Tag: Turkey-Armenia

  • U.S. Pressure ‘Essential’ For Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    U.S. Pressure ‘Essential’ For Turkish-Armenian Normalization

    5F3058B3 C736 4039 8022 05494F31979D w527 sArmenia — David Phillips, a U.S. scholar who chaired the former Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, presents the Armenian translation of his book in Yerevan, February 4, 2010.

    04.02.2010
    Emil Danielyan

    Stronger U.S. pressure on Turkey is essential for salvaging its fence-mending agreements with Armenia and the administration of President Barack Obama understands that, according to a renowned U.S. scholar who was actively involved in Turkish-Armenian reconciliation initiatives.

    In an interview with RFE/RL on Thursday, David Phillips also criticized Ankara’s linkage between the implementation of those agreements and a Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. He dismissed Turkish claims that a recent ruling by the Armenian Constitutional Court ran counter to key provisions of the Turkish-Armenian “protocols” signed in October.

    Phillips, who coordinated the work of the U.S.-sponsored Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) in 2001-2004, further said that Armenia should not rush to walk away from the deal. But he stressed that its ratification by the Turkish parliament can not be “an open-ended process.”

    “If these protocols fall apart and there is a diplomatic train wreck, it will have a serious adverse effect on U.S.-Turkish relations,” he said. “And this comes at a time when the U.S. is seeking Turkey’s cooperation on Iran, when Turkey is playing an increasingly important role in Afghanistan and during the wrap-up to redeployment from Iraq.

    “The Obama administration knows full well that these protocols should go forward because it is in the interests of Turkey and Armenia. It is also in America’s interests to keep the process moving forward so that U.S.-Turkish cooperation is in effect.”

    Analysts believe Washington will step up pressure on Ankara ahead of the April 24 annual commemoration of more than one million Armenians massacred in the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1918. Obama avoided describing the massacres as genocide in an April 2009 statement, implicitly citing the need not to undermine the ongoing Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.

    U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg discussed the issue with President Serzh Sarkisian and Foreign Minisiter Edward Nalbandian during a one-day visit to Yerevan on Thursday.

    Phillips, who currently runs a conflict resolution program at the American University in Washington, declined to speculate on just how strong that pressure will be. “But I do believe that unless the Obama administration presses the Turks at the highest level, the likelihood of the protocols being ratified in Ankara will decrease,” he said.

    Phillips described Steinberg’s visit as a “a clear indication that the Obama administration understands the importance of this matter and the need to raise the profile of its involvement.” “And its efforts to use its leverage should intensify in the near future,” he said. “The U.S. needs to be actively engaged in this process if it is going to work.”

    U.S. officials have already made clear that they disagree with Ankara’s highly negative reaction to the Armenian court ruling. While upholding the legality of the protocols, the Constitutional Court ruled last month that they can not stop Yerevan seeking a broader international recognition of the Armenian genocide.

    Turkish leaders claim that the court thereby prejudged the findings of a Turkish-Armenian “subcommission” of history experts which the two governments have agreed to set up. The Armenian side insists, however, that the panel would not be tasked with determining whether the mass killings and deportations of Ottoman Armenians constituted genocide. It says the Turks are deliberately exploiting the ruling to justify their reluctance to ratify the protocols.

    “There is nothing in the [relevant protocol] annex that says that the subcommission is going to be considering the veracity of the Armenian genocide,” agreed Phillips. “If those questions are being raised, they are being raised as a way of deflecting the focus of discussions and creating conditions whereby Armenia is blamed for any breakdown of the process.”

    “If the Turks ever thought that signing the protocols would bring an end to international recognition efforts, they were wrong,” he said. “They should have known that from the beginning and I’m quite sure that they do know that.”

    Commenting on Turkish leaders’ repeated statements making protocol ratification conditional on the signing of a Karabakh agreement acceptable to Azerbaijan, Phillips said, “The protocols are very clear. There is no mention in the protocols themselves or in any of the annexes about Nagorno-Karabakh.”

    President Serzh Sarkisian has publicly threatened to annul the agreements unless Ankara drops the Karabakh linkage “within a reasonable time frame.” Some of his aides have spoken of late March as an unofficial deadline for their unconditional implementation.

    In Phillips’s view, walking away from the deal at this juncture would be a “mistake.” But he acknowledged that the Armenian government can not wait for Turkish ratification for much longer.

