Turkish Forum

Category: Asia and Pacific

  • India-Israel Defense Relations Threatened by Scandal

    India-Israel Defense Relations Threatened by Scandal

    indianpmsinghMayank Bubna | 13 Apr 2009

    WORLD POLITICS REVIEW

    NEW DELHI, India — One of India’s biggest ever defense deals with Israel, worth $2 billion, hovered on the brink of collapse earlier this month after allegations of graft to the tune of $120 million surfaced. Indian Defense Minister A. K. Anthony was quick to deny the claims, while asserting that the government would take strict action against the Israeli company and the Indian middlemen involved should the charges be true. This was, however, the second blow to Indo-Israeli relations in a matter of days — the first being a controversial video produced by Israeli defense firm Rafael and shown at a recent arms expo that lampooned India’s Bollywood movie industry.

    The bad news came at a time when ties between the two countries could not have been stronger. In March, Israel officially overtook Russia to acquire the enviable position of India’s largest arms supplier. Now the deal involving the sale of surface-to-air missiles by Israel Aerospace Industries to the Indian government seems to have been jeopardized.

    India-Israel strategic relations have traditionally been defined around security. Prior to the 1990s, India regarded with skepticism military ties to a state founded around its religious identity. Struggling to deal with the growing menace of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, though, and impressed with Israel’s successes in wars against neighboring Arab nations, India has cultivated closer ties since then.

    The shift was also aided by weakening Indo-Russian relations, frayed in the immediate aftermath of the breakup of the former Soviet Union. Several problems have arisen in Indo-Russian bilateral defense cooperation since 1991, including but not limited to issues of spare parts provision, technical documentation and what one analyst called “scant respect for contractual obligations” — a reference to Russian delivery delays, property rights disputes and avoidable cost escalations.

    But if Israel has emerged as a partner of convenience in India’s efforts to diversify its arms procurement, the relationship has also presented potential problems. According to P. R. Kumaraswamy, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, restructuring India’s defense capabilities to facilitate purchases from Irael might be detrimental in the long run. “Israel does not export platforms, rather it only offers high-tech innovation upgrades,” he says, referring to Israel’s limited arms inventory. Technology is not as tangible as military hardware. Furthermore, India is incapable of a “complete military overhaul,” which according to Kumaraswamy would become necessary if India shifted completely from one major supplier to another.

    Another critical factor is the political costs of courting Israel. Domestically, politicians fear the loss of the Indian Muslim vote. Problems in Kashmir may be very different from and seemingly unrelated to the Palestine issue. But in an age of increasing globalization, many in India have strong sympathies for the Palestinian cause.

    Internationally, however, India stands to lose less. According to Kumaraswamy, it is “unfashionable” to speak of the Israeli factor as affecting Indo-Arab strategic ties. Arab apprehensions, if any, have usually been discussed only in private circles. Historically, Arab nations have grudgingly accepted Indo-Israel strategic relations, even as thousands of Indians continue to live and work in several Middle Eastern nations.

    Iran, too, has pursued an India policy independent of Israel. According to Kumaraswamy, Iran can afford to do this because there are “certain things that Iran can supply which Israel cannot, like energy security.” Israel’s strength lies in security cooperation, an area of collaboration where Iran has little to offer India.

    Yet, growing India-Israel cooperation could now be in peril, thanks to public outrage over the recent corruption allegations. While defense procurement fraud is hardly news to the Indian public, this most recent incident stands out for its dimensions. The largest previous scandal involved the sale of Swedish howitzers in the 1980s, in which several Indian ministers were alleged to have received about $12 million in kickbacks. The current Israel deal involves corruption charges amounting to 10 times this amount.

    Traditionally India has somehow brushed off these humiliations, managing to treat corruption as inevitable and therefore tolerated within the Indian political system. Whether this same sense of fatalism can help it endure this most recent crisis remains to be seen.

    Mayank Bubna is a freelance war correspondent and consultant. He is presently based in India.

