Armenian-Turkish Relations

[Anoush]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Turkey is really tired of this conflict. I am sure Turkey has no intention on Armenia lands. I dont know about Azerbaijan. I think, Ankara may even agree on a semi-independent Karabagh or an independent Karabagh with refugees returned.

turkey is afraid of Sevres Treaty and wants us to sign off all of Western Armenia, and like ArmSurvival said that the (trade-off) is not a trade-off but simply bowing our heads down to the ground and letting turkey to take advantage of us completely. We do not want to sign off the Genocide issue, neither we want to sign off our Western Armenian lands that has been stolen from Armenians. We want our lands back. That would be the reparations of the Armenian Genocide.

They may even agree on a corridor to Armenia from Karabagh, maybe a strait.

We do not want Lachin corrideor either. Karapakh already gave away some lands back. The lands in between Armenia and the small Karapakh lands must stand still. Thank you.

He said that to convince Azerbaijan, because Baku's response to the protocol was deadly for the relations.

"azerbaijan" lost the war 18 years ago. Those were Armenian lands already and we won the war. Refugees must not return to Karapakh as they will overpopulate the lands by having 10 kids per ours of 2 or 3 the most. Let the refugees go to the other lands of "azeri"s, they have 80% of the lands already. Leave the 20% for us, gees.

Turks have a Sevres-phobia. Even the name makes them angry, because they think, Sevres was a plan to end them forever. I can agree with that too. The border issue with Armenia would not be such as a big problem if it was not rooted from Sevres.

turks have a Sevres-phobia because they are thieves; they stole Armenian lands and sat on it for 94 years after slaughtering us. We want our lands back and we don't want pre-conditions on the protocols.

[Haykakan]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

You're not realizing a very important detail in what you just said-- A tradeoff (not a fair one, but a tradeoff) would be if we signed away western Armenia while Turkey officially recognizes Karabagh as Armenian territory.

However, what you're saying is that we should sign away western Armenia so that Turkey temporarily doesn't raise the Karabagh issue, but will eventually raise it in the future (preferably, when Armenian import/export routes are fixed on Turkey's territory meaning they have more leverage on the Karabagh issue). You essentially want to sign away western Armenia for nothing.

By then kharabagh and its surrounding regions will be more heavily populated thus our claim to it made stronger. A very big reason i think the way i do is because there are no armenians left in western turckey. As of now we would be conceding the right to something we do not have and will not have anytime soon. Having a armenian population on the land makes all the difference in the world that is why i think kharabagh is worth the high price we will pay for it. Kharabagh is ours and will remain so. Even if we give up a region it will be a insignificant one and our hold on her will be secure. The turcks want the east west route and so do the azeris but georgia is too stupid to provide it effectively so they need the open border with us. As i mentioned earlier our priority needs to be to strengthen what we already have, only then can we demand things because only the strong get what they want. The turcks and azeris can cry about kharabagh all they want but as long as armenia has its people living on that land and the support of russia it will controll it. Populating and strengthening what we already have is top priority. In addition to solidifying kharabagh we will also get a huge boost in our economy in many different ways (oil pipelines, free trade zones, new trade routes, new customers, new suppliers..).

[Mukuch]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Turkey is really tired of this conflict. I am sure Turkey has no intention on Armenia lands. I dont know about Azerbaijan. I think, Ankara may even agree on a semi-independent Karabagh or an independent Karabagh with refugees returned.

They may even agree on a corridor to Armenia from Karabagh, maybe a strait.

This is just stupid...

What turks got to do with it? Sins when turks is a side in the negotiation on Karabakh? Who is going to asck them at all?

[Mukuch]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Well, I read a lot about this issue, it was my research paper topic some years ago. I mostly agree with you, however is not it wrong to define all Turks and Kurds as "bloody-Armenian-haters".. Were all of them monsters? It was a hard time, you can not defend anything when soldiers come and take your neighbors away. Even Turks do not say that "there were not stealings, no massacres" as far as I know -from them and their resources- they all agree -except ultranationalists- that Talat Pasha and his regime were a total destruction.

So, Turks do not think "Armenians deserved it!" nope.. It is more likely "We had a idiotic government and they destroyed the whole empire"

Turks think, Armenians "backstrabbed" them. You guys call it "freedom movement" but for Turks, it is "betrayal at war time". If you think calm, you'd see both sides are right.

Of course, Armenians had some right points; bad politics, taxes etc. However, Turks say that the Empire was in a terrible condition and they believe, the exile was not a purpose to kill Armenians, however the Empire lacked enough tech and logistic to keep all alive.

