written by Arzu Turgut printable version send your friend

Monday, 25 January 2010

The international community welcomed the statement declared by Armenia and Turkey on the normalization of bilateral relations. In 2008, the visit of Turkish President Abdullah Gul to Armenia to watch an international football match between these two countries was a breakthrough and it concluded with the protocols as a historical turning point in October 2009. In the international arena, this positive attitude led to an expectation of compromise on disputed issues between these countries. Although some Turkish and Armenian sceptics have not dedicated themselves to a peaceful solution with a deep faith, this attempt for negotiations conveyed the message of both sides’ willingness for launching some peaceful settlements. However, as everyone knows, thanks to the Armenian Diaspora and lobbying activities in the world, Armenia and Turkey have had long-standing biases towards each other. Hence, it is extremely optimistic to solve all problems between these countries overnight and nobody expects it. However, at the expense of Azerbaijan’s resentment, Turkey undertook the responsibility to establish relations with Armenia within the framework of ‘zero foreign policy’ towards its neighbours. On the other side, Turkey also pointed out the sensitive issues and continued to support the Azerbaijani cause over its territories occupied by Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. All of these regional problems and interests of major actors are interrelated to each other and are waiting for a permanent solution.

In Armenia, legislative proposals are subject to the ratification of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia before any parliamentary decision. Therefore, in the middle of January, the Armenian Constitutional Court has issued a justified decision about the protocols, which were signed between Turkey and Armenia, in Zurich on 10 October 2009, as the legal basis on the improvement of relations. This decision opened a new debate over the fate of protocols and the future of Turkish-Armenian relations. It has also been confronted with huge criticisms from the Turkish side.

What were the subjects to be severely discussed and criticized in this decision? First of all, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia decided that the obligations stipulated by the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations and by the Protocol on Development of Relations were in conformity with the RA Constitution. However, for the justified decision of the RA Constitutional Court, the entry into effect of these protocols entailed the recognition of the so-called Armenian ‘genocide’ by Turkish authorities. Besides, it also stated that ‘the mutual obligations being undertaken by these protocols under the principles of international law, exclusively of a bilateral interstate nature.’ By stating this, Armenia tried to keep away the Nagorno-Karabakh issue from the framework of these protocols. On the other side, Turkey made commitments to the Azerbaijani side not to open borders with Armenia until reaching a solution on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

Moreover, the unrealistic claims of ‘Western Armenia’ in the Eastern part of Turkey continue to persist even today. Having some territorial claims, Armenia has neither recognized nor respected the borders of its neighbour, Turkey. Having confined to logic of being thirsty for territory, even the decision of the Constitutional Court used the term ‘border checkpoints’ in the document instead of simply referring to Turkey’s present ‘borders’. In this decision, it also referred to the requirements of Paragraph 11 of the Declaration of Independence of Armenia that depicted Turkey’s East as Western Armenia and aimed at international recognition of the 1915 genocide. This attitude also prevents any future attempt of a historical commission from revealing facts about the so-called genocide.

The decision stipulated two obligations: ‘to establish diplomatic relations’ and ‘to open the common border’. These are the prerequisites of any other obligations to create legal effect. In addition, by emphasizing Turkey’s own responsibility to open the border, Armenia delimits the scope of its duty related to border issues to only legal-organizational and institutional matters. In order to understate the importance of these protocols, the RA Constitutional Court also envisaged other specific agreements and approvals in the future.

As for Turkish side, there is an uneasiness and uncertainty created by Armenians. The main reason of discussion seems to be the decision which highlights the recognition of Armenian claims as a precondition to the advancement of relations. Concerning the Court decision, the Turkish Foreign Ministry sharply criticized it by saying that ‘it has been observed that this decision contains preconditions and restrictive provisions which impair the letter and spirit of the Protocols. The said decision undermines the very reason for negotiating these Protocols as well as their fundamental objective. This approach cannot be accepted on our part.’ In line of this notification, Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu expressed his discontent with the decision taken by the RA Constitutional Court and asked the Armenian government to clarify this situation and to display necessary political will, determination and good intent in reply to Turkey’s constructive role during negotiations and its loyalty to the protocols. While indicating Turkish sincerity on the approval of protocols, Prime Minister Erdogan warned Armenia about a possible deadlock in the process in case the decision is not reviewed. In response to these criticism, Edward Nalbandian, Foreign Minister of Armenia, claimed that the preconditions asserted by Turkey and its slowness of the process of ratification were the main concerns of Armenia. However, Turkey did not accept these claims and declared: ‘Turkey, in line with its accustomed allegiance to its international commitments, maintains its adherence to the primary provisions of these Protocols. We expect the same allegiance from the Armenian Government.’

By provoking conflict, the presence of Armenia and devastation of historical remnants in Nagorno-Karabakh continue to antagonize Azerbaijan. Unless the Armenian forces withdraw from the Azerbaijani territories and the Minsk Group put some pressure to reach a settlement of disputes, it seems unlikely to attain a viable solution. The violation of international law must cease at once, otherwise, the regional peace and stability will be at stake. In addition, the Nagorno-Karabakh problem cannot be separated from the protocols since they are not independent but organically dependent on each other. In case a solution cannot be reached there, the Nagorno-Karabakh issue can even obstruct the progress. Concerned sides should be ready to make some concessions within the framework of international law.

There is a competition among Turkey and Armenia not to be the first who ratifies the protocols on their own assembly. Each side is waiting for the next step of the other with a significant level of mistrust in society. However, having some social and economic problems, Armenia has vital interest in opening borders. In this sense, Armenia should be aware of the fact that living in the past and turning back on today’s world will not contribute to improve its situation. Whether the result will be positive or negative, the reality is that both parts miss the crucial points. The peace will not be created merely by the protocols, procedures and statements by leaders. Instead, peace and good relations can only be possible on the basis of good intent and should be set up among the nations not only among the states. Both countries need to be ready to make peace and Turkey showed its sincerity on this direction. In this sense, respect for the sovereignty and the borders of the states comes first before any interstate or international settlement of disputes. A policy based on hatred, tears and conflict cannot be long-lasting. The aim should be to make new friends in the region, but not to resurrect old controversies.