THE UNHOLY ALLIANCE OF THE TURKISH AND ARMENIAN GOVERNMENTS

By Indignant Armenian
iance-of-the-turkish-and-armenian-governments/?ec3 _listing=posts
April 8, 2009

It seems from the latest Armenian National Committee (ANC) sponsored
forum on Turkish-Armenian relations [held in Watertown on March 26]
that the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) is resigned to the
fact that a document will be signed between the governments of Armenia
and Turkey to start "normalization" of relationships. Unfortunately,
the content of this document is not something that Armenians, either
at home or in the Diaspora, have been or will be privy to up until
the last possible moment.

The sudden surge in the rapprochement efforts between the governments
of Armenia and Turkey is a direct result of the most sophisticated
efforts to date by the Turkish government to hinder efforts directed
towards the affirmation of the Armenian Genocide by the United States
government and elsewhere. Instead of sinking into a defensive posture
as it has over the past few decades, the Turkish Government has gone
on the offensive, and in doing so has taken the lead and dictated
the course of action. Hedging its bets on a democratic win in the
U.S. presidential elections, the Turkish government laid out the
groundwork for a much more potent and sophisticated TARC style effort
well ahead of the elections. Learning its lessons from the failures of
TARC, the Turkish government decided to engage the Armenian Government
directly, killing two birds with one stone.

On the one hand, it addressed one of the keys reasons for TARC’s
failure, lack of involvement on part of the Armenian government, and
on the other hand, it put the Armenian Diaspora, the driving force
behind the recognition efforts, in a very complicated situation. As
a bonus, they got to exploit one of their favorite tactics of late,
driving a wedge between the Diaspora and homeland Armenians. This
tactical/diplomatic master plan was rewarded by a "football/soccer
diplomacy" coup de grâce served by none other than the government of
the Republic of Armenia.

On a side note, the originator of the term "football/soccer diplomacy"
most likely based it on the Sino-American ping-pong rapprochement
efforts of the seventies; albeit clumsily and with minimal
research. China and America were both large and powerful players
in the international scene. Armenia, on the other hand, is a young,
thinly populated and impoverished quasi state that is heavily burdened
by corruption, lack of natural resources and a non-existent industrial
sector, which relies primarily on service based economy, tourism, aid
from other governments and world monetary institutions (both of which
come with strings attached), and remittances from Armenians living and
working abroad to stay afloat. Armenia holds some strategic advantages,
mostly resultant from its geographic location; but this card has yet
to be played, and when played, done so poorly. On the other hand,
Turkey is a relatively vast and largely populated nation with the
second largest standing army in NATO and one of the twenty largest
economies in the world, boasting centuries of experience in diplomacy,
warfare and subjugation of weaker neighbors. Turkey is hell bent on
establishing itself as a regional power, aiming to shed its image
as a minion of the United States, hence the motivation to block the
U.S. troops’ transit routes to Iraq in 2003 and onward. Turkey has
been dealing with a number of significant issues on the international
stage, namely its EU ascension aspirations, relationships with Cyprus,
Greece, Israel (who must stop playing the Armenian Genocide card
every time it wants to settle a score with Turkey), Syria, Iran,
Russia and the Kurdish problem (which is becoming a multi pronged
problem with the establishment of the Autonomous Iraqi Kurdish region
and its cozy relationships with Israel), all of which are of much
greater significance than opening of borders and normalization of
relationships with a poor and landlocked state. Therefore, to compare
dialogue efforts between a small and weak state with its powerful n!

eighbor, distant a past, to the Sino-American dialogue of the
seventies is irresponsible and flat out dangerous. Despite all the
recent rapprochement dialogue, Turkey still is the first enemy and
abettor of the second enemy of Armenia (anyone remember the repeated
one nation two states declarations?), which has and continues to
pose an existential threat towards Armenia and Armenians. Efforts
to minimize this by any party, specially the Armenian Government,
are naïve at best and treasonous at worst.

