• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
09.10.2009

CONTEXT OF THE RA-TURKEY RELATIONS

   

Gagik Ter-Harutyunyan

Peace is a war in the interval between wars.
General Erich Ludendorff

Gagik_Harutyunyan (medium)The discussions round the relations between the RA and Turkey, though there are also political speculations among them, has become of an all-Armenian character. As a result, it is difficult to find arguments and grounds “for” or “against” in this issue, especially from the point of view of the analysis of the “protocols”. At the same time there is an impression that the process of establishment of the diplomatic relations (or one of its first stages) is very often, or even exclusively, taken in “lurid” terms or “rosily”. Such approaches do not favour the objective assessment of the reality and, all the more, the elaboration of our further actions. The informational situation round the issue tells us that there is a necessity to comment the subtext of the relations between the RA and Turkey and the motives of the parties.

The stage of “relaxation”. Any discussion round the any serious political problem implies the clarification of the notions about the initial geopolitical situation. Briefly this situation can be estimated as a stage of “relaxation” in the “multi-polar cold war”1.The initiative in this issue, proceeding from all the preconditions, is American. The US establishment being realistic in the estimation of the reduction of their general resources has planned the “relaxation” (as well as, according to some sources the economic crisis) before ahead. To carry out such a programme “peace-loving” Barak Obama was elected as president who, unlike his forerunner, began to implement not “tough” but “soft” policy strategy. Today the tendency to the relaxation can be observed in many processes among which we would like to distinguish the following:

  • The US and allied forces after the partial fulfilment of their mission on “the formation of the controlled chaos” in the Middle East and Central Asia, today leave Iraq;
  • despite the separate warlike statements the relations between the United States and Iran improved essentially, the danger of military clash between those states not only reduced but the preconditions for the mutual collaboration has been created;
  • The discussions on the withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan activated in the US and NATO countries2. There are still no final political decisions on this matter but the ongoing developments remind the previous processes of the withdrawal of the troops from Iraq;
  • The relations between the United States and Russia have been settled at some extent. Mainly the decision of the US president to give up the ballistic missile defence deployment in Poland and Czech Republic brought to the decision of Russia not to deploy “Iskanders” in Kaliningrad.
  • in fact NATO accepted the result of the Georgian-Russian war and gave up the plans to include Georgia in that organization;
  • The negotiations on the collaboration on strategic issues (e.g. on warming and economic issues) between the USA and CPR are being held (sometimes behind closed doors);
  • The tendency of the EU to establish more balanced relations with the US and the RF; on the informational field one may run into the materials about the necessity to get the agreements between NATO-CSTO-SCO.

The number of the factors briefly presented above can be increased but, however, this is enough to show that at present moment all the main global actors of the multi-polar world try to take into account each other’s priorities and to be more compliant. In such a context Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani conflicts (which are perceived in a joint “package” by some people) are an obstacle on the way of the superpowers which try to bring into life their ideas of future world. This is the reason that actualized the issue of the settlement of the relations between the RA and Turkey and it is expressed in the “countenance” of the global actors to that process (sometimes it is expressed as an external pressure).

In this regard, let us mention that, of course, there are situations when the country which does not possess great resources, on the assumption of top priority national interests, is ready to resist any international tendency. But we think that the process of re-establishment of the relations (and not the establishment because at the first years of the Third Republic the Armenian-Turkish border was open) cannot be classified like one of those processes. Among the obvious challenges and national and moral factors there are conditions which are directed to the strengthening of the national security of the RA and the NKR. Among them the importance of preservation of the constructive relations with the allied Russia and Western partners and the necessity to be adequate to the global tendencies must be rated.

Let us add that the aforementioned logic of “relaxation” also works in case with Turkey.

The possible motives of Turkey: This country, because of the genocide perpetrated in regard to the Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians and not recognizing its crimes, is in the state of the “criminal to be wanted”. This reality has always been used against Turkey and, despite the fact that there is no word about the Genocide in the aforementioned protocols it is obvious that the establishment of the relations with the RA will contribute to the growth of Turkey’s “image”. This will partially promote the process of Turkey joining the EU, though today the solution of that problem, taking into consideration the current mood of the leading European countries, tends to shift to the theoretic plane.

