Author: Varosian Antranik

ZORYAN INSTITUTE OF CANADA, INC.
255 Duncan Mill Rd., Suite 310
Toronto, ON, Canada M3B 3H9
Tel: 416-250-9807 Fax: 416-512-1736 E-mail: [email protected]

The Politics of Genocide and the Turkey-Armenia Protocols
by
Roger W. Smith
Chair, Zoryan Institute

We must approach all cases of genocide as part of world history. If we
believe in "Never again" and want to prevent future genocides, we must treat
such epochal events as part of the universal experience and of concern to
all.

James Traub writes the following in an October 18 New York Times review of
Daniel Goldhagen’s new book, Worse than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and
the Ongoing Assault on Humanity:

But to exclude mass murder from the realm of conscious action offers an
exculpation of its own, both to the killers and to ourselves – for how could
we, ordinary folk who cherish life, descend to such madness? In this
magisterial and profoundly disturbing "natural history" of mass murder,
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen calls for an end to such willful blindness..
Goldhagen insists that even the worst atrocities originate with, and are
then propelled by, a series of quite conscious calculations by followers as
much as by leaders. "We must stop detaching mass elimination and its
mass-murder variant from our understanding of politics," Goldhagen writes..
Atrocities resemble one another; their differences are shaped by the
perpetrators’ ideology, their specific fantasy of a purified world, their
view of the victims they seek to eradicate..

But if the ultimate goal is to ensure that we never again stand by in the
face of a Rwanda-style genocide, public opinion will not be rallied through
an earnest accounting of national interest, but through an appeal to
conscience.. He heaps scorn on the United Nations, whose founding principles
of respect for sovereignty and of noninterference in internal affairs have
served, as he rightly observes, as a shield for leaders in Sudan and
elsewhere who are bent on slaughtering their own people.

This is interesting in light of the press coverage both before and after the
signing of the Turkish-Armenian protocols. A recurrent theme emerges,
particularly in countries which have yet to recognize officially the mass
murder of the Armenians in 1915 as genocide: the dispute between Turkey and
Armenia over the Genocide is exclusively their problem. For example, the
BBC, in reporting on the Protocols on October 10, 2009, stated, in effect,
the Armenians say it was genocide, Turkey says it wasn’t, so the reader does
not know what to believe:

Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognized internationally
as genocide – and more than 20 countries have done so. Turkey admits that
many Armenians were killed but says the deaths were part of the widespread
fighting that took place in World War I.

As far back as 2005, the distinguished human rights activist and Nobel
Laureate, Elie Wiesel, described the difficulty of Armenian-Turkish
relations because "ancestral hate is not easily erased." This gives the
impression that the problem between the two countries is intractable ancient
history, rather than a political problem arising out of a specific
historical event: the Armenian Genocide of 1915 committed by Ottoman Turkey.

On April 9, 2009, when President Barack Obama was in Turkey, he distanced
himself from getting directly involved in the Armenian-Turkish issue,
stating:

I want to be as encouraging as possible around those negotiations, which are
moving forward and could bear fruit very quickly, very soon. And as a
consequence, what I want to do is not focus on my views, but focus on the
views of the Turkish and the Armenian people, if they can move forward and
deal with a difficult and tragic history, then I think the entire world
should encourage them. So what I told the president was I want to be as
constructive as possible in moving these issues forward quickly. And my
sense is that they are moving quickly. I don’t want to, as the president of
the United States, to preempt any possible arrangements or announcements
that might be made in the near future. I just want to say that we are going
to be a partner in working through these issues in such a way that the most
important parties, the Turks and the Armenians, are finally coming to terms
in the most constructive way.

It seems that there is a certain point of view prevailing that only Turkey
and Armenia have a vested interest in the Armenian Genocide, and that it is
no one else’s problem.

