Tweet
LAND-LOCKED: THE NECESSITY OF OPEN BORDERS IN ARMENIA
By Rupen Janbazian on December 23, 2014
Special for the Armenian Weekly
The historically positive relationship between Israel and the Republic
of Turkey has been strained since the 2008-09 Gaza War and the 2010
Gaza flotilla raid. More recently, following U.S. pressure on both
sides, a failed attempt of reconciliation between the two nations
began in early 2013, with little to no development.1 Relations between
Israel and Turkey hit a new low in October 2013, with the scandal over
alleged Turkish involvement in the exposure of Israeli special agents
in Iran.2While military, strategic, and diplomatic cooperation between
the two nations were once accorded high priority by both parties,
Turkey's legal challenge to Israel's blockade of Gaza has shown that
relations may never be fully restored.
One of the most interesting aspects of Ankara's claim that Israel
was acting unlawfully in Gaza, was the fact that it inadvertently
highlighted the illegal blockade that Turkey has imposed on neighboring
Armenia for the past two decades. In 1993, the Republic of Turkey
joined Azerbaijan in implementing a blockade in response to the
Nagorno-Karabagh War. Although Turkey did not directly take part in
the conflict, it sided with Azerbaijan because of ethnic ties, and
continues to enforce the damaging blockade that cannot be justified
under international law. This act assumes a total air, rail, and
road blockade of Armenia with no exceptions, even for shipments of
humanitarian assistance.3,4 Approximately 80 percent of the length
of Armenia's borders is closed, including all roads, rail lines,
and pipelines from Turkey and Azerbaijan into Armenia.5 This has
crippled the Armenian economy and hindered the nation's growth and
prosperity over the past two decades.
The Republic of Armenia is a land-locked country with very few natural
resources and relies on trade with neighboring nations to develop and
progress. The blockades imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan have created
a difficult situation within the country, as the cost of transport
to Iran and Georgia is consistently on the rise. Concern regarding
the expansion of international trade to land-locked countries was
first brought up in the United Nations in February 1957, during the
656thPlenary Session of the General Assembly. Recognizing the need to
provide corresponding transit possibilities to land-locked countries
for the development of international commerce, Resolution 1028 (XI)
"invites the Governments of Member States to give full recognition
to the land-locked Member States in the matter of transit trade and,
therefore, to accord them adequate facilities in terms of international
law and practice in this regard."6 In 1969, the Republic of Turkey
acceded to the Convention on Transit Trade of Land Locked States
of 1965.7
The convention's first principle stated that "the right of each
land-locked State of free access to the sea is an essential principle
for the expansion of international trade and economic development."
The third principle of the convention assumes the right to free access
to the sea for land-locked countries, stating, "In order to enjoy the
freedom of the seas on equal terms with coastal States, States having
no sea coast should have free access to the sea." Moreover, the fourth
principle of this convention states that "Goods in transit should
not be subject to any customs duty," and that "Means of transport
in transit should not be subject to special taxes or charges higher
than those levied for the use of means of transport of the transit
country." Although Turkey has acceded to the Convention on Transit
Trade of Land-locked States, the Republic of Armenia has not. It
is perhaps in Armenia's best interest to sign onto this important
convention to better position itself and protect its rights as a
land-locked nation.8
The blockade imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan has often wrongly been
referred to as an embargo or as trade sanctions on Armenia. However,
in terms of international law, the economic blockade and diplomatic
boycott are directly against the principle outlined in the United
Nations Charter requiring the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
This principle, calling for the peaceful settlement of disputes, is
also mentioned in the "Accession Partnership with Turkey" adopted by
the EU Council. Moreover, the international community has on several
occasions called on Turkey and Azerbaijan to lift their blockades. The
UN Security Council, for example, has explicitly referred to and voiced
concern over the economic blockade imposed by Azerbaijan against
Armenia. On Jan. 29, 1993, the president of the UN Security Council
made a statement (S/25199) expressing "deep concern at the devastating
effect of interruptions in the supply of goods and materials,
in particular energy supplies" to Armenia and to the Nakhichevan
region of Azerbaijan, and called on governments in the region "to
allow humanitarian supplies to flow freely, in particular fuel."9 In
late 2000, the European adopted (C5-0036/2000) concerning the report
on Turkish progress towards candidacy for the European Union, which
called on the Turkish government to re-establish normal diplomatic
and trade relations with Armenia and lift the ongoing blockade.10
It's important to note here the significance of Armenia's remaining
open borders. Armenia shares a small yet very important border
with neighboring Iran, along the Araks River. Yet, its border with
Georgia is even more significant and vital, since the main land, rail,
and seaborne transportation routes, which allow Armenia to connect
with the outside world, all pass through Georgia. It is assumed that
approximately 70 percent of Armenia's foreign commodity circulation
is achieved through Georgian territory, via the Georgian rail system
and the ports of Batumi and Poti.11Following the 2008 South Ossetia
war, which prompted concerns over the stability of energy routes in
the Caucasus, it became even more clear that the Republic of Armenia
cannot rely solely on its existing open boundaries, and must work
towards opening the remaining length of its borders.
