Tweet
TURKISH-ARMENIAN RAPPROCHEMENT 'DEAD BUT NOT BURIED'
news.az
March 29 2010
Azerbaijan
Gareth Jenkins News.az interviews Gareth Jenkins, non-resident Turkey
expert at the USA's Johns Hopkins University.
Do you think the recognition of the killings of Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire as 'genocide' by the US House Foreign Affairs Committee
will harm US-Turkish relations, even after a veto on the issue by
the Obama administration?
US-Turkish relations were already in difficulties even before the
genocide resolution was passed by the committee, particularly because
of the emphasis the AKP (Justice and Development Party) has been
giving to cultivating closer ties with what are regarded as rogue
states in Washington, such as Iran, Syria and Sudan. The problem
for the US has been that it needs Turkish cooperation in Afghanistan
and for any sanctions on Iran. The committee resolution has as much
highlighted tensions in relations as it has caused them.
What do you think about the future of the normalization of relations
between Turkey and Armenia?
Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu is a clever man but Turkey's foreign
policy often appears naïve, particularly when it comes to how some
of its attempts to cultivate closer ties with certain countries are
perceived by others. Unlike nearly everyone else, the AKP does not
appear to have understood that 'normalizing' ties with Yerevan at a
time when Armenia was still supporting the occupation of a sizable
proportion of Azeri territory would antagonize Baku. Prime Minister
Erdogan's subsequent threat to expel Armenian citizens living in Turkey
was not only inaccurate - the number working in Turkey is generally
agreed to be much closer to 10,000 than 100,000 - but racist as he
made no mention of expelling other nationalities working illegally in
Turkey. The rapprochement with Armenia was already in serious trouble
even before the genocide resolution in the US. It is now dead.
How would you estimate Armenian policy towards Turkey, I mean
statements about willingness to normalize relations with Turkey on
the one hand and attempts to get recognition of the 'genocide' on
the other?
It is unrealistic to expect either Armenia or the Armenian diaspora
to abandon their claims that there was a genocide in the early 20th
century. Regardless of whether or not everyone agrees that one
occurred, the genocide now lies at the heart of their conception
of national identity. I think Armenia is sincere in wanting to
open its borders and establish diplomatic relations with Turkey,
provided that these things can be achieved without any concessions
on Nagorno-Karabakh or the genocide.
It is important to distinguish between the Armenian state and the
Armenian diaspora. Although the genocide is part of the ideological
foundation of the Armenian state, it is the diaspora which is pushing
the hardest for international recognition, not Armenia itself.
What are the chances of Obama using the word 'genocide' on 24 April
after the decision by the Foreign Affairs Committee and the reaction
of the US administration?
I don't know. My feeling at the moment is that it is unlikely but not
impossible that he will use the word. Much will depend on what else
is happening at the time and whether the anniversary coincides with
the US needing Turkey for something (e.g. sanctions against Iran). One
has to remember that, during their election campaigns, both Obama and
Hillary Clinton promised to recognize the genocide once they were
in office. From this perspective, Turkey's attempted rapprochement
with Armenia was useful for them as it gave them an excuse not to
deliver on the promises they made in 2008 - i.e. they can say that
the circumstances are not appropriate at the moment as recognizing
an atrocity in the past could jeopardize prospects for peace in the
present. But this only holds true for as long as the rapprochement
between Turkey and Armenia is still alive. At the moment it is dead,
but not yet buried. So it is possible that Obama will be able to
avoid using the word genocide in April as it is still possible to
claim that there is a chance of reviving the rapprochement. But I
am sure that, sooner or later, a US president will use the word -
and it will be very difficult for Obama to ask for Turkish-Armenian
votes in the 2012 election if he has not delivered on his promise to
recognize the genocide.
The Azeri authorities talk about a direct link between Turkey-Armenia
relations and a settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict
over Karabakh. How may the 'genocide' issue influence the Karabakh
settlement?
Nagorno-Karabakh is often referred to as a 'frozen conflict'. In this
context, the furor over the genocide resolution could actually be
beneficial as it could serve as a reminder that there is another -
more recent and, arguably, much more urgent - issue to be resolved
and put Nagorno-Karabakh on the agenda. Unfortunately for the US, its
influence is limited. The only country with sufficient influence in the
region to broker a settlement is Russia. But, if the West began to make
noises about trying to resolve Nagorno-Karabakh, it could galvanize
Russia into being more proactive as the last thing Moscow wants is
for the West to come in and solve a problem in its 'near abroad'.
When it comes to peace, stability and prosperity in the Caucasus, the
resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh is much more important than recognition
of the Armenian genocide. If there is progress on Nagorno-Karabakh,
then not only will relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia benefit
but also those between Turkey and Armenia - including Yerevan and
Ankara establishing diplomatic ties, opening their common border etc.
