ARMENIA AND TURKEY: POLITICAL FOOTBALL
Janek Lasocki

Chatham House
22.pdf
Sept 22 2009
UK

Twenty thousand football fans are expected in the Turkish city ofBursa
in themiddle of thismonth to see the national teamtake on Armenia. The
game has significance beyond its status as aWorld Cup qualifier.

Itmarks a newstage in a relationship that has been sour formore than
a century. Can soccer help bring the sides together as ping-pongwas
said to have donewith China andAmerica some forty years ago?

THE BORDER BETWEEN ARMENIA AND TURKEY HAS been shut for sixteen
years. There have been no diplomatic relations and few formal links
between the neighbours. The situation seemed as ‘frozen’ as any of
the conflicts in the area. Then a surprise announcement at the end
of August revealed details of a plan to normalise relations and start
reconciliation after years of animosity.

The dispute centres on themassacres of Armenians in 1915, and the
status of the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. The death of close to
a million Armenians during the First World War is an important part
of Armenian national identity and remains a highly emotive issue.

For years Armenia and its diaspora have campaigned for recognition
of the event as genocide. Turkey, however, has vehemently opposed
the genocide label, claiming that many died from disease and the
chaos of the mass deportation of Armenians in 1915. It has used all
diplomatic levers to avoid the term. In the past Ankara has blocked
open discussion on the topic and suggested a joint commission to
re-interpret history.Even questioning the tragedy, however, remains
deeply offensive to many Armenians and the topic leaves a chasm
between the two peoples.

NATIONAL ENEMIES

Decades after this event, as the Soviet Union collapsed, Azerbaijan and
Armenia went to war over the province of Nagorno-Karabakh. Karabakh and
its surrounding provinces were occupied by Armenia, and these events
led to Turkey shutting its border and freezing diplomatic relations.

ManyTurks see as absurd the idea that any thawin relations can
occur without at least the tacit approval of their ally Azerbaijan,
in support of whomthe freeze began. And in spite of Armenia and
Azerbaijan conducting their own, separate talks under the so-called
Minsk Group – Russia, the United States and France – resolution still
seems a universe away, as when Azeri police took in for questioning all
those who voted for Armenia during this year’s Eurovision Song Contest.

Nationalist parties in Turkey and Armenia propagated the idea of the
other being the national enemy and the two governments never achieved
meaningful dialogue. The infamous articles 301 and 305 of the Turkish
penal code effectively criminalised open debate on the events of
1915,while in Armenia itwas difficult to suggest reconciliation
when the other country was viewed as causing the destruction of
their nation.

Many individuals stood out however: most notably, Hrant Dink, the
Turkish-Armenian writer and activist who was assassinated in 2007,
and Cengiz Aktar, who organised a petition apologising for the events
of 1915. But few expected real change.Until September last year.

It was then that President Abdullah Gul became the first Turkish
head of state to visit Armenia, after he was invited to the first
leg of the football World Cup qualifier between the national teams,
played in Yerevan.What changed then?

Serzh Sargsyan who was elected president of Armenia early last year,
is far more conciliatory than his predecessor. From Nagorno-Karabakh
himself, he initiated low-level talks in Switzerland. These suddenly
gained importance after the August war between Georgia and Russia,
when many feared further destabilisation in the region. It is also
suspected the Kremlin gave its assent, having gained more confidence
in its own regional influence and effectively removed any threat
fromthe only country hostile to the extension of that influence.

Sargsyan took the historic step of sending an invitation to his Turkish
counterpart which was then published in the New York Times. The
election ofUS President Barack Obama, who had made promises to the
Armenian diaspora in the US, kept pressure on the process that demanded
unprecedented compromises fromboth sideswithout conditions.

POST-MATCH CHAT

After the commotion of the first match, when Turkey won 2-0,
delegations began meeting regularly and were able to announce in
April that a roadmap had been finalised.

Its details were not made public, however, and within a matter of
weeks, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan was in Baku announcing
nothing would be agreed without first resolving the Karabakh
issue, something the other side claimed had not previously been a
condition. Many predicted the talks would unravel after cynically
seeing the Turks to be feigning good intentions to avoid the US
recognising Armenian genocide.

Then, seemingly out of the blue, on August 31 the Turkish,
Armenian and Swiss foreign ministries announced two protocols
which detail a timetable, leading to the opening of borders, mutual
recognition, the establishment of diplomatic relations and several
commissions, one responsible for historical disputes. Six weeks of
internal consultations are due to end just before the long-awaited
match. In Bursa, all going to plan, the fanswill be joined by their
presidentswhowill then put their names to the historic protocols.

OBSTACLES IN THE WAY

For all the grand gestures and agreements,many still doubt this
process can evermeet the high expectations. Indeed, there are stillmany
obstacles on theway to getting a result.

If the protocols are signed by both heads of state, as widely expected,
they then have to face parliamentary ratification in both Yerevan
and Ankara, where reversing positions held for decadeswill be hard.

Then comes implementation. Reconnecting two countries and rejuvenating
border regions will take time and money.

And there is the ‘sub-commission on the historical dimension’ that,
even if handled with care, could still stall, if not unravel, much
of the progress.

Two outside issues could also prevent a resolution. A solution for
Nagorno-Karabakh, although not strictly a condition for the talks, will
remain important for the Turks. Mediation efforts between Azerbaijan
and Armenia have stepped up this year and there will be another meeting
just days before the match. If there is no progress, however, pressure
from Azerbaijan – Turkey’s brother nation and potential major supplier
of hydrocarbons for the just agreed international Nabucco pipeline
which will bring gas to Europe across Turkey – may be overwhelming.

Then there is Cyprus, where ‘last chance’ reunification talks will have
serious implications for Turkey’s attempt to join the EuropeanUnion.

Considering how far they have come, it is now conceivable that the
two old adversaries will indeed come to a resolution and continue
to talk once the final whistle has been blown, if only because the
process has from the start been led by them, and not outsiders,
and both governments have staked somuch on success. This historic
process,which started little over a year ago, could become a model
for other regional disputes, whose resolution is also long overdue.
From: Baghdasarian