It is also important to note the significance of certain international
programs that aim to facilitate travel and increase security within
the borders of the South Caucasus. For example, the Integrated Border
Management Systems in the South Caucasus (SCIBM) aims to "facilitate
the movement of persons and goods in the South Caucasus states of
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, while maintaining secure borders,
through enhancing inter-agency, bilateral, and regional border
management cooperation both within and among the countries of the
South Caucasus region as well as between the countries, EU Member
States, and other international sectors."12
Unfortunately, the issue of lifting the blockade is often politicized
and tied to the future of Nagorno-Karabagh. In reality, the closed
borders have a profound impact on the process of self-determination
in the region and on Karabagh's development. On Oct. 10, 2009, the
foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia signed an accord proclaiming
the two nations had agreed to establish diplomatic relations. Among
many other issues, the document emphasized their decision to open
the common border between Turkey and Armenia. This provision within
the document, however, suggested that both Armenia and Turkey were
party to this blockade, when, in reality, Turkey's decision in 1993
to illegally blockade Armenia was taken unilaterally.13 The Republic
of Armenia has continuously called for the normalization of ties,
including unimpeded transportation, without preconditions.
Nonetheless, the diplomatic efforts to normalize relations have
faltered, as Turkish officials announced publicly that they would only
ratify the protocols after the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict is settled,
and Armenia responded by suspending its ratification process.14 On
April 22, 2012, the ruling Armenian coalition made a statement, in
which it made it clear that the political majority in the National
Assembly considered statements from the Turkish side as unacceptable,
"specifically those by Prime Minister Erdogan, who has again made
the ratification of the Armenia-Turkish protocols by the Turkish
parliament directly dependent on a resolution over Nagorno-Karabagh."15
According to a study by the New England School of Law's Center
for International Law and Policy, "Nagorno-Karabagh has a right of
self-determination, including the attendant right to independence,
according to the criteria recognized under international law."16 As the
analysis elaborates, "the principle of self-determination is included
in Articles 1, 55, and 73 of the United Nations Charter."17Moreover,
the right to self-determination has been repeatedly recognized in a
series of resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly--notably,
Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, which focuses on the principles
of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation
among states in accordance with the UN Charter. While the Azerbaijani
argument states that political independence for Karabagh violates the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, according to the New England
School of Law's study, "the claim to territorial integrity can be
negated where a state does not conduct itself 'in compliance with
the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples' and
does not allow a subject people 'to pursue their economic, social,
and cultural development' as required by United Nations General
Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)."18 The Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group was created in 1992 by
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe to encourage a
peaceful, negotiated resolution to the Karabagh conflict.
Azerbaijanis have long distrusted the Minsk Group, claiming that
the three co-chair countries (Russia, France, and the United States)
have large Armenian Diasporas and will always favor Armenians in the
conflict. Many Azerbaijanis accuse the Minsk Group of not putting
enough pressure on Armenia to return territory to Azerbaijan, and of
prolonging the negotiations indefinitely.19 Nonetheless, the OSCE
Minsk Group remains the only internationally mandated format for
negotiations on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.
