Tweet
THE OPENING OF THE ARMENIA-TURKEY BORDER IN THE LIGHT OF ARMENO-IRANIAN RELATIONS
By Khajag Mgrdichian
AZG Armenian Daily
20/04/2006
For most Armenian political and intellectual circles, the blockade
forced on Armenia by Turkey-and the fact, that the Armeno-Turkish
border still remains closed-are proof of Turkey's antagonistic
attitude, if not outright animosity towards Armenia and the Armenian
people. This much is undeniable. Aside from the economic consequences
of the blockade, in the realm of international relations, aggravating
the lack of formal diplomatic ties with the decision to implement
a blockade, can easily be construed as an act of war, a casus
belli. Therefore, to ask Turkey to normalize relations with Armenia by
opening the borders, may be received as an attempt to end the present
belligerent policy. It is not by chance, that the speech delivered
at an Armenian Assembly gathering by Assistant to the Secretary
of State, Daniel Fried was received with applause, when he stated:
"Now we hope, but also anticipate, that a solution on Nagorno-Karabagh
will result in an open border with Turkey, which is a consistent goal
on our agenda with Ankara. From Yerevan, I went to Ankara and I made
this point with the Turkish government that we want the border open,
and we want it open as soon as possible."
So far, high-ranking American officials, succeeding ambassadors-the
last of whom, John Evans-have declared, that in the light of the
existing blockade, they approach with understanding Armenia's special
relationship with Iran.
In regards to the importance of relations with Iran, a similar opinion
is expressed in a document titled "Strategic Defense Guidelines of the
Republic of Armenia" where one reads the following: "In conditions
of an economic-transportation blockade, from the point-of-view of
neutralizing Armenia's isolation, Iran's significance becomes more
salient as a country securing an essential strategic road to Asia
and the Middle East for Armenia."
However, it is clear, that intent on the encirclement of Iran, the
United States has partially completed that aim with its military
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mistrust of the Gulf's Arab
states towards Iran and the stress in Azerbaijan-Iran relations. Daniel
Fried has said in Baku, that the danger to the security of Azerbaijan
does not come from Armenia, it comes from other countries (referring
to Iran). Fried justifies American aid to Azerbaijan, saying, "Our
security cooperation with and assistance to Azerbaijan is meant
to improve Azerbaijan's posture against those threats, not against
Armenia."
Iran's encirclement could be completed by reversing the progress of
her relationship with Armenia.
However, that progress cannot be justifiably slowed down, as long as
the Turkish-Azeri blockade of Armenia continues. It is by lifting that
blockade, that Armenia's special relationship with Iran may become
not only unjustifiable, as far as the United States is concerned,
but objectionable, as well.
According to Fried, the United States follows with considerable
apprehension Armenia's energy ties with Iran. According to him,
America-as in the case of other Caucasus countries-tries to find
alternate sources of fuel for Armenia. Therefore, it is clear, that
the increasing interest, shown recently by the United States on the
matter of the opening of the Armenia-Turkey border, is motivated by a
desire to end State Department's present tolerance of the Armenia-Iran
special relationship, by securing other accessible sources of energy
for Armenia's needs.
In political terms, the U.S. efforts to encircle Iran are
understandable. However, the U.S. attempt to replace the present
Armenia-Iran relations with those of Armenia-Turkey, denotes a
failure to grasp the historical context of existing Armenian-Turkish
relations. For Armenia, what is being dealt with here is not a simple
act of shutting the back door and opening the front one. More than just
political, both relationships have strategic ramifications. Opening
the borders does not nullify the Turkish threats to the security of
the Armenian people and state.
Furthermore, it jeopardizes the Armenian quest for justice and
reparations for the genocide committed by Turkey. In sum, the issue
is not one of replacing the 10 cubic meters of natural gas being
pumped from Iran with an equal amount from Turkey or Azerbaijan;
those relationships are not as simple as the spokesmen of the US
State Department's foreign policy would make us believe.
