PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Center for National and International Studies
75 Yerznkian Street
Yerevan 0033, Armenia
Tel: (+374 – 10) 52.87.80 or 27.48.18
Fax: (+374 – 10) 52.48.46
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website:
November 5, 2009
ACNIS Holds Roundtable Discussion on Armenian-Turkish Diplomacy &
Nagorno Karabagh: `Deal or No Deal?’
Yerevan–The Armenian Center for National and International Studies
(ACNIS) convened a roundtable discussion today entitled
`Armenian-Turkish Diplomacy & Nagorno Karabagh: `Deal or No Deal?’
that assessed recent developments between the two issues.
The event was attended by several ambassadors and senior diplomatic
officials from the European Commission, the European Union’s Special
Representative for the South Caucasus, the Council of Europe and the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well as
staff from the British and U.S. embassies, and the Armenian Ministry
of Defense.
After welcoming the nearly sixty participants, ACNIS Director of
Administration Dr. Karapet Kalenchian presented a brief introduction
of the issues of Armenian-Turkish diplomacy and the Nagorno Karabagh
conflict, which he said `demonstrated the significance of discussing
and analyzing the security and increasing political independence of
Karabagh.’ Dr. Kalenchian added that the `current dynamic situation
was a challenge of national importance for Armenia and Karabagh, while
also serving as a test for Turkey.’
ACNIS Senior Analyst Manvel Sargsyan presented his analysis of the
`looming ratification of the Armenian-Turkish protocols’ that were
signed on October 10 by noting that `Turkish attention to the Nagorno
Karabagh issue has rapidly expanded,’ adding that `Turkey continues to
coordinate the ratification of protocols in terms of progress over the
Karabagh issue,’ but stressed that `Armenia and the international
community must not succumb to this pressure.’ Sargsyan went on to say
that `Turkey may now exert a serious impact on the configuration of
the future political processes in the region.’
According to Sargsyan, `even today there is à clear problem of a
deterioration of relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan,’ which he
said `without any doubt, may reflect developments in the international
situation regarding the Nagorno Karabagh issue.’ He added that the
`conflict situation, in fact, has adopted a role as a stimulant for
political configurations in the region’ and that `within Karabagh
there is a strong opinion over the inadmissibility of territorial
compromises to Azerbaijan and, of course, over any resolution of the
Karabagh conflict based on the Madrid principles.’
ACNIS Director Richard Giragosian then presented an assessment of
recent developments since the signing of the protocols, which he
argued has `initiated a new stage of Armenian-Turkish diplomacy,
marked by a number of tests by the Turkish side aimed at challenging
Armenian resolve.’ Giragosian explained that `this new stage, moving
beyond the protocols to the parliaments, presents a new set of
challenges, as Turkey continues to make strong statements that may
actually endanger the process of parliamentary ratification.’ More
specifically, he said that `the rhetoric and threats from the Turkish
side, especially over new demands for progress over the Nagorno
Karabagh issue, suggests that the passage of the protocols by the
Turkish parliament will not be easy.’
Citing the fact that the Turkish side, at least publicly, still seeks
to re-connect the Karabagh issue to the Turkish-Armenian normalization
process, Giragosian stated that `this poses a serious obstacle’ and
stressed that `such a connection is unacceptable and clearly, it is
too late and too dangerous to try to re-connect the Karabagh issue to
the process at this stage.’ He then explained that `the Karabagh
issue was removed from the protocols and it should not be seen as any
sort of precondition or prerequisite.’
The ACNIS Director went on to say that `this issue of `normalization’
must be seen in the proper perspective, as any move by Turkey to
reopen the border and extend diplomatic relations with Armenia
represents only the bare minimum of expectations of normal countries,
meaning that Turkey should not be unduly praised or rewarded (for such
moves).’ And `the real burden,’ he said, `rests more with the Turkish
side, as it was Turkey that closed its border with Armenia in 1993 and
withheld diplomatic relations in support of Azerbaijan over Karabagh,
and, most crucially, it is Turkey that remains challenged by the need
to face the historic legacy of the Armenian genocide.’
He then closed with an argument for `a more realistic approach to the
Nagorno Karabagh issue,’ based on a `recognition of the fact that the
omission of any reference to the Nagorno Karabagh issue in the
protocols means that there is no direct linkage between the Karabagh
peace talks and the current Armenian-Turkish effort to `normalize’
relations.’ The Karabagh talks, he explained, are `on a separate
`second track’ of diplomacy moving at a much slower speed and driven
by a very different set of issues than the `first track’ of
Armenian-Turkish diplomacy.’
Giragosian added that `there were other important lessons,’ including
the fact that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group, which is the lead mediator of the
Karabagh conflict, is `structurally flawed by the absence of the
democratically-elected representatives of the Nagorno Karabagh
Republic (NKR) which, as a direct party to the conflict, must be
afforded a direct and formal role in the peace process.’ Moreover, he
said, `the failure to incorporate Karabagh in the peace talks as a
party of equal standing only questions the viability of reaching a
negotiated resolution capable of meeting the minimum standards of
security and sustainability.’ Giragosian closed by noting that `the
recognition of the role of the OSCE Minsk Group as the mediator of the
Karabagh conflict also means that Turkey can have no direct role in
the peace process and should not be accepted as a neutral broker or
mediator of the Karabagh conflict.’
The two presentations were then followed by a series of questions and
answers, and featured a lively exchange among Armenian
parliamentarians, leading Armenian analysts, experts and journalists.
The presentations are available upon request by contacting ACNIS or
can be freely downloaded from the Center’s website ().
——————————— ————————————
The Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS) is
a leading independent strategic research center located in Yerevan,
Armenia. As an independent, objective institution committed to
conducting professional policy research and analysis, ACNIS strives to
raise the level of public debate and seeks to broaden public
engagement in the public policy process, as well as fostering greater
and more inclusive public knowledge. Founded in 1994, ACNIS is the
institutional initiative of Raffi K. Hovannisian, Armenia’s first
Minister of Foreign Affairs. Over the past fifteen years, ACNIS has
acquired a prominent reputation as a primary source of professional
independent research and analysis covering a wide range of national
and international policy issues.
For further information on the Center call (37410) 52-87-80 or
27-48-18; fax (37410) 52-48-46; email [email protected] or [email protected];
or visit