Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANKARA: Will Gul's Visit To Yerevan Have A Long-Term Impact?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ANKARA: Will Gul's Visit To Yerevan Have A Long-Term Impact?

    WILL GUL'S VISIT TO YEREVAN HAVE A LONG-TERM IMPACT?
    By Ilter Turkmen

    Turkish Press
    Sept 9 2008

    HURRIYET- Anything which ends well is good. President Abdullah Gul's
    visit to Yerevan last week also went well. Nothing unpleasant
    or excessive happened, and the protests against him weren't
    widespread. The Armenians who watched the World Cup qualifying
    match between Turkey and Armenia were very dignified and mature as
    well. Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian will probably accept Gul's
    invitation to attend the return match a year from now. But presidential
    visits to watch soccer matches aren't enough.

    I wrote on Saturday that if Gul's visit didn't produce concrete
    results, it wouldn't be surprising if this provoked domestic political
    debate. In addition, as Radikal daily's Cengiz Candar wrote, unless
    the rapprochement represented by the visit is followed by opening
    diplomatic relations and borders between the two countries, this
    will result in deep frustration. Candar added that resolving this
    frustration would be harder than addressing the current problems.

    Apparently Gul's visit wasn't just symbolic or pro forma. Armenian
    Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian told reporters in Yerevan that
    after Gul left, he had met with his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan
    and that they reached a consensus to work on opening the borders and
    diplomatic relations between the two countries. This development
    signals very genuine change in Turkey's stance, because up to now
    these two steps have been contingent on solving the Karabakh conflict
    between Azerbaijan and Armenia.

    Will these two processes be conducted together, or will
    Turkish-Armenian relations be discussed in a completely different
    framework? We don't know exactly, but the Karabakh issue can't be
    solved so quickly. Linking these two processes would drag out the
    normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations. Some argue against
    opening the border and establishing diplomatic relations, saying,
    for instance, that Armenia hasn't forsaken its territorial claims on
    Turkey, and that Armenia's declaration of independence and Constitution
    refer to southern Anatolia as 'Western Armenia.'

    If they really include this concrete territorial claim, one might ask
    why we were one of the first states to recognize Armenia. Another
    argument cites Armenia's reluctance to ratify the 1921 Treaty of
    Kars. But here, it would be inexplicable why we didn't insist on
    recognition of the border before recognizing Armenia.

    A few years ago I was a member of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation
    Commission. Before the commission disbanded, the Turkish and Armenian
    coordinators wrote a letter to the Turkish and Armenian foreign
    ministers expressing their views on opening the border on the basis
    of Kars. At that time, the Armenian members didn't think Yerevan
    would oppose ratifying Kars.

    I don't know what happened next, but I guess the main reason for our
    reluctance to open the border and establishing diplomatic relations
    comes from not wanting to offend Azerbaijan. Perhaps for the same
    reason, priority was given to bringing together historians from both
    sides to improve relations, because such a meeting seemed unlikely to
    provoke Azerbaijan's direct opposition. It was nearly impossible for
    historians to agree on a historical interpretation of the events of
    1915. Our president's initiative for normal friendly relations between
    Turkey and Armenia could finally prove that we've started to cast off
    the restraints which have so far kept us from solving our own problems.
Working...
X