Turkish and Armenian Rapprochement: A Region Grows Up
Given the players and the history, a deal is still a long shot. But that traditional antagonists Armenia and Turkey have continued their talks this far -- at least by appearances, they are within three days of an accord re-establishing diplomatic relations and opening their borders -- is already a sign of an until-now missing maturity in the deeply suspicious region.
The main flashpoint between the two countries has been Turkey's 1915 massacre of hundreds of thousands of Armenians. Turkey refuses to acknowledge responsibility for the carnage, and permits pseudo-scholarly denials of the well-established history itself. A second issue is the two-decade-long dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the status of the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey, which supports Azerbaijan in the dispute, has insisted that the issue be settled as part of the rapprochement with Armenia.
Yet, if the pact proceeds and the countries' parliaments go on to ratify it -- not a certainty by any means -- one is led to wonder what else is possible in the region. Could Georgia and Abkhazia lower their voices? Could Georgia and Russia lower theirs? For that matter, could Russia concede that Georgia are Ukraine are independent countries?
All right, I've gone a bit too far. But you get the thrust -- the political courage displayed by Armenian President Serge Sarkisian is notable; I myself witnessed the 1998 coup that brought down then-Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian when he was close to a peace deal with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Ter-Petrossian's enemies at that time -- the ultra-nationalist Dashnak party -- are leading the domestic Armenian protests against Sarkisian now. Abroad, too, Eurasianet.org reports, Sarkisian faced 3,000 demonstrators outside his hotel in Los Angeles, where he visited Sunday as part of a tour to sell his plan to emigre Armenians. A similar demonstration in Paris turned violent last Friday when emigre Armenians accused Sarkisian of treason and clashed with riot police, Eurasianet.org wrote. In Beirut yesterday, Sarkisian faced an unhappy crowd of Armenians insisting that Turkey first agree to use the term genocide to describe the World War I-era massacre, according to the BBC's Jim Muir.
So the deal isn't quite in the bag. And even if it is, the political fallout is unpredictable.
Which makes the progress all the more remarkable. In the Wall Street Journal today, Marc Champion and Nicholas Birchin report that Turkey has dropped a key condition and will sign Saturday even without settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The main flashpoint between the two countries has been Turkey's 1915 massacre of hundreds of thousands of Armenians. Turkey refuses to acknowledge responsibility for the carnage, and permits pseudo-scholarly denials of the well-established history itself. A second issue is the two-decade-long dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the status of the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey, which supports Azerbaijan in the dispute, has insisted that the issue be settled as part of the rapprochement with Armenia.
Yet, if the pact proceeds and the countries' parliaments go on to ratify it -- not a certainty by any means -- one is led to wonder what else is possible in the region. Could Georgia and Abkhazia lower their voices? Could Georgia and Russia lower theirs? For that matter, could Russia concede that Georgia are Ukraine are independent countries?
All right, I've gone a bit too far. But you get the thrust -- the political courage displayed by Armenian President Serge Sarkisian is notable; I myself witnessed the 1998 coup that brought down then-Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian when he was close to a peace deal with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Ter-Petrossian's enemies at that time -- the ultra-nationalist Dashnak party -- are leading the domestic Armenian protests against Sarkisian now. Abroad, too, Eurasianet.org reports, Sarkisian faced 3,000 demonstrators outside his hotel in Los Angeles, where he visited Sunday as part of a tour to sell his plan to emigre Armenians. A similar demonstration in Paris turned violent last Friday when emigre Armenians accused Sarkisian of treason and clashed with riot police, Eurasianet.org wrote. In Beirut yesterday, Sarkisian faced an unhappy crowd of Armenians insisting that Turkey first agree to use the term genocide to describe the World War I-era massacre, according to the BBC's Jim Muir.
So the deal isn't quite in the bag. And even if it is, the political fallout is unpredictable.
Which makes the progress all the more remarkable. In the Wall Street Journal today, Marc Champion and Nicholas Birchin report that Turkey has dropped a key condition and will sign Saturday even without settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Labels: 1915 massacre, armenia, Azerbaijan, nagorno-karabakh, turkey
3 Comments:
A fabulous piece by a brilliant writer.
"For that matter, could Russia concede that Georgia are Ukraine are independent countries?"
For this to happen, it would really help if Georgia and Ukraine actually were independent countries. It is relentlessly clear that neither has any prospect of paying their bills, and are thus dependencies. As it is, the government of Russia has no reason at all to treat them as anything other than proxies for countries with anti-Russia foreign policies.
This article is pure trash. The president of Armenia is not brave. He is easily influenced.
Russian and American interests are taking precedent above Armenian interests. America wants cheap oil and Russia wants to sends its trains and electricity into Turkey.
Also, it is untrue that Turkey has dropped a key condition. All that Turkey has said is that whatever happens today during the meeting between Armenia and Azerbaijan will not affect his intention to sign the protocol. There is still no guarantee that the border will open.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home