OPINION: TURKEY AND ARMENIA MUST MOVE AHEAD
Sabine Freizer
Lragir.am
21/04/10
With diplomatic relations stalled, Ankara and Yerevan should focus
on the less controversial parts of their agreement.
Protesters shout slogans as they demonstrate in front of the U.S.
Embassy in Ankara on March 5, 2010. Turkey said in March that it was
determined to press ahead with efforts to normalize ties with Armenia
despite a U.S. Congressional panel vote terming as genocide the 1915
mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks. (Umit Bektas/Reuters)
ISTANBUL, Turkey – As April 24 approaches, Armenians and Turks will
once again be watching U.S. President Barack Obama to see how he
describes this day of remembrance for the 1915 mass killings and
deportations of Ottoman Armenians.
Last year, he chose to call the events by their Armenian term, Meds
Yegherns or "great catastrophe." For many Armenians, who insist that
the only appropriate term is genocide, this was not enough. But,
for many Turks it was too much.
Unfortunately, this annual focus on what the U.S. president will say
is misplaced. It is not a question for the U.S. president. It’s the
Turks and Armenians who need to agree.
There was hope in 2009 that the two sides could do just that,
especially after Turkey and Armenia unveiled bilateral protocols,
signed on Oct. 10, to establish diplomatic relations, and recognize
and open their mutual border. But the normalization process stalled
after October, and there is little chance the texts will be ratified
in the two countries’ parliaments soon.
Based on the protocols, Turkey and Armenia would have established
a committee on the historical dimension "including an impartial
scientific examination of the historical records and archives."
For Turks this would have been a way to stave off the international
recognition of genocide, as few countries would move to label it as
such, knowing the inter-state commission was looking into it. For
Armenians such a commission is generally perceived as a fundamental
violation of their national identity. They don’t accept that "the
genocide fact" is up for discussion.
Still, for Armenia the protocols offered something tangible: the
opening of its border with Turkey which had been closed since 1993
when Armenian forces occupied districts of Azerbaijan surrounding
Nagorno-Karabakh. Yet this is precisely where the deal is stuck now:
in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The hope was that an open border could gradually help encourage
a solution to the conflict, buttressing the ongoing talks between
Armenia and Azerbaijan brokered by the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Growing contacts could lead to economic
development and greater regional stability and a more balanced Turkish
engagement in the South Caucasus.
Azerbaijan, however, does not see it that way. In spring 2009, the
leadership in Azerbaijan’s capital Baku began to appeal not only to
the Turkish prime minister but also to the Turkish opposition to keep
the border shut until its occupied territories were liberated.
It threatened Turkey’s preferential price for its Shah Deniz natural
gas supplies and chances of greater volume to feed the planned Nabucco
transit pipeline to Europe. In January of this year, for the first
time, Azerbaijan provided significant amounts of gas to Russia.
Popular mood against Turkey hardened in Baku with official support
and even puppets of Turkey’s leaders being burned in some protests.
The Turkish government decided that it could not ignore Azeri pressure
and with difficult negotiations going on concerning constitutional
reform, it does not want to pick a fight over border opening with the
nationalist opposition in parliament. There is little chance that the
twin protocols can move until after the next round of Turkish elections
in 2011, or until Azerbaijan and Armenia sign the long-awaited
agreement on basic principles on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution.
Armenian President Serzh Sarkissian is also under pressure. Even
though a quick ratification in Armenia would firmly put the ball
in Turkey’s court and give Yerevan credit internationally, domestic
opposition is strong.
The decade of confidence-building that preceded the Turkey-Armenian
protocol signing could now be lost unless there is progress soon. The
best step now would be for Ankara and Yerevan to temporarily put
aside the most difficult aspects of the protocols and move ahead with
the less controversial parts. Despite current troubles, they could
proceed with the establishment of diplomatic ties and recognition of
their mutual border. These need no parliamentary approval, are purely
about bilateral relations and are not linked to Nagorno-Karabakh.
Turkey and Armenia have a mounting number of bilateral issues to
address requiring simple consular services. There are up to 40,000
Armenian citizens living in Turkey, tens of thousands of Armenian
tourists visit the Turkish Riviera every year and countless Turkish
truck drivers and small businesses operating in Armenia.
There are easy opportunities to develop many other cross-border
activities. But currently none of them can get effective support from
their home country while abroad.
For such basic practical matters, Obama’s speech is really a
distraction. Even in the current difficult diplomatic climate, the
leaders of Turkey and Armenia can and should take these initial steps
to ensure their people can build up a prosperous future and help them
come to terms with their shared traumatic history.