Tweet
Normalization of relations with Armenia and acknowledgement of
historical injustices will strengthen Turkey's candidacy for membership
in the EU
2009-09-18 12:00:00
Interview of Turkish historian and sociologist Taner Akcam to ArmInfo
news agency
you assess the trustworthiness of recent agreements of Aug 31 by
Ministries of foreign affairs of Armenia and Turkey, which regard
signing of two protocols on establishing bilateral diplomatic relations
within 6 weeks?
I have no doubt about the trustworthiness of the agreement. If two
states engage in certain bilateral agreements, of course, they mean it;
if they don't want to implement the plan that they have announced, they
will make themselves look ridiculous. So, I don't think that
`trustworthiness' is the important issue here. The main problem is
whether or not both governments possess the courage and political will
to overcome the obstacles to this agreement. Given the number of
domestic and international stakeholders with conflicting interests in
the process, coming to an agreement is no easy task.
Do these documents reflect real public opinion in Armenia and Turkey,
or they are merely a means of geopolitical pressure by US, Russia and
EU on Armenia and particularly on Turkey?
I cannot speak for Armenian society, but as for Turkish society, my
understanding from the Turkish press is that there is significant
popular support for the protocol. If two conflicting parties want to
normalize their relations, why should it be a problem and not to be
supported?
There is a strong opposition from the Republican People's Party (CHP)
and the Nationalist Party MHP and this is understandable. Both parties
have a vested interest in maintaining Turkey's isolation and
authoritarian rule. Neither party wants Turkey to become a democratic
country that can resolve its problems with neighboring countries.
The signed protocol with Armenia should be understood in the context of
the continuing democratization efforts in Turkey. The establishment of
diplomatic relations and open borders with Armenia is strongly related
to ongoing domestic policies such as the Ergenekon investigation and
attempts to resolve the Kurdish problem.
The protocol between Armenia and Turkey has not come about through
domestic political pressure in the two countries. Even though the
greater part of Turkish society favors establishing relations with
Armenia, public opinion has not been strong enough to push Ankara
towards normalization. I am sure that this is true for Armenia too¦ If
public opinion and domestic political action were the only factors,
neither Ankara nor Yerevan would have taken this step.
International pressure is a very important, if not the most crucial,
factor in this normalization process, and I think this is a very
positive development.
For the first time in recent history, Russian and American interests
are colliding in the Caucasus, perhaps because of conflicting strategic
interests. Russia wants to weaken Georgia and strengthen Armenia, while
the USA promotes Turkey as a model for democracy in the region. The USA
wants Turkey to become a democratic country because of the American
involvement in Iraq and America's troubled relationship with the Muslim
world.
To establish diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia is a good
thing, and if this comes about through pressure from the great powers,
including the European Union, there is nothing wrong with that either.
This is where we had arrived in 1991, when Armenia became independent.
I can understand that there are some concerns among the Armenians,
especially in Diaspora regarding the `price' of this normalization.
Some worry about possible concessions by Armenia in the Karabakh
conflict; others are concerned with solving the historic problem,
genocide.
The protocol does not make normalization contingent on the Karabakh
problem. This is very positive. Nevertheless, I expect there will be
some movement on that issue; otherwise, Turkey would probably not have
signed the protocol. Prime Minister Erdogan's speech to the Azerbaijani
Parliament tied his own hands, and so it is obvious that we will be
hearing about steps toward resolving the Karabakh conflict soon.
Regarding the genocide issue, the process has just begun, and we will
have to see where it goes. I can't imagine that Yerevan would discuss
the Genocide as a disputed claim, rather than as a historic reality.
However, Ankara might acknowledge the historic injustice of 1915
without calling it a genocide. The formulation to be used by Ankara is
a problem of diplomacy, whereas the proper scientific and historical
designation of 1915 is a problem of scholarship and public perception.
I can imagine that Turkey might call 1915 as a crime, crime against
humanity and describe it as a product of a fascist mindset, as Prime
Minister ErdoÄ?an have characterized the expulsion of Christian from
Turkey couple Months ago. This could be a good start for a
reconciliation process.
ll the possible establishment of diplomatic relations lead to internal
political stability in Turkey, considering certain tensions within the
country?