The other aspect of Turkey’s sophisticated denial effort is its
recent relative openness to the leftist segment of its society,
who is interested in addressing the "great catastrophe" that befell
the Armenians at the turn of the Twentieth Century. The Government
has learned the value of maintaining a pressure valve for external
consumption, hoping to present an open-minded Turkey to the world, one
that is capable of dealing with the dark corners of its history. While
the actions of this segment of the Turkish population are lauded,
they represent the state of mind of a fraction of the country’s
population. The recent apology campaign, which only offers a vague
apology for an unspecified event and laments the complicity of the
signatories by way of their long silence, was signed by less than five
hundredth of one percent of the country’s population. While charges
have been brought up against the originators of this campaign and
others who have spoken out on this issue recently, these charges
are mostly for internal consumption and are not aimed at quashing
the opposition voice. On the flip side, a number of other apology
campaigns have sprung up demanding an apology from Armenians that have
garnered at least an order of magnitude larger number of signatories
so far. So, despite all these efforts, a deep seated fear and hatred
against the non-Turkic segment of the Turkish society, be it Armenian,
Jewish, or Kurdish, is still alive and well and requires only a small
stimulus to rear its head. The large-scale anti-Semitic demonstrations
in Turkey and Mr. Erdogan’s public meltdown in Davos, in response to
the most recent Israeli incursion into Gaza, are a case in point.

It is imperative that Armenia maintains normal relations with all its
neighbors; however, given the tumultuous history of the region, this
is much easier said than done. Turkey committed its biggest mistake in
modern Turkish-Armenian relationships by closing its border to Armenia
in 1993, effectively losing its leverage on the Armenian economy and
as a result on the country’s political landscape. This mistake forced
Armenia to adjust to an economic reality, where Turkey was relegated to
a marginal direct role. While Armenia adjusted to this reality, it lost
a golden opportunity, albeit in the form of a forcible protectionism
(much like Turkey of the 80’s-without the coup d’etats), to establish
a sound macroeconomic foundation for growth, mainly due to absence
of the requisite vision and commitment to establish an economically
viable state and the pervasive corruption and get rich now attitude of
the ruling class. The privatization and usurpation of Soviet Armenia’s
assets along with a host of other less than honorable behavior made
overnight oligarchs out of a handful of everyday thugs, who in turn
divided the control of key national commodities amongst themselves,
and seated sons, uncles, cousins and other underlings in the National
Assembly and other governmental positions to control the political
landscape as well. Some went on to form political parties, assume
the role of king maker, further crowding the already crowded field
of political parties that revolve around a person and his ambitious
regardless of the presence of a cogent ideology (or any ideology for
that matter) or school of thought.

Out of nowhere, the economic advantages of opening the Turkish border
has become a key driver of this rapprochement effort, despite the fact
that the government of Armenia has failed to commission a single in
depth study into the feasibility and benefits of the opening of the
border. A handful of studies, sponsored by entities with their own
axes to grind, have been aimed at this question, yet the conflicting
results of these studies further beckon an in depth and independent
analysis of this issue for the sake of the Armenian nation. What
has the government of Armenia done to address trade, regulatory and
logistic issues associated with opening of the border? What steps has
the government of Armenia taken to help establish industries that can
compete in an open market? What products does Armenia have to offer
to Turkey besides cognac, beer, juices, cigarettes, jams and fruits,
all of which are readily available in Turkey via internal production
and import?

At the current rate, the opening of borders will result in flooding
in of Turkish products in Armenia, bypassing the pre-existing
clandestine trade route through Georgia, Turkish ownership of the few
remaining businesses and commodities that are not owned by Russia,
total foreign control of the local economy from grains, to fuel and
other necessities, resulting in ultimate subjugation of Armenia to
the economic and political will of foreign entities, specifically a
state with Armenian blood on its hands.

Suggestions have been made that this sense of urgency was felt in
Armenia, after the Russo-Georgian war, where the Russian bombing
of a single bridge halted the import of essential grain destined
for Armenia for a few weeks during one of its rounds of negotiation
over nuclear fuel rod prices with Armenia. If Armenia’s strategic
partner can openly engage in such a blackmail campaign, what would
stop Turkey from closing the border, if and when Armenia takes a step
that is slightly out of step with Turkish interests? This is all the
more interesting, given the deafening public silence out of Russia
on this issue, given its nearly whole ownership of anything that is
bolted to a wall in Armenia.

