Armenian-Turkish Relations

[KanadaHye]

Turkey, Armenia begin diplomatic talks

Turkey, Armenia begin diplomatic talks



Armenia and Turkey have agreed to establish diplomatic relations, overcoming a seemingly intractable rift that dates to the early 20th century and was marked by the mass killing of Armenians under Ottoman rule.

The neighbouring countries will set up and develop relations for the first time, Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Burak Ozugergin said.

It is unclear, however, if the countries will discuss the dispute over the First World War-era killings.

The issue is a major stumbling block to Turkey's aspirations to join the European Union and has strained ties with the United States. Historians estimate that, in the last days of the Ottoman Empire, up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks in what is widely regarded as the first genocide of the 20th century.

Turkey denies that the deaths constituted genocide, contending the toll has been inflated and that the casualties were victims of civil war. It says Turks also suffered losses at the hands of Armenian gangs.

Turkey and Armenia also disagree about Armenian forces' control of the Arzerbaijani region of Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey is a close ally of Azerbaijan and backs its claims to the region, which has a high number of ethnic Armenian residents but is located within Azerbaijan's borders.

Turkey was one of the first countries to recognize Armenia's independence in 1991, but the two countries never established diplomatic relations and their joint border has been closed since 1993.

Ties began to improve after a so-called soccer diplomacy campaign last year, when Turkish President Abdullah Gul attended a World Cup qualifier in Armenia.

Armenia's President Serge Sarkisian has said he wants significant diplomatic progress on the reopening of the shared border before he will agree to attend a World Cup qualifying match in Turkey on Oct. 14.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry said the upcoming talks, agreed to after mediation by Switzerland, should last about six weeks.

Armenian political commentator Artyom Yerkanian, speaking during a special broadcast of Armenian television, suggested the agreement to establish ties could be signed at the October match in Turkey.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/0...tion-0831.html

[Joseph]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Amberin Zaman is largely on the money here


Source: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/ne...-sum-game.html

Turkey and Armenia: Soccer Diplomacy Shifting Rules are Creating a Zero-Sum Game

By Amberin Zaman -- ANKARA -- On September 6 of last year, Abdullah Gül, Turkey’s president, became the first-ever Turkish leader to set foot in Armenia. The occasion was a World Cup pre-qualifier match pitting Turkey against Armenia.

Many viewed Gül’s decision to accept his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sargysan’s invitation auguring the establishment of formal ties between the traditionally hostile neighbors and the re-opening of their long frozen border.

Normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia has been a pressing goal for successive American administrations. Friendship between the two countries would arm Washington against long-running attempts by the Armenian-American diaspora to push through a Congressional bill that would formally classify the mass slaughter in 1915 of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire as genocide. With anti-American sentiments in Turkey riding high, adoption of such legislation would be certain to trigger another crisis in Turkish-American ties at a time when Turkish support is crucial to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Additionally, peace between Turkey and Armenia would draw the landlocked former Soviet Republic out of Russia’s orbit and help cement Western influence—and stability—in the southern Caucasus.

A Turkey that is engaged with Armenia would be in a stronger position to coax the latter into a settlement with Azerbaijan over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh enclave. Peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia would not only blunt Russian influence but Iran’s as well.

Finally, there is a moral dimension. Extending the hand of friendship to Armenia would help mitigate if not erase decades of bitterness harbored by millions of Armenians across the globe.

Over a year ago, these arguments propelled Turkish policymakers to abandon the position that peace with Armenia would only be possible if Armenia made peace with Azerbaijan. Aided by Swiss mediation and American encouragement, Turkish and Armenian diplomats held a series of secret talks aimed at establishing ties and re-opening the border.
Peace at last?