According to Ara Papian, the former ambassador of the Republic of
Armenia to Canada and current head of the Modus Vivendi Centre, the
Republic of Armenia is able and is obliged to defend its rights based
on international law, and to carry out goal-oriented and consistent
steps towards lifting the blockade on Armenia.20 As a member of the
UN, the Republic of Armenia has the absolute right to "bring any
dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34
[of the UN Charter] to the attention of the Security Council or of
the General Assembly," as per the first clause of Article 35 of the
UN Charter. Article 34 states, "The Security Council may investigate
any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international
friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether
the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger
the maintenance of international peace and security." The Republic of
Armenia's initiative to bring up the issue of Turkey and Azerbaijan's
deliberate violations of international law would help support the
course of lifting the dual blockades on the Republic of Armenia.21
In reality, this situation, especially on the Armenian-Azerbaijani
border, looks quite grim these days--likely the worst since the
blockade was first imposed. While there have been some small, but
important steps in Turkish civil society to discuss the possibility
of open borders with Armenia, Azerbaijan continues to be the "sore
thumb" in the ever-so complicated situation between the parties. In
November 2014, a two-day conference entitled, "The Sealed Gate:
Prospects of the Turkey-Armenia Border," took place at the Faculty
of Political Science at Ankara University, a dialogue and a venue
that would have been considered unimaginable in even the recent
past.22However, only about a week before the conference, Azerbaijani
armed forces shot down an unarmed Armenian helicopter--the most
significant military incident between the two sides since the 1994
ceasefire. While Azerbaijan has claimed the Mi-24 helicopter crossed
the line of contact and was planning to attack, Armenia maintains
that the aircraft remained on its side and was completely unarmed.23
Azerbaijani military hostility, coupled with cries from Azerbaijani
civil society and government agencies denouncing such conferences
and calls for the opening of the border between Armenia and Turkey,
make it difficult to imagine an open Armenian-Turkish border as long
as Azerbaijan is involved and is active at the bargaining table.24
Normalizing relations with Turkey is part of the Republic of Armenia's
national security strategy, officially adopted in 2007. Armenia's
security is threatened and its development hampered as a result of the
"unnatural character" of bilateral relations and the closed border by
Turkey, it states. Furthermore, "the absence of normalized relations
adversely affects the stability of the region as a whole and impedes
the development of regional cooperation."25 The World Bank suggests
that if the blockade were to be lifted by just Turkey, Armenia's
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could increase by 30 to 38 percent,
and its exports could easily double.26
Considering that more than three-quarters of the length of Armenia's
borders are closed, and accepting the fact that the closed borders have
been damaging for the Armenian economy and threatening to Armenia's
national security--delaying the country's development and prosperity
over the past 20 years--it is vital that the illegal blockade be
lifted by Turkey, and that the borders to Armenia be opened. What is
most important, however, is that the process is done in such a way
that the Republic of Armenia does not make any serious concessions,
such as the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the legal rights
of Karabagh citizens. At the same time, it is important for the
Republic of Armenia to actively engage in and support the Integrated
Border Management Systems in the South Caucasus (SCIBM), since the
program works within the United Nations Development Program (UNDP),
functions with international law standards, and is in accordance with
the UN Charter.
Notes
[1] Sanders, Edmund and Christi Parsons. "Obama Facilitates
Reconciliation Between Israel and Turkey." Los Angeles Times, March
22, 2013.
2 Watson, Ivan and Tuysuz, Gul. "Turkey Rejects Claims it Blew Israeli
Agents' Cover." CNN 17 October 2013.
3 "Addressing Turkey and its Blockade on Armenia." Armenian Center
for National and International Studies, Occasional Paper Number One,
Autumn 1994.
4 One exception to this policy came in the winter of 1993, when Turkey
opened its borders to humanitarian aid, which provided Armenia with
energy supplies. Although Turkey allowed for some humanitarian aid to
pass through its territory, this did not prevent then-Turkish Prime
Minster Suleyman Demirel from giving all the diplomatic support he
could to Azerbaijan, especially in the United Nations.
5 Hakobyan, Tatul. "Georgia to remain vital transit route for
Armenia." The Armenian Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009.
6 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1028 (XI) Land-Locked
Countries and the Expansion of International Trade (Feb. 20, 1957).
