"THERE IS NO POINT IN SETTING UP A HOUSE WHICH WILL THEN BLOW DOWN IN THE FIRST WIND"
Mediamax Agency
December 2007
Ambassador Ozdem Sanberk worked as a foreign policy advisor for
Turkish Prime Minister Turgut Ozal between 1985 and 1987. He was
an Ambaassador-Permanent Representative to the European Union in
1987-1991, Undersecretary of the Turkish Foreign Ministry in 1991-1995,
and Ambassador in Great Britain in 1995-2000. He retired in 2000 and
worked as Director in TESEV (Turkish Economic and Social Studies
Foundation) until September 2003. Ozdem Sanberk was the member of
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC).
– What is the main obstacle today for the normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations?
– I think there are several obstacles. All are quite big but none
should be insurmountable. First there is question of the dispute
between Azerbaijan and Armenia. If we could get a solution to that,
as perhaps we can, everything would be easier.
Second there are the interlinked issues of territorial claims,
historical campaigns, and the fanning of international prejudice and
hatred against Turkey. We need detente on that front.
Third, following the second point, there is the question of
psychological preparedness. We need an icebreaker. So I am glad
that there are so many Armenian nationals in Turkey. At least lots
of Armenians are now getting to know Turkey, and not just Turkey
but also Turkish families and friends, and vice versa. That in my
view is a positive feature of the situation. But what is needed is
something public and symbolic. Do you remember the American-Chinese
table tennis match which preceded the rapprochement between those
countries? If we can hold our World Cup qualifying soccer match in a
mutually respectful attitude, that might be it. But of course football
is a passionate sport: one might say that it is a sport which creates
more heat than light. So it may not be suitable. But I hope we can
find something sooner or later.
Can I add by the way that the psychological hostility in
Turkish-Armenians relations is something new? People often don’t
realize that. It is the result of the campaigns against Turkey since
1975. When I was a young man, there was always an automatic place for
Armenians at any Turkish gathering, if Armenians were around. You were
a natural part of our social scene and our communal life, particularly
in the Diaspora. The murders of diplomats and officials and the huge
propaganda campaign against us ended all that at least on the public
level. I know that, where politics is not involved, even in places like
California, Turks and Armenians have so much in common -language, food,
TV series – that they still have very close social friendships despite
the political issues. I wish we could get back more to that sort of
thing. Turkish students who go to California apparently often go there
with expectations shaped by the Diaspora campaign to demonize Turkey
– and then they discover that there are some ordinary Armenians who
don’t take that attitude, with whom they have many things in common,
including perhaps the Turkish language, and who become good friends
and neighbours. That is what we should be striving to revive because
it was the norm before 1975. After all many young Turks seem to have
young Greek close friends these days. It would be so good if they had
Armenian friends of their own generation too. Those who fan prejudice
against Turkey are the big obstacle to normalization of this kind.
– Why is Ankara discontent with the proposal of Yerevan on
establishment of diplomatic relations without preconditions? What is
the vulnerability of the given proposal, according to you?
– There is a dispute. There are problems. There is no point in setting
up a house which will then blow down in the first wind. Diplomatic
relations have to be based on a clear understanding and a consensus
approach, at least on essentials.
Turkey has always got to proceed cautiously on these matters. Every
time there has been an opening, we have found the Diaspora bring
the events of 1915-16 up and trying to get legislatures across the
world to vote for anti Turkish resolutions and motions. That is a
major restraint on Ankara domestically. Perhaps I might remind you
of something our former president Suleyman Demirel once said. "It
is very easy to extract resentments from history. What is much more
important is to orient history towards the future, friendship, and
a common destiny". In fact the first time he met President Kocharian
at the Black Sea Summit in 1998, Mr Demirel asked him what causes for
resentment or hostility there could possibly be between the six year
old Republic of Armenia and the 75 year old republic of Turkey. "Let
us help you on your way as a young republic towards integration with
the world. Your people after seventy sterile years have the right to
expect much more from you than this", he said.
– There is a point of view in Yerevan that, by making a decision
on closure of the border 15 years ago, Turkey hoped to make Armenia
more compliant as to the Karabakh issue. Since this did not happen,
the Turkish authorities find it difficult today to admit the given
mistake and this is one of the reasons they do not agree to open the
border. How righteous is the given point of view?
– No, I am afraid this is not how we see things. Turkey took the
decision it did because of the occupation of some of the counties
of Azerbaijan and the eviction of the people who lived there. For us
this was a human tragedy. We abide by this decision, but we welcome
all efforts for a settlement and hope that these will eventually
produce a solution and so enable us to normalize relations.
– Turkey accuses very often the Armenian Diaspora. Don’t you think
that the factor of the Diaspora became a convenient excuse for Ankara?
– Why would an excuse be convenient? We sincerely want
normalization. There would be huge benefits for both sides. But the
Diaspora, let me say the "hardline political Diaspora" because, as I
say, there are those ordinary Armenians in all countries who are close
to Turks, is a reality. We seem to be under a constant propaganda
attack which sometimes comes very close to demonizing us as a people
and which stifles anyone who tries to put our point of view.
– A few years ago, Vartan Oskanian and Abdullah Gul agreed upon
realization of "small steps" policy, directed to the improvement of
the relations. Why even this approach did not work?
