• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
25.11.2010

ARMENIA-TURKEY: SOME TENDENCIES OF TURKISH POLICY

   

Ruben Melkonyan

Breakdown of the Zurich protocols by Turkish authorities struck serious blow on the international image of that country. After that Turkish party initiated measures of imitational character which had to create an impression that the Armenian-Turkish process continued and that Turkey adhere to the commitments it undertook. Those measures, broadening gradually, have taken an essential part in the foreign policy of Turkey. Different Turkish figures, in particular president Gul and Minister of Foreign Affairs Davutoglu put into circulation such term as “silent diplomacy”, “public diplomacy”, “Zurich-2” and etc, which have to characterize current condition of the Armenian-Turkish relations.

In response to the statements of Turkish party that the Armenian-Turkish process has not been stopped and it still continues in different forms, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia stated clearly that there was nothing in the rumours about the “silent diplomacy” or “Zurich-2”.

But it is obvious that the Turkish party tends to continue the imitational policy and it can be stated that today they mostly emphasize the so-called “silent diplomacy”, “public diplomacy” and etc. At the same time it provides wide space for maneuvering because it demands little specifics. In this context recently activated various public Armenian-Turkish relations, holding round tables, workshops, bilateral visits, joint programmes stimulated by the grants of foreign organizations which are very attractive for the local “grant hunters” should be considered. At the same time different emissaries are sent to Armenia; their goal is to bring in seeming activaties into the Armenian-Turkish process and for this purpose sometimes very cheap methods are used.

One of such propagandistic tricks was the political “presentation” of the unknown party “Mighty Turkey”. Firstly Turkish mass media spread information that in protest against the closed Armenian-Turkish border the chairman of “Mighty Turkey” party Tuna Beklevic and his deputy arranged a kind of action of crossing the border in the sector near the ruins of Ani. This news was spread quickly also in the Armenian mass media1 and became a point at issue in the public and political circles. And though Russian boarder guard denied that information, anyway the bait thrown by the Turkish propaganda machine worked and made the young chairman of the unknown party well-known to some extent in Armenia and Turkey.

Let us mention that the illegal crossing of the state border is a crime in Turkey, but Turkish law machinery did not react to that step of “Mighty Turkey”, thus once more proving that it was deliberately arranged and directed. To all appearance Tuna Beklevic with permission of Turkish authorities approached the very edge of Turkish border, thus providing preconditions for his propagandistic trick. After that Turkish mass media again spread information that Tuna Beklevic and his accomplice would visit Armenia, arrange conference and hold press-conference there and if it was possible they would visit the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia in order to discuss Armenian-Turkish relations.

It is obvious that both the name of the party and its wishes are too ambitious. It should be mentioned that “Mighty Turkey” party was established in 2006 and it is organizations which has no influence, weight or authority in the Turkish political plane. The party does not participate in the parliamentary elections in 2007, and only its chairman Tuna Beklevic was nominated in Edirn and won only 643 votes. It should also be mentioned that the viewpoints of Beklevic and his party members on the principle issues coincide with the Turkish state theses. In particular, according to them, both parties suffered losses in 1915, the third countries should not interfere into the issue of the Genocide and this issue must be considered by the historians and etc.

However, the chairman of the party and his deputy who became well-known after “crossing” the Armenian-Turkish border visited Armenia in order to continue their “play”. In our opinion they had “maximum programme” and “minimum programme” during their visit to Yerevan. Most of what they claimed was holding a conference in Yerevan devoted to the Armenian-Turkish relations and meeting with the representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia which did not take place anyway. After the failure of “maximum programme” they carried out “minimum programme”, i.e. they managed to meet with the Armenian mass media and disseminate their ideas in the Armenian press to some extent.

After a while information appeared in Turkish mass media that the National Security Council of Turkey removed Georgia, Syria, Bulgaria and Armenia from the list of countries which constitute menace to Turkey. Firstly, let us mention, that by this step Turkish party tends to show that the new document of national security is in accord with the new course of the foreign policy of Turkey – “no problem with neighbours”, and as a proof it excluded some of the close neigbour states from the list of the potentially dangerous countries. If we consider this issue realistically, today Armenia cannot be considered by Turkey as a serious menace and its inclusion into that list was mainly of propagandistic character and was directed to preserving the vivid image of the enemy in the Turkish society. On the other hand, one should not exclude the possibility that this is another step by which Turkey wants to draw a dividing line between Armenia and Armenian Diaspora and, probably, later it will be explained, or information will be spread that not the state of Armenia but Armenian Diaspora constitute menace to Turkey. By the way, the issue of dividing Armenia and Diaspora has been taking serious place in the foreign policy of Turkey recently and this was openly stated by the prime-minister Erdogan and Minister of Foreign Affairs Davutoglu.

But “declassification” of some of the provisions of the “Document on New National Security Policy” which is a state secret and “leakage” of information is mainly of propagandistic function. It can also be assumed that this action is directed to the external audience and is also a part of the Turkish policy of imitation and, in the opinion of many analytics it will not have an essential effect on a real political mood of Turkey in the relations with Armenia. We find it necessary to mention that the only Turkish political power which greeted the exclusion of Armenia from the list of the countries constituting menace to Turkey was “Mighty Turkey” party which stated that this was an appropriate step.

Thus, we can resume, that the visits and propagandistic steps of Turkish emissaries, as well as various information leakages are directed to supplementing and making realistic the Turkish policy of imitation. On the other hand all this intends to demonstrate that there is “pluralism of the opinions” in Turkey and there are also, alongside with radical nationalists, balanced figures. It is quite predictable that such steps will continue and an attempt will be made to present them in various international reports as a proof of the continuation of the Armenian-Turkish process.

1We find it relevant to mention that Turkey carries out large-scale informational and propagandistic measures in regard to Armenia and Armeniancy, and its success is supplemented by the shift of that information from Turkish mass media and its spreading over the Armenian mass media without any filtration.


Return
Another materials of author