THE PRICE THAT THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPER IS DEMANDING
Shahan Kandaharian

Aztag Daily, Lebanon
Aug 17 2009

Remark

"Improved relations with Turkey could help Armenia", wrote Nicolas
Claiton in the August 13 edition of "The Washington Times". His news
article is very brief and includes quotes from the Moscow Carnegie
Center expert Masha Lipmann’s analyses. You can read this interpretory
news article in the international news section of the English version
of "Aztag" Daily Online.

The main goal of this "Washington Times" article is to underline the
possibility for Armenia to slip away from its subjection to Russia. The
logic is simple: Armenia must improve its relations with Turkey,
and when the Turkish-Armenian border is opened Armenia will have the
opportunity to build trade ties with the outside world through Black
Sea and Mediterranean Sea ports. Moreover, upon the opening of the
border Armenia could become a very important center for oil trade
through NATO and the European Union. In a few paragraphs a completely
new Armenia is pictured on the pages of this American newspaper;
an Armenia that starts to establish trade routes via Black Sea and
Mediterranean Sea and which becomes an important transit route for
oil trade.

In order to become an important regional power of that size it suffices
to improve relations with Turkey and as a response to such steps Turkey
will open its borders with Armenia. For what price Armenia is being
suggested to secure a sharp progress? Although that price has not
been directly formulated but the message is simple: "The Washington
Times" is reminding its readers that the obstacle hindering the
normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations is the issue of the
Armenian Genocide; in fact one of the main obstacles. But when another
obstacle is not mentioned, the issue is centered on the one that is
mentioned. Let us simplify the developed logic a little further: "The
Washington Times" and Carnegie institute express the foreign policy
of the United States and in this case the Armenian-Turkish aspect of
that policy. What is being suggested is the diminishing of the Russian
influence in the region. The means: the opening of the Armenian-Turkish
border. The tools to work out the plan: Turkey and Armenia. Alluring
suggestions: trade, oil, economic growth. The suggested prescription:
the improvement of the Armenian-Turkish relations. The prescription
is suggested to Armenia, even in the title: "Improved relations with
Turkey could help Armenia".

Let us try to summarize an idea related to the title. Several Armenian
media outlets have preferred to change the title of the text to:
"Armenia could be integrated into NATO and the European Union". The
reason for the violation of the original text is not clear. It can
be assumed that the translation to Armenian is done from another
website that has chosen to underline the consequences of hurrying out
of Russian influence and plunging into NATO membership talks as done
by another neighbor of Armenia.

Let’s go back to the price that is demanded. The title smells like
political unilateralism. Although Turkey has closed the border,
nevertheless, the improvement of relations is being demanded from
Armenia… For what price? For the price of getting rid of the
obstacle referred to in the article. Again, let us simplify the silent
suggestion. Quit demanding recognition of the Genocide and you will
have the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, you will have trade
and you will become transit center for oil trade.

The policy expressed through "The Washington Times" is explicitly
shared by the OSCE Mink Group US co-president Mathiew Bryza who
announced weeks ago that the Armenian-Turkish relations are in a
frozen state. "The Washington Times" can be a diagnosis to initiate a
thawing and rekindling of relations between the two countries on the
geopolitical stage. Specially, as the Armenian media likes to put it,
"September and October are not on the other side of the mountains".