    Source:  www.worldpoliticsreview.com, 13 Apr 2009

  • Turkey’s ruling party rejects Azerbaijani MPs’ invitation

    Turkey’s ruling party rejects Azerbaijani MPs’ invitation

    Baku. Ramil Mammadli – APA. The names of the Turkish parliamentarians, who will attend the international conference on the state of relations between the countries with participation of Azerbaijani and Turkish parliamentarians, are known, chairman of Motherland Party Fazail Agamali told APA.

    He said that the representatives of Turkey’s ruling party will not attend the conference in Azerbaijani parliament on April 15. The members of Justice and Development Party (AKP) refused to attend the conference. The Turkish delegation includes: Yilmaz Atesh, Shukru Elekdag, Shahin Mengu from Republican People’s Party (CHP), Atilla Kaya and Turan Chirkin from Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). Fazail Agamali said along with five parties organizing the meeting, other parties represented in the parliament, including New Azerbaijan Party and Musavat Party will also be invited to the conference. He said Turkish parliamentarians attending the conference will meet with speaker Ogtay Asadov and other officials.

    Heads of Motherland Party, Citizen Solidarity Party, United Azerbaijan Popular Front Party, Great Establishment Party and Justice Party initiated to hold the conference.

  • Nabucco as a Chess Game: Azerbaijan’s Next Move

    Nabucco as a Chess Game: Azerbaijan’s Next Move

    nabuccoOn March 27, 2009, a memorandum was signed between the Azerbaijani oil company SOCAR and Russia’s Gazprom. This memorandum includes a statement of deliveries, beginning in January 2010, of Azerbaijani natural gas to Russia on the boundary conditions, DAF Azerbaijan / Russia. In the near future the Baku – Novo Filya pipeline, part of the transmission system of Azerbaijan, which runs from Baku to the Russian border on the Caspian coast, will be inspected. The length of the pipeline is about 200 km; the diameter of the pipe is the same 1220 mm.

    On March 27, 2009, a memorandum was signed between the Azerbaijani oil company SOCAR and Russia’s Gazprom. This memorandum includes a statement of deliveries, beginning in January 2010, of Azerbaijani natural gas to Russia on the boundary conditions, DAF Azerbaijan / Russia. In the near future the Baku – Novo Filya pipeline, part of the transmission system of Azerbaijan, which runs from Baku to the Russian border on the Caspian coast, will be inspected. The length of the pipeline is about 200 km; the diameter of the pipe is the same 1220 mm.

    This agreement is important because for the first time since its independence Azerbaijan, which imported gas from Russia, has become an exporter to this country. The signing of this memorandum has led to a number of preconditions, which are the causes of events occurring in the region. The first is to note that Gazprom was particularly interested in signing such an agreement with Azerbaijan. This serves several reasons. The first reason is that in the past few years, production of natural gas in Russia has been decreased. Preferring not to invest large amounts of capital in the development of natural gas, Gazprom to date has preferred to operate with the Soviet Union deposits, although these deposits have begun to dry up over time. However, a treaty signed with European suppliers obliges Russia to search for additional volumes of gas. Therefore, first of all Russia has guaranteed the supply of gas from Central Asia, significantly increasing the price for it. Russia also extended the proposal to Azerbaijan, which opened the large Shahdeniz gas field in the late 90s.

    Russia’s second reason lies in the problems of gas supplies to southern Russia. Thus, one could guarantee the stable supply in the North Caucasus republics. But the main reason is the desire of Russia to concentrate the supply of natural gas from former Soviet republics on its territory. Actually, Azerbaijan is the only state that could supply gas to the planned Nabucco pipeline. Proposed by the EU, this pipeline would transport natural gas from Azerbaijan and the Central Asia states through Turkey to south-eastern Europe. In reality, gas may come only from Azerbaijan.

    Russia has proposed an alternative to Nabucco project, South Stream, which is also in need of Azerbaijani gas. In this case, Russia tries to prevent the realization of Nabucco.

