Tweet
WHO SHOULD BE LISTENING TO THE WARNING BELLS OF APRIL 24?
by Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu*
Today's Zaman
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-277905-who-should-be-listening-to-the-warning-bells-of-april-24-by-mehmet-fatih-oztarsu*.html
April 18 2012
Turkey
Turkey has been able to maintain a firm stance regarding the Armenian
matters that have at times occupied the global agenda in recent years.
This year it appears it will be able to brush off the whole April 24
syndrome. But another side to the issue presents us with a different
reality; a process guided by different strategies has begun for the
Armenians, who appear, from the outside, to be the losing side.
In recent times, the Armenian diaspora has tried every method possible
to keep this issue from sliding out of the global spotlight. There
appear to be no limits to what this diaspora will do in terms of
increasing anti-Turkey activities in the countries where they reside,
scrutinizing topics sensitive to Turkey's national and international
policies and then presenting these topics to the world. As for Turkey's
efforts to form some sort of dialogue with the said diaspora, they
have so far gone unaccepted.
France, which seems unruffled by the idea of experiencing a crisis
with Turkey, has even shot a bullet into its own foot in order to
be able to pick up the vote of the Armenians. Its most recent acts
with regards to the Armenian issue, however, did not bring about the
desired effect. After the brief crisis between Turkey and France,
Armenia -- pushed by increased prompting from members of its diaspora
-- said that France had not done enough on this question, and noted it
would be ratcheting up its own lobbying activities. In the meantime,
relations between Armenia -- which says, "If not France, then the
US," -- and Turkey are in a frozen state, with no movement either
forward or backward on this front. In Turkey, the subject comes up
only during parliamentary or presidential election periods, or is
used as a vehicle for propaganda in national politics. In Armenia,
however, the topic is followed closely, and there is pride expressed
in the steps being taken by others in the name of Armenia. A recent
attack on Turkish stands at a book trade fair in France by an Armenian
group was heralded in Armenia as an act of heroism. The same stance was
displayed when Armenians in Lebanon attacked Turkish politicians. This
stance is encouraged by the mentality of the Armenian Secret Army
for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), which saw Turkish diplomats
murdered in the Cold War period with the belief that "everything can
be justified when it comes to this issue."
Realpolitik is winning
But realpolitik is a different matter altogether, and unfortunately
both Armenia and its diaspora ignore this fact. In the end, realpolitik
is winning, and with their hurried and uncalculated approaches,
they are actually damaging themselves. The country where Armenians
who oppose Turkey feel most at home these days is France.
But any further steps France might take on this matter are sure
to further damage Turkish-French relations, and thus there can
be no developments therein. To wit, Turkey has already made its
resolve clear on this matter. Level-headed French politicians have
made it quite clear that they find these demands from Armenians --
demands which limit freedom of thought -- completely unreasonable,
and that France has more important issues to deal with these days. One
important question that begs research is why it is that during times
when right-wing politics is on the rise, and when minorities are
under so much pressure, are Armenians treated to such a different
approach in France? The answer is that this is entirely the result
of the effective workings of the diaspora. And in response, Turkey
needs to make some serious efforts. Otherwise, this cold war will
rob it of energy for many more years to come. It is not possible to
enter into dialogue with the diaspora, since what actually nourishes
the diaspora is conflict. But more reasonable steps taken by Armenia
itself may in fact clear the path for dialogue.
Mistakes made by Armenia in its foreign political maneuvers are a
frequent topic for debate in Armenia, but since the same rhetoric gets
repeated over and over, no new ideas ever seem to come about. This,
in turn, makes their arguments seem less and less plausible. Armenia
states: "Turkey must not get involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh
question. If it can refrain from doing so, we are prepared to develop
our relations with it." But what is not being talked about here is that
it would actually be an economically weak Armenia which would benefit
most from the development of relations with Turkey. The conflicting
aspects of Armenian foreign policy and politics are largely rooted in
foreign dependence. The very foundation of its foreign politics is
riddled with errors this way. We see the same problems that started
in 1918, when the first Armenian republic was formed. At that time,
Armenia was not able to bring about its independence by its own hand,
and was in a state of conflict with Azerbaijan, a state to which it
later added both Turkey and Georgia.
Over time, a foreign policy rooted in the rhetoric of "saving
historical Armenian lands" was formed, which is when Armenia tried
to take over the southern reaches of Georgia. Today, it follows the
same incompatible sort of policies with all its neighbors. And it
is the cornerstone of these policies that holds Turkey responsible
on the question of 1915. As a result, Armenia gives off the image
of being a country constantly oppressed by others, and a country
which tries to solve problems through conflict. It is, in the end,
Armenia which is damaged by this.
Turkey has taken the right step in trying to broach peace with
Armenia in recent years. These steps on Turkey's part have led to
the erasure of the previously held image of Turkey around the world
as being an oppressive, embargo-wielding nation. Turkey does believe
that the correct diplomacy can bring about peace, and it follows the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue closely with the hopes of seeing regional
stability settled. As it stands today, Turkey affirms that peace
can be brought about if an important problem like Nagorno-Karabakh
is actually solved. And this is thus a critical matter which Armenia
needs to urgently accept. But of course, to what extent can Armenia act
out of its own will and volition? That in itself is a whole different
question. Turkey, which sees its own stance maintained as April 24
rolls around this year, needs to watch the upcoming elections in
Armenia closely. It is quite clear that this year's April 24 will
see the stances embraced by Armenia and all its supporters in the
diaspora become clearer; it will also be a time when new strategies
emerge. This is because there is very little time left until 2015. One
must not forget that in 2015, the arguments will not come to any
sort of conclusion, but that instead, it is the year when the real
propaganda wars will start up.
*Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu is a strategic outlook expert with the
Yerevan European Regional Academy.
by Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu*
Today's Zaman
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-277905-who-should-be-listening-to-the-warning-bells-of-april-24-by-mehmet-fatih-oztarsu*.html
April 18 2012
Turkey
Turkey has been able to maintain a firm stance regarding the Armenian
matters that have at times occupied the global agenda in recent years.
This year it appears it will be able to brush off the whole April 24
syndrome. But another side to the issue presents us with a different
reality; a process guided by different strategies has begun for the
Armenians, who appear, from the outside, to be the losing side.
In recent times, the Armenian diaspora has tried every method possible
to keep this issue from sliding out of the global spotlight. There
appear to be no limits to what this diaspora will do in terms of
increasing anti-Turkey activities in the countries where they reside,
scrutinizing topics sensitive to Turkey's national and international
policies and then presenting these topics to the world. As for Turkey's
efforts to form some sort of dialogue with the said diaspora, they
have so far gone unaccepted.
France, which seems unruffled by the idea of experiencing a crisis
with Turkey, has even shot a bullet into its own foot in order to
be able to pick up the vote of the Armenians. Its most recent acts
with regards to the Armenian issue, however, did not bring about the
desired effect. After the brief crisis between Turkey and France,
Armenia -- pushed by increased prompting from members of its diaspora
-- said that France had not done enough on this question, and noted it
would be ratcheting up its own lobbying activities. In the meantime,
relations between Armenia -- which says, "If not France, then the
US," -- and Turkey are in a frozen state, with no movement either
forward or backward on this front. In Turkey, the subject comes up
only during parliamentary or presidential election periods, or is
used as a vehicle for propaganda in national politics. In Armenia,
however, the topic is followed closely, and there is pride expressed
in the steps being taken by others in the name of Armenia. A recent
attack on Turkish stands at a book trade fair in France by an Armenian
group was heralded in Armenia as an act of heroism. The same stance was
displayed when Armenians in Lebanon attacked Turkish politicians. This
stance is encouraged by the mentality of the Armenian Secret Army
for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), which saw Turkish diplomats
murdered in the Cold War period with the belief that "everything can
be justified when it comes to this issue."
Realpolitik is winning
But realpolitik is a different matter altogether, and unfortunately
both Armenia and its diaspora ignore this fact. In the end, realpolitik
is winning, and with their hurried and uncalculated approaches,
they are actually damaging themselves. The country where Armenians
who oppose Turkey feel most at home these days is France.
But any further steps France might take on this matter are sure
to further damage Turkish-French relations, and thus there can
be no developments therein. To wit, Turkey has already made its
resolve clear on this matter. Level-headed French politicians have
made it quite clear that they find these demands from Armenians --
demands which limit freedom of thought -- completely unreasonable,
and that France has more important issues to deal with these days. One
important question that begs research is why it is that during times
when right-wing politics is on the rise, and when minorities are
under so much pressure, are Armenians treated to such a different
approach in France? The answer is that this is entirely the result
of the effective workings of the diaspora. And in response, Turkey
needs to make some serious efforts. Otherwise, this cold war will
rob it of energy for many more years to come. It is not possible to
enter into dialogue with the diaspora, since what actually nourishes
the diaspora is conflict. But more reasonable steps taken by Armenia
itself may in fact clear the path for dialogue.
Mistakes made by Armenia in its foreign political maneuvers are a
frequent topic for debate in Armenia, but since the same rhetoric gets
repeated over and over, no new ideas ever seem to come about. This,
in turn, makes their arguments seem less and less plausible. Armenia
states: "Turkey must not get involved in the Nagorno-Karabakh
question. If it can refrain from doing so, we are prepared to develop
our relations with it." But what is not being talked about here is that
it would actually be an economically weak Armenia which would benefit
most from the development of relations with Turkey. The conflicting
aspects of Armenian foreign policy and politics are largely rooted in
foreign dependence. The very foundation of its foreign politics is
riddled with errors this way. We see the same problems that started
in 1918, when the first Armenian republic was formed. At that time,
Armenia was not able to bring about its independence by its own hand,
and was in a state of conflict with Azerbaijan, a state to which it
later added both Turkey and Georgia.
Over time, a foreign policy rooted in the rhetoric of "saving
historical Armenian lands" was formed, which is when Armenia tried
to take over the southern reaches of Georgia. Today, it follows the
same incompatible sort of policies with all its neighbors. And it
is the cornerstone of these policies that holds Turkey responsible
on the question of 1915. As a result, Armenia gives off the image
of being a country constantly oppressed by others, and a country
which tries to solve problems through conflict. It is, in the end,
Armenia which is damaged by this.
Turkey has taken the right step in trying to broach peace with
Armenia in recent years. These steps on Turkey's part have led to
the erasure of the previously held image of Turkey around the world
as being an oppressive, embargo-wielding nation. Turkey does believe
that the correct diplomacy can bring about peace, and it follows the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue closely with the hopes of seeing regional
stability settled. As it stands today, Turkey affirms that peace
can be brought about if an important problem like Nagorno-Karabakh
is actually solved. And this is thus a critical matter which Armenia
needs to urgently accept. But of course, to what extent can Armenia act
out of its own will and volition? That in itself is a whole different
question. Turkey, which sees its own stance maintained as April 24
rolls around this year, needs to watch the upcoming elections in
Armenia closely. It is quite clear that this year's April 24 will
see the stances embraced by Armenia and all its supporters in the
diaspora become clearer; it will also be a time when new strategies
emerge. This is because there is very little time left until 2015. One
must not forget that in 2015, the arguments will not come to any
sort of conclusion, but that instead, it is the year when the real
propaganda wars will start up.
*Mehmet Fatih Oztarsu is a strategic outlook expert with the
Yerevan European Regional Academy.