Tweet
Hurriyet, Turkey
July 31 2011
Does anyone care about rapprochement these days?
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Hovhannes Nikoghosyan
There had been much honest anticipation in Yerevan and beyond that
once parliamentary elections in Turkey are successfully won by the
Justice and Development Party, or AKP, the Armenian-Turkish
rapprochement would be back on track. However, high hopes still remain
as such, while new misunderstandings emerge on both sides.
Of course, one may argue that the domestic agenda in Turkey, i.e. the
bleeding Kurdish issue and housing Syrian refugees, make a troubled
climate in post-election Turkey. Adding to this, the emerging blurring
authority of Turkey in the wider region after quarrelling with Israel
over the flotilla incident, the obvious breakup with Syria, the
internationally visible benign neglect of Turkey's `willingness to
help' with Libya and, finally, the stalemate with Armenian opening `
have effectively damaged the `zero problem' policy ideology. Sometimes
I even mistype it as `zero sum' policy recently, to be honest.
While other major issues are of political nature, the standoff with
the Armenians has a difficult history that has come to a new phase
after Armenia reestablished the Third Republic 20 years ago. Turkey
was indeed very prompt to recognize Armenia's independence in 1991,
but failed to establish diplomatic relations despite behind-the-scene
high-level talks. This phase of `opportunity' waved away after Turkey
fully sealed the border in April 1993 in an apparent move to support
its stepbrother - Azerbaijan. When Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian
publicized the rapprochement process and shook hands with Turkish
President Abdullah Gül, it was sincerely backed by many world leaders,
who commended their vision, and even stood behind the table when
signing the historical Zurich protocols in October 2009. Though being
supported by Gül, the whole process bore a totally different vision by
Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an, who went on the record at Chatham House in
early April 2009 almost rejecting any deal with Armenia and putting
down knowingly undoable preconditions. Some critics even argued then
that ErdoÄ?an was not on the same page with Gül and didn't share the
positive vision about the `Armenian opening,' favoring Azerbaijan.
When U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton visited Turkey recently on
the Libyan Contact Group meeting, her extra agenda included items on
Caucasus politics ` both Nagorno-Karabakh issue and the future of
`publicly frozen' rapprochement process with Armenia, which she
invested much capital in. This was a good test to show this peace
process hasn't been swept out from international agenda.
Right after, surprisingly, some prominent Armenian NGO chiefs were
received by Foreign Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu in Ankara, which gave an
impression Turkey may consider getting back on track soon.
However, what has been evolving recently in the public domain brings
to an objective conclusion that the standstill in the rapprochement
process should be blamed on the lack of empathy on both sides.
The words of Sarkisian in the Armenian holiday resort of Tsakhkadzor
created a real hurricane in Turkey. As the Foreign Ministry, AKP and
ErdoÄ?an in Baku crashed on Armenia harshly; I doubted that Turkish
authorities have thought to employ media monitoring groups and
translators to report the transcript of the event from Armenia.
In reality, of course if those misguided gentlemen frankly cared about
the reality, Sarkisian answered a question from a school kid that the
future of homeland depends on coming generations (as for any other
nation), and elaborated: `¦if your peers would put in your best effort
and energy¦ we will have one of the best countries in the world.
Believe me, in most cases its is not the size of the territory that
determines the weight of the country.' Sarkisian said each generation
had to meet its own duties and challenges and while his mates were
forced to save the people of Karabakh, the others would meet their
responsibilities with dignity in the future. He argued that a
successful state should be `modern, secure and prospering' to enable
matching with other developed nations. This was his ultimate call to
the new generation in the room, and nothing more or less.
I will be surprised if the newly reelected leaders in Turkey would not
sign up such a statement for their own country, if they are true
leaders and not only elected politicians. However, this time again
they acted like politicians.
*Hovhannes Nikoghosyan is a research fellow (PhD) from Yerevan, Armenia.
