3288) Turkish Armenian Relations: The Think-Tank Effect

Updated 24 June 2011

As a result of the recent developments, there is an increasing interest on the Turkish-Armenian relations. Georgian-Russian war of August 2008 brought the unresolved conflicts in the region, while neither Western countries and EU nor the international organizations such as UN could prevent the sides from engaging in a small-scale but drastic war. This passivism and inability of the international community to prevent a war raised concerns on the future of the Caucasus region, which is of critical strategic importance for the West, Russia and the neighboring countries. Turkey’s pioneering role in the post-war settlement proved effective, but since all these actors concerned with the developments in the region did not want any further escalation of conflicts, other major problems also came into the agenda of the international community. Hence, it’s observable that international community began to perceive Turkey’s role in the region and its relations with neighboring countries as bearing critical importance for the future settlement of the regional conflicts and the securitization process. President Abdullah Gül’s visit to Erivan in September 2008 signaled a critical moment for the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia, while it also drew attention of the international community to the resolution of regional conflicts.

In this paper, we will try to examine various reports that have been written on the critical issue of the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations that were published by international organizations, Think-Tanks and research groups since 2007. This study also tries to answer one main question: how do the international policy-research agencies see the future of Turkish-Armenian relations and its impact on the regional setting? In order to answer that main question, the reports were examined in terms of 5 main subjects:

1. Genocide Claims
2. Territorial Claims and Reparations
3. The Rationale Behind the Opening of Borders
4. Normalization Process and the Preconditions
5. Turkey-Armenia Relations and the Nagorno-Karabakh Dispute . . Feb 2010 . .

Please Read The Full Report Below:







Comments by Sukru Server Aya
24 June 2011

The study merits appreciation for the neatly presentation and the “well wishing” interpretations aimed to bring a common understanding and normalization of the relations which have been strained by the “fait-accompli attacks of the young Armenian Republic” followed by a world spread anti-Turkish propaganda and claims to appear as “innocent victims” instead of the “true culprits”. I will briefly comment only on two or three pivotal aspects, due to space and time limitations:

A- Referenced sources: These are mostly biased establishments, wearing a neutrality mantle to cover the hidden purposes. In particular references to TESEV, German Stiftungs, Abbas Gorgulu etc. are not based on “factual and proven history” but are related to unilateral and usually anti-Turkey interpretations. The coverage is said to study [how do the international policy-research agencies see the future of Turkish-Armenian relations and its impact on the regional setting] and hence it adds a value to the “outside well wishing observations of such bodies which generally do not go even an inch deep in the essence and truth value of the allegations. In other words no “dependable” books or concrete documentation whatsoever has been taken into consideration by the researcher and/or the sources suggesting “magical solutions” by their instant wisdom as think-tanks.

B- Recognition of Genocide Claims: Is there any verdict by an authorized judicial court in this respect? The address of the authorized court is known. Genocide claims “made by hearsays and continuous” brainwashing is no different than interpretations of (not even) Inquisition Courts on physical facts versus interpretations even documented by thousands of biblical books, believed by billions of people. As far as I see it these claims are no different than the promises of paradises and punishments in different hells! Please to see first: Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/10/2610-genocide-lies-need-no-archives.html

C- Territorial Claims and Reparations: These claims (like genocide) are fabricated “just to chisel some money”, knowing that they do not have any legal footing.

*For monetary claims refer to: Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2008/11/2644-free-consolation-versus-frail.html

*Land Claims: With the Batum Treaty of 4.6.1918 the borders of Armenia were agreed upon and citizens were given right to return and repossess their property as “preferential state” and Armenia became an Ottoman Protectorate. (Armenian delegation had expressed their thanks to Sultan Vahdettin on Sept. 6,1918)! But on 30.11.1918 (one month after the Mudros Treaty) Armenia unilaterally abrogated this treaty and grabbed lands at Kars and Ardahan (under British patronage)! During the War of Independence of Turks against Greeks, Armenians were active butchering the rest of Caucasus, assisted by some Tsarist Russian officers (leftovers from General Wrangel and Denikin armies). Finally, Kazim Karabekir’s Nationalist Army had to strike back and since Armenia was left alone by British and France (plus Russia who turned to be communist) they had to surrender and sign the peace of Gumru/Alexandropol on Dec.2,1920 just a week after President Wilson drew a map of the defunct Sevres Treaty in late Nov.1920! But shortly after signing the Gumru treaty, the Armenian Government was “sovietized” and their foreign affairs were transferred to the new Soviet Russia, who confirmed the agreement with the later Moscow and Kars Treaties which have been the standing borders in the Caucasus. But the new (Dashnak pressured) Republic, did not only revoke these written agreements, but attacked and grabbed Nogorno Karabagh plus some 20% of Azeri territory in 1992, with a terrible massacre of Muslim at Hocali which the World forgets and digs a century old dramatic events! Hence the Armenian territorial claims are nothing but an excuse to create a “demand of money” because they too know that “no country on earth can take an inch of land by force after so many bloodbaths”.

* Following all peace Treaties (Brest Litovsk, Batum, Gumru, Kars, Lausanne) parties were given two years grace periods to return and restore their citizenships and properties. About 400 to 500.000 Armenians from East Anatolia had taken refuge in Russia when they pulled out; and another lot of about 200 to 300.000 Armenians who had returned Turkey after the Mudros Treaty, decided themselves to leave and “punish Turkey” when French Forces pulled out, as late as Jan. 1922. Under the circumstances I do not think that I should comment on points 3, 4 and 5 because the first two points do not have any foundation on TRUTH and DOCUMENTS.

It is sorrowful to see such an extensive study made on “foamy interpretations” of think-tank wizards without any evaluation of the Armenians-1915.blogspot.com/search/label/Free%20E-Books%20And%20Docs

To me this paper is like “a beautiful balcony for the second floor of a house built by imagination” and hence the project could not have been true because there was no solid building on such swamp area.

This study was also published by “Review of Armenian Studies” and I would strongly encourage the writer to start counting the hairs on various bear skins before crediting certain “super minded think tanks” for their wisdom, without any knowledge of actual history. Nice intentions of the writer based on current international opinions of those “who know everything everywhere and every time”!

CONCLUSION: The “think-tanks” do not realize that the objective of the diaspora Armenians is to keep this matter hot so that thousands of well to do Armenians continue their happy life! They have no reason to “truly contribute from their comfort and earnings, for the sake of deprived Armenians in Armenia” or in other countries where they work hard to sustain a honest living. .