One wonders, would the Rwandan Genocide be characterized as a problem of
concern only to Hutus and Tutsis? The complexities of the situation in
Rwanda, for example, involved Belgium, France, Burundi, Uganda, the
Democratic Republic of Congo, US, and the UN. The United States’ contortions
to avoid using the word "genocide" in 1994, and the UN refusal to accept
General Dallaire’s warning of imminent genocide there, in order to avoid
getting involved, are well documented. Such obvious political manipulation
caused outrage in most people, and the suffering caused by the slaughter of
some 800,000 victims made us all empathize with the plight of our fellow
human beings. The horror of that genocide, where the men, women, children
and elderly of one group were targeted with the intent to annihilate them,
was an outright violation of international law, and was watched on our
television screens, bringing the injustice home to everyone. It may have
been easier for some to be bystanders in the face of that genocide, but no
one today would say this tragedy is of concern only to Hutus and Tutsis.

The same is true for the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. In fact, the
Armenian Genocide is recognized by scholars as the archetype of modern
genocide, and its lessons have universal application. One of the lessons
most particularly associated with the Armenian Genocide is how denial of the
crime can embolden future perpetrators, as we learned from Adolf Hitler and
Albert Speer. In order to be able to prevent genocide in the future, we must
raise awareness of it as a scourge on humanity and educate our societies
about it. We must resist all attempts to disparage or dismiss any case of
genocide. Once you compromise the universality of any genocide, the entire
worldwide effort for genocide prevention is undermined.

The prevention of genocide and upholding freedom of expression and thought
are mandated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United
Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide. It is against this background that the Zoryan Institute is
committed to raising awareness of genocide and the necessity of its
prevention and to promoting universal human rights. These are the principles
reflected in our commentary on the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation
Commission in 2001, in our open letter to Prime Minister Erdogan on his call
for a joint historians’ commission in 2005, in our commentary against the
proposed law to criminalize denial of the Armenian Genocide in France in
2006, in our co-organizing a Symposium on the Albright-Cohen Genocide
Prevention Task Force Report in March 2009 (which, among other issues, was
based on faulty assumptions and the ignoring of past history), and in our
open letter to President Sargsyan regarding the Protocols, last month.

Our position on the Protocols is to make sure that the incontestability of
the Armenian Genocide is neither ignored nor called into question. It is
from this perspective that we wrote to President Sargsyan:

.numerous distinguished historians, political scientists, sociologists,
legal scholars, and authoritative institutions around the world have
investigated the Genocide many times over, issued academic publications, and
even made public declarations. These scholars have devoted their
professional lives to conducting scientific research with the highest levels
of academic integrity. As a result of their work, scholars have identified
the Armenian Genocide as the archetypal case of modern genocide, whose
pattern has many similarities with subsequent cases.

What the Armenian and Turkish governments do or agree upon, as two sovereign
nations, is their prerogative. However, our objective is to raise the
awareness of all those involved in these Protocols (the two signing
countries, the three OSCE monitoring countries-the US, Russia and France-and
the EU representative) that the Armenian Genocide is a historical fact, part
of the universal human experience, and can not be compromised.

Furthermore, any attempt to deny it was genocide, to trivialize this
enormous crime, or to relativize it as an issue only between Armenians and
Turks will be firmly opposed by scholars, legal specialists and human rights
activists in this field. The recent open letter from Prof. William A.
Schabas below is vivid testimony of this resolve.

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan and President Sarkisian,

The proposed protocols between Armenia and Turkey call for an "impartial
historical commission" to investigate what the world knows as the Armenian
Genocide of 1915.

As the leading scholarly organization engaged in the study of genocide, we
welcome continued investigation that will enhance our understanding of the
1915 massacres. However, we are extremely wary of any call for allegedly
impartial research into what are clearly established historical facts.

Acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide must be the starting point of any
"impartial historical commission," not one of its possible conclusions. The
world would not accept an inquiry into the truth of the Nazi Holocaust, or
the extermination of the Tutsi in Rwanda, and nor can it do so with the
genocide of the Armenians.

