Tweet
Yerevan: We Recognize the Kars Agreement
By Cumali Onal, Suleyman Kurt
Published: Tuesday 25, 2005
zaman.com
In an interview with Zaman, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanyan
has recognized the Kars Agreement, stipulated by Ankara.
The Armenian Minister said that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan's remarks about the Kars Agreement determining the borders
between the two countries were surprising for them. Saying that no
Armenian leaders had made any statements denying Yerevan's recognition
of the Kars Agreement so far, Oskanyan added: "Armenia is a country
which is a continuation of the Soviet Union. All agreements signed
between the Soviet Union and third countries are valid."
A high level Turkish diplomat interpreted Oskanyan's remarks as
"opportunism". The diplomat said: "There are some expressions in the
Armenian Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which use
the expression "Western Armenia" for Turkey's eastern regions and Agri
Mountain is also registered in the state emblem. Secondly, they have
made no concrete steps to withdraw from the Azerbaijani territories
that they occupied and the Armenian diaspora continues to accuse
Turkey of genocide. If we are talking about compromise, concrete steps
should be taken on those three areas." Prime Minister Erdogan raised
the subject of the Kars Agreement after his Moscow trip on January 12,
saying that Yerevan should take the first step on the issue of
Turkey's opening the Armenian border.
Oskanyan answered questions from Zaman on various issues ranging from
the Kars Agreement to so-called genocide claims.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan explaining that Armenia
does not recognize the Kars Treaty, said "If they say 'I don't
recognize it,' then, in that case, don't get upset, we won't recognize
it, either." Those are the expressions he used. Why don't you
recognize the Treaty of Kars?
The PM's statement about the Kars Treaty really surprised me.
Government of Armenia has made no statements saying we don't recognize
it. We are the successor states of the Soviet Union. All of the
agreements, which the Soviet Union signed, continue to be in force
unless new agreements have been signed to replace them, or unless
statements have been made about not recognizing those agreements.
What is your view on Turkish condition for Armenia to end occupation
in Azerbaijani land?
Turkey can't try to simplify the Nagorno Karabakh issue so much that
it reduces it to a territorial problem, independent of all other
issues. This is a comprehensive issue, and includes many elements such
as territories, refugees, security, and stability. Until the Nagorno
Karabakh issue arose between Azerbaijan and Armenians, there was no
Azerbaijani territory under Armeniancontrol. Those territories came
under Armenian control after the Nagorno Karabakh issue came to the
fore. The Turkish side is confusing cause and consequence. By
separating cause from consequence, you can't solve this problem. At
the heart of the problem, is that Azerbaijan doesn't deal with the
fundamental core issue. That is why Turkey can't turn the territories
issue into a precondition. It's not that we're not for finding a
solution. But we want the issue to be looked at in its totality.
What do you say about Turkey's mediation? By the same token, should
Russia have become a mediator?
Turkey cannot be a mediator in the Nagorno Karabakh resolution
process, because it is biased. Russia, on the other hand, has no
preconditions for a resolution. And it is not biased. But Turkey comes
forward, at every opportunity, from its one-sided position. If Turkey
reviews its policy toward Armenia, establishes full diplomatic
relations, and develops good relations equal tothose it has with
Azerbaijan, then, Turkey's mediation would be very effective. Turkey
always proposes mediation. Although we have regular bilateral
meetings, without any problems, however, the matter of mediation is
different.
Russia and Turkey's joint act on the issue does not help for solution
How does a joint cooperation between Ankara and Russia affect the
solution?
We have no problems with the fact that we are on the agenda of both
countries. However, I don't believe that the combined efforts of the
two countries would aid in the resolution process.
One fifth of Azerbaijani land is under Armenian occupation. When will
you end this?
Nagorno Karabakh has always been Armenian territory. As for the other
regions, that is a matter between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan. In
the Soviet Union, Nagorno Karabakh was included within Azerbaijan.
When war erupted between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan, it is
natural that Armenia helped Nagorno Karabakh. The fundamental reason
that there are negotiations being conducted between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is that Azerbaijan refuses to negotiate with Nagorno
Karabakh.
Years ago, you put Genocide assertions on the agenda. In that regard,
you are also trying to receive the assistance of the West, led by the
US. What is your intent? Are you trying to grab territory from Turkey,
or to receive compensation?
Take a look at the map please. Turkey's geography, economy, and
population are obvious. Armenia on the other hand is a small and poor
country. On the Armenian foreign policy agenda, there is no reference
to territories or compensation. Our foreign policy goal is
international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, together with
recognition by Turkey. What happened in 1915 is quite obviously
Genocide. Turks have differing opinions about that. Let's let people
openly discuss this issue. We are democratic societies. There is no
need to become concerned that Armenia is trying to place this issue on
other countries' agendas. Turks, too, can lobby in different
countries, work with them. However, Armenia absolutely does not view
this as a precondition for the improvementof relations with Turkey. We
have never said that Turkey first acknowledges the Genocide. We could
have resolved the matter through dialogue, had there been diplomatic
relations between the two countries. How are we to resolve this issue?