    With regard to Azerbaijan, it is the first time, after gaining its independence, that it shifted its energy exports from west to the north. There were several reasons for this.

    The primary reason was the passive attitude of Western partners in the implementation of the project. Lack of coordination and understanding in the sphere of energy between the members countries of the EU led to the fact that this organization could not determine the strategy for the implementation of Nabucco. Paradoxically, the EU and its members are waiting for more concrete steps from potential exporters, hoping thereby to strengthen the project. However, Azerbaijan does not have a desire to pursue their own policies without the support of the West, and thereby worsen relations with Russia. This fact was especially true after the 5-day war in Georgia. Despite the fact that the political regime in Georgia came to power with broad support from the West, these countries did not provide the support it expected to receive. Azerbaijan also has the problem of separatism. In this case, in the interest of Azerbaijan is not to commit acts that could provoke Russia.

    Another reason for signing the memorandum with Russia lies in the position of Turkey. Turkey is trying to address not only the transit of Azerbaijani gas through Nabucco, but also wants to become the seller. In particular, Turkey wants to purchase natural gas at the border with Azerbaijan and resell it to Western consumers at a several-fold price increase. This situation would not benefit Azerbaijan. In addition to that, Russia’s proposal to buy Azerbaijani gas is commercially much more attractive. Azerbaijan profits more from selling gas in Russia than Turkey.

    In addition, between Turkey and Azerbaijan, disagreements arose about the intentions of Turkey to open its border with Armenia. This border has been closed since 1993, after Armenian troops occupied the Azeri region of Kelbedzhar. Recently, however, the government of Turkey has decided to develop relations with Armenia, and the first step was the visit of President Gul to Armenia’s capital Yerevan to watch a soccer qualifying match between the two national teams. The next step in the development of relations is to be the opening of borders between the two countries in mid-April. It should be noted that the prior condition for the opening of the border was the unconditional release of Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territories.

    This decision has received a sharp reaction in Azerbaijan. Public opinion in the country reacted negatively to the intentions of Turkey, which severely condemned the possible turn of events. Another reaction to the Turkish intention can be described with the signing of a contract between SOCAR and Gazprom. The President of SOCAR, Rovnaq Abdullayev, is also the president of the Football Federation of Azerbaijan. He arrived in Moscow on the eve of the qualifying soccer match between Azerbaijan and Russia. The signed contract has become a kind of symbolic response to Gul’s «football diplomacy» in Yerevan.

    It should be noted that the signed memorandum negotiates gas exports to Russia for 2010. In this case, there is a certain amount of time to solve the problems of the realization of Nabucco, as the second phase of gas production at Shahdeniz has not yet begun. However, if there will be no concrete steps to implement Nabucco, gas for this pipeline could go in a northerly direction.

    Rovshan İbrahimov

    International Research Club – www.interesclub.org

  • The Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement: Implications for the South Caucasus

    The Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement: Implications for the South Caucasus

    Turkey’s recent and ongoing rapprochement with Armenia, addressed in last week’s Caucasus Update from the Turkish angle, has implications that could reverberate throughout the South Caucasus and beyond. Arguably, the normalisation of ties between Armenia and Turkey would be an event of equivalent regional significance as the Russo-Georgian war of last August.

    Details remain unclear. This diplomatic murkiness testifies to just how explosive the issue has become for the Turkish, Azerbaijani and Armenian governments. The outlines, however, are apparent – that Turkey and Armenia are expected to begin opening their mutual border and establishing diplomatic relations probably sooner than later. The Turkish overtures are contingent on two things: firstly, that US President Barack Obama does not openly acknowledge the Armenian ‘genocide’, and secondly (and much less publicly) that Armenia renounces or at least quietly suspends its own push for genocide recognition and its long-dormant claims to Turkey’s eastern provinces as part of its “Greater Armenia” concept.

