map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Commentary

The Turkish-Armenian Thaw and Azerbaijan

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has criticized the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement

April 14, 2009
By Abbas Djavadi
U.S. President Barack Obama's recent visit was a big boost for Turkey. But a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement was in the works even before Obama was elected president.

Now Baku is upset that Ankara and Yerevan are about to formalize a deal sidelining Azerbaijanis' main concern: restoring sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions of Azerbaijan that have been occupied by Armenian forces since early the 1990s. Are the days when both Turks and Azeris used to say they were "one nation with two state" gone for ever?

Ankara and Yerevan intensified their negotiations in August 2007 when their diplomats started to regularly meet in Geneva to discuss the details of establishing "good-neighborly" relations. Once the "technical preparation" was almost complete, President Abdullah Gul's visit to Yerevan in September last year to attend a Turkish-Armenian soccer match, and the meeting between Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan in January 2009 on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos signaled the political will of both sides to proceed.

Diplomats have confirmed to the Turkish media that Baku was not only fully informed about the progress and details of those talks, but even "in agreement" with the way Ankara has been approaching the rapprochement issue.

Dozens of rounds of talks between the Turkish and Azerbaijani presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers preceded this climax in the Turkish-Armenian thaw. Cengiz Candar, a Turkish journalist who accompanied President Gul to Tehran on March 11, reports that Gul and his Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev, met in the Iranian capital specifically to discuss the issue.
What an irony of history that now a Turkish government with an Islamic background and an Armenian government led by a former nationalist fighter from Nagorno-Karabakh are close to a breakthrough


Turkish leaders seem to be surprised by the outrage with which President Aliyev, other Azerbaijani officials, and the Azerbaijani media have responded to the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. Some Turkish analysts maintain that Baku's "demonstrative dismay" is meant primarily for internal consumption, while others speculate that the intention is to make clear to Moscow, Yerevan's main supporter, Baku's readiness to include it in all political processes in the southern Caucasus.

Whatever the reason for Baku's anger, the Turkish leadership seems to have concluded that having no diplomatic relations with one of its neighbors and keeping its border closed have not produced, and will not produce, any positive movement on three key issues that have frozen the status quo for nearly 17 years.

The first of those is Yerevan's insistence that the mass killings of Ottoman Armenians in 1915 should be recognized as "genocide."

The second is Ankara's demand that Yerevan clearly recognize the current Turkish-Armenian border, and refrain in future from referring to eastern Turkey as "western Armenia."

And the third is concluding an agreement between Baku and Yerevan on Nagorno-Karabakh and other Azerbaijani  territories occupied by Armenian forces.

Referring to serious disputes on all these three points, Turkey "acknowledged" Armenia's independence in 1991 but declined to extend formal diplomatic recognition. And following the occupation of Azerbaijani territories by Armenian forces, Ankara closed its borders with Armenia in 1993.

For the past 15 or more years, Yerevan has been demanding the opening of the border and the establishment of diplomatic relations "without any precondition." Ankara, on the other hand, has made both those demands contingent on the resolution of the three main disputed issues. Endless and exhausting talks have been held between all parties involved: Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and the "Minsk Group," consisting of Russia, the United States, and France, to mediate between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

But those talks yielded no concrete results. What an irony of history that now a Turkish government with an Islamic background and an Armenian government led by a former nationalist fighter from Nagorno-Karabakh are close to a breakthrough in what was long enough considered a "frozen conflict."

With technical details reportedly worked out and political will evident in both Ankara and Yerevan, the next few weeks may bring breaking news about the beginning of a historical rapprochement between Turks and Armenians. There are also reports that the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict may be "very close to a settlement," although the players in each of these two distinct but intertwined dramas apparently don't want to wait for the other game to be played out first.

The public, however, still doesn't know much about what the agreements would produce, either with regard to the "genocide," or the recognition of the Turkish-Armenian border, or how the Armenian-Azerbaijani territorial dispute will be resolved. "Having good relations with Armenia is very good," said Tulin Kanik, a student of political sciences from Ankara. "But what will happen with their claims on eastern Turkey or with the districts of Azerbaijan still occupied by Armenian forces?"

That both Ankara and Yerevan look confident indicates that people on both sides of Mount Ararat will probably soon hear something they can not only live, but also be happy with. Both Erdogan and Sarkisian know that they have to present their respective populations with a win-win deal. And they also know that, however enthusiastic and supportive the West may be or Russia may become, their own constituencies must accept that deal if they want to survive as national leaders.

Abbas Djavadi is associate director of broadcasting with RFE/RL. The views expressed in this commentary are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL.
This forum has been closed.
     
Comments
by: patrick henry from: virginia
April 22, 2009 16:53
bord from tblisi, with respect to your comment, "it was russia and armenia against azerbaijan", what do you have to say to this comment "it was american rebels and france against great britain"? How illegitimate is the independence of the United States, given it was won by the support that france lent to british subjects against an aggressor who reacted to talk of american liberty and respect with violence? Armenians around the world have had enough with double standards that deny them the same rights enjoyed by other communities since the liberation of those communities from the ottomon empire began in the 19th century, and seems to have mysteriously stopped after Kosovo won its independence from serbia. Karabagh is free, and that is it, finished and done, and yes, with the support of her friends on the other side of lake sevan and true friends of liberty from across the world. And if you do not understand what this fight in karabagh is about, find an american in tblisi and ask him who patrick henry was, and why he was considered a war criminal by the british government.

