The example this sets for the rest of the Middle East, a place where many regimes and their supporters habitually live - and occasionally die - by the feud, should not be underestimated. And by no means is this region the only one populated by leaderships bent on maintaining divisions stemming from disagreements that are decades or even centuries old. The United States, for example, remains unwaveringly hostile to some of the regimes that have successfully defied it, including those in Cuba and Iran. If the Turks and the Armenians can engage with one another despite the bloody history they share, surely just about any other rivals can do the same.

Shared interest is not always sufficient to overcome bad blood, and there is no guarantee that the current direction of Turkish-Armenian relations can be maintained until a normalization of ties has been achieved. After all, in addition to Armenia's allegations that Turkey's former Ottoman rulers committed genocide against Armenians, the two countries are also at odds over an existing issue: what to do about Nagorny-Karabakh, an Armenian-majority enclave within Azerbaijan that has been outside Baku's control since a brief war in the early 1990s. Turkey has not reopened its border with Armenia since sealing it in 1993 in order to support Azerbaijan.

Nonetheless, the meeting between Nalbandian and his Turkish counterpart, Ali Babacan, follows a trend set by Turkish President Abdullah Gul's recent visit to Yerevan. The two countries' leaderships are therefore demonstrating commitment to the processes of confidence-building and tension-reduction, efforts that must be part of any successful bid to cement a genuine and lasting reconciliation. If they succeed, it will go a long way toward proving once again that when leaders are willing to talk today, the future need no longer be a hostage to the past.