    A third condition – that any formal moves are also conditional on Armenian progress towards removing its troops from Nagorno-Karabakh and the territories around it – is unconfirmed. The very idea that Turkey would go through with the border talks without attaching any conditions on Karabakh has provoked fury in Azerbaijan, especially since Turkey sealed the border in 1993 in response to the Armenian occupation of the regions, a reality which has clearly not changed. In Baku, the issue has created a rare patch of common ground for the government and the opposition (APA, April 7).

    Essentially, what has developed appears to be an enormous three-way game.  Firstly, Turkey’s determination to go ahead with the thaw – including the establishment of an alleged framework for talks in the areas of border openings, diplomatic representations, and dispute commissions (Wall Street Journal, April 2) – has been curbed by its recognition of the obvious, and urgent, need to keep their ethnic and linguistic brethren in Azerbaijan on side. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on April 7 that “The Azerbaijani-Armenian dispute should be resolved first. Then, problems between Turkey and Armenia can be solved, too”. According to Today’s Zaman, Turkey’s bluff may be to limit the thaw to occasional border openings and limited diplomatic contact until October, when a World Cup qualifying match between Armenia and Turkey (the return leg of the fixture which began the whole process last September with Turkish President’s visit to Yerevan) is due to take place in Istanbul (Today’s Zaman, April 9). This would give Ankara time to push Azerbaijan and Armenia into a compromise over Karabakh, probably under the auspices of Turkey’s much-discussed Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform.

    Secondly, Yerevan’s strategy is to decouple the issue of the Turkish border from the Karabakh issue, ensuring that Armenia receives the economic and political benefits of relations with Turkey without having to concede ground vis-à-vis Azerbaijan. Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian clearly illustrated this bluff on April 5 when he warned Mr. Erdogan that attempts to link the two issues were an attempt to impede progress (RFE/RL, April 7).

    Clearly, Yerevan anticipates that Turkey is unwilling to exasperate President Obama and – more importantly – undermine its role as a regional stabiliser by allowing the talks to fail. It is also attempting to ensure that the status quo in Karabakh is maintained. Armenia has no particular interest in altering the situation in the disputed territories hoping that one day Azerbaijan will be demanded by the world to reconcile with the loss of its territories (a belief that has been reinforced by the recognition of Kosovo). So without a continuing Turkish blockade Yerevan is unlikely to offer any concessions to Baku, and may in time feel emboldened enough to start demanding that Azerbaijan back down.

    Azerbaijan, thirdly, is hoping that Turkey is not willing to betray its Turkic-speaking ally. However, it reflects the level of concern in Baku that Azerbaijan is not simply relying on ethnic and linguistic solidarity but has been actively (if unofficially) challenging Turkey’s strategic interests. President Ilham Aliyev reportedly said that if Turkey made a deal with Armenia that did not consider Karabakh, Azerbaijan could cut the gas supplies to Turkey (Jamestown Eurasia Daily Monitor, April 9). In this light one should consider recent cooperation between Baku and Russian energy giant Gazprom and discussions between President Aliyev and Ukrainian President Viktor Yuschenko on alternative gas routes via the Black Sea: in other words, the White Stream pipeline across the Black Sea to Ukraine, which would avoid Turkey (APA, April 10). Given these recent moves, it seems very likely that Azerbaijan will begin seriously reconsidering its participation in the planned Nabucco pipeline to Europe, a project with which it has already grown impatient.

    More significantly, the country could start to reconsider its whole geopolitical orientation. President Aliyev hinted at both of these possibilities at a meeting of Azerbaijan’s Security Council on April 6, in which he stressed the independence of Baku’s foreign policy and the importance of Azerbaijan for the execution of any transnational energy projects in the region (APA, April 6). The voices are getting louder in Baku arguing that the policy of trusting Turkey and the West to support it over Karabakh, incurring Russian displeasure in the process, has achieved nothing. Azerbaijan’s confidence in the West was already damaged by the Russo-Georgian war, in which Washington and Brussels indicated that they would not respond materially to any conflicts in the post-Soviet space. Turkey’s decision to negotiate with Armenia, and the vocal support of the US and the EU for the talks, has struck a further blow to Baku’s faith in the West.

