The Oil and Glory Interview: Hugh Pope on the Armenia-Turkey Rapprochment

In October, Armenia and Turkey signed protocols that -- if ratified by their respective parliaments -- will open their shared border and in multiple ways normalize relations between the two traditional antagonists. Given the region's numerous nationalist rivalries, the move has triggered much thinking on what it means, and what else is possible. Hugh Pope, a friend and former colleague at The Wall Street Journal and now director of the Turkish project for the International Crisis Group, is one of the best authorities on the greater Turkic world. Hugh has a new book coming out -- Dining With al-Qaeda -- that sounds like a keeper. In exchange for dinner at my home last week, he kindly agreed to address some of the burning questions on the Armenia-Turkey accord.


O&G: Will the Turkish and Armenian parliaments ratify the agreement?

Pope: The parliaments will ratify the agreement on the protocols (normalization of diplomatic relations and opening the border) if Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan and Armenian President Sargsyan recommend them to. The most interesting aspect of the protocols is in fact how little dispute there is between the two governments about the actual contents. The main problem is domestic, mainly from political opposition (on both sides to different extents), the diaspora reaction (for Armenia) and the Azerbaijani factor (for Turkey, which has a shared ethnic relationship with Azeris and cheap gas from Baku). All these three problems can be overcome if the two leaders can demonstrate the same firm political will that they have done in the past.

Turkey must also look to its own needs, delinking its policy from full association with Azerbaijan's own perception of its short-term interests. In fact, the protocols are a good way to help spread stability in the region, which will be in Azerbaijan's long term interest, and Turkey’s keeping the border closed since 1993 has done nothing to solve Nagorno-Karabakh. Similarly, Armenia must distance itself from the nostalgic desires of members of the diaspora and some of its own population, who seek to keep alive territorial claims on Turkey by not recognizing the international border. Outside support is also vital, and continues, and this is also a source of hope that ratification will go ahead.

Q: Step back, Hugh. What is the significance of the agreement regionally, historically and so on, whether or not it is ratified? Are you surprised?

A: The protocols represent the best chance for two traumatized peoples to achieve closure on the politicized debate whether to recognize as genocide the destruction of much of the Ottoman Armenian population and the trauma of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and its accompanying displacement and massacres. Both sides have tried the all-out nationalist narrative, and it has not healed the wounds of history.

The second significance is the positive example being set by the Turkish government since 2002 to grapple with subjects that until recently were completely taboo and to overcome historical problems. They’ve gone a long way to fixing their problems with Syria, Iraq and the Iraqi Kurds, and are also working on an opening to Turkey’s own Kurds and on finding a settlement for the divided island of Cyprus.

The dynamics supporting Turkey-Armenia convergence are strong, I believe. The agreement on the protocols is the latest and broadest indication of a process that started in 2000 with the first meeting of Turkish and Armenian academics in the US. This was followed by meetings by retired officials and senior academics in the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, and then in years of secret talks between Turkish and Armenian diplomats.

In Turkey, this bilateral process has been accompanied and even led by the great 2005 meeting of Turkish academics rejecting the old denialist narrative about the Ottoman-era massacres of Armenians in the First World War, and the wave of regret and awareness in Turkey that followed the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in 2007. In Armenia and the diaspora, there has been some reaching out to Turkey too, as increasingly more people believe that dialogue can bring greater Turkish appreciation of the pain suffered by Ottoman Armenians during the World War I, an apology, and perhaps some compensation.

Opening the issues of the pre-1923 period is a Pandora’s box for Turkey, however. A significant portion of the population of modern Turkey is descended from Muslims driven bloodily out of the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, resulting in family dramas that up to now have rarely been discussed. Although often only tangentially related to the Armenian question, it make some Turks ask, what about our own traumas?

Q: Does the agreement say anything about the times in which we live? For instance, could we expect other stubborn animosities to cool for the sake of pragmatism?

A: The agreement on the protocols do show unfortunately that it takes a long time to heal the wounds of conflict and massacre, especially when one side is much weaker, when territory is contested and when the two sides have no joint project with which to help the healing process (impossible between Turkey and Armenia as states during the Soviet period, of course).

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the agreement was the beneficial effect of Russia, France and the U.S. working together. Of course, Moscow and Washington have different objectives, but they both support Turkey-Armenian normalization, and if their foreign ministers hadn’t been in Zurich on Aug. 30, the signing of the protocols may never have happened.

Q: What type of reaction do you expect from Azerbaijan? If a military one, would its performance on the battlefield be better than in the early 1990s? And whatever the case, wouldn't such an Azeri reaction scuttle the deal?

A: Great powers must make it very clear to all sides that any renewal of hostilities to try to derail the ratification of the protocols is unacceptable. Azerbaijan is currently working hard to legitimize its right to territorial integrity, while its president is frequently talking about the use of force to regain lost territories. Clearly, the Azerbaijani army is better armed and better trained than in the early 1990s, when it only had barely-coordinated militias. But Armenian and Karabakh Armenian forces control the high ground, they have had nearly two decades to dig in, and have everything to lose.

Any military offensive would be risky for the Azerbaijani government. Firstly, it might not succeed, and any reversal would be politically disastrous. Any attempt to reclaim territory by force is likely to be met by a massive military response and lead to a rapid extension of the conflict throughout the region. Secondly, the world would identify Azerbaijan as the initiator of hostilities, whereas it currently has some sympathy as the loser from the 1992-1994 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict -- that is, defending its territory integrity according to international law.

The worst problem is that a military flare-up could happen without anyone actually deliberately choosing the time. Some 3,000 people have been killed in and around Nagorno-Karabakh since the 1994 ceasefire. Bored, armed young men are within 20 meters of each other in places, snipers are active, and the international observer mission is tiny and weak. Bellicose rhetoric influences people’s minds, and raises the risk of a renewed outbreak of violence.

Q: Do you expect a deal settling Nagorno-Karabakh, and if so what will it look like? If not, why not?

A: The Madrid principles laid down by the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group, co-chaired by the U.S., Russia and France, are still the best roadmap anyone has for settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. These foresee the return of occupied territories around Nagorno-Karabakh; interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh itself; a mechanism to decide the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh; a secure corridor between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh; the return of displaced persons; and international peacekeepers and security guarantees.

The Turkish activism of this year has energized the Minsk process somewhat, and at times it seemed as though a deal might be possible. Unfortunately, the core issue – the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the procedure leading up to that final status, and whether it will have the right to secede from Azerbaijan even in a distant future – has proved just too raw and political a subject for either government to make compromises on.

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.

Guest Column: Khanna on the Pipeline War

Parag Khanna, the director of the global governance initiative at the New America Foundation, is the author of The Second World, which Random House is publishing next month. It's already getting much attention, including an essay on the cover of The New York Times Magazine two weeks ago. One thing I noticed immediately in the book galleys is Parag's very different take from my own on Russia and the Pipeline War. In an email exchange yesterday, Parag said he agrees with Paul Sampson's more optimistic take on a win-win outcome to the pipeline competition, published Sunday on this blog. Parag writes that he agrees with Paul "at least in terms of the long-term outcome of Gazprom remaining strong while the EU pursues a more stable energy relationship with Russia." We'll try to get more of both Paul and Parag on this blog in the coming month.

Here are the rest of Parag's remarks:

One has to wonder what strategies Europe can employ to increase its negotiating position before the 2025/30 estimates of reduced dependence on Russian gas.

For example, what would be the impact of restoring friendlier ties with Turkey in the coming years given its position as a pipeline conduit and its blossoming bilateral investment relationship with Russia?

What sorts of price stability and corporate governance demands can be brought to bear on Gazprom & Co. through [Italy's] Eni and/or other potential (e.g. Hungary) partners in the new operations?

Given Boris Tadic's re-election in Serbia, what kind of incentives can the EU offer to mitigate Gazprom's strength there even if they move ahead with the deal selling Gazprom 51% of NIS?

I'd welcome anyone's comments on the way ahead in getting Europeans on the same page (finally) on this issue.

Russia's New Abbott and Costello Defense

Vladimir Putin -- listen up.

You now have an airtight defense against those who have savaged you ever since you temporarily cut off natural gas shipments to Europe a couple of years ago in a pricing dispute with Ukraine. It would make Abbott and Costello proud.

Last week, Turkmenistan made news by cutting off natural gas supplies to Iran. The Central Asian nation, the runt forever being picked on by neighborhood bullies, had been shipping 23 million cubic meters a day to Iran, but is tired of being short-changed by Russia and Iran for its natural gas and wants more money. Russia is now paying $130 a thousand cubic meters (versus $350 it plans to charge Europe); Turkmenistan presumably wants at least that much from Iran.

Here's where the story gets wind. You see, even though Iran buys natural gas, it also sells it. But this is an incredibly cold winter, and Iranians are freezing. The country needed those Turkmen imports. So it has cut off Turkey, which was supposed to receive 30 million cubic meters a day from Iran but is only getting about 5 million.

Except it's also mighty cold in Turkey. So it has cut off Greece.

The poetic coda? The rescue squad is from Russia. Gazprom, the lightning rod for things that go wrong across Eurasia, is shipping an extra 8 million cubic meters of natural gas a day to Turkey and 1.5 million cubic meters a day to Greece.

Photo: Pirate Alice
Rights: Creative Commons