Edmonton Journal (Alberta)
October 22, 2009 Thursday
Final Edition
Territorial dispute thwarts normalized Turkish-Armenian relations;
Turkey agrees to reopen border if Armenia ends occupation of
Azerbaijan
by Harry Sterling, Freelance
It’s called Nagorno-Karabakh.
Few have ever heard of it or know where it is. But it has the
potential to scuttle a breakthrough accord between Turkey and Armenia
signed this month in Zurich which calls for the two countries to
reopen the border between them which Turkey closed in 1993 because of
Armenian forces occupying Azerbaijan’s Nagorno-Karabakh region.
Although the Armenian government signed the protocol which foresees a
normalization of relations between the two countries, its action has
met with considerable opposition in Armenia, in Nagorno-Karabakh and
among millions of Armenians living in other countries, including
Canada.
Notwithstanding the personal efforts of Armenia’s President Serzh
Sarkisian to convince the Armenian diaspora that the deal with Ankara
was in all Armenians’best long-term interests–including economic
benefits– opponents are not mollified. Armenians in the U.S., Europe,
Canada and the Middle East took to the streets rejecting the deal.
Many point out that Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had
been very explicit that Turkey wouldn’t agree to open its side of the
border until there was an agreement between the Armenian government
and the government of Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
The prospect of that happening has remained elusive. Despite several
negotiating sessions backed by the U.S., Russia and France, the two
sides have failed to reach any understanding. Although Azerbaijan’s
President Ilham Aliev recently indicated a deal might be close,
Sarkisian has not voiced the same sentiment.
In any event, the government of Azerbaijan is opposed to any deal
failing to take into account the continued occupation of
Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia. That conflict resulted in hundreds of
thousands of Azerbaijanis fleeing the majority Armenian-speaking
region, most subsequently living in grim temporary shelters until
recent times.
An Oct. 19 news release outlining Azerbaijan’s position says, "the
opening of borders between Turkey and Armenia at this stage and under
current circumstances will have negative consequences not only for
Azerbaijan and the settlement of the conflict, but the whole region of
the South Caucasus."
It adds: "Normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia cannot
yield positive results for the region, unless Armenia completely
withdraws from all occupied Azerbaijani territories."
What the release doesn’t say is that Azerbaijan–a Turkic-speaking
nation like Turkey–has made it clear to Erdogan that if his
government opens the border with Armenia without a deal regarding
Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan will consider turning to Russia–an
unwelcome development for Turkey, given its importation of Azeri gas
and oil.
GENOCIDE CLAIMS EXAMINED
To complicate matters further, many in both Armenia and Turkey are
also unhappy that the protocol signed in Switzerland includes an
undertaking to establish a joint commission of historians to
investigate the massive deaths of Armenians living in Ottoman Turkey
about 1915. Some estimate that 600,000 Armenians perished; others
claim more than one million were killed, many as a result of a policy
of genocide.
Many Armenians regard such a commission as a way for Turkey to raise
doubts regarding the validity of the genocide claims and any call for
compensation by Turkey, including for land expropriated during that
tumultuous period.
Many Turks simply do not accept that a policy of genocide was carried
out during the early stages of the First World War. Some claim that,
in their desire to break away from Ottoman control, many Armenians
joined Russian forces and thus were casualties of wartime fighting.
Notwithstanding such views, a growing number of Turks, especially
academics, have begun leaning toward the theory that some members of
the Committee for Union and Progress (CUP), in power in 1915, did in
fact countenance policies that today would be called crimes against
humanity, if not genocide.
In fact, one Turkish sociologist and historian, Taner Ackam, published
a book in 2006, A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question
of Turkish Responsibility, in which he stated that "…the CUP Central
Committee, and the Special Organization it set up to carry out its
plan, did deliberately attempt to destroy the Armenian population."
Turkey’s Orhan Pamuk, winner of the Nobel Prize for literature, has
also been forthright concerning the massacre of Armenians during the
First World War: "30,000 Kurds and one million Armenians were killed
here. And almost no one dares to talk about (it)." Some wanted Pamuk
prosecuted for denigrating Turkey –a criminal offence.
Thus, while many welcome the possibility that Turkey and Armenia may
eventually be able to normalize their previously tense relations, it’s
also obvious the challenges confronting them in resolving their
differences are extremely complex and highly emotional at the same
time.
And one of the most intractable of the obstacles standing in the way
of a final settlement is the little known region of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Harry Sterling, a former diplomat, is an Ottawa-based commentator. He
served in Turkey.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
