Armenian-Turkish Relations

[Haykakan]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR: TURKEY IS NOT SERIOUS ABOUT NORMALIZING RELATIONS WITH ARMENIA

Today.Az

http://www.today.az/news/politics/55384.html

Sept 8 2009
Azerbaijan

Professor of Government and Politics in the Department of Public and
International Affairs at the U.S. George Mason University Mark Katz
spoke to Day.Az in an interview.

Day.Az: Turkey refuses to open the borders with Armenia without full
resolution of the Karabakh conflict, while the protocol between Armenia
and Turkey doesn't mention the conflict at all. Do you believe that
the Nagorno Karabakh problem will be the main topic of discussion in
the Turkey-Armenia negotiations?

Mark Katz: Many here in Washington believe that because Turkey set
resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as a pre-condition for Turkey
opening its border with Armenia, the Turkish government is, in fact,
not serious about normalizing relations with Armenia. It doesn't seem
likely that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be resolved any time
soon. Turkey's willingness to even talk about normalizing relations
with Armenia seems aimed more at improving Turkey's relations with
the Obama Administration.

Q: The opposition parties of both Armenia and Turkey are against
normalization of relations between the two countries. Do you think
both countries are ready for the next step in their relations?

A: It seems that on a person-to-person level, Turks and Armenians are
able to deal with each other. Many Armenians now vacation in Turkey. I
understand that there are also now direct flights between Turkey and
Armenia. Trade between the two nations is also increasing. Still,
politicians on both sides who wish to cooperate with the other
are vulnerable to nationalist criticism in their own country. And
politicians are usually not likely to take risks if they see them as
jeopardizing their careers.

Q: The U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan has not yet been named. Given
the high interest in the South Caucasus region at this time, the
new ambassador will probably be named very soon. Among the possible
candidates is Matthew Bryza. Do you believe anyone else who could be
appointed to this position?

A: I have met Matthew Bryza on several occasions and believe that he is
exceptionally talented. He would certainly be a good U.S. ambassador
to Azerbaijan. I wonder, though, if the Obama Administration sees
him as a Bush Administration holdover, and would prefer to appoint
someone more closely associated either with Obama or Clinton. Of
course, the appointment process is moving so slowly that it may be
awhile before anyone is appointed.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

The problem is not 'pre-conditions' but 'post-conditions' of which Armenians have many. That is recognition, reparations, restititution that lay dormant for now. So the Turks would be asking themselves, why would they engage in a dialogue, establish trade and political relations with a people that covets territory and seeks to undermine their international standing at every available opportunity? Why would they facilitate the economic development of Armenia with very little corresponding economic benefit to their own economy and compromise relations with one of their closest allies? The problem is the lack of trust and lack of incentives. They know Armenian politicians speak with forked tongues, that is, they have make no territorial or financial demands on Turkey now but they don't preclude their future rights to making claims when the time is 'right'.

Trying to prop up pre-conditions in order to renounce "post-conditions" is an asinine task, to say the least. You don't have to accept "post-conditions" once you establish relations, but you have to accept pre-conditions before you even have relations. Its not hard to see the difference, and why the Turkish pre-conditions are asinine. Why should Armenians be forced to open borders (which Turkey closed) by conceding on key issues, when there is no guarantee that Turkey will even act faithfully? Afterall, they chose to take sides in the Karabagh conflict. Not even Russia, which has defense treaties with Armenia, went so far as closing their border with Azerbaijan. So clearly Turkey is a hostile state and it should be treated as such by the Armenian leadership.

Its interesting to hear accusations of Armenian land claims. King Aliyev II said that Yerevan is an old Azeri city which should be returned to Azerbaijan. By doing this, the man made an explicit comment about wiping a neighboring country off the map. There is a big difference not only in the nature of land policies between Turks and Armenians, but in the application of these policies. Not only will Armenians’ "dormant" land claims leave Turkey and Azerbaijan intact, but they will remain fully functional states. The Turkish land claims, however, seek to end our statehood. I hope I don’t have to explain why this is a profound difference.

Another major difference is that our land claims are not on the state level. You won't hear officials from any level of the Armenian government making land claims--- but you hear it from the highest authority of Azerbaijan, and from significant sources in Turkey. So before you pin land claims on Armenians, you should look at Turkey’s recent history and listen to what the Turks want for the future— afterall, they are the much stronger side, so their actions have more bearing than ours in the bigger picture. And the last difference between the land claims is that ours are perfectly legal, while Turkish land claims are entirely the work of Pan-Turk fascists and their historical revisionists.

