Tweet
KOTCHIKIAN: ARMENIA SHOULD HAVE MADE BETTER USE OF TURKEY'S DISRUPTIVE AND UNCOMPROMISING STANCE
19:11 02/03/2015 >> COMMENTS
Panorama.am has spoken with Dr. Asbed Kotchikian, senior lecturer
at Global Studies Department at Bentley University (US) and
Editor-in-Chief of Armenian Review, on some issues related to the
current phase of the Armenian-Turkish conflict and of the US-Turkey
relations.
- Dr. Kochikian, the RA President has recently recalled the
Armenian-Turkish protocols from the National Assembly, a move which
followed 6 years of Turkish non-action and destructive stance full
of preconditions regarding the normalization of bilateral relations.
Could you please comment on this behaviour of Turkey? What policy do
you think lay behind this attitude?
- The first thing one needs to think about is why President Sargsyan
signed the protocols in the first place and why he is retracting it
now after the protocols were suspended for almost 5 years.
Returning to the issue of Turkey's policies and preconditions, there
is nothing new about the official Ankara stance on normalizing its
relations with Armenia. Since the 1990s the two preconditions to
normalize relations with Armenia, Turkey has always put forward were
the withdrawal of Armenian forces from what Ankara considered to be
'occupied territories' in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Armenian side
dropping the campaign to have Turkey recognize its responsibility
for the Genocide of Ottoman Armenians.
As for the reasons for such a policy, one has to realize that
Ankara's solidarity with Baku over the past two decades is motivated by
geopolitical and economic interests that far outweigh the normalization
of relations with Armenia. In other words, normalizing relations with
Armenia could be viewed as a diplomatic achievement in Turkey and
nothing more, whereas antagonizing Azerbaijan would have economic
and financial consequences for Turkey in the form of decreased
Azerbaijani investments especially in Anatolia. By the same token,
linking normalization with Armenia with Yerevan dropping its support
to Genocide recognition campaign is directly related to the fact that
Ankara considers that as a nuisance and wants to settle the issue
of responsibility because of hears of territorial claims that might
follow such recognition.
- Despite the failure of the reconciliation process what gains, if any,
do you think the Armenian side has had during these years as a result
of its initiative to normalize the relations with Turkey? (What are
the lessons learned?)
- If I were to reformulate the question, I would ask "what gains could
the Armenian side have had with Ankara's lack of interest to ratify
the protocols"? The main lesson I think is that Yerevan could have
played a more proactive role and could have used Turkey's lack of
interest to ratify the protocols as a diplomatic initiative to show
the world that while Armenia is willing to normalize relations with
Turkey, it is the latter which comes up with hurdles and preconditions
to not open the border with Armenia. Had Armenia's diplomacy been
more proactive, it would have taken a huge advantage of this fact
and could have levelled the playing field with Turkey by exercising
diplomatic pressure on Ankara. Imagine a situation where Armenia
could have publicized that it was all for normalizing relations with
Turkey without any preconditions and that it was Turkey which was
putting conditions and acting as a spoiler. That could have been a
great diplomatic move and would have changed the world's perception
about Armenia's foreign policy.
Other than the issue mentioned above, there have been no tangible
gains and lessons to learn, except for the fact that Turkey's role
as an uncompromising and disruptive neighbour is further enhanced
in Armenian government and public circles. One thing that needs to
be added here is that the best strategy that Armenia can pursue to
resolve issues (or at least some of the issues) with Turkey is through
direct engagement with Ankara. In this context, direct engagement
means constant communication, discussions and the possibility to sign
agreements that deal with secondary issues (trade, transportation,
communication, etc.) to show that the Armenian side it making an
effort and it is Turkey that has been disruptive of the whole process.
- Don't you think that Turkey is perceived as being uncompromising
and disruptive now in the eyes of the international community given
its respective behavior?
- I don't think Turkey's image in the international community is one
of uncompromising and disruptive in this case, mostly because of the
fact that Armenian foreign policy never used the non-ratification
of the protocols by Turkey as a diplomacy tool. True, there were
a lot of discussions in Armenian media about it but that was for
local consumption and the uncompromising position of Turkey was not
publicized in international circles as it should have been. This is
what I meant by a more proactive foreign policy and lost opportunity.
If Armenia really had wanted Turkey to ratify the protocols, then
it could have raised concerns about this and asked the guarantors of
that signature to pressure Turkey to ratify the protocols.
- What steps do you think should be taken to facilitate the awakening
of the civil society in Turkey, which is lobbying for the recognition
of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government?