July 31 2011
Does anyone care about rapprochement these days?
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Hovhannes Nikoghosyan
There had been much honest anticipation in Yerevan and beyond that
once parliamentary elections in Turkey are successfully won by the
Justice and Development Party, or AKP, the Armenian-Turkish
rapprochement would be back on track. However, high hopes still remain
as such, while new misunderstandings emerge on both sides.
Of course, one may argue that the domestic agenda in Turkey, i.e. the
bleeding Kurdish issue and housing Syrian refugees, make a troubled
climate in post-election Turkey. Adding to this, the emerging blurring
authority of Turkey in the wider region after quarrelling with Israel
over the flotilla incident, the obvious breakup with Syria, the
internationally visible benign neglect of Turkey's `willingness to
help' with Libya and, finally, the stalemate with Armenian opening `
have effectively damaged the `zero problem' policy ideology. Sometimes
I even mistype it as `zero sum' policy recently, to be honest.
While other major issues are of political nature, the standoff with
the Armenians has a difficult history that has come to a new phase
after Armenia reestablished the Third Republic 20 years ago. Turkey
was indeed very prompt to recognize Armenia's independence in 1991,
but failed to establish diplomatic relations despite behind-the-scene
high-level talks. This phase of `opportunity' waved away after Turkey
fully sealed the border in April 1993 in an apparent move to support
its stepbrother - Azerbaijan. When Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian
publicized the rapprochement process and shook hands with Turkish
President Abdullah Gül, it was sincerely backed by many world leaders,
who commended their vision, and even stood behind the table when
signing the historical Zurich protocols in October 2009. Though being
supported by Gül, the whole process bore a totally different vision by
Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an, who went on the record at Chatham House in
early April 2009 almost rejecting any deal with Armenia and putting
down knowingly undoable preconditions. Some critics even argued then
that ErdoÄ?an was not on the same page with Gül and didn't share the
positive vision about the `Armenian opening,' favoring Azerbaijan.
When U.S. State Secretary Hillary Clinton visited Turkey recently on
the Libyan Contact Group meeting, her extra agenda included items on
Caucasus politics ` both Nagorno-Karabakh issue and the future of
`publicly frozen' rapprochement process with Armenia, which she
invested much capital in. This was a good test to show this peace
process hasn't been swept out from international agenda.
Right after, surprisingly, some prominent Armenian NGO chiefs were
received by Foreign Minister Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu in Ankara, which gave an
impression Turkey may consider getting back on track soon.
However, what has been evolving recently in the public domain brings
to an objective conclusion that the standstill in the rapprochement
process should be blamed on the lack of empathy on both sides.
The words of Sarkisian in the Armenian holiday resort of Tsakhkadzor
created a real hurricane in Turkey. As the Foreign Ministry, AKP and
ErdoÄ?an in Baku crashed on Armenia harshly; I doubted that Turkish
authorities have thought to employ media monitoring groups and
translators to report the transcript of the event from Armenia.
In reality, of course if those misguided gentlemen frankly cared about
the reality, Sarkisian answered a question from a school kid that the
future of homeland depends on coming generations (as for any other
nation), and elaborated: `¦if your peers would put in your best effort
and energy¦ we will have one of the best countries in the world.
Believe me, in most cases its is not the size of the territory that
determines the weight of the country.' Sarkisian said each generation
had to meet its own duties and challenges and while his mates were
forced to save the people of Karabakh, the others would meet their
responsibilities with dignity in the future. He argued that a
successful state should be `modern, secure and prospering' to enable
matching with other developed nations. This was his ultimate call to
the new generation in the room, and nothing more or less.
I will be surprised if the newly reelected leaders in Turkey would not
sign up such a statement for their own country, if they are true
leaders and not only elected politicians. However, this time again
they acted like politicians.
*Hovhannes Nikoghosyan is a research fellow (PhD) from Yerevan, Armenia.