Category: Azerbaijan

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.

May 2, 2009
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.

May 2, 2009
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/

May 2, 2009
Azerbaijan confirms participation in military drills in Georgia

BAKU, May 1 (RIA Novosti) – Azerbaijani troops will take part in controversial NATO military exercises in Georgia, the defense ministry said in a press release.

The Cooperative Longbow/Cooperative Lancer 2009 exercises have been slammed by Russia despite reassurances from NATO that they will not involve feature light or heavy weaponry. Some 1,300 troops from 19 NATO countries and its partners are expected to participate, although Serbia, Moldova and Kazakhstan have withdrawn.

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said “NATO’s plans to hold exercises in Georgia…are an open provocation. Exercises must not be held there where a war has been fought,” and warned that the exercises could have negative consequences for those who made the decision to hold them.

The announcement follows a meeting on Wednesday in Brussels between the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

Aliyev stressed Azerbaijan’s commitment to NATO-Azerbaijan relations and the country’s active participation in the Individual Partnership Action Plan.

The row between Russia and the military alliance intensified on Thursday following the expulsion of two Russian diplomats to NATO over spying claims and the signing of a border protection agreement between Russia and Georgia’s former republic’s of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Russia recognized the two former republics as independent states following a brief war with Tbilisi over South Ossetia.

The two Russian diplomats, one of whom is the son of Russia’s EU envoy Vladimir Chizhov, were expelled in connection with a spy scandal involving an Estonian official, Herman Simm, who was jailed for 12 years for handing over secret documents to Russian intelligence operatives.

Russia’s foreign ministry called the move “scandalous” and added “Naturally, we will draw our own conclusions about this provocation.”

And in a ceremony at the Kremlin on Thursday Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a joint border-protection agreement with the two former republics.

NATO responded to the signing saying that the agreements were a “clear contravention” of a French-brokered ceasefire deal.

And U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said: “This action contravenes Russia’s commitments under the Aug. 12 cease-fire agreement brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.”

Russia expressed its surprise to the reaction with Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko saying in a statement: “It is a surprising point to make as Russia has not signed any truce agreements with anyone in that region.”

May 1, 2009
Turkish Military Against Armenia Border Opening

30.04.2009

Emil Danielyan

Turkey’s powerful military has spoken out against normalizing relations with Armenia before a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, raising more questions about a U.S.-brokered agreement announced by Ankara and Yerevan last week.

General Ilker Basbug, chief of the Turkish General Staff, was reported to endorse late Wednesday Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s statements linking the reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border with the liberation of Armenian-occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

“The prime minister has clearly said the border opening will take place at the time when Armenian troops are withdrawn,” Basbug told a news conference, according to Turkish media. “We completely agree with this.”

Erdogan repeatedly made that linkage earlier this month, pouring cold water on hopes that the fence-mending negotiations between Turkey and Armenia will yield tangible results soon. Still, the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministries announced in a joint statement on April 22 that the two governments have agreed on a “roadmap” on normalizing bilateral ties.

It remained unclear, however, when they plan to establish diplomatic relations and reopen the border. Neither government has officially disclosed the framework yet.

Reports in the Turkish press have said that the United States was closely involved in the drawing up of the Turkish-Armenian statement. According to “Hurriyet Daily News,” Erdogan agreed to sign it only after Washington threatened to recognize the 1915 mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide. U.S. President Barack Obama refrained from using the word in his April 24 statement that commemorated the 94th anniversary of the massacres.

Meanwhile, diplomatic sources in Yerevan said on Thursday that Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian will fly to Washington this weekend for talks with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Turkish-Armenian relations will be high on their agenda.

Clinton and Nalbandian already discussed the issue over the phone on Monday. According to the Armenian Foreign Ministry, Clinton described the “roadmap” agreement as “historic.”

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1619312.html

April 30, 2009
TURKEY: ANKARA-YEREVAN RAPPROCHEMENT INITIATIVE FACES PUBLIC SKEPTICISM

Yigal Schleifer 4/28/09

Turkey and Armenia have announced they are close to reaching an agreement to restore ties and reopen their borders. But observers caution that getting to a final deal will require both Turkey and Armenia to navigate through difficult domestic and external challenges.

“There’s no going back now, that’s for sure. Everybody wants to solve this problem now. Both countries are very committed and being very careful,” said Noyan Soyak, the Istanbul-based vice-chairman of the Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council, referring to the April 22 joint announcement that Ankara and Yerevan had agreed on a “road map” to normalize relations.