Since we're not able to resolve it at the governmental level, then
there are efforts to seek solutions at other levels, through other
channels.
According to you, will Turkey's entry into the EU facilitate this
claim?
Today, there are two important problems between Armenia and Turkey:
opening the border, and Genocide. For the improvement of relations,
Genocide recognition is not a precondition but open borders
automatically are. No one can insist that there can be normal
relations between two countries if the border between them is
closed. However, even without Genocide recognition, it is possible to
normalize relations. The Genocide is a moral, broader issue. The EU,
too, would like for Turkey to recognize the Genocide at some stage in
the process. We hope that these matters will be included in the agenda
for negotiations between Turkey and the EU to begin later this year.
But on the border issue, we can't wait 10-15 years or longer, for
Turkey to be accepted into the EU, for there to be some positive
movement. We hope that very soon, Turkey will open the border.
Armenians living in Turkey accuse the Armenians of the Diaspora for
insisting on Genocide recognition. Where does Armenia take place in
this discussion?
It is natural that the Armenians of the Diaspora would more frequently
raise the issue. They are the descendants of the Genocide survivors.
Their grandfathers were pushed to the Syrian deserts, to the Arab
countries, and from there, they moved on to Europe and the US. They
grew up listening to the elders telling stories of the Genocide. But,
this isn't just their issue; it's also Armenia's issue. There is no
difference between them.
There is nothing left for historians to discuss about
If the issue is first discussed by historians and specialists, and
they find some common ground, wouldn't that ease the process?
There is nothing new to say on this. There are countless studies on
the subject and the events of 1915 have very clearly emerged. If the
historians were to gather again, no one's point of view would change.
The specialists have been working. They're done with their work. Now,
it is essential that the Turkish government enter into this discussion.
Why are we afraid of these discussions? Today, around the world,
there are many countries with similar problems. Japan and South Korea,
South Korea and China, Japan and the US, the US and Mexico, and
others. These countries continue to have relations with each other,
even as they continue to discuss these events. And they have fine
relations.
Cairo, Ankara
By Cumali Onal, Suleyman Kurt
Published: Tuesday 25, 2005
zaman.com
In an interview with Zaman, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanyan
has recognized the Kars Agreement, stipulated by Ankara.
The Armenian Minister said that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan's remarks about the Kars Agreement determining the borders
between the two countries were surprising for them. Saying that no
Armenian leaders had made any statements denying Yerevan's recognition
of the Kars Agreement so far, Oskanyan added: "Armenia is a country
which is a continuation of the Soviet Union. All agreements signed
between the Soviet Union and third countries are valid."
A high level Turkish diplomat interpreted Oskanyan's remarks as
"opportunism". The diplomat said: "There are some expressions in the
Armenian Constitution and the Declaration of Independence which use
the expression "Western Armenia" for Turkey's eastern regions and Agri
Mountain is also registered in the state emblem. Secondly, they have
made no concrete steps to withdraw from the Azerbaijani territories
that they occupied and the Armenian diaspora continues to accuse
Turkey of genocide. If we are talking about compromise, concrete steps
should be taken on those three areas." Prime Minister Erdogan raised
the subject of the Kars Agreement after his Moscow trip on January 12,
saying that Yerevan should take the first step on the issue of
Turkey's opening the Armenian border.
Oskanyan answered questions from Zaman on various issues ranging from
the Kars Agreement to so-called genocide claims.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan explaining that Armenia
does not recognize the Kars Treaty, said "If they say 'I don't
recognize it,' then, in that case, don't get upset, we won't recognize
it, either." Those are the expressions he used. Why don't you
recognize the Treaty of Kars?
The PM's statement about the Kars Treaty really surprised me.
Government of Armenia has made no statements saying we don't recognize
it. We are the successor states of the Soviet Union. All of the
agreements, which the Soviet Union signed, continue to be in force
unless new agreements have been signed to replace them, or unless
statements have been made about not recognizing those agreements.
What is your view on Turkish condition for Armenia to end occupation
in Azerbaijani land?