    So why not turn towards Russia? Turkey clearly has diminished its leverage in any Karabakh peace talks and the OSCE’s Minsk Group has made painfully slow progress. The only actor who possesses clear and significant influence in the peace process is Russia, Armenia’s most important ally. Russia is one of the Minsk Group co-chairs but has demonstrated a willingness to act more or less unilaterally, for instance in the Moscow Declaration which it brokered between the two sides last November. Although few Azerbaijanis desire the return of Russian suzerainty, Karabakh is predominant. If Russia can help solve the conflict in a way which is acceptable to Azerbaijan, then all other considerations are secondary. Gas supplies and the cooling of ties with NATO and Washington are a small price to pay.

    The West, and Turkey, must recognise the implications of the Armenian thaw. Clearly, peace in the Caucasus is desirable. Closed borders and mutual distrust are not to be welcomed. But if Turkey’s AKP party rushes ahead, it will embolden nationalists at home who could impede the country’s progress towards the EU. This sounds counter-intuitive: opening the border with Armenia is expected to boost Turkey’s EU accession hopes. But this analysis is from Brussels’ perspective. Domestically, the AKP is weaker than before after March’s local elections, and hasty, unpopular foreign policy gestures may cripple its hopes for the 2011 general election (especially if the EU continues to block accession, regardless of the thaw) and give nationalists the upper hand.

    But even more concerning is the danger that Turkey and the West could ‘lose’ Azerbaijan to Russia. This would not only sound the death knell for Nabucco, but it would also alter the geopolitical profile of the whole of Eurasia and pose a new and serious risk in the Karabakh conflict. Patience is a virtue – Ankara, as well as Brussels and Washington, should bear this maxim in mind.

     

  • Will there be a new Camp David of Turkey?

    Will there be a new Camp David of Turkey?

    Armenian problem of Turkey took an important dimension while regional balances are changing regional nations’ characteristics in this time section. Armenia that have seen double reaction by two countries since invasion on Karabakh region has an inevitable chance. Two brother countries’ opposition conducts because of dilemmas by foreign affairs gave some advantages for Armenia and their diaspora.

    Although Turkey’s demand about giving up by Armenian insistences on Karabakh, genocide lie and new territory of east Anatolia points, this country didn’t improve relations. Additionally Armenia’s desires about their unreal pronunciations had grew up in period of Sarkisyan. Turkey and other states can not understand different thoughts of an irredentist state.

    Of course absolute definitons like “Can be a country collapsed with historical confession which is combining many words?” of some liberal and global defenders in Turkey created this period. It doesn’t matter to interpret these responsible groups which formed new critical relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey. For example: “Azerbaijan didn’t recognize Turkish Cyprus, so this is unnecessary to defend their self interests, Karabakh conflict is an internal problem of them and Turkish foreign policy can not depend on it, Azerbaijan reailty finishes western support to Turkey while guarantees of the USA are enough for us…” To understand truth reality you can search all documents about these subjects.

    Today public opinion of Azerbaijan feels unwell about last news. All messages are followed and columnists debate possible circumstances. Additionally to political dimension, economical and energical subjects are different debate areas. Unfortunately some alternative energy line projects are debated today. About border opening effects and reaction of public opinion of Azerbaijan circumstances, we ask to Araz Aslanli who is an academic person in Khazar University and president of Caucasus Research Center for International Relations and Strategic Analysis :

    “ I don’t expect that borders will be opened. If actors look at the local and regional dynamics and Turkey want to stiff its position here, it shouldn’t be opened. But if they say that we have some guarantees of our position as regional power, no issues can influence this reality, and Turkey is only interested about global issues, they can open as minimum concession about this problem.