“Now it’s a question of timing and the implementation and how it’s going to be presented to the public. That’s very important,” Soyak added.

Turkey severed ties and closed its border with Armenia in 1993, in protest of Yerevan’s war with Turkish ally Azerbaijan in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. In recent years, diplomatic and civil society traffic between Turkey and Armenia has increased, capped off by last September’s visit to Yerevan by Turkish president Abdullah Gul to watch a football game between the two countries’ national teams. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In their April 22 communiquÃ©, Armenian and Turkish leaders said that, with the help of Swiss mediation, “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.” The brief, 95-word statement was released only two days before Armenian commemoration of the mass slaughter of 1915 that Yerevan is striving to gain international recognition as genocide.

Although the statement was thin on details, observers familiar with the negotiations said the basic parameters of the deal involve establishing diplomatic relations, opening borders and creating a bilateral commission that will have subcommittees that address the two countries’ outstanding issues, including historical matters.

Both countries hope that opening their borders and engaging in a dialogue will boost trade, improve regional stability and help them move beyond the genocide debate.

Sorting out the differences between Turkey and Armenia might be the easy part, experts say. It’s the other actors involved in the issue that may prove to be difficult, says Semih Idiz, a foreign affairs columnist with Milliyet, a Turkish daily. “There are more factors that are lining up to spoil this than to bolster this. These factors have to play themselves out in the coming weeks and months and we’ll see where we go,” said Idiz.

One significant hurdle to the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement is Azerbaijan, which insists that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem must be resolved before Ankara restores its ties with Yerevan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The Azeris have reacted angrily to the April 22 announcement, signaling that if Turkey proceeds unilaterally, then Baku may respond by strengthening ties with Moscow. The clear implication is that Azerbaijan may be willing to reorient its energy focus, and make Russia, not Turkey its main energy-export option.

“I don’t think Turkey expected the strong Azeri reaction. At the moment there is anger on both sides,” Idiz says. “Turkey is not going to lose Azerbaijan — there are pipelines and trade that connect the countries, whether they like it or not — but it will cool relations for a while.”

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other officials have tried to placate Baku by saying no final deal with be signed with Armenia until there is an agreement on Karabakh. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been engaged in slow moving negotiations over the territory’s fate as part of the Minsk Group process, which is overseen by the United States, Russia and France. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Hugh Pope, a Turkey analyst with the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, says linking the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border with the fate of the Karabakh issue is a mistake. “Ankara would be ill-advised to hold up rapprochement with Yerevan because of protests from its ally, Azerbaijan,” Pope said. “In fact, normalizing relations with Armenia is the best way for Turkey to help its ethnic and linguistic Azerbaijani cousins. It would make Armenia feel more secure, making it perhaps also more open to a compromise over Nagorno-Karabakh.”

“The way the Azeris are dealing with it now is that they are telling their people that they didn’t lose the war and they are talking about military reconquest and that’s completely unrealistic,” Pope continued. “Turkey obviously has a lot of work to do to convince the Azeris that their current concept is not working and that your only way to get their land back is through the Minsk Group process.”

Turkish and Armenian leaders, meanwhile, are also facing rising domestic anger about the possibility of a deal. In Armenia, the hard-line nationalist Armenian Revolutionary Federation Party on April 27 quit the country’s governing coalition. In Turkey, the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Republican People’s Party (CHP) have criticized the government for its overtures to Armenia, claiming it has sold out Azerbaijan.

“This demonstrates the fragility of the agreement, in that neither Turkey, nor Armenia nor Azerbaijan has done anything to prepare their societies or shape public opinion to prepare for an agreement,” said Richard Giragosian, director of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies, a Yerevan-based think tank.

“The same can be said for Nagorno-Karabakh, where neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan has done anything to prepare society for an agreement,” Giragosian added. “I would also stress that right now we are only talking about normalization. Normalization infers open borders and even historical commissions. But the second step is reconciliation and for that to happen we need civil society and public opinion involved, especially for reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia, because that means dealing with the genocide issue.”

“If the public isn’t on board, we can’t sustain normalization or transform it into a deeper reconciliation,” Giragosian emphasized.

Editor’s Note: Yigal Schleifer is a freelance journalist based in Istanbul.

April 29, 2009