But they mostly agree with that there were hostile actions against Armenians and many innocent were massacred by local tribes or others. But they also say, Armenian rebels massacred Muslims too in the name of independence. It is weird because I've never met with an Armenian who accepts that "Yea, Turks also died"

So just to make you understand your.. "opponents" (?) better; Turks and Armenians, on that issue, have 2 different points:

First one is that Turks claim it was not a genocide; they accept "massacre" but they are against the 'genocide' as a "legal" term.

Second, the well known 'civil war' argument.

So hmmm.. Those are not my claims and I really do not wait for answers; just for some info.

We know turkish "point of vew", dont waist space on this forum....

[Anoush]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Garevoroutyun mid dar Mukuch jan. Togh ouzadsin chap apegh tsepegh khosi. Menk shad agheg iraganoutyounnere kidenk.

[Haykakan]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

ARMENIA AND TURKEY ARE CHANGING THE CAUCASUS: ALEXANDER JACKSON

Tert
Sept 18 2009
Armenia

The Protocols on establishing and developing Armenian-Turkish
relations, which omit any reference to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
seem to reverse statements made earlier which said that the opening
of the Armenian-Turkish border is contingent on settling the
Karabakh issue, stated Alexander Jackson in the Caucasian Review of
International Affairs, as reported by the Azeri Press Agency.

Jackson goes on to say that if no progress is made on Karabakh by the
end of the six-week process, Azerbaijan's options would be to hold
off on the Nabucco pipeline and increase cooperation with Russia,
in order to reroute gas in Azerbaijan through Russia's network.

In Jackson's words, domestic political upheaval in either Armenia
or Turkey is a real risk, particularly Armenia, which will have to
deal with engaging Turkey and withdrawing from the occupied regions
around Nagorno-Karabakh simultaneously. A serious domestic setback
could stall all regional peace processes for the near future.

"Azerbaijan's position is crucial, and is inflexible. Exactly what it
will - or can - do if Turkey opens the border without Armenian gestures
on Karabakh is impossible to establish at this stage, but gas projects
from the Caspian to the West are clearly under threat. This would
ruin Turkey's reputation as an energy hub, one of its key attractions
for the EU. Russia would lose some of its influence over Armenia,
but could gain far greater power over Azerbaijan's energy exports,
reshaping the whole oil and gas game in the region," says Jackson.

Jackson concludes by saying that "Most strikingly, we could see an
end to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ankara axis, which has proved one of the most
enduring alliances in Eurasia. The next six weeks could reshape the
Caucasus as we know it."

[Mukuch]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

ARMENIA AND TURKEY ARE CHANGING THE CAUCASUS: ALEXANDER JACKSON

Tert
Sept 18 2009
Armenia

The Protocols on establishing and developing Armenian-Turkish
relations, which omit any reference to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
seem to reverse statements made earlier which said that the opening
of the Armenian-Turkish border is contingent on settling the
Karabakh issue, stated Alexander Jackson in the Caucasian Review of
International Affairs, as reported by the Azeri Press Agency.

Jackson goes on to say that if no progress is made on Karabakh by the
end of the six-week process, Azerbaijan's options would be to hold
off on the Nabucco pipeline and increase cooperation with Russia,
in order to reroute gas in Azerbaijan through Russia's network.

In Jackson's words, domestic political upheaval in either Armenia
or Turkey is a real risk, particularly Armenia, which will have to
deal with engaging Turkey and withdrawing from the occupied regions
around Nagorno-Karabakh simultaneously. A serious domestic setback
could stall all regional peace processes for the near future.

"Azerbaijan's position is crucial, and is inflexible. Exactly what it
will - or can - do if Turkey opens the border without Armenian gestures
on Karabakh is impossible to establish at this stage, but gas projects
from the Caspian to the West are clearly under threat. This would
ruin Turkey's reputation as an energy hub, one of its key attractions
for the EU. Russia would lose some of its influence over Armenia,
but could gain far greater power over Azerbaijan's energy exports,
reshaping the whole oil and gas game in the region," says Jackson.

Jackson concludes by saying that "Most strikingly, we could see an
end to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ankara axis, which has proved one of the most
enduring alliances in Eurasia. The next six weeks could reshape the
Caucasus as we know it."

Who the xxxx is Alexandre Jackson? Some ones uncle?

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Who the xxxx is Alexandre Jackson? Some ones uncle?

Alexander Jackson

Associate

Alex Jackson is a Policy Fellow at the International Council on Security and Development, where his work has focused on the dynamics of insurgencies, Afghanistan, and Somalia. He also works as an editorial assistant at the Caucasian Review of International Affairs, an online journal dedicated to Eurasia. He writes a weekly analytical piece for the Review - the Caucasus Update - discussing recent developments in the Caspian region. He has written extensively on politics, economics and security in the former Soviet space, and holds an MA in War Studies from Kings College London with a focus on the Caucasus and Central Asia.

He can be contacted at [email protected]

[Mukuch]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

Alexander Jackson

Associate

Alex Jackson is a Policy Fellow at the International Council on Security and Development, where his work has focused on the dynamics of insurgencies, Afghanistan, and Somalia. He also works as an editorial assistant at the Caucasian Review of International Affairs, an online journal dedicated to Eurasia. He writes a weekly analytical piece for the Review - the Caucasus Update - discussing recent developments in the Caspian region. He has written extensively on politics, economics and security in the former Soviet space, and holds an MA in War Studies from Kings College London with a focus on the Caucasus and Central Asia.

He can be contacted at [email protected]

Means -nobody. His opinion as much of interest as yours I guess...ore anyone elses. Thanks anyway.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Armenian-Turkish Relations

By then kharabagh and its surrounding regions will be more heavily populated thus our claim to it made stronger.

By when? Turkey will definitely bring the issue up within a year of the signing of these protocols. Lets say a miracle happens and they don't bring it up for 5 years. You really think Karabagh and its surrounding regions will be *significantly* more heavily populated within 5 years? I hope you're right, but I really don't see that within the next couple of years.

Another question-- Do you think Turkey and Azerbaijan (and the international community) give a rat's ass about the Armenian population of these territories? Karabagh was almost 80% Armenian when it was liberated, and is now 100% Armenian, but that has not strengthened our claims on Karabagh on the negotiation table. On the ground we are in complete control, but this doesn't have a lot to do with a growing population but rather the military advancements of Artsakh's army and the fact that we have defensive positions dug deep inside the steep mountains.

Kharabagh is ours and will remain so.

So why on earth would we sign away our right to western Armenia in order to gain leverage on the Karabagh issue, if Karabagh is going to be ours no matter what? I don't understand your logic. We would be signing it away for nothing.

As i mentioned earlier our priority needs to be to strengthen what we already have, only then can we demand things because only the strong get what they want.

Do you know what I think one of Armenia's strengths are in these negotiations? The fact that we are more than capable of prospering under the status quo. As you said, it is Turkey and Azerbaijan that needs a stable east-west corridor which Georgia cannot provide. Therefore we are in a position (at least somewhat) to exercise some leverage. We obviously cannot overreach ourselves, but we can use this leverage to avoid recognizing the border and setting up a historical commission. If we reach a better dialogue with Russia, these 2 preconditions can be realistically erased. This entire process is the brainchild of Russia, and Russia is going to control this east-west corridor no matter what. Georgia's days are numbered (they will either cease to exist or have a pro-Russian ruler soon), and if the Armenian border is opened, Russia will have a monopoly on that transit route. Thus, it makes minnimal difference for Russia if we stall this process by a few months, in order to insure ourselves that the process itself is a healthy one. Afterall, I don't think its in Russia's interests to strengthen Turkey's position at the expense of its only ally in the Caucasus. Our officials must repeat this point to Russia in their conversations.


The border issue, while being the most sensitive area for Turkey, is in my opinion one of the easier things to solve. We simply tell Turkey and the international community that the borders have already been legally defined and there is no need to sign a document to affirm this, because if we sign a document to affirm already-existing agreements, then it calls into question every single international agreement which would then have to be reaffirmed, and we could even accuse Turkey of questioning international law. We also have to tell Turkey and the international community that there are many nations that have border disputes, but those disputes are not a basis to block diplomatic relations, and the fact Turkey keeps bringing up the border issue to block relations should be a basis of suspicion not only for Armenia, but for the international community, because it sets a dangerous example.

Now, the “legally-defined” borders are interpreted by us as being the Wilsonian borders, while Turkey and the international community will have no choice but to interpret the “legally-defined” border as the current military-imposed artificial border. There will be no other public interpretation, and its a huge gain for Armenia if they even refer to another interpretation (Wilsonian borders). Obviously they are not stupid to do that, all they can really do is engage in circular arguments, maybe asking questions like "where exactly is this border then?". These questions are not difficult to avoid with the right approach.

The good thing about this issue is that the international precedent favors our case (many countries with border disputes who have relations), and our rhetoric of "legally-defined border" will be interpreted by everyone to be the current artificial one, because if they even refer to the Wilsonian land claims, it will open up a pandora's box for them, so chances are they won't even go there. This is not a fool-proof strategy of negotiating (nothing is), but I think its better than the current strategy of pretending we cannot negotiate.

Now, are there calculations and variables that are not available to us to analyze? Of course, the vast majority is not available to us. However, I have no reason to believe that our officials have approached this issue with any boldness or gumption. You can't even tell me that this is entirely in Russia's interest--- since when is a historical commission on the genocide in Russia's interests? But somehow, its on the agenda. Therefore, I must conclude that our officials are doing a poor job negotiating.