Armenia:Turkey Protocols - more articles‏

Getting This Wrong Will Be Unforgivable
Tuesday, 08 September 2009 09:55

Written by Vartan Oskanian |
Analysis / Turkey

We are at a crossroads in our history. We have on the table the first bilateral

document that the independent sovereign Republic of Armenia intends to sign

with the Republic of Turkey. This is an unprecedented process that is far-reaching

and irreversible.

Yet, the debate on the issue is going in the wrong direction. It is hugely insulting

that high-level government officials can be this dismissive and trivializing on a

matter that is so critical for our people.

There is no sense whatsoever in telling us that what we see is not what we get.

It is not reasonable to spell out a set of specifics and then defend an incongruous

but desirable interpretation. That is not how political documents work. It is indeed

possible to write flexibly and loosely in order to allow both sides to interpret things

differently. But this is not that document. This document, perhaps good intentioned,

is formulated badly.

When the Armenian side says that although the protocol specifies recognition of

today’s borders, that does not mean that we are renouncing past borders, that is

absurd. That would be commensurate to the Turks saying, for example, that

although there is reference to the border opening, that does not mean that

Armenians will necessarily receive visas.

Or when the Armenian side says that the formulation about a sub-commission’s

“examination of historical records and archives” does not mean they will study the

genocide, this is like the Turkish side saying they will open the border, but not at

Margara, but some 10-meter space somewhere near the 40th latitude and 45th

longitude. Again, this is absurd.

The reality is that a good idea, a needed policy, a necessary move toward

rapprochement has been negotiated poorly and framed dangerously. It is

irresponsible of our government to force our people to make such choices about

our present and our future.

The history of our relations (and non-relations) with Turkey has a pre-history and

begins before Turkey’s closing of the Turkey-Armenia border in 1993.
After Turkey recognized Armenia as an independent republic in 1991, it laid down

two clear conditions that had to be met by Armenia before it would establish

diplomatic relations: Armenia was expected to renounce territorial claims on

Turkey, and Armenia was to set aside or dismiss the genocide recognition

process. (Turkey’s later proposal of a historic commission was the modification

of this last condition.) In 1993, with the border closure in support of its brethren in

Azerbaijan, Turkey added a new condition to the other two already existing, that

Armenia renounce Nagorno Karabakh’s struggle for security and self-determination

by conceding to an Azerbaijani-favorable solution.

To forget this pre-history, or to expect us to forget, or – worse – to pretend that

Turkey has forgotten, is not serious. In the context of Turkey’s consistent policies

about territorial issues, genocide recognition and Karabakh concessions, our public

debate must revolve on the substance of what this protocol gives Armenians and

what it takes away.

Even when signed, these protocols merely tell us Turkey’s willingness to enter into

diplomatic relations and to open the border. The open border will become reality

only after eventual parliament ratification.

But whether ratified or not, Turkey will still have received what it wanted. When

signed, this protocol gives Turkey the opportunity to tell the world that Armenians

have in fact conceptually relinquished territorial claims and are also ready to offer

the genocide for bilateral study, therefore no third-party involvement, recognition or

condemnation is in order.

As someone who has worked for such normalization both with Turkey and

Azerbaijan, I would want nothing more than to see agreements, knowing full well

they must come with difficult concessions. The negotiations about these

concessionshowever should not endanger our future security nor violate our integrity

and values. We can and should, as the protocol says, ‘implement a dialogue on the

historical dimension’ with ‘the aim of restoring mutual confidence’ but the way to do

that is not by mandating an ‘impartial scientific examination of historical records’ as

if all other examinations thus far have been neither impartial nor scientific. In earlier

negotiations, we focused on creating an intergovernmental commission with the aim

of overcoming the consequences of our tragic past.

Alternate, more dignified, wording is also possible on the border issue. We can and

should, as the protocol says, ‘respect and ensure respect for the principles of equality,

sovereignty, non-intervention in internal affairs of other states, territorial integrity and

inviolability of frontiers.’ The focus on territorial integrity is the international formulation

that protects concerns about frontiers, while not diminishing the right to pursue

historical injustices. The current formulation about ‘the mutual recognition of the existing

border’ should have been avoided.

However, an equal risk in this document is the unwritten one. The link to Nagorno

Karabakh, unwritten perhaps, but clearly spoken at every turn are the repeated,

continuing, unabated, undiminished affirmations of the highest Turkish and Azerbaijani

officials who insist that Turkey will continue to defend the interests of Azerbaijan and

nothing will be done, no border will open, until the Nagorno Karabakh settlement process

begins to move in a direction that suits Azerbaijan.