William Schabas, President, International Association of Genocide Scholars

In 1915, against the background of great power politics intervening in the
Ottoman Empire and of World War I, some 1.5 million Armenians were
slaughtered. While on May 24, 1915, the Allied Powers (France, Great Britain
and Russia) warned the Ottoman leaders that they would be called to account
for their "crimes against humanity," US Ambassador Henry Morgenthau
described on July 16, 1915 what was happening as "race extermination."
Raphael Lemkin, the legal scholar who coined the term "genocide" in 1944,
describing in his personal memoir how he became involved in its study,
wrote:

I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose
numbers grew, and I continued my study of history. I understood that the
function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate
human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of Genocide followed, such as
the slaughter of the Armenians.

We note that monitors at the Protocols signing ceremony, Russia, France, the
European Union, and Switzerland (the mediator in the negotiations) all have
already acknowledged the Armenian Genocide through their respective
parliaments. The US, whose official diplomatic archive is one of the richest
historical sources on the Armenian Genocide, will itself eventually have to
stop compromising the truth for political expediency. President Ronald
Reagan called it genocide in 1981. President George W. Bush described it as
"the annihilation of as many as 1.5 million Armenians through forced exile
and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire" in 2004. President Obama, in
January 2008, stated:

I also share with Armenian Americans-so many of whom are descended from
genocide survivors-a principled commitment to commemorating and ending
genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in
world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American
community in calling for Turkey’s acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide.
Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S.
Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term
"genocide" to describe Turkey’s slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting
in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the
Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of
view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body
of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that
calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy.
As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution
(H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian
Genocide.

Notwithstanding the above, we are of the opinion that while Turks today are
not guilty of committing the Genocide, they are responsible for accepting
and allowing Turkey’s official state denial. Denial is considered the final
stage of genocide, which continues to victimize the survivors and their
descendants, aggravating an open wound that can not heal. The tremendous
pain that an Armenian feels is no different from that a Jew, Pole, or Roma
feels because of people, such as President Ahmedinejad of Iran, who deny the
Holocaust of WWII, or a Tutsi feels when the Rwandan genocide is denied.

In conclusion, the Armenian Genocide is part of world history. If we want to
prevent future genocides, we must treat all cases of genocide as part of the
universal experience, and of concern to all.

Interfax, Russia
Oct 23 2009

ARMENIA LOOKING FOR DURABLE, REALISTIC SOLUTIONS TO N.-KARABAKH …

Armenia is looking for durable solutions to the conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh, which would guarantee realistic peace, Armenian
President Serzh Sargsyan said.

We are looking for long-term solutions that would bring peace in
reality. I am sure that such solutions exist. And they can be found
when the parties soberly approach the situation and when their
expectations are realistic, Sargsyan said in an interview broadcast on
the Nagorno- Karabakh public television.

While each party tries to benefit as much as it can from any
negotiations, I do not understand it when one of the parties to
negotiations tries to take all and is guided by the
‘everything-for-me’ principle, he said.

When our partners in the negotiations come to the conclusion that
there should be a logical decision, this decision can be found
quickly.

When they approach the issue realistically and when they really want
to resolve the problem in addition to making declarations, the problem
will be resolved at the same moment, Sargsyan said.

CONGRESSMEN SCHIFF AND RADANOVICH WELCOME GENOCIDE RESOLUTION

News.Am
Oct 23 2009
Armenia

Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) welcomes the position
of U.S. Congressmen Adam Schiff and George Radanovich in support of
recently introduced resolution to Senate on Armenian Genocide by Bob
Menendez and John Ensign, ANCA website reads.

"In a joint statement issued earlier today, Reps. Schiff and Radanovich
noted: "We commend our colleagues in the Senate for their prudence in
introducing this vital resolution. The facts are clear and there is
no question that the acts of the Ottoman Empire almost a century ago
resulted in the systematic elimination of 1.5 million Armenians. The
United States has a moral obligation to recognize the heinous acts
of genocide and all human rights abuses that have occurred–without
that recognition we are doomed to repeat the atrocities of the past."

