The current Turkey-Armenia Protocols, with their ambiguous wording, are unfavorable to the interests of the Armenian state. What are the motives of the latter? Opening the Turkish Armenian border, while separating Turkey-Armenia relations from a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
Apparently, to substitute for this issue not being mentioned, Armenia has conceded for a “sub-commission on the historical dimension to implement a dialogue with the aim to restore mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archives to define existing problems and formulate recommendations, in which Armenian, Turkish as well as Swiss and other international experts shall take part.” Such wording should be unacceptable for an Armenian government worthy of the name. What is the goal of Turkish diplomacy, whose excellence cannot be denied, as demonstrated its progress during the recent years, with the impulsion of Recep Erdogan, and reach the following: - A recognition of existing borders between Turkey and Armenia; - Avoid at all costs that the term genocide is used for the events of 1915-1923. - Work in agreement with Azerbaijan for the return of Nagorno-Karabakh under the sovereignty of Baku.
This last point is implicit in the protocols, as Armenia and Turkey reaffirm “their commitment, in their bilateral and international relations, to respect and ensure respect for the principles of equality, sovereignty, non interference in internal affairs of other states, territorial integrity and inviolability of borders”. (underline is mine).
This means to bury the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, a principle on which the argument of Nagorno Karabakh and its overwhelmingly Armenian population is based. Accordingly, Turkey, if it so chooses, can delay the opening of the border, arguing there is no such clause in the protocol. And it can always come back to it, as part of a protocol endorsed by both parties. The clause on mutual recognition of borders between Armenia and Turkey seems to result from an intangible position of force. Also, being a realist, although many may find it regrettable, I think abandoning this territorial claim is reasonable. In this sense, for the cold historian, the genocide of 1915-1916, seen from the side of the Turkish state, was a success, as there are no remaining Armenians in the six eastern vilayets. To continue demanding what one can’t get, no matter what you do, has no sense in politics. It is as absurd as the non-recognition of the State of Israel by the PLO yesterday and by Hamas today. By no means should there have been an agreement to the sub-commission of the historical dimension. Talat Pasha’s diary, which has been publicly published and distributed, mentions nearly a million “disappeared people.” Nothing justifies an ethnic cleansing of this magnitude if not the intention of making a clean space. Only the term genocide is appropriate for this deliberate and inhumane crime. The Armenian Genocide is a historical fact proven by many available archives (German, Austrian, American, etc.), and the work of the two recent generations of American, British, German, and French historians. The work of an “impartial scientific examination of the historical records and archive” has already been initiated and completed, despite Turkish claims. Who are we mocking? What kind of government can agree to sign such a clause? It is like Israel willing to discuss the reality of the Jewish Holocaust with a German state that would, over 94 years after the fall of Nazism, continue to deny the Holocaust, and where all their embassies and representatives abroad were still working in this direction! To be sold to the heirs of unrepentant murderers, I speak here of the Turkish state, the murderers of a whole people, the Armenian government is unworthy of its country. There is no foreign policy based on human rights, but rather on diplomacy driven by political and economic benefits, especially in regions of the world where, as around the Caspian basin and the Middle East, resources abound. Armenia, it is a fact, faces in this regard some advantages compared to Azerbaijan, or even, for other reasons, Georgia. Turkey, on the contrary, as a regional power and geostrategic crossroads, is going up. And, more importantly, it has a real head of state.
It is more than probable that this protocol is more beneficial for Turkey than Armenia, which has not come to the point to renounce this. A concession will lead to another. Enjoying the frozen situation of Karabakh may end up not realizing that time does not work for those who are content to wait, in a framework of limited sovereignty. The oil and the projects, already accomplished or in the make, of gas and oil pipelines have consolidated the assets of Azerbaijan and Turkey. While Russia, which in this case has its own interests, has taken note of this.
As for the United States, they have reiterated their support to a Turkey within Europe, which will be a valuable ally at the periphery of Russia, even China… Was it not Recep Erdogan who called the killing of 750 Uighur (turkophone) of Xinjiang as a “kind of genocide?”