In fact, expecting Turkey to move without considering Azerbaijan’s interests would be

similar to expecting Armenia to move without considering Karabakh’s interests. This is

not and was not a reasonable expectation.

In which case, if ratification is to take place, and if it’s to take place before the next

Obama-April 24 deadline facing Turkey, then we can expect that Azerbaijan has received

sufficient guarantees on the return of territories and on the status of Nagorno Karabakh.
These are the worrisome elements – both in the content of these documents, and in the

hasty process that accompanies it – that cast doubt on the intent of the document. It also

makes clear the readiness to lower the bar to reach an agreement, at questionable cost.
If this implies distrust on our part, that should be eminently understandable. On the

Armenian side, those who crafted this document are insisting that it really means

something other than what it says. On the other side, Turkey is to ‘refrain from pursuing

any policy incompatible with the spirit of good neighborly relations,’ yet it continues to

side with one neighbor Azerbaijan, against their other neighbor Armenia.

In other words, on the ground, nothing seems to have changed. Yet, the Armenian bar

has clearly moved lower in the Armenia-Turkey negotiations, and therefore it is natural

to assume that the same thing may be happening in the Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations.
This is the situation today, as we are presented documents not for and by third parties,

as with the countless historical documents of the past where Armenia is a subject and

not a party, but for the first time in history, a document in which Armenia is signing on

to its own perceived place in history.

This document with such formulations should not be signed. Indeed, no one is authorized

to sign this document with such formulations.

AZERBAIJAN NERVOUSLY WATCHING TURKISH-ARMENIAN RAPPROCHEMENT
By: Fariz Ismailzade

Jamestown Foundation
Sept 11 2009

The Turkish-Armenian agreement on September 1 to start political
consultations aimed at establishing diplomatic relations between the
two countries has once again raised concerns in Baku. It is only
four months since the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
visited Baku and assured Azerbaijani politicians and the public that
the closed border between Turkey and Armenia will remain unchanged
until the occupied territories of Azerbaijan are liberated. Yet,
the recent announcement by Armenian and Turkish diplomats once again
shocked political circles in Azerbaijan.

The ruling party -Yeni Azerbaijan Party- immediately announced
on September 2 that "the party considers the normalization of
Turkish-Armenian relations unacceptable until Karabakh is liberated"
(www.day.az, September 2). Mubariz Gurbanly, the deputy executive
secretary of the party added, "Turkey and Azerbaijan are strategic
allies. Our relations are based on the principles of 'one nation-two
states.' Much unites our countries. These recent talks between Armenia
and Turkey negatively influence public opinion in Azerbaijan." Ali
Ahmadov, a member of parliament and one of the most influential MP's in
the ruling party, drew attention to the speech made in the Azerbaijani
parliament by Erdogan: "We respect that statement in which Erdogan
said that the border will not re-open prior the resolution of the
Karabakh conflict" (Trend News, September 5).

The Azeri foreign ministry also issued a statement, saying that
the establishment of relations with other countries is a sovereign
right of every nation, yet considering the fact that the re-opening
of the Turkish-Armenian border touches on the national interests of
Azerbaijan, this matter cannot be resolved without the resolution of
the Karabakh conflict. Elkhan Polukhov, a spokesman for the foreign
ministry, recalled that the borders were closed in response to the
Armenian occupation of Azerbaijani territory. "Thus, they can open
only after the occupation has ended" (www.day.az, September 1).

Although Turkish politicians rushed to reassure their Azerbaijani
colleagues that Turkey will not act against the national interests of
Azerbaijan, tension over the issue remains high in Baku. The Azeri
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov held a telephone call with his
Turkish counterpart Ahmet Davutoglu to clarify Baku's stance, and
received further assurances from the Turkish side. On September 8,
while on a visit to Georgia, Davutoglu stated that "much time remains
until the borders will open" (APA News). The Turkish President Abdullah
Gul, also stated that "Turkey will not take steps which will disappoint
Azerbaijan" (Trend, September 8).

The majority in Azerbaijan link the re-opening of the
Turkish-Armenian border to the resolution of the Karabakh
conflict. Azerbaijani political circles are not against the
normalization of Turkish-Armenians relations per se, yet they would
like to see this process tied to the withdrawal of Armenian military
forces from the occupied Azerbaijani lands. The recent peace talks
between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents failed to produce any
concrete breakthrough. Observers in Baku noted Yerevan's stubbornness
and refusal to free Azerbaijani lands in exchange for the gradual
normalization of Azerbaijani-Armenian political, economic and trade
relations. Thus, the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border, they
believe, might further embolden Armenia and make it less likely to
compromise on the Karabakh issue.

There are those, however, who believe that the re-opening of the
Turkish-Armenian border will eventually prove positive for Azerbaijan
and for the whole region. "Normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations
will diminish Russian influence over Armenia, and will be beneficial
for Azerbaijan," according to the Azeri political scientist Ilgar
Mammadov (www.ilgarmammadov.lifejournal.com, September 2).

The international community welcomed the Turkish-Armenian
rapprochement, as a positive step towards securing sustainable peace
and prosperity in the South Caucasus. Indeed, the cold war between
Turkey and Armenia has not produced any tangible positive results
over the past decade. Armenia still refuses to liberate the occupied
Azerbaijani lands and has fallen more and more into military and
economic dependence on Russia. It is hoped that the normalization of
Turkish-Armenian relations will break the status quo and provide more
opportunities for peace in the region.

Yet, it remains to be seen how Azerbaijan will react to the Turkish
decision. If Baku's stance is not taken into consideration, the
consequences for Ankara might be unpredictable. Without winning a new
friend, Turkey might lose an old one. Thus, the strategic presence
of Turkey in the region, as well as the prospects for such regional
projects as the Nabucco gas pipeline might be significantly weakened.

EUROPEAN ARMENIAN FEDERATION

For Justice & Democracy

ARMENIAN /TURKISH PROTOCOLS: TURKEY’S PRECONDITIONS

VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

On Monday, 31st August, Armenia and Turkey, under the aegis of the

Swiss diplomacy, announced that they agreed to start internal political

consultations in order to sign and swiftly ratify two protocols aiming at

normalising their relations.

According to the joint press release, the two parties claim that they will complete the

consultations on the “protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations” and on

the “protocol on the development of bilateral relations” in six weeks, further to which

they pretend to quickly reach a ratification “in line with their constitutional and legal procedures”.

These documents were made public

A close examination of the protocols (attached herein) clearly reveals that the purview of

these documents – historically unprecedented between the two neighbouring states

– goes far beyond the mere “normalisation” and border-opening issues being discussed

between Armenia and Turkey over many years. These protocols embrace,

in a fundamental way, the full scope of unresolved issues between Turkey

and the Armenian people worldwide, including those involving the legitimate

rights of the European Armenian communities. Through the protocols, and

mobilizing immense resources of international pressure, Turkey has indeed

imposed its preconditions, which Armenia had categorically rejected so far.

The European Armenian Federation considers these protocols a dangerous

retreat from Armenia’s time-honoured policy of welcoming normalisation

of relations with Turkey, but without any pre-conditions. The Turkish

government’s pre-conditions violate the core principles of international law

as they involve acceptance by Armenia of the terms and conditions of old

and illegitimate treaties long pre-dating the existence of independent Armenia.

They involve the abandonment by Armenia of all efforts toward the

international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. They also involve

complete capitulation by Armenia to Azerbaijan’s terms in the Karabagh

negotiations, as re-iterated by Minister Davutoglu on the very day,

i.e. September 1^st, of the announcement of the protocols. Furthermore,

the tri-lateral announcement fails to recognize the fact that the people of

Nagorno Karabagh and the communities of the Armenian Diaspora – therefore

the European Armenians – are legitimate parties to any “political

consultations” involving these issues.

“Turkey should not be permitted to abuse these bilateral negotiations

“packaging away” its historic national liabilities in border-opening agreements

with Armenia, its economically vulnerable neighbour. The international

community must reject Turkey’s most recent practice of imposing its policy

of denial of the Armenian genocide through such biased bilateral deals. And

the Swiss government should be more vigilant in its assessment of the

moral implications of its mediation initiative given Turkey’s questionable

record in all these issues,” stated Hilda Tchoboian the chairperson of the

European Armenian Federation.

« For decades, the European Armenian communities fought all forms of genocide denial,

advocated for the right to self-determination of the people of Nagorno Karabagh, and

defended the heritage of the Armenian people in all of its aspects, having by their side

the unwavering support of the European society to their Just Cause. Today, we reaffirm

our commitment to defend the legitimate rights of our People with the same determination,”

concluded Hilda Tchoboian.

RFE/RL Reports

Turkish FM Discusses Armenia Deal In Parliament
Azerbaijan -- Ahmet Davutoglu, foreign minister of Turkey, in Baku,
11.09.2009
Emil Danielyan, Tatevik Lazarian

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu opened on Friday
consultations with his country's top political leaders on the draft
agreements envisaging the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations.

Ankara and Yerevan publicized the two agreements on August 31 and
pledged to sign them after six of `internal political consultations.'
The two protocols have to be ratified by the parliaments of the two
nations before they can come into effect.

