Tweet
ACCORD OF SEVRES: NATIONAL PROBLEM OR INTERNATIONAL PROJECT
IGOR MURADYAN
The Iravunk De Facto
18:30:04 - 12/12/2008
In the past few years increased if not solidarity then at least mutual
understanding between the United States and the European Union (first
of all, the establishments on both coasts of the Atlantic Ocean)
regarding the future role of Turkey in the Western community, NATO and
the EU has been noticed. It has been noticed that the United States has
actually stopped insisting or has considerably relieved pressure on the
Europeans regarding the entry of Turkey to the EU. One way or another,
the United States came to the conclusion that there is no point in
further insisting, since there is no hope to reach this goal, but at
the same time disputable issues in the U.S.-European relations get more
complicated, without producing anything positive. Besides, if the
United States used to hope to create a `fifth column' out of Turkey in
the EU, and disorganize the EU to some extent, now there is no hope
that Turkey will not refuse solidarity to Europe and will become an
instrument for the U.S. policies. As part of the EU, Turkey would
certainly become less dependent on the United States and would play its
own game. With regard to the acceptance of Turkey to the EU, the United
States and the Europeans have a tacit agreement which teases Turkey and
estranges it from both powers. In such a pattern of interests and
strategies, nevertheless, the acceptance of Turkey to the EU is no
longer a priority. In contacts with European and American political
scientists it was possible to notice signs that the issue of possible
secession of Turkey from NATO has stopped being invented, and may
become quite urgent in the nearest future. This issue, as well as the
refusal of Turkey to continue integration with the EU may be viewed as
one for discussion and meant for propaganda and blackmail but the given
issues are already brought up among analysts. While the Americans and
Europeans are convinced that Turkey has no geopolitical and economic
alternatives and it cannot exist without close partnership with the
United States, the EU and NATO. It is right now but it may become
disputable in the nearest future. The political dynamics in the world
is stronger than ever. If we elaborate the thought about the priority
of issues in the U.S. and EU policies on the Turkish topic, control
over Turkey has more importance. Now it is already obvious that the
United States and the EU are close to a joint plan of the geopolitical
blockage of Turkey, thwarting its international efforts in the Near
East and regional political efforts relating to Russia. Overcoming
doubts and controversies, the United States and the EU have come close
to the problem of fragmentation of Turkey, for the time being, as a
reserve problem. The internationalization of the issue of Kurds will
lead to the questioning of the territorial integrity of Turkey. The
Western community is seeking and at the same time drafting arguments
and projects which would be able to solve the problem of Turkey. In
this context, the Armenian issue is on the agenda, which acquires a new
meaning and content. The Americans and Europeans have become convinced
that as a means of pressure on Turkey the Armenian issue cannot contain
the relations between Armenia and Turkey only. In this sense, the West
needs new ideas, and the forgotten accord of Sevres could be one. In
addition, it is felt that after an earlier effort to depart from the
Diaspora and rely on the Republic of Armenia, the West again focuses on
the organizations of the Armenian Diaspora, setting forth the idea of
creation of new organizations which are more strongly related to the
interests of a number of major states than the traditional
organizations. Moreover, the idea of complete replacement of all the
Armenian organizations of the Diaspora by new ones has occurred. The
problem is complicated but possible to fulfill in the current
conditions. Besides, the West will have to make efforts to prevent
growth of influence of Russia on the Armenian Disapora and initiatives
relating to the Armenian and Turkish. Russia is trying to gain
dominance in the Armenian Diaspora, at least in three directions: rule
in the South Caucasus, establish brand new relations with Turkey,
downplay the activities of the Armenian lobbies in the United States
and the EU.
After the aggravation of the Turkish and American relations, the reason
of which was the events relating to the military action in Iraq in
2003, experts in the United States displayed interest in various
political documents and events from the modern history of Turkey, that
is the period around the 20th century. In various publications, events
relating to border disputes, rights of ethnic and religious minorities,
property and heritage were evoked. One of these problems mentioned in
the political literature is the accord of Sevres. No doubt, the U.S.
administration is trying to pressure on Turkey, lead it to the solution
of problems of the past. Turkey is known to be highly sensitive
regarding the accord of Sevres which is on a territorial issue. For the
Turkish political class, the accord of Sevres remains a threat to the
territorial integrity of Turkey. According to Ali Reza Bulent, an
American expert of Turkish background, for many decades the Turkish
legations get instructions regarding the problems that occur in
relation to the accord of Sevres. The Turkish diplomats get similar
instructions regarding the accords of Kars and Moscow signed in 1921.
