Interviews
on Various Aspects of
Armenian
– Turkish Relations
2001
YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 22, ARMENPRESS:
Samvel Mkrtchian, a senior official of the Armenian
foreign ministry and Ruben Safrastian, the director of the Turkish Department
of the Armenian Institute for Oriental Studies, were invited, along with
government officials and scientists from a dozen of other countries, to take
part in an international conference on Search of Stability in the Caucasus in
Istanbul February 17.
Speaking to Armenpress, Safrastian said that their
participation in the conference was important in terms of sharing Armenia's
official position and exchange of opinions. "Extending an invitation to
Armenia was not coincidental, as no peace and stability can be established in
the region without taking Armenia's factor into account," said Safrastian.
"On the other hand, sending the invitation to Armenia was a kind of good
will manifestation on behalf of Turkey, as it wants diplomatic contacts with
Armenia. Turkey's foreign minister Ismail Cem's announcement that Turkey is
ready to mediate Armenia-Azerbaijan peace treaty over Karabagh can be regarded
as such a manifestation. But Armenia's refusal to accept it was natural, as
there are no diplomatic relations between the two countries, the borders are
closed and because of Turkey's one-sided position favoring Azerbaijan,"
Safrastian said.
Safrastian said many Turks regarded Cem's proposal
as a "dead born child". A daily Milliyet correspondent rushed at Cem
demanding how Turkey was going to mediate Armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty if
it does not have diplomatic relations with Armenia. "It is clear that the announcement was made with the
purpose of reaching some geo-political goals, to enlarge Turkey's role in the
region as a counter measure against Russian influence," Safrastian said.
Safrastian said Armenian-Turkish relations had not
been discussed during the conference, "but of course there were talks
behind the scene that a dialogue is needed. Thus, opinions were voiced that
Turkey had lost opportunities to establish relations during the previous regime
of ex-president Ter-Petrosian, so another attempt should be made. Safrastian
said that Turkey understands well that without normalizing its relations with
Armenia it would not be able to fully represent its strategic position in the
region.
There were also calls for refraining from
establishment of any kind of relations with Armenia unless it refuses from its
claims. No word was said about the Armenian genocide and its adoption by
France's parliament. The participants tried, in general, to take the questions
away from political filed. But one Turkish historian, participating in the
meeting, proposed to embark on a dialogue between those historians of the two
countries who do not distort the obvious historical facts.
Both Turkish and other senior officials noted in
their speeches that one should not wait until the conflicts in the South
Caucasus are solved and only then to launch economic cooperation. "All the
sides should do everything in their power to start cooperation in their
respective areas and thus create favorable conditions for regulation of the
conflicts," this was the main refrain in the speeches, except the
Azerbaijani representative who appeared in a kind of isolation by insisting
that first conflicts must be solved. Armenia's position to start dialogue
without any preconditions was welcomed by practically all the participants.
"I think there is some positive shift in
Turkish diplomacy and it is most probable that some process aiming to
re-evaluate the former positions are going on there," Safrastian said.
This conference is the beginning of a long road, which may have its
continuation in Yerevan Paris or in Moscow, Safrastian concluded.
RUBEN SAFRASTIAN: "ARMENIA
MUST GET RID
OF ITS COMPLEX OF
RUSSIA'S YOUNGER
BROTHER"
YEREVAN, July 16, 2001 (Noyan Tapan) --
Some analysts have noticed certain changes in Russian-Turkish relations lately
and therefore they do not rule the possibility of great changes taking place in
the region. Noyan Tapan journalist Susanna Petrosyan asked Head of the
Department of Turkey of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the National
Academy of Sciences of Armenia Ruben Safrastian to answer a few questions
regarding Russian-Turkish and Russian-Armenian relations, the position of
Russia in the region and other questions.
NT - How do
you assess the changes that have taken place in Russian-Turkish relations
lately?
R.S. - Answering this
question, I would like to draw your attention to the geopolitical approaches of
Russia. I must say that a number of major documents presenting the country's
geopolitical approaches were drafted in Russia during the last two years. It
should be mentioned that the documents were drafted under the immediate
leadership of Vladimir Putin. I mean foreign policy, national security and
military concepts. These documents present a number of major approaches of
which I would single out the multipolar world outlook. The second major approach is that Russia
is regarded as the largest Eurasian state, which will be surrounded by a zone
of friendly states. The third major conceptual approach is that Russia is ready
to apply nuclear weapon first if its national interests are endangered. If we
regard the mentioned conceptual approaches in the context of our region, we'll
see that we are in the epicenter of the realization of these approaches.