I am sure that this step along with other steps that Ankara has taken
will find great support in Turkish society and will contribute to the
stability and democratization of Turkey. There will be no serious
opposition against the normalization of relations in Turkey.
Once Armenia and Turkey have established diplomatic relations, how will
the two countries resolve the Armenian Genocide issue, given that
Armenia insists on recognition and Turkey refuses?
Normalization of relations and recognition of an historic injustice are
two different things. Normal diplomatic relations provide the basis for
talks on truth and reconciliation. Reconciliation will not be an easy
process, but normalization will help tremendously to overcome the
obstacle to reconciliation.
Turkey knows that it must recognize something and rectify the historic
injustice to the Armenians as a people, but we don't yet know what
Turkey should recognize or the steps it should take towards justice.
There are a number of alternative models for recognition, ranging from
Japan's bare acknowledgment to Germany's full contrition. In any case,
Armenians and Turks will begin a new process, and we will have to
develop a new language and culture to answer both questions. At the end
this is a new process, including Armenians in Turkey and both Armenian
and Turkish Diasporas and this process will help the democratization of
the region.
How much does the thesis `one nation with two states' (regarding Turkey
and Azerbaijan) correspond to the present day?
I don't think this rhetoric has significant popular support in Turkey.
Rather, it reflects Ankara's economic interests in the region.
Will diplomatic relations with Armenia contribute to the European
integration of Turkey and its further entry in the EU, or orientation
to the East is nevertheless more preferable?
Turkey must face west, not east. Whenever Turkey has oriented itself
eastwards, the result has been a catastrophe for our country and the
people of the region. The Armenian Genocide itself was a product of
Turkey's strategic orientation towards the East. The Ergenekon
suspects, those who wanted to revive pan-Turkism across Central Asia,
are sitting in prison now.
Normalizing relations with Armenia and demonstrating readiness to solve
the historic injustices will improve Turkey's standing in the modern
world and strengthen its candidacy for membership in the European
Union. This protocol is a kind of entrance ticket for Turkey to save a
place among the modern nations in the world and will rescue Turkey from
heavy iron chain shackled to its ankle hindering him to act normal over
the decades.
Thank you
historical injustices will strengthen Turkey's candidacy for membership
in the EU
2009-09-18 12:00:00
Interview of Turkish historian and sociologist Taner Akcam to ArmInfo
news agency
you assess the trustworthiness of recent agreements of Aug 31 by
Ministries of foreign affairs of Armenia and Turkey, which regard
signing of two protocols on establishing bilateral diplomatic relations
within 6 weeks?
I have no doubt about the trustworthiness of the agreement. If two
states engage in certain bilateral agreements, of course, they mean it;
if they don't want to implement the plan that they have announced, they
will make themselves look ridiculous. So, I don't think that
`trustworthiness' is the important issue here. The main problem is
whether or not both governments possess the courage and political will
to overcome the obstacles to this agreement. Given the number of
domestic and international stakeholders with conflicting interests in
the process, coming to an agreement is no easy task.
Do these documents reflect real public opinion in Armenia and Turkey,
or they are merely a means of geopolitical pressure by US, Russia and
EU on Armenia and particularly on Turkey?
I cannot speak for Armenian society, but as for Turkish society, my
understanding from the Turkish press is that there is significant
popular support for the protocol. If two conflicting parties want to
normalize their relations, why should it be a problem and not to be
supported?
There is a strong opposition from the Republican People's Party (CHP)
and the Nationalist Party MHP and this is understandable. Both parties
have a vested interest in maintaining Turkey's isolation and
authoritarian rule. Neither party wants Turkey to become a democratic
country that can resolve its problems with neighboring countries.
The signed protocol with Armenia should be understood in the context of
the continuing democratization efforts in Turkey. The establishment of
diplomatic relations and open borders with Armenia is strongly related
to ongoing domestic policies such as the Ergenekon investigation and
attempts to resolve the Kurdish problem.
The protocol between Armenia and Turkey has not come about through
domestic political pressure in the two countries. Even though the
greater part of Turkish society favors establishing relations with
Armenia, public opinion has not been strong enough to push Ankara
towards normalization. I am sure that this is true for Armenia too¦ If
public opinion and domestic political action were the only factors,
neither Ankara nor Yerevan would have taken this step.
