Tweet
CAN ARMENIA'S DECISION BE A WAY FORWARD?
Hurriyet
April 23 2010
Turkey
Around April 24, the Remembrance Day of the tragic events of World
War I, emotions in the Spring season of the resurrection are high on
the both Turkish and Armenian sides.
The Armenian coalition government of President Serge Sarkisian halted
the ratification process of the protocols Thursday, injecting even
more stress into the process. Although the Armenian leadership has
given signals in recent times that they might make such a move,
the announcement of a pause in the ratification process still came
as a surprise.
The Turkish officials took the halting notification rather calmly.
During Thursday, when the announcement came from the coalition parties
in Yerevan, the Turkish officials were pretty relaxed while explaining
the Turkish government's take on the unfolding events. The Turkish
officials stated that the decision to freeze matters was for Armenia
to make. "We do not take a position on the decision negatively or
positively," said one official. "If the Armenian administration can
handle the process, let them handle it."
According to one school of thought, the Armenian government's halting
of the process is a way to show off for its audience both inside
Armenia and in the worldwide diaspora. Before April 24, the Armenian
government wanted to prove that it is serious about getting rid of
the process.
Another school of thought, voiced by one of the leading
Armenian-American opinion makers who wanted to stay anonymous, argues
for an immediate stop to the protocols.
"The Armenian government knows what it is doing, as the Turkish
government knows what it is doing," the expert said, who continued
by arguing that the protocols are not going anywhere and that Armenia
should just withdraw its signature from them without any hesitation.
"Because all that was needed to be done," the Armenian writer argued,
"was to open borders and exchange diplomats between the countries."
And later on, other steps would have followed.
Anthony J. Barsamian, chair of Public Affairs for the Armenian
Assembly of America, said: "Armenia came to the table in good faith
and extended a hand toward normalization with Turkey. Unfortunately,
Turkey came to the table with preconditions which now has resulted
in frustrating the process."
Cengiz Aktar, head of European Union Relations Department at Bahcesehir
University and who is known to be pretty straightforward on the issues
related the historic relationships between Turkish and Armenian people,
said that with this halt, the Armenian government declares that they
are not in a mood to step forward on the Karabakh issue.
Such a declaration would change U.S. President Barack Obama's mind
not to utter word of genocide, even if he decided he would have just
done so before Armenia's latest declaration. If Obama says genocide,
Aktar argues, "That would mean sacrificing the relationship with
Turkey, which is impossible."
Obama will not use the word of genocide in his yearly statement on
April 24, the general expectation in Washington goes.
Another part of this year's puzzle is the low number of co-sponsors
on the both Houses of the Congress for different versions of bills,
which urge the U.S. president to call the 1915 events a genocide. There
are about 140 signatures that have been collected in the House of
Representatives this year - which is a surprisingly lower number than
the 200 some signatures of past years. In the U.S. Senate as well,
the numbers of co-sponsors are down sharply this year when comparing
with the past years.
One of the reasons of this lower reception from American lawmakers
could be to give more chance for the normalization process, a Turkish
official speculated. This explanation encloses a flawed argument which
is to claim that the U.S. lawmakers ever think about international
affairs when they decide to vote on a bill.
The other reason for the low reception could be the increasing Turkish
presence in America.
It is really remarkable to see that the visibility of the
American-Turkish presence across the U.S. land increasing rapidly. A
lot of Turkey-centered talks are being conducted in various Washington
think tanks, and there is almost always a packed audience for such
discussions. The Fethullah Gulen Movement has also added a whole new
avenue to this Turkish presence in various states in America. The
Gulenists organize ever-more events, and there is growing number of
the grassroots organizations of this movement that host senators and
congressmen for their fundraising events.
It should not belittled: the Armenian coalition partners decided
for a freeze, not for an end to the process. On the contrary, the
Armenian leaders repeatedly stated in last months that they are not
happy with their counterparts' efforts in Turkey and the Turkish
Parliament should do more and fast.
The Armenian government and diaspora openly applied to April 24 this
year to pressure on Turkey for the ratification without making any
gestures on the Karabakh issue. The U.S. administration also backed
the Armenian position and stayed firm throughout recent months to show
their "anger" with the Turkish administration in various channels. At
the end, it became clear, Turkey is not moving ahead, unless there is
tangible advancement on the Karabakh issue, in spite of the pressure.
One of the most plausible criticism about the current White House
in Washington is that this administration usually go between the
idealistic and realistic postures so quickly and unexpectedly. Run up
to the April 24, the Obama administration, without much consideration
over the possible repercussions of nationalistic uproar in Turkey,
urged the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, ideologically or
emotionally to ratify protocols hastily, in a time, when the AKP
administration wounded badly by the colossal domestic fights and
various democratic openings within Turkey. The U.S. administration,
was too busy to see that for the Turkish administration, compromising
over the ratification process was too much to ask and could be a
lethal along with trading the brotherly relationships with Azeris
for better relationships with Armenia.
It can now be said that the U.S. administration might adapt a more
realistic protocols policy after April 24.
Both sides, the Armenian and Turkish leaderships, proved that they
have enough courage to have come forward to talk over some tough
issues and historic grievances in recent years. Many courageous steps
have been taken by the leaders and much ground covered lately in both
communities in regard to empathizing with each other. This proves
that there is some kind of a long healing process underway as well
between the two communities.
Did the leaders of the both countries come to the table a couple
of years ago to just show off and "play for their interests" as one
Armenian expert put it, or there is some more courage till to the end.