7 Papian, Ara. "The Blockade by Turkey: An Utter Violation of
International Law and Borne Obligations." Azg Daily, April 3, 2007.
8 ibid.
9 United Nations Security Council Resolution 822 (April 30, 1993).
[1]0 European Parliament, "Turkey's Progress towards EU Accession."
(Doc. A5-0297/2000) Nov. 17, 2000.
[1]1 Hakobyan, Tatul.
[1]2 United Nations Development Program. "Towards open, but secure
borders in the South Caucasus." United Nations
[1]3 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia. "Protocol
on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between Republic of
Armenia and Republic of Turkey." Oct. 10, 2009.
[1]4 "President Sarkisian Announces Suspension of Protocols." Armenian
Weekly, April 22, 2010.
[1]5 "Armenia suspends normalization of ties with Turkey." BBC News,
April 22, 2010.
[1]6 "The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution." Public
International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for
International Law & Policy, pp. 21-24.
[1]7 ibid.
[1]8 ibid.
[1]9 Ismailzad, Fariz, "Azerbaijan's Relations with Minsk Group Hit
New Low." The Jamestown Foundation, March 26, 2008.
20 Papian, Ara.
21 ibid.
22 Janbazian, Rupen. "Conference on Turkey-Armenia Border Takes Place
in Ankara." The Armenian Weekly, Nov. 24, 2014.
23 Kucera, Joshua. "After Azerbaijan Shoots Down Helicopter, How Will
Armenia Respond?" Eurasianet, Nov. 13, 2014.
24 "Azerbaijani Organization Condemns Pressure on Turkey to Open
Borders with Armenia." Trend News Agency, Nov. 24, 2014.
25 "National Security Strategy." Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Armenia, Jan. 26, 2007.
26 Polyakov, Evgeny. "Changing Trade Pattern after Conflict Resolution
in the South Caucasus." The World Bank. Washington, D.C. 2000.
http://armenianweekly.com/2014/12/23/land-locked-necessity-open-borders-armenia/
By Rupen Janbazian on December 23, 2014
Special for the Armenian Weekly
The historically positive relationship between Israel and the Republic
of Turkey has been strained since the 2008-09 Gaza War and the 2010
Gaza flotilla raid. More recently, following U.S. pressure on both
sides, a failed attempt of reconciliation between the two nations
began in early 2013, with little to no development.1 Relations between
Israel and Turkey hit a new low in October 2013, with the scandal over
alleged Turkish involvement in the exposure of Israeli special agents
in Iran.2While military, strategic, and diplomatic cooperation between
the two nations were once accorded high priority by both parties,
Turkey's legal challenge to Israel's blockade of Gaza has shown that
relations may never be fully restored.
One of the most interesting aspects of Ankara's claim that Israel
was acting unlawfully in Gaza, was the fact that it inadvertently
highlighted the illegal blockade that Turkey has imposed on neighboring
Armenia for the past two decades. In 1993, the Republic of Turkey
joined Azerbaijan in implementing a blockade in response to the
Nagorno-Karabagh War. Although Turkey did not directly take part in
the conflict, it sided with Azerbaijan because of ethnic ties, and
continues to enforce the damaging blockade that cannot be justified
under international law. This act assumes a total air, rail, and
road blockade of Armenia with no exceptions, even for shipments of
humanitarian assistance.3,4 Approximately 80 percent of the length
of Armenia's borders is closed, including all roads, rail lines,
and pipelines from Turkey and Azerbaijan into Armenia.5 This has
crippled the Armenian economy and hindered the nation's growth and
prosperity over the past two decades.
The Republic of Armenia is a land-locked country with very few natural
resources and relies on trade with neighboring nations to develop and
progress. The blockades imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan have created
a difficult situation within the country, as the cost of transport
to Iran and Georgia is consistently on the rise. Concern regarding
the expansion of international trade to land-locked countries was
first brought up in the United Nations in February 1957, during the
656thPlenary Session of the General Assembly. Recognizing the need to
provide corresponding transit possibilities to land-locked countries
for the development of international commerce, Resolution 1028 (XI)
"invites the Governments of Member States to give full recognition
to the land-locked Member States in the matter of transit trade and,
therefore, to accord them adequate facilities in terms of international
law and practice in this regard."6 In 1969, the Republic of Turkey
acceded to the Convention on Transit Trade of Land Locked States
of 1965.7
The convention's first principle stated that "the right of each
land-locked State of free access to the sea is an essential principle
for the expansion of international trade and economic development."
