Tweet
TURKEY AND ARMENIA RELATIONS CONTINUE TO WARM AS DEAL TO REOPEN BORDER INCHES FORWARD
Emrullah Uslu
Jamestown Foundation
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cac he=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34766&tx_ttnew s%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=8d81bfe851
March 27 2009
On March 17, Congressmen Adam Schiff, George Radanovich and
Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairmen Frank Pallone and Mark
Kirk introduced a resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives
co-sponsored by over 70 House colleagues to recognize the Armenian
"genocide" of 1915. The resolution is identical to the one introduced
in both the House and Senate in the 110th Congress, which was adopted
by the House Foreign Affairs Committee (www.anca.org, March 17). The
timing of the legislation is especially critical, since President Obama
will visit Turkey on April 6-7. Obama promised his American-Armenian
supporters during his presidential election campaign that he would
recognize the 1915 "genocide," yet his trip to Ankara will seek to
improve U.S. relations with Turkey after the difficulties experienced
in recent years.
Moreover, this comes at a time when Turkey and Armenia have finally
found a way to talk directly, which could yield positive results
after the "soccer match diplomacy" that began when Turkey's President
Abdullah Gul visited Armenia to watch the Turkish and Armenian national
soccer teams play (Cihan Haber Ajansi, September 5, 2008). Since then,
Turkish and Armenian diplomats have agreed on a successful strategy
to improve their bilateral relations. In fact, political observers
expect that the rapprochement might precipitate the reopening of the
Turkish-Armenian border, as early as April (EDM, February 10).
The debate surrounding Turkey's border policy was sparked after
Republican People's Party (CHP) parliamentarian Sukru Electag claimed
that "some Justice and Development Party (AKP) parliamentarians during
their visit to Washington in February 2009 stated that the AKP will
open the border after the local election in March 29" (Sabah, March
15). Despite the denials by AKP deputies regarding these claims,
following a recent visit to Washington one AKP deputy said, "Turkey
and Armenia are very close to a deal to open embassies in Ankara
and Yerevan and it is very likely that the Turkey-Armenia border
will be opened soon if the third parties do not harm the process"
(EDM, February 10). In addition, the Chairman of the CHP, Deniz
Baykal complained about the AKP's methods in seeking to solve the
Armenian problem. Baykal has accused the AKP of failing to consult
the CHP "we learn the latest developments from the U.S. officials"
(Radikal, March 17).
Diplomatic traffic between Washington, Ankara, and Yerevan has
reportedly prepared the way for positive developments ahead of
Obama's visit to Turkey. Ankara has intensified its diplomacy with
Yerevan in order to improve relations with Armenia before Obama's
arrival (Cumhuriyet, March 11). It seems that Washington has also
been involved in this process and that it has produced positive
results. Armenia's President Serj Sarkisyan and the U.S. Secretary of
State Hilary Clinton recently held a telephone conversation in which
they discussed developments between Turkey and Armenia (Milliyet, March
18). Yet, it appears that the supporters of the "genocide" resolution
do not share the concerns of the U.S. State Department. House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi stated that Obama's visit does not change the fact that
"there was an Armenian genocide, and there are those of us in Congress
who will continue to make that point" (Reuters, March 17).
The trend towards greater economic cooperation has complemented these
political developments. For instance, indirect trade between Turkey and
Armenia has increased from $30 million in 1997 to approximately $130
million in 2005 (www.tabdc.org, March 13, 2005). Turkish and Armenian
businessmen have been actively searching for alternative ways to
develop better relations and in 2008 Turkish and Armenian cheese makers
jointly produced a new brand (Milliyet, May 24, 2008). Furthermore,
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan revealed that 40,000 Armenian citizens
live and work in Turkey illegally and he has authorized their continued
residence (CNNTurkey, January 28). The Armenian Energy Ministry
also revealed that it has updated its infrastructure facilitating
electricity sales to Turkey based on an agreement that was signed
during Gul's visit to Yerevan last September. Armenia will initially
sell 1.5 billion kwh of its electricity and this will be increased
in the future to 3.5 billion kwh (Cumhuriyet, March 17).
Arguably, Turkey and Armenia have never had such close
relations. Thus, Turkey does not want this process jeopardized by
the U.S. Congress. Ambassador Ahmet Davutoglu, chief adviser to Prime
Minister Erdogan, said he was confident that the U.S. administration
would not allow the Armenian genocide issue to derail the positive
climate in Turkish-U.S. and Turkish-Armenian relations. "All of these
things could be debated from a historical perspective, but it should
not hijack the strategic vision of Turkish-American relations or
Turkish-Armenian relations" (Today's Zaman, March 21).
Turkey has one clear objective, despite these constructive
developments: convincing Azerbaijan about its steps towards Armenia. It
appears that in every move made by Ankara it informs Baku about its
initiatives. For instance, five days after Gul's visit to Yerevan,
he went to Baku to discuss his visit to Armenia (Hurriyet, September
10, 2008). Turkey's Foreign Minister Ali Babacan and his Azeri
counterpart Elmar Mammadyarov, liaise closely on the subject (EDM,
February 10). However, it remains to be seen whether the Azeris will
actually accept Turkey's policy shift towards Armenia.
Turkey's rapprochement with Armenia will not end the issue of the
Armenian genocide claims. Turkish lobbyists have initiated new
programs in various universities, aimed at producing academic work
to turn the "lost" debate in their favor. Such an approach could
engender a lively debate about the issue. However, because of the
questionable scholarly attitudes, strategies, and shadowy relations
with the Turkish establishment, academics involved in this effort
to produce a "scholarly" presentation of the Turkish viewpoint might
undermine their cause.
