WIN-WIN PROTOCOL (II)
Ilhan Tanir/Oguzhan Guler
Hurriyet Daily News
win-protocol-ii–2009-10-19
Oct 19 2009
Turkey
Russia’s unexpected return to international power strongly displayed
itself once more during the latest protocol discussions. Russia’s
unwavering role in urging the Armenian side to ink the protocols in
Zurich, which is being widely reported in the Armenian and Russian
press at present, confirmed its heavyweight status in the region
and reaffirmed the Kremlin’s decisive support for the restoration of
relations between Armenia and Turkey.
For those who follow the international affairs of the region closely,
it is unusual to see the unequivocal support all powers, the United
States, Russia and the European Union, have given to the matter.
However, this is the situation we presently face and this full support
must be taken as great news in terms of a more stable and peaceful
future for the southern Caucasus. One could point to many reasons as
to why Russia has both been enjoying better relations with Turkey
and supported the protocols; we, however, would like to emphasize
one argument that failed to garner much attention – Turkey’s position
during the war last August between Georgia and Russia. During the war,
Turkey utilized a balanced policy and showed a clear unwillingness to
take an anti-Russian position along with the Western alliance. This
was a turning point that brought Russia and Turkey closer than ever
before. During the conflict, Turkey denied passage to two U.S. ships
through the Turkish Straits into the Black Sea, arguing that the ships
violated the Montreux Convention which governs the traffic of military
ships to the Black Sea. According to the convention, the tonnages of
both of the two US ships well exceeded the limits allowed; as such,
they were ineligible for passage.
Turkey, showing a full commitment to the Montreux Convention, received
a warm response from the Kremlin. In our opinion, in addition to the
increasingly strong trade relationship between the two countries that
has made Russia Turkey’s biggest trade partner, a strategic, eye-to-eye
understanding has been further solidified. This new partnership was
consistently lauded during the Russian and Turkish leaders’ numerous
meetings both at the Kremlin and Ankara.
Still, even in the energy context, Russia sees the protocol results
as a win-win situation, since such a multi-billion dollar and
strategically important project like Nabucco will now have a bigger
chance of passing through Armenia rather than Georgia, a country
which the Russians still think should be punished further. And for
that to happen, Armenia’s only chance to be part of the project is
to have improved relations with Turkey.
It must be noted that Russia is not only popular in Yerevan, but
also in Baku (it struck an important gas deal recently) and even in
Kiev, where elections are scheduled for Jan. 17, 2010. The two main
candidates, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Victor Yanukovych,
are both campaigning on a platform of building better relations with
Russia in stark contrast to the last elections in 2004. The Ukrainian
media have already ruled out the possibility of a second term for
President Victor Yushchenko, the leader of the Orange Revolution.
According to a poll conducted by the Ukraine Public Opinion Foundation,
26.8 percent of voters are ready to cast their votes in favor of
Viktor Yanukovych, who was considered Russia’s candidate during the
last elections, against the current President Yushchenko’s mere 2.2
percent poll rating.
>From the American perspective, the protocol also promises a sunny
future. According to Morton Abromowitz, the former U.S. ambassador to
Turkey and a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, a Washington,
D.C.-based think tank, restored relations between Armenia and Turkey
was one of the two most important items on U.S. President Barack
Obama’s agenda when he visited Turkey in April. As such, the current
developments should be seen as a great victory for America as well.
America now sees benefits from a more stabilized region and Armenia,
freed from the status of solely being Russia’s pawn, becomes a viable
candidate to be part of an alternative energy route for the allies
in Europe.
Obama will also have a great excuse to defuse the demands of the
Armenian diaspora who want the American Congress to pass a resolution
on the 1915 events in the coming year by highlighting the progressing
relations between Armenia and Turkey. While the 2010 mid-term elections
already loom for America, Obama does not wish to see another uproar
by the strong and boisterous Armenian constituency in addition to
many domestic problems.
On the other hand, in Azerbaijan, it seems that it all depends
on the possible progress of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. For now,
Azerbaijan’s leader Ä°lham Aliyev does not see any reason to hide his
skepticism; he is currently getting cozy with Russia by emphasizing the
favorable transit prices Gazprom pays to Azerbaijan in contrast to the
thriftiness of the Turkish brothers. This is the most worrisome piece
of the equation, but for this very reason, it becomes a great incentive
for Westerners to work harder to solve the dispute; otherwise, the
only official gas source for the Nabucco line even becomes doubtful.
The biggest obstacle to the normalization of the relationship between
Turkey and Armenia comes from the opposition parties in Armenia and
from the diaspora. Two of Armenia’s leading opposition parties, the
Dashnaktsutyun, or the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, and the
Heritage Party, opposed the signing of the protocols and campaigned
against it fiercely. President Serge Sarkisian visited Armenian
diaspora communities throughout the world to gain their support, but
was nevertheless greeted with protests. For the Armenian diaspora,
it seems that the Armenians do not gain much by opening the borders,
but lose a lot by opening a debate over the tragic events of 1915,
which is an unforgivable betrayal. We feel it is inappropriate to take
a stance against theirs because of the sensible nature of the subject
alongside the arguments we have presented that would point to Armenia’s
future generations living a better life in a more prosperous country.
And the Turkish opposition? The National Movement Party, or MHP, and
the Republican People’s Party, or CHP, have opposed the protocols. It
is very hard to understand and argue for or against their stance:
It seems they have, unsurprisingly, not been able to elaborate their
position eloquently as to why they would be against the protocols
other than by showing their usual chauvinistic drama. And this is a
sad fact for Turkey’s opposition.