And the excuse that Armenia might have territorial claims in the future is not a basis for blocking diplomatic relations. FYR Macedonia already has land claims on Greece, but the two countries have relations.

I don't want relations with Turkey under the current circumstances. However, your position that Armenia is at fault for the lack of relations is very rash and shows a complete disregard for Turkish policies towards Armenians for the last 100+ years. You should read more about recent Turkish history as well as the news coming out of Ankara and Baku.

[Haykakan]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Trying to prop up pre-conditions in order to renounce "post-conditions" is an asinine task, to say the least. You don't have to accept "post-conditions" once you establish relations, but you have to accept pre-conditions before you even have relations. Its not hard to see the difference, and why the Turkish pre-conditions are asinine. Why should Armenians be forced to open borders (which Turkey closed) by conceding on key issues, when there is no guarantee that Turkey will even act faithfully? Afterall, they chose to take sides in the Karabagh conflict. Not even Russia, which has defense treaties with Armenia, went so far as closing their border with Azerbaijan. So clearly Turkey is a hostile state and it should be treated as such by the Armenian leadership.

Its interesting to hear accusations of Armenian land claims. King Aliyev II said that Yerevan is an old Azeri city which should be returned to Azerbaijan. By doing this, the man made an explicit comment about wiping a neighboring country off the map. There is a big difference not only in the nature of land policies between Turks and Armenians, but in the application of these policies. Not only will Armenians’ "dormant" land claims leave Turkey and Azerbaijan intact, but they will remain fully functional states. The Turkish land claims, however, seek to end our statehood. I hope I don’t have to explain why this is a profound difference.

Another major difference is that our land claims are not on the state level. You won't hear officials from any level of the Armenian government making land claims--- but you hear it from the highest authority of Azerbaijan, and from significant sources in Turkey. So before you pin land claims on Armenians, you should look at Turkey’s recent history and listen to what the Turks want for the future— afterall, they are the much stronger side, so their actions have more bearing than ours in the bigger picture. And the last difference between the land claims is that ours are perfectly legal, while Turkish land claims are entirely the work of Pan-Turk fascists and their historical revisionists.

And the excuse that Armenia might have territorial claims in the future is not a basis for blocking diplomatic relations. FYR Macedonia already has land claims on Greece, but the two countries have relations.

I don't want relations with Turkey under the current circumstances. However, your position that Armenia is at fault for the lack of relations is very rash and shows a complete disregard for Turkish policies towards Armenians for the last 100+ years. You should read more about recent Turkish history as well as the news coming out of Ankara and Baku.

I like your analasys of the two examples and the way you clearly stated the difference between them. I do disagree with the border opening though, we need to do what is in Armenias interest(which may include things Russia wants us to do). In todays environment Armenias interests are not as clear as one might think. The involvement of great powers in the region complicates the matter greatly and things which may look bad may actually be good for us and visa-versa. There is a big picture we need to see and understand our place in it.

[Jos]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Trying to prop up pre-conditions in order to renounce "post-conditions" is an asinine task, to say the least. You don't have to accept "post-conditions" once you establish relations, but you have to accept pre-conditions before you even have relations. Its not hard to see the difference, and why the Turkish pre-conditions are asinine. Why should Armenians be forced to open borders (which Turkey closed) by conceding on key issues, when there is no guarantee that Turkey will even act faithfully? Afterall, they chose to take sides in the Karabagh conflict. Not even Russia, which has defense treaties with Armenia, went so far as closing their border with Azerbaijan. So clearly Turkey is a hostile state and it should be treated as such by the Armenian leadership.

Its interesting to hear accusations of Armenian land claims. King Aliyev II said that Yerevan is an old Azeri city which should be returned to Azerbaijan. By doing this, the man made an explicit comment about wiping a neighboring country off the map. There is a big difference not only in the nature of land policies between Turks and Armenians, but in the application of these policies. Not only will Armenians’ "dormant" land claims leave Turkey and Azerbaijan intact, but they will remain fully functional states. The Turkish land claims, however, seek to end our statehood. I hope I don’t have to explain why this is a profound difference.

Another major difference is that our land claims are not on the state level. You won't hear officials from any level of the Armenian government making land claims--- but you hear it from the highest authority of Azerbaijan, and from significant sources in Turkey. So before you pin land claims on Armenians, you should look at Turkey’s recent history and listen to what the Turks want for the future— afterall, they are the much stronger side, so their actions have more bearing than ours in the bigger picture. And the last difference between the land claims is that ours are perfectly legal, while Turkish land claims are entirely the work of Pan-Turk fascists and their historical revisionists.

And the excuse that Armenia might have territorial claims in the future is not a basis for blocking diplomatic relations. FYR Macedonia already has land claims on Greece, but the two countries have relations.

I don't want relations with Turkey under the current circumstances. However, your position that Armenia is at fault for the lack of relations is very rash and shows a complete disregard for Turkish policies towards Armenians for the last 100+ years. You should read more about recent Turkish history as well as the news coming out of Ankara and Baku.

Whether Armenia is at fault or not is irrelevant. It remains the Armenian leadership discretion as to whether they reject the protocals, treat it's neighbours as hostile states, blocks relations with Turkey indefinitely, makes no concessions on Karabagh. Armenia should weigh up the price of taking a course of action and act according to their own national self interest. Likewise Turkey will give priority to their own self interest. That national interest dictates that a political protocol be entered into prior to establishing formal relations because of the historical context.

But I fail to see how a protocol that secures borders, address security, terrorism, environmental, energy, trade, transport concerns will be to the detriment of Armenia. Will Armenia have a better future if the agreement is rejected?

[Hellektor]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Something fishy is going on here and it may be tied to 'the Protocols'.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Azerbaijan Will Lift Armenia Blockade for Karabakh


The Madrid principles governing the Karabakh peace process call for a withdrawal of the liberated territories and their return (as if it ever belonged to them. H.) to Azerbaijan, the return of Azeri refugees to Karabakh, and envision a future referendum of self-determination in Karabakh.

According to Polukhov, Azerbaijan will populate the liberated regions with nearly half a million Azeris kept in refugee camps by the state since the outbreak of the Karabakh war.

Nothing fishy, nothing new. I have said this a quintillion times that our most important issue is the liberated, historically Armenian territories around the artificially and illegally drawn borders of NKAO. This has been the ONE major thing the entire horde of anti-Armenian “international” community has incessantly demanded by pressurizing Armenians. With the help of their friends in the West who own and control the media, the sore genocidal, warmongering “Azeri” loser has distorted the events and has represented it upside down, playing the victim while they were the murderous aggressors.

They want territory. The whole thing revolves around this one fact and the age-old, sick, pan-Turkist delusion of destroying Armenia. The entire so-called Turk-Armenian reconciliation process is nothing but a cunning way to force Armenians to cede the territories so that the destruction of the Armenian state will only be a matter of time. They don't even hide the intention: they are going to infest the area with half a million genocidal Azeris which will stifle the Artsakh Armenians and force them out of Artsakh.

Next, while despite their miserable defeat they got that strategic highland which gives them total command of the surrounded with wolves Artsakh, -like it was during the war and this was the primary reason that led to the liberation of those areas- now more emboldened, they will demand Meghri to have access to occupied Nakhijevan, threatening the besieged Artsakh which will have lost its strategic stronghold.

After Meghri is gone, it will take some decades before the population of RoA will have left Armenia for the land of opportunities, given that the Turk will then have total control on Armenia's economy and the millions of samples of the species will have inundated Armenia, having completely altered the demography, the final curtain will fall on the thousands of years of Armenian civilization. And all that because our lousy politicians have never uttered a word about the territorial integrity of Armenia.

The constant sniveling about self-determination vs. territorial integrity has served the counterfeit nonentity called fake “Azerbaijan” that nowhere throughout its less than a century miserable “history” has ever sat down with its neighbors to delineate its borders and it has never been recognized by the international community before 1991, when Artsakh was no more part of its nonexistent territorial integrity, while the Republic of Armenia (1918-1920) was recognized by the powers, proof: the signing of the treaty of Sčvres, proof: the ambassadors to different countries including Japan and the US.

The dream of my life is to hear one of our statesmen say: territorial integrity of fake “Azerbaijan”? What territorial integrity? Where is that territorial integrity? What about the territorial integrity of Armenia?