The third principle of the convention assumes the right to free access
to the sea for land-locked countries, stating, "In order to enjoy the
freedom of the seas on equal terms with coastal States, States having
no sea coast should have free access to the sea." Moreover, the fourth
principle of this convention states that "Goods in transit should
not be subject to any customs duty," and that "Means of transport
in transit should not be subject to special taxes or charges higher
than those levied for the use of means of transport of the transit
country." Although Turkey has acceded to the Convention on Transit
Trade of Land-locked States, the Republic of Armenia has not. It
is perhaps in Armenia's best interest to sign onto this important
convention to better position itself and protect its rights as a
land-locked nation.8
The blockade imposed by Turkey and Azerbaijan has often wrongly been
referred to as an embargo or as trade sanctions on Armenia. However,
in terms of international law, the economic blockade and diplomatic
boycott are directly against the principle outlined in the United
Nations Charter requiring the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
This principle, calling for the peaceful settlement of disputes, is
also mentioned in the "Accession Partnership with Turkey" adopted by
the EU Council. Moreover, the international community has on several
occasions called on Turkey and Azerbaijan to lift their blockades. The
UN Security Council, for example, has explicitly referred to and voiced
concern over the economic blockade imposed by Azerbaijan against
Armenia. On Jan. 29, 1993, the president of the UN Security Council
made a statement (S/25199) expressing "deep concern at the devastating
effect of interruptions in the supply of goods and materials,
in particular energy supplies" to Armenia and to the Nakhichevan
region of Azerbaijan, and called on governments in the region "to
allow humanitarian supplies to flow freely, in particular fuel."9 In
late 2000, the European adopted (C5-0036/2000) concerning the report
on Turkish progress towards candidacy for the European Union, which
called on the Turkish government to re-establish normal diplomatic
and trade relations with Armenia and lift the ongoing blockade.10
It's important to note here the significance of Armenia's remaining
open borders. Armenia shares a small yet very important border
with neighboring Iran, along the Araks River. Yet, its border with
Georgia is even more significant and vital, since the main land, rail,
and seaborne transportation routes, which allow Armenia to connect
with the outside world, all pass through Georgia. It is assumed that
approximately 70 percent of Armenia's foreign commodity circulation
is achieved through Georgian territory, via the Georgian rail system
and the ports of Batumi and Poti.11Following the 2008 South Ossetia
war, which prompted concerns over the stability of energy routes in
the Caucasus, it became even more clear that the Republic of Armenia
cannot rely solely on its existing open boundaries, and must work
towards opening the remaining length of its borders.
It is also important to note the significance of certain international
programs that aim to facilitate travel and increase security within
the borders of the South Caucasus. For example, the Integrated Border
Management Systems in the South Caucasus (SCIBM) aims to "facilitate
the movement of persons and goods in the South Caucasus states of
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia, while maintaining secure borders,
through enhancing inter-agency, bilateral, and regional border
management cooperation both within and among the countries of the
South Caucasus region as well as between the countries, EU Member
States, and other international sectors."12
Unfortunately, the issue of lifting the blockade is often politicized
and tied to the future of Nagorno-Karabagh. In reality, the closed
borders have a profound impact on the process of self-determination
in the region and on Karabagh's development. On Oct. 10, 2009, the
foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia signed an accord proclaiming
the two nations had agreed to establish diplomatic relations. Among
many other issues, the document emphasized their decision to open
the common border between Turkey and Armenia. This provision within
the document, however, suggested that both Armenia and Turkey were
party to this blockade, when, in reality, Turkey's decision in 1993
to illegally blockade Armenia was taken unilaterally.13 The Republic
of Armenia has continuously called for the normalization of ties,
including unimpeded transportation, without preconditions.