In particular, if we consider the changes
and new phenomena that have been observed in Russian-Turkish relations lately,
we'll see that here we can speak about Russia's new geopolitical tendencies, in
particular, aimed at creating a zone of friendly or at least not hostile states
around it. Russia's policies towards Turkey, in my opinion, pursue this very
goal, of course not to turn Turkey into a friendly state of Russia, but to
weaken US influence and Turkish links with the West as far as possible and, if
possible, to connect Turkey with Russia.
NT
- What measures are being taken by Russia to strengthen its geopolitical
influence in the region and specifically in the sphere of Russian-Turkish
relations?
R.S.
- At the current stage Russia, of course, cannot take large-scale measures to
strengthen its geopolitical influence, however, Russia is using the vast
reserves of natural wealth it possesses to implement its policies, particularly
for geopolitical purposes. If we consider Russian-Turkish relations in the
context of the "Blue Stream" project, the following will become
clear: in fact, besides financial benefits for Russia, it also implies Turkey's
closer connection with Russia. So, when the realization of this scheme is
completed, Turkey will receive 80% of gas from Russia. At present, about 60-65%
of gas entering Turkey is received from Russia.
Interestingly,
Turkey, in its turn, has a wish to play a leading role in Russian policies in
this sphere. So, it's natural that this prospect should meet quite a stiff
opposition of the USA.
NT
- What are the other areas where closer Russian-Turkish relations are possible?
R.S. - It is issues
connected with arms delivery. Turkey has declared that it is to implement a
program of armaments modernization worth over $100 billion within the next few
years. Russian diplomacy is making quite serious efforts to ensure Turkey gets
part of these arms from Russia.
Representatives of relevant
circles of Russia and Turkey conducted quite intensive negotiations over this
issue recently. No final decisions have been made yet, but there are signs that
Russia will manage to convince Turkey to get at least some of the new arms from
Russia. There are even talks that
Russian arms are to be manufactured in Turkey and supplied to other countries.
The fact that a decision was made to set up groups within the framework of the
ministries of foreign affairs of Russia and Turkey to draft new proposals on
Russian-Turkish cooperation by the end of this year when Putin is due to visit
Turkey can be viewed as a manifestation of the new level of Russian-Turkish
relations. Another circumstance: during his visit to Turkey Russian Prime
Minister Kasyanov dropped a word about Russian-Turkish military cooperation.
That expression has not been used ever since, but now the "Russia-Turkey
natural allies" expression is being quite intensively used in the
diplomatic language. It was used even by Putin. It also expresses the shifts
taking place in Russian-Turkish relations, and so a new phenomenon is evident
in our region.
NT
- Do you think it is possible that this new phenomenon should result in the
geopolitical weakening of the Russian-Turkish standoff?
R.S.
- One should not think that geopolitically the Russian-Turkish standoff is
getting weakened. In particular, Turkey is implementing quite active
anti-Russian policies in the South Caucasus - in Georgia and Azerbaijan,
including in the military sphere, and it is natural that Russia should dislike
it. Turkey is quite intensively trying to carry out anti-Russian policies in
Central Asia.
NT
- How can the new quality of these relations impact Armenia?
R.S.
- The right understanding of Russia's policy is very important for us. It is
not an anti-Armenian policy - Russia has repeatedly declared at the highest levels
that Armenia and Russia are strategic allies, which is a very important
circumstance. I think that our country's political forces should not speculate
on these new phenomena in the Russian-Turkish relationship and jump to
conclusions about the anti-Armenian orientation of Russian policies.
Russia is a big state and
has geopolitical and geo-economic interests of its own. In this sense I attach
importance to everyday contacts of Armenian and Russian representatives at all
levels and in all spheres. Besides, it is necessary that the position of
Russia's elite, their ideology should be studied thoroughly and new approaches
be elaborated accordingly.
It is not easy to be Russia's
strategic ally in this complicated region, but at the same time it can yield
certain political dividends to us, in particular our position in the world will
be raised to a higher level and we'll be more reckoned with. The world is
changing, and so are the region and Russia, but we still consider ourselves to
be a younger brother.
In
my opinion, Armenia must get rid of its "younger brother" complex
that it developed in relation to Russia; we, indeed, should be up to the
strategic ally status that Russian policy envisages for us.
By
Susanna Petrosyan
Noyan
Tapan, September 19, 2001.
What is Turkey's policy in our region, what is
this country's future role and place in our region, and what are the prospects
of Turkish-Armenian relations? These and other questions are raised in the
interview of Noyan Tapan's correspondent Susanna Petrosyan with Head of the
Department of Turkey of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the National
Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia Dr. Ruben Safrastian.
Q.:
Can any new
phenomena be seen in the policy of Turkey in our region?
A.: By
saying "our region" I mean not only the South Caucasus but also
Central Asia and in certain cases the Middle East. Some Turkish analysts have
lately come to the conclusion that Turkey's policy suffered a defeat in Central
Asia, where, in their opinion, the West lost too. They link this defeat with
the activities of the "Shanghai Five", or "Six" after
Uzbekistan's joining this organization.
Some circles
in Turkey believe that by establishing this organization Russia could show to
the West and Turkey where their place in Central Asia is - it actually stopped
Turkey from further extending its influence in Central Asia. Turkey blames the
West and in particular the United States for what happened. According to commentaries in Turkey, the
United States pays great attention to issues of developing democracy in the
countries of Central Asia and does not attend to the organization of a
large-scale inflow
of investments, which prevents Turkey from increasing its influence in these
countries.
Analysts in
Turkey consider that Turkey
still has the possibilities to expand its influence in the South
Caucasus. They put forth the following slogan: no mistakes similar to those
made in Central Asia must be made in the South Caucasus.
Q.:
And what
are these mistakes?
A.: A
number of Turkish politicians and analysts believe that the main thing in the
South Caucasus is to expand spheres of influence. They set forth the thesis
that the influence of Turkey and the West should be expanded not only at the
expense of economic levers (thus, it is obvious that the Baku-Ceyhan project is
doomed to failure), but also at the expense of creating a security system. A
new tendency in the Turkish geopolitical mentality is quite apparent. Turkish analysts find it possible to create
a new security system in the South Caucasus. This system is supposed to include
Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. They think the system will be under the
influence of the West and, of course, Turkey. This is the new phenomenon in
Turkey's policy in our region.
Q.:
What practical
expression does this phenomenon have?
A.: Involvement
of Turkish capital in Georgia is growing from year to year; Turkey is launching
far-going cooperation with Georgia in the military sphere. The growing Turkish
military presence in Georgia, including 12 million dollars to be directed at upgrading
Georgian military forces, gives us every reason to suppose that Turkey is
trying to carry out a new policy in the South Caucasus. Here the matter
concerns an obvious weakening of Russian
influence. Turkey hopes to
cut at least part of Georgia off Russia using the ethnic factor. There is quite
a large Azeri community in Georgia and it is no coincidence that Turkey
allocated a million dollars for the airport in the Azeri populated province of
Marneuli in Georgia. There is also a problem of Turk-Meskhets.
Q.: Is
there any manifestation of these new tendencies in relations with Armenia?
A.: Lately,
Turkey has been trying to find new ways in relations with Armenia. We take it
as Turkey's attempt to soften the sentiments connected with the Genocide. Of course, this is
right, but on the other hand, one should not forget that Turkey is a state that
has its own geopolitical considerations in this region and from this
perspective, as it seems to us, a certain improvement of relations with Armenia
is among Turkey's geopolitical goals. Turkey is smoothing out the geopolitical
space for further drastic action. At the beginning of the year Turkey's Foreign
Minister Ismail Cem made a motion that Turkey should act as a go-between in the
Karabakh conflict. Of course, Armenia immediately sounded its refusal. This
answer had been expected in Turkey, however, as it seems to me, this way the
Turks are pursuing far-reaching goals: they want to show that Turkey has its own place in the South Caucasus.
One should consider the fact that Turkey is a
positive influence for the Moslem population of the South Caucasus. As I already
mentioned, there are favorable conditions for Turkey to strengthen its positions in Georgia not only
economically but also militarily. Georgia is quite actively seeking closer
relations with Turkey. Thus, in fact, only Armenia remains outside Turkish
influence in this region. If we look at the map, we'll see that Turkey bypasses
Armenia and is trying to isolate and weaken it using all available means.
Q.: Does
it mean that Turkey ignores the factor of Armenia?
A.: If
it were only the factor of Armenia, Turkey, in accordance with its potential
and mentality - the idea of a big state where Armenians are to be one of the subdued
peoples - could afford to ignore the Armenians. But here there is a factor of
Russia and it is this factor as well as the factor of the Russian-Armenian
strategic cooperation that plays a decisive role in preventing the South Caucasus
from coming under considerable influence of Turkey.