And history, in the form of the Armenian genocide, could be left
to historians.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
news.az
March 29 2010
Azerbaijan
Gareth Jenkins News.az interviews Gareth Jenkins, non-resident Turkey
expert at the USA's Johns Hopkins University.
Do you think the recognition of the killings of Armenians in the
Ottoman Empire as 'genocide' by the US House Foreign Affairs Committee
will harm US-Turkish relations, even after a veto on the issue by
the Obama administration?
US-Turkish relations were already in difficulties even before the
genocide resolution was passed by the committee, particularly because
of the emphasis the AKP (Justice and Development Party) has been
giving to cultivating closer ties with what are regarded as rogue
states in Washington, such as Iran, Syria and Sudan. The problem
for the US has been that it needs Turkish cooperation in Afghanistan
and for any sanctions on Iran. The committee resolution has as much
highlighted tensions in relations as it has caused them.
What do you think about the future of the normalization of relations
between Turkey and Armenia?
Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu is a clever man but Turkey's foreign
policy often appears naïve, particularly when it comes to how some
of its attempts to cultivate closer ties with certain countries are
perceived by others. Unlike nearly everyone else, the AKP does not
appear to have understood that 'normalizing' ties with Yerevan at a
time when Armenia was still supporting the occupation of a sizable
proportion of Azeri territory would antagonize Baku. Prime Minister
Erdogan's subsequent threat to expel Armenian citizens living in Turkey
was not only inaccurate - the number working in Turkey is generally
agreed to be much closer to 10,000 than 100,000 - but racist as he
made no mention of expelling other nationalities working illegally in
Turkey. The rapprochement with Armenia was already in serious trouble
even before the genocide resolution in the US. It is now dead.
How would you estimate Armenian policy towards Turkey, I mean
statements about willingness to normalize relations with Turkey on
the one hand and attempts to get recognition of the 'genocide' on
the other?
It is unrealistic to expect either Armenia or the Armenian diaspora
to abandon their claims that there was a genocide in the early 20th
century. Regardless of whether or not everyone agrees that one
occurred, the genocide now lies at the heart of their conception
of national identity. I think Armenia is sincere in wanting to
open its borders and establish diplomatic relations with Turkey,
provided that these things can be achieved without any concessions
on Nagorno-Karabakh or the genocide.
It is important to distinguish between the Armenian state and the
Armenian diaspora. Although the genocide is part of the ideological
foundation of the Armenian state, it is the diaspora which is pushing
the hardest for international recognition, not Armenia itself.
What are the chances of Obama using the word 'genocide' on 24 April
after the decision by the Foreign Affairs Committee and the reaction
of the US administration?
I don't know. My feeling at the moment is that it is unlikely but not
impossible that he will use the word. Much will depend on what else
is happening at the time and whether the anniversary coincides with
the US needing Turkey for something (e.g. sanctions against Iran). One
has to remember that, during their election campaigns, both Obama and
Hillary Clinton promised to recognize the genocide once they were
in office. From this perspective, Turkey's attempted rapprochement
with Armenia was useful for them as it gave them an excuse not to
deliver on the promises they made in 2008 - i.e. they can say that
the circumstances are not appropriate at the moment as recognizing
an atrocity in the past could jeopardize prospects for peace in the
present. But this only holds true for as long as the rapprochement
between Turkey and Armenia is still alive. At the moment it is dead,
but not yet buried. So it is possible that Obama will be able to
avoid using the word genocide in April as it is still possible to
claim that there is a chance of reviving the rapprochement. But I
am sure that, sooner or later, a US president will use the word -
and it will be very difficult for Obama to ask for Turkish-Armenian
votes in the 2012 election if he has not delivered on his promise to
recognize the genocide.
The Azeri authorities talk about a direct link between Turkey-Armenia
relations and a settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict
over Karabakh. How may the 'genocide' issue influence the Karabakh
settlement?
Nagorno-Karabakh is often referred to as a 'frozen conflict'. In this
context, the furor over the genocide resolution could actually be
beneficial as it could serve as a reminder that there is another -
more recent and, arguably, much more urgent - issue to be resolved
and put Nagorno-Karabakh on the agenda. Unfortunately for the US, its
influence is limited. The only country with sufficient influence in the
region to broker a settlement is Russia. But, if the West began to make
noises about trying to resolve Nagorno-Karabakh, it could galvanize
Russia into being more proactive as the last thing Moscow wants is
for the West to come in and solve a problem in its 'near abroad'.
When it comes to peace, stability and prosperity in the Caucasus, the
resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh is much more important than recognition
of the Armenian genocide. If there is progress on Nagorno-Karabakh,
then not only will relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia benefit
but also those between Turkey and Armenia - including Yerevan and
Ankara establishing diplomatic ties, opening their common border etc.
And history, in the form of the Armenian genocide, could be left
to historians.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress