Keghart
New York Times, 22 April 2010
YEREVAN (Reuters) – Armenia’s ruling coalition said on Thursday it had suspended the ratification in parliament of peace accords with Turkey, dealing a blow to U.S.-backed efforts to bury a century of hostility between the neighbours.
Christian Armenia and Muslim Turkey signed accords in October last year to overcome the legacy of the World War One mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks, but the atmosphere has soured in recent months.
New York Times, 22 April 2010
YEREVAN (Reuters) – Armenia’s ruling coalition said on Thursday it had suspended the ratification in parliament of peace accords with Turkey, dealing a blow to U.S.-backed efforts to bury a century of hostility between the neighbours.
Christian Armenia and Muslim Turkey signed accords in October last year to overcome the legacy of the World War One mass killing of Armenians by Ottoman Turks, but the atmosphere has soured in recent months.
"The Turkish side’s refusal to fulfil the requirement to ratify the accord without preconditions in a reasonable time has made the continuation of the ratification process in the national parliament pointless," an Armenian coalition statement said.
"We consider it necessary to suspend this process until Turkey is ready to continue the process without preconditions."
The coalition said it decided on the freeze after Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said ratification would depend on a peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Turkey’s close ally and trading partner, over the disputed mountain region of Nagorno-Karabakh, a position Yerevan sees as unacceptable.
In Ankara, a Foreign Ministry official said Turkey had not received any official information about the suspension of the protocols’ ratification.
Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan, who faces resistance from opponents at home and the huge Armenian diaspora abroad, was due to make a statement on national television later on Thursday.
Erdogan, who also faces stiff opposition from nationalists at home, was due to hold a news conference later on Thursday.
Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama urged Armenia and Turkey to "make every effort" to advance normalisation, which would boost stability in the volatile south Caucasus, a region criss-crossed by pipelines carrying oil and gas to the West.
Obama will make a speech on the mass killings of Armenians on April 24, the 95th anniversary of the events, and was expected to address progress on the accords.
NAGORNO-KARABAGH
Turkey has demanded that ethnic Armenian forces pull back from the frontlines of Nagorno-Karabakh as a condition for ratifying the peace deal. This aroused resistance in Armenia.
The Turkish condition is aimed at placating close Muslim ally Azerbaijan, an oil and gas exporter which lost control over Nagorno-Karabakh when ethnic Armenians backed by Christian Armenia broke away as the Soviet Union collapsed.
Semih Idiz, a foreign affairs columnist for Turkey’s Milliyet newspaper, told CNN Turk the Armenian decision was meant to put pressure on Erdogan ahead of April 24, when Armenians will again press Obama to fulfil a campaign pledge to label the killings as genocide.
"There’s nothing to upset Ankara too much. This does not mean the process is over…This is a personal call to Erdogan, since he made the Nagorno-Karabakh precondition," Idiz said.
If ratified, the deal, signed with endorsement of the U.S., European Union and Russia, would bring economic gains to poor, landlocked Armenia. It would help Turkey burnish its credentials as a EU candidate and boost its clout in the Caucasus.
The deal is the closest the sides have come to overcoming the legacy of the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War One, a defining element of Armenian national identity and a constant thorn in the side of modern Turkey.
Muslim Turkey accepts many Christian Armenians died in partisan fighting beginning in 1915 but denies that up to 1.5 million were killed and that it amounted to genocide — a term employed by some Western historians and foreign parliaments.
(Additional reporting by Ibon Villelabeitia and Tulay Karadeniz in Ankara and Ayla Jean Yackley in Istanbul; Writing by Ibon Villelabeitia and Conor Humphries; Editing by Diana Abdallah)
Keghart
Keghart
2 comments
Armenians are fooled to think
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Armenia was free to decide how it wanted to proceed. “I have expressed our loyalty to the protocols on numerous occasions,” he said. “We will press ahead with the process on the principle that treaties are binding.”
Turkey got exactly what it wanted out of the Protocol signing – they got recognition to the Moscow Treaty (March 16, 1921.)
The 1921 Moscow Treaty on “Friendship and Brotherhood” between Soviet Russia and Kemalist Turkey was signed, defining the Armenian sector of the Soviet-Turkish border. The treaty-signing sides were self-proclaimed formations and the treaty signed by them could not be internationally recognized.
Kemalist Turkey received the right banks of Akhuryan and Araks rivers together with Mount Ararat as a gift from Bolshevist Russia. The territory of Soviet Armenia then included Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhichevan.
The next day after “sovietisation” of Armenia, Pravda newspaper published a letter by Joseph Stalin, then People’s Commissar of Nationalities, starting with a greeting “Long Live Soviet Armenia!”. The letter specifically touched upon that issue:
“On December 1, Soviet Azerbaijan, of its own free will, gave up the debated provinces and declared the transfer of Zangezur, Nakhichevan, and Nagorno Karabakh to Soviet Armenia.”
The Moscow Treaty was signed only 4 months after recognizing Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhichevan as parts of Soviet Armenia. However, due to Turkey’s insistence that issue was reconsidered by the very same Moscow treaty, and, as a result, two Armenian lands were handed over to Soviet Azerbaijan by Bolsheviks.
So, the two parties of that treaty – Russia and Turkey – made a decision on transferring into possession to a third state – Soviet Azerbaijan – lands that were inseparable parts of a fourth state – Soviet Armenia.
None of the involved sides were an entity of international law.
What Turkey was trying to achieve above all was the signing of such a point of great importance: On October 10 of 2009 the Moscow Treaty signed in 1921 finally received “international recognition” if not approval.
In December 1973, according to Soviet-Turkish agreement, authorized representatives of three Transcaucasian countries had to sign a point “on invariability of borders””. Gurgen Nalbandyan represented Armenia in Turkey. On behalf of Soviet Armenia he refused to sign that provision “on invariability of borders” despite the Soviet leadership’s pressure.
It looks like Sarksian and Nalbandian gave away land claims, not only Western Armenia and Nackhichevan, but also Nagorno-Karabagh. Why would Erdogan and Davitoglu never stopped linking Karabagh?
Armenia got nothing and Turkey has the upper hand.
Bury the Armenian Cause?
As for the word "hostility," Obama, Hillary, as well as Medvedev, don’t see Turkey as being blameworthy.
Comments are closed.