Emrullah Uslu
Jamestown Foundation
http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cac he=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34766&tx_ttnew s%5BbackPid%5D=7&cHash=8d81bfe851
March 27 2009
On March 17, Congressmen Adam Schiff, George Radanovich and
Congressional Armenian Caucus Co-Chairmen Frank Pallone and Mark
Kirk introduced a resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives
co-sponsored by over 70 House colleagues to recognize the Armenian
"genocide" of 1915. The resolution is identical to the one introduced
in both the House and Senate in the 110th Congress, which was adopted
by the House Foreign Affairs Committee (www.anca.org, March 17). The
timing of the legislation is especially critical, since President Obama
will visit Turkey on April 6-7. Obama promised his American-Armenian
supporters during his presidential election campaign that he would
recognize the 1915 "genocide," yet his trip to Ankara will seek to
improve U.S. relations with Turkey after the difficulties experienced
in recent years.
Moreover, this comes at a time when Turkey and Armenia have finally
found a way to talk directly, which could yield positive results
after the "soccer match diplomacy" that began when Turkey's President
Abdullah Gul visited Armenia to watch the Turkish and Armenian national
soccer teams play (Cihan Haber Ajansi, September 5, 2008). Since then,
Turkish and Armenian diplomats have agreed on a successful strategy
to improve their bilateral relations. In fact, political observers
expect that the rapprochement might precipitate the reopening of the
Turkish-Armenian border, as early as April (EDM, February 10).
The debate surrounding Turkey's border policy was sparked after
Republican People's Party (CHP) parliamentarian Sukru Electag claimed
that "some Justice and Development Party (AKP) parliamentarians during
their visit to Washington in February 2009 stated that the AKP will
open the border after the local election in March 29" (Sabah, March
15). Despite the denials by AKP deputies regarding these claims,
following a recent visit to Washington one AKP deputy said, "Turkey
and Armenia are very close to a deal to open embassies in Ankara
and Yerevan and it is very likely that the Turkey-Armenia border
will be opened soon if the third parties do not harm the process"
(EDM, February 10). In addition, the Chairman of the CHP, Deniz
Baykal complained about the AKP's methods in seeking to solve the
Armenian problem. Baykal has accused the AKP of failing to consult
the CHP "we learn the latest developments from the U.S. officials"
(Radikal, March 17).
Diplomatic traffic between Washington, Ankara, and Yerevan has
reportedly prepared the way for positive developments ahead of
Obama's visit to Turkey. Ankara has intensified its diplomacy with
Yerevan in order to improve relations with Armenia before Obama's
arrival (Cumhuriyet, March 11). It seems that Washington has also
been involved in this process and that it has produced positive
results. Armenia's President Serj Sarkisyan and the U.S. Secretary of
State Hilary Clinton recently held a telephone conversation in which
they discussed developments between Turkey and Armenia (Milliyet, March
18). Yet, it appears that the supporters of the "genocide" resolution
do not share the concerns of the U.S. State Department. House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi stated that Obama's visit does not change the fact that
"there was an Armenian genocide, and there are those of us in Congress
who will continue to make that point" (Reuters, March 17).
The trend towards greater economic cooperation has complemented these
political developments. For instance, indirect trade between Turkey and
Armenia has increased from $30 million in 1997 to approximately $130
million in 2005 (www.tabdc.org, March 13, 2005). Turkish and Armenian
businessmen have been actively searching for alternative ways to
develop better relations and in 2008 Turkish and Armenian cheese makers
jointly produced a new brand (Milliyet, May 24, 2008). Furthermore,
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan revealed that 40,000 Armenian citizens
live and work in Turkey illegally and he has authorized their continued
residence (CNNTurkey, January 28). The Armenian Energy Ministry
also revealed that it has updated its infrastructure facilitating
electricity sales to Turkey based on an agreement that was signed
during Gul's visit to Yerevan last September. Armenia will initially
sell 1.5 billion kwh of its electricity and this will be increased
in the future to 3.5 billion kwh (Cumhuriyet, March 17).
Arguably, Turkey and Armenia have never had such close
relations. Thus, Turkey does not want this process jeopardized by
the U.S. Congress. Ambassador Ahmet Davutoglu, chief adviser to Prime
Minister Erdogan, said he was confident that the U.S. administration
would not allow the Armenian genocide issue to derail the positive
climate in Turkish-U.S. and Turkish-Armenian relations. "All of these
things could be debated from a historical perspective, but it should
not hijack the strategic vision of Turkish-American relations or
Turkish-Armenian relations" (Today's Zaman, March 21).
Turkey has one clear objective, despite these constructive
developments: convincing Azerbaijan about its steps towards Armenia. It
appears that in every move made by Ankara it informs Baku about its
initiatives. For instance, five days after Gul's visit to Yerevan,
he went to Baku to discuss his visit to Armenia (Hurriyet, September
10, 2008). Turkey's Foreign Minister Ali Babacan and his Azeri
counterpart Elmar Mammadyarov, liaise closely on the subject (EDM,
February 10). However, it remains to be seen whether the Azeris will
actually accept Turkey's policy shift towards Armenia.
Turkey's rapprochement with Armenia will not end the issue of the
Armenian genocide claims. Turkish lobbyists have initiated new
programs in various universities, aimed at producing academic work
to turn the "lost" debate in their favor. Such an approach could
engender a lively debate about the issue. However, because of the
questionable scholarly attitudes, strategies, and shadowy relations
with the Turkish establishment, academics involved in this effort
to produce a "scholarly" presentation of the Turkish viewpoint might
undermine their cause.