Tweet
Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations
16:33 / 12/12/2009
The Turkish Government’s democratic initiative deigned to resolve the Kurdish problem and improve relations with Armenia and Cyprus resulted in rather extraordinary developments. After a number of shows, such as the translation of the Koran into Kurdish and Ministers’ trips to Lake Van, the Turkish Establishment reverted to its usual methods of settling national problems: they banned the only Kurdish political force represented in the Turkish Parliament, the Democratic Society Party (Turkish: Demokratik Toplum Partisi, DTP), which caused the Kurdish population’s discontent throughout the country. It is noteworthy that, right from the start, Turkey’s Kurdish population showed distrust toward the Gul-Erdogan bloc’s good intentions.
Thus, now we can state the failure of one of the most important and complicated components of the democratic reforms planned by the Islamists – the settlement of the Kurdish problem. It is noteworthy that the Turkish Government and Parliament had been discussing the draft solution to the Kurdish problem simultaneously with the Armenia-Turkey normalization process, which, however, seemed to remain unnoticed in Armenia.
The Armenian expert circles actually ignored the Kurdish component of Turkey’s strategy, exerting tremendous efforts to understand a link between the Armenian-Turkish dialogue and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. From the outset it was clear, however, that the issue was a tactical one, as Turkey was doing its best to “create” such a link, while Armenia was trying to avoid it. And Armenia’s position was much more important, as, in case Turkey showed an uncompromising approach, Yerevan reserved the right to pull out of the negotiations, referring to the agreements on unacceptability of any preconditions reached at the highest international level.
Thus, from the outset, Armenia did not link the Armenia-Turkey dialogue to the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. Moreover, should such a link “emerge”, the Armenian side would pull out of the negotiations. As a matter of fact, such a scenario seems to be the most likely one after Turkish Premier Recep Erdogan’s statements in the United States and RA President Serzh Sargsyan’s response. A different thing is of importance, however. Like the Kurdish project, the Armenian-Turkish dialogue may fail due to Turkey’s foreign policy rather than due to regional process or positions taken by Armenia and international experts.
The Islamists’ democratic initiatives designed to show the Turkish society their aim to build up a truly democratic state of rule of law, consistent democratization policy and priority to join the European Union (EU) must have been the means of internal struggle. Indeed, the gravest charge brought against the Recep Erdogan Government by the Ergenekon movement, which, according to some information, was supported by Israel and involved influential members of the Turkish top brass, was that Islamists, slowly but surely, were turning from the way of building up a secular state to that of forming a “theocratic” state ideology. It is Israel’s active involvement in Turkey’s domestic policy that actually worsened the Ankara-Tel Aviv relations. One can hardly believe it is only now that the Turkish Premier is “suffering a mental torment” in thinking about the people of Palestine – he has been vigorously defending the Palestinians’ rights over the last year, though the Middle East conflict has been developing for decades.
On the other hand, the ambitious Turkish Establishment, with its independent decisions on the degree of the country’s participation in the U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, relations with Iran, initiatives on mediation formats in the Middle East and South Caucasus, must have become a stumbling block to the United States. Washington is well aware that, without absolutely reliable control over Turkey’s political system, any activity in the vast region — from the Balkans to Iran and China – may result in a complete collapse. That is the reason why, with a carrot in one hand, the U.S. is holding a stick in the other for Turkey. The United States is still playing the card of the Armenian Cause, which has turned into a most important political instrument for U.S. President Barack Obama, evidence thereof being the intensified activities of the U.S. Congressional Armenian Caucus simultaneously with the Armenian-Turkish dialogue. According to reliable sources, the possible adoption of a resolution on the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Congress and Senate may become the first step in “subduing” Turkey. That step may be followed by the formation of a Western Armenian government in exile, which will comprise outstanding representatives of the Armenian Diaspora, a new emphasis on the Treaty of Sèvres and Woodrow Wilson’s decision and, as result, material and territorial claims on Turkey.