Times like this play a great litmus a test to prove for either.
Hurriyet
April 23 2010
Turkey
Around April 24, the Remembrance Day of the tragic events of World
War I, emotions in the Spring season of the resurrection are high on
the both Turkish and Armenian sides.
The Armenian coalition government of President Serge Sarkisian halted
the ratification process of the protocols Thursday, injecting even
more stress into the process. Although the Armenian leadership has
given signals in recent times that they might make such a move,
the announcement of a pause in the ratification process still came
as a surprise.
The Turkish officials took the halting notification rather calmly.
During Thursday, when the announcement came from the coalition parties
in Yerevan, the Turkish officials were pretty relaxed while explaining
the Turkish government's take on the unfolding events. The Turkish
officials stated that the decision to freeze matters was for Armenia
to make. "We do not take a position on the decision negatively or
positively," said one official. "If the Armenian administration can
handle the process, let them handle it."
According to one school of thought, the Armenian government's halting
of the process is a way to show off for its audience both inside
Armenia and in the worldwide diaspora. Before April 24, the Armenian
government wanted to prove that it is serious about getting rid of
the process.
Another school of thought, voiced by one of the leading
Armenian-American opinion makers who wanted to stay anonymous, argues
for an immediate stop to the protocols.
"The Armenian government knows what it is doing, as the Turkish
government knows what it is doing," the expert said, who continued
by arguing that the protocols are not going anywhere and that Armenia
should just withdraw its signature from them without any hesitation.
"Because all that was needed to be done," the Armenian writer argued,
"was to open borders and exchange diplomats between the countries."
And later on, other steps would have followed.
Anthony J. Barsamian, chair of Public Affairs for the Armenian
Assembly of America, said: "Armenia came to the table in good faith
and extended a hand toward normalization with Turkey. Unfortunately,
Turkey came to the table with preconditions which now has resulted
in frustrating the process."
Cengiz Aktar, head of European Union Relations Department at Bahcesehir
University and who is known to be pretty straightforward on the issues
related the historic relationships between Turkish and Armenian people,
said that with this halt, the Armenian government declares that they
are not in a mood to step forward on the Karabakh issue.
Such a declaration would change U.S. President Barack Obama's mind
not to utter word of genocide, even if he decided he would have just
done so before Armenia's latest declaration. If Obama says genocide,
Aktar argues, "That would mean sacrificing the relationship with
Turkey, which is impossible."
Obama will not use the word of genocide in his yearly statement on
April 24, the general expectation in Washington goes.
Another part of this year's puzzle is the low number of co-sponsors
on the both Houses of the Congress for different versions of bills,
which urge the U.S. president to call the 1915 events a genocide. There
are about 140 signatures that have been collected in the House of
Representatives this year - which is a surprisingly lower number than
the 200 some signatures of past years. In the U.S. Senate as well,
the numbers of co-sponsors are down sharply this year when comparing
with the past years.
One of the reasons of this lower reception from American lawmakers
could be to give more chance for the normalization process, a Turkish
official speculated. This explanation encloses a flawed argument which
is to claim that the U.S. lawmakers ever think about international
affairs when they decide to vote on a bill.
The other reason for the low reception could be the increasing Turkish
presence in America.
It is really remarkable to see that the visibility of the
American-Turkish presence across the U.S. land increasing rapidly. A
lot of Turkey-centered talks are being conducted in various Washington
think tanks, and there is almost always a packed audience for such
discussions. The Fethullah Gulen Movement has also added a whole new
avenue to this Turkish presence in various states in America. The
Gulenists organize ever-more events, and there is growing number of
the grassroots organizations of this movement that host senators and
congressmen for their fundraising events.
It should not belittled: the Armenian coalition partners decided
for a freeze, not for an end to the process. On the contrary, the
Armenian leaders repeatedly stated in last months that they are not
happy with their counterparts' efforts in Turkey and the Turkish
Parliament should do more and fast.
The Armenian government and diaspora openly applied to April 24 this
year to pressure on Turkey for the ratification without making any
gestures on the Karabakh issue. The U.S. administration also backed
the Armenian position and stayed firm throughout recent months to show
their "anger" with the Turkish administration in various channels. At
the end, it became clear, Turkey is not moving ahead, unless there is
tangible advancement on the Karabakh issue, in spite of the pressure.
One of the most plausible criticism about the current White House
in Washington is that this administration usually go between the
idealistic and realistic postures so quickly and unexpectedly. Run up
to the April 24, the Obama administration, without much consideration
over the possible repercussions of nationalistic uproar in Turkey,
urged the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, ideologically or
emotionally to ratify protocols hastily, in a time, when the AKP
administration wounded badly by the colossal domestic fights and
various democratic openings within Turkey. The U.S. administration,
was too busy to see that for the Turkish administration, compromising
over the ratification process was too much to ask and could be a
lethal along with trading the brotherly relationships with Azeris
for better relationships with Armenia.
It can now be said that the U.S. administration might adapt a more
realistic protocols policy after April 24.
Both sides, the Armenian and Turkish leaderships, proved that they
have enough courage to have come forward to talk over some tough
issues and historic grievances in recent years. Many courageous steps
have been taken by the leaders and much ground covered lately in both
communities in regard to empathizing with each other. This proves
that there is some kind of a long healing process underway as well
between the two communities.
Did the leaders of the both countries come to the table a couple
of years ago to just show off and "play for their interests" as one
Armenian expert put it, or there is some more courage till to the end.
Times like this play a great litmus a test to prove for either.