Sule Kilicarslan
Turkish and Western public opinion have recently been occupied with allegations of the so-called “Armenian Genocide” which will have middle and long term consequences that may impact our country’s integration process with the European Union. At this crossroads, these negative perspectives necessitate deep consideration. The end of the 20th century saw a bloodless transformation process that led to the end of Soviet Union”s role as a major ideological actor.
In the ensuing era, new values rose to prominence in the political, economic, military and socio-cultural arenas. Among these, the concepts of parliamentary democracy, liberal economy and human rights, approaches of “European Centralism” the return of classical Eurasian-Pacific geopolitics in the context of the Urals and East-West division have taken on new dimensions. New liberal democratic countries expressed optimistic projections for joint stability and peace as part and parcel of strategies for drawing closer to a Common European House.
In contrast, the foreign policies of Armenia and Turkey, as neighbors in the Caucasian region, took a step backwards. On August 1,1991,Armenia declared its independence, but although Turkey was one of the first countries to recognize Armenia”s independent legal status, diplomatic and economic relations did not develop as desired. In the context of the chaos of the Caucasus, Armenia”s occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is Azerbaijani territory, opened the road for Turkish-Armenian foreign relations to enter an undesirable phase.
As a second important point, it is worthwhile to take an academic perspective and consider international relations literature at the beginning of this new century. In summary, many different hypotheses such as ” The End of History”, “New World Order”, “Globalization”,” Neo-Liberalism”, “Clash of Civilizations”, “Micro-Ethnic Nationalism”, “Gap between North and South”,” Rising Anarchy” and “Terrorist and Rogue States” which present new ideological paradigms have emerged into the foreground. Indeed, in the Cold War period, Turkey, as the southern wing of NATO Alliance and a country on the border of the Caucasus, made strategic projections based on an analysis of regional balances. However, the break up of Russia caused the emergence of the crisis and tension areas of Karabagh and Chechnya.
In other words, given the rise of issues such as separatist terrorism and radical religious fanaticism in the place of conventional conflicts, the region saw new political and military conflicts. Central Europe, on the other hand, was able to seek peace and stability by developing political balances. In essence, within the framework of the Russian Federation’s new “Near Abroad” security strategy, the scenario of old Soviet power and limitations to real independence were perpetuated due to the importance of Eurasian energy resources and their potential role in providing a chance for integration with the West. Related to this phenomenon and in contradiction to the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE Treaty), Armenian territory was penetrated and Russian military bases were established there. By reason of security concerns on the part of all actors, the Caucasian region was unable to implement former President Suleyman Demirel’s call for a Caucasian Stability Pact. In the context of these “conditionality” circumstances, it was observed that “crisis and conflict” paradigms dominated the scene in the place of political-economic cooperation models. Conditions of uncertainty and instability came to predominate. This entire political panorama gave shape to obstacles in Turkish-Armenian approachment.
On the other hand, it is worth nothing that a closer examination of the Turkish-Armenian dialogue, which is usually seen negatively, offers a variety themes. In fact, if one takes a chronological approach it may be noted that the Gregorian Orthodox faith of the Armenian community, which was subjected to various pressures from Persian, Arab, Roman, Byzantine and Russian cultures, saw a period of real prestige and support during Turkish hegemony. The meaning of the adjective Millet-i Sadika (Loyal Nation) contained the widest parameters of freedom of religion and conscience. In addition, methods of state management saw Armenians rise to high level positions. In addition to those members of the Armenian community who were in the Ottoman state administration, there were also those who rose in the fields of fine arts, trade and industry. In general, it may be said that one of the finest examples of Turkish-Armenian brotherhood can be found in the fact that over a period of several hundred years, 23 parliamentarians, seven ambassadors, 11 chief consuls, 11 university faculty members, and 46 high ranking employees were Armenian. However, in the 19th century, with trends of nationalism after the French Revolution and with Russian and English pressure, the Ottoman government forced to respond to a series of rebellions, including reformist movements that sprung up in Anatolia. Later still, at the time of Russo-Ottoman war, the Armenian community in Anatolia was identified as having cooperated with the enemy army and by a decision of Ottoman Parliament (Meclis-i Mebusan), the Armenian People were compelled to undertake a forced march.
The Fedai Movement was a group that organized conspiracies and terrorist activities undertaken by Armenian Committees against Turkish statesmen. This group assassinated Talat and Halim Pasha. During the Cold War period, Armenian terrorist organization and systematic conspiracy chain were maintained by the ASALA terrorist group. Hundreds of innocent people were injured and 28 Turkish diplomatic and military personnel serving their country were assassinated abroad.
When one examines the Turkish-Armenian relationship from the perspective of diplomatic relations, it may be seen that Armenian claims of genocide were not taken seriously by the United States and the international community in Lausanne following the War for Independence. The Soviets found the idea of the foundations Greater Armenia, stretching from the Black Sea to Mediterranean unreal, and opposing it, signed the 1921 Kars Agreement in which two countries (USSR and Turkey) arrived at a definitive conclusion of their territorial problems. Nevertheless, Armenia’s leaders continued to make efforts to escalate the “genocide allegations” by insisting on bringing forth an agenda whereby history be judged and brought before an international court. By asking for compensation from Turkey and engaging in acts that appear to be a plot for making territorial demands on the lands of the Turkish Republic, modern integration legal norms and the logic of international relations are being seriously contradicted.
In just this way, Armenia’s Haidat-Supreme Court Justice Seyran Basdayaryan, made a statement at the 85th so-called genocide ceremony held in Moscow which pronounced that Armenia’s demands are that Turkey be condemned without limits for the guilt of a genocide carried out against all humanity. Armenia’s government continues to take an approach that supports other countries’ acceptance of the “genocide”.
In relation to this, it is also clear that the European Parliament, the Russian Parliament, the French National Assembly, the Italian, Greek, Belgian and Swedish parliaments as well as those in Uruguay and Argentina are familiar with the Armenian genocide allegations. By means of using the international community, territorial claims will be made on Turkish land in contradiction to the legal framework of the United Nations. On the other hand, the Clinton administration took the initiative to block the resolution when the bill came before American Senate. What Clinton did was to make, as much as possible, priorities out of international peace and order, common sense, good neighborly relations and respect for international law. This initiative meant that taking positions on scientifically unproven events and making judgement on history would not form the basis for legal and foreign policies.
The Turkish Republic, after fifteen years of a bloody struggle with the PKK terrorist organization, faces an escalation of Armenian issue to very serious dimensions by interested parties. However, it should be underlined that there are real parameters for overcoming these depressing scenarios. In particular, Turkish Armenian citizens who enjoy perfect freedom in this country do not support “Turkish Enemy” hypothesis which the Armenian diasporas has sought to disseminate. These Turkish Armenian citizens are not and must never be wrongfully held accountable for what they are not a party of. Secondly, Turkey, as an actor in the Caucasus, is willing and desirous of realizing good neighborly relations with Armenia rather than finding itself trapped within a knot of problems. The current crisis must be surmounted and a phase of new dialogue must be initiated. The important first step would be to work towards finding a way to reduce inter-societal tensions. The second important phase would be for definitive action to be taken on creating a “bridge” between the two countries based on complementary geographical proximity. This proximity could allow for cooperation in Eurasian energy geopolitics and other potential economic cooperation projects. A third approach is to establish joint scientific committees that would research historical claims and on both sides, injustices towards each other. Unbiased analysis would be made based on scientific principles.
In conclusion, Turkey and Armenia are neighbors at this most strategic point in the Caucasus. A friendship established based on the principles of reciprocity and commonality will lead in the direction of reciprocal security and stability. This relationship will be a very important bridge to support the integration of societies of both countries into a globalizing world. Solid relations based on mutual trust and stability between Turkey and Armenia will be crucial in preventing policies of hatred and enmity that will endanger this bridge. If rational policies are used, then Turkish and Armenian societies in this century can make extremely successful contributions to human civilization. The harmonious togetherness of the past is the most powerful foundation for this future success. Political leaders must give life to democratic systems in the region and must raise economic and social welfare. They must make it a goal to confront situations not with crisis and conflict models, but with tolerance and reconciliation. Under the roof of pluralist democracy and respect for universal rule of law, politicians must contribute to giving life to a foreign policy atmosphere of reciprocal respect.
Decision-making mechanisms on both sides should not be determined based on the interests of external forces, nor place the citizens of the two countries in crisis and conflict by supporting aggression and imperialistic exploitation. Instead, cooperation on issues where there are shared interests should be looked at as the most serious of instruments to bring to an end the perpetuation of misunderstanding. History will prove us right by showing that common sense will prevail. Only good will and determination is needed to initiate new cooperation and dialogue in the Turkey-Armenia relationship.
Certain lessons need to be drawn from some major points in the Turkish-Armenian relations, especially after September 11 and the recent war in Iraq. One of these is the need to benefit from the current situation especially after the tension in the Turkish-US relations in the Northern Front and recognize that the Armenian genocide allegations will not bring any benefit for regional peace. On the contrary, two neighbour countries Armenia and Turkey should adopt liberal and mild rapprochement policies with the awareness of the destruction and economic depression brought by the war and should be able to see that there are more interests to be considered.
The oil and gas energy transportation line projects may be the first part of this potential and communication and transportation technologies may become the new keys in Eurasia. In fact, there is a high potential of rapprochement and economic cooperation between the two countries, this period being most suitable for making use of the opportunities. This may be defined as one of the common denominators where in accordance with the future enlargement policies of NATO both countries may cooperate in the security field. The second lesson to be drawn is that the determined foreign and security policies pursued by the US in the struggle against terrorism the common attitude against terrorism may lead to a new opportunity. The fact that Armenian-Turkish citizens celebrate their religious days and enjoy their religious freedom under the guarantorship of Lausanne Treaty is the best recipe against the expectations of a war among religions. Freedom and democracy are the best choices of peace and liberty instead of conflict and war. Yerevan and Ankara may benefit from spring 2003 and make a good start in the Caucasus.
(*) Sociologist, Eurasia Cultural and Social Development Association
Yorumlar kapatıldı.