– Let us hope it will still work. I think that every small step
counts. We are having this discussion now, for example. And there
are those Armenians working in Istanbul. I fear that the reason
there are not more bilateral commissions, contacts, and exchanges,
is that Armenians do not want them.
One of the main reasons these small steps have not been realized is
of course the anti-Turkish resolutions brought up in the legislatures
of countries like France and the USA. This hardly helps create a
propitious climate in Turkey. But I would remind you that Turkey’s
Prime Minister wrote to Mr Kocharian in 2005 suggesting the foundation
of a joint historical committee and said that third countries could
be members of it and that their archives, as well as those of Turkey
and Armenia, could be opened up to the investigation. This proposal
was conveyed officially and through diplomatic channels but up till
now it has been rejected by Mr Kocharian. I think that Armenia by not
responding positively to this proposal may have let slip a historical
opportunity.
Plenty of Turks go to Yerevan when the opportunity arises. They want
to talk and they want to get to know you. But for some Armenians the
position seems to be that Turkey must first concede every point and
only after that they will agree to meet us. So yes, let’s take steps,
steps without strings if that is not mixing a metaphor, and see how
far they take us.
– Don’t you think that the steps, directed to the strengthening
of isolation of Armenia, for example the construction of the
Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railroad instead of using the existing route through
the Armenian territory, give birth to additional irritation in Yerevan
and toughen its stance? Don’t you think that the involvement of
Armenia in large-scale regional and transport projects would increase
the readiness of Yerevan to take up compromises, which are considered
impossible today?
– Of course we would all like to see the resolution of conflicts
and to replace them by regional cooperation. But there are strategic
realities involved in things like building a railway. You simply can’t
do them in an uncertain security situation. And there are also all
those hundreds of thousands of refugees in Azerbaijan. Let us overcome
those problems, show that we have common interests and good faith,
and we can start moving ahead.
– The absence of relations with Turkey influences the perception
of NATO in Armenia. Despite the fact that Yerevan successfully
develops the Individual Partnership Action Plan with the Alliance,
many in Armenia consider impossible the further rapprochement with
NATO before the settlement of the problem of the Armenian-Turkish
relations. What is your opinion concerning this?
– It is for the Armenian people to make their own decision on when
to join NATO. These are complex matters and I would not presume to
advise you, though of course as your neighbour I genuinely cherish your
security and well-being. When the differences between our two nations
are overcome, we will certainly give you a warm welcome. At the moment
I think the Individual Partnership Action Plan is a viable way forward.
– What is the attitude of Turkey to the presence of a Russian
military base in the territory of Armenia and the statements of
Armenian officials, according to which the very potential threat
from Turkey is the main reason of the presence of Russian military
men in Armenia? In general, what is your opinion, does the growing
rapprochement between Turkey and Russia assist the settlement of
problems in the Armenian-Turkish relations, or, on the contrary,
hinder it?
– Let us look at the various elements of this. First, there is no
strategic threat to Armenia from Turkey. It may exist in certain
people’s minds, but that is the only place it exists and I think the
fear is artificial. Second, Armenian-Russian relations are a matter
for Armenians and Russians. If despite what I say about there being
no Turkish threat to Armenia, your country believes that stationing
Russian troops on its soil enhances its independence that is a matter
for the Armenian people to decide and no one else will have anything
to say about it provided the arrangement remains purely defensive
and has no offensive character. Third, yes of course it is a very
good thing that Turkey and Russia are good friends these days, and I
think that may well help regional detente in the Caucasus a bit, but
I would not expect it to work miracles. It is our challenge as Turks
and as Armenians to bury our differences and build a new relationship
between us.
– If we judge from the publication of the Turkish media, your
country is attentively following the upcoming presidential elections
in Armenia. The Turkish press often voices comments, according to
which the return of the first Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrosian
to power would assist the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish
relations. According to you, how grounded those expectations are and
to what extent do they correspond to the stance of the official Ankara?
– Well, I am long retired now. I do not speak for anyone but
myself. All I would say is that we in Turkey hope there will be
a president in Armenia who wants detente and cooperation with
us and is less concerned by past grievances, and can also help
settle your country’s disputes with Azerbaijan. That last detail
may not necessarily be quite as difficult as it looks. So we will
look smilingly on anyone who comes to us with a real olive branch,
whoever he is, old or new.
But yes, President Ter-Petrossian’s good intentions towards Turkey
were appreciated and I think perhaps we would have a better situation
in the Caucasus today for everybody if his policies had prevailed.
– You occupied the position of the Undersecretary of the Turkish
Foreign Ministry from 1991 up to 1995, when Levon Ter-Petrosian was in
power in Armenia. If Turkey believes that he has a more constructive
stance, what was hindering improvement of relations then?
– The difficulty then, as I have already indicated, was the invasion
of the several districts and counties of Azerbaijan around Nagorno
Karabakh and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people living
in them. Unfortunately that stood in the way of the historical
reconciliation we would all like to see.
But there was appreciation of Mr Ter-Petrossian for his moderation. We
remember for example that he came as a mourner to the funeral of the
late President Turgut Ozal- that was a gesture which we very much
appreciated and will never forget.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