Both resolutions call on U.S. President to ensure that U.S. foreign
policy reflects appropriate understanding and related to "human rights,
ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record
relating to the Armenian Genocide."

"We join with Congressman Schiff and Radanovich in welcoming the
introduction of the Armenian Genocide Resolution in the U.S. Senate by
Robert Menendez and John Ensign, and look forward, in the coming days,
to working with leaders and legislators in both houses of Congress
toward the timely adoption of this human rights measure," said Aram
Hamparian, Executive Director of the ANCA.

TIGRAN SARGSYAN AND SERGEY KIRIENKO DISCUSS PROSPECTS OF ARMENIAN-RUSSIAN COOPERATION IN SPHERE OF ATOMIC ENERGY

Noyan Tapan
Oct 23, 2009

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 23, NOYAN TAPAN. Armenian Prime Minister Tigran
Sargsyan on October 23 received a delegation headed by Sergey Kirienko,
Director of Rosatom state corporation (Russia).

The prospects of Armenian-Russian cooperation in the sphere of atomic
energy were discussed at the meeting, the press service of the RA
government reported.

KOMITAS’S JUBILEE CELEBRATED WITH SPLENDOR IN PARIS

Tert
Oct 22 2009
Armenia

A number of jubilee events were held devoted to Komitas’s 140th
anniversary. First, a concert-conference was held at Richelieu
Amphitheatre in Sorbonne, which was devoted to Komitas’s secular
music. Then, a choir concert was held at the Cathedral of Saint-Louis
des Invalids devoted to Komitas’s spiritual music; musicologists Mher
Navoyan and Anthony Girard presented Komitas’s life and creative
activity, and his role in the development of Armenian national and
world music.

The delegation headed by Armenian Minister of Culture Hasmik Poghosyan
was invited to the events. During the visit, Posghosyan met her
counterpart, French Minister of Culture and Communication Frederic
Miteran. They agreed to sign a new framework agreement which will
specify spheres of mutual interest.

The range of events dedicated to Komitas’s jubilee in Paris were
realized by cooperation of the Republic of Armenia Ministry of
Culture and French Ministry of Culture and Communication, with the
participation of the Armenian Embassy in France.

TURKISH FM DEFENDS DEALS WITH ARMENIA
By Selcan Hacaoglu

eTaiwan News
Oct 21 2009

Turkey’s government faced stiff opposition in parliament on
Wednesday over its landmark agreement to improve ties with Armenia
by establishing diplomatic relations and opening their sealed border.

But the government has a majority in the 550-seat Parliament that is
likely to approve the accord when it is debated for ratification. The
agreement _ aimed at ending a century of enmity between Turkey and
Armenia _ stirred heated debate in Parliament hours after it was
submitted by the government. No date has been set for its ratification.

Wednesday’s criticism by some opposition lawmakers reflected deep
discontent over the deal, which also aims to start a dialogue over
the contentious issue of whether the killing of up to 1.5 million
Armenians during the final days of the Ottoman Empire amounted to
genocide. Turkey says the number is inflated and that many died on
both sides during a chaotic period.

"We want to establish good ties with all our neighbors, including
Armenia. We want to establish a healthy communication channel that
will prevent exploitation of past grievances," Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoglu told Parliament in a speech that often was interrupted by
opposition lawmakers. "No one benefits from the status quo, neither
Armenia …nor Azerbaijan …nor Turkey."

Davutoglu signed the deal with his Armenian counterpart Edward
Nalbandian on Oct. 10 in Switzerland to normalize ties between the
two neighbors. He said the accord _ which U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton helped save from a last-minute snag in Zurich _
will promote economic welfare and stability in the region.