The artificially fabricated bogus state of fake “Azerbaijan” was counterfeited on Armenian territory in 1918 for genocidal purposes, to prevent the Armenian land under Russian rule, liberated in 1917 after the Jew-Tatar agitator Lenin's revolution, be resurrected as an Armenian state. This would spoil their plan and their meticulously designed and magnificently carried out extermination of Armenians all over the Ottoman Tyranny. They stole the name Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) from the northwest region of Iran for later territorial claims on that country killing two birds with one stone. Thus, fake “Azerbaijan” has no integrity let alone territorial, neither historically, nor morally, and nor what's most important for those who howl “territorial integrity”: legally.

*****

The whole Turk-Armenian “relations” crap revolves around this

I copy/paste the following for the sextillionth time, yet it doesn’t seem to worry anyone.

In the present situation, though not as wide as it should be to be the last nail in the coffin of pan-Turkism, the Armenian wedge is wide enough to guarantee a certain degree of security against the unquenchable thirst of the wolves in human shape, for Armenian blood:

This is what they want. As soon as they get the historically Armenian territories around the artificially drawn genocidal borders of NKAO, the wedge will be as vulnerable as in Soviet times. Emboldened by the usurpation of land even when they lost the war they started, the brazen Turk will start demanding Meghri to have direct access to stolen Nakhijevan and Armenia will drown in a Turk quagmire:

They do not need to commit massacres to drive Armenians out of the girl’s profile. They constantly howl about a “million” “Azeri” “refugees” and once they took the liberated land, they’ll use their weapons of mass population, unleash a million ferocious “Azeris” on us, settling them in those areas which will stifle Artsakh and Armenia.

This post of mine has been brutally mutilated by the mod. H.

[Hellektor]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

But I fail to see how a protocol that secures borders, address security, terrorism, environmental, energy, trade, transport concerns will be to the detriment of Armenia. Will Armenia have a better future if the agreement is rejected?

What you “fail” to see (or don't want to see) is that Turkey is not after relations with Armenia. Turkey is and has always been after the destruction of the Armenian state, whenever it has had a chance to be resurrected. Turkey has never tolerated and will never tolerate the existence of an Armenia of any shape, size or form.

This protocol could serve a positive purpose if didn't include the three conditions insisted on by the inventors of genocide which are clearly outlined by the infamous Jew David Philips of TARC infamy, who wrote the text. These conditions violate the rights of the Armenian nation who has been savagely wronged by Turks ever since the they set foot on this side of the Caspian in the 11th century AD. Thus, the protocol rewards the nation murdering barbarians for their crime and authorizes them to enjoy the fruit of genocide.

The three Judeo-Turkic conditions brutally and illegally:

1- force Armenia to recognize the present, genocidal borders between Armenia and Turkey, itself forced on Armenia by the genocidal bandit doenmeh Jew Kemal and the Jew-Tatar agitator Lenin, after their bestial sodomy fest in 1921.

2- force Armenia to relinquish the efforts towards the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, neutralizing decades of hard work by the Diaspora to make this crime against humanity known to the world.

3- force Armenia to cede liberated historically Armenian territories to the sore “Azeri” losers and perpetrators of genocide and war, territory that has never been part of fake “Azerbaijan”, historically, morally or legally.

This post of mine has been brutally mutilated by the mod. H.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Whether Armenia is at fault or not is irrelevant. It remains the Armenian leadership discretion as to whether they reject the protocals, treat it's neighbours as hostile states, blocks relations with Turkey indefinitely, makes no concessions on Karabagh. Armenia should weigh up the price of taking a course of action and act according to their own national self interest. Likewise Turkey will give priority to their own self interest. That national interest dictates that a political protocol be entered into prior to establishing formal relations because of the historical context.

If you're saying the preconditions are based on a "historical context", then Turkey is the last state we should have such a relationship with--- Turkey, a country where you can't even talk about recent history, where you can't say something that goes against the ideals of Pan-Turkism or Kemalism, which 'coincidentally' were both created by Zionist J ews. They want to create a historical commission, when they have rejected the findings of EVERY historical commission dealing with the Armenian Genocide for decades. They have official policies of censoring speech on this topic since the day their republic was founded. So obviously, Turkey is not after historical truth. Even a child can see this.

What you “fail” to see (or don't want to see) is that Turkey is not after relations with Armenia. Turkey is and has always been after the destruction of the Armenian state, whenever it has had a chance to be resurrected. Turkey has never tolerated and will never tolerate the existence of an Armenia of any shape, size or form.

This sums it up. The only point of the Turkish land claims is to end our statehood. It is not about having "good neighborly relations". It is about wiping us off the map. Its one thing if Turks don't see it (or as you said, don't want to see it) but Armenians need to wake up and absorb the reality of Turkey's intentions towards us.

