Azeri-Press news agency (APA)
December 6, 2014 Saturday
Pope beside Armenia, against Turkey and Azerbaijan
Pope Francis spoke of the TurkishArmenian borders, adding new colors
to the problem. The statement, full of biased, insincere and absurd
aspects, has two sides. First, the Pope formalized its position beside
Armenia by making that statement. Second, a possible reaction to the
statement will help draw the outlines of Turkey’s secret roadmap in
its policy toward Armenia.
As a matter of fact, the statement is the Catholic Church’s
interference in TurkishArmenian relations. Despite the Pope represents
a religious authority, and the Catholic Church has a serious power
worldwide, the closure of the TurkishArmenian borders is a secular
problem. From a logical point of view, the Vatican leader’s onesided
interference in this process is inadmissible and absurd (despite the
history of Vatican is full of thousands of such absurd facts about the
Pope playing a political role). So is the magnificent welcoming
ceremony for the leader of a state and a church that have recognized
the socalled Armenian “genocide”
The question is not about the Pope calling for the solution to a
secular problem; it’s about the call being biased. Turkey closed the
border with Armenia not only because of the invasion of Azerbaijani
lands, but also because of the claims about the socalled Armenian
“genocide”.Such a statement by the Pope runs quite contrary to the
position of Turkey, because the head of the Catholic Church in fact
supports the “reality” of the Turks committing genocide against the
Armenians back in 1915 and by demanding the opening of the border
clearly shows he does not accept Turkey’s position.
Another biased approach is related with the church’s attitude toward
the events of 1915. As a country recognizing “genocide”, Vatican drew
a thick line on the principle “not politicians, but historians must
assess these events” and supported Armenia in this issue. The
statement by Pope Francis doesn’t reflect sincere notes. His attitude
would then be considered sincere as he took the same attitude toward
Khojaly genocide, Srebrenica genocide. At the same time, Pope’s words
can be perceived sincere if he discloses main reasons for the closure
of borders, before calling on to open the TurkishArmenian border.
Is Pope’s request to open the border with Armenia a means of putting
pressure on Turkey? In fact, it is not, because Pope Francis is the
representative of Argentina where the Armenian lobby has the most
powerful position and head of the Vatican that recognized socalled
“Armenian genocide”. Therefore, it would be more interesting if Pope
didn’t touch on the issue of borders with Armenia. His statement
“TurkishArmenian borders should be opened” was expected, but the
interesting part of the process is Ankara’s attitude regarding this
statement.
This attitude will reveal the true position of Turkey on issue of
opening the border with Armenia. Ankara can react to this statement in
three ways:
a) Tough stance Turkey can officially reannounce the reasons for the
closure of the border with Armenia and conditions for its opening,
accuse Vatican of taking a biased position in this process.
b) Soft position Turkey can announce that it is ready for the opening
of border with Armenia, it has taken necessary steps in this regard,
but they failed and hint at possible activities to be carried out for
normalization of the relations with Armenia.
c) Indirect position Ankara does not react against Pope’s statement.
Instead, it can form public opinion like “There is serious pressure on
Turkey” and try to justify the necessity of easing relations with
Armenia on the eve of the 100year anniversary of the “Armenian
Genocide” taking advantage of media.
Tough position can be demonstrated in the case that Turkey takes into
account not only its own interests, but also the interests of
Azerbaijan, its strategic ally. However, Turkey’s position toward the
Armenian policy shows that Pope’s statement will be subjected to tough
position.
Soft position is intended for the Catholic Church, Armenia, Azerbaijan
and domestic public opinion. If Ankara takes this position it will
have the opportunity to maneuver between all parties (to please all).
The demonstration of an indirect position will show Ankara’s readiness
for major changes in the policy toward Armenia. From this perspective,
after the Pope’s statement, it is necessary to follow and monitor the
position of media.
One of the missions of the Catholic Church and the Vatican, its
supreme religious guidance, is to give messages of tolerance and
humanism. The Vatican, taking advantage of being the center of the
Catholic world, carries out missionary activity based on this
religion’s principles of humanism. Therefore, every message of the
Pope should include the principles of tolerance and humanism. These
messages are given back to Christianity and the Catholic Church as a
dividend with growing confidence. The messages given to increase the
mass of followers and the interest in the church should differ with
their objectivity and therefore, religious leaders always pay
attention to maintain the balance in their messages. However, the
messages Francis gave in Istanbul are biased and don’t meet these
principles.
Taking the proArmenian position, the Pope with insincerity
demonstrated that he stands against not only Turkey but also
Azerbaijan.
Commenting on the socalled genocide claims to be studied by historians
and the fact of closed borders, the Pope, of course, can not be in the
dark about the Armenia’s aggressive policy (this fact is reflected in
the four UN resolutions) and occupation of 20 percent of the
neighboring state by Armenia. Chief of the Catholic Church, which
regularly commemorates “genocide victims”, is well aware that people
as many as the Armenians claimed killed in 1915 have been living as
refugees and IDPs over the last 25 years as a result of Armenia’s
aggressive policy. If the Pope is one who represents humanism, he
would not have been so passionate in protecting the interests of a
country which took civilians hostage, killed a nineyearold child with
a sniper shot. If the Pope, who demands Turkey opens the border, is
just, then aggressive monoethnic Armenia, which violates principles of
humanism, would not be heavier than multinational tolerant Azerbaijan
on the scales of justice (If there is).
So therefore, the essence of the visit and the outcome of the
statement made are as follows:Pope beside Armenia against Turkey and
Azerbaijan. It’s nothing new. Even in the period of globalization the
factor of religious and ethnic identity continues to play its role in
policy. These factors, which are overshadowed in all process, are
often the main directive forces behind processes (especially in the
South Caucasus and the Middle East). And the Pope of Rome who is
supposed to represent humanism is the first of those who increase the
part of religion in policy.
Pressures on Turkey to make it compromise in the Armenia policy has
another positive side as well pressure also unites the sides
suffering from it. Because of this reason Ankara has faced a dilemma:
either it bows to pressures or these pressures unite the sides
suffering from it even tighter. This is very important on the eve of
the 100th anniversary, especially for Ankara to get rid of this fright
and properly coordinate steps to be taken with Azerbaijan, assessing
the processes calmly.