Tweet
UNCERTAINTY AT ITS FINEST: THE ARMENIAN-TURKISH PROTOCOL
Stacy Maruskin
Hurriyet Daily News
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
For those of us living in Turkey, it is an unquestionable fact that
the Turkish-Armenian Protocol is a pressing topic on many people's
minds. For weeks, both the academic community and citizens of both
countries have been waiting patiently for Oct. 10, the possible day
of reckoning between the Turkish and Armenian communities. The event
has been a long time in coming, but it is on a hope and a prayer that
both Turkey and Armenia's parliaments will pass the protocol.
The long history of what happened between these two historical
opponents requires no further scrutiny. The underlying and principle
disputes among the Turks and Armenians rest upon three major issues:
1. the events of 1915, 2. the recognition of existing borders and
3. Nagorno-Karabakh.
It is amazing how much weight these topics carry. While some of us were
privileged enough not to grow up in a time or place where conflict has
ensued and lives were lost, this region of the world has not been so
fortunate. Deep-rooted resentment, which has occasionally manifested
itself in hostility, has existed for years between both countries
over these unresolved issues. The ongoing territorial dispute over
Azeri lands between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a close ally of Turkey,
has not done anything other than breed more mistrust.
Only recently has a thaw in relations begun to occur. Soon after
Armenia's independence in 1991, the country occupied Azerbaijan's
Nagorno-Karabakh district and seven surrounding regions, thereby
contributing to their international isolation. It was not until last
year's football diplomacy when Turkish President Abdullah Gul visited
Armenia for a World Cup qualifying match that optimism began to emerge
from skepticism. Since then, an Armenian-Turkish protocol has been
put on the table; if signed, it will mean that Armenia will finally
recognize the Turkish borders as specified by the Kars Treaty of 1923,
whil xamine the heavily disputed events of 1915.
As for the matter of who gains the most from this slow evaporation
of animosity in the Turkish-Armenian relationship, there can be no
doubt that it is Armenia. Most political analysts are anticipating a
failure to ratify the protocol by the latter's parliament; this would
clearly not be a wise move for the country due to Armenia's economic
position at present. Å~^ukru Elekdag, the former Turkish Ambassador to
the United States and a CHP MP, summed it up best when he declared that
the "Economy of Armenia is on the verge of collapse, so the people are
leaving the country." He restated claims that Armenia loses 80 percent
of its exports and imports due to Turkey and Azerbaijan's economic
blockade against the country. It can be no wonder that Serge Sarkisian,
despite being a radical like his predecessor Robert Kocharyan, chose
diplomacy over a lack of statesmanship. He realized that the survival
of Armenia was much more important than waging a smear campaign against
Turkey. If the territorial border eventually opens, Armenia will find
itself out of Russia's suffocating grasp and can begin to expand its
relations and economy into other spheres. Their overdependence and
isolation, once relaxed, can bring renewed prosperity to the region.
Turkey, meanwhile, will reap major gains in the political realm;
it will appease EU member states who have criticized Turkey over its
continued closure of the Armenian border - even though the closure
was warranted due to Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Unfortunately, we are all getting ahead of ourselves when we talk
of a future opening. The fact remains that nothing has been signed
or ratified yet. On the former issue, the signing of the protocols
by Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Armenia's foreign
minister Edward Nalbandian has been scheduled for Oct. 10. In regards
to the actual ratifications, Armenia is not the only country facing
a potential rejection by its parliament. The ruling Justice and
Development Party, or AKP, might hold the majority in Parliament,
yet political speculation suggests there will be no ratification
unless MPs see visible signs of progress on Armenia's attitude to
Nagorno-Karabakh and other occupied Azerbaijani territories. Armenia
has declared its readiness to withdraw forces from five of the seven
occupied regions in Azerbaijan, but until such measures are taken,
it can be certain that Turkey will not ratify the protocols either.
In the end, this is an uphill battle that both sides are confronting
and it is impossible to believe that either would be fully satisfied
by these agreements. Turkey's major opposition parties object to the
present deal, saying they want further progress on Nagorno-Karabakh
and the original Kars Treaty to be included in the protocols. Radical
Dashnaktsutyun - Armenian Revolutionary Federation, or ARF, members
are not pleased either and some have even staged a hunger strike to
protest the protocols. They feel the Armenian committee to review
the 1915 events comes to fruition, it negates their claims of
"genocide." What people need to stop and realize is that the real
losers in all of this are those that have no voice because they are no
longer here. The countless people on both sides who lost their lives
long ago in the last days of the Ottoman Empire and those who have
lost their homes lives in Azerbaijan's occupied territories. This
normalization and the restoration of relations should continue for
them and for the future. As many wise men have said before, how are
we to move forward if we continually live in our past?
Regrettably, it would be wise to say that none of us should hold our
breaths for a resolution. It is a pessimistic view, though perhaps
it is realistic too. Let's see what the week brings us.
* Stacy Maruskin is a researcher at the Ankara-based International
Strategic Research Organization, or USAK.