Nonetheless, the diplomatic efforts to normalize relations have
faltered, as Turkish officials announced publicly that they would only
ratify the protocols after the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict is settled,
and Armenia responded by suspending its ratification process.14 On
April 22, 2012, the ruling Armenian coalition made a statement, in
which it made it clear that the political majority in the National
Assembly considered statements from the Turkish side as unacceptable,
"specifically those by Prime Minister Erdogan, who has again made
the ratification of the Armenia-Turkish protocols by the Turkish
parliament directly dependent on a resolution over Nagorno-Karabagh."15
According to a study by the New England School of Law's Center
for International Law and Policy, "Nagorno-Karabagh has a right of
self-determination, including the attendant right to independence,
according to the criteria recognized under international law."16 As the
analysis elaborates, "the principle of self-determination is included
in Articles 1, 55, and 73 of the United Nations Charter."17Moreover,
the right to self-determination has been repeatedly recognized in a
series of resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly--notably,
Resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, which focuses on the principles
of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation
among states in accordance with the UN Charter. While the Azerbaijani
argument states that political independence for Karabagh violates the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, according to the New England
School of Law's study, "the claim to territorial integrity can be
negated where a state does not conduct itself 'in compliance with
the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples' and
does not allow a subject people 'to pursue their economic, social,
and cultural development' as required by United Nations General
Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV)."18 The Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group was created in 1992 by
the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe to encourage a
peaceful, negotiated resolution to the Karabagh conflict.
Azerbaijanis have long distrusted the Minsk Group, claiming that
the three co-chair countries (Russia, France, and the United States)
have large Armenian Diasporas and will always favor Armenians in the
conflict. Many Azerbaijanis accuse the Minsk Group of not putting
enough pressure on Armenia to return territory to Azerbaijan, and of
prolonging the negotiations indefinitely.19 Nonetheless, the OSCE
Minsk Group remains the only internationally mandated format for
negotiations on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict.
According to Ara Papian, the former ambassador of the Republic of
Armenia to Canada and current head of the Modus Vivendi Centre, the
Republic of Armenia is able and is obliged to defend its rights based
on international law, and to carry out goal-oriented and consistent
steps towards lifting the blockade on Armenia.20 As a member of the
UN, the Republic of Armenia has the absolute right to "bring any
dispute, or any situation of the nature referred to in Article 34
[of the UN Charter] to the attention of the Security Council or of
the General Assembly," as per the first clause of Article 35 of the
UN Charter. Article 34 states, "The Security Council may investigate
any dispute, or any situation which might lead to international
friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to determine whether
the continuance of the dispute or situation is likely to endanger
the maintenance of international peace and security." The Republic of
Armenia's initiative to bring up the issue of Turkey and Azerbaijan's
deliberate violations of international law would help support the
course of lifting the dual blockades on the Republic of Armenia.21
In reality, this situation, especially on the Armenian-Azerbaijani
border, looks quite grim these days--likely the worst since the
blockade was first imposed. While there have been some small, but
important steps in Turkish civil society to discuss the possibility
of open borders with Armenia, Azerbaijan continues to be the "sore
thumb" in the ever-so complicated situation between the parties. In
November 2014, a two-day conference entitled, "The Sealed Gate:
Prospects of the Turkey-Armenia Border," took place at the Faculty
of Political Science at Ankara University, a dialogue and a venue
that would have been considered unimaginable in even the recent
past.22However, only about a week before the conference, Azerbaijani
armed forces shot down an unarmed Armenian helicopter--the most
significant military incident between the two sides since the 1994
ceasefire. While Azerbaijan has claimed the Mi-24 helicopter crossed
the line of contact and was planning to attack, Armenia maintains
that the aircraft remained on its side and was completely unarmed.23
Azerbaijani military hostility, coupled with cries from Azerbaijani
civil society and government agencies denouncing such conferences
and calls for the opening of the border between Armenia and Turkey,
make it difficult to imagine an open Armenian-Turkish border as long
as Azerbaijan is involved and is active at the bargaining table.24
Normalizing relations with Turkey is part of the Republic of Armenia's
national security strategy, officially adopted in 2007. Armenia's
security is threatened and its development hampered as a result of the
"unnatural character" of bilateral relations and the closed border by
Turkey, it states. Furthermore, "the absence of normalized relations
adversely affects the stability of the region as a whole and impedes
the development of regional cooperation."25 The World Bank suggests
that if the blockade were to be lifted by just Turkey, Armenia's
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could increase by 30 to 38 percent,
and its exports could easily double.26
Considering that more than three-quarters of the length of Armenia's
borders are closed, and accepting the fact that the closed borders have
been damaging for the Armenian economy and threatening to Armenia's
national security--delaying the country's development and prosperity
over the past 20 years--it is vital that the illegal blockade be
lifted by Turkey, and that the borders to Armenia be opened. What is
most important, however, is that the process is done in such a way
that the Republic of Armenia does not make any serious concessions,
such as the recognition of the Armenian Genocide and the legal rights
of Karabagh citizens. At the same time, it is important for the
Republic of Armenia to actively engage in and support the Integrated
Border Management Systems in the South Caucasus (SCIBM), since the
program works within the United Nations Development Program (UNDP),
functions with international law standards, and is in accordance with
the UN Charter.