RA President Serzh Sargsyan has recently twice thanked U.S. President Barack Obama for his position on the Armenian Cause. It is no mere coincidence, considering the fact that, in his latest speech, the U.S. leader avoided pronouncing the term “genocide.” Nonetheless, the process is going on, and the U.S. leader will have to speak on the Armenian Genocide on April 24, 2010. Mr. Obama is unlikely to always carry the burden of responsibility Turkey is supposed to. “Barack Obama has repeatedly stated his position on the Armenian Genocide, pointing out the necessity for Turkey’s admitting the genocide as well as unacceptability of that country’s distorting its own history. Barack Obama stated that even in Turkish Parliament,” The Armenian leader stated, addressing his U.S. counterpart at a news conference in Yerevan on December 10. The following day, December 11, during his telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Armenian President asked her to convey his gratitude to President Barack Obama for his consistent assistance to Armenia in establishing relations with Turkey. The U.S. President must be the guarantor of the agreements reached with Turkey, being responsible for a possible failure, which, in turn, may have unpredictable consequences for the entire region and affect his reputation. Considering the above, we can conclude that the talks Turkish Premier Recept Erdogan held in the United States were hardly an enjoyable pastime. Evidence thereof is Turkish Ambassador to United States Nabi Şensoy’s resignation immediately after the Turkish Premier left Washington.
The causes and consequences of the failure of the Kurdish project in Turkey must be thoroughly analyzed in Armenia, as they can have a much more serious impact on the Armenian-Turkish process that Ankara’s sham activity in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. Also, Yerevan must make a most serious analysis of the United States’ aims and resources in the region, particularly in its relations with Turkey. Armenia may become one of the key factors in U.S. regional policy and, with the Armenian Diaspora’s influence in the United States, as well as in the Near East (Lebanon, Syria etc…) considered, Washington’s important partner that would not be inferior to Israel.
T.P.
Armenia-turkey process in light of Kurdish problem
16:33 / 12/12/2009
The Turkish Government’s democratic initiative deigned to resolve the Kurdish problem and improve relations with Armenia and Cyprus resulted in rather extraordinary developments. After a number of shows, such as the translation of the Koran into Kurdish and Ministers’ trips to Lake Van, the Turkish Establishment reverted to its usual methods of settling national problems: they banned the only Kurdish political force represented in the Turkish Parliament, the Democratic Society Party (Turkish: Demokratik Toplum Partisi, DTP), which caused the Kurdish population’s discontent throughout the country. It is noteworthy that, right from the start, Turkey’s Kurdish population showed distrust toward the Gul-Erdogan bloc’s good intentions.
Thus, now we can state the failure of one of the most important and complicated components of the democratic reforms planned by the Islamists – the settlement of the Kurdish problem. It is noteworthy that the Turkish Government and Parliament had been discussing the draft solution to the Kurdish problem simultaneously with the Armenia-Turkey normalization process, which, however, seemed to remain unnoticed in Armenia.
The Armenian expert circles actually ignored the Kurdish component of Turkey’s strategy, exerting tremendous efforts to understand a link between the Armenian-Turkish dialogue and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. From the outset it was clear, however, that the issue was a tactical one, as Turkey was doing its best to “create” such a link, while Armenia was trying to avoid it. And Armenia’s position was much more important, as, in case Turkey showed an uncompromising approach, Yerevan reserved the right to pull out of the negotiations, referring to the agreements on unacceptability of any preconditions reached at the highest international level.
Thus, from the outset, Armenia did not link the Armenia-Turkey dialogue to the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. Moreover, should such a link “emerge”, the Armenian side would pull out of the negotiations. As a matter of fact, such a scenario seems to be the most likely one after Turkish Premier Recep Erdogan’s statements in the United States and RA President Serzh Sargsyan’s response. A different thing is of importance, however. Like the Kurdish project, the Armenian-Turkish dialogue may fail due to Turkey’s foreign policy rather than due to regional process or positions taken by Armenia and international experts.
The Islamists’ democratic initiatives designed to show the Turkish society their aim to build up a truly democratic state of rule of law, consistent democratization policy and priority to join the European Union (EU) must have been the means of internal struggle. Indeed, the gravest charge brought against the Recep Erdogan Government by the Ergenekon movement, which, according to some information, was supported by Israel and involved influential members of the Turkish top brass, was that Islamists, slowly but surely, were turning from the way of building up a secular state to that of forming a “theocratic” state ideology. It is Israel’s active involvement in Turkey’s domestic policy that actually worsened the Ankara-Tel Aviv relations. One can hardly believe it is only now that the Turkish Premier is “suffering a mental torment” in thinking about the people of Palestine – he has been vigorously defending the Palestinians’ rights over the last year, though the Middle East conflict has been developing for decades.
On the other hand, the ambitious Turkish Establishment, with its independent decisions on the degree of the country’s participation in the U.S. military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, relations with Iran, initiatives on mediation formats in the Middle East and South Caucasus, must have become a stumbling block to the United States. Washington is well aware that, without absolutely reliable control over Turkey’s political system, any activity in the vast region — from the Balkans to Iran and China – may result in a complete collapse. That is the reason why, with a carrot in one hand, the U.S. is holding a stick in the other for Turkey. The United States is still playing the card of the Armenian Cause, which has turned into a most important political instrument for U.S. President Barack Obama, evidence thereof being the intensified activities of the U.S. Congressional Armenian Caucus simultaneously with the Armenian-Turkish dialogue. According to reliable sources, the possible adoption of a resolution on the Armenian Genocide by the U.S. Congress and Senate may become the first step in “subduing” Turkey. That step may be followed by the formation of a Western Armenian government in exile, which will comprise outstanding representatives of the Armenian Diaspora, a new emphasis on the Treaty of Sèvres and Woodrow Wilson’s decision and, as result, material and territorial claims on Turkey.
RA President Serzh Sargsyan has recently twice thanked U.S. President Barack Obama for his position on the Armenian Cause. It is no mere coincidence, considering the fact that, in his latest speech, the U.S. leader avoided pronouncing the term “genocide.” Nonetheless, the process is going on, and the U.S. leader will have to speak on the Armenian Genocide on April 24, 2010. Mr. Obama is unlikely to always carry the burden of responsibility Turkey is supposed to. “Barack Obama has repeatedly stated his position on the Armenian Genocide, pointing out the necessity for Turkey’s admitting the genocide as well as unacceptability of that country’s distorting its own history. Barack Obama stated that even in Turkish Parliament,” The Armenian leader stated, addressing his U.S. counterpart at a news conference in Yerevan on December 10. The following day, December 11, during his telephone conversation with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Armenian President asked her to convey his gratitude to President Barack Obama for his consistent assistance to Armenia in establishing relations with Turkey. The U.S. President must be the guarantor of the agreements reached with Turkey, being responsible for a possible failure, which, in turn, may have unpredictable consequences for the entire region and affect his reputation. Considering the above, we can conclude that the talks Turkish Premier Recept Erdogan held in the United States were hardly an enjoyable pastime. Evidence thereof is Turkish Ambassador to United States Nabi Şensoy’s resignation immediately after the Turkish Premier left Washington.
The causes and consequences of the failure of the Kurdish project in Turkey must be thoroughly analyzed in Armenia, as they can have a much more serious impact on the Armenian-Turkish process that Ankara’s sham activity in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. Also, Yerevan must make a most serious analysis of the United States’ aims and resources in the region, particularly in its relations with Turkey. Armenia may become one of the key factors in U.S. regional policy and, with the Armenian Diaspora’s influence in the United States, as well as in the Near East (Lebanon, Syria etc…) considered, Washington’s important partner that would not be inferior to Israel.
T.P.
Comment