    Border problem is strategical but it has psychological among relations with Azerbaijan. It is important for two countries. Example; Turkey is a single country which had been sponsored and protected by Azerbaijan if we compare global powers. It is originally psychological that is shored up ethnic, religious and cultural connections. Commonlu this question can collapse “trustworthy brother” image of Turkey in Turkish world and Azerbaijan. I think that it is another target of groups which are desire border opening idea. Public opinion is very sensitive in Azerbaijan about this question. Reaction of government can be limited but it can put a psychological mine because of sensitivity of public.”

    Another symbol of public sensitive representation is a media organ that is Turkistan Newspaper. We ask this question to Aqil Camal who is a head director of Turkistan Newspaper. According to him, this case can end Turkish image in this geography:

    “We are unwell as Turkish nationalists. There are some pressures as “Is it your defensivity?”
    Some pro-Russian groups are working to create bad image about Turkey in public opinion. We should look at a point. If Turkey will open borders and Azerbaijani government agree this reality, all of the works about Turkish union will die. Because Azerbaijan is a bridge between Turkey and Central Asia because of Central Asian countries were near us. If Azerbaijan give up these works, Turkey can not be successful. This is a great problem all of us who are working to create Turkish union.

    Sometimes politicians talk about state interests. But states are existing to serve nation. Who wants a state that is not interested about demands of nation? If there will be a cold time with Turkey, Azerbaijan consider relations with Russia, like Central Asian bandwagoning.

    Mr. Öztarsu, you know that I said these sentences as a Turkish idealist on Turkish union way, not as an angry person on ordinary public sphere. At least Turkey shouldn’t open borders in this period. Chances shouldn’t be given to defeatists of our brotherhood. Punishment should be given when necessary, not serve them. As like as Çanakkale War…”

    There is a long time period to open borders and debate its historical and political subjects as like speeches of Armenian president. But only beaten side will be conscience and thought of Turkish nation in this psychological war. Defenses of opposition groups from the likes of economic development, brotherhood of Armenians for Turkey, independent situation of Turkish foreign policy thoughts will be main actors in this process. We know that Turkish bureaucrats don’t want a new Camp David of Turkish world and be remembered a new Anwar Sadat.

    Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU
    Baku Qafqaz University
    International Research Club

  • Turkey Keeps Armenia Guessing Over Border Blockade

    Turkey Keeps Armenia Guessing Over Border Blockade

    If Ankara is serious about putting relations with Yerevan onto a new footing, it will reopen the border crossings it closed in 1993.
    By Tatul Hakobian in Yerevan (CRS No. 488, 10-Apr-09)

    Despite the recent warming in relations between Armenia and its neighbour Turkey, especially following Turkish president Abdullah Gul’s visit to Yerevan last September, it is still unknown when or even whether real steps will be taken to normalise relations.

    On March 30, four United States congressmen, all of them Barack Obama’s fellow Democrats, addressed letters to Armenian president Serzh Sarksian and his Turkish counterpart, offering to promote reconciliation between the two countries.

    But a few days earlier, on March 17, four other US congressmen introduced a resolution to the House of Representatives urging American recognition of the mass killing of Armenians of 1915 as genocide.

    Meanwhile, the new American president’s keenness to promote the reconciliation process between the estranged neighbours was given further weight when he visited Turkey last week.

    On his two-day visit, April 5-6, Obama unexpectedly met both the Turkish and the Armenian foreign ministers, Ali Babajan and Edvard Nalbandian, using the opportunity to urge the ministers to complete talks aimed at restoring ties between their respective countries.

    In Ankara, at a joint press conference with Gul, Obama predicted that Turkish-Armenian talks “could bear fruit very quickly”.

    Obama said he stood by a statement he made last year that Ottoman Turks had carried out widespread killings of Armenians early in the 20th century, but finessed the sensitive issue by stopping short of using the word genocide.

    “My views are on the record and I have not changed views,” Obama said.

