SEO Header Title

By Ramin Shafagatov

On October 10, 2009 the University of Zurich has been at the centre of events of historical significance – an attempt was to be established between Armenia and Turkey to normalize the diplomatic relations with a future re-opening of their border after the century-old dispute. The process has been witnessed by the EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, France’s Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner along with a ‘mediation’ of Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey and ‘intervention’ of the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Armenian-Turkish relations have been challenged and periodically overshadowed by a number of historical and political dilemmas including the so-called “Armenian Genocide” and Nagorno-Karabakh conflict which is another thorny issue. The old disputes brought new challenges to this intricate region making it even more intricate. Troubled border between Armenia and Turkey, which has been closed in the late 1993, can be considered as a Turkish solidarity towards Azerbaijan, due to the occupation of Azeri territories by Armenia (internationally recognized Azeri territories of Nagorno-Karabakh and related 7 more regions are nowadays under occupation of Armenia).

Swiss ‘mediation’ and US ‘intervention’!

Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and his Armenian counterpart Eduard Nalbandian after the ‘arduous negotiations’ signed the projected protocols on October 2009 in Zurich. The protocols intended to establish diplomatic relations and open their common border within two months after it is ratified by each country's parliament.

According to Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, the political courage, relentless efforts and generous vision of both sides made this agreement possible. It was exactly political pressure, obligated efforts and spontaneous vision that made this agreement unsuccessful. Mediation here is acceptable and even much-admired, but intervention is undesirable. Central to this discourse, US called the agreement as a historical achievement, after ‘a dramatic last-minute intervention’ by the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to keep the event from falling apart, due to the objections of the Armenian side to the Turkish statement after the ceremony. However, they precariously underestimate one significant nuance; the critical question here is how the protocols have been signed, the process and the level of evolution of negotiations are of great importance not the ‘melodramatic’ ceremony.

Another important issue that should not be underestimated is that during the US presidential campaign, as expected, Barack Obama called for passage of the Armenian genocide resolution. Since his election, he has stepped back from the issue, which directly shows that “genocide” issue is a ‘playing card’ of the US which uses it as a ‘pressing instrument’ when needed. Apparently, Armenia is a victim here.

Moreover, the US officials, strangely but not surprisingly, emphasized that the Armenian-Turkish dialogue must not be linked to Nagorno-Karabakh conflict (another source of dispute which is an enclave in Azerbaijan that is occupied by Armenian troops). Certainly, this is not and should not be as an obligation for opening the borders, but it has a direct relation to the core issue.

First, Armenia has territorial claims against Turkey (Armenia's 1991 declaration of independence considers eastern parts of Turkey to be 'western Armenia’), against Azerbaijan (20 % percent of the territories of Azerbaijan are under occupation of Armenia), and against Georgia (Armenia believes that Javakheti region in Akhalkalaki, Georgia belongs to Armenia) keeping the “Greater Armenia Project” in their mind. It may be speculated then wherever Armenians constitute an overwhelming majority (in this case Nagorno-Karabakh of Azerbaijan and Javakheti of Georgia) there is a real danger of occupation of those lands by Armenia. Consequently, how is it possible to open the borders without condition, as Armenians put it, if in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 822, 853, 874, 884 adopted in 1993 obliging Armenia to leave the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and recognize its territorial integrity, Armenia is still pursuing a policy of occupation? The border issue is quite a sensitive one, and the mutual respect of the borders should be prioritized before opening the borders. As a local political analyst from Azerbaijan puts it, one cannot enjoy the fruits of cooperation with neighbors without respect for their borders and sovereignty.

Secondly, conflict was the cause, closure of the borders was the effect of that cause, articulates the Turkish PM. The cause must be eliminated in order to be able to open the border which is a sign of protest against the invasion. Erdogan’s judgment in this regard sounds fairly logical; how can these countries put the difficulties in their relationship behind themselves if the cause of those difficulties has not been eliminated?

Historical rapprochement or political disenchantment?

Normalization of the relations between the countries, especially flanked by the neighbors is significant. Among other factors, Turkey due to its candidacy for the EU membership and Armenia as a participant of the ENP have the responsibilities to do so. However, if after the signing the protocols the civil societies of both countries accuse their governments and show their dissatisfaction, this is a serious signal that the both nations are not ready for the rapprochement. First such signal came from Armenia: On January 12, 2010 the Constitutional Court of Armenia made a decision that the already signed protocols should be in compliance with the Armenian constitution and paragraph 11 of the Armenian Declaration of Independence, which states: “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.” It is in fact bizarre and ‘unique’ of its kind that a declaration of independence of a country contains a text with territorial claims to another country.

Another peculiar but conventional gift came from the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs which on March 4, 2010 adopted the resolution 252 on Armenian genocide with a vote of 23 to 22. Now it waits to be passed through the US Congress.

According to the Turkish PM, the “genocide” issue should be discussed among historians and not the politicians. This is a historical problem not a political one.

Subsequently, the US Secretary of State made it clear, mentioning that the US Congress is not the place for the discussion of such issues. An important part of the problem, as one can see, is that the issue of history has been overly politicized. More specifically, Christian Armenia accuses Ottoman Turks of committing “genocide”, killing more than a million of Armenians during the World War I, demands recognition of the “genocide” and calls for re-establishing diplomatic relations without conditions. Armenian Diaspora also considers that the prospective agreement will jeopardize quintessential Armenian interests that are its ‘territorial claims’ to Turkey, calling it auto-destructive protocol. Muslim Turkey on the other hand, by refusing these allegations, insists that the number of victims has been overinflated and those victims were the consequence of the war.

According to the Turkish historian, local Armenians, with the help of Russia, were trying to create an independent Armenian state in eastern Anatolia. One can see the same trend if to look at the essence of what the Karabakh problem is about: Armenians, again resorting to the help and support from Russia, are trying to establish a second Armenian state on a territory of another country – this time that country is not Turkey, but Azerbaijan.

Accordingly, Turkey has already opened all the archives in order to investigate this controversial historical issue occurred 95 years ago, and inviting Armenia to do the same. Interestingly, Armenia seems to be reluctant to this reasonable enough proposal rather insisting on the recognition of the so-called “genocide” using one-sided claims. A question might be raised then, why Armenia fears of opening the archives? The refusal of Armenia to open the archives gives room for the speculations that either the archives would prove that the scope of the victims, as claimed by the Armenian propaganda machine, is not nearly as big as they claim, or the archive materials would show that a lot of Turks and Kurds had also been killed during that same period by the Armenian nationalist militants. Both of these points are currently being heavily emphasized by the Turkish government.

© Ramin Shafagatov, 12.03.2010
The author is a doctoral researcher of the Centre for EU Studies at the Ghent University in Belgium.