Stacy Maruskin
Hurriyet Daily News
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
For those of us living in Turkey, it is an unquestionable fact that
the Turkish-Armenian Protocol is a pressing topic on many people's
minds. For weeks, both the academic community and citizens of both
countries have been waiting patiently for Oct. 10, the possible day
of reckoning between the Turkish and Armenian communities. The event
has been a long time in coming, but it is on a hope and a prayer that
both Turkey and Armenia's parliaments will pass the protocol.
The long history of what happened between these two historical
opponents requires no further scrutiny. The underlying and principle
disputes among the Turks and Armenians rest upon three major issues:
1. the events of 1915, 2. the recognition of existing borders and
3. Nagorno-Karabakh.
It is amazing how much weight these topics carry. While some of us were
privileged enough not to grow up in a time or place where conflict has
ensued and lives were lost, this region of the world has not been so
fortunate. Deep-rooted resentment, which has occasionally manifested
itself in hostility, has existed for years between both countries
over these unresolved issues. The ongoing territorial dispute over
Azeri lands between Armenia and Azerbaijan, a close ally of Turkey,
has not done anything other than breed more mistrust.
Only recently has a thaw in relations begun to occur. Soon after
Armenia's independence in 1991, the country occupied Azerbaijan's
Nagorno-Karabakh district and seven surrounding regions, thereby
contributing to their international isolation. It was not until last
year's football diplomacy when Turkish President Abdullah Gul visited
Armenia for a World Cup qualifying match that optimism began to emerge
from skepticism. Since then, an Armenian-Turkish protocol has been
put on the table; if signed, it will mean that Armenia will finally
recognize the Turkish borders as specified by the Kars Treaty of 1923,
whil xamine the heavily disputed events of 1915.
As for the matter of who gains the most from this slow evaporation
of animosity in the Turkish-Armenian relationship, there can be no
doubt that it is Armenia. Most political analysts are anticipating a
failure to ratify the protocol by the latter's parliament; this would
clearly not be a wise move for the country due to Armenia's economic
position at present. Å~^ukru Elekdag, the former Turkish Ambassador to
the United States and a CHP MP, summed it up best when he declared that
the "Economy of Armenia is on the verge of collapse, so the people are
leaving the country." He restated claims that Armenia loses 80 percent
of its exports and imports due to Turkey and Azerbaijan's economic
blockade against the country. It can be no wonder that Serge Sarkisian,
despite being a radical like his predecessor Robert Kocharyan, chose
diplomacy over a lack of statesmanship. He realized that the survival
of Armenia was much more important than waging a smear campaign against
Turkey. If the territorial border eventually opens, Armenia will find
itself out of Russia's suffocating grasp and can begin to expand its
relations and economy into other spheres. Their overdependence and
isolation, once relaxed, can bring renewed prosperity to the region.
Turkey, meanwhile, will reap major gains in the political realm;
it will appease EU member states who have criticized Turkey over its
continued closure of the Armenian border - even though the closure
was warranted due to Armenia's occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Unfortunately, we are all getting ahead of ourselves when we talk
of a future opening. The fact remains that nothing has been signed
or ratified yet. On the former issue, the signing of the protocols
by Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu and Armenia's foreign
minister Edward Nalbandian has been scheduled for Oct. 10. In regards
to the actual ratifications, Armenia is not the only country facing
a potential rejection by its parliament. The ruling Justice and
Development Party, or AKP, might hold the majority in Parliament,
yet political speculation suggests there will be no ratification
unless MPs see visible signs of progress on Armenia's attitude to
Nagorno-Karabakh and other occupied Azerbaijani territories. Armenia
has declared its readiness to withdraw forces from five of the seven
occupied regions in Azerbaijan, but until such measures are taken,
it can be certain that Turkey will not ratify the protocols either.
In the end, this is an uphill battle that both sides are confronting
and it is impossible to believe that either would be fully satisfied
by these agreements. Turkey's major opposition parties object to the
present deal, saying they want further progress on Nagorno-Karabakh
and the original Kars Treaty to be included in the protocols. Radical
Dashnaktsutyun - Armenian Revolutionary Federation, or ARF, members
are not pleased either and some have even staged a hunger strike to
protest the protocols. They feel the Armenian committee to review
the 1915 events comes to fruition, it negates their claims of
"genocide." What people need to stop and realize is that the real
losers in all of this are those that have no voice because they are no
longer here. The countless people on both sides who lost their lives
long ago in the last days of the Ottoman Empire and those who have
lost their homes lives in Azerbaijan's occupied territories. This
normalization and the restoration of relations should continue for
them and for the future. As many wise men have said before, how are
we to move forward if we continually live in our past?
Regrettably, it would be wise to say that none of us should hold our
breaths for a resolution. It is a pessimistic view, though perhaps
it is realistic too. Let's see what the week brings us.
* Stacy Maruskin is a researcher at the Ankara-based International
Strategic Research Organization, or USAK.