Most worrisome of all, however, is the danger of having Armenian
circles, that may be lured and end up swallowing-hook, line, and
sinker-these simplistic notions concerning the complex relationships
discussed above.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Khajag Mgrdichian
AZG Armenian Daily
20/04/2006
For most Armenian political and intellectual circles, the blockade
forced on Armenia by Turkey-and the fact, that the Armeno-Turkish
border still remains closed-are proof of Turkey's antagonistic
attitude, if not outright animosity towards Armenia and the Armenian
people. This much is undeniable. Aside from the economic consequences
of the blockade, in the realm of international relations, aggravating
the lack of formal diplomatic ties with the decision to implement
a blockade, can easily be construed as an act of war, a casus
belli. Therefore, to ask Turkey to normalize relations with Armenia by
opening the borders, may be received as an attempt to end the present
belligerent policy. It is not by chance, that the speech delivered
at an Armenian Assembly gathering by Assistant to the Secretary
of State, Daniel Fried was received with applause, when he stated:
"Now we hope, but also anticipate, that a solution on Nagorno-Karabagh
will result in an open border with Turkey, which is a consistent goal
on our agenda with Ankara. From Yerevan, I went to Ankara and I made
this point with the Turkish government that we want the border open,
and we want it open as soon as possible."
So far, high-ranking American officials, succeeding ambassadors-the
last of whom, John Evans-have declared, that in the light of the
existing blockade, they approach with understanding Armenia's special
relationship with Iran.
In regards to the importance of relations with Iran, a similar opinion
is expressed in a document titled "Strategic Defense Guidelines of the
Republic of Armenia" where one reads the following: "In conditions
of an economic-transportation blockade, from the point-of-view of
neutralizing Armenia's isolation, Iran's significance becomes more
salient as a country securing an essential strategic road to Asia
and the Middle East for Armenia."
However, it is clear, that intent on the encirclement of Iran, the
United States has partially completed that aim with its military
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, the mistrust of the Gulf's Arab
states towards Iran and the stress in Azerbaijan-Iran relations. Daniel
Fried has said in Baku, that the danger to the security of Azerbaijan
does not come from Armenia, it comes from other countries (referring
to Iran). Fried justifies American aid to Azerbaijan, saying, "Our
security cooperation with and assistance to Azerbaijan is meant
to improve Azerbaijan's posture against those threats, not against
Armenia."
Iran's encirclement could be completed by reversing the progress of
her relationship with Armenia.
However, that progress cannot be justifiably slowed down, as long as
the Turkish-Azeri blockade of Armenia continues. It is by lifting that
blockade, that Armenia's special relationship with Iran may become
not only unjustifiable, as far as the United States is concerned,
but objectionable, as well.
According to Fried, the United States follows with considerable
apprehension Armenia's energy ties with Iran. According to him,
America-as in the case of other Caucasus countries-tries to find
alternate sources of fuel for Armenia. Therefore, it is clear, that
the increasing interest, shown recently by the United States on the
matter of the opening of the Armenia-Turkey border, is motivated by a
desire to end State Department's present tolerance of the Armenia-Iran
special relationship, by securing other accessible sources of energy
for Armenia's needs.
In political terms, the U.S. efforts to encircle Iran are
understandable. However, the U.S. attempt to replace the present
Armenia-Iran relations with those of Armenia-Turkey, denotes a
failure to grasp the historical context of existing Armenian-Turkish
relations. For Armenia, what is being dealt with here is not a simple
act of shutting the back door and opening the front one. More than just
political, both relationships have strategic ramifications. Opening
the borders does not nullify the Turkish threats to the security of
the Armenian people and state.
Furthermore, it jeopardizes the Armenian quest for justice and
reparations for the genocide committed by Turkey. In sum, the issue
is not one of replacing the 10 cubic meters of natural gas being
pumped from Iran with an equal amount from Turkey or Azerbaijan;
those relationships are not as simple as the spokesmen of the US
State Department's foreign policy would make us believe.
Most worrisome of all, however, is the danger of having Armenian
circles, that may be lured and end up swallowing-hook, line, and
sinker-these simplistic notions concerning the complex relationships
discussed above.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress