Tweet
ESTABLISHING DIALOGUE THROUGH HISTORIANS OR POLITICIANS?
by Irem Guney, (U.S.A.K.)
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Feb 21 2007
Despite the first signs of the change in Turkish and Armenian
perspectives after the assassination of the Armenian-Turkish journalist
Hrant Dink, it is a big question how long the optimist climate is
going to prevail.
The never ending discussions between Armenia and Turkey are recently
reanimated once again in the last days. In his visit to Paris,
Armenian president Rober Kocharyan rejected Turkey's offer to set
up a joint panel of historians and experts to debate the issue, and
suggested an intergovernmental commission while stating that Yerevan
is ready to start the diplomatic relations with Turkey. In his view,
it is the politicians who will start the diplomatic relations not
the historians. Although he does not set any preconditions for
the establishment of diplomatic ties, Kocharyan stresses on their
expectation of Turkey's acceptance of the Armenian claims. In his
view, "Turkish foreign policy towards Armenia will be aggressive and
threatening as long as Turkey does not apologize for what happened
in 1915".
The Turkish side of the coin is on the other hand quite different.
Turkey has suspended her diplomatic relations with Armenia after the
occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh where Armenian and Azerbaijani forces
fought from 1988 to 1994. The conflict resulted in Armenia winning
control over Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani regions. In
2005, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe once again
stated that the territory is under the Armenian occupation agreeing
with the OSCE decision on this issue. Another crucial aspect is the
Armenian Declaration of Independence in 1991 which was accepted as
part of the Armenian constitution by the Armenian Parliament. In
this declaration, Turkish territories are referred to as the Western
Armenia.
Although Kocharyan's suggestion to reestablish the diplomatic
relations might be viewed as a positive attempt, one must also note
that his statements do not consider the other side of the coin. This
consequently calls for skepticism about his statements.
On the other hand, Ara Sarafyan, the British historian with Armenian
origin responded affirmatively to the suggestion from Prof. Dr. Yusuf
Halacoðlu, the head of the Turkish Historical Society, who was asking
for a collaborative study about the "genocide" claims. Sarafyan wants
to conduct the study in Harput town, where there was a significant
Armenian population during the Ottoman Empire.
Halacoðlu accepts Sarafyan's suggestion and evaluates this as a
"really significant event".
The latest news in the last days is crucial when one takes
Kocharyan's claims and the thin line of objectivity between history
and politics. Obviously, the future will show us to what extent and
by whom-the politicians or the historians- the relations between two
neighbors will be formed.
--Boundary_(ID_2UYg2FyChESgykS/n8SG5w)--
by Irem Guney, (U.S.A.K.)
Journal of Turkish Weekly
Feb 21 2007
Despite the first signs of the change in Turkish and Armenian
perspectives after the assassination of the Armenian-Turkish journalist
Hrant Dink, it is a big question how long the optimist climate is
going to prevail.
The never ending discussions between Armenia and Turkey are recently
reanimated once again in the last days. In his visit to Paris,
Armenian president Rober Kocharyan rejected Turkey's offer to set
up a joint panel of historians and experts to debate the issue, and
suggested an intergovernmental commission while stating that Yerevan
is ready to start the diplomatic relations with Turkey. In his view,
it is the politicians who will start the diplomatic relations not
the historians. Although he does not set any preconditions for
the establishment of diplomatic ties, Kocharyan stresses on their
expectation of Turkey's acceptance of the Armenian claims. In his
view, "Turkish foreign policy towards Armenia will be aggressive and
threatening as long as Turkey does not apologize for what happened
in 1915".
The Turkish side of the coin is on the other hand quite different.
Turkey has suspended her diplomatic relations with Armenia after the
occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh where Armenian and Azerbaijani forces
fought from 1988 to 1994. The conflict resulted in Armenia winning
control over Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani regions. In
2005, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe once again
stated that the territory is under the Armenian occupation agreeing
with the OSCE decision on this issue. Another crucial aspect is the
Armenian Declaration of Independence in 1991 which was accepted as
part of the Armenian constitution by the Armenian Parliament. In
this declaration, Turkish territories are referred to as the Western
Armenia.
Although Kocharyan's suggestion to reestablish the diplomatic
relations might be viewed as a positive attempt, one must also note
that his statements do not consider the other side of the coin. This
consequently calls for skepticism about his statements.
On the other hand, Ara Sarafyan, the British historian with Armenian
origin responded affirmatively to the suggestion from Prof. Dr. Yusuf
Halacoðlu, the head of the Turkish Historical Society, who was asking
for a collaborative study about the "genocide" claims. Sarafyan wants
to conduct the study in Harput town, where there was a significant
Armenian population during the Ottoman Empire.
Halacoðlu accepts Sarafyan's suggestion and evaluates this as a
"really significant event".
The latest news in the last days is crucial when one takes
Kocharyan's claims and the thin line of objectivity between history
and politics. Obviously, the future will show us to what extent and
by whom-the politicians or the historians- the relations between two
neighbors will be formed.
--Boundary_(ID_2UYg2FyChESgykS/n8SG5w)--