Gül’s September visit to Yerevan gave the process a big boost. Six months later, on April 22, the two countries announced that they had initiated a “roadmap” setting out the parameters for formalizing ties. The roadmap called for a set of joint commissions that would, among other things, examine the events of 1915, and foresaw the eventual re-opening of the border without preconditions. The timing of the announcement, however, raised suspicions in Yerevan, as the roadmap had been initiated well before April 22. Was it meant to prevent U.S. President Barack Obama from using the term “genocide” in his April 24th statement, marking the anniversary of the killings? Obama’s use of the phrase “Medz Yeghern,” which means “Great Catastrophe” in Armenian, provoked deep anger among American-Armenians who recalled his campaign pledge to recognize the genocide. Turkey wasn’t thrilled by the reference, but at least the G-word had been averted. The expectation in Washington was that Turkey would now sign off with Armenia.
Ankara shifts the goalposts

Armenia’s suspicions may well have been right. Within days of announcing the roadmap, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Turkey’s prime minister, declared before the Azerbaijani Parliament that Turkish-Armenian peace would not be possible until Armenia withdrew from Nagorno-Karabakh and its surrounding region. His announcement hit like a cold shower in Yerevan, Washington, and Ankara alike. What had triggered it?
Enter Azerbaijan

There were several reasons for the policy change. First and foremost were the cries of treason from Azerbaijan. Despite the theoretically cozy ties between Ankara and Baku, the Azeris were apparently unaware of the precise wording of the roadmap. Azeri threats to turn to Russia and an unexpected gas deal signed between the two countries led to panic in Ankara. Turkey’s ambitions to become the main transit hub for natural gas from Central Asia and Azerbaijan hung in the balance. Erdoğan’s trip to Baku soothed Azeri nerves, but in the words of a senior Turkish diplomat “immense damage to our relations” had been wrought.

This begs the question of how Ankara failed to foresee Baku’s reaction. The conventional wisdom was that Azerbaijan

needs Turkey more than Turkey needs Azerbaijan. With the September presidential elections out of the way, it was widely assumed that Azerbaijan would relent. What no one accounted for was Moscow exploiting the opportunity to increase its leverage over Azerbaijan.

But there was another aspect to Turkey’s behavior. Reconciliation with Armenia was primarily driven by the dovish Gül. Erdoğan was never fully on board. Nor was Ahmet Davutoğlu, who before becoming Turkey’s foreign minister in May, had served as Erdoğan’s chief foreign policy advisor. Davutoğlu has long maintained that peace with Armenia would not be sustainable unless Karabakh were resolved. Should the conflict resume, would Turkey be forced to reseal its border with Armenia? It’s a thin argument. Armenia won the war, so it is unlikely to reignite it.
Sargysan’s gamble

Meanwhile, Turkey keeps raising the bar. It insists that any deal with Armenia needs to be ratified by the parliament. This would be a first. When Turkey recognized and established diplomatic relations with Kosovo, for instance, the parliament was not involved. All of this has placed Sargysyan, Armenia’s president, in an increasingly untenable position at home, where there is already widespread anger at the government for going along with the creation of a joint historical commission. For many, this amounts to calling genocide into doubt. The ultra-nationalist Dashnak party, which pulled out of the government following the announcement of the road map, is now baying for blood. Their target is, Eduard Nalbandian, Armenia’s foreign minister.

In a bid to stanch their anger, Sargysan declared that he would not attend a Turkey-Armenia football match scheduled for October 14 unless the border was re-opened or was close to be being re-opened. Amid fears that the rapprochement process will crumble, Swiss mediators have resumed efforts to get each side to agree on a path that would clear the way for formal ties and re-opening the border. Turkey’s reported refusal to cede to Armenia’s demands to reiterate that the deal is unconditional (i.e. not linked to progress on Karabakh) temporarily stalled the process. Armenia has now dropped this demand but wants something concrete from Turkey. Otherwise Sargysan will not come. At the time of publication of this analysis, there were widespread reports that compromise had been struck and that Turkey and Armenia would issue respective declarations underscoring their commitment to the implementation of the April 22nd agreement. The declaration, was expected among other things, to outline a time frame for political consultations that would precede the signing of that agreement. However, qualms from Armenia that Turkey would drag out the process are yet to be overcome.

