Category: 2022

The third meeting of the special representatives of Armenia and Turkey on the normalization of bilateral relations has ended. Vice Speaker of the Parliament Ruben Rubinyan and Ambassador Serdar Kılıç met in Vienna. The official report following the meeting says that the parties reaffirmed the goal of this negotiation process – to achieve a full settlement of relations between Armenia and Turkey.

The message, published on the website of the Armenian Foreign Ministry, also says that a sincere and productive exchange of views took place between the special representatives aimed at achieving tangible progress. The negotiators once again “reiterated their agreement to continue the process without preconditions”.

What else is known about the third round of talks of special representatives, what preceded it and what happened in parallel, as well as expert opinion on the process as a whole and possible outcomes.

• Armenian, Turkish foreign ministers meet amid efforts to normalise ties
• Armenia-Turkey negotiations: “The goal is complete normalization”
• First meeting of Armenian and Turkish envoys on normalisation of ties took place in Moscow

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu was the first to announce that there was an agreement to hold a third meeting of special representatives. Live on the Turkish channel NTV, Cavusoglu called on Armenia to be bolder and move meetings of representatives from third countries to Ankara and Yerevan.

Responding to the Turkish Foreign Minister’s statement, the Armenian side recalled that in the course of previous attempts to normalize Armenian-Turkish relations, meetings were held both in Armenia and Turkey, but “they did not lead to any results”.

“The main thing in achieving a settlement is political will and readiness for concrete substantive steps. We show them and expect the same from Turkey. If there is a will, the meeting place will become a purely technical matter.

The Armenian side fully agrees with the need to take bold steps. We have repeatedly demonstrated our readiness to move forward, including the participation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the diplomatic forum in Antalya [in March 2022] and the lifting of the economic embargo [imposed by Armenia during the 2020 Karabakh war]. The resumption of air communication between Armenia and Turkey was also an important bilateral step”, Vahan Hunanyan, spokesman for the Armenian Foreign Ministry, said at the time.

At the same time, the press secretary of the Armenian Foreign Ministry said that the proposal to hold meetings of special representatives in Armenia and Turkey indicates that the Turkish side considers the process to be bilateral:

“And in this case, it would be logical not to hear almost weekly statements from Turkish representatives that they are advancing the process by coordinating their actions with Azerbaijan”.

According to Vahan Hunanyan, the only way to advance the normalization process that has been started is by continuing clear actions:

“In particular, we proposed to the Turkish side to open the land border for persons with diplomatic passports at the first stage, but the Turkish side is slow. We believe that this will be a small, but substantive and, importantly, logical step. We hope that we will be able to achieve results in this matter”.

• Yerevan-Istanbul: “Transport and economic ties are being established”
• IRI polls in Armenia: “Turkey and Azerbaijan are a threat to Armenia’s security”
• Armenian-Turkish negotiations: old agenda in new realities. What to expect?

Referring to the agenda of the third meeting of special representatives, the Turkish Foreign Minister said that “various steps that will be taken in the near future” will be discussed.

Cavusoglu said that an agreement had been reached to “define the borders again” between the two countries. At the same time, he did not rule out the possibility of creating a joint commission, as is envisaged in the case of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border.

However, the Armenian Foreign Ministry responded by saying that there was no such issue on the agenda of the talks.

Even before official information about the outcome of the Rubinyan-Kylych meeting emerged, political analyst Areg Kochinyan told JAMnews that “nothing of a turning point nature” should be expected from it. He believes that steps to normalize relations will become tangible if the parties show “sufficient political will”.

According to the political scientist, there are prerequisites for the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations:

• Appropriate work in this direction by the United States, a country that has long been interested in the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations;

• Armenia’s interest in the settlement, as this is the shortest and most realistic way to mitigate security challenges, the opportunity to make them more controllable;
• positive signals from Turkey, connected not with the desire to help Armenia, but with their own national interests, since Turkey is more profitable for the existence of an independent Armenia, and not as part of the Russian Empire.

According to Areg Kochinyan, the result of negotiations with Turkey depends on the work of the parties:

“This includes our work, our readiness for peace, for concessions – yes, one-sided, painful concessions, because the defeated in the war makes concessions, this is an axiom. After a defeat like the one we suffered in the war, it is impossible to hope that something will be conceded to us too.

According to the political scientist, the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations is considered by major players as one of the steps or stages in the settlement of the regional situation:

“If Armenia demonstrates rational, reasonable and realistic behavior and policies, I see an interest in resolving the situation of both regional players and global actors”.

Kochinyan does not understand the position of the Armenian authorities, who prefer to hold meetings of special representatives in third countries. He believes that in order to move towards the normalization of relations, it is necessary and important that they take place in Yerevan and Ankara.

Referring to the statement of the Turkish Foreign Minister that the border with Armenia should be clarified, the political scientist spoke about the need for a clear presentation of the position of the Armenian side. He believes that official Yerevan, in addition to a refutation, should explain what the statement of the Turkish Foreign Minister is connected with and what it means:

“It is becoming a tradition that we learn news or details about the negotiation process from Turkish or Azerbaijani sources. This is not a good practice, it will not lead to anything good”.

Areg Kochinyan also notes that Armenia’s attempt to normalize relations with Turkey is perceived in Russia as a threat:

“No one in Armenia is trying to question or harm the interests of Russia, only an attempt is being made to normalize relations with Turkey. Another thing is that Russia perceives this as a danger and a threat, but, naturally, for us, at least for the citizens of Armenia who do not have another homeland, the interests of Armenia are primary”.

In 1991, after the collapse of the USSR, Turkey officially recognized the Republic of Armenia, but still refuses to establish diplomatic relations. In 1993, Turkey unilaterally closed its air and land borders with Armenia. The air border was reopened in 1995, according to the website of the Armenian Foreign Ministry, “under pressure from the international community”.

After the Karabakh war in the early 90s, Turkey put forward a number of conditions for opening of the land border and establishment of diplomatic relations, one of which was the return to Azerbaijan of the regions under the control of the unrecognized NKR. This condition is no longer valid, since these territories are already under the control of Azerbaijan as a result of the second Karabakh war in 2020.

Turkey’s other condition has always been the rejection of international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. This refers to the massacre that took place in Ottoman Turkey in 1915. Prior to that, about two and a half million Armenians lived in the territory of the Ottoman Empire. As a result of the killings and mass deportation, more than half of them died. Armenia, several Western countries and international organizations officially recognize these events as genocide. Turkey categorically rejects such a formulation.

The Armenian genocide in Ottoman Turkey

Every year the 24th of April is considered a day of mourning, with hundreds of thousands of Armenians from different countries coming to Armenia. Several million people in total generally participate in activities related to the theme of the day: the Armenian genocide. But it wasn’t always like that.

• Armenian, Turkish foreign ministers meet amid efforts to normalise ties
• Opinion: Armenia is stuck between the West and Russia
• Armenian genocide: what victims’ descendants demand from Turkey 106 years later

Broaching the subject was not just a taboo, it was the taboo, a violation which could lead to fatal consequences equal to genocide itself – arrest, persecution, exile or even execution.

Mass reprisals took place during the period of Stalin’s rule, when Armenians, who had survived the Turkish pogroms, became a particular target of persecution just because they had come from other countries.

The topic was communicated throughout Soviet Armenia in a half-whisper, through family stories and survivors’ recollections, but it wasn’t talked of in the media or in public spaces. The very memory of it was forbidden, as if it had never happened at all.

In Soviet times, any national issue was regarded as potentially explosive in general, especially as the USSR renounced its territorial claims against Turkey.

The situation changed dramatically in 1965 when sporadic mass rallies were held in Yerevan on the 50th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. The rallies weren’t suppressed and eventually ended in success (which was something unimaginable for the USSR).

Thousands of young people gathered in Lenin Square (presently Republic Square) early on 24 April, 1965.  They refused to comply with a dispersal order made by the police, and marched through the city. They reached the pantheon where they laid down flowers at the monument dedicated to Komitas, a composer and genocide survivor who is highly honoured by all Armenians.

Afterwards they returned to the square. Some posters also appeared there: ‘Our Lands’, ‘We Want Our Lands Back’ and ‘We Recognize Genocide’.