by: john from: Canada
April 22, 2009 00:08
Firstly, I'd like to say that Zoltan from Hungary has the right idea, in fact it would be beneficiary for all countries in question (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey). Whether or not these nations admit it or not, they are a part of Europe and there is a need in Europe for unification.
Nagorny Karabagh in reality is a mirror image of Kosavo from the start of ethnic cleansing to the war and then resulting in the formation of a new Euro-state.
And John from VA, I think your label of David verses Goliath is about the only way to describe the struggle of the Karabagh people against the 8 and a half million Azeris. They have weathered the Azeri attacks and have become a nation of their own. Almost every nation on this earth had to fight for independence and succeed from another nation, Karabagh is no different

by: bord
April 20, 2009 12:08
rferl, I made about 5 comments on different articles, but they are never published, can you please explain the criteria for censoring them?

by: Moderator
April 20, 2009 12:08
I can't address them specifically as I don't know which comments they were, but please read the forum rules.

For example: "We do not seek to limit your expression of ideas, but material that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, indecent, abusive, violent, pornographic, threatening, harassing, discriminatory or that constitutes hate speech or is illegal is not allowed and may be deleted at the discretion of the site management."

by: bord from: tbilisi
April 20, 2009 12:02
John Harduny, don't make me laugh. david vs goliath the 1990's war certainly was, but other way around: it was russia and armenia against azerbaijan.

by: John Harduny from: Reston, VA
April 14, 2009 21:08
I can hardly imagine a less well-informed and more hypocritical discussion of the latest developments in Armenian-Turkish relations. What Armenian-Turkish “love fest” is the author calling himself Abbas Djavadi talking about? This phenomenon can perhaps be characterized as a cautious and largely unsustainable dialogue, with fuzzy goals and a lot of not-so-well covered up vile. But a “love fest” it is not. It perhaps may become one if the Turks recognize the genocide of 1915, show Armenians how they are prepared to compensate them for the loss of their homeland, cultural heritage, economic opportunity and the 5 million children that have not been born because of assassination of their would-be parents during the genocide. There is also a reference to Armenia’s “occupation” of Nagorno-Karabakh. Is this a sick joke? The people of Nagorno-Karabakh fought and won a David-vs.-Goliath battle against a campaign of ethnic cleansing and extermination started by Azerbaijan and supported by Turkey. In addition to providing military instructors to Azerbaijani death squads, one of the tools that Turks used against Armenians was the blockade that Abbas Djavadi’s article is about. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is a well-functioning state and one of the only two countries on the South Caucasus (the other is Georgia) which can be characterized as fledgling democracies. This in sharp contrast to Azerbaijan—a quintessential Muslim oil dictatorship, corrupt and nationalistic, built by the KGB general and Communist boss Heydar Aliyev.

by: J from: USA
April 14, 2009 17:30
What a handsome prez Azeris got!

by: Zareh Sahakian from: Canada
April 14, 2009 16:26
Mr. Djavadi's enthusiastic remark about Turkey and Armenia being very " close to a breakthrough" is akin to an old adage that warns "counting chickens before they hatch" can be disappointing. .

Nowhere in the article the author refers to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's repeated post-Obama-visit declarations that the border issue cannot be addressed until the Karabakh issue is resolved. This is a clear violation of the original intent to work towards a negotiated settlement between the two countries where borders would be opened unconditionally and diplomatic ties would soon follow.

The article makes it clear that throughout the "secret negotiations" between Ankara and Yerevan, Baku was informed about all the steps and proceeded with the full agreement of Mr. Alyiev. All of a sudden this "demonstrative" disagreement by Mr. Alyiev and Mr. Erdogan's re-insistence of putting conditions on Armenia for opening the borders turns this process into a charade. Turkey only wanted to show an appearance of "great success" in negotiations with Armenia giving credence to those who dismissed such Turkish rapprochement as a ploy to full Mr. Obama and the West.

The true intentions of Turkey lies in derailing Mr. Obama's willingness to call the 1915 Turkish crimes against the Armenians as Genocide, the rest is a ploy and a charade.

Therefore, Mr. Djavadi let's reserve the enthusiasm for the day the borders open and diplomatic ties are established between Armenia and Turkey. Until then let's not count our chickens.

by: Zoltan from: Hungary
April 14, 2009 11:33
The opening of the closed border would be a very positive step from the Turkish side.

On the otgher hand also Azerbaijan should understand the realities and accept the facts emerged on the ground and let Karabagh away like Serbia did in case of Kosovo.

Azeris should understand that Karabagh will never return to Azerbaijan.

Meanwhile both countries have possibility - if even a very long term possibility - to unite themselves in the framwork of the Eastern Partnership and later even in the EU.
This would result not only open but almost non existing borders like in Central-Europe.

Only a European perspective could serve as a tool to catalyse engagement between these Caucasian states. The German-French reconciliation or also the Hungarian-Romanian and Hungarian-Slovakian conflict was soluted peacefully thanks to the EU integration.
     
TEXT SIZE - +

Editors' Picks

Arresting Images

Photos Of The Week Photogallery

President Van Rompuy

'How's That Again?!' Audio

Karzai Inauguration

The Anticipation Of Change Video

Follow Us On Twitter

Keep up-to-date on all the latest news from RFE/RL's broadcast region by following us on Twitter:
~ You can find our instant news feed at @RFE_RLNEWS.
~ An obsessive Kremlin watcher? Follow our blog at @PowerVertical.
~ Human rights abuses chronicled at @RightsWatchdog.
~ News, comment, and the odd silly dictator story at @TransmissionRFE.

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile