Tweet
AMBERIN ZAMAN: WILL ARMENIA REVOKE ITS SIGNATURE FROM THE PROTOCOLS?
Amberin Zaman
Armenian Weekly
December 28, 2009
Turkey's continued insistence on linking the establishment of
diplomatic ties and the re-opening of its mutual borders with Armenia
to the latter's withdrawal from at least some of the seven regions
it occupies around Nagorno-Karabagh has brought Armenia's President
Serge Sarkisian to this very point.
Amberin Zaman: In the eyes of his own people, Sarkisian was essentially
hoodwinked.
Should Turkey's parliament fail to ratify the protocols that were
signed on Oct. 30 by March 2010, then in all likelihood Armenia will
unilaterally revoke its signatures and the process of normalization
will grind to a halt.
The reason is simple. In the eyes of his own people, Sarkisian was
essentially hoodwinked. Having signed the protocols in the face of
stiff opposition at home and from hardliners among members of the
Armenian Diaspora worldwide, Sarkisian has come away empty handed.
Diplomatic relations with Turkey have not been established. The border
remains shut. This is because Turkey has reneged on its word. Although
the texts of the protocols make no reference to Nagorno-Karabagh,
our prime minister continues to insist that unless the conflict is
resolved the protocols cannot be approved by the parliament.
This smacks of hypocrisy. Demanding that Armenia unilaterally cede
territory in and around Nagorno-Karabagh in exchange for a border
opening and diplomatic ties is not so different from the European Union
telling Turkey to unilaterally open its air and sea ports to Greek
Cypriot planes and ships in order to appease the Greek Cypriots and
to move forward with Turkey's EU membership. Armenia needs to settle
its problems directly with Azerbaijan, just as the Greek and Turkish
islanders need to sort out their differences amongst themselves. It
has been 16 years since Turkey sealed its border with Armenia. How
has this helped to promote peace with Azerbaijan? On the contrary,
it has encouraged Azeri intransigence and robbed Turkey of a potential
mediating role. Worse, it has crippled the Armenian economy, stunted
democratization, and allowed corrupt oligarchs to prevail.
Parallels with March 1
Some Turkish columnists have drawn parallels between the ratification
of the Turkish Armenian protocols by the Turkish Parliament and the
agreement struck between Turkey and the United States that would have
allowed U.S. troops to cross through Turkish territory to open a second
"northern front" against Saddam Hussein in 2003. They fear that the
Turkish-Armenian protocols will be struck down by the parliament in
the same way the U.S.-Turkish accord was thrown out, albeit by the
narrowest of margins, on March 1, 2003. It is true that there are
parallels. But these have less to do with the risk of their not being
approved. Rather, it has to do with the fact that Turkey has once again
made pledges that it seems either unwilling or unable to see through.
>From the start, this columnist has argued that it was wrong to submit
the protocols for parliamentary approval. When Turkey recognized
Kosovo's independence and decided to establish diplomatic relations
with the new Balkan state, did it seek parliamentary approval for
this? It did not. There is no precedent in Turkey for rendering the
establishment of diplomatic relations with a given country contingent
on the parliament's approval.
And what of Azerbaijan's cries of treason? Did the government not
foresee these? It is hard to imagine not. Viewed from Armenia's
perspective, the entire normalization process is nothing more than
a ploy calculated to prevent President Barack Obama from using the
"G-word" and from the American Senate and the House of Representatives
from approving a bill labeling the events of 1915 as genocide.
So did the Americans sell out Armenia as well?
Again from Armenia's vantage point, this may well be the case. When
the Obama administration piled pressure on the Armenians to initial
the protocols before April 24 this year, assuring them that they would
"take care of the rest," they were in fact seeking to avert another
crisis with Turkey over the genocide issue. To be sure, as a matter
of regional policy America does want Turkey and Armenia to make peace.