International pressure is a very important, if not the most crucial,
factor in this normalization process, and I think this is a very
positive development.
For the first time in recent history, Russian and American interests
are colliding in the Caucasus, perhaps because of conflicting strategic
interests. Russia wants to weaken Georgia and strengthen Armenia, while
the USA promotes Turkey as a model for democracy in the region. The USA
wants Turkey to become a democratic country because of the American
involvement in Iraq and America's troubled relationship with the Muslim
world.
To establish diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia is a good
thing, and if this comes about through pressure from the great powers,
including the European Union, there is nothing wrong with that either.
This is where we had arrived in 1991, when Armenia became independent.
I can understand that there are some concerns among the Armenians,
especially in Diaspora regarding the `price' of this normalization.
Some worry about possible concessions by Armenia in the Karabakh
conflict; others are concerned with solving the historic problem,
genocide.
The protocol does not make normalization contingent on the Karabakh
problem. This is very positive. Nevertheless, I expect there will be
some movement on that issue; otherwise, Turkey would probably not have
signed the protocol. Prime Minister Erdogan's speech to the Azerbaijani
Parliament tied his own hands, and so it is obvious that we will be
hearing about steps toward resolving the Karabakh conflict soon.
Regarding the genocide issue, the process has just begun, and we will
have to see where it goes. I can't imagine that Yerevan would discuss
the Genocide as a disputed claim, rather than as a historic reality.
However, Ankara might acknowledge the historic injustice of 1915
without calling it a genocide. The formulation to be used by Ankara is
a problem of diplomacy, whereas the proper scientific and historical
designation of 1915 is a problem of scholarship and public perception.
I can imagine that Turkey might call 1915 as a crime, crime against
humanity and describe it as a product of a fascist mindset, as Prime
Minister ErdoÄ?an have characterized the expulsion of Christian from
Turkey couple Months ago. This could be a good start for a
reconciliation process.
ll the possible establishment of diplomatic relations lead to internal
political stability in Turkey, considering certain tensions within the
country?
I am sure that this step along with other steps that Ankara has taken
will find great support in Turkish society and will contribute to the
stability and democratization of Turkey. There will be no serious
opposition against the normalization of relations in Turkey.
Once Armenia and Turkey have established diplomatic relations, how will
the two countries resolve the Armenian Genocide issue, given that
Armenia insists on recognition and Turkey refuses?
Normalization of relations and recognition of an historic injustice are
two different things. Normal diplomatic relations provide the basis for
talks on truth and reconciliation. Reconciliation will not be an easy
process, but normalization will help tremendously to overcome the
obstacle to reconciliation.
Turkey knows that it must recognize something and rectify the historic
injustice to the Armenians as a people, but we don't yet know what
Turkey should recognize or the steps it should take towards justice.
There are a number of alternative models for recognition, ranging from
Japan's bare acknowledgment to Germany's full contrition. In any case,
Armenians and Turks will begin a new process, and we will have to
develop a new language and culture to answer both questions. At the end
this is a new process, including Armenians in Turkey and both Armenian
and Turkish Diasporas and this process will help the democratization of
the region.
How much does the thesis `one nation with two states' (regarding Turkey
and Azerbaijan) correspond to the present day?
I don't think this rhetoric has significant popular support in Turkey.
Rather, it reflects Ankara's economic interests in the region.
Will diplomatic relations with Armenia contribute to the European
integration of Turkey and its further entry in the EU, or orientation
to the East is nevertheless more preferable?
Turkey must face west, not east. Whenever Turkey has oriented itself
eastwards, the result has been a catastrophe for our country and the
people of the region. The Armenian Genocide itself was a product of
Turkey's strategic orientation towards the East. The Ergenekon
suspects, those who wanted to revive pan-Turkism across Central Asia,
are sitting in prison now.
Normalizing relations with Armenia and demonstrating readiness to solve
the historic injustices will improve Turkey's standing in the modern
world and strengthen its candidacy for membership in the European
Union. This protocol is a kind of entrance ticket for Turkey to save a
place among the modern nations in the world and will rescue Turkey from
heavy iron chain shackled to its ankle hindering him to act normal over
the decades.
Thank you