Borders should be opened and relations should be normalized, but
only after the government of Armenia has done its homework to create
an equitable environment where Armenian citizens can stand to gain
from. The current setting will only help further enrich the band of
oligarchs that control the lifeline of the country’s economy and the
political elite that they support and result in the inflow of Turkish
money and influence into our political system.

Furthermore, given the bloody history between the two nations, the
preconditions set by Turkey for normalization of relationships (no
land claim, no genocide recognition, return of Artsakh to Azerbaijan),
a transparent process for normalization of relationships must be
established where input of the Armenian citizens and the Diaspora are
taken into account. The Turkish government has not publicly backed
down from its three preconditions; neither has it elaborated on the
proposal to form a joint historical commission to "study the events
of 1915." On the other hand, Armenia’s Foreign Ministry has done a
lousy job of alleviating fears and misconceptions in the Armenian
world, despite the less than convincing comments by Mr. Nalbandian
displaying his surprise on comments from the Turkish side with vis a
vis the Genocide. To top it all off, Turkey has apparently prepared
a road map for the Artsakh conflict. So, one can see that given
Turkey’s history and the issues facing Armenia and the Diaspora,
a secret deal could only smell of rat.

This brings us down to the most important factor, the Armenian
people. The euphoria associated with Armenia’s independence
has subsided, and the joy of liberation of Artsakh has all but
disappeared. It seems that people are frozen in a state of apathy and
have yet to grasp or do not care to grasp the significance of living
in or having an independent (albeit quasi) Armenia after hundreds of
years of subjugation to the rule of conquerors.

The audible longing to return to the old Soviet system, especially
among the older Armenian population, is a longing for more stables
times. Many among this segment of the populace are more interested in
the stability that came with the Soviet system despite its drawbacks,
especially since they gave their fair share to the system during their
more productive years, and were not in the mood to establish a new
country in their silver years. The intelligent youth, full of energy
and promise, has only the current environment to learn from. All they
are exposed to is; corruption, whether involving high level government
entities or low level bribes and quid pro quos for people to make ends
meet; a boring and outdated educational system; absence of work ethic
and professionalism; limited prospects for a productive life; and most
importantly absence of any value system and/or a greater aim worth
fighting for and an abject dearth of vision to help build a prosperous
and progressive nation for all. On the flip side, the majority of the
Diaspora is content with spending a few weeks hanging out in the many
cafes in Yerevan or cool off around Lake Sevan and similar places. The
better off ones can enjoy their few weeks in their little apartments
off of Northern Avenue that turns into a ghost town the rest of the
year. They also fulfill their annual "duty" by making a donation to
the Armenia Fund, or help with little projects here and there. These,
while worthwhile, are but a few scattered and uncoordinated droplets
aimed to fill a canyon. A number of Diasporan Armenians got burnt out
trying to take a positive step, while others found ways to deal with
the system in Armenia to get something going. Unfortunately, no one is
really interested in doing anything more than that, neither is anyone
willing to think about much more. How is the Armenian mind to wrap
itself around the concept of self-governance? Who would they blame
when things don’t work out? There will be no usurper or conqueror to
be blamed. Armenians have not!

produced for so long, that it seems they have forgotten how to do so,
and even if they did, they would not know what to expect from them
and how to act around them. They expect their leaders to be corrupt
and motivated by self-interest and greed, so they get nothing more
than that in their leadership. This arrangement gives them an escape
goat to blame and an excuse to sit on the periphery and complain
about the system and the leadership without doing much at all.

In conclusion, it seems that Turkey is anxious to make the
"normalization" announcement, regardless of Armenia’s hesitations,
either before or during President Obama’s visit to Turkey. Timing is
of essence here, especially given the amount of effort and resources
that the Turkish government has invested in this plot.

What Armenia needs is a well thought out plan to emerge as a
sustainable and sovereign nation. Given the neighborhood that Armenia
is in, this will only be possible through sovereign access to open
waters and reliance on its own resources. What is does not need are
gimmicks, shady deals and corrupt leadership.

Everyone knows what Turkey is up to, what people do not know is where
the Armenian leadership stands.

It is at times like these that one wishes the ARF would live up
to its illustrious revolutionary history. They returned to change
Armenia in 1991, yet it seems, it was Armenia that changed them. Now,
they are resigned to worrying about when the ax will drop, instead
of stopping it.