Notes
[1] Sanders, Edmund and Christi Parsons. "Obama Facilitates
Reconciliation Between Israel and Turkey." Los Angeles Times, March
22, 2013.
2 Watson, Ivan and Tuysuz, Gul. "Turkey Rejects Claims it Blew Israeli
Agents' Cover." CNN 17 October 2013.
3 "Addressing Turkey and its Blockade on Armenia." Armenian Center
for National and International Studies, Occasional Paper Number One,
Autumn 1994.
4 One exception to this policy came in the winter of 1993, when Turkey
opened its borders to humanitarian aid, which provided Armenia with
energy supplies. Although Turkey allowed for some humanitarian aid to
pass through its territory, this did not prevent then-Turkish Prime
Minster Suleyman Demirel from giving all the diplomatic support he
could to Azerbaijan, especially in the United Nations.
5 Hakobyan, Tatul. "Georgia to remain vital transit route for
Armenia." The Armenian Reporter, Nov. 13, 2009.
6 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1028 (XI) Land-Locked
Countries and the Expansion of International Trade (Feb. 20, 1957).
7 Papian, Ara. "The Blockade by Turkey: An Utter Violation of
International Law and Borne Obligations." Azg Daily, April 3, 2007.
8 ibid.
9 United Nations Security Council Resolution 822 (April 30, 1993).
[1]0 European Parliament, "Turkey's Progress towards EU Accession."
(Doc. A5-0297/2000) Nov. 17, 2000.
[1]1 Hakobyan, Tatul.
[1]2 United Nations Development Program. "Towards open, but secure
borders in the South Caucasus." United Nations
[1]3 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia. "Protocol
on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations Between Republic of
Armenia and Republic of Turkey." Oct. 10, 2009.
[1]4 "President Sarkisian Announces Suspension of Protocols." Armenian
Weekly, April 22, 2010.
[1]5 "Armenia suspends normalization of ties with Turkey." BBC News,
April 22, 2010.
[1]6 "The Nagorno-Karabagh Crisis: A Blueprint for Resolution." Public
International Law & Policy Group and the New England Center for
International Law & Policy, pp. 21-24.
[1]7 ibid.
[1]8 ibid.
[1]9 Ismailzad, Fariz, "Azerbaijan's Relations with Minsk Group Hit
New Low." The Jamestown Foundation, March 26, 2008.
20 Papian, Ara.
21 ibid.
22 Janbazian, Rupen. "Conference on Turkey-Armenia Border Takes Place
in Ankara." The Armenian Weekly, Nov. 24, 2014.
23 Kucera, Joshua. "After Azerbaijan Shoots Down Helicopter, How Will
Armenia Respond?" Eurasianet, Nov. 13, 2014.
24 "Azerbaijani Organization Condemns Pressure on Turkey to Open
Borders with Armenia." Trend News Agency, Nov. 24, 2014.
25 "National Security Strategy." Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
Republic of Armenia, Jan. 26, 2007.
26 Polyakov, Evgeny. "Changing Trade Pattern after Conflict Resolution
in the South Caucasus." The World Bank. Washington, D.C. 2000.
http://armenianweekly.com/2014/12/23/land-locked-necessity-open-borders-armenia/