    Relations between Turkey, the successor state to the Ottoman Empire, and Armenia, which for decades formed part of the Soviet Union, have never been cordial.

    They remain bedeviled by the events in 1915, when Ottoman forces slaughtered huge numbers of Armenians in what is now eastern Turkey. Armenians claim at least 1.5 million perished and insist it was an act of state sponsored genocide. Turkey has always disputed the number of dead, and the intention, and its courts have prosecuted Turkish writers who have described Armenian claims as valid.

    During the Soviet era, meanwhile, the 200 kilometre-long Soviet Armenian-Turkish land border formed part of the “Iron Curtain”, and the only crossing point was a train that clanked slowly from Kars in Turkey to Gyumri.

    In 1991, Turkey, unlike Azerbaijan and Georgia, refused to establish diplomatic relations with the then newly independent Armenia.

    Ankara then closed its borders with Armenia entirely in 1993 in protest against Armenia’s military operations in Nagorno Karabakh and in sympathy with Armenia’s foe, Azerbaijan.

    But between 1991 and 1993, after Armenia became independent, two crossing points were opened at Akyaka-Akhurian and Alijan-Margara through which Turkish wheat was imported in 1992-93.

    Residents of Margara still remember the winter of 1992, when Turkish trucks full of wheat crossed the border.

    The newly independent country was suffering from poor economic conditions and there was a lack of wheat in the country.

    Local people welcomed the trucks as soon as they crossed the bridge and chatted with the drivers, some of whom were Turks.

    The local village head in Margara, Khachatur Asatrian, therefore, has been following signs of a thaw with interest.

    But there are no preparations for the border to reopen at present.

    Some Armenians expected the Kars-Gyumri rail line to start up again at least for several days last September, so that Turkish fans could come to Yerevan and watch the World Cup qualifier football match.

    The Armenian side started railway repair works but the border remained closed, while Gul and a few score fans arrived by plane.

    “Everything can be arranged in a short period, provided a political decision is taken to open the borders,” the head of Margara told IWPR.

    “I don’t feel any work is being done to open the border [now] but as soon as the time comes, it won’t take the authorities much time.”

    Margara, which is about 40 km away from Yerevan, lies right on the banks of the river Araks.

    But the villagers can’t even go down to the riverbank. A barbed wire fence, erected along Armenian-Turkish border in Soviet times, a relic of Cold War tensions, still stands.

    Both Margara village, and the bridge leading to it, have another meaning for Armenians. In 1915, people fleeing the Ottoman slaughter only felt safe once they had crossed the bridge into then Tsarist Russia.

    Kima Karapetian, who teaches history at Margara school, says there were many bridges across the Araks but this one holds special memories.

    “For Armenians who survived the genocide this place was a place of hope,” she told IWPR.

    In spite of bitter memories of Armenian suffering at the hands of the Turks, like most of Margara residents, Karapetian wants the borders to open, as this might revive the village.

    “I do have some fears, but we’d rather have the borders open and establish relations between the two countries,” she said. “There must be cooperation between us at long last.”

    But over and above all the issues of border points and barbed wire fences remain the events of 1915.

    Still robustly denied by Turkey, this remains by far the most difficult issue in the two states’ bilateral relations.

    It has become a question worrying the international community and remains a moot point in US-Turkey relations, especially on the eve of April 24, when Armenians commemorate the victims.

    The new US president has hitherto been a reliable supporter of pro-Armenian resolutions in Congress. During his presidential campaign, he also told the American-Armenian diaspora he would not shrink from using the term genocide in his speech on April 24 – though did not use it on his recent visit to Turkey.

    Turkish officials insist such steps would undermine Turkish-Armenian efforts to restore ties and recent progress in their relations as a whole.

    Many Armenians are suspicious of these assertions. They believe Turkey has no real intention of establishing relations with Yerevan, or of lifting the blockade on Armenia.

    They fear Ankara seeks only an “imitation” dialogue with Armenia in order to hamper formal US recognition of the 1915 events as genocide.

