Tweet
Sunday's Zaman , Turkey
Oct 18 2009
Armenian journalist Hakob Chaqrian: recent rapprochement between
Armenia and Turkey may disturb some circles
Hakob Chaqrian from the AZG, a daily published in Armenia, says the
protocols signed between Turkey and Armenia in Zurich bear serious
political risks for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an and Armenian
President Serzh Sarksyan. Chaqrian further said: `The move may disturb
some circles.
Both leaders may become targets of fanatic nationalist groups; they
have to be careful.'
Chaqrian, who came to Turkey to watch the soccer game between the
Turkish and Armenian teams in Bursa, spoke to Sunday's Zaman. The
Armenian journalist stressed that the Armenian diaspora, eager to
prevent close ties between the two nations, actually put the future of
their native country in jeopardy.
Chaqrian, a former academic at the then-USSR Academy of Science, is a
renowned scholar on the Seljuks. Chaqrian, who returned to his
homeland after the collapse of Soviet Union, fights for normalization
between the two countries. Noting that the Armenian diaspora feels
uncomfortable with the recent moves, Chaqrian stresses that some
countries, including Russia, are uneasy about the developments.
How would you interpret the recent moves to maintain close ties
between the two nations?
We are witnessing pretty historic and delicate steps; both countries
are leaving the Cold War era behind. When it acquired its independence
in 1991, Armenia was aware that it had to establish good relations
with Turkey. It should be noted that the legendary leader of the
Turkish nationalists, Alparslan TürkeÅ?, established diplomatic
relations with Armenian back then. However, following the remarks by
President Turgut Ã-zal, who said after the occupation of
Nagorno-Karabakh that there would be nothing if a few bombs were
dropped on Armenian lands, Armenia felt it had to look for other
protectors, and Russia has become that protector. Turkey's negative
attitude moved Armenia towards Russia.
How's the Russian response to current developments?
I do not think Russia is pleased with them; even though they raise no
objections to the recent moves between Turkey and Armenia I do not
think they will allow Armenia to maintain close relations with Turkey
as they did in the case of Georgian-Turkish rapprochement. The current
delicate balance in Caucasus requires this.
Who else is bothered by this rapprochement?
The Armenian diaspora is disturbed by it because they will have no
material at hand, and they actually admit it. Georgia is also partly
uncomfortable. It is worried that it will no longer be an asset for
Turkey.
Do you think that nationalist and fanatic groups may rely on
provocative action in both countries?
Absolutely, they will; both Sarksyan and ErdoÄ?an have taken serious
risks. Both leaders may become the targets of radical groups. They
have to be careful. [But] both leaders will consolidate their
positions if this process goes smoothly. I think Sarksyan will face
some difficulties for a while, but in the end the peace lovers will
win. I hope the same happens in Turkey as well.
Nationalists in Nagorno-Karabakh attacked the Parliament in the past¦
It was a whole different incident. Turkish people thought Karabakh
nationalists did this but the incident had nothing to do with the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
Is it possible that the nations will achieve peace after these moves?
I believe that conciliation between the two nations will take quite
little time. If this process goes this way, the nations will achieve
peace and a common understanding after a 90-year-long disagreement.
The problems may be overcome in a decade. Both nations need time. We
have to be patient; we should not expect that the issues will be
resolved overnight.
Do you think both nations need to reset their minds and memories?
To me, this should not be an option; clearing the memories will do
nothing but freeze the issues. Some may reinvent or revisit these
issues some time later. For this reason, the issues have to be
discussed; there are many countries that have done this. They now have
good ties.
What was the primary incentive and motivation for such a sudden
consensus to take steps toward rapprochement?