Turkish experts living in Turkey, as well as the United States and
Europe, have made emotive evaluations of the accord of Sevres, such as
`the accord of Sevres haunts Turkey as a nightmare'. Bulent Ali Reza, a
leading expert (CSIS), Soner Cagaty (Washington Institute for Near East
Policy), Zeyno Baran (Hudson), Omer Taspinar (Brookings Institution),
Nihat Ali Ã-zcan, Hakan Yavuz, Tarik Oguzlu, Mevlut Katik and other
experts said excavations may be expected to discover the accord of
Sevres, and it may cause a discussion not only among researchers but
also political circles. It should be acknowledged that this kind of
reanimation cannot be successful without corresponding support of the
government of the great power. The question is who and how will set
forward initiatives in Armenia and the Diaspora. Will these initiatives
get a broad public and political response, the support of the
international organizations which are under the total influence of the
United States? How can the mechanisms of launching this project on the
international arena be presented now? It is interesting that the
Washington-based Greek political and lobbyist organization Western
Political Center which is integrated with the U.S. government agencies,
has displayed considerable interest to the perspective of launching the
project of the `accord of Sevres'. A more major political institution
in Washington, the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington displayed
similar interest. It should be noted that it is thought to be dangerous
if the United States or another great power takes action regarding the
accord of Sevres, since in that case it is impossible to control
adequately the process, proceeding from the national interests of
Armenia. Ostensibly, in a definite period of time separate Armenian
figures and functionaries were able to pursue the interests of Armenia
and the Armenian people but much depends on the personality of the
given activists and their ties with the Armenian bureaucracy. It should
be kept in mind that tragic events of the Armenian history are related
to the accord of Sevres. In other words, much depends on how the
Armenian side, that is Armenia and the Diaspora, could control the
implementation of the project.
In mid-November 2006 efforts were made to organize publications on the
accord of Sevres by people who advocate the interests of Russia in
Armenia. In addition, money was offered to organize speeches of a noted
Armenian political scientist or publicist on one of the TV channels on
the given issue. The purpose of these speeches was to ridicule the
`Armenian efforts' of appealing to the accord of Sevres, both in 1920
and now. After it had been explained to these people that the accord of
Sevres had a predecessor ` the decree of the Soviet government on the
Turkish Armenia in February 1918 ` they made efforts to prevent these
conversations from being spread. Russia must realize that the
reanimation of the accord of Sevres, independent from the results, will
lead to increasing involvement of Armenia in the processes of the
Western community. The official stance of the Soviet Union on the
accord of Sevres was absolutely negative, which was due to the support
of Soviet Russia to Kemalist Turkey and its aggression against Armenia.
Any evocation of the accord of Sevres in the positive sense, let alone
the promotion of this project, will be disapproved by Russia. At the
same time, the review of the accord of Sevres on the international
forums may prove instrumental to the foreign policy of Armenia and
organization of the Diaspora, including the Dialogue with Russia, which
is responsible for the events of 1920-1921.
It is not ruled out that the European countries are interested in
bringing up the accord of Sevres in political literature and press,
whose relations with Turkey are not less complicated than the
Turkish-Armenian relations. The experience of political research
confirms that the leading European organizations are attentively
following and analyzing every event and process relating to the
Turkish-Armenian relations. The Armenian topic remains at the center of
attention of `Eastern politics' of the European Union, first of all in
the direction of the problems of integration of Turkey with the EU.
From time to time, the topic of Sevres emerges in specialized political
literature, in respectable media of Europe. These publications emerge
in a strange manner, not always are the sources and stakeholders
visible, thanks to whom those materials appear. It is not precise to
say that there is a discourse in the Western community on the accord of
Sevres but someone is consistently pushing for initiatives. Europe
fears Turkey more than one may imagined, Europe fears the entry of
Turkey into the EU and is ready to encourage any initiative to prevent
it. The European politicians and experts may endlessly talk about the
necessity to improve the Armenian and Turkish relations but this is a
sham, a performance which has been revealed a long time ago. Therefore,
apparently, a favorable situation has occurred in Europe to discuss
Sevres as a new political project.
Thereby, the accord of Sevres may become an object of international
discourse, at least among experts. Therefore, it is important to
collect information and analyze the given events, reveal the
stakeholders, the definite institutions, projects and intentions. But
the most important thing is the drafting of the strategy, approaches
and devices for launching the `project of Sevres' in the nearest
future. The given project must be recognized legitimately among the
Armenian political class, on the basis of a detailed discussion, and
importantly none of the famous political organizations has tried to
monopolize this project.
IGOR MURADYAN
The Iravunk De Facto
18:30:04 - 12/12/2008
In the past few years increased if not solidarity then at least mutual
understanding between the United States and the European Union (first
of all, the establishments on both coasts of the Atlantic Ocean)
regarding the future role of Turkey in the Western community, NATO and
the EU has been noticed. It has been noticed that the United States has
actually stopped insisting or has considerably relieved pressure on the
Europeans regarding the entry of Turkey to the EU. One way or another,
the United States came to the conclusion that there is no point in
further insisting, since there is no hope to reach this goal, but at
the same time disputable issues in the U.S.-European relations get more
complicated, without producing anything positive. Besides, if the
United States used to hope to create a `fifth column' out of Turkey in
the EU, and disorganize the EU to some extent, now there is no hope
that Turkey will not refuse solidarity to Europe and will become an
instrument for the U.S. policies. As part of the EU, Turkey would
certainly become less dependent on the United States and would play its
own game. With regard to the acceptance of Turkey to the EU, the United
States and the Europeans have a tacit agreement which teases Turkey and
estranges it from both powers. In such a pattern of interests and
strategies, nevertheless, the acceptance of Turkey to the EU is no
longer a priority. In contacts with European and American political
scientists it was possible to notice signs that the issue of possible
secession of Turkey from NATO has stopped being invented, and may
become quite urgent in the nearest future. This issue, as well as the
refusal of Turkey to continue integration with the EU may be viewed as
one for discussion and meant for propaganda and blackmail but the given
issues are already brought up among analysts. While the Americans and
Europeans are convinced that Turkey has no geopolitical and economic
alternatives and it cannot exist without close partnership with the
United States, the EU and NATO. It is right now but it may become
disputable in the nearest future. The political dynamics in the world
is stronger than ever. If we elaborate the thought about the priority
of issues in the U.S. and EU policies on the Turkish topic, control
over Turkey has more importance. Now it is already obvious that the
United States and the EU are close to a joint plan of the geopolitical
blockage of Turkey, thwarting its international efforts in the Near
East and regional political efforts relating to Russia. Overcoming
doubts and controversies, the United States and the EU have come close
to the problem of fragmentation of Turkey, for the time being, as a
reserve problem. The internationalization of the issue of Kurds will
lead to the questioning of the territorial integrity of Turkey. The
Western community is seeking and at the same time drafting arguments
and projects which would be able to solve the problem of Turkey. In
this context, the Armenian issue is on the agenda, which acquires a new
meaning and content. The Americans and Europeans have become convinced
that as a means of pressure on Turkey the Armenian issue cannot contain
the relations between Armenia and Turkey only. In this sense, the West
needs new ideas, and the forgotten accord of Sevres could be one. In
addition, it is felt that after an earlier effort to depart from the
Diaspora and rely on the Republic of Armenia, the West again focuses on
the organizations of the Armenian Diaspora, setting forth the idea of
creation of new organizations which are more strongly related to the
interests of a number of major states than the traditional
organizations. Moreover, the idea of complete replacement of all the
Armenian organizations of the Diaspora by new ones has occurred. The
problem is complicated but possible to fulfill in the current
conditions. Besides, the West will have to make efforts to prevent
growth of influence of Russia on the Armenian Disapora and initiatives
relating to the Armenian and Turkish. Russia is trying to gain
dominance in the Armenian Diaspora, at least in three directions: rule
in the South Caucasus, establish brand new relations with Turkey,
downplay the activities of the Armenian lobbies in the United States
and the EU.
After the aggravation of the Turkish and American relations, the reason
of which was the events relating to the military action in Iraq in
2003, experts in the United States displayed interest in various
political documents and events from the modern history of Turkey, that
is the period around the 20th century. In various publications, events
relating to border disputes, rights of ethnic and religious minorities,
property and heritage were evoked. One of these problems mentioned in
the political literature is the accord of Sevres. No doubt, the U.S.
administration is trying to pressure on Turkey, lead it to the solution
of problems of the past. Turkey is known to be highly sensitive
regarding the accord of Sevres which is on a territorial issue. For the
Turkish political class, the accord of Sevres remains a threat to the
territorial integrity of Turkey. According to Ali Reza Bulent, an
American expert of Turkish background, for many decades the Turkish
legations get instructions regarding the problems that occur in
relation to the accord of Sevres. The Turkish diplomats get similar
instructions regarding the accords of Kars and Moscow signed in 1921.
