving too many concessions. A commission that would study the Armenian genocide is a sore point for some.

By Ann M. Simmons

October 4, 2009

Upset over an agreement that would establish diplomatic ties between Armenia and Turkey and reopen their common borders, members of the Los Angeles Armenian community plan to rally in Beverly Hills today.

Organizers of the demonstration say they will call on Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan to refrain from signing protocols with Turkey that they believe would threaten Armenia’s interests and security.

Sargsyan is scheduled to visit Los Angeles today.

A deal that would essentially normalize relations between the long-estranged nations is expected to be signed this month. But the agreement faces opposition from both Armenian Americans and Turkish Americans, who argue that the governments in their homelands are making unreasonable concessions.

“We’re not against normalization and peace with Turkey,” said Arek Santikian, a UCLA student and chairman of the Armenian Youth Federation of the Western United States. “We really would want peace. But we can’t have peace with preconditions.”

Among the agreement’s provisions is the creation of a historical commission that would evaluate the bloody history between the two countries. The Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1918 claimed the lives of about 1.2 million Armenians under the Ottoman Empire, which became the modern republic of Turkey. The Turkish government disputes that a genocide took place.

A historical commission would allow Turkey “to question the veracity of the genocide,” Santikian said. “We know that it happened. We can’t put a question mark on that.”

Turkey disputes the number of those killed and argues that Armenians were equally brutal in slaying Turks when they revolted against their Ottoman rulers and aligned themselves with invading Russian troops.

Armenian American critics of the agreement also argue that the protocols would allow Turkey to keep eastern territories they say are historically part of Armenia.

They are also concerned about the future of Nagorno-Karabakh, a disputed enclave populated mainly by ethnic Armenians but within the borders of Azerbaijan, which has close ethnic and political ties with Turkey.

“The protocols are not proportional,” said Caspar Jivalagian, a student at Southwestern Law School and an Armenian Youth Federation member. “It is a very pro-Turkish document.”

But many Turkish Americans disagree.

“Turkey is giving too much and getting too little in return,” said Ergun Kirlikovali, West Coast director of the Assembly of Turkish American Assns.

Some believe the Turkish government is selling out Azerbaijan by reconciling with Armenia before the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh has been settled. Others fear Turkey might be forced to give back land.

Kirlikovali said Turks are also tired of being defamed by Armenians who were “constantly pushing a bogus genocide claim . . . and distorting and misrepresenting history.”

He argued that a historical commission would allow experts to come to a “nonpolitical” verdict on the issue, and said that’s why Armenians were opposed to the creation of such a panel. It could debunk their main indictment against Turks, Kirlikovali said.

Gunay Evinch, the assembly’s Washington, D.C.-based president and a Fulbright scholar, said that despite the concerns over the consequences of the accord between Turkey and Armenia, the agreement presented “a unique opportunity to move forward for these countries and their people, but not without risks.”

[email protected]

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

October 6, 2009
Ruling Party Confident of Diaspora Support for Turkey Deal

Armenia — Razmik Zohrabian, one of the leaders of the ruling HHK in a press conference. 05Oct2009

05.10.2009

Sargis Harutyunyan, Ruzanna Stepanian

A senior representative of Armenia’s ruling party on Monday expressed confidence that a majority of the worldwide Armenian Diaspora supports the current rapprochement with Turkey and, in particular, the two draft protocols envisaging the normalization of bilateral relations that the two countries are expected to sign later this month.

Deputy Chairman of the Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) Razmik Zohrabian made the statement amid the continuing tour of President Serzh Sarkisian of the Diaspora communities in Europe, the United States, the Middle East and Russia aimed at discussing his far-reaching overtures to Turkey.

The leading Armenian organizations in the world have expressed conflicting views on Armenia’s dramatic rapprochement with Turkey that Sarkisian initiated last year by inviting his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul to Yerevan to attend a football game between the two countries’ national teams. The yearlong process culminated on August 31 in the initialing of two protocols that some leaders in the far-flung Armenian Diaspora have rejected as flawed.

Those opposed to the signing of the protocols as well as some of those with moderate views are particularly concerned over several key points. One such point envisages the establishment of a Turkish-Armenian intergovernmental sub-commission to conduct an “impartial scientific examination of historical documents and archives.” Many in Armenia and its Diaspora fear this provision is tantamount to debating and therefore questioning what Armenians view as the body of ample evidence that the 1915-1918 mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire constituted genocide.

Diaspora groups are also critical of another protocol clause that commits Armenia to recognizing its existing border with Turkey. They argue that it would thus preclude future Armenian territorial claims to areas in eastern Turkey that were populated by their ancestors until the Ottoman-era massacres.

Answering an RFE/RL question on Monday, the HHK’s Zohrabian downplayed the scale of protest against the protocols in Diaspora communities during the Sarkisian trips.

So far, Sarkisian was met with protests in all of the three communities that he visited, including Paris, New York and Los Angeles.

Zohrabian said that while he did not object to people staging protests, but he objected to them doing so in “an insulting manner.”

“The president himself said that people may come and express their discontent in a silent manner, because, after all, the matter concerns the 1915 Genocide and subsequent years. That is, that we also remember, are silent and in grief, but not by shouting,” said Zohrabian.

“Anyway, that’s bearable too, because not all in society are of the same opinion. One may shout loudly, even make offensive comments, others may treat it calmly,” he added. “In any case, the number of protesters was not that large.”

Zohrabian sounded confident that the Armenia-Turkey protocols will be signed on October 10. He stressed that the governing coalition will bear responsibility “if the protocols prove to be detrimental to Armenia’s state interests.”

Zohrabian’s optimism about the future benefits from the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border is shared also by wealthy Armenian-American benefactor Vahakn Hovnanian.

At a press conference in Yerevan on Monday, Hovnanian stressed that the opening of new roads for transport goods will have a positive effect on the cost of living in Armenia.

Hovnanian said in the past he, too, had a tough stance on Turkey, but having lived in Armenia and “having seen the difficulties in the homeland”, he had arrived at the conclusion that the Turkish-Armenian border must be reopened.

At the same time, Hovnanian called it “normal emotions” that some in the Diaspora oppose the Armenia-Turkey deal. “We always had protests near Turkish consulates on [Genocide commemoration day] April 24. We all would gather and go for demonstrations near Turkish embassies,” he explained.

Yet, Hovnanian contradicted the opinions that the signing of the protocols will hamper the Armenian push for the world’s governments to recognize the Ottoman-era mass killings and deportations of Armenians as genocide. “It can’t… As many as 22 countries and 44-45 states in the United States have already recognized the genocide. The next day after the opening of the border we can sue them [Turks] in court to defend our cause,” said Hovnanian.

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1844039.html

October 5, 2009
Turkey rides on Irish ‘yes’ to promote EU entry

Published: Monday 5 October 2009

Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister, said an Irish ‘yes’ to the Lisbon Treaty would create the legal conditions for future EU enlargements and pleaded passionately for his country’s accession to the Union.

Turkey can help Europe to become a major player on the international stage if Turkey is admitted to the club, Davutoglu said. He further insisted that his country was not making these efforts “for PR” reasons, but to help the EU.

Davutoglu, a professor and political scientist, was speaking in Brussels on Friday (2 October), as Irish voters were being called to the ballot box for a second time to decide on the Lisbon Treaty.

There, he met with European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn, and Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt in his capacity as representative of the rotating EU presidency.

The Turkish diplomat said his country was a key regional player and was already playing the role of “honest broker” in a number of conflicts in which EU countries have little leverage.

Davutoglu gave many examples of Turkey’s mediator role in conflicts in the Middle East, the Caucasus or during ongoing tensions over Iran’s nuclear programme. He said his country was pursuing a policy of “zero problems” with its neighbours, with all of whom he said relations were “very good”.

Asked by journalists about his country’s relations with Greece, where a number of bilateral problems persist (EurActiv 28/08/09, EurActiv 03/07/09), Davutoglu explained that there were “of course difficulties”. But he said there was a big difference compared to the situation 10-15 years ago, because problems were now being dealt with constructively “without escalating tensions”. He even called Turkish-Greek relations “excellent”.

On Cyprus, Davutoglu accused the Greek Cypriot side of not being constructive in ongoing reunification talks held under UN patronage (EurActiv 30/09/09). Among other things, he blamed the president of Cyprus, Dimitris Christofias, for having declined a meeting in New York in trilateral format, with Turkish Cypriot negotiator Mehmet Ali Talat and a Turkish delegation. He said that for the Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots were “semi-human beings,” while Greek Cypriots were “super human beings”.

October 5, 2009
Turkey’s EU Membership: Will the ‘Armenian Opening’ Help?

Caucasus Update No. 49, October 5, 2009

Caucasian Review of International Affairs

)

Turkey’s foreign policy, as emphasised by Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, is to have ‘zero problems with neighbours’ (Today’s Zaman, September 13). This is, first and foremost, intended to stabilise Turkey’s complex regional environment and ensure Turkey’s reputation as a peacemaker. It is also, more tactically, intended to boost Turkey’s long-running EU membership application. Ankara hopes to show that it is a responsible, and indeed indispensable, partner for Europe in Eurasia and the Middle East.
The rapprochement with Armenia, which seems to be gathering pace, is sometimes interpreted in this light. Turkey’s chief EU negotiator, Egemen Bağış, stated in early September that he expected the ‘Armenian opening’ to help Turkey’s EU bid (Today’s Zaman, September 2). However, this view is rather optimistic. In reality, normalization of relations with Armenia will have a marginal effect on Turkey’s EU application, at best.

In truth, the EU has never been particularly concerned about the closed border between Armenia and Turkey. European policy towards the South Caucasus as a whole has been patchy and vague. It took the war in Georgia for the EU to take an active stance, and in truth this was mainly the product of Nicolas Sarkozy’s energetic diplomacy as EU President, rather than any institutional determination on behalf of the whole Union.

