Working towards mutual understanding between Turkey and Armenia
Monday, December 18, 2006
Turkish Daily News
By Sylvia Tiryaki
Given the balance of power in the Caucasus, keeping Turkey’s EU accession process firmly on track is quite significant for Armenia. It was also the main impression I gained during a Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation fact-finding visit to Yerevan last week.
Given the balance of power in the Caucasus, keeping Turkey's EU accession process firmly on track is quite significant for Armenia. It was also the main impression I gained during a Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) fact-finding visit to Yerevan last week.
Unfortunately, this dimension of Armenian-Turkish relations was the least discussed topic -- if discussed at all -- in the meetings with the representatives of Armenian civil society, media and even government circles. The discussions centered primarily on issues related to their borders, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the tragic events of the early 20th century. Neither the natural selection of themes nor their differences in meaning for participants from the two sides were any surprise.
However, it also became clear during the visit that the importance of some of the focal disputes from the recent past has already faded with time. The border between Turkey and Armenia for instance… It has been closed since 1993, but until very recently the debate was not focused on the hermetic character of the frontier but rather on the fact that the Armenians didn't recognize its very existence. As we learned, at least one of the Armenian TV stations broadcasts the weather in Eastern Turkey under the heading “Western Armenia.”
The border was delimited by the Treaty of Kars, concluded between and ratified by the Socialist Soviet Republics of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia for the one part and Turkey for the other, with the participation of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, in 1921 and 1922 respectively. For quite some, time there has been a passionate debate over whether Armenia was bound by the provisions of this treaty or not.
Nevertheless, overall respect for borders delineated by international treaties these days seems to prevail in Armenian society. Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian articulated the same view when he stated in an interview earlier this month that according to his understanding Armenia, as a successor of the Soviet Union, recognizes all treaties concluded by its predecessor, including the Treaty of Kars.
Well, be that as it may, Armenia doesn't need to officially recognize or reject the existence of the border and, in fact, there is fairly little point in engaging in this kind of argument. A principle of international law of automatic succession to boundaries by a successor state, regardless of the boundaries being fixed by a treaty or an application of rules of customary law, as well as Armenia's membership in a number of international organizations makes any other ideas about this issue obsolete.
Thus, objectively speaking, the list of disputed issues between Armenia and Turkey can be said to be one fewer.
Now the burning issue for the Armenians is to have the border -- closed as a result of Turkey's retaliatory stance with respect to the ignition of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict -- opened. On the other hand, Turkey is concerned about the increasingly aggressive propaganda for the international recognition of Armenian “genocide.” All this is underlined by the more and more globally important discourse on the accessibility of energy resources.
Besides, for Armenia, having neighboring Turkey stable is yet another essential. It is no secret that Turkey's EU accession process contributes to the predictable conditions in the country. It should be then in the Armenian interest that the negotiations continue smoothly. However, using Turkey's accession talks as leverage for getting an Armenian national cause internationally recognized certainly wouldn't be of any help in that direction.
Dictates don't talk, they create only more hostility. What is needed is a mutual transformation towards a better understanding of each other's positions. As any transformation is hardly possible without communication, perhaps it is the right time for civil society initiatives.
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
Turkish Daily News
By Sylvia Tiryaki
Given the balance of power in the Caucasus, keeping Turkey’s EU accession process firmly on track is quite significant for Armenia. It was also the main impression I gained during a Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation fact-finding visit to Yerevan last week.
Given the balance of power in the Caucasus, keeping Turkey's EU accession process firmly on track is quite significant for Armenia. It was also the main impression I gained during a Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation (TESEV) fact-finding visit to Yerevan last week.
Unfortunately, this dimension of Armenian-Turkish relations was the least discussed topic -- if discussed at all -- in the meetings with the representatives of Armenian civil society, media and even government circles. The discussions centered primarily on issues related to their borders, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the tragic events of the early 20th century. Neither the natural selection of themes nor their differences in meaning for participants from the two sides were any surprise.
However, it also became clear during the visit that the importance of some of the focal disputes from the recent past has already faded with time. The border between Turkey and Armenia for instance… It has been closed since 1993, but until very recently the debate was not focused on the hermetic character of the frontier but rather on the fact that the Armenians didn't recognize its very existence. As we learned, at least one of the Armenian TV stations broadcasts the weather in Eastern Turkey under the heading “Western Armenia.”
The border was delimited by the Treaty of Kars, concluded between and ratified by the Socialist Soviet Republics of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia for the one part and Turkey for the other, with the participation of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, in 1921 and 1922 respectively. For quite some, time there has been a passionate debate over whether Armenia was bound by the provisions of this treaty or not.
Nevertheless, overall respect for borders delineated by international treaties these days seems to prevail in Armenian society. Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian articulated the same view when he stated in an interview earlier this month that according to his understanding Armenia, as a successor of the Soviet Union, recognizes all treaties concluded by its predecessor, including the Treaty of Kars.
Well, be that as it may, Armenia doesn't need to officially recognize or reject the existence of the border and, in fact, there is fairly little point in engaging in this kind of argument. A principle of international law of automatic succession to boundaries by a successor state, regardless of the boundaries being fixed by a treaty or an application of rules of customary law, as well as Armenia's membership in a number of international organizations makes any other ideas about this issue obsolete.
Thus, objectively speaking, the list of disputed issues between Armenia and Turkey can be said to be one fewer.
Now the burning issue for the Armenians is to have the border -- closed as a result of Turkey's retaliatory stance with respect to the ignition of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict -- opened. On the other hand, Turkey is concerned about the increasingly aggressive propaganda for the international recognition of Armenian “genocide.” All this is underlined by the more and more globally important discourse on the accessibility of energy resources.
Besides, for Armenia, having neighboring Turkey stable is yet another essential. It is no secret that Turkey's EU accession process contributes to the predictable conditions in the country. It should be then in the Armenian interest that the negotiations continue smoothly. However, using Turkey's accession talks as leverage for getting an Armenian national cause internationally recognized certainly wouldn't be of any help in that direction.
Dictates don't talk, they create only more hostility. What is needed is a mutual transformation towards a better understanding of each other's positions. As any transformation is hardly possible without communication, perhaps it is the right time for civil society initiatives.
Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.
Labels: Armenia and Turkey
posted by Vahe Balabanian at 9:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home