A Turkish hold out for concessions on Karabakh would be equally unrealistic. When former Armenian President Levon Ter Petrossian tried this in 1998, he was pushed out of power. Few policymakers in Ankara seem to understand Armenia’s internal dynamics, which are usually ignored by the Turkish press.
Outlook

The noises coming out of Ankara suggest that Turkey will not abandon its efforts to get the Armenians to move on Karabakh as a quid pro quo for normalization. Indeed, Turkey seems bent on rallying Washington to its position. The U.S. administration continues to insist that Turkish-Armenian normalization should proceed independently of Karabakh. In private, American officials warn that a Congressional resolution on the term “genocide” may not only be revived but approved this time. The trouble is that Erdoğan, who has final say on foreign policy, is steeped in efforts to solve Turkey’s biggest headache, its Kurdish problem. Many of the proposed measures are a hard sell. Erdoğan’s nationalist opponents are already accusing him of talking to terrorists. A deal with Armenia that sidelines Azerbaijan would give them further ammunition.

So the question is whether a no show from Sargysan on October 14 will spell the end of Turkish-Armenian peace? Probably not. Realpolitik will once again prevail and diplomacy will intervene. But unless Ankara softens its stance, it may take a long time before Turkey and Armenia shake hands.

[Federate]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Armenian-Turkish reconciliation: World Press Digest


The New York Times: Armenia and Turkey, bitter foes for a century, took a step toward reconciliation Monday by announcing they would launch final talks aimed at establishing diplomatic ties.

Times: The talks still face many pitfalls, primarily Armenia's campaign for international recognition of the Turkish genocide of Armenians. Although Mr Sargsyan has indicated the dispute would not be a deal-breaker, nationalist sentiment in Turkey about the massacre still runs high. The restoration of diplomatic ties with Armenia would also improve Turkey's chances of gaining European Union membership.

TRİBUNE DE GENEVE: Armenia and Turkey succeeded in the establishment of diplomatic relations. After dozen years of distrust and mutual reproaches it is a crucial step in the reconciliation process between two neighbouring countries.

BBC: Turkey and Armenia have agreed to begin six weeks of consultations aimed at re-establishing diplomatic ties after almost 100 years of hostility.

EL PAİS: Turkey and Armenia are close to establishment of diplomatic relations. After 100 years of hostility the countries are on the way to Armenian-Turkish border opening.

EURONEWS: Relations between hostile neighbours Turkey and Armenia have taken a turn for the better with the two countries’ agreeing to hold talks on establishing diplomatic ties.

DEUTSCHE WELLE: Football diplomacy opens a new chapter in Armenian-Turkish relations. Ankara takes unexpected steps to ensure Serzh Sargsyan’s visit to Turkey, October 14.

http://news.am/en/news/3481.html

[Federate]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Dashnaks Condemn ‘Unacceptable’ Deal With Turkey


The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) strongly condemned on Tuesday the new twist in Armenia’s ongoing dialogue with Turkey, pledging to save no effort to stave off what it called “numerous dangers” emanating from it.
The influential nationalist party dismissed government assurances that draft protocols unveiled by Ankara and Yerevan late Monday envisage an unconditional normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations. It accused President Serzh Sarkisian of thwarting greater international recognition of the Armenian genocide and being ready to make more concessions to Azerbaijan as part of the Western-backed deal. The allegations were echoed by a leading member of the main opposition Armenian National Congress (HAK).

“It is already evident that the published documents contain the well-known preconditions of the Turkish side,” Dashnaktsutyun said in a statement. “That is, to call into question the fact of the Armenian Genocide and to nullify timeless rights of the Armenian people.” Citing Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s televised remarks, it said Turkey continues to make the establishment of diplomatic relations and reopening of its border with Armenia conditional on a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict acceptable to Azerbaijan.

The statement came after an emergency joint meeting in Yerevan of Dashnaktsutyun’s worldwide Bureau and its separate governing body in Armenia. The de facto head of the Bureau, Hrant Markarian, denounced the Turkish-Armenian protocols as “unacceptable” and “offensive.”

“I regret that our president is going to sign a document he has no right to sign,” Markarian told RFE/RL in an interview. “In the next two months we will do everything to inform the public about the essence of the agreement and issues hidden in it,” he said.

