Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contemporary Turkish Diplomacy In The Relations With Armenia Built O

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Contemporary Turkish Diplomacy In The Relations With Armenia Built O

    CONTEMPORARY TURKISH DIPLOMACY IN THE RELATIONS WITH ARMENIA BUILT ON PRINCIPLES OF THE MIDDLE AGE AND THE 19TH CENTURY
    David Stepanyan

    ArmInfo
    June 19 2009

    An interview with Hayk Demoyan, Director of the Armenian Genocide
    Museum-Institute at the Armenian National Academy of Science, Candidate
    of Science (History), specialist in Oriental Studies

    Mr. Demoyan, over the last two months the Armenian-Turkish process has
    been slackening in the background of the visits by Turkish high-ranking
    officials to Azerbaijan. What is the reason of such slowdown and what
    generally takes place in the given process?

    I think one of the scenarios laid by the Armenian and Turkish
    parties at the very beginning of this process is implemented at
    present. Actually, Yerevan's stand regarding establishment of relations
    with Ankara without preconditions is not bluff. But Ankara evidently
    has faced serious problems in this way. I'd not say that Turkey pursued
    the scenario of dropping this process or trying to reveal the stand or
    the level of opposition by Azerbaijan to it. What is currently taking
    place in Turkey is the weighting of benefits and implications, which
    is well reflected against the background of the isolated interests of
    various forces in the Turkish political spectrum. These are, first of
    all, the interests of servicemen, Islamists, nationalists, secularists
    and ultra-nationalists. In this case t he process exceeds the frames
    of the context of the negotiations between Armenia and Turkey. A
    superficial analysis of the domestic political situation in Turkey
    will show that servicemen, which are still afraid of something, play
    the role of the first fiddle. The general officers of that country
    are already an institution, which has exhausted itself and does not
    meet the norms of the international law of the 21st century.

    Turkish officers have still preserved the mark of the 'cold war'
    heritage, which is displayed at the internal pressing of servicemen
    on the civil authorities of Turkey.

    This is evidence of the fact that just servicemen are the main
    obstacle on the way of democratization of Turkey and its European
    integration. And the process of settling relations with Armenia,
    which they are also against, is one of the episodes in the domestic
    political contradiction in Turkey.

    Do general officers fight mainly to counteract the party of Erdogan
    and Gul?

    Naturally, the fight of general officers is chiefly leading to
    contradiction against the party of Erdogan and Gul. The contradiction
    has been already displayed, as servicemen being against foreign
    political course of the Party of Justice and Development, show that
    they are the opposition to the top of the Turkish political iceberg.

    What about the role of first fiddle in the slowdown of the
    Armenian-Turkish process? Are these the domestic factors, you have
    mentioned, or it is thundering Azerbaijan?

    Actually domestic political factors in Turkey play the role of in
    the slowdown of the Armenian-Turkish process, though Azerbaijan's
    role in this process is not secondary either.

    Armenia's step towards Turkey could not but affect the mutual interests
    of the two friendly states: Azerbaijan and Turkey. Such was the power
    of that step that could not but bring certain disagreement between
    Azerbaijani and Turkish political elites although it had no initial
    goal to drive a wedge between those states.

    In this context, the ruling elites in Turkey and Azerbaijan are very
    likely to take certain well-developed measures regarding Armenia,
    which has already been observed. But opening of the border will
    have a psychological effect on the Azerbaijani public and on Turkey
    anyway. Nevertheless, the latest statements by Davutoghlu have not
    made clear what the political maneuvers of Turkey are aimed at in the
    context of no specific terms exiting for resolution of the problem
    in the Armenian-Turkish relations.

    What's behind the statements by Ahmed Davudoghlu regarding the end
    of the cold war between Armenian and Turkey?

    I do not understand well enough what he means under this statement. If
    the also includes international recognition of the Armenian Genocide,
    I will have to disappoint him - the process has always been and
    will go on despite any impulses in the process of establishment of
    re lations between Armenia and Turkey. The Armenian-Turkish process
    on establishment of relations cannot proceed due to the historical
    memory of the Armenians, as well as refusal of the policy aimed at
    international recognition of the Armenian Genocide

    Turkey's interests are clear. What will Armenia gain from the formal
    continuation of the process when there is no real consensus between
    Armenia and Turkey?

    Nothing. Therefore, Armenia puts quite a strict pre-condition against
    Turkey.

    It is known that Turkey puts forward three pre-conditions. But stemming
    from the logic of the Armenian-Turkish process, in fact, another
    pre-condition of the Armenian party is also becoming visible. Armenian
    President Serzh Sargsyan mentioned it in one of his interviews, when
    he said that if the Armenian-Turkish border does not open till October,
    he will not visit Turkey for the joint watching of the football match.