Another potential obstacle is Turkey’s desire to see Armenian troops
withdrawn from Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-occupied enclave in
Azerbaijan that has been a center of regional tensions.

"We will never support these deals," said Oktay Vural, a member of the
opposition Nationalist Action Party. "There should be no diplomatic
ties unless Armenia drops claims to Turkish territory and the border
should not be opened unless Armenia withdraws from Azerbaijan."

Davutoglu explained that Turkey, which shares ethnic and cultural
bonds with Azerbaijan, wants a peaceful settlement to the dispute
over Nagorno-Karabakh.

But Turkey and Azerbaijan, which share ethnic and linguistic bonds,
protested this week after Azerbaijan removed Turkish flags at a
cemetery and outside some Turkish missions in apparent retaliation to a
ban that prevented Turkish fans from waving Azeri flags during a World
Cup qualifier match between Turkey and Armenia earlier this month.

Davutoglu, who will fly to Azerbaijan on Thursday, downplayed the rift.

Also at stake is natural gas trade with the energy-rich Armenia.

Turkey is trying to persuade the Caspian country to provide gas for
a new pipeline that will reach Europe and reduce the European Union’s
reliance on Russian gas.

"We always feel the problems of our Azeri brothers in our heart,"
Davutoglu said. "The territorial unity of Azerbaijan is Turkey’s
unity."

The Turkish government also drew the ire of opposition parties
for taking a reconciliatory path to try to end fighting against an
autonomy-seeking Kurdish rebel group. A group of rebels crossed into
Turkey from northern Iraq his week and televised celebrations by
local Kurds as their convoy traveled in the Kurdish-dominated region
angered many Turkish nationalists.

"I hope that more will come and that, God willing, this problem will
finally be removed from Turkey’s agenda," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan said on Wednesday of the arrival of the 34 Kurds, including
eight in guerrilla outfits.

THE ESSENCE OF ESTABLISHMENT OF ARMENIAN-TURKISH RELATIONS IS OFTEN OVERESTIMATED
Karen Ghazaryan

"Radiolur"
20.10.2009 18:28

"The essence of the establishment of Armenian-Turkish relations and
opening of the border is sometimes overestimated," Turkologist Hakob
Chakryan considers. According to him, during the ongoing discussions
the opposition often relies upon speculations, while the authorities
prefer to respond to those. If there were serious discussions,
the authorities would also have to make analyses and express their
position.

Political scientist Yervand Bozoyan thinks Armenia has been entrapped,
and our society discusses the wrong issues. According to him, the
process contains serious threats, especially those connected with
the Karabakh issue. Yervand Bozoyan believes that before the start
of the football diplomacy we had a frozen conflict, while today it
is turning into an actively discussed one, he said.

ANKARA MAKES USE OF AZERBAIJANI OPPOSITION

Aysor
Oct 20 2009
Armenia

Turkish leaders decided to invite some Azerbaijani oppositional
leaders to discuss the recent events and situation, reports Azerbaijani
Rating newspaper.

Ankara intends to make use of Azerbaijani opposition against Baku,
the paper says. "Turkey’s running Justice and Development Party (AK
PARTY) wants to get rid of the pressure of Baku, and again is going
to make use of Azerbaijani opposition. Azerbaijani opposition parties’
leaders will, perhaps, be soon invited to Ankara."

Web-site Musavat, in its part, reports that Ankara resolved to invite
Musavat Party’s leader Isa Gambar, chairman of the Democratic Party
of Azerbaijan Sardar Jalaloglu, chairman of Umid Party Igbal Agazade,
and leader of the Party of Open Society Rasul Guliev.

"Inviting Azerbaijan’s oppositional forces Ankara sends a signal
to leaders of Yeni Azerbaijan Party whose proposal is to prevent
anti-Turkish propaganda. Thus, inviting opposition leaders to Ankara
AK PARTY hints that can cease all the relations with Yeni Azerbaijan
Party at any moment.

