VARTAN OSKANIAN: I DON’T THINK THAT RUSSIA’S MEDIATION WILLFOSTER
ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS
Azg/arm
29 Jan 05
European Union’s decision of December 17 to start accession talks with
Turkey gave a new momentum to the talks around Armenian-Turkish
relations. Turkey, which was drawing forward preconditions for
relations’ improvement and Armenian-Turkish border-gate opening, began
condemning Armenia of not recognizing the Kars Treaty, of refusing to
draw Armenian forces out of the so-called Azeri occupied territories
and of manipulating Turkey with “groundless” claims of “alleged”
genocide.
Vartan Oskanian, foreign affairs minister of Armenia, refuted
Turkey=80=99s condemnations in an interview to Turkish Zaman daily on
January 25. Oskanian’s irrefragable answers rendered Turkey’s
condemnations ineffective.
– Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan explaining that Armenia
does not recognize the Kars Treaty said: “If they say ‘I don’t
recognize it,’ then, in that case, don’t get upset, we won’t recognize
it, either.” Those are the expressions he used. Why don’t you
recognize the Treaty of Kars?
– The PM’s statement about the Kars Treaty really surprised
me. Government of Armenia has made no statements saying we don’t
recognize it. We are the successor states of the Soviet Union. All of
the agreements, which the Soviet Union signed, continue to be in force
unless new agreements have been signed to replace them, or unless
statements have been made about not recognizing those agreements.
– What’s your approach to Turkey’s preconditions concerningwithdrawal
of Armenian forces from Azerbaijan’s occupied territories?
– Turkey cannot equate the Karabakh issue with a territorial issue. It
is a many-sided issue. Though its status is the vital one. There was
no territory under Armenians’ control before the confrontation. We
took the control after the issue emerged. Turkish side seems to be
mixing the cause and effect relation. To remove the effect it should
be viewed separately from the cause. Turkey cannot put the issue of
territories as a precondition because of Baku=80=99s evasive
stance. We want a versatile approach to the issue.
– What do you think of Turkey’s strivings to mediate in Karabakh
issue?
– Turkey cannot midiate because it is partial. Russia, for instance,
has no preconditions and is neutral. Turkey frequently offers its help
as a mediator, and we hold bilateral meetings. We are not against
meetings but don=80=99t accept its mediation
– How will the Russian-Turkish cooperation influence the conflict as
regards Armenia?
– Russia’s dialogue with Turkey is not a problem for us. But I don’t
think that these countries’ cooperation will foster conflict’s
settlement.
– Armenia occupied 1/5 of Azerbaijan’s territory. When are you going
to put an end to the occupation?
– Nagorno Karabakh always was an Armenian territory. The issue of
other regions is to be dealt by Karabakh and Azerbaijan. Karabakh was
in Azerbaijan’s structure during the USSR indeed but when the war
between Karabakh and Azerbaijan broke out Armenia supported
Karabakh. The other issues (of the other regions) are discussed by
Armenia and Azerbaijan because the Azeris avoid to seat at the table
with Karabakh side.
– Years ago, you put Genocide assertions on the agenda. In that
regard, you are also trying to receive the assistance of the West, led
by the US. What is your intent? Are you trying to grab territory from
Turkey, or to receive compensation?
– Take a look at the map please. Turkey’s geography, economy, and
population are obvious. Armenia on the other hand is a small and poor
country. On the Armenian foreign policy agenda, there is no reference
to territories or compensation. Our foreign policy goal is
international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, together with
recognition by Turkey. What happened in 1915 is quite obviously
Genocide. Turks have differing opinions about that. Let’s let people
openly discuss this issue. We are democratic societies. There is no
need to become concerned that Armenia is trying to place this issue on
other countries’ agendas. Turks, too, can lobby in different
countries, work with them. However, Armenia absolutely does not view
this as a precondition for the improvementof relations with Turkey. We
have never said that Turkey first acknowledges the Genocide. We could
have resolved the matter through dialogue, had there been diplomatic
relations between the two countries. How are we to resolve this issue?
Since we’re not able to resolve it at the governmental level, then
there are efforts to seek solutions at other levels, through other
channels.
– According to you, will Turkey’s entry into the EU facilitate this
claim?
– Today, there are two important problems between Armenia and Turkey:
opening the border, and Genocide. For the improvement of relations,
Genocide recognition is not a precondition but open borders
automatically are. No one can insist that there can be normal
relations between two countries if the border between them is
closed. However, even without Genocide recognition, it is possible to
normalize relations. The Genocide is a moral, broader issue. The EU,
too, would like for Turkey to recognize the Genocide at some stage in
the process. We hope that these matters will be included in the
agenda for negotiations between Turkey and the EU to begin later this
year. But on the border issue, we can’t wait 10-15 years or longer,
for Turkey to be accepted into the EU, for there to be some positive
movement. We hope that very soon, Turkey will open the border.
– Armenians living in Turkey accuse the Armenians of the Diaspora for
insisting on Genocide recognition. Where does Armenia take place in
this discussion?
– It is natural that the Armenians of the Diaspora would more
frequently raise the issue. They are the descendants of the Genocide
survivors. Their grandfathers were pushed to the Syrian deserts, to
the Arab countries, and from there, they moved on to Europe and the
US. They grew up listening to the elders telling stories of the
Genocide. But, this isn’t just their issue; it’s also Armenia’s
issue. There is no difference between them.
There is nothing left for historians to discuss about.
– If the issue is first discussed by historians and specialists, and
they find some common ground, wouldn’t that ease the process?
– There is nothing new to say on this. There are countless studies on
the subject and the events of 1915 have very clearly emerged. If the
historianswere to gather again, no one’s point of view would
change. The specialists have been working. They’re done with their
work. Now, it is essential that the Turkish government enter into this
discussion. Why are we afraid of these discussions? Today, around the
world, there are many countries with similarproblems. Japan and South
Korea, South Korea and China, Japan and the US, the US and Mexico, and
others. These countries continue to have relations with each other,
even as they continue to discuss these events. And they have fine
relations.