    “I know that for domestic political reasons, this can’t be an open-ended process, and April 24, as the anniversary of the Armenian genocide, has been put forward as a deadline,” he said. “Whether or not April 24 is a deadline is something for the Armenian government to decide. But there clearly needs to be an end point.”

    In the meantime, suggested Phillips, Sarkisian should formally submit the protocols to Armenia’s parliament “without necessarily calling for a vote.” “Then the onus of responsibility for a potential diplomatic breakdown would rest with Ankara,” he reasoned.

    D2AAC51A 092A 4526 A2E4 7BB599EEC3E4 w270 s

    Armenia — Armenian-language copies of Unsilencing the Past, a book on the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission written by U.S. scholar David Phillips.

    Phillips spoke to RFE/RL in Yerevan where he arrived earlier on Thursday to present the newly published Armenian translation of his 2005 book, “Unsilencing the Past,” that gives a detailed account of TARC’s largely confidential activities. The panel of Turkish and Armenian retired diplomats and prominent public figures was set up in 2001 at the U.S. State Department’s initiative and with the tacit approval of the authorities in Ankara and Yerevan.

    TARC repeatedly called for the unconditional establishment of diplomatic relations between the two states and opening of their border before being disbanded in 2004. It is also famous for commissioning a study on the events of 1915 from the New York-based International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). In a report released in February 2003, ICTJ concluded that the Armenian massacres “include all of the elements of the crime of genocide” as defined by a 1948 United Nations convention.

    But the report also said, to the dismay of nationalist groups in Armenia and its worldwide Diaspora, that the Armenians can not use the convention for demanding material or other compensation from Turkey. Former U.S. President George W. Bush repeatedly cited the ICTJ study in his April 24 statements.

    Phillips hailed the study as a potential blueprint for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. “The full benefit of that finding has yet to be fully understood and materialized,” he said.

    Phillips also credited TARC with laying the groundwork for the unprecedented thaw in Turkish-Armenian relations that began shortly after Sarkisian took office in April 2008. “The rapprochement that’s underway today would never have occurred in this time frame if TARC hadn’t existed,” he said. “All of TARC’s recommendations are now being put into effect.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1949005.html
  • U.S. House Panel Schedules Vote On Armenian “Genocide” Bill

    U.S. House Panel Schedules Vote On Armenian “Genocide” Bill

    7F036E98 4463 4DAB AC52 D12375569225 w527 sU.S. — The early morning sun rises behind the US Capitol Building in Washington, DC, 22Oct2009

    05.02.2010
    Emil Danielyan

    A key committee of the U.S. House of Representatives will vote early next month on a resolution urging President Barack Obama to describe the 1915 mass killings and deportations of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide, Armenian-American leaders said on Friday.

    The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), said Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has scheduled the vote for March 4. The ANCA chairman, Ken Hachikian, thanked the California Democrat for taking what he called a “bold step.”

    Officials from the Armenian Assembly of America, the other major Armenian lobby group in Washington, confirmed the information. The Assembly was due to officially announce it later in the day.

    “We look forward to working with the Chairman and all our friends on the Committee from both parties to facilitate passage of this critical piece of human rights legislation by both this panel and the full House of Representatives,” Hachikian said in a statement. “Our grassroots activists are mobilized to help achieve the success of this effort.”

    The draft resolution introduced by pro-Armenian legislators a year ago urges Obama to “accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide.” Its progress in the House of Representatives stalled in 2009 amid an intensifying dialogue between Armenia and Turkey that culminated in the signing last October of two “protocols” on normalizing relations between the two nations.

    The reported scheduling of the House committee vote will add a new twist to Washington’s efforts to secure the protocols’ ratification by the Armenian and Turkish parliaments. Some observers expect the Obama administration to use the prospect of genocide recognition in its efforts to eliminate ratification conditions set by the Turkish government.

    Ankara has gone to great lengths in the past to prevent similar genocide resolutions from reaching the House floor. The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved such legislation in 2000, 2002 and 2007.

    The upcoming committee vote could further complicate Turkey’s efforts to win U.S. support over a recent Armenian Constitutional Court ruling which the Turks say was at odds with the letter and spirit of the protocols. A top Turkish diplomat will reportedly visit Washington for that purpose in the coming days.

    1F7B2E28 246B 4B08 B602 EA223724C5A9 w270 s

    Armenia — Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian (L) talks to visiting U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg on February 4 2010.