`We aim to brief all political parties, institutions and civic bodies
on the protocols that will be signed,' AFP news agency quoted
Davutoglu as telling reporters after meeting Turkish parliament
speaker Mehmet Ali Sahin.

Davutoglu added that he also asked for meetings with the leaders of
Turkey's two largest opposition parties represented in parliament.
`We want to hold the briefings before parliament returns from summer
recess in October,' he said.

Both opposition parties have said that they will continue to oppose
the establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey
and reopening of their border before a resolution of the Nagorno-
Karabakh conflict that would satisfy Azerbaijan. One of them, the
Nationalist Movement Party, has slammed the Western-backed agreements
as a Turkish `surrender' to Armenia.

Turkey's governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), which
controls the majority of parliament seats, has yet to formulate its
position on the protocol ratification. Its leader, Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has repeatedly stated in recent months that
Ankara will not normalize ties with Yerevan as long as the Karabakh
conflict remains unresolved.

Many politicians and pundits in Yerevan predict that Erdogan's'
government will block or delay the parliamentary endorsement of the
protocols if the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan fail to achieve
a breakthrough in their peace talks in the coming months. Some
Turkish commentators have likewise suggested that their ratification
is contingent on a Karabakh deal.

Both the United States and the European Union have welcomed the
Turkish-Armenian agreements and stressed the need for their speedy
implementation. `We urge Armenia and Turkey to proceed expeditiously,
according to the agreed framework as described in today's statement,'
a U.S. State Department spokesman said last week.

The protocols' ratification by the Armenian parliament is widely seen
as a forgone conclusion. Both the Republican Party of President Serzh
Sarkisian and its two junior coalition partners, which enjoy a
comfortable parliament majority, have voiced their unequivocal
support for the deal.

Even so, the deal's most vocal Armenian opponent, the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun), said on Friday it is
lobbying members of the parliament majority to break ranks and vote
against the ratification. Aghvan Vartanian, one of the nationalist
party's leaders, also told reporters that Dashnaktsutyun will soon
draft and circulate specific amendments which it believes must be
made in the documents. `I think it will be clear to every educated
and thinking person whether they accept this variant,' he said.

Dashnaktsutyun is especially opposed to the planned formation of a
Turkish-Armenian panel of historians tasked with looking into the
1915 mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. It says that
the very existence of such a body would seriously hamper greater
international recognition of the massacres as genocide.



Business Leader Looks Forward To Open Border With Turkey
Armenia -- Arsen Ghazarian, co-chairman of the Turkish-Armenian
Business Council.
11.09.2009
Lilit Harutiunian

The possible opening of the Turkish border would significantly
benefit the Armenian economy and have little adverse impact on local
manufacturers, the chairman of Armenia's largest business association
insisted on Friday.

Arsen Ghazarian, who heads the Union of Industrialists and
Entrepreneurs, predicted that cross-border commerce would quickly
spur economic activity and create many jobs in Armenian regions
bordering Turkey.

`We would also be able to implement serious joint projects in the
energy sphere,' he said. `Our two cement plans, which I'm sure are
not operating at their full capacity, would be able to meet the
Turkish industry's demand and to make decent profits.

`We would have quite serious projects in the textile sector. I am
talking about quite serious turnovers.'

Ghazarian has for years voiced such views in his separate capacity as
the Armenian co-chairman of the Turkish-Armenian Business Council
(TABC), a private group uniting businessmen from the two neighboring
countries. The reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border, a key aim of
the TABC, became a real possibility after Ankara and Yerevan unveiled
draft agreements on the normalization of bilateral relations.

The prospect of an open border with Turkey has long caused unease
among some Armenian politicians, businessmen and economists. They
fear that an influx of cheap Turkish imports could wreak havoc on the
country's fledgling manufacturing and farming sectors. Some have gone
as far as to declare that the Turkish economic blockade has been a
blessing in disguise for Armenia.

Ghazarian brushed aside these concerns at a news conference in
Yerevan. `Let's face it, in our society there is not much enthusiasm
for Turkish consumer goods to begin with,' he said.

`Besides, many of our enterprises in the food-processing and plastic
items sectors bring in a considerable part of their raw materials
from Turkey because it's close and cheap. In that case [of border
opening,] it will be even closer and cheaper,' he added.

Ghazarian further argued that an open border with Turkey will become
all the more important in the event of the resolution of the Nagorno-
Karabakh conflict and restoration of commercial links between Armenia
and Azerbaijan. That, he said, would turn Armenia into a regional
transit country linking Turkey to Azerbaijan and Central Asia.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~