Despite the harsh criticism, the Dashnaktsutyun leadership again stopped short of demanding President Serzh Sarkisian’s resignation. The party, which has traditionally favored a hard line on Turkey, pulled out of Sarkisian’s coalition cabinet in April in protest against his overtures to Ankara.

Dashnaktsutyun has been particularly critical of Sarkisian’s effective acceptance of a Turkish proposal to form a joint commission tasked with looking into the 1915 mass killings of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. One of the two draft protocols finalized by the two governments calls for such a study. It also envisages “the mutual recognition of the existing border between the two countries,” something which Dashnaktsutyun and other Armenian nationalist groups strongly oppose.

Markarian claimed that these concessions alone would not lead Ankara to reopen the Turkish-Armenian border. “I think it is a bit naďve to expect that state [Turkey] to subordinate Azerbaijan’s interests to its relations with Armenia,” he said. “Maybe there is another, hidden agreement whereby during the next two, three or six months the Karabakh conflict will be ‘solved.’ So [that means] all of Turkey’s three preconditions have been accepted.”

Razmik Zohrabian, a deputy chairman of Sarkisian’s Republican Party of Armenia (HHK), brushed aside these claims, arguing that the protocols make no reference to the Karabakh conflict. “There are no preconditions,” Zohrabian told RFE/RL.

The latest Turkish-Armenian agreement was also described as “absolutely unacceptable” by Aleksandr Arzumanian, a former foreign minister and a leader of the HAK. “This acceleration of a solution in Turkish-Armenian relations will run parallel to an acceleration of Nagorno-Karabakh talks,” he said, adding that Sarkisian has committed himself to accepting a Karabakh settlement unfavorable for the Armenian side.

Both Arzumanian and Markarian predicted that the Turkish parliament will not rush to ratify the agreement with Armenia despite tight normalization deadlines agreed by the two governments. “The ratification requirement is incomprehensible,” said the ex-minister. “It allows [the Turks] to drag out the entry into force of those protocols.”

David Hovannisian, a scholar and retired diplomat who was a member of the now defunct Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, shared these concerns. “It will be very beneficial for the Turks to carry out a quite slow ratification process, every phase of which will present them with opportunities for more deals and haggling,” he said.

Hovannisian was also skeptical about the planned Turkish-Armenian panel of historians, saying that its existence could create “very serious problems” for the Armenian side. He suggested that its Armenian members will not be given full access to important Ottoman government documents related to the 1915 massacres.

“I believe that there is no need for setting up inter-governmental commissions to discuss historical issues because historians and scholars can express their opinions in conferences and articles,” said Ruben Melkonian, a professor of Turkish studies at Yerevan State University (YSU). “The whole thing seems to be more political [than scientific.]”

The two scholars spoke to RFE/RL after attending Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian’s meeting with the YSU faculty and students held behind closed doors. Participants said the meeting was dominated by the latest developments in the Turkish-Armenian negotiations.

http://www.armenialiberty.org/content/article/1812541.html

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

I am behind the ARF on this one.

"Hovannisian was also skeptical about the planned Turkish-Armenian panel of historians, saying that its existence could create “very serious problems” for the Armenian side. He suggested that its Armenian members will not be given full access to important Ottoman government documents related to the 1915 massacres."

Screw the Ottoman documents... get the UK, US, Israel, France, Germany all in on the discussion. In fact, any country involved in WWI and any country that doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide today should be representing their case. Spill the beans bastards.

[Mukuch]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

LOOK AT THIS xxxx!!!
PROTOCOL-MY ASS!!!!






Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations

Between Republic of Armenia and Republic of Turkey

The Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey,

Desiring to establish good neighborly relations and to develop bilateral cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and other fields for the benefit of their peoples, as envisaged in the Protocol on the development of relations signed on the same day,

Referring to their obligation under the Charter of the United Nations, the Helsinki Final Act, the Charter of Paris for a New Europe,

Reconfirming their commitment, in their bilateral and international relations, to respect and ensure respect for the principles equality, sovereignty, non intervention in internal affairs of other states, territorial integrity and inviolability of frontiers,

Bearing in mind the importance of the creation and maintenance of an atmosphere of trust and confidence between the two countries that will contribute to the strengthening of peace, security and stability of the whole region, as wll as being determined to refrain from the threat or the use of force, to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes, and to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Confirming the mutual recognition of the existing border between the two countries as defined by the relevant treaties of international law,

Emphasizing their decision to open the common border.