    Senior U.S. State Department officials have already dismissed, however, the Turkish protests against the court’s conclusion that the protocols can not stop Yerevan from seeking broader international recognition of the Armenian genocide. According to official Armenian sources, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg reaffirmed that position during a visit to Yerevan on Thursday.

    Steinberg on Friday described his talks with President Serzh Sarkisian as “extremely productive and substantive.” He also urged Ankara and Yerevan to move forward on protocol ratification, the AFP news agency reported.

    “I very much hope that both Armenia and Turkey will move forward. I don’t think delay is in anybody’s interest,” Steinberg told journalists in Tbilisi.

    “There’s a very strong commitment on behalf of the United States to work with Armenia and Turkey to see the ratification of the protocols,” he said.

    Armenian-American leaders say the near-term passage of the genocide bill, vehemently opposed by the Turkish government, hinges, in large measure, on whether Turkey’s parliament will endorse the protocols. As one of them told RFE/RL recently, “If Turkey does not ratify the protocols or open the border [with Armenia] on time, the resolution will be relatively easy to pass.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1950012.html
  • Armenian Defense Chief To Attend Afghanistan Forum In Turkey

    Armenian Defense Chief To Attend Afghanistan Forum In Turkey

    48DA57A6 675B 4E04 8F26 08E621771719 w527 sArmenia — Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian addresses students and professors at Yerevan State University on January 25, 2010.

    03.02.2010

    Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian will fly to Istanbul on Thursday to attend an international conference on the future of the ongoing NATO-led mission in Afghanistan which Armenia is about to join.

    Defense ministers of NATO member states are scheduled to start the two-day gathering on Thursday evening with a working dinner centered on reforms of the alliance. They will be joined on Friday by their counterparts from partner countries participating in the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) which has been fighting the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan along with American troops.

    The meeting will discuss the planned dispatch of around 40,000 extra troops to Afghanistan as part of the ISAF’s new counter-insurgency strategy. They include a 40-strong Armenian army unit that will serve under German command and be mainly tasked with protecting a military airport in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz.

    1113B180 DFE9 4811 A935 0BFF8AA72B9C w270 s

    Armenia — Armen Martirosian (C), the Armenian ambassador to Germany, poses for a photo with Armenian troops due to be deployed in Afghanistan, January 28 2010.

    The Armenian parliament approved the deployment in early December after months of negotiations between Armenian and NATO officials. The Armenian contingent left for Germany last month to undergo additional training at a German military base located in the southwestern Baden-Wurttemberg region. It is due to flown to Kunduz later this month.

    Armenia’s ambassador to Germany, Armen Martirosian, visited the Afghanistan-bound troops on January 28. “The commanders of the [German] military base highly assessed the degree of the servicemen’s preparedness,” the Armenian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

    According to the Armenian Defense Ministry, Ohanian will hold bilateral meetings with some of his Western counterparts on the sidelines of the Istanbul forum. A ministry statement said he will also visit the Istanbul Patriarchate of the Armenian Apostolic Church which leads Turkey’s small Armenian community.

    Ohanian will apparently become the first serving Armenian defense minister to set foot in Turkey.

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1947885.html
  • U.S. Intelligence Chief Warns Of Karabakh War

    U.S. Intelligence Chief Warns Of Karabakh War

    EB32266F 5F5E 4F47 A0AE 203E15688B8D w527 sU.S. — U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair testifies during a hearing before the Senate (Select) Intelligence Committee February 2, 2010 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

    03.02.2010

    The likelihood of another Armenian-Azerbaijani war for Nagorno-Karabakh has increased as a result of the U.S.-backed rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey, according to America’s top intelligence official.

    “Although there has been progress in the past year toward Turkey-Armenia rapprochement, this has affected the delicate relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and increases the risk of a renewed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh,” Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair warned late Tuesday in written testimony to a U.S. Senate committee.

    Blair also warned of broader security and stability threats persisting in the South Caucasus. “The unresolved conflicts of the Caucasus provide the most likely flashpoints in the Eurasia region,” he said. “Moscow’s expanded military presence in and political-economic ties to Georgia’s separatist regions of South Ossetia and sporadic low-level violence increase the risk of miscalculation or overreaction leading to renewed fighting.”

    The United States has strongly supported and at times mediated in the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement that began nearly two years ago and led to the signing last October of two “protocols” envisaging the normalization of relations between the two historical foes.

    Azerbaijan has condemned the agreements, saying that an open border with Turkey would only discourage Armenia from seeking a compromise solution to the dispute. Azerbaijani leaders have also continued to threaten to win back Karabakh and surrounding Armenian-occupied territories by force.