The EU Monitoring Mission now keeping the peace between Georgia and Russia is welcome: however, as the Caucasus Update has argued before, the lack of subsequent hostilities is due to Russia’s lack of interest in a new conflict, not the EU’s efforts (Caucasus Update, March 16).

The EU has been less concerned about the Turkish-Armenian confrontation and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Europe has let the OSCE take the lead on Karabakh, and has been content to sit back and express its support for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. There is little appetite within Brussels, for instance, for an EU peacekeeping force to be deployed in such a tense environment.

However, the EU still has an interest in preventing major conflicts in the ‘wider European space’. The cold war between Turkey and Armenia does not pose this risk. Although Turkish troops might intervene in the event of a new Karabakh war, they did not do so in the early 1990s, partly out of a desire to maintain a semblance of a balanced policy towards the conflict. Ankara, now more than ever, values its role as a peacemaker. Military intervention would destroy that reputation and cripple Turkey’s EU accession hopes.

Without a risk of war, it is clear that the thaw between Armenia and Turkey is hardly at the top of the EU’s list of priorities. Brussels already has evidence of Turkey’s good intentions as a regional mediator: it is currently negotiating between Iraq and Syria (BBC, August 31), has been intermittently involved in the Israel-Palestine peace process, and has also been quietly acting as a bridge between the West and Iran. Although welcome, opening the border with Armenia would not be a ‘game-changer’ in Turkey’s relationship with the EU.

Indeed, the two biggest game-changers in Ankara’s membership talks are Cyprus and the ‘Kurdish question’. Cyprus is, superficially, similar to the Armenian issue – an inter-state dispute with deep roots, which currently hinges on a closed border and diplomatic recognition. Unlike the Armenian issue, Cyprus is an EU member. Consequently, the dispute with Cyprus is the biggest single stumbling block in Turkey’s EU application.

Clearly it is not the only issue – there are 35 ‘chapters’ on which Ankara must satisfy Brussels, and only one (science and research) has been completed. But Cyprus’ significance is such that, when Turkey failed to apply a 2005 protocol on free movement of goods and people to the Cypriot government, the EU insisted that no ‘chapters’ could be closed, and that several would not be discussed until it had applied the protocol. The stakes are hardly as high in the Armenian thaw.

The Kurdish question is less significant than Cyprus, but more so than Armenia. The EU is reluctant to move forward on membership talks with a state which still – despite much recent progress – faces a serious ethnic insurgency. Until Ankara can, in the eyes of Brussels, get its house in order and negotiate a peaceful settlement with its Kurdish population, it will continue to be viewed as an irresponsible and unsuitable candidate for membership by some within Brussels.

It is instructive to look at the question in reverse. If, for instance, Turkey had resolved Cyprus and the Kurdish question, but had failed to make headway on opening the Armenian border, would this impede its membership process? It is unlikely.

Indeed, the only EU members which would be likely to turn the Armenian issue into an obstacle would be those – notably France – which already oppose Turkish accession. Most pragmatists in Brussels would probably be willing to move on, and urge Ankara towards an open border whilst continuing the membership negotiations.

It would be wrong to think that the EU does not value the thaw between Turkey and Armenia. It does improve Turkey’s reputation. But that reputation is already high, for more important reasons. And it is not the lack of an open border with Armenia – which the EU has little interest in – which is blocking Ankara’s accession to the Union. Until Cyprus and the Kurdish question are resolved, whether or not the Armenian border is open will be a minor footnote in Turkey’s relationship with Brussels.

Caucasian Review of International Affairs

Eppsteiner str 2, 60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
Tel: +49 69 138 76 684
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.cria-online.org

October 5, 2009
Armenian Leader Defends Turkey Rapprochement

Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian

October 02, 2009

YEREVAN — Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian says that normalizing relations between Yerevan and Ankara won’t thwart greater international recognition of the Armenian genocide or result in Armenian concessions in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, RFE/RL’s Armenian Service reports.

In a spirited defense of his government’s rapprochement with Turkey, Sarkisian told a group of 36 pro-establishment members of the presidential Public Council in Yerevan on September 30 that if they are “unable or unprepared” to negotiate with Turkey, why ” become [should Armenia have become] independent in the first place?”

Council head Vazgen Manukian told RFE/RL that the members “discussed all the pluses and minuses, drew a line, added things up, and got a [positive result].”

But two members of the group, who are historians, expressed concern over a Turkish-Armenian subcommission that would look into the World War I-era mass killings and deportations of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

Sarkisian acknowledged their concerns but reminded them that “no sensible Armenian can forget the genocide” and assured them that the Turks will not be able to control the commission single-handedly because both sides will be equally represented on the panel.

https://www.rferl.org/a/Armenian_Leader_Defends_Turkey_Rapprochement/1841989.html

October 2, 2009