Tweet
DIFFERENT VIEWS ON TURKEY-ARMENIA BORDER ISSUE
Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Nov 19 2014
by Cavid Veliyev
The suspending of Turkey-Armenia protocols in 2009 had two main
reasons: the reactions of the Azerbaijani and Turkish societies. In
fact, the main reason for suspending the protocols was the attitude
of the Turkish society to this agreement. The main reason for Turkish
society's negative reaction toward the Turkey-Armenia protocols was
not only Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been under the occupation of
Armenia, but also attacks carried out by Armenian gangs in Anatolia in
the beginning of the 20th century and ongoing demands and propaganda
against Turkey and the Turkish people in the international scene.
Despite the reaction of the Turkish government and Turkish society,
there are different approaches inside and outside of Turkey that try
to affect society and decision-makers' views.
>From 2010, when the Turkey-Armenia protocols failed, "silent
diplomacy" initiatives between Turkey and Armenia were supported and
funded by organizations from the U.S. and EU. In 2010, the U.S. AID
Mission provided $4.7 million to a consortium of Armenian and Turkish
organizations for cross-border activities. Since 2014, a consortium
of eight civil society organizations from Armenia and Turkey, with
the financial assistance of the EU, has supported the Armenia-Turkey
Normalization Process.
The assumption is that the normalization of relations will build peace
and stability in the South Caucasus, which was presented by Western
circles, finds supporters inside Turkey. By adding that opening
the Turkish-Armenian borders will lead Turkey to strengthening its
position in the south Caucasus, they try to strengthen their position.
In this point, retired ambassador Unal Cevikoz, who was a part of
the Turkish-Armenian closed negotiations in 2007-2009, published
the piece "Turkish-Armenian relations need a new game-changer" in the
Hurriyet Daily News on Nov. 13, 2014. Cevikoz, who supports opening the
Turkish-Armenian borders, has two arguments regarding the outcomes of
opening the borders. First, according to Cevikoz, opening the borders
could be a significant development and this development can reduce
pressure on Turkey. Second, open borders could help Turkey to increase
its position in negotiations in Nagorno-Karabakh and South Caucasus.
After the ratification of protocols in 2009, Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan visited European countries and the U.S. to convince the
Armenian diaspora that Armenia had not given up introducing the 1915
events as genocide. Interestingly, meanwhile, after the protocols,
Armenian historians began to study on the Armenian monument of history
in Turkey so to further justify and substantiate the territorial
claims toward Turkey. In response, why should Turkey and Azerbaijan
not develop a common strategy to list the Turkish history of monuments
in Armenian territory?
The so-called genocide pressure on Turkey is not because of closed
borders because this pressure began before the closure of the borders
during the Cold War. The Armenian diaspora achieved introducing the
so-called Armenian genocide because Turkey had ignored the issue for
a long period.
Turkey has just recently begun to set its strategy against Armenia's
propaganda. With this respect, Turkey can use the successful experience
of Azerbaijan against the Armenian diaspora as part of its strategy.
According to supporters of opening the borders, if the Turkish-Armenian
borders had opened, Turkey could have had an impact on Armenian
political decisions particularly on foreign policy orientations and
Nagorno-Karabakh. Meanwhile after opening the borders, Turkey would
gain the confidence in Armenian society. But this argument lacks
any kind of solid and substantive evidence that would support this
opinion. On the contrary, for three years the EU has allocated nearly
100 million euros in order to reform Armenia's economy and customs
services and hoped that Armenia would prefer the EU over Russia in its
foreign policy orientation. Also according to Armenian government data,
the EU is in the first place and Russia is in second place of Armenian
foreign trade volume. But in 2013, Armenia signed participation
agreement with a Russian-led Customs Union, which means close economic
cooperation with the EU would not affect Armenian political decisions.
When it comes to Turkey's position in the South Caucasus, Turkey's
strategic partner Azerbaijan is the leader of the South Caucasus
economy. Meanwhile, Armenia is not in a strategic position that can
help Turkey to increase its position in the region. First, all of
the regional projects are away from Armenia.
Second, as Russia has taken control of all of the strategic
institutions, it's quite doubtful that after opening the border with
Armenia would affect Armenia's policies and encourage Yerevan to turn
its face to the West.
Shortly, the Turkish government, ruling and main opposition parties are
against opening the borders without a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Despite the U.S. and EU's funds, the situation will go on.
Cavid Veliyev is Senior Research Fellow, SAM, Baku.
