Tweet
TURKISH-ARMENIAN PROTOCOLS: ANY HOPE LEFT?
Hurriyet
April 30 2010
Turkey
Since the very beginning of its announcement at the end of August 2009,
the reconciliation protocols between Turkey and Armenia have caused
an unending fury among many Armenians and Turks. Some Armenians,
like the Armenian diaspora and ultranationalist political parties,
described them as betrayal for the "Armenian cause." In Turkey, main
opposition political parties and experts spreading similar line of
words saw the protocols as one of the worst foreign policy initiatives
that Turkey has initiated in recent time. Neither were the external
views and policies helpful enough to realize the protocols. They
all have overtly or covertly promoted their own interests in the
reconciliation process between Ankara and Yerevan. No party seems to
be retreat from what they have seen fit for their own interests. Then,
what hope, if any, left for the protocols now?
Hazy Initial Atmosphere
The cloudy atmosphere was telling all in the evening of the Oct. 10,
2009, when the Turkish-Armenian protocols were signed. Nalbandian was
so sullen with what he was signing that his dislike was almost written
on his face. He was said to be against about what Davutoglu had to
utter about the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) dispute in
his speech following the signing ceremony. So the compromise with
the push of Lavrov was reached between Nalbandian and Davutoglu,
no speech was made but just handshakes.
As every international agreement requires, at least, first the show of
their good intention from all participating states for the application
of that document, the Turkish-Armenian protocols were actually born
disabled. Rather, it was a kind of document which was outcast from the
very beginning. There is possible few, if any, such an agreement like
the Protocols in international level that doubt of one party was so
vividly displayed just, even seconds, before putting his stamps on it.
It was as if the Protocols were signed for the sake of the presence
of high level international dignitaries- Clinton, Lavrov, Kouchner
and so on, but not for the true conscious of the parties to make it
real on the ground.
This gloomy disposition of the sides towards the Protocols have never
disappeared no matter how many times foreign ministers, prime minister
or the presidents between Turkey and Armenia have met in various
occasions since last October. Respective domestic and international
initiatives and developments have fed the hazy atmosphere on the
Protocols in a way that legalization and then application of them have
left to miracle. But, as everyone knows well, there is no room for
miracle in international relations able to shape inter-state relations.
Remembering Objectives of the Protocols
The protocols on paper aimed at initiating relationship between Turkey
and Armenia by establishing diplomatic relationships and opening the
long-closed borders between the two countries. Beyond that, however,
the main sprit behind starting political and economic rapprochement
was to remove the emotional burdens over Turkey's and Armenia's
shoulders caused by the so-called Armenian genocide in 1915 and the
Nagorno-Karabakh dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
However, there was no consensus between Turkish and Armenian
governments on how to address these problems in the Protocols. The
way one party understands the problems in the Protocols has occurred
to be totally conflicted with that of the other side's. The Protocols
did not make any specific references about what really the "History
Commission" would discuss- whether or how the so called Armenian
genocide crime was committed. Nor did the Protocols include any words
on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, apart from the joint wish that they
would respect international law and work for the establishment of
peace and stability in the region. Turkey relying on these did insist
that there must be a parallel reconciliation on the Nagorno-Karabakh
problem while it was getting ready to opening its border with Armenia.
Yerevan interpreted this Turkish position as a precondition and so
found unacceptable.
The protocols were also supposed to help reduce the economic misery
Armenia has since independence faced, and give to it more trade and
political opportunities in regional and international levels.
Conventional logic suggested that Armenia, destined to be heavily
dependent on economic and political wishes of Russia and Iran, could
easily reach out Turkish and European economic and social markets.
Interdependent relations through strong economic cooperation between
Turkey and Armenia were thought then to lead to the development of much
healthier relations between them and in the region. Even it was once
again stressed more often after the war between Georgia and Russia
over South Ossetia in August 2008 that Armenia could finally be part
of energy development projects and railway and land road connections
from the Caspian to Europe via Turkey. This vision advocated by
Turkey would work only if Azerbaijan became another partner, but the
Nagorno-Karabakh dispute has prevented such a development.
Fate of the protocols: Agreeing on disagreement
It is true that both sides have still kept the Protocols on the
agendas of their respective parliaments and refrained from abandoning
them totally. Rather, they have frozen the ratification processes
of the documents until an unknown moment in which they felt ready to
re-start all over again. But there seems to be no hope in an immediate
future that they can unfreeze the Protocols so long as they continue
displaying a zero-some-game behavior.
Turkey has been adamant on the Armenian withdrawal of some occupied
Azerbaijani territories. Any deviation from this policy as shown during
the discussions of the protocols would harm Ankara-Baku relationship
and seriously disrupt Turkey's long effort to deepen its political,
economic and cultural links with Central Asian states.
Nowadays having been more aware of this fact, the Turkish government
seems to have increased its call for the resolution of the NK issue in
return for legalization of the protocols in the Turkish parliament. As
the general election in mid-2011 is nearing, it is highly unlikely
that the Turkish government will put the protocols on the agenda
of the Parliament if there is not an unexpected breakthrough on the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue between Azerbaijan and Armenia during their
bilateral talks or within the framework of the Minsk Group.
Armenian government has on the other hand tied its hands so tight that
it has not only left no room for its own maneuver but also provoked
Turkey to take a hasher stance on the legalization of the Protocols.
Though it could easily leave the so called Armenia genocide issue
to the Armenian Diaspora, Sarkisian did choose to be part of their
argument by taking the Protocols to the Constitutional Court. It
ruled out any effort to make the Nagorno-Karabakh issue on the part
of the interpretation and application of the protocols. It further
decided that the protocols could no form or shape contradict Armenian
state's official policy of, and long struggle for, the international
recognition of the so called Armenian genocide by international
community.
Sarkisian's announcement of halting the protocols in the Parliament on
April 22 is not coincidence just two days before the U.S. president
delivered his annual speech on the Armenian issue. Sarkisian blaming
Turkey on their decision aimed to send a message to Obama that he
should not hesitate to use word "genocide" for the sake of a frozen,
if not yet dead, reconciliation document. Thus the timing of, and
reasoning for, Armenia's halt of the protocols suggests strongly that
Armenian government is and still will act the same way as the Armenian
diaspora has long been acting and wishing for. Then this means that,
in short and medium terms, the Armenian government will likely make no
compromise at all on what job the history commission in the protocols
is going to do.
It is true that there still exists a document called the protocols
between the two sides, and they have not withdrawn from their
parliaments. For developments have shown for last seven months, these
protocols can no longer be counted as the documents that both parties
agreed on, but rather something over which they bitterly contravened.
>From this moment on, if they ever come to a point where they start
talking about how to utilize terms of the protocols is a question
that its answer will be very much provided by the level of will that
respectively Turkish and Armenian governments are able to raise
in their discussions and/or negotiations with Azerbaijan over the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue and Armenian diaspora over the so-called
Armenian genocide.
* Dr. Guner Ozkan is an expert on the Caucasus Region at the
Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization, or USAK
[email protected]
Hurriyet
April 30 2010
Turkey
Since the very beginning of its announcement at the end of August 2009,
the reconciliation protocols between Turkey and Armenia have caused
an unending fury among many Armenians and Turks. Some Armenians,
like the Armenian diaspora and ultranationalist political parties,
described them as betrayal for the "Armenian cause." In Turkey, main
opposition political parties and experts spreading similar line of
words saw the protocols as one of the worst foreign policy initiatives
that Turkey has initiated in recent time. Neither were the external
views and policies helpful enough to realize the protocols. They
all have overtly or covertly promoted their own interests in the
reconciliation process between Ankara and Yerevan. No party seems to
be retreat from what they have seen fit for their own interests. Then,
what hope, if any, left for the protocols now?
Hazy Initial Atmosphere
The cloudy atmosphere was telling all in the evening of the Oct. 10,
2009, when the Turkish-Armenian protocols were signed. Nalbandian was
so sullen with what he was signing that his dislike was almost written
on his face. He was said to be against about what Davutoglu had to
utter about the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) dispute in
his speech following the signing ceremony. So the compromise with
the push of Lavrov was reached between Nalbandian and Davutoglu,
no speech was made but just handshakes.
As every international agreement requires, at least, first the show of
their good intention from all participating states for the application
of that document, the Turkish-Armenian protocols were actually born
disabled. Rather, it was a kind of document which was outcast from the
very beginning. There is possible few, if any, such an agreement like
the Protocols in international level that doubt of one party was so
vividly displayed just, even seconds, before putting his stamps on it.
It was as if the Protocols were signed for the sake of the presence
of high level international dignitaries- Clinton, Lavrov, Kouchner
and so on, but not for the true conscious of the parties to make it
real on the ground.
This gloomy disposition of the sides towards the Protocols have never
disappeared no matter how many times foreign ministers, prime minister
or the presidents between Turkey and Armenia have met in various
occasions since last October. Respective domestic and international
initiatives and developments have fed the hazy atmosphere on the
Protocols in a way that legalization and then application of them have
left to miracle. But, as everyone knows well, there is no room for
miracle in international relations able to shape inter-state relations.