I am an Armenian born in Turkey; Turkey is going through a rapid
transformation. The republic had four untouchables when it was
founded: Kurds, Armenians, [Mustafa Kemal] Atatürk and the activities
of the General Staff. It was impossible for the intellectuals and the
writers to disagree with the established and imposed facts and
arguments in respect to these issues. It was a crime to make reference
to the Kurdish issue; being critical of Atatürk was an offense. The
activities of the military were immune to investigation. You had to
call the genocide the so-called or alleged genocide. There are no
longer lawsuits against writers who do not do so.
So the current process is a result of this transformation?
No, I wish it was. This process is the result of work required by
international actors; both parties agreed to resolve their problems
after international pressure because the Caucasus is an extension of
the Middle East. The international system is concerned about chronic
problems in this region. I would rather see resolution of the
bilateral problems via deliberate and voluntary moves by the parties
instead of international pressure; but it did not happen. Yet,
regardless of who initiated the process, what has been done so far is
proper and right.
What are your views with respect to the genocide issue?
Some bad and embarrassing incidents took place on this soil in 1915;
it is not possible to achieve a resolution by denying this. Nobody
would benefit from reluctance to deal with this problem. Everybody has
to face their past. Armenians did not just evaporate in these lands.
Do you think the diaspora will cease its support for Armenia because
of the recent moves?
They already have. Armenia has been unable to receive support from the
diaspora in recent years. The financial and material support provided
by the diaspora has already been reduced by 80 percent because of the
financial crisis. Currently, Armenia relies on the support of the
diaspora in Moscow; others provide no support. Armenia has to survive
by a reliance on its own resources from now on.
Does Armenia's survival depend on the opening of the border?
This issue is actually exaggerated. The diaspora does not want the
opening of the border; we are able to connect to the world via the
Georgian border, but this cannot go on this way.
It seems that the determination to keep the border closed has been
quite a cost and burden for Armenia?
I think both countries are losing because of the continuation of this
situation where the issues remain unresolved. Armenia is not the only
party that loses. If both parties were able to sustain the close ties
established in 1991, oil and natural gas pipelines would have been
installed appropriately and feasibly. There would have been no delays
in the construction of these lines.
18 October 2009, Sunday
ERCAN YAVUZ BURSA
Oct 18 2009
Armenian journalist Hakob Chaqrian: recent rapprochement between
Armenia and Turkey may disturb some circles
Hakob Chaqrian from the AZG, a daily published in Armenia, says the
protocols signed between Turkey and Armenia in Zurich bear serious
political risks for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an and Armenian
President Serzh Sarksyan. Chaqrian further said: `The move may disturb
some circles.
Both leaders may become targets of fanatic nationalist groups; they
have to be careful.'
Chaqrian, who came to Turkey to watch the soccer game between the
Turkish and Armenian teams in Bursa, spoke to Sunday's Zaman. The
Armenian journalist stressed that the Armenian diaspora, eager to
prevent close ties between the two nations, actually put the future of
their native country in jeopardy.
Chaqrian, a former academic at the then-USSR Academy of Science, is a
renowned scholar on the Seljuks. Chaqrian, who returned to his
homeland after the collapse of Soviet Union, fights for normalization
between the two countries. Noting that the Armenian diaspora feels
uncomfortable with the recent moves, Chaqrian stresses that some
countries, including Russia, are uneasy about the developments.
How would you interpret the recent moves to maintain close ties
between the two nations?
We are witnessing pretty historic and delicate steps; both countries
are leaving the Cold War era behind. When it acquired its independence
in 1991, Armenia was aware that it had to establish good relations
with Turkey. It should be noted that the legendary leader of the
Turkish nationalists, Alparslan TürkeÅ?, established diplomatic
relations with Armenian back then. However, following the remarks by
President Turgut Ã-zal, who said after the occupation of
Nagorno-Karabakh that there would be nothing if a few bombs were
dropped on Armenian lands, Armenia felt it had to look for other
protectors, and Russia has become that protector. Turkey's negative
attitude moved Armenia towards Russia.
How's the Russian response to current developments?
I do not think Russia is pleased with them; even though they raise no
objections to the recent moves between Turkey and Armenia I do not
think they will allow Armenia to maintain close relations with Turkey
as they did in the case of Georgian-Turkish rapprochement. The current
delicate balance in Caucasus requires this.
Who else is bothered by this rapprochement?
The Armenian diaspora is disturbed by it because they will have no
material at hand, and they actually admit it. Georgia is also partly
uncomfortable. It is worried that it will no longer be an asset for
Turkey.
Do you think that nationalist and fanatic groups may rely on
provocative action in both countries?
Absolutely, they will; both Sarksyan and ErdoÄ?an have taken serious
risks. Both leaders may become the targets of radical groups. They
have to be careful. [But] both leaders will consolidate their
positions if this process goes smoothly. I think Sarksyan will face
some difficulties for a while, but in the end the peace lovers will
win. I hope the same happens in Turkey as well.
Nationalists in Nagorno-Karabakh attacked the Parliament in the past¦
It was a whole different incident. Turkish people thought Karabakh
nationalists did this but the incident had nothing to do with the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
Is it possible that the nations will achieve peace after these moves?
I believe that conciliation between the two nations will take quite
little time. If this process goes this way, the nations will achieve
peace and a common understanding after a 90-year-long disagreement.
The problems may be overcome in a decade. Both nations need time. We
have to be patient; we should not expect that the issues will be
resolved overnight.
Do you think both nations need to reset their minds and memories?
To me, this should not be an option; clearing the memories will do
nothing but freeze the issues. Some may reinvent or revisit these
issues some time later. For this reason, the issues have to be
discussed; there are many countries that have done this. They now have
good ties.
What was the primary incentive and motivation for such a sudden
consensus to take steps toward rapprochement?
I am an Armenian born in Turkey; Turkey is going through a rapid
transformation. The republic had four untouchables when it was
founded: Kurds, Armenians, [Mustafa Kemal] Atatürk and the activities
of the General Staff. It was impossible for the intellectuals and the
writers to disagree with the established and imposed facts and
arguments in respect to these issues. It was a crime to make reference
to the Kurdish issue; being critical of Atatürk was an offense. The
activities of the military were immune to investigation. You had to
call the genocide the so-called or alleged genocide. There are no
longer lawsuits against writers who do not do so.
So the current process is a result of this transformation?
No, I wish it was. This process is the result of work required by
international actors; both parties agreed to resolve their problems
after international pressure because the Caucasus is an extension of
the Middle East. The international system is concerned about chronic
problems in this region. I would rather see resolution of the
bilateral problems via deliberate and voluntary moves by the parties
instead of international pressure; but it did not happen. Yet,
regardless of who initiated the process, what has been done so far is
proper and right.
What are your views with respect to the genocide issue?
Some bad and embarrassing incidents took place on this soil in 1915;
it is not possible to achieve a resolution by denying this. Nobody
would benefit from reluctance to deal with this problem. Everybody has
to face their past. Armenians did not just evaporate in these lands.
Do you think the diaspora will cease its support for Armenia because
of the recent moves?
They already have. Armenia has been unable to receive support from the
diaspora in recent years. The financial and material support provided
by the diaspora has already been reduced by 80 percent because of the
financial crisis. Currently, Armenia relies on the support of the
diaspora in Moscow; others provide no support. Armenia has to survive
by a reliance on its own resources from now on.
Does Armenia's survival depend on the opening of the border?
This issue is actually exaggerated. The diaspora does not want the
opening of the border; we are able to connect to the world via the
Georgian border, but this cannot go on this way.
It seems that the determination to keep the border closed has been
quite a cost and burden for Armenia?
I think both countries are losing because of the continuation of this
situation where the issues remain unresolved. Armenia is not the only
party that loses. If both parties were able to sustain the close ties
established in 1991, oil and natural gas pipelines would have been
installed appropriately and feasibly. There would have been no delays
in the construction of these lines.
18 October 2009, Sunday
ERCAN YAVUZ BURSA