Turkish experts living in Turkey, as well as the United States and
Europe, have made emotive evaluations of the accord of Sevres, such as
`the accord of Sevres haunts Turkey as a nightmare'. Bulent Ali Reza, a
leading expert (CSIS), Soner Cagaty (Washington Institute for Near East
Policy), Zeyno Baran (Hudson), Omer Taspinar (Brookings Institution),
Nihat Ali Ã-zcan, Hakan Yavuz, Tarik Oguzlu, Mevlut Katik and other
experts said excavations may be expected to discover the accord of
Sevres, and it may cause a discussion not only among researchers but
also political circles. It should be acknowledged that this kind of
reanimation cannot be successful without corresponding support of the
government of the great power. The question is who and how will set
forward initiatives in Armenia and the Diaspora. Will these initiatives
get a broad public and political response, the support of the
international organizations which are under the total influence of the
United States? How can the mechanisms of launching this project on the
international arena be presented now? It is interesting that the
Washington-based Greek political and lobbyist organization Western
Political Center which is integrated with the U.S. government agencies,
has displayed considerable interest to the perspective of launching the
project of the `accord of Sevres'. A more major political institution
in Washington, the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington displayed
similar interest. It should be noted that it is thought to be dangerous
if the United States or another great power takes action regarding the
accord of Sevres, since in that case it is impossible to control
adequately the process, proceeding from the national interests of
Armenia. Ostensibly, in a definite period of time separate Armenian
figures and functionaries were able to pursue the interests of Armenia
and the Armenian people but much depends on the personality of the
given activists and their ties with the Armenian bureaucracy. It should
be kept in mind that tragic events of the Armenian history are related
to the accord of Sevres. In other words, much depends on how the
Armenian side, that is Armenia and the Diaspora, could control the
implementation of the project.
In mid-November 2006 efforts were made to organize publications on the
accord of Sevres by people who advocate the interests of Russia in
Armenia. In addition, money was offered to organize speeches of a noted
Armenian political scientist or publicist on one of the TV channels on
the given issue. The purpose of these speeches was to ridicule the
`Armenian efforts' of appealing to the accord of Sevres, both in 1920
and now. After it had been explained to these people that the accord of
Sevres had a predecessor ` the decree of the Soviet government on the
Turkish Armenia in February 1918 ` they made efforts to prevent these
conversations from being spread. Russia must realize that the
reanimation of the accord of Sevres, independent from the results, will
lead to increasing involvement of Armenia in the processes of the
Western community. The official stance of the Soviet Union on the
accord of Sevres was absolutely negative, which was due to the support
of Soviet Russia to Kemalist Turkey and its aggression against Armenia.
Any evocation of the accord of Sevres in the positive sense, let alone
the promotion of this project, will be disapproved by Russia. At the
same time, the review of the accord of Sevres on the international
forums may prove instrumental to the foreign policy of Armenia and
organization of the Diaspora, including the Dialogue with Russia, which
is responsible for the events of 1920-1921.
It is not ruled out that the European countries are interested in
bringing up the accord of Sevres in political literature and press,
whose relations with Turkey are not less complicated than the
Turkish-Armenian relations. The experience of political research
confirms that the leading European organizations are attentively
following and analyzing every event and process relating to the
Turkish-Armenian relations. The Armenian topic remains at the center of
attention of `Eastern politics' of the European Union, first of all in
the direction of the problems of integration of Turkey with the EU.
From time to time, the topic of Sevres emerges in specialized political
literature, in respectable media of Europe. These publications emerge
in a strange manner, not always are the sources and stakeholders
visible, thanks to whom those materials appear. It is not precise to
say that there is a discourse in the Western community on the accord of
Sevres but someone is consistently pushing for initiatives. Europe
fears Turkey more than one may imagined, Europe fears the entry of
Turkey into the EU and is ready to encourage any initiative to prevent
it. The European politicians and experts may endlessly talk about the
necessity to improve the Armenian and Turkish relations but this is a
sham, a performance which has been revealed a long time ago. Therefore,
apparently, a favorable situation has occurred in Europe to discuss
Sevres as a new political project.
Thereby, the accord of Sevres may become an object of international
discourse, at least among experts. Therefore, it is important to
collect information and analyze the given events, reveal the
stakeholders, the definite institutions, projects and intentions. But
the most important thing is the drafting of the strategy, approaches
and devices for launching the `project of Sevres' in the nearest
future. The given project must be recognized legitimately among the
Armenian political class, on the basis of a detailed discussion, and
importantly none of the famous political organizations has tried to
monopolize this project.