    The authorities in Armenia and Karabakh have dismissed the war threats. International mediators have also disapproved of them, repeatedly urging the conflicting parties to refrain from bellicose rhetoric.

    U.S. diplomats have seemed confident, at least until recently, that chances for renewed large-scale fighting in Karabakh are slim. Speaking to RFE/RL in October 2008, then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried said the danger of another war “has somewhat receded because the [August 2008] war in Georgia reminded everyone in this region how terrible war is.” “War is no joke,” Fried said. “It’s a bad option.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1947893.html
  • Turkey Claims Armenian ‘Preconditions’

    Turkey Claims Armenian ‘Preconditions’

    8895BEF3 179E 4F13 9402 4675D6A835A1 w527 sAzerbaijan — Ahmet Davutoglu, foreign minister of Turkey, in Baku, 26May2009

    19.01.2010
    Tigran Avetisian

    Turkey has accused Armenia of setting “unacceptable” preconditions for normalizing bilateral ties, citing the Armenian Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the ground-breaking agreements signed by the two estranged nations. (UPDATED)

    Official Yerevan expressed on Tuesday its “bewilderment” with the claim, suggesting that the Turkish government might be seeking a new excuse to delay the parliamentary ratification of the agreements.

    The court upheld on January 12 the legality of the two protocols that commit Ankara to establish diplomatic relations with Yerevan and open the Turkish-Armenian boarder. In an apparent response to domestic criticism of the deal, it also indicated that the documents can not have any bearing on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or inhibit Armenia’s pursuit of greater international recognition of the Armenian genocide.

    The ruling specifically mentioned Armenia’s 1990 declaration of independence from the Soviet Union that refers to the “genocide of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.” The opposition Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), the most vocal detractor of the deal, has construed that as a de facto invalidation of key provisions of the protocols. The nationalist party wants the Armenian parliament to ratify them with corresponding “reservations.”

    The Turkish Foreign Ministry offered late on Monday a similar interpretation of the Constitutional Court ruling. “It has been observed that this decision contains preconditions and restrictive provisions which impair the letter and spirit of the Protocols,” it said in a statement.

    “The said decision undermines the very reason for negotiating these Protocols as well as their fundamental objective. This approach cannot be accepted on our part,” the ministry said without elaboration.

    “Turkey, in line with its accustomed allegiance to its international commitments, maintains its adherence to the primary provisions of these Protocols. We expect the same allegiance from the Armenian Government,” added the statement.

    Successive Turkish governments have longed portrayed the reference to “Western Armenia” as proof of Armenian claims to areas in eastern Turkey that were populated by many Armenians until their 1915-1918 mass killings and deportations. Dashnaktsutyun likewise believes that the 1990 declaration, which is mentioned in the Armenian constitution’s preamble, bars Yerevan from explicitly recognizing the existing Turkish-Armenian border.

    E8BEBB66 D48D 4470 937C C410F5080EDD w270 s

    Switzerland — Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (2ndR) and his Armenian counterpart Eduard Nalbandiana (2nd L) shake hands as they hold signed documents after a signing ceremony, Zurich, 10Oct2009

    In a written statement issued late on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian said he will phone his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoglu, to “express my bewilderment and clarify where exactly Turkish side sees preconditions and just how the decision by Armenia’s Constitutional Court contradicts the fundamental objectives of the protocols.”

    “I hope that with such a statement the Turkish side is not trying to justify its continuous attempts to set preconditions and disguise an undue stalling of the process of protocol ratification,” warned Nalbandian.

    Armenia’s leadership has repeatedly accused the Turks of acting against the letter and spirit of the Turkish-Armenian agreements with statements linking their implementation to the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. President Serzh Sarkisian warned last month that Yerevan will walk away from the deal if Ankara fails to ratify it “within a reasonable time frame.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1933524.html
  • Lessons Learned About Turkey and Azerbaijan After Erdogan’s Washington Visit

    Lessons Learned About Turkey and Azerbaijan After Erdogan’s Washington Visit

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 228 December 11, 2009

    By: Vladimir Socor

      Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan (L) with US President Barack Obama in Washington, DC

     

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s December 7-8 visit to Washington (EDM, December 9) underscored the decline in Washington’s ability to influence Turkish foreign policy decisions. It is within this broader context, Erdogan and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu turned down Washington’s demands for Turkey to normalize relations with Armenia swiftly and unconditionally. This would have broken the linkage between the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations and withdrawal of Armenian troops from certain Azerbaijani districts, as part of the Karabakh conflict resolution process.

    That withdrawal and linkage are top national priorities for Azerbaijan –a fact that the US administration apparently discounted, amid pressures from Armenian advocacy groups and parts of Congress. Breaking that linkage would have undermined Azerbaijan’s position severely, with potentially lasting effects.

    By asking Turkey to undercut Azerbaijan in that way, Washington jeopardized its de facto strategic partnership with Baku and put long-term US policy goals in the South Caucasus at risk. The Turkish government’s disagreement with Washington on this issue, however, has opened a fresh opportunity for the U.S.-Azerbaijan relationship to continue on a lessons-learned basis and develop further.

    This turn of events is not without irony, given that Ankara is distancing itself strategically from Washington on a number of issues that the United States regards as its top policy priorities. This process gained added momentum in the run-up to Erdogan’s Washington visit.

    Thus, Ankara turned down US requests to increase the Turkish troop presence in Afghanistan beyond the 1,600 currently deployed (a strikingly low ratio for NATO’s second-largest army after that of the United States). Ankara, moreover, reaffirmed its caveats against military operations and combat missions, confining Turkish troops instead to training and reconstruction projects, even as Washington urged support for its military “surge” on December 1.

    Demonstratively, Turkey abstained from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) November 27 resolution censuring Iran (while Russia and China voted in favor alongside the United States). Erdogan had visited Tehran in October for the signing of economic agreements that could boost bilateral trade from $11 billion to $30 billion annually within this decade. The agreements of intent include exploration, production, and transportation of Iranian natural gas, notwithstanding U.S. sanctions in that sector. Ankara differs with Washington’s threat assessment regarding the Iranian nuclear program and is reaching out politically to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Hurriyet, December 6; Zaman, December 6, 7).

    Ankara is also distancing itself markedly from Israel, Washington’s closest Middle Eastern ally. Following Erdogan’s war-crimes accusations against Israeli President Shimon Peres at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Turkish public television produced an inflammatory serial in which performers impersonating Israeli soldiers enacted killings of Arab children. In October, Turkey revoked its invitation to Israel in the Anatolia Eagle air force exercise, prompting the United States to cancel its participation, and thus the event as such. Meanwhile, Ankara conducts a rapprochement with Hamas and other politically defined Muslim anti-Western forces (Jerusalem Post, December 7).

    The Turkish government relies heavily on Russia to turn Turkey into an “energy hub” –an ambition that tends to work against Western energy security interests and US-backed projects. In the Black Sea, Turkey pursues a de facto condominium with Russia, sidelining NATO allies and partners and frustrating the United States in the process.

    Without and beyond any value judgments, however, these trends demonstrate Turkey’s capacity to pursue policies contradicting those of Washington, when Ankara’s views and perceived interests so dictate. Common US-Turkish interests –most saliently on Iraq and the Kurdish problem– persist despite the multiple disagreements elsewhere. In the South Caucasus, meanwhile, Washington and Ankara both lost their former strategic focus and clear definition of common interests. Course corrections are possible, however.

    Ankara’s decision to rally to Azerbaijan’s support in the negotiating process, despite US calls for a premature agreement with Armenia, is a case in point. On the eve of the Erdogan-Davutoglu visit to Washington, Davutoglu summed up bilateral relations as: “The United States always wants something from us” (Zaman, December 6). Such a situation inherently provides Turkey with ample bargaining power and even counter-leverage, which it has employed in this case with regard to Azerbaijan.

    At least for now, Ankara’s move has prevented Azerbaijan’s isolation in the Karabakh conflict-resolution process. Isolation could have forced Baku to turn toward Moscow as arbiter of last resort in the Karabakh conflict, which ranks as Azerbaijan’s uppermost national priority. And such an about-turn could have compromised the energy security and regional security agendas for Europe and the South Caucasus-Caspian region. Washington and Brussels discounted the danger signals from Baku and underestimated the mounting sentiment of alienation there.

    The problem can soon return, if Washington and Brussels renew pressure on Turkey to open the border with Armenia unconditionally, at Azerbaijan’s expense, before next April’s climactic debate on an Armenian genocide resolution in the US Congress.

    https://jamestown.org/program/lessons-learned-about-turkey-and-azerbaijan-after-erdogans-washington-visit/