Reiterating their commitment to refrain from pursuing any policy incompatible with the spirit of good neighborly relations.

Condemning all forms of terrorism, violence and extremism irrespective of their cause, pledging to refrain from encouraging and tolerating such acts and to cooperate in combating against them,

Affirming their willingness to chart a new pattern and course for their relations on the basis of common interests, goodwill and in pursuit of peace, mutual understanding and harmony,

Agree to establish diplomatic relations as of the date of the entry into force of this Protocol in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and to exchange Diplomatic Missions.



Protocol on Development of Relations Between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey

Guided by the Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey signed on the same day,

Considering the perspectives of developing their bilateral relations, based on confidence and respect to their mutual interests,

Determining to develop and enhance their bilateral relations, in the political, economic, energy, transport, scientific, cultural issues and other fields, based on common interests of both countries,

Supporting the promotion of the cooperation between the two countries in the international and regional organizations, especially within the framework of the UN, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the BSEC,

Taking into account the common purpose of both States to cooperate for enhancing regional stability and security for ensuring democratic and sustainable development of the region,

Reiterating their commitment to the peaceful settlement of regional and international disputes and conflicts on the basis of the norms and principles of international law,

Reaffirming their readiness to actively support the actions of the international community in addressing common security threats to the region and world security and stability, such as terrorism, transnational organized crimes, illicit trafficking of drugs and arms,

1. Agree to open the common border within 2 months after entry into force of this Protocol,

2. Agree to
Conduct regular political consultation between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the two countries;

Implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial and scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations;

Make the best possible use of existing transport, communications and energy infrastructure and networks between the two countries and to undertake measures in this regard;

Develop the bilateral legal framework in order to foster cooperation between the two countries;

Cooperate in the fields of science and education by encouraging relations between the appropriate institutions as well as promoting the exchange of specialists and students, and act with the aim of preserving the cultural heritage of both sides and launching common cultural projects;

Establish consular cooperation in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 in order to provide necessary assistance and protection to the citizens of the two countries;

Take concrete measures in order to develop trade, tourism and economic cooperation between the two countries;

Engage in a dialogue and reinforce their cooperation on environmental issues.

3. Agree on the establishment of an intergovernmental bilateral commission which shall comprise separate sub-commissions for the prompt implementation of the commitments mentioned in operation paragraph 2 above in this Protocol. To prepare the working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commissions, a working group headed by the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs shall be created 2 months after the day following the entry into force of this Protocol. Within 3 months after the entry into force of this Protocol, these modalities shall be approved at ministerial level. The intergovernmental commission shall meet for the first time immediately after the adoption of the said modalities. The sub-commissions shall start their work at the latest 1 month thereafter and they shall work continuously until the completion of their mandates. Where appropriate, international experts shall take part in the sub-commissions.

The timetable ans elements agreed by both sides for the implementation of this Protocol are mentioned in the annexed document (See below), which is an integral part of this Protocol.

This Protocol and the Protocol on the Estblishment of Diplomatic Relation between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey shall enter into force on the same day, i.e. on the fist day of the first month following the exchanges of instruments of ratification.



