Kamer Kasim Assoc. Prof. Dr., Columnist printable version send your friend message to author add comment (23)

Saturday, 7 March 2009

 Turkey’s relations with Armenia started in the unstable atmosphere of the Caucasus. As a landlocked country, Armenia needed to establish good relations with its neighbors, particularly with its western neighbor Turkey. However, developments in Turkish-Armenian relations have stalled over the years. There are three main reasons for this situation.  One reason is that Armenia has not openly recognized Turkey’s territorial integrity and refuses to sign an agreement about good neighborly relations and the inviolability of borders. Another reason is the Armenian genocide allegations and the Armenian government’s policy towards it. The last reason, which was particularly responsible for the border closure, is the Nagorno-Karabakh problem.  The Armenian Diaspora is an actor to be reckoned with in Turkish-Armenian relations.

Despite the obstacles mentioned above, there have been attempts for rapprochement between the two countries, although they have not yet produced meaningful results. It might be argued that Armenian Diaspora and particularly the Diaspora organizations in the US are the main reason for this.

The Armenian Diaspora has influenced Armenian politics through Diaspora parties and organizations. It is particularly active in the campaign about genocide allegations, which is an element of identity that functions to keep the Diaspora together. The Diaspora spends a great deal of its time, money, and energy on this issue, and an industry composed of research institutes has developed that produces materials such as shirts and mugs with symbols of genocide allegations printed on them and even movies supporting these allegations. Armenian Diaspora organizations in the US are particularly important in this aspect. The Armenian Assembly of America (AAA) and the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) are the two important Diaspora organizations in the US. Although there are differences and competition between them, they usually act together regarding the genocide allegations. As the Diaspora has focused its efforts on a single issue it has developed a professional ability to pressure the political machinery. After Armenia became independent, the Diaspora imposed its own political agenda on Armenia, which radicalized Armenian politics. The Diaspora has negative effects on the rapprochement efforts in Turkish-Armenian relations. The Diaspora and Diaspora parties even interrupted the Armenian administration’s opinion about the civilian initiative between the Turks and the Armenians. For example, the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission was established on 9 July 2001 with four Armenian and six Turkish members. The Armenian Foreign Ministry welcomed the establishment of the Commission. However, some Diaspora organizations, like the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the Armenian National Committee of America, were against the Commission. After the Diaspora’s reaction against the Commission, the Armenian Foreign Ministry changed its opinion about the Commission and distanced itself from the work of the Commission.

Turkey offered to establish a commission to research the allegations. The idea to set up a scientific commission and study the matter is an idea that the Diaspora strongly rejects, and it argued that it would discuss the matter – for instance, with regard to matters such as compensation - after Turkey recognized the “genocide.” Why does the Diaspora push that approach? Because the Diaspora accepts the genocide as a given fact. Re-evaluating something accepted as a fact would also mean discussing an important aspect of its identity, as well as questioning all the activities undertaken by the Diaspora. As a result of these activities, a genocide industry has developed around the allegations. Regarding Turkey’s proposal, the Armenian Foreign Minister made an interesting statement. He said that historians have already made their point, meaning that now it is Turkey’s turn to recognize the “genocide,” then we can talk. After that, former President Kocharian changed his tone and said they could discuss the matter. He said historians may get together as well but that actual talk should be made at a governmental level. At that point the Armenian government departed from the stand point of the Diaspora. After Turkey’s insistence, the current Armenian government has reached a point that some kind of commission might be established. However, this issue will probably continue to be an obstacle in Turkish-Armenian relations for a long time.

Armenia’s borders with Turkey are closed due to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem and the genocide allegations. Armenia’s dependency on Russia should be reconsidered after the Russian-Georgian crisis, and Armenia should also consider its relations with Turkey in this atmosphere. The US also reassessed its policy towards Armenia after the Russia-Georgia war. Some policy makers in the US thought that Armenia should be tied to the West and “rescued” from Russian domination as soon as possible. The key country in this strategy is Turkey. For this reason Turkey faced pressure to open the land border with Armenia. The US and Europe wanted Turkey and Armenia to start a dialogue.  In this atmosphere, the Armenian President’s invitation to the Turkish President to attend a football match between the two national teams was seen as reminiscent of the ping-pong diplomacy during the thaw in US-Chinese relations in 1971. After long discussions, Turkish President Abdullah Gül went to Armenia for the football match on 6 September 2008.  There were great expectations from this visit; however, Armenia was reluctant to make the necessary effort to normalize its relations with Turkey.

The normalization of Turkey’s relations with Armenia and the opening of the Turkish-Armenian land border requires Armenia to take some steps to fulfill Turkey’s conditions. Both former Armenian President Kocharian and current President Sarkisian have from time to time stated that Armenia is ready to establish relations with Turkey without pre-conditions. These kinds of statements might be considered a public relations activity and to give a message to the international community, rather than a sign of genuine commitment. Turkey perceives these statements as that Armenia will not take any steps regarding Turkey’s conditions related to the normalization of relations between the two countries.  These statements also do not explain why Turkey requires conditions to normalize relations and to open the land border with Armenia. There are three reasons for this. First, as mentioned above, Armenia has made the recognition of the genocide allegations a major objective of its foreign policy and has included it their documents. Second, the Declaration of Independence mentions “Western Armenia,” which indicates that Armenia claims rights to a part of Turkey’s territory; Armenia also rejected the opportunity to make a declaration involving the inviolability of borders and good neighborly relations, thus it is unrealistic to expect that a country would establish normal diplomatic relations with a country which does not recognize its territorial integrity. And third, the Nagorno-Karabakh problem has not been solved, and 20% of Azerbaijan’s territory is under Armenian occupation. In this situation, saying “we are ready to talk with Turkey without preconditions” actually means setting forth a condition. It means Armenia will take no action whatsoever on those issues. It is an approach that tells Turkey to recognize the genocide allegations, establish normal diplomatic relations, and open the land border. Imagine, for instance, if France did not recognize the territorial integrity of Spain and claimed that a certain part of the territory of Spain is Western France, or if forces supported by France occupied a part of another regional country which has good relations with Spain. In such a situation, the relations between France and Spain would not be so peaceful, and Europe would be like the Caucasus.

The normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations will reduce Armenia’s dependence on Russia and help Armenia’s integration with the West. In fact, the US Armenian Diaspora is also not happy with Armenia’s dependence on Russia. However, the Diaspora’s stance regarding the issues which are obstacles to Turkish-Armenian relations is not helpful for bilateral relations. The US might be able to put pressure on Armenia using the economic aid card to take the necessary steps to improve its relations with Turkey. However, the influence of Armenian Diaspora means that the US finds it difficult to implement policy which suits the US national interest.  If the US manages to reduce the Diaspora’s influence on Armenia, that will be helpful in improving Turkish-Armenian relations. This became even more important after the Russian-Georgian conflict in the Caucasus. Cooperation between Turkey and the US is important for the security of energy transit in the region and also the security of energy producer and transit countries. The Armenian administration’s strong cooperation with Russia and its policy towards the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict increases Russian influence in the Caucasus. Despite the mutual benefits of regional cooperation, the circumstances do not allow the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia. Only domestic policy change in Armenia through outside pressure or other ways might lead to the adjustment of Armenian policy regarding the three issues which prevent the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations.

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kamer KASIM*