It was April 22, 2009 when Ankara and Yerevan announced that they had reached an agreement on a road map to normalize their relations.
The road map was the outcome of closed-door talks that had been held for more than a year on ways to restore diplomatic relations and open their mutual border through the mediation of Switzerland.At the time, Ankara and Yerevan had stated that “the two parties have achieved tangible progress and mutual understanding in this process and they have agreed on a comprehensive framework for the normalization of their bilateral relations.”
Overcoming painful ups and downs -- particularly stemming from the uneasiness of Azerbaijan-- the two countries took a landmark step when Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu and Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian signed two protocols in Zurich on Oct. 10 -- the “Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations” and the “Protocol on the Development of Bilateral Relations.”
However, the process hit a rocky stretch last month after the Armenian court upheld the legality of the protocols but underlined that they could not contradict Yerevan’s official position that the alleged Armenian genocide must be internationally recognized.
Turkey accused Yerevan of trying to rewrite and set conditions on the deals. Armenia’s president and foreign minister have warned that the rapprochement is under threat of collapse.
“Every word within the protocol has been placed into the text after thorough deliberation in order to create a common language that would help with the rest of the normalization process,” a Turkish diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity, told Sunday’s Zaman.
"CONSTRUCTIVE AMBIGUITY"
Experts say the protocols include “constructive ambiguity” -- a concept attributed to Henry Kissinger and a negotiating tactic used to cover up areas of disagreement or to save face for those taking part in negotiations. “By using deliberately vague language around areas of contention, constructive ambiguity allows diametrically opposed parties in a dispute to interpret an agreement or a position in different ways. Sticking points are ‘fudged,’ and the parties save face and move on to less difficult issues,” Brendan Donaghy, an expert on conflict resolution and mediation of Northern Ireland, said in an article published in October 2008.
As a matter of fact, the two protocols include provisions to help better explain to the public the course of affairs regarding the highly sensitive issue, which may be subject to ultranationalist rhetoric.
The protocol on the establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Turkey “confirms the mutual recognition of the existing border between the two countries as defined by the relevant treaties of international law.”
Over years of no dialogue, it has been assumed that the Yerevan administration refused to recognize the Gümrü and Kars Agreements that established the Turkish-Armenian border in 1920 and 1921, respectively.
The second protocol, the protocol on the development of relations between Armenia and Turkey, says the two countries have agreed to “implement a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim of restoring mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations.”
The second protocol says Armenia and Turkey have agreed on the establishment of an intergovernmental bilateral commission that shall form separate sub-commissions for the prompt implementation of the commitments mentioned in the operational paragraph 2, cited above, in the same protocol. The aforementioned paragraph highlights “the perspective of developing their bilateral relations, based on confidence and respect to their mutual interests.”
“What the Armenian Constitutional Court ruling’s reasoning is doing is harming this common language. Our efforts are aimed at recreating this common language to secure the healthy maintenance of the normalization process,” the same Turkish diplomat told Sunday’s Zaman.
When asked whether his remarks implied a new process within the ongoing normalization process, the diplomat replied negatively. “Not necessarily,” he said. “There is no need for a new process, but a new correspondence saying that the protocols are valid is needed. This may either be a written document or an assurance by a third party which is acceptable to both Armenian and Turkish sides,” he added.
The recent announcement of a planned vote at a US congressional panel next month on a resolution to label the World War I-era killings of Armenians in the late Ottoman era a “genocide” added insult to injury as Ankara believes that US pressure on such sensitive processes backfire and that it will in the end help neither Turkey nor Armenia.
HISTORY SPEAKS FOR ITSELF
While in Munich last weekend to attend an international security conference, Davutoğlu had bilateral talks with US Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg. Steinberg had arrived in Munich from Yerevan, where he had met with Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan and Foreign Minister Nalbandian.
In addition to Steinberg, Davutoğlu also had talks on the issue with US National Security Advisor James Jones and Richard Holbrooke, the US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Davutoğlu conveyed his concerns to all three US officials over both the planned vote at the US House committee and the ruling by the Armenian Constitutional Court.
Ankara has been constantly explaining to Washington that the normalization process with Armenia didn’t start due to US pressure. Turkish officials also told US officials that imposing pressure on Turkey has never yielded positive outcomes, diplomatic sources told Sunday’s Zaman.
While explaining its point, Ankara cited as an example the Turkish Parliament’s rejection of a government motion on March 1, 2003 to allow US troops to open up a northern front against Iraq from Turkey, thus leading to the reference to the “March 1 syndrome” when talking about the bilateral relationship of the two NATO allies. Parliament’s decision at the time came despite strong US pressure, showing that this pressure backfired, Ankara told Washington.
Turkey agrees that many Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks, but denies that the figure is as high as 1.5 million and that it amounts to genocide, saying many Muslims also died as Armenians revolted in order to create an Armenian state in eastern Anatolia in collaboration with Russian forces, then invading Ottoman territory. Turkish officials have often warned that any new attempt in the US Congress to brand the killings genocide could damage US-Turkish ties.
The resolution would call on President Barack Obama to ensure that US policy formally refers to the events as “genocide” and to use that term when he delivers his annual message on the issue on April 24, the “genocide” commemoration day -- something Obama avoided doing last year.
“Our efforts are not aimed at doing away with another April 24; they are dedicated to salvaging the normalization process with Armenia, which we started with a very strong will. That will stands firm. Doing away with April 24 would be a short-run goal that is not subject to our visionary focus,” the Turkish diplomat stated.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