"Ankara’s authorities are preparing a big surprise for Azerbaijan’s
Body," says Musavat.com.

WHEN THEY SEND TO HELL
Hakob Badalyan

hos15602.html
17:35:53 – 19/10/2009

The relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey are really developing
in an interesting way. These two countries even seem for a second
to be dissatisfied with each other. In other words, Turkey does
not seem to be dissatisfied yet but it seems to be resisting the
Azerbaijani steps when for example they burn the photos of the Turkish
high-ranking officials. The Turkish patience seems to be finishing as
the Azerbaijani ambassador was invited to the Turkish foreign ministry.

But, overall, Turkey is still patient and tries to persuade Azerbaijan
that the Turkish relations with Armenia are not harming it and Turkey
does not leave out of account the Azerbaijani interests in these
relations. Everything arrived at the point that even the Kazakhstan
president Nursultan Nazarbaev tries to convince Azerbaijan saying
that the Armenian and Turkish relations have to be just explained
to Azerbaijan.

In other words, they come out to accuse Azerbaijan not directly but
anyway, it is accused of not understanding. Interestingly, what does
Azerbaijan not understand in the Armenia and Turkish process? It does
not understand that it does not have any chance to get use of those
relations, does not understand that time will come it will also get
use, just all this is not voiced for Armenia not to withdraw. Anyway,
if even Nazarbaev decided to dwell on this topic this will mean that
the Armenian and Turkish process is in reality a very wide project
which even interests Kazakhstan which far from the Armenian and
Turkish border.

In this case, it seems quite impossible that the Armenian and Turkish
relations concern Kazakhstan but not Karabakh. In this case, Azerbaijan
seems to be having to understand and stay calm as everything will soon
approach Karabakh. But Azerbaijan is showing signs of worry. What is
the problem? Maybe Azerbaijan realizes very well the essence of the
process and is just trying to enhance its role by complaining. And
the fact that in answer to its complaint Azerbaijan is not sent to
hell but is tried to be explained something proves that his role may
really enhance. In other words, staying calm in connection with the
Armenian and Turkish relations, Azerbaijan may be given a card-blanch
in other issues. And the more Azerbaijan complains the more it is
possible to get the card-blanch. This is perhaps the strategy Aliyev
is carrying out.

This is of course risky because you never know at what level of protest
you will get burned. In other words, you are unable to say at what
level the world will try to agree and at what level it will send
Azerbaijan to hell. So, Aliyev’s complaint is obvious to terminate
at some point. The problem is what Aliyev will be given in this result.

He will be given very much or will lose everything.

But, on the other hand, it is possible that the world gave to Aliyev
the possibility to be the president forever with advance. Maybe he was
let this thing for him when the time comes to understand the nuances
of the "Armenian and Turkish" process. The point is that Azerbaijan
is almost doing what Armenia had to do if not in the same measure but
with the same logic. Azerbaijan is not trying to yield in front of the
present process, to let being treated the way they like. Azerbaijan
tries to oppose some things expecting to get more than possible
because maybe it understands that the minimal will be unlike its will.

The same cannot be said about Armenia. Armenia completely abandoned
itself to the "Armenian-Turkish process" and contented with the 30
percent which is said to be the economic interest. The rest does not
seem to bother the Armenian government and the government does not
even try to enhance its role in the process by voicing its concern.

Armenia is ready to be happy with the goal in its net just to be
assessed as a new thinker, and active.

Naturally, the world will not see any need to explain anything to
Armenia. What you have to explain to a country when it is ready to
do what it is said without understanding. This is the reason why the
name of Azerbaijan which "does not exist" in the process is as much
mentioned and maybe more as the name of the "direct participant"
of the process Armenia.

NEW SECURITY CONFIGURATION IN THE CAUCASUS
Vladimir Radyuhin

The Hindu
e36036.ece?homepage=true
Oct 20 2009
India

The milestone accords Turkey and Armenia sealed this month to normalise
their relations after a century of hostility have dramatically changed
the geopolitical configuration in the Caucasus.

They have opened the way to a new security arrangement in the region
on the basis of the emerging Russia-Turkey alliance.

At an October 10 ceremony in Zurich, the Foreign Ministers signed
protocols setting a timetable to establish diplomatic ties and reopen
the border, which has been closed for 15 years. The importance of
the event was underlined by the presence of U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, French Foreign
Minister Bernard Kouchner and the European Union’s Javier Solana.

The accords, subject to ratification, however, face formidable
opposition in both Turkey and Armenia. The Turks are angry at Armenia
continuing "occupation" of 14 per cent of the territory of Turkey’s
ethnic ally Azerbaijan in the predominantly Armenian enclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh, which split from Azerbaijan in the wake of an
inter-ethnic conflict in the early 1990s. In 1993, Turkey sealed the
border and severed all contacts with Armenia over the conflict. For
their part, the Armenians are angry over Turkey’s denial of the
massacre of 1.5 million Armenians from 1915 to 1919.

Bad feelings on both sides may slow down the normalisation process,
but will hardly derail it as Turkey and Armenia have vital stakes in
ending their historic enmity. Turkey stands to gain influence in the
Caucasus and it will smoothen its path to membership in the European
Union. Landlocked Armenia, blockaded by Turkey, on one side, and
Azerbaijan, on the other, will gain through trade links with Turkey,
a large economy closely tied to the EU. It would also become a transit
trade route from Central Asia to Turkey and then to Europe.

Reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia is likely to facilitate the
settlement of the territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The presence of the top diplomats from the U.S., Russia and France —
the co-chairs to the OSCE Minsk Group, which mediates in talks on
Nagorno-Karabakh — at the signing ceremony was quite symbolic in
this regard.

Both Russia and the U.S. are interested in the Turkey-Armenia
settlement. Russian business, which effectively controls the economy
of Armenia, will benefit from the opening of the Turkish border with
Armenia, as Russia is also the biggest trading partner of Turkey. In
another gain for Russia, the role of its foe Georgia as the main
transit route for Armenian trade will greatly diminish once Turkey
opens up its border. Russia has already reaped the first benefits on
the energy front. Within days of the Turkey-Armenian agreement, its
gas monopoly Gazprom signed a contract with Azerbaijan’s state energy
company SOCAR on Azerbaijani gas supply to Russia. The deal came as
Baku denounced the Turkey-Armenian pact as running "completely against
the national interests of Azerbaijan," because it was concluded without
a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. It is for the first time
that Azerbaijan will sell its gas to Russia, which could undermine
the West’s plan to build the Nabucco pipeline to ship Caspian and
Central Asian gas to Europe bypassing Russia.

The U.S. hopes that Turkey opening its doors to Armenia would help
wean it away from Russia. Today, Armenia is Russia’s only strategic
ally in the Caucasus. It is a member of the Russia-led defence pact of
six former Soviet states and hosts a major Russian military base on
its territory. For U.S. President Barack Obama, the Turkish-Armenian
rapprochement offers a way out of a tight spot he put himself in
during the presidential campaign when he promised support to a
proposed Congress resolution denouncing the slaughter of Armenians
during World War I as "genocide." This would have damaged U.S.

relations with Turkey, which is of strategic importance to America
as the only NATO country bordering the Caucasus.

Russia has its own game plan for the region. Last year, Moscow
readily embraced Ankara’s proposal for a Caucasus Stability and
Cooperation Platform. The CSCP, based on Turkey’s concept of "zero
problems with neighbours" policy, is promoted by Ankara as a mechanism
for political dialogue, stability and crisis management in a region
covering Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia. For Turkey,
the plan is an instrument to win a bigger foothold in the Russian
backyard. Russia further consolidated its position as the dominant
player in the Caucasus, signing last month defence pacts with
Georgia’s breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, whose
independence it recognised after routing Georgia in a five-day war
in August 2008. The agreements allow Russia to station 1,700 troops
in each region for the next 49 years, with the option of extension
for five-year periods thereafter. Nevertheless, Moscow seems ready
to cede some of its influence to Ankara in order to achieve a bigger
strategic objective: create a regional security mechanism that would
exclude outside players, above all the U.S. and the NATO, whose poking
only creates trouble, as it happened last year when the U.S.-armed
and trained Georgian military attacked South Ossetia.

Even though Turkey is a NATO member, Moscow has appreciated Ankara’s
independent foreign policy in recent years that runs counter to
U.S.interests on a range of regional issues. Ankara would not let the
U.S. use its territory for the war in Iraq and refused to join the
West’s Russia-bashing over the war in South Ossetia. Turkey’s ambitions
of a regional superpower clash with the U.S.’ aggressive push in the
Caucasus. Turkey does not want the Black Sea to become a NATO lake and
has resisted U.S. pressure to renegotiate the 1936 Montreux Convention,
which restricts the passage of non-Black Sea nations’ warships through
the Bosphorus Straits. During the Russian-Georgian conflict, Turkey
invoked the Montreux Convention to block two big U.S. warships from
sailing into the Black Sea on the pretext of delivering humanitarian
aid to Georgia. While officially Turkey continues to support Georgia’s
territorial integrity, it has quietly moved to develop contacts with
Abkhazia, with a senior Turkish diplomat visiting the regional capital
Sukhumi last month.

When Turkish President Abdullah Gul paid a state visit to Moscow
earlier this year, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a
straightforward proposal to set up a Russian-Turkish axis. "The
August crisis showed that we can deal with problems in the region by
ourselves, without the involvement of outside powers," Mr. Medvedev
told a joint press conference. The Turkish leader effectively agreed,
pointing to "substantially close or identical positions" the two
countries took on "an absolute majority" of international issues.

In a joint declaration adopted at the summit, Russia and Turkey
expressed support for Turkey’s CSCP initiative, noted the "identity of
view" on security and stability in the Black Sea region and reaffirmed
their commitment to the Montreux Convention.

There is no denying that Russia and Turkey are historical rivals in
the Caucasus, having fought 11 wars lasting 44 years in the past. They
are still competing for influence in the region, but shared interests
make them allies too. Russia meets 80 per cent of Turkey’s natural gas
needs through the Blue Stream pipe laid on the seabed across the Black
Sea. Turkey has backed the Russian proposal to build a Blue Stream-2
pipeline, which, together with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline,
would make Turkey a major energy transit hub for Europe and Israel.

A distinct cooling in Turkey’s relations with the U.S. over Iraq and
the Kurdish problem, and with Europe over its granting EU membership
to Cyprus and refusal to admit Turkey has further pushed Ankara
towards Moscow.

Normalisation between Turkey and Armenia and an improving outlook
for a settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan will remove the last
roadblocks to a regional security set-up on the basis of the Turkish
CSPC proposal. Moscow is already looking to extend its cooperation with
Turkey on regional security beyond the Caucasus. On a visit to Istanbul
last year, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointedly emphasised that
Russia and Turkey shared similar views on "what needs to be done for
a conclusive settlement in Iraq" and on "the necessity of peaceful
political resolution of the situation regarding the Iranian nuclear
programme."

Chances of the new regional security configuration in the Caucasus
becoming a reality will greatly depend on whether the U.S. goes
along or tries to torpedo the project by encouraging its allies,
Georgia and Azerbaijan, to reject the initiative.

In joint Russian-U.S. efforts to promote normalisation between Turkey
and Armenia there are grounds for optimism. Mr. Medvedev hailed it as a
"good example of our [Russian-American] coordination in international
affairs." The very possibility of the ongoing reset in relations
between Russia and the U.S. being projected to the Caucasus will
enable Moscow to play on Turkey’s fears of being left in the cold
and help get the best deal from both.