Let us also mention that Turkey, just as it was in past, is still “sick organism”. Not having sufficient civilizational resources this country cannot integrate different ethnics living at its territory (Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, Georgians, Arabs and etc)3 and today it faces serious problems connected with the identity of its population4. By establishing the relations with the Armenians Turkish elite seems to show the readiness for the dialogue with the Armenians and thus tries to soften the problem at some extent. At the same time the desire of Turkey to establish relations with the RA is not determined exclusively by problems.

Today among the political and analytical elite of Turkey the doctrine of “neo-Osmanism” is being spread (it is sometimes called “Gul’s declaration”, as the incumbent president is its author5). Very doubtful thesis that during the rule of the Ottoman Empire the situation in the region was better than it is today and it is necessary to restore that situation but not in the form of the former tyranny underlies the doctrine. According to the head of the Centre for International Relations and Strategic Studies Siran Ohan, Turkey is the only country which can take the role of the one to modernize the Middle and Near East and can “reconcile” the region with the West6. On the assumption of such provisions Turkish neo-imperialists want to realize the so-called geopolitical and, in all appearances geo-ideological projects of “Three corridors”. The countries, which are included in the project – Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt (first corridor), Iraq and the countries of the Persian Gulf (second corridor), Iran and Pakistan (third corridor) – headed by Turkey should form a king of common mega substructure, which would include transport roads, oil and gas pipelines, power supply networks, connection and the Internet, banking system and etc7.

It is obvious that the availability of such programmes, especially in case of the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in strategic perspective, extremely actualize the opening of the border for Turkey. We think that this condition should be taken into consideration in the newly beginning relations with Turkey.

Possible positive factors for the RA: The establishment of the diplomatic relations with Turkey may have following positive effects:

Today the distinct tendency to the deterioration of the relations between Turkey and Azerbaijan can be observed, and today there are definite fractures on the Turkish-Azerbaijani front in the regard to the RA and the NKR. The official discontent in regard to the RA-Turkey diplomatic processes sounded by Baku comes to prove this. In the practical plane Turkish companies are inspected demonstratively and strictly, the passport regime in regard to the Turkish citizens has been hardened and etc. Even if we suppose that those actions are skilful imitation and in reality there is covered pan-Turkic accord, nevertheless, the aforementioned actions leave a kind of negative trace in the consciousness of the Azerbaijani and Turkish societies. All these are extremely important from the point of view of the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. It is known that the carrying out aggressive plans in regard to the NKR is possible only under the close collaboration between Azerbaijan and Turkey.

The possibility of opening of the new transport route has been discussed in our society for many times but the topicality of the problem for the RA has not lessened. The route alternative would allow alleviating our dependence on the Georgian factor.

As we have already mentioned that by establishing diplomatic relations with Turkey the RA will be adequate to the global relaxation processes and will not loose the name of the reliable partner.

At the same time, it should be said, that the aforementioned positive terms are possible only if the RA demonstrates necessary qualities under the conditions of diplomatic, economic, informational and cultural competition. We also think that the worst consequence can be the dissemination of the intolerance and the creation of the mutually exclusive camps in the Diaspora.

The context of the Armeniancy: The process of the possible re-establishment of the relations between the RA and Turkey, naturally, received negative repercussion in different parts of the Armeniancy and among some political (ARFD) circles. Let us mention that the negative attitude to Turkey is natural for the people who suffered Genocide and that is why at least due to this reason we must be respectful and understanding in regard to the position of any Armenian. It can also be added that the negative attitude towards that issue should make the official stance of the RA even stronger during the negotiations with Turkey.

In any case it is obvious that the process of the establishing of the relations between the RA and Turkey is a challenge to Armenia. It requires adequate perception and, which is the most important, adequate actions. Under the current condition the Diaspora should be understanding to the issues of the security of the Armenian states and, being more uninhibited, it should activate its actions directed to the satisfaction of their claims8. At the same time it is necessary to diversify the work of the Armeniancy without emphasizing exclusively issues of the Genocide and claims. In the contemporary world the intellectual resources are, first of all, the guarantee of the competitiveness and today we have serious problems in that sphere. This should be the main purpose of the national elite and national capital9.