Annexed Document: Timetable and elements for the implementation of the Protocol on development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey



Timetable and elements for the implementation of the Protocol on development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey



Steps to be undertaken


Timing



1. to open the common border


Within two months after the entry into force of the Protocol on the development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey



2. to establish a working group headed by the two Ministers of Foreign Affairs to prepare the working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-committees


2 months after the day following entry into force of the Protocol on development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey



3. to approve the working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commissions and ministerial level


Within 3 months after entry into force of the Protocol on development of relations between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey



4. to organize the first meeting of the intergovernmental commission


Immediately after the adoption of the working modalities of the intergovernmental commission and its sub-commissions at ministerial level



5. to operate the following sub-commissions:

- the sub-commission on political consultations;

- the sub- commission on transport, communications, and energy infrastructure and networks,

- the sub-commission on legal matters

- the sub-commission on science and education

- the sub-commission on trade, tourism, and economic cooperation;

- the sub-commission on the historical dimension to implement a dialogue with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations, in which Armenian, Turkish as well as Swiss and other international experts shall take part.


At the latest 1 month after the first meeting of the intergovernmental commission



For the Republic of Armenia
For the Republic of Turkey

[Mukuch]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

ANCA WARNS CAPITOL HILL ABOUT DANGERS OF TURKEY-ARMENIA PROTOCOLS
Share
Today at 8:38pm
Armenian National Committee of America
1711 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel. (202) 775-1918
Fax. (202) 775-5648
[email protected]
Internet www.anca.org

PRESS RELEASE

For Immediate Release
September 1, 2009
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918

ANCA WARNS CAPITOL HILL ABOUT DANGERS
OF TURKEY-ARMENIA “PROTOCOLS”

-- Alerts Legislators about Pressure on Yerevan to
Accept Terms that Threaten Armenia’s Security

WASHINGTON, DC – The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) today shared with Members of Congress the reservations of the Armenian American community regarding a recent set of secretly-negotiated, Swiss-brokered, protocols between Turkey and Armenia regarding the normalization of their bilateral relations.

In a September 1, 2009 memo to Senate and House offices, ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian reviewed these concerns, alerted these offices to the undue pressure applied to Armenia to accept dangerous concessions, and informed legislators on both sides of Capitol Hill about Turkey’s rapid backtracking from even the minor commitments it had undertaken in these agreements.

In the note, Hamparian stressed that, “Among [the ANCA’s] primary concerns is that Armenia, blockaded by Turkey and under intense economic and diplomatic pressure, was forced into accepting terms that threaten her interests, rights, safety, and future – very notably in the form of a proposed ‘historical commission.’” He added that, “This provision, a tactic long pursued by Ankara to cast doubt on the historical record of the Armenian Genocide, is intended to serve Turkey’s drive to roll back the growing tide of international recognition of this crime against humanity. There can be no enduring relationship between Armenia and Turkey that is not built upon the foundation of Turkey’s acceptance of a true and just resolution of this crime.”

The memo closed with a set of four ANCA recommendations for U.S. policymakers, including both Presidential and Congressional recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

The full text of the ANCA memo is provided below.

#####

To: Foreign Affairs Legislative Aide
From: Aram Hamparian, Executive Director
Date: September 1, 2009

RE: Reservations regarding Turkey-Armenia protocols

I am writing to note that our community is seriously concerned regarding the substance of the recently signed Protocols between Armenia and Turkey, to share with you our alarm over the pressure applied to Armenia to accept dangerous conditions that prejudice the security of Armenia and the rights of all Armenians, and, finally, to inform you of Turkey’s nearly immediate backtracking from its commitments in these agreements.

Among our primary concerns is that Armenia, blockaded by Turkey and under intense economic and diplomatic pressure, was forced into accepting terms that threaten her interests, rights, safety, and future – very notably in the form of a proposed “historical commission.” This provision, a tactic long pursued by Ankara to cast doubt on the historical record of the Armenian Genocide, is intended to serve Turkey’s drive to roll back the growing tide of international recognition of this crime against humanity. There can be no enduring relationship between Armenia and Turkey that is not built upon the foundation of Turkey’s acceptance of a true and just resolution of this crime.

It’s worth noting that, at the same time that Turkey is seeking to gain credit internationally by appearing open to dialogue, its government is enforcing Article 301 and other laws criminalizing even the discussion of the genocide.

Just hours after yesterday’s signing of this secretly-negotiated deal, Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, had already started walking away from his country’s commitment to end its 16-year-old blockade of land-locked Armenia, a country that rose from the ashes of Ottoman Turkey’s genocidal campaign during and after the first Word War.

