ARMENIA AND TURKEY: THE TRUCE IN NEED OF A RESCUE
By Henri J. Barkey and Thomas de Waal
Los Angeles Times
rkey5-2010feb05,0,1822351.story?track=rss
Feb 5 2010
Opinion
They have a chance to make peace over their troubled past and move
forward — or balk and leave themselves, and their region, worse off
than before.
For a while, it looked like the start of a great reconciliation.
Armenia and Turkey have lived beneath the vast shadow of the mass
murder of Armenians in eastern Turkey during World War I, and to this
day they maintain no diplomatic ties. But in October, the Armenian and
Turkish foreign ministers met in Switzerland and signed two protocols
to set up relations, open their common border — closed since 1993
— and begin addressing the painful disputes that divide them. Each
nation’s governments must still ratify the agreements. The United
States, with its large Armenian American community and strategic
alliance with Turkey, threw its weight behind the deal.
But this great truce is already in need of a rescue, and if it breaks
down, we will end up in a worse place than where we started. In
January, Turkey showed signs of having cold feet. Its foreign ministry
objected to a judgment by the Armenian constitutional court supporting
the protocols on the grounds that they are consistent with the founding
principles of the state, which commit it to pursuing recognition of
the 1915 killings as genocide.
The endorsement of the court, which the U.S. government welcomed,
actually opens the way for the Armenian parliament to ratify the
protocols. Turkey’s move was a fairly transparent device to put the
brakes on the process.
Why is Turkey trying to backtrack? Its government agreed to the
protocols, in part because it wanted to prevent the U.S.
administration and Congress from passing a resolution describing
the Armenian massacres as genocide. But Ankara was surprised by the
vehemence of the opposition the deal generated both at home and in
its ally, Azerbaijan, which lost a conflict with the Armenians over
the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh in the early 1990s.
The text of the protocols does not explicitly mention Nagorno-Karabakh,
but the dispute looms large in the background.
Turkey originally shut the border with Armenia in 1993; the Armenians
captured an Azerbaijani province during the Nagorno-Karabakh war. When
the accord was signed last year, the Turks hoped that there would be
a breakthrough in the peace talks over the conflict, but that hope is
fading. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has boxed himself
in by proclaiming that the protocols will not be implemented until
Armenia withdraws from occupied Azerbaijani territory.
A rapprochement would be good news for Armenia, which would see
its main border to the West opened and an end to years of regional
isolation. Yet Armenian President Serge Sarkisian also faces
unexpectedly strong opposition. In the diaspora, there are loud
complaints that the provisions to confirm the existing Armenian-Turkish
border and set up a joint historians’ commission on the massacres
relieve pressure on Ankara to own up to the Armenian genocide.
Yet the world would never tolerate a redrawing of Turkey’s borders —
even Josef Stalin failed to accomplish that in the flush of victory
over the Nazis in 1945 — and the Turkish government is unlikely to
recognize the Armenian genocide with a gun pressed to its head.
Turkey’s own growing internal debate about the crimes of 1915 is
a much surer road to their eventual acknowledgment than political
lobbying from abroad.
On the Armenian side, it would be political suicide for Sarkisian to
make a major concession over Nagorno-Karabakh — such as a unilateral
withdrawal from occupied Azerbaijani land. Yet it is not unreasonable
for the Turks to expect some progress. After all, they closed the
Armenian border in solidarity with their Azerbaijani brethren, who
would be furious if it were reopened without any move forward on the
Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. At the very least, Azerbaijan could retaliate
by charging the Turks higher gas prices and favoring Russian export
routes over the Nabucco gas pipeline projected to traverse Turkey en
route to Europe.
Allowing these protocols to fail would unleash a destructive chain
of events. An aggrieved U.S. Congress might press ahead with a
genocide resolution, a move that would provoke a strong anti-American
backlash in Turkey. The already faltering peace process over the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict — the major issue impeding peaceful
development in the South Caucasus — would be hit hard, and calls
for war could resume in Azerbaijan.
But Armenia can take smaller steps to break the deadlock. Owing to
the geography of this region, everyone suffers. Azerbaijan also has
an isolated territory that suffers economically — the exclave of
Nakhichevan, separated from the rest of Azerbaijan by an unfriendly
Armenia, its road and rail links severed. As a gesture of goodwill,
the Yerevan government could take steps to ease the blockade of
Nakhichevan in parallel with the opening of the Armenian-Turkish
border. The Armenians could also begin work on rehabilitating the
long-defunct railway line that once connected Azerbaijan, Armenia,
Nakhichevan and Turkey. It is a sad symbol of the closed borders and
suspicions that cripple this region, but one day it could be a major
east-west transport route. The Turks would be wise to hail such an
initiative as a success and move on with ratifying the protocols.
More broadly, better relations with Armenia offer Turkey a chance
to lift the burden of history from its shoulders. Turkey’s ambitious
foreign policy, with its goal of "zero problems with its neighbors"
and becoming the central power in its region, will come to nothing
if its enmity with Armenia endures. Tiny Armenia may be dwarfed by
Turkey’s size and clout, but it can lay claim to a moral imperative.
Henri J. Barkey is a professor of international relations at Lehigh
University and a visiting senior scholar at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, where Thomas de Waal is a senior associate
on the Caucasus.