But its foremost concern seems to be using friendship between the
estranged neighbors as a weapon to ward off genocide legislation
in both Houses. Judging from Obama's vague statements on Armenia
following his meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
in Washington this month, it would seem that by signing the protocols
Turkey has let itself off the hook at least for this year. Besides,
America has enough trouble with the likes of Afghanistan, Iran, and
Pakistan without alienating its closest Muslim ally, Turkey. Should
Armenia back away from the protocols, this would allow Turkey to
claim the moral high ground. (Meanwhile, Congress has slashed aid to
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh by a whopping 40 percent compared with
last year.) In short, Sarkisian has come away with hech (nothing).
So can Turkey claim a big diplomatic victory? In the short term,
perhaps. But for how long? Yes, Armenia is a small country. Yes, it
doesn't have oil or precious minerals. And yes, Azerbaijan is more
important in certain ways. But to approach Armenian-Turkish relations
from a purely geo-strategic perspective is to miss the real issue. The
real issue is vicdan (conscience, in Turkish). Around 60 percent of
Armenia's population is originally from Anatolia. Some crossed the
border with the retreating Tsarist army. But many more are people
whose forebears were brutally massacred from the late 19th century on.
They are, in fact, our people. They are proud and they are endlessly
resilient. One of the most effective means of helping to mitigate the
mass destruction of the Armenians in their native lands would be to
extend a hand of unconditional friendship to the young Republic of
Armenia. "Rhythmic Diplomacy," the term coined by Ahmet Davutoglu,
the Turkish foreign minister, to describe his pro-active policies has a
catchy ring to it. But would it not behoove the minister to go down in
history for "Ethical Diplomacy"? Armenia presents him with that chance.
Amberin Zaman has been the Turkey correspondent for the Economist since
1999. She also writes a weekly column for the Turkish daily newspaper
Taraf. Zaman has been a regular contributor to the Washington Post,
the Los Angeles Times, and the Daily Telegraph of London. This article
is an expanded version of a column that appeared on Dec. 18 in the
Turkish daily newspaper Taraf.
Amberin Zaman
Armenian Weekly
December 28, 2009
Turkey's continued insistence on linking the establishment of
diplomatic ties and the re-opening of its mutual borders with Armenia
to the latter's withdrawal from at least some of the seven regions
it occupies around Nagorno-Karabagh has brought Armenia's President
Serge Sarkisian to this very point.
Amberin Zaman: In the eyes of his own people, Sarkisian was essentially
hoodwinked.
Should Turkey's parliament fail to ratify the protocols that were
signed on Oct. 30 by March 2010, then in all likelihood Armenia will
unilaterally revoke its signatures and the process of normalization
will grind to a halt.
The reason is simple. In the eyes of his own people, Sarkisian was
essentially hoodwinked. Having signed the protocols in the face of
stiff opposition at home and from hardliners among members of the
Armenian Diaspora worldwide, Sarkisian has come away empty handed.
Diplomatic relations with Turkey have not been established. The border
remains shut. This is because Turkey has reneged on its word. Although
the texts of the protocols make no reference to Nagorno-Karabagh,
our prime minister continues to insist that unless the conflict is
resolved the protocols cannot be approved by the parliament.
This smacks of hypocrisy. Demanding that Armenia unilaterally cede
territory in and around Nagorno-Karabagh in exchange for a border
opening and diplomatic ties is not so different from the European Union
telling Turkey to unilaterally open its air and sea ports to Greek
Cypriot planes and ships in order to appease the Greek Cypriots and
to move forward with Turkey's EU membership. Armenia needs to settle
its problems directly with Azerbaijan, just as the Greek and Turkish
islanders need to sort out their differences amongst themselves. It
has been 16 years since Turkey sealed its border with Armenia. How
has this helped to promote peace with Azerbaijan? On the contrary,
it has encouraged Azeri intransigence and robbed Turkey of a potential
mediating role. Worse, it has crippled the Armenian economy, stunted
democratization, and allowed corrupt oligarchs to prevail.
Parallels with March 1
Some Turkish columnists have drawn parallels between the ratification
of the Turkish Armenian protocols by the Turkish Parliament and the
agreement struck between Turkey and the United States that would have
allowed U.S. troops to cross through Turkish territory to open a second
"northern front" against Saddam Hussein in 2003. They fear that the
Turkish-Armenian protocols will be struck down by the parliament in
the same way the U.S.-Turkish accord was thrown out, albeit by the
narrowest of margins, on March 1, 2003. It is true that there are
parallels. But these have less to do with the risk of their not being
approved. Rather, it has to do with the fact that Turkey has once again
made pledges that it seems either unwilling or unable to see through.
>From the start, this columnist has argued that it was wrong to submit
the protocols for parliamentary approval. When Turkey recognized
Kosovo's independence and decided to establish diplomatic relations
with the new Balkan state, did it seek parliamentary approval for
this? It did not. There is no precedent in Turkey for rendering the
establishment of diplomatic relations with a given country contingent
on the parliament's approval.
And what of Azerbaijan's cries of treason? Did the government not
foresee these? It is hard to imagine not. Viewed from Armenia's
perspective, the entire normalization process is nothing more than
a ploy calculated to prevent President Barack Obama from using the
"G-word" and from the American Senate and the House of Representatives
from approving a bill labeling the events of 1915 as genocide.
So did the Americans sell out Armenia as well?
Again from Armenia's vantage point, this may well be the case. When
the Obama administration piled pressure on the Armenians to initial
the protocols before April 24 this year, assuring them that they would
"take care of the rest," they were in fact seeking to avert another
crisis with Turkey over the genocide issue. To be sure, as a matter
of regional policy America does want Turkey and Armenia to make peace.
But its foremost concern seems to be using friendship between the
estranged neighbors as a weapon to ward off genocide legislation
in both Houses. Judging from Obama's vague statements on Armenia
following his meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
in Washington this month, it would seem that by signing the protocols
Turkey has let itself off the hook at least for this year. Besides,
America has enough trouble with the likes of Afghanistan, Iran, and
Pakistan without alienating its closest Muslim ally, Turkey. Should
Armenia back away from the protocols, this would allow Turkey to
claim the moral high ground. (Meanwhile, Congress has slashed aid to
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabagh by a whopping 40 percent compared with
last year.) In short, Sarkisian has come away with hech (nothing).
So can Turkey claim a big diplomatic victory? In the short term,
perhaps. But for how long? Yes, Armenia is a small country. Yes, it
doesn't have oil or precious minerals. And yes, Azerbaijan is more
important in certain ways. But to approach Armenian-Turkish relations
from a purely geo-strategic perspective is to miss the real issue. The
real issue is vicdan (conscience, in Turkish). Around 60 percent of
Armenia's population is originally from Anatolia. Some crossed the
border with the retreating Tsarist army. But many more are people
whose forebears were brutally massacred from the late 19th century on.
They are, in fact, our people. They are proud and they are endlessly
resilient. One of the most effective means of helping to mitigate the
mass destruction of the Armenians in their native lands would be to
extend a hand of unconditional friendship to the young Republic of
Armenia. "Rhythmic Diplomacy," the term coined by Ahmet Davutoglu,
the Turkish foreign minister, to describe his pro-active policies has a
catchy ring to it. But would it not behoove the minister to go down in
history for "Ethical Diplomacy"? Armenia presents him with that chance.
Amberin Zaman has been the Turkey correspondent for the Economist since
1999. She also writes a weekly column for the Turkish daily newspaper
Taraf. Zaman has been a regular contributor to the Washington Post,
the Los Angeles Times, and the Daily Telegraph of London. This article
is an expanded version of a column that appeared on Dec. 18 in the
Turkish daily newspaper Taraf.