Here is Mr. Davutoglu’s quote, as reported by AP, and a Wall Street Journal report on Turkish and Azerbaijani resistance to opening Turkey’s border with Armenia.

“Ahmet Davutoglu said, however, that opening the border
was out of the question for now. “A longer process is
required for that,” he was quoted by Turkey’s NTV
television station as saying Monday.”

-- Turkey, Armenia agree to establish diplomatic ties
Associated Press, August 31, 2009

“[Davutoglu’s] comment on Tuesday reflected strong
opposition to opening the border with Armenia in both
Turkey and Azerbaijan, opposition that could still delay
or derail reconciliation.

-- Azerbaijan Casts Doubt on Turkey-Armenia Pact
Wall Street Journal, September 1, 2009

In what has become a troubling pattern – at the expense of U.S. credibility and Armenia’s very viability – the Turkish government is once again playing a double game: Claiming public credit, on the one hand, for progress on Turkey-Armenia relations, while, on the other, assuring Azerbaijan that Ankara will only lift its blockade with Baku’s approval.

This duplicity complicates the prospects for the actual establishment of Turkey-Armenia ties and undermines prospects for a durable peace in Nagorno Karabagh.

The lack of good faith by Ankara underscores the need for decisive action on the part of our government:

1) The President should honor his repeatedly stated pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide.

2) The Obama-Biden Administration must affirm that it will not, in any way, support a “historical commission” or any other effort calling into question the Armenian Genocide.

3) The State Department must hold Turkey accountable for its failure to honor its commitments.

4) The U.S. Congress should move quickly to pass the Armenian Genocide Resolution, H.Res.252.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

I'm not so adamantly against Sarkisian as many people in the diaspora are-- above all, because I recognize the dangers of Armenians calling for the head of their own government, which only works in the interests of our enemies. Whether or not you consider it naive, I don't believe Sarkisian would "sell out" Artsakh.

Having said that, it is clear that Sarkisian and Nalbandian are seriously ill-equipped to deal with Turkish diplomats, for a couple of reasons.

One, we are the smaller country, therefore we need to use soft power in our negotiations-- We have to give Turkey the impression that we don't care if the border is closed for the next 100 years, while at the same time showing the world that we favor open transit and commerce between nations. We also have to use every opportunity to at least bring up the issue of Azerbaijan's bellicose nature and the undemocratic nature of Turkey (for example, bringing up the issue of banning certain books on Armenian history, and how its hard to establish relations with such a country). Sarkisian and Nalbandian are not doing any of this, and in effect are painting Turkey as some kind of neutral party who simply wants to open up diplomatic ties, and that the suspension of ties thusfar are somehow dependent on OUR actions. They are not. They are solely dependent on Turkey's direct aggression for the past 100+ years, their support of Azeri bandits, their decision to close the border in 1993, and the way they set up their army on our border threatening to invade Armenia... remember that? Turkey was about to invade us less than 20 years ago, we need to raise that issue in front of the world, and use that as a basis so WE can put preconditions on THEM, at least in terms of guaranteeing aspects of our security.

Thats what I mean by soft power, and so far Sarkisian and Nalbandian have been completely absent in this approach. Second, even if Armenia uses its cards effectively, we have to remember we are engaging in diplomacy with a country that has over 600 years of imperial history, which means they are masters in diplomacy. You can't expect a few Soviet-raised peasants (no offense intended) to be able to outwit Turkey without great, great planning and effort. And speaking of planning, it is apparently absent from our agenda, because we keep taking steps in which we have no idea what the next step is. For example, if we open the border, are there any restrictions? If so, what are the specific restrictions? This is just one of the many issues in which we don't have a comprehensive plan for the future, but we are somehow pushing towards these goals which remain vague and unspecified.

