Armenian-Turkish Relations

[Anoush]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Purpose of the Armenian-Turkish Historical Commission:

Turkey badly needs creation of the Historical Commission, to avoid AG impending restitution, further recognition and blaming such countries as France, Germany etc. that "ignorantly" (using world wide known, written, historical facts) accepted AG; which now is questioned by Armenia.

Thanks to the un-manly and also un-Armenian stands of Serge Sarksyan and Edward Nalbandyan. Instead of speaking with Russia, turkey and the US more sternly within the right political frame, as Mr. Oskanian said, Armenia has lowered their bars pretty much down to the ground. This is a terrible and unforgivable act on behalf of the government of the Armenian Republic of today. If and when they go through with these dispecable acts of conduct and the un-desirable preconditions; they will have to answer to the future generations of Armenians for their weakedness of character.

[gegev]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Getting This Wrong Will Be Unforgivable


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 concessions however 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.

Great, it is the absolute truth about this protocol.
And this is the only possible way of thinking for an experienced Armenian diplomat.

[Alexandros]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations




Seven-thousand kilometer project is awaiting parliamentary approval

08 September, 2009

Davutoglu’s suggestion made to EU Ministers for a highway spanning from the Caucasus to Europe resulted in bringing up the former agreement signed by the Black Sea Economic Collaboration in 2007.

Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutoglu suggested a “road for peace” span from the Caucasus to Europe, within the framework of the Armenian expansion. The decision now rests in the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s agenda. Spanning throughout 12 nations, the 7,000 kilometer Black Sea Highway project, which will connect Istanbul to Yerevan and Yerevan to Baku is awaiting approval by the assembly.

GUL HAS ALREADY SIGNED FOR THE PROJECT

President Abdullah Gul had already signed an agreement for a Black Sea Highway, which would pass through 12 countries, in April of 2007 when he was the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The draft bill was brought to the Assembly for approval and was accepted by the Foreign Affairs Commission. The agreement is still a topic in the General Assembly’s agenda.

1,985 KILOMETERS THROUGH TURKEY

According to the agreement, the highway which will connect Asia to Europe will be named the Black Sea Highway. The Highway, which will pass through 12 different countries and 24 cities, will connect the Caucasus to the Balkans and then to European highways. Therefore, the Black Sea Highway will provide the network system to access Europe. An individual will be able to leave Baku and access Western Europe. One thousand 985 kilometers of the highway will be in Turkey. Every nation will have to pay for the construction costs within their borders. EU funds will be able to be used for the highway construction. According to the agreement, the cities and countries the highway will pass through is as follows: Komotini, Alexandroupoli (Greece), Edirne, Istanbul, Samsun Trabzon (Turkey), Batumi, Poti (Georgia), Yerevan (Armenia), Baku (Azerbaijan), Novorosisk, Rostov-on-Don, Taganrok (Russia), Mariupol, Melitopol, Odessa (Ukraine), Kishinev (Moldova), Bucharest, Constanta (Romania), Haskovo, Sophia (Bulgaria), Nis, Belgrade (Serbia), Tirana (Albania)."

Link

[Lucin]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

No, it was quite the opposite. He was sacked from his job for calling for Genocide recognition.

Yea, it was the opposite, lol. Thanks for the correction. But at least now he should have stayed in the parliment and voted against the protocols rather than resigning.

[Haykakan]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

I liked Oskanian and was worried when he decided to no longer work for our government for personal reasons having said this we need to keep in mind that we do not have many options to begin with and must dance with the big powers without steping on their feet. The highway project looks very usefull but will do us good only if borders are open. I think it is a great example of how open borders can benefit Armenia and all of it's neighbors.

[gegev]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

I liked Oskanian and was worried when he decided to no longer work for our government for personal reasons having said this we need to keep in mind that we do not have many options to begin with and must dance with the big powers without steping on their feet. The highway project looks very usefull but will do us good only if borders are open. I think it is a great example of how open borders can benefit Armenia and all of it's neighbors.

The "Great" highway project will be approved by Turkey if Armenia will surrender on all three Turkish preconditions. I live in Armenia and I don't need this kind of progress for Caucasus people at my country's expense.

Thanks; the offer is rejected by most of Armenians.

[Haykakan]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

You do not speak for all Armenians living in Armenia and there is nothing stating that Armenia has to surrender anything to be a part of this project, our section can just as well run through georgia instead if need be.

[Hellektor]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

*The following is not likely to happen but it would be an interesting scenario.*

If you were the president of Armenia and Turkey calls you one day and tells you that if Armenia recognises Northern Cyprus Turkey would in exchange recognise Artsakh, would you take this deal? Yes/no and why.

If they upped the ante and asked you to sign these protocols in addition to them putting the above offer on the table, would you still take it? Yes/no and why.

While I cannot imagine ever being the president, I would rephrase the question in something like if one day we could have a patriotic government and not a bunch of career-monger lousy thugs, I would love to hear my president say, “OK, we recognize the borders between Armenia and Turkey based on the only valid document according to international law, the Woodrow Wilson arbitration.”

The treaty of Kars is illegal from all points of view while the Wilson arbitration is non-revocable, legally binding for not just Turkey, but also Armenia and the countries who signed the Sèvres treaty and as of today, about 142 countries are bound by international law to enforce it and Serge and his gang do not have the authority to annul this document by signing the present farcical protocol written by the anti-Armenian Jew hollow hoaxer David Philips with the criminal record of the infamous TARC in his miserable professional history.

Oh, Cyprus! How it pisses me off that the Eurofags don’t have the balls to just dispose of that occupying Turk garbage into the Mediterranean and get it over with. Instead they are courting the old and ugly prostitute with an astronomical price, the all IMPORTANT, most worthless garbage ever to have been defecated by the rectum of the universe, Turkey, embracing the genocidal serpent into the EU while it occupies 37% of that EU country, has closed its ports on it and refuses to recognize its sovereignty.

I would rather die than live the shame of being of the nation who first recognizes the genocidal vermin’s illegal occupation of a territory belonging to Greeks of all people.

[UrMistake]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Turkey to open Lobbying Ministry
09.09.2009 19:54 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Faruk Çelik, Turkish Minister of Work and Social Security, has elaborated a new project to be submitted to Milli Majilis for approval. Project envisages creation of a new ministry protecting the rights of Turks living beyond the country’s borders. The ministry will have a special department which will deal with lobbying issues and represent Turkey in international structures.

New Ministry staff will consist of a Minister, 7 department heads and 15 specialists, Turkish Sabah newspaper reports.

[UrMistake]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations



Along with normalization of relations with Armenia, Turkey establishes a new state structure to fight with Armenian Diaspora.

Turkish State Minister of Human Rights Protection of the Turks residing abroad, Faruk Celik elaborated a bill to be submitted to the Parliament shortly, Turkish Sabah reported.

The document provides for the Ministry to be engaged in lobbying of the interests of Turkey in foreign countries. The structure will comprise a minister, 7 heads of departments and 50 experts.

News from Armenia - NEWS.am