- One needs to realize that in the past decade or so, Turkey has gone
through a lot of socio-political changes and transformation. There are
more civil society groups and citizen initiative groups that advocate
for a more free and democratic Turkey. It is important to understand
that the recognition by Turkey of the Ottoman responsibility for the
Armenian Genocide can only occur in a democratic Turkey. That being
said, just focusing on civil society groups in Turkey which only
deal with campaigning for Genocide recognition is a wrong strategy,
any movement that aims at creating a more democratic and free Turkey
should be supported. As citizens of Turkey, many Armenians have taken
part in this process and big advocates for democratization in Turkey
knowing full well that a free and democratic Turkey would also be
a place where Armenians (and other minorities) can talk about their
past, present and future in Turkey.
In this context, Armenia can only have a supporting role for such
movements, but to avoid hypocrisy, Armenia has to also develop its
own track record and develop a stronger sense of citizen participation
in politics and society (and not just from one election to another).
Tacit approval of any group in Turkey might have an opposite reaction
and opponents of such civil society groups can easily claim that
Armenia is meddling in the internal affairs of Turkey and those groups
in Turkey could easily be discredited.
- Could you comment on the current phase of the relations (and
tensions) between the United States and Turkey?
- The main issue dictating US-Turkey relations today is the rise of
The Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) and the change of the
military and geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. From a US
perspective, Turkey remains an important ally in the region however
there is a growing frustration in Washington that Ankara is not doing
more to curb ISIL activities in the region (especially considering
that Turkey has over 1,000 kms of land border with Syria and Iraq).
The lack of Turkish involvement (perhaps very limited involvement)
in this conflict has not stopped US policy makers to maintain that
Turkey remains a (semi)reliable partner in the region and an important
player to stop the danger from ISIL to spread.
Prof. Asbed Kotchikian is a senior lecturer at the Global Studies
Department at Bentley University where he teaches courses on the
Middle East and former Soviet Union. He has published articles and book
chapters in various venues including Demokratizatsya, Insight Turkey,
and Central Asia and the Caucasus. His book, entitled The Dialectics
of Small States: Foreign Policy Making in Armenia and Georgia, was
published in 2008. He is also the editor-in-chief of the academic
peer reviewed journal, Armenian Review.
http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2015/03/02/kotchikian/
19:11 02/03/2015 >> COMMENTS
Panorama.am has spoken with Dr. Asbed Kotchikian, senior lecturer
at Global Studies Department at Bentley University (US) and
Editor-in-Chief of Armenian Review, on some issues related to the
current phase of the Armenian-Turkish conflict and of the US-Turkey
relations.
- Dr. Kochikian, the RA President has recently recalled the
Armenian-Turkish protocols from the National Assembly, a move which
followed 6 years of Turkish non-action and destructive stance full
of preconditions regarding the normalization of bilateral relations.
Could you please comment on this behaviour of Turkey? What policy do
you think lay behind this attitude?
- The first thing one needs to think about is why President Sargsyan
signed the protocols in the first place and why he is retracting it
now after the protocols were suspended for almost 5 years.
Returning to the issue of Turkey's policies and preconditions, there
is nothing new about the official Ankara stance on normalizing its
relations with Armenia. Since the 1990s the two preconditions to
normalize relations with Armenia, Turkey has always put forward were
the withdrawal of Armenian forces from what Ankara considered to be
'occupied territories' in Nagorno-Karabakh and the Armenian side
dropping the campaign to have Turkey recognize its responsibility
for the Genocide of Ottoman Armenians.
As for the reasons for such a policy, one has to realize that
Ankara's solidarity with Baku over the past two decades is motivated by
geopolitical and economic interests that far outweigh the normalization
of relations with Armenia. In other words, normalizing relations with
Armenia could be viewed as a diplomatic achievement in Turkey and
nothing more, whereas antagonizing Azerbaijan would have economic
and financial consequences for Turkey in the form of decreased
Azerbaijani investments especially in Anatolia. By the same token,
linking normalization with Armenia with Yerevan dropping its support
to Genocide recognition campaign is directly related to the fact that
Ankara considers that as a nuisance and wants to settle the issue
of responsibility because of hears of territorial claims that might
follow such recognition.
- Despite the failure of the reconciliation process what gains, if any,
do you think the Armenian side has had during these years as a result
of its initiative to normalize the relations with Turkey? (What are
the lessons learned?)