We also have to remember that this entire process is largely the work of the US pushing Turkey on one side, and Russia pushing Armenia on the other. They both want a secure and stable pipeline route in which both superpowers see themselves as getting the upper hand. We basically have no choice but to follow the economic interests of Russia, and this is what I suspect (and hope) is the cause of Sarkisian's complete inadequacy in the diplomatic field.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Ara Papyan: Ankara will get what it strived for
01.09.2009 19:41 GMT+04:00 Print version Send to mail

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Protocols on “Establishing Diplomatic Ties between Armenia and Turkey” and “Developing Bilateral Relations” aim to force Yerevan into accepting all three preconditions set by Turkey, Head of Modus Vivendi centre Ara Papyantold a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter. “Ankara’s first precondition requires Armenia to refuse territorial claims, i.e. recognize present-day borders. Clause 4 of Protocol on ‘Establishing Diplomatic Ties’ satisfies Turkey’s claims,” Armenian expert noted.

Ankara’s second precondition requires that Karabakh conflict be settled based on the principle of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. “The same Protocol satisfies that claim as well, as its second clause concerns the principles that form the basis of Armenian-Turkish relations,” the speaker stated.
The Protocol also satisfies Turkey’s third claim – suspension of international Genocide recognition process. “The document envisages creation of sub-committees, including one dealing with historical problems between two nations. Clearly, the most problematic issue in this regard is Armenian Genocide,” Ara Papyan said, adding that Armenia’s acceptance of Turkish-proposed protocols will fully satisfy Turkey’s desires.

[Mukuch]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

I'm not so adamantly against Sarkisian as many people in the diaspora are-- above all, because I recognize the dangers of Armenians calling for the head of their own government, which only works in the interests of our enemies. Whether or not you consider it naive, I don't believe Sarkisian would "sell out" Artsakh.

Having said that, it is clear that Sarkisian and Nalbandian are seriously ill-equipped to deal with Turkish diplomats, for a couple of reasons.

One, we are the smaller country, therefore we need to use soft power in our negotiations-- We have to give Turkey the impression that we don't care if the border is closed for the next 100 years, while at the same time showing the world that we favor open transit and commerce between nations. We also have to use every opportunity to at least bring up the issue of Azerbaijan's bellicose nature and the undemocratic nature of Turkey (for example, bringing up the issue of banning certain books on Armenian history, and how its hard to establish relations with such a country). Sarkisian and Nalbandian are not doing any of this, and in effect are painting Turkey as some kind of neutral party who simply wants to open up diplomatic ties, and that the suspension of ties thusfar are somehow dependent on OUR actions. They are not. They are solely dependent on Turkey's direct aggression for the past 100+ years, their support of Azeri bandits, their decision to close the border in 1993, and the way they set up their army on our border threatening to invade Armenia... remember that? Turkey was about to invade us less than 20 years ago, we need to raise that issue in front of the world, and use that as a basis so WE can put preconditions on THEM, at least in terms of guaranteeing aspects of our security.

So far-so good...

Thats what I mean by soft power, and so far Sarkisian and Nalbandian have been completely absent in this approach. Second, even if Armenia uses its cards effectively, we have to remember we are engaging in diplomacy with a country that has over 600 years of imperial history, which means they are masters in diplomacy. You can't expect a few Soviet-raised peasants (no offense intended) to be able to outwit Turkey without great, great planning and effort. And speaking of planning, it is apparently absent from our agenda, because we keep taking steps in which we have no idea what the next step is. For example, if we open the border, are there any restrictions? If so, what are the specific restrictions? This is just one of the many issues in which we don't have a comprehensive plan for the future, but we are somehow pushing towards these goals which remain vague and unspecified.

Absolutely agree...

We also have to remember that this entire process is largely the work of the US pushing Turkey on one side, and Russia pushing Armenia on the other. They both want a secure and stable pipeline route in which both superpowers see themselves as getting the upper hand. We basically have no choice but to follow the economic interests of Russia, and this is what I suspect (and hope) is the cause of Sarkisian's complete inadequacy in the diplomatic field.

You "hope"? Yes it is clear to child that it is Russians pressure... BUT DOES IT MAKE IT ANY BETTER? If Russia pushes us to suicide do we accept it? That is what exactly happening... WE ARE IN DEEP xxxx!
You xxxxen "hope"....