[Anoush]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

If you're saying the preconditions are based on a "historical context", then Turkey is the last state we should have such a relationship with--- Turkey, a country where you can't even talk about recent history, where you can't say something that goes against the ideals of Pan-Turkism or Kemalism, which 'coincidentally' were both created by Zionist J ews. They want to create a historical commission, when they have rejected the findings of EVERY historical commission dealing with the Armenian Genocide for decades. They have official policies of censoring speech on this topic since the day their republic was founded. So obviously, Turkey is not after historical truth. Even a child can see this.

Dear ArmS, not only that but turkey for decades ago already wiped out and re-created their history books anything to do with the Armenian Genocide records, because they are simply afraid and wished to conceal every facts that is connected with the Arm. Genocide. The same as the "azeri" pogrom massacrist de-humans for many years now turkey all over our Western Armenian lands have broken down all our Churches, Monasteries and the likes plus they have concealed anything and everything that is Armenian so that as if the world wouldn't know that it has been ours for thousands of years.

This sums it up. The only point of the Turkish land claims is to end our statehood. It is not about having "good neighborly relations". It is about wiping us off the map. Its one thing if Turks don't see it (or as you said, don't want to see it) but Armenians need to wake up and absorb the reality of Turkey's intentions towards us.

It looks to me that Armenians DO NOT LEARN that our degenerate enemies are after our lands and (indeed they want Armenia without Armenians); they always have been and they ALWAYS will. But my Armenian brethren or I should state our high-end politicians in RA either believe our enemies regardless to the fact that they are constantly speaking with both ends of their mouths or our politicians in the motherland lack backbone.

[Jos]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

If you're saying the preconditions are based on a "historical context", then Turkey is the last state we should have such a relationship with--- Turkey, a country where you can't even talk about recent history, where you can't say something that goes against the ideals of Pan-Turkism or Kemalism, which 'coincidentally' were both created by Zionist J ews. They want to create a historical commission, when they have rejected the findings of EVERY historical commission dealing with the Armenian Genocide for decades. They have official policies of censoring speech on this topic since the day their republic was founded. So obviously, Turkey is not after historical truth. Even a child can see this.





This sums it up. The only point of the Turkish land claims is to end our statehood. It is not about having "good neighborly relations". It is about wiping us off the map. Its one thing if Turks don't see it (or as you said, don't want to see it) but Armenians need to wake up and absorb the reality of Turkey's intentions towards us.

I really don't see the nexus between the protocol and "wiping Armenian off the map". If your interested in diminishing external threats then you shoudn't hesitate to sign the protocol as it specifically confirms Armenia's existing boundaries thereby reinforcing your statehood. It will also help re-integrate Armenia's into the world economy and strengthen its institutions and government by formalising relations. Business, investment, people need as much certainty and reliability as possible. The current relationship is negative and uncertain and impoverishes all countries in the region. The Swiss written protocols appear to offer as much as win/win positions to both Armenia and Turkey as possible. You can wrap yourself in pride, historical injustice, emnity as much as you like but you shouldn't blame Armenian leaders for making unemotional and rational decisions that will benefit their long term interests.

[Haykakan]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

I think we need to be carefull about what we sighn because these documents are open ended and can be manipuilated in one direction or the other but i totally agree that there is big potential for Armenia should the borders open and the authorities are not selling out, they are looking out for the interest of Armenia and it's future which is exactly what their job is. Armenia's leaders are not dumb nor are they unpaitriotic, their job is to do what is best for the country and that is exactly what they are trying to do. The options they have to work with are limited and heavily influenced by the big powers of the day. It is impressive the amout of change for the better that Armenia has experienced after the LTP years given its blockade, small size, lack of resources....I hardly think anyone else would have done better under such conditions. I think the diaspora needs to get on the same page with the government, instead of leaving the coalition Dashnaktsutyun needs to work with it not with LTP. Kocharian and Serj have proven their loyalty to Armenia and kharabagh on more then one occasion so there is no need to question where their herts are. Chances are these documents will lead to nowhere but if they do lead to open borders it will be more to the benefit of Armenia then turckey. We Armenians have survived on that part of the planet for a very long time despite the conquests of many great powers and we have kept our identity so those screaming that the open borders will lead to Armenias disintigration into turckishness are smoking the bad weed.