- If I were to reformulate the question, I would ask "what gains could
the Armenian side have had with Ankara's lack of interest to ratify
the protocols"? The main lesson I think is that Yerevan could have
played a more proactive role and could have used Turkey's lack of
interest to ratify the protocols as a diplomatic initiative to show
the world that while Armenia is willing to normalize relations with
Turkey, it is the latter which comes up with hurdles and preconditions
to not open the border with Armenia. Had Armenia's diplomacy been
more proactive, it would have taken a huge advantage of this fact
and could have levelled the playing field with Turkey by exercising
diplomatic pressure on Ankara. Imagine a situation where Armenia
could have publicized that it was all for normalizing relations with
Turkey without any preconditions and that it was Turkey which was
putting conditions and acting as a spoiler. That could have been a
great diplomatic move and would have changed the world's perception
about Armenia's foreign policy.
Other than the issue mentioned above, there have been no tangible
gains and lessons to learn, except for the fact that Turkey's role
as an uncompromising and disruptive neighbour is further enhanced
in Armenian government and public circles. One thing that needs to
be added here is that the best strategy that Armenia can pursue to
resolve issues (or at least some of the issues) with Turkey is through
direct engagement with Ankara. In this context, direct engagement
means constant communication, discussions and the possibility to sign
agreements that deal with secondary issues (trade, transportation,
communication, etc.) to show that the Armenian side it making an
effort and it is Turkey that has been disruptive of the whole process.
- Don't you think that Turkey is perceived as being uncompromising
and disruptive now in the eyes of the international community given
its respective behavior?
- I don't think Turkey's image in the international community is one
of uncompromising and disruptive in this case, mostly because of the
fact that Armenian foreign policy never used the non-ratification
of the protocols by Turkey as a diplomacy tool. True, there were
a lot of discussions in Armenian media about it but that was for
local consumption and the uncompromising position of Turkey was not
publicized in international circles as it should have been. This is
what I meant by a more proactive foreign policy and lost opportunity.
If Armenia really had wanted Turkey to ratify the protocols, then
it could have raised concerns about this and asked the guarantors of
that signature to pressure Turkey to ratify the protocols.
- What steps do you think should be taken to facilitate the awakening
of the civil society in Turkey, which is lobbying for the recognition
of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government?
- One needs to realize that in the past decade or so, Turkey has gone
through a lot of socio-political changes and transformation. There are
more civil society groups and citizen initiative groups that advocate
for a more free and democratic Turkey. It is important to understand
that the recognition by Turkey of the Ottoman responsibility for the
Armenian Genocide can only occur in a democratic Turkey. That being
said, just focusing on civil society groups in Turkey which only
deal with campaigning for Genocide recognition is a wrong strategy,
any movement that aims at creating a more democratic and free Turkey
should be supported. As citizens of Turkey, many Armenians have taken
part in this process and big advocates for democratization in Turkey
knowing full well that a free and democratic Turkey would also be
a place where Armenians (and other minorities) can talk about their
past, present and future in Turkey.
In this context, Armenia can only have a supporting role for such
movements, but to avoid hypocrisy, Armenia has to also develop its
own track record and develop a stronger sense of citizen participation
in politics and society (and not just from one election to another).
Tacit approval of any group in Turkey might have an opposite reaction
and opponents of such civil society groups can easily claim that
Armenia is meddling in the internal affairs of Turkey and those groups
in Turkey could easily be discredited.
- Could you comment on the current phase of the relations (and
tensions) between the United States and Turkey?
- The main issue dictating US-Turkey relations today is the rise of
The Islamic State in Iraq and Levant (ISIL) and the change of the
military and geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. From a US
perspective, Turkey remains an important ally in the region however
there is a growing frustration in Washington that Ankara is not doing
more to curb ISIL activities in the region (especially considering
that Turkey has over 1,000 kms of land border with Syria and Iraq).
The lack of Turkish involvement (perhaps very limited involvement)
in this conflict has not stopped US policy makers to maintain that
Turkey remains a (semi)reliable partner in the region and an important
player to stop the danger from ISIL to spread.
Prof. Asbed Kotchikian is a senior lecturer at the Global Studies
Department at Bentley University where he teaches courses on the
Middle East and former Soviet Union. He has published articles and book
chapters in various venues including Demokratizatsya, Insight Turkey,
and Central Asia and the Caucasus. His book, entitled The Dialectics
of Small States: Foreign Policy Making in Armenia and Georgia, was
published in 2008. He is also the editor-in-chief of the academic
peer reviewed journal, Armenian Review.
http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2015/03/02/kotchikian/