Turkey can't try to simplify the Nagorno Karabakh issue so much that
it reduces it to a territorial problem, independent of all other
issues. This is a comprehensive issue, and includes many elements such
as territories, refugees, security, and stability. Until the Nagorno
Karabakh issue arose between Azerbaijan and Armenians, there was no
Azerbaijani territory under Armeniancontrol. Those territories came
under Armenian control after the Nagorno Karabakh issue came to the
fore. The Turkish side is confusing cause and consequence. By
separating cause from consequence, you can't solve this problem. At
the heart of the problem, is that Azerbaijan doesn't deal with the
fundamental core issue. That is why Turkey can't turn the territories
issue into a precondition. It's not that we're not for finding a
solution. But we want the issue to be looked at in its totality.
What do you say about Turkey's mediation? By the same token, should
Russia have become a mediator?
Turkey cannot be a mediator in the Nagorno Karabakh resolution
process, because it is biased. Russia, on the other hand, has no
preconditions for a resolution. And it is not biased. But Turkey comes
forward, at every opportunity, from its one-sided position. If Turkey
reviews its policy toward Armenia, establishes full diplomatic
relations, and develops good relations equal tothose it has with
Azerbaijan, then, Turkey's mediation would be very effective. Turkey
always proposes mediation. Although we have regular bilateral
meetings, without any problems, however, the matter of mediation is
different.
Russia and Turkey's joint act on the issue does not help for solution
How does a joint cooperation between Ankara and Russia affect the
solution?
We have no problems with the fact that we are on the agenda of both
countries. However, I don't believe that the combined efforts of the
two countries would aid in the resolution process.
One fifth of Azerbaijani land is under Armenian occupation. When will
you end this?
Nagorno Karabakh has always been Armenian territory. As for the other
regions, that is a matter between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan. In
the Soviet Union, Nagorno Karabakh was included within Azerbaijan.
When war erupted between Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan, it is
natural that Armenia helped Nagorno Karabakh. The fundamental reason
that there are negotiations being conducted between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is that Azerbaijan refuses to negotiate with Nagorno
Karabakh.
Years ago, you put Genocide assertions on the agenda. In that regard,
you are also trying to receive the assistance of the West, led by the
US. What is your intent? Are you trying to grab territory from Turkey,
or to receive compensation?
Take a look at the map please. Turkey's geography, economy, and
population are obvious. Armenia on the other hand is a small and poor
country. On the Armenian foreign policy agenda, there is no reference
to territories or compensation. Our foreign policy goal is
international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, together with
recognition by Turkey. What happened in 1915 is quite obviously
Genocide. Turks have differing opinions about that. Let's let people
openly discuss this issue. We are democratic societies. There is no
need to become concerned that Armenia is trying to place this issue on
other countries' agendas. Turks, too, can lobby in different
countries, work with them. However, Armenia absolutely does not view
this as a precondition for the improvementof relations with Turkey. We
have never said that Turkey first acknowledges the Genocide. We could
have resolved the matter through dialogue, had there been diplomatic
relations between the two countries. How are we to resolve this issue?
Since we're not able to resolve it at the governmental level, then
there are efforts to seek solutions at other levels, through other
channels.
According to you, will Turkey's entry into the EU facilitate this
claim?
Today, there are two important problems between Armenia and Turkey:
opening the border, and Genocide. For the improvement of relations,
Genocide recognition is not a precondition but open borders
automatically are. No one can insist that there can be normal
relations between two countries if the border between them is
closed. However, even without Genocide recognition, it is possible to
normalize relations. The Genocide is a moral, broader issue. The EU,
too, would like for Turkey to recognize the Genocide at some stage in
the process. We hope that these matters will be included in the agenda
for negotiations between Turkey and the EU to begin later this year.
But on the border issue, we can't wait 10-15 years or longer, for
Turkey to be accepted into the EU, for there to be some positive
movement. We hope that very soon, Turkey will open the border.
Armenians living in Turkey accuse the Armenians of the Diaspora for
insisting on Genocide recognition. Where does Armenia take place in
this discussion?
It is natural that the Armenians of the Diaspora would more frequently
raise the issue. They are the descendants of the Genocide survivors.
Their grandfathers were pushed to the Syrian deserts, to the Arab
countries, and from there, they moved on to Europe and the US. They
grew up listening to the elders telling stories of the Genocide. But,
this isn't just their issue; it's also Armenia's issue. There is no
difference between them.
There is nothing left for historians to discuss about
If the issue is first discussed by historians and specialists, and
they find some common ground, wouldn't that ease the process?
There is nothing new to say on this. There are countless studies on
the subject and the events of 1915 have very clearly emerged. If the
historians were to gather again, no one's point of view would change.
The specialists have been working. They're done with their work. Now,
it is essential that the Turkish government enter into this discussion.
Why are we afraid of these discussions? Today, around the world,
there are many countries with similar problems. Japan and South Korea,
South Korea and China, Japan and the US, the US and Mexico, and
others. These countries continue to have relations with each other,
even as they continue to discuss these events. And they have fine
relations.
Cairo, Ankara