Q.:
In this
case can it be said that despite the long path traveled by Turkey in terms of
political and economic reforms, the nationalist and expansionist essence of the
Turkish state has not changed?
A.:
Yes,
it remains unchanged. Turkey, in fact, has not changed, and it has reasons to
be pretentious: a big army, memories of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey is one of
the few countries of this region that has stocked a tremendous amount of
armaments: after the Desert Storm operation, a tremendous amount of American
weaponry remained in Turkey.
Q.:
There is a
point of view according to which Turkey is trying to return peoples that once
used to live under the rule of the Ottoman Empire back to the orbit of its
influence. Can you say that you share this opinion?
A.: I
don't believe it. I don't think that they could seriously plan to return
peoples to the orbit of their influence, but statements of this kind have been
made.
For example, State Minister
Cay of the "Nationalist Movement" party, during his stay in Central
Asia, directly stated that he regarded GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan,
Azerbaijan, Moldova) as a prototype, a core of the future community of the
Ottoman Empire.
Q.:
So, Turkey
is seeking to strengthen its positions in the South Caucasus. There are all
favorable conditions for it both in Azerbaijan and Georgia. And what should
Armenia's position be in this case?
A.:
First
of all, we should have a very good monitoring service to know what is going on
and then consider our steps. It seems to me that the most effective resource of
Armenia to strengthen its positions in the region today is to grow up to the
status of Russia's strategic ally.
This is what we are given
and what we should use. On the other hand, during these years Armenia managed to
carry out a policy of balancing between Russia and the United States, and I
think that this is the most correct way for Armenia. We have very good positions
and a lobby in the United States, and we should use this circumstance too.
Q.: Turkey
hopes that the US will support it in the matter of creating a new security
system in the region. How far justified these expectations are?
A.: Indeed, the Turks suggest that
the US should ensure conditions for creating a security system for Turkey. This
approach was shared also by Brzezinski, judging by his latest articles. But one
should take into account the fact that Brzezinski represents the Democratic
Party and the new leadership of the United States is Republicans. I think that
the new US leaders will follow a soft and cautious policy here. The new
administration will not touch Russia on the raw here in our region. One should
also consider the fact that Armenia, by force of its state organization, is
believed in the West to be the most developed country in the South Caucasus. In
the opinion of a number of Western observers, Armenia is a relatively normal
country as far as both corruption and functioning of state institutions in other
fields are concerned.
2002
RUBEN SAFRASTIAN: "IT
IS IMPOSSIBLE TO SET UP BARRIERS BETWEEN US
AND OUR NEIGHBORS IN THE XXI
CENTURY"
Noyan
Tapan
YEREVAN, November 13 (Noyan Tapan). The Head of
the Turkey Department of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the RA National
Academy of Sciences, candidate of historical sciences Ruben Safrastian comments
on the outcomes of the recent elections in Turkey, assesses their impact on the
country's domestic and foreign policies, including on Armenian-Turkish
relations.
Q.: What has
conditioned such an outright victory of the "Justice &
Development" party?
A.: The victory of the "Justice
& Development" party is conditioned by the widespread discontent with
the political elite that exists in modern Turkey. Only 10% of former
legislators were returned to Parliament following the latest parliamentary
vote, which means that 90% of the elected members are totally new people.
"Justice & Development" has only a one-year-long history, i.e.
the party's members are not identified with the current political elite. The
Republican People's Party, which represents the purest Kemalists, also entered
the future Parliament by surmounting the 10% hurdle. It, too, had for many
years been detached from power.
So, these two parties, in
fact, do not bear any responsibility for the current political and economic
situation in Turkey. The results of the elections clearly show that there is a
widespread discontent with the political elite in Turkey and the policy it has
followed over the last decade.
Q.: And what are the reasons for such a
widespread discontent with the political elite in Turkey?
A.: I think there is an ongoing
structural crisis in Turkey, and its essence is as follows: the Turkish
political system cannot serve and ensure further economic growth. Either this
totally corrupt political system must collapse and be supplanted by a new
political system, or it will remain in power and Turkey will continue to roll
back economically. In fact, these elections came on the heels of the persisting
crisis. We had first witnessed the change of the political elite start as new
political forces came into politics. On the other hand, it is remarkable that
the first one-party government has been set up in Turkey during the last decade
and a half. Analysts expect this government to be capable of paving the way for
the country's economic growth and putting an end to the continuing economic
crisis.