November/19/2014
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/different-views-on-turkey-armenia-border-issue.aspx?pageID=238&nID=74506&NewsCatID=396
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Nov 19 2014
by Cavid Veliyev
The suspending of Turkey-Armenia protocols in 2009 had two main
reasons: the reactions of the Azerbaijani and Turkish societies. In
fact, the main reason for suspending the protocols was the attitude
of the Turkish society to this agreement. The main reason for Turkish
society's negative reaction toward the Turkey-Armenia protocols was
not only Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been under the occupation of
Armenia, but also attacks carried out by Armenian gangs in Anatolia in
the beginning of the 20th century and ongoing demands and propaganda
against Turkey and the Turkish people in the international scene.
Despite the reaction of the Turkish government and Turkish society,
there are different approaches inside and outside of Turkey that try
to affect society and decision-makers' views.
>From 2010, when the Turkey-Armenia protocols failed, "silent
diplomacy" initiatives between Turkey and Armenia were supported and
funded by organizations from the U.S. and EU. In 2010, the U.S. AID
Mission provided $4.7 million to a consortium of Armenian and Turkish
organizations for cross-border activities. Since 2014, a consortium
of eight civil society organizations from Armenia and Turkey, with
the financial assistance of the EU, has supported the Armenia-Turkey
Normalization Process.
The assumption is that the normalization of relations will build peace
and stability in the South Caucasus, which was presented by Western
circles, finds supporters inside Turkey. By adding that opening
the Turkish-Armenian borders will lead Turkey to strengthening its
position in the south Caucasus, they try to strengthen their position.
In this point, retired ambassador Unal Cevikoz, who was a part of
the Turkish-Armenian closed negotiations in 2007-2009, published
the piece "Turkish-Armenian relations need a new game-changer" in the
Hurriyet Daily News on Nov. 13, 2014. Cevikoz, who supports opening the
Turkish-Armenian borders, has two arguments regarding the outcomes of
opening the borders. First, according to Cevikoz, opening the borders
could be a significant development and this development can reduce
pressure on Turkey. Second, open borders could help Turkey to increase
its position in negotiations in Nagorno-Karabakh and South Caucasus.
After the ratification of protocols in 2009, Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan visited European countries and the U.S. to convince the
Armenian diaspora that Armenia had not given up introducing the 1915
events as genocide. Interestingly, meanwhile, after the protocols,
Armenian historians began to study on the Armenian monument of history
in Turkey so to further justify and substantiate the territorial
claims toward Turkey. In response, why should Turkey and Azerbaijan
not develop a common strategy to list the Turkish history of monuments
in Armenian territory?
The so-called genocide pressure on Turkey is not because of closed
borders because this pressure began before the closure of the borders
during the Cold War. The Armenian diaspora achieved introducing the
so-called Armenian genocide because Turkey had ignored the issue for
a long period.
Turkey has just recently begun to set its strategy against Armenia's
propaganda. With this respect, Turkey can use the successful experience
of Azerbaijan against the Armenian diaspora as part of its strategy.
According to supporters of opening the borders, if the Turkish-Armenian
borders had opened, Turkey could have had an impact on Armenian
political decisions particularly on foreign policy orientations and
Nagorno-Karabakh. Meanwhile after opening the borders, Turkey would
gain the confidence in Armenian society. But this argument lacks
any kind of solid and substantive evidence that would support this
opinion. On the contrary, for three years the EU has allocated nearly
100 million euros in order to reform Armenia's economy and customs
services and hoped that Armenia would prefer the EU over Russia in its
foreign policy orientation. Also according to Armenian government data,
the EU is in the first place and Russia is in second place of Armenian
foreign trade volume. But in 2013, Armenia signed participation
agreement with a Russian-led Customs Union, which means close economic
cooperation with the EU would not affect Armenian political decisions.
When it comes to Turkey's position in the South Caucasus, Turkey's
strategic partner Azerbaijan is the leader of the South Caucasus
economy. Meanwhile, Armenia is not in a strategic position that can
help Turkey to increase its position in the region. First, all of
the regional projects are away from Armenia.
Second, as Russia has taken control of all of the strategic
institutions, it's quite doubtful that after opening the border with
Armenia would affect Armenia's policies and encourage Yerevan to turn
its face to the West.
Shortly, the Turkish government, ruling and main opposition parties are
against opening the borders without a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. Despite the U.S. and EU's funds, the situation will go on.
Cavid Veliyev is Senior Research Fellow, SAM, Baku.
November/19/2014
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/different-views-on-turkey-armenia-border-issue.aspx?pageID=238&nID=74506&NewsCatID=396
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress