By Birol Akgun
The protocols recently signed between Turkey and Armenia envisaging the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, the opening of their land border to commercial and tourist traffic and the investigation of historical disputes by a joint commission symbolize a historic step forward for both countries and for international peace.
The tension and unease and the unpleasant developments before the signing ceremony shall be remembered solely as historic nuances. The Armenian and Turkish states have signed a bilateral international agreement for the first time since 1921. Despite opposition by the Dashnaks in Armenia as well as the diaspora groups and rightist and leftist parties in the Turkish Parliament, the brave stance and attitude of the leaders of both countries will be appreciated and properly credited in time.
The foreign ministers of the US, Russia, France and Switzerland, as well as EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana, attended the meeting to extend support for the Turkish and Armenian ministers, Ahmet Davutoglu and Edward Nalbandian, increasing the value and prestige of this political move, which symbolizes something well beyond normalization of relations between the two countries. The basic questions to be asked at this stage include the following: Despite historical developments so significant as to have determinative impact over the formation of the national identities of both countries and nations, what are the primary factors that forced the Turkish and Armenian leaders to take such a radical step? What are the probable reflections and influences of this historic step in international and national politics? Is it possible that the bilateral relations between the parties will be as smooth as envisaged in the protocols despite strong internal opposition in both countries?
Why normalization?
Leaving aside pessimistic realists who argue that interstate relations are inherently anarchical in the international system and that a power struggle constitutes the core of foreign policy, what is normal between two countries sharing the same borders is the development of economic and commercial ties and the establishment of diplomatic relations between the same two countries. Despite the emotional burden of history and the mutual distrust between the two nations, Turkey and Armenia could not have resisted this crude fact dictated by geopolitics. There were two reasons and factors for Turkey to cultivate ties with Armenia: the accusation by the Armenian diaspora against the Turkish nation and Turkey arguing that the Ottoman Empire committed genocide against Armenians in 1915 and bitter and aggressive political propaganda spread to force Turkey to accept the genocide claims. The Armenian allegations have caused serious troubles for Turkey in the international arena.
Improved relations with the Middle East and Caucasus
Secondly, Armenia has occupied about 20 percent of Azerbaijani territory since 1993. Turkey closed its borders with Armenia to protest this aggression. However, Turkey has developed and improved its ties with all other countries in the Middle East and the Caucasus since the end of the Cold War. Rapprochement with Greece, led by 's mail Cem, served as an initial move for other bold steps taken by the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) to achieve lasting peace and stability with nearby countries. This is an approach summarized by a motto of Davutoglu's : “zero problems with neighbors.” Armenia has been the only exception to the policy of improving ties with nearby countries including Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Iran, Syria and Iraq. For Turkey, which has stood out as a protector of peace in the region and assumed a crucial role as the speaker and representative of underdeveloped countries in the UN and the
*Professor Birol Akgun is an instructor at Selcuk University.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
