ARMENIA CONDUCTS DYNAMIC FOREIGN POLICY AND IS SUCCESSFUL

Confessing This Gives no Other Way for Turks but Slandering

Azg/am
28 July 2004

On July 23 at PACE RA President Robert Kocharian answered the question
of the Turk MP “We can’t understand the reason for your approach of
keeping Armenia in blockade and confronting us in the international
arena. If you think that we can’t survive without Turkey, you are
mistaken. Armenia is surviving without you and experiencing normal
development.”

Judging from all, Kocharian’s answer presented the Turks with a fait
accompli, so they were at a loss. The contradicting evaluations of the
answer expressed their bewilderment. Some of the Turkish newspapers
evaluated the abovementioned words of Kocharian as “claim for
cooperation with Turkey” aswell as “provocation”. The Turkish
political experts are trying to deny the statements on “cooperation”,
at the same time they are warning the Turkish authorities “to be
careful in the relations with Armenia”. On July 8 in Yerevan Vartan
Oskanian repeated the statement made in Washington earlier saying that
“Armenia will exercise its right for veto against Turkey candidacy in
PACE.”

In this conditions Turkey gave up his candidacy for 2007 PACE
Chairmanship, and Yorgo Yakovo, Cyprus Foreign Minister, conditioned
this step by Armenia’s decision to put veto against Turkey. In other
words, RA President totally disarmed the Turkish side and deprives
them of the opportunity to speculatethe opening of the
Turkish-Armenian border in the international area, showing their
disability to offer pre-conditions to Armenia. RA Foreign Minister
considers the right for veto as a resistance to Turkey’s policy
against Armenia.

Perhaps, in this respect, the article of Hatem Jabarlu, employee of
the Eurasian Center for Strategic Researches, appeared in the July
publication of the Haber Analiz, where he stated that “Notwithstanding
the fact that Armenia is a small country in the South Caucasus, with
serious economic problems, it conducts a more dynamic policy and is a
success compared with Turkey and Azerbaijan, in particular.

The same Jabarlu and his colleague Yashar Kalafat published an article
entitled “The Evaluation of the Turkish-Armenian Relations from the
Psychological Viewpoint” in the July 24 issue of Haber Analiz. The
difference of the article from the previous one is that instead of
evaluations there appear slanders addressed to Armenia.

Kalafat and Jabarlu state that the position of the Armenians towards
Turkey has remained unchanged since early 20 century. They say that by
the 11-th article of the Independence Memorandum adopted in 1991
Armenians have included in the agenda the recognition of the Armenian
genocide. Moreover, they demand lands from Turkey, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, Iran and even Russia, in order to realize the “From Sea to
Sea” program envisaged by Hai Dat (Armenian Cause).

According to the co-authors, “Turkey displayed good will for
establishing diplomatic and economic relations with Armenia after it
became independent.But Armenia responded to that “by carrying out the
so-called genocide propaganda, it doesn’t recognize Turkey’s
territorial integrity and continues its activities for denying the
Kars treaty.” All this, made Turkey close Kars-Gyumri border-gate in
the April of 1993.

Afterwards, the authors touched upon the publications appeared in
leading Turkish newspapers, as well as to accumulating the signatures
of the Kars dwellers and the recent rally in Kars during which the
results were published. They conditioned all these arrangements by the
influence of the Turkish-Armenian community and the Polis Armenian
Patriarchy, saying that the latter dictatethe central Turkish
newspapers. At the same time, they condemn Turk-Armenian Business
Union, including the editor-in-chief of Aqos, emphasizing that Hrant
Dinq pays less attention to the propaganda of the Armenian Genocide,
to the attempts to deny the 1921 Kars treaty and the claims for
Turkey’s territorial integrity, as well as he conditions the opening
of the Armenian-Turkish border by closing the Metsamor NPP.

Kalafat and Jabarlu try to teach the Turkish authorities that they
should explain the international community that it is impossible to
open a border that is not recognized by the Armenians. They believe
that Eastern Turkish borders are just a gateway for that separates the
Western and Eastern Armenians as a result of military actions.

The Eurasian Center for Strategic Researches, where the two authors
work, is a state structure. So their article should be considered as a
consistent proof for the policy Turkey undertook against Armenia. As
for the accusations addressed to Armenia, they should testify to “the
more dynamic foreign policy conducted by our republic and to the
success that was fixed.” In this case the accusations are the only
way.

By Hakob Chakrian