Remembering Objectives of the Protocols
The protocols on paper aimed at initiating relationship between Turkey
and Armenia by establishing diplomatic relationships and opening the
long-closed borders between the two countries. Beyond that, however,
the main sprit behind starting political and economic rapprochement
was to remove the emotional burdens over Turkey's and Armenia's
shoulders caused by the so-called Armenian genocide in 1915 and the
Nagorno-Karabakh dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
However, there was no consensus between Turkish and Armenian
governments on how to address these problems in the Protocols. The
way one party understands the problems in the Protocols has occurred
to be totally conflicted with that of the other side's. The Protocols
did not make any specific references about what really the "History
Commission" would discuss- whether or how the so called Armenian
genocide crime was committed. Nor did the Protocols include any words
on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, apart from the joint wish that they
would respect international law and work for the establishment of
peace and stability in the region. Turkey relying on these did insist
that there must be a parallel reconciliation on the Nagorno-Karabakh
problem while it was getting ready to opening its border with Armenia.
Yerevan interpreted this Turkish position as a precondition and so
found unacceptable.
The protocols were also supposed to help reduce the economic misery
Armenia has since independence faced, and give to it more trade and
political opportunities in regional and international levels.
Conventional logic suggested that Armenia, destined to be heavily
dependent on economic and political wishes of Russia and Iran, could
easily reach out Turkish and European economic and social markets.
Interdependent relations through strong economic cooperation between
Turkey and Armenia were thought then to lead to the development of much
healthier relations between them and in the region. Even it was once
again stressed more often after the war between Georgia and Russia
over South Ossetia in August 2008 that Armenia could finally be part
of energy development projects and railway and land road connections
from the Caspian to Europe via Turkey. This vision advocated by
Turkey would work only if Azerbaijan became another partner, but the
Nagorno-Karabakh dispute has prevented such a development.
Fate of the protocols: Agreeing on disagreement
It is true that both sides have still kept the Protocols on the
agendas of their respective parliaments and refrained from abandoning
them totally. Rather, they have frozen the ratification processes
of the documents until an unknown moment in which they felt ready to
re-start all over again. But there seems to be no hope in an immediate
future that they can unfreeze the Protocols so long as they continue
displaying a zero-some-game behavior.
Turkey has been adamant on the Armenian withdrawal of some occupied
Azerbaijani territories. Any deviation from this policy as shown during
the discussions of the protocols would harm Ankara-Baku relationship
and seriously disrupt Turkey's long effort to deepen its political,
economic and cultural links with Central Asian states.
Nowadays having been more aware of this fact, the Turkish government
seems to have increased its call for the resolution of the NK issue in
return for legalization of the protocols in the Turkish parliament. As
the general election in mid-2011 is nearing, it is highly unlikely
that the Turkish government will put the protocols on the agenda
of the Parliament if there is not an unexpected breakthrough on the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue between Azerbaijan and Armenia during their
bilateral talks or within the framework of the Minsk Group.
Armenian government has on the other hand tied its hands so tight that
it has not only left no room for its own maneuver but also provoked
Turkey to take a hasher stance on the legalization of the Protocols.
Though it could easily leave the so called Armenia genocide issue
to the Armenian Diaspora, Sarkisian did choose to be part of their
argument by taking the Protocols to the Constitutional Court. It
ruled out any effort to make the Nagorno-Karabakh issue on the part
of the interpretation and application of the protocols. It further
decided that the protocols could no form or shape contradict Armenian
state's official policy of, and long struggle for, the international
recognition of the so called Armenian genocide by international
community.
Sarkisian's announcement of halting the protocols in the Parliament on
April 22 is not coincidence just two days before the U.S. president
delivered his annual speech on the Armenian issue. Sarkisian blaming
Turkey on their decision aimed to send a message to Obama that he
should not hesitate to use word "genocide" for the sake of a frozen,
if not yet dead, reconciliation document. Thus the timing of, and
reasoning for, Armenia's halt of the protocols suggests strongly that
Armenian government is and still will act the same way as the Armenian
diaspora has long been acting and wishing for. Then this means that,
in short and medium terms, the Armenian government will likely make no
compromise at all on what job the history commission in the protocols
is going to do.
It is true that there still exists a document called the protocols
between the two sides, and they have not withdrawn from their
parliaments. For developments have shown for last seven months, these
protocols can no longer be counted as the documents that both parties
agreed on, but rather something over which they bitterly contravened.
>From this moment on, if they ever come to a point where they start
talking about how to utilize terms of the protocols is a question
that its answer will be very much provided by the level of will that
respectively Turkish and Armenian governments are able to raise
in their discussions and/or negotiations with Azerbaijan over the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue and Armenian diaspora over the so-called
Armenian genocide.
* Dr. Guner Ozkan is an expert on the Caucasus Region at the
Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization, or USAK
[email protected]