    At the official level, however, both Armenia and Turkey have continued to make optimistic statements in public.

    “Turkey and Armenia are closer then ever to peace,” Babajan, said on February 6, while adding that “US efforts toward the recognition of the Armenian genocide will harm the process”.

    Babajan added that reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia had never been so close.

    “I can’t say we’ve already found a solution, but where we stand now is the closest point ever to a settlement with Armenia,” he said.

    The next day, at the Munich Security Conference, Sargsian made similar noises. The visit of his Turkish counterpart to Yerevan had been a step forward towards, he said.

    “I think we are going the right way and if we continue doing so, we can speak about a different level of relations at the second half of the year,” Sargsian concluded.

    The current Armenian leadership, unlike that of Robert Kocharian whose presidency gave priority to international recognition of the genocide, now lays stress on the importance of normalising relations with Turkey.

    However, Nalbandian denies that recognition of the genocide has fallen off the agenda.

    “It has been said many times, that we [together with Turkey] must turn this sorrowful page of our history, not by forgetting it but by acknowledging it,” he said in January.

    “Armenia… will never tell our diaspora, or some states, to stop their efforts towards securing recognition of the genocide. This will never happen.”

    Yet Sargsian and Nalbandian, unlike former president Kocharian and former foreign minister Vardan Oskanian, rarely speak of the genocide at international forums.

    In turn, Turkey seems less inclined to draw parallels between the Karabakh issue and the normalisation of relations with Armenia than before.

    Meetings between Armenian and Turkish foreign ministers have become more frequent since Gul’s historic trip to Yerevan.

    In February, Sargsian also had a short meeting with the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, at the Davos forum in Switzerland.

    But Oskanian tells IWPR there is only one way to measure real improvement in relations between Armenia and Turkey – the
    opening of the border.

    “That is the only way to judge whether Turkey is sincere in its declared intentions to normalise relations with Armenia,” he said.
    “If this happens in the coming months, we will welcome it, and that will vindicate the efforts of the Armenian side.

    “Recently, we have heard a lot of optimism about the border opening. I hope there are serious grounds for such optimism.”

    Giro Manoyan, senior member of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, one of the ruling parties in Yerevan, says it is possible 2009 will see the establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey and the lifting of the land blockade by Turkey.

    “Turkey is also interested in achieving these, firstly because after the August 2008 Georgia-Russia war, Turkey wants to take advantage of the new situation in the region and… Turkey also wants to avoid the US recognition of the Armenian genocide,” he said.

    “Turkey cannot realise the former, when it is in fact in a state of undeclared war with Armenia because of the blockade; and regarding the latter reason, Turkey has been advised… that to avoid President Obama doing what candidate Obama promised, Turkey should establish diplomatic relations with Armenia and lift the blockade.”

    Turkey has been dragging its feet in doing either, threatening to cut off negotiations with Armenia in case Obama or the House of Representatives qualify the events of 1915 as genocide.

    “But in the end,” Manoyan concluded, “because it is also in Turkey’s interest to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia and lift the blockade, both will happen.”

    Other experts agree change may be on the way. “The normalisation of Armenia-Turkey relations is not being conducted only within a bilateral format,” said Alexandr Iskandarian, a Yerevan-based political scientist.

    “The US is taking part in the process, and Russia and Europe have their own role here too. This kind of talk may have certain results.”

    Meanwhile, Vahan Gasparian, station master at Gyumri, told IWPR that Gyumri can handle train traffic with Turkey; the problem is the railway on the Turkish side.

    “The rail line on the Armenian side is already in peak condition. Regular trains already run from Kars to Akyaka, the station right on the Turkish side of Armenia-Turkey border,” Gasparian said.

    It would be possible to restore the Kars-Gyumri connection in a short period. It all depends on whether Yerevan and Ankara have the political will to do so.

    Tatul Hakobian is a commentator with the English-language Armenian Reporter newspaper, published in the United States.