    Does it mean that we have nevertheless put Ankara within the frames?

    Yes, it does. And this make even more unclear Davudoghu's statement
    that it will be wrong if Serzh Sargsyan does not arrive in Turkey
    because of the shut down borders.

    In this context, Turkish Minister should remember of diplomatic
    ethics, which does not allow such a high-ranking diplomat to make
    statements and recommendations dictating any steps to the president
    of another country.

    Analysis of Davudoghlu's statements makes clear that the logic

    of continuation of the Armenian-Turkish process without any results
    for this year has been exhausted. All this leads to the moment when
    the Turkish party will open it since we make no obstacles to this. In
    addition, symbolically, it has already been opened.

    This means that the process has already become the headache for
    Ankara, a problem that is no longer considered a joint problem with
    Armenia. Actually, Turkey has torpedoed the negotiating process for
    certain momentary interests. All this makes clear that Turkey is
    simply unable to open the border to Armenia for certain short-term
    and long-term interests>, Damoyan said.

    Don't you think that this problem will become general again if the
    president of Armenia does not leave to watch the football match given
    the despair of the Turkish and, first of all, Azerbaijani propaganda?

    I don't think so. Refusal of the president of Armenia to visit Istanbul
    will aggravate Ankara's state in the Armenian-Turkish negotiations as,
    in this case, all the affirmations of Turkey, including identification
    of the 'Road-map' about the two countries' intentions, will turn
    out just a fiction, a game, which Armenia will finish with the
    least losses. Someone naive will surely claim that as a result of
    these negotiations Barack Obama did not mention the word 'Genocide'
    in his April 24 speech. However, it is not as important as it seems
    to them. Our relative victory in this ca se will be to demonstrate
    and prove to the world that our neighbour Turkey is negotiating with
    Armenia applying diplomatic methods of the 19th Century, despite the
    fact that those times passed long ago.

    Contemporary Turkish diplomacy in the relations with Armenia contains
    two principles. The first principle is inherited from the Middle Age
    and the second from the 19th century. The first principle is based on
    the slogan 'one nation - two states', though such a tribal approach
    does not suit a state aspiring for the European Union. Let's imagine
    a situation where Germany and Austria block Czech Republic basing on
    common ethnic origination of Austrians and Germans. Such an approach is
    simply inadmissible to a country striving to join the European family.

    As regards the policy of the 19th century Turkey applies in the
    relations with Armenia, it is the policy of blockade, military methods
    and pressing through the border shut down. Leaving alone that Turkey
    trying to 'return the occupied territories' to Azerbaijan has itself
    occupied a part of the European Union. It is not even the policy of
    dual standards; it is the policy of the 19th century.

    The Armenian opposition believes that possible establishment of the
    joint commission of historians will mean Armenia's refusal from the
    policy of international recognition of Armenian Genocide. What is
    the reason of such radical approach?

    The reasons are to be sought in th e domestic political fight in
    Armenia. Setting up a Commission of Armenian-Turkish historians
    will become another argument for transferring of the problems in
    the Armenian-Turkish process to Turkey. First of all, Turkey, which
    made such initiative, has no moral right to do it. I imagine this
    initiative as free discussion of the Genocide problem at the academic
    level. However, Turkey has been in rather vulnerable situation from
    the very beginning because of Article 301 of the Criminal Code of
    Turkey. Therefore, I believe that a Turkish historian unable to
    say anything that contradicts the state policy of Turkey on the
    Genocide denial will not feel himself comfortable. At the same
    time I think there are historians striving to tell the truth in
    Turkey. Nevertheless, it is a big question if they will be involved
    in the commission since it is not a compulsory condition for Turkey
    to be represented by Turks in the commission.

    Does it mean that Turkey voiced this idea just to get Armenia's 'no'?

    Naturally, it does. Actually, Turkey did it just for this purpose,
    but Armenia's "yes" as a reply to the suggestion on setting up of
    the commission of historians led Turkey to the situation when certain
    mechanisms in this commission may fail. For this reason Turkey should
    have other reserve steps.

    Therefore, I am sure that from the moral as well as political point
    of view Armenia has no problem in the negotiating proce ss, but Turkey
    does, as it persecutes its own scientists for dissidence.

    That is to say, the idea of setting up the commission damages
    Turkey. But it also endangers Armenia, as these ideas on setting up the
    commission may lead to the domestic political clashes in Armenia, which
    testifies to maturity or immaturity of the political fight in Armenia.
Working...
X