Meanwhile, an official party meeting was underway in the Opera House. The rally participants went to the square outside the Opera House, where clashes with the police occurred. The Opera House windows were broken by stones which were thrown, and several people were injured (including Vruir Sargsyan, a journalist and editor of the Vecherniy Yerevan [Evening Yerevan] newspaper).

Police used water cannons to disperse the rally, pouring cold water on the protesters. But they didn’t disperse (whereas the party meeting which was underway in the hall was disrupted).

The Armenian leadership found itself in a difficult situation. There was a risk of interference from Moscow: troops could have been brought into the city to suppress the riot.

Eventually, Moscow demanded the prosecution of thousands of citizens and organization of show trials, but the Armenian authorities ignored those demands.

On 25 April, a special delegation arrived from Moscow, but the situation in Yerevan had already calmed down. Even the Opera House windows were replaced. Finally, some fictitious penalties were imposed, for example, a reprimand was issued over poorly organized opera house security.

Back in 1964 the Armenian authorities (led by Hakob [Jacob] Zarobyan, 1st Secretary of the Communist Party of Armenia) sent a letter of appeal to Moscow, proposing to organize ‘events commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Armenian mass pogroms’, including the publication of books and articles, the release of films and radio programs, as well as the erection of a memorial complex.

Almost all of the aforesaid items were implemented a few years later. The determination to pay tribute to the memory of the genocide victims has become one of the episodes of the national revival. Thus, Jacov Zarobyan went down in history as a man who found the courage to take the brunt of the blow and not to deploy troops against his own people.

Moreover, he used daring demands for the return of the territories as a means for exerting certain pressure on Moscow and for diplomatic maneuvering.

As a result, the popular revolt gave an incentive for getting permission for the construction of a memorial centre.

The Armenian Genocide Memorial, which is located on Tsitsernakaberd hill in Yerevan, has an interesting background. Although it is modernist and even revolutionary in its shape and idea, it is essentially tightly linked to the Soviet ideology.

Nowadays no-one remembers the justification that was prompted by the requirements of that time, but it was absolutely necessary in that period. The Armenian authorities managed to take advantage of the conceptual ‘gaps’ in the Soviet ideology.

The Memorial’s opening ceremony was held on 29 November 1967, on the 47th anniversary of the establishment of Soviet rule in Armenia.

It was decided to shift the focus to the future rather than the past, and to name the complex The Revival (certainly attributing it to the USSR). Two architectural components of the memorial (the Memorial Hall and The Revival obelisk) were generally named as The Revival.

Merging the calendar dates is a very wise decision in general, since it allows for additional meaning to be attached to it, and, in many cases, provide a new spin to the proclaimed official holiday. Two historical events were linked to each other, two images of Armenia: exhausted and broken, with its people subjected to genocide in the past, and protected, prosperous and happy now. Armenia that has survived and is reviving.

The sky-rocketing, simple-shaped monument with its eternal fire has become Armenia’s most important shrine.

The Tsitsernakaberd Memorial Complex was already a fait accompli, which gained union-wide importance and was broadly covered in mass media. It’s the mass media that helps people understand how creatively they tried to position the national issue into the national context.

In their lofty and pathetic texts, the Soviet Armenian newspapers wrote about the creation of an ‘eternally living monument to the unburied martyrs’, as well as ‘prosperity in a close-knit family of fraternal nations’.

The Soviet Armenian newspapers wrote as follows: “The heart of each person visiting this monument is filled with a hatred of evil, war and genocide, as well as with a deep gratitude for the system and party that saved our nation from disaster.”

Тhe newspaper also added an international emphasis: “This monument is a protest against the imperialistic policy not only of the past, but also of the present,  as well as against any manifestation of genocide.”

So, this modernist, multi-layer and meaningful message with a subtext marked the opening of the symbol of memory of the Armenian genocide victims.

The wall of silence was destroyed and the genocide issue was put on the public agenda: Scientific research commenced, books and documents were published and  the Memorial Complex of the Genocide Victims finally turned into a museum-institute, where various countries’ archives were studied.

Toponyms and terminology used in the article, and views, opinions and strategies expressed in it do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of JAMnews or any employees thereof. JAMnews reserves the right to delete comments it considers to be offensive, inflammatory, threatening, or otherwise unacceptable