Tweet
TURKISH GOVERNMENT VAINLY HOPED FOR PROGRESS ON KARABAKH DISPUTE: ZAMAN
news.am
April 26 2010
Armenia
"US President Barack Obama, in his statement commemorating the start of
forced deportation of Armenians by the Ottoman government on April 24,
1915, avoided, as he did last year, the use of the word &'genocide' to
describe the events. He did the right thing, mainly for two reasons,"
reads the article by Sahin Alpay in Turkish Zaman daily.
"Firstly, because &'genocide' declarations by leaders and resolutions
by parliaments of third countries do not help the people of Turkey
face the question of what happened to the Ottoman Armenians. Such
statements and resolutions are exploited by nationalist politicians to
suppress the domestic debate and scholarly research on the question,
which has been flourishing during at least the last five years. The
people of Turkey at large who have been kept ignorant by authorities
of the mass deportation and killings of Ottoman Armenians during
World War I, in retaliation for Armenian nationalist groups seeking
independence from the empire, require more time to reach a sound and
objective understanding of what really happened," the source reads.
"Secondly, the range of international problems, especially those that
relate to the Middle East, necessitate close cooperation between the
governments of Turkey and the US. Surveys indicate that the highly
negative attitudes toward US policies in the region among the Turkish
public since the invasion of Iraq have only partially been mollified
by the election of President Obama and his visit to Turkey last year.
It would not have been reasonable for President Obama to make a
statement that would further fan anti-US sentiment in the Turkish
public opinion," the daily says.
"How then has the ratification of the protocols gotten stuck? There
is no doubt that both sides have made mistakes in the process. The
mistake of the Armenian government was to submit the protocols to the
constitutional court for approval, which ruled that the documents were
in accordance with the Armenian Constitution and 1990 Declaration of
Independence, which states that &'The Republic of Armenia stands in
support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915
Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.' The Turkish government
viewed this ruling as adding new conditionality to the protocols,
demanding guarantees that it did not do so," the source reads.
"Thomas de Waal, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
points to the fact that the Turkish side &'hoped to see progress on
the Karabakh dispute in the months after the Zurich ceremony, giving
them political cover to ratify the protocols.' He goes on to state:
&'Turkish officials, perhaps as a result of undue US assurances,
had an overly optimistic impression of how well the Karabakh peace
negotiations were going. When the officials learned in December 2009
that the talks were deadlocked, they found themselves boxed in,'
the source says.
"Is there, then, a chance for a breakthrough in the Karabakh
negotiations that would open the way for the ratification of the
protocols by Turkey? Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had declared
in Baku, five months prior to the signing of the protocols: "The
occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh is a cause, and the closure of the
border is an effect. Without the occupation ending, the gates will
not be opened." Why, then, did the Turkish side sign the protocols,
which did not made any reference to the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh
dispute?" the daily informs.
"As an ardent supporter of reconciliation in the
Turkey-Azerbaijan-Armenia triangle, I strongly hope that Huseynov's
expectations materialize," the source concludes.
news.am
April 26 2010
Armenia
"US President Barack Obama, in his statement commemorating the start of
forced deportation of Armenians by the Ottoman government on April 24,
1915, avoided, as he did last year, the use of the word &'genocide' to
describe the events. He did the right thing, mainly for two reasons,"
reads the article by Sahin Alpay in Turkish Zaman daily.
"Firstly, because &'genocide' declarations by leaders and resolutions
by parliaments of third countries do not help the people of Turkey
face the question of what happened to the Ottoman Armenians. Such
statements and resolutions are exploited by nationalist politicians to
suppress the domestic debate and scholarly research on the question,
which has been flourishing during at least the last five years. The
people of Turkey at large who have been kept ignorant by authorities
of the mass deportation and killings of Ottoman Armenians during
World War I, in retaliation for Armenian nationalist groups seeking
independence from the empire, require more time to reach a sound and
objective understanding of what really happened," the source reads.
"Secondly, the range of international problems, especially those that
relate to the Middle East, necessitate close cooperation between the
governments of Turkey and the US. Surveys indicate that the highly
negative attitudes toward US policies in the region among the Turkish
public since the invasion of Iraq have only partially been mollified
by the election of President Obama and his visit to Turkey last year.
It would not have been reasonable for President Obama to make a
statement that would further fan anti-US sentiment in the Turkish
public opinion," the daily says.
"How then has the ratification of the protocols gotten stuck? There
is no doubt that both sides have made mistakes in the process. The
mistake of the Armenian government was to submit the protocols to the
constitutional court for approval, which ruled that the documents were
in accordance with the Armenian Constitution and 1990 Declaration of
Independence, which states that &'The Republic of Armenia stands in
support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915
Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.' The Turkish government
viewed this ruling as adding new conditionality to the protocols,
demanding guarantees that it did not do so," the source reads.
"Thomas de Waal, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
points to the fact that the Turkish side &'hoped to see progress on
the Karabakh dispute in the months after the Zurich ceremony, giving
them political cover to ratify the protocols.' He goes on to state:
&'Turkish officials, perhaps as a result of undue US assurances,
had an overly optimistic impression of how well the Karabakh peace
negotiations were going. When the officials learned in December 2009
that the talks were deadlocked, they found themselves boxed in,'
the source says.
"Is there, then, a chance for a breakthrough in the Karabakh
negotiations that would open the way for the ratification of the
protocols by Turkey? Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had declared
in Baku, five months prior to the signing of the protocols: "The
occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh is a cause, and the closure of the
border is an effect. Without the occupation ending, the gates will
not be opened." Why, then, did the Turkish side sign the protocols,
which did not made any reference to the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh
dispute?" the daily informs.
"As an ardent supporter of reconciliation in the
Turkey-Azerbaijan-Armenia triangle, I strongly hope that Huseynov's
expectations materialize," the source concludes.