“Protocols”: The substantiations of the opponents of the re-establishment of relations between the RA and Turkey are mainly directed at the form and the content of the Genève protocols. It should be accepted that some points are really bothering and the form of the exposition of some points does not correspond to the demands of contemporary diplomacy and international law. In this regard, let us mention that the Ministry of the Foreign Affairs of the RA often acts carelessly and, per se, in the staff of that agency, mostly due to the way of work of the former ministers, no necessary skills fulfilling the new conditions has been formed.

At the same time, it should be accepted that the documents passed in the politics, are undoubtedly important but not decisive at all. In 1939 the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, which, however, did not impede the Third Reich to initiate total war against the Soviet Union. The Helsinki Final Act (concluded in 1975) had also lost it topicality rather fast and only Helsinki groups on human rights were left from one of the most significant arrangements of the period. It is obvious that tens and hundreds of examples of ignoring of the international agreements can be brought. In this regard, let us mention that if the world history were guided according to the international agreements then the peace and prosperity would have been settled on the earth.

Some conclusions: It is obvious that the possible establishment of the diplomatic relations between the RA and Turkey will not be followed by the immediate economic growth or by the capitulation of the RA and NKR. All this is a dynamic political process from which each party wants to have its benefits and the mutual balance of the benefits and damages will depend on who will act in more productive way. In all the cases in the regional policy the foreign agency of the RA must go on to strengthen strategic relations with Iran (which is, by the way, the principal competitor of Turkey in almost all the fields), to add new quality to the relations with Greece, thus delimiting Turkey from new pretensions of Turkey. At the same time it is necessary to look for non-traditional partners, such as, e.g., Israel, which has had serious disagreements with Turkey in recent years. However, it should be stated that the establishment of the relations with Turkey is a serious challenge to the Armenian states and Armeniancy and this has to dictate the mobilization of our resources.

1 Such a tendency was also characteristic of the relations between the USA and the USSR. In the 70s of the last century the so called “relaxation” («разрядка») stage began during which those powers came to temporary agreements on new rules and division of zones of influence. That process was accompanied by the conclusion of several treaties on strategic weapons and the adoption of Helsinki accord where the borders of Europe formed after the World War II were nailed down.

2 Today in Afghanistan the so called “Iraqization” of the situation is taking place, because in parallel with the field clashes (which was characteristic of the Soviet occupation tactics), the bigger place is allotted to the tactics of Muslim “shahid” suiciders. Let us mention that there are still no efficient methods against such an “non-central” tactics and as a result the situation in that country is going out of control.

3 According to different sources 30% of the population of Turkey have problems with their identity.

4 This circumstance is not the only one which creates problems for Turkey. As it is known today the relations between the parts of the society which have secular and religious orientation has become aggravated. It is precise to mention that “Ergenekon” that made a stir, according to Global Research analysts is an American project created during the first Cold war in order to arrange guerillas resistance at the captured territories in case of the Soviet aggression against Turkey. There are many evidences that “Justice and Development” moderate Islamists party is also American project and its author is famous neo-con Paul Wolfowitz. According to some observers it cannot be excluded that the current contradictions between “seculars” and “Islamists” in Turkey are initiated by those American power centres, which find that the reinforcement of the country contradicts to the interests of the US.

5 С.В. Кизюков, Внешнеполитические концепции республиканской Турции (Экспансионизм или самооизоляция), Бишкек, 2006.

6 Илья Герман, Турция идет на восток, Эксперт, #26, с.66, 2009.

7 You can meet the scenario of the ultra-reinforcement of Turkey in the book by the founder of “Stratfor” analytical organization George Friedman (look: ХХI век: до и после Третьей мировой войны (Сценарий американского футуролога), Политический класс, #5(53), с. 26, 2009). But those scenarios, in our opinion, were elaborated much earlier as warning to the Western society.

8 Look: Gagik Harutyunyan, Information problems of organization of Armeniancy, Cyprus – Nicosia, April 18-19, 2008, Collection of Conference papers, p. 168.

9 By some estimates the GDP of the Armeniancy (i.e. the gross product accumulated by the Armenian capital) can be compared to the GDP of the Republic of Turkey (about $450 billion). Thus, from the point of view of responding to the challenges our material resources, in case of the proper organization, should be enough for the solution of those problems.


Return
Another materials of author