Q.: Why wouldn't the former authorities,
known as pro-Western, foster economic growth in the country by their
activities?
A.: The political elite has been engaged
in intrigues, corruption features large in the country. Now, many of the
ministers representing these very pro-Western parties are on the run. That is,
the pro-Western political elite failed to create a political system that would
meet the interests of Turkish economic development, and it is no coincidence
that an outflow of foreign capital from Turkey started during recent years,
still ahead of the crisis.
Q.: Why do you think that the new
authorities will manage to create appropriate conditions for economic growth?
A.: First, it will be a one-party
government and it will enable both the Turkish Big Business and foreign
investors to work more confidently. It is remarkable that Sakip Sabanci
representing the Turkish majority welcomed the party's victory immediately
after the results of the elections had been announced.
It was no coincidence. The "Justice
& Development" party leadership had held meetings with representatives
of the Turkish Big Business and Western circles over recent months. The party
had enlisted the support of both the Western Big Business and the Turkish military,
which gave it the green light.
Q.: What are the main provisions of the
"Justice & Development" program?
A.: As a matter of fact, "Islamist"
is merely a word. The main goal of the party is to become a type of European
Christian-democratic party in Turkish conditions, i.e. not a politicized
Islamic, not a radical Islamist party, but a kind of Christian-democratic
party, which constitutes a part of the entire political system.
The "Justice &
Development" party's being welcomed by the Turkish military is conditioned
also by its program and statements. According to the party's program, Turkey
must continue the policy of integration into the European Union. Turkey,
maintaining its peculiarities as an Islamic state, becomes a part of the
modern-day West. That is, to maintain traditions but economically become a part
of the West.
Q.: What is the party's stance on the
foreign policy affairs and, in particular, on the developments in the Caucasian
region?
A.: On the one hand, it is declared that
Turkey must continue its cooperation with the allied United States and work
towards joining the EU. On the other hand, Turkey should not forget about the
Eurasian direction either. Abdullah Gul, the party's second person, stated that
Turkey must carry out a more active policy in the Caucasus. In regards to
Armenia, he formulated a totally new approach, which is not typical of the
Turkish elite: "There are problems with Armenia that must be solved
through developing economic relations." That is, no pre-condition is set.
Taking into account the fact that Turkey has differences with Armenia, it is a
totally new approach that coincides with Armenia's approach.
I think that our Ministry of Foreign
Affairs must immediately respond to this approach. I consider it to be wrong
that a few months ago, after meeting Ismail Cem, Minister Vardan Oskanian
attached particular importance to the "New Turkey" party, saying that
we link improvement of our relations with our neighbor with the victory of
pro-Western forces in Turkey.
Meanwhile, Ismail Cem's party polled a
mere 1% of the vote. Of course, pre-election statements are one thing and real
politics is a quite different thing. I find it difficult to say what the
development of events will be. Here many things will depend both on the
political situation and geopolitical relationships, as well as on Armenia's
policies: will Armenia be able to take advantage of this tendency or not?
Q.: A number of observers fear lest
broadened economic relations with Turkey should threaten Armenia, and first of
all its economic security.
A.: Every state, cooperating with other
countries, must defend its economic interests. This, of course, will be a
difficult process for Armenia. We must be able to defend our interests, secure
our markets, and encourage our producers.
But in any case it is impossible in the
21st century to set up barriers with neighbors. I think that similar policies
have no future; sooner or later these relations must be developed. Such
relations with Iran are beneficial for Armenia.
There are some calculations that if
borders with Turkey are opened, Armenia will have a benefit of some $300
million annually. In any case, Armenia's national security is ensured not by
the absence of those economic relations, but by four basic principles: military
cooperation with Russia, the CIS Collective Security Treaty, cooperation with
NATO under the Partnership for Peace Program, and military cooperation with the
United States over the last few years.
2003
ACADEMIC CIRCLES IN U.S.
BEGIN
TO SHOW INTEREST IN ARMENIAN
GENOCIDE:
RUBEN SAFRASTIAN
YEREVAN, April 9 (Noyan Tapan).
The third Armenian-Turkish scientific seminar took
place in Minneapolis, USA, on March 27-30 (the first such seminar took place in
Chicago in 2000 and the second one was held at Michigan University in 2002 -
"NT"). The seminar "Trends of Violence, War, Revolution &
Genocide" organized by different scientific centers of the University of
Minnesota was attended by both Armenian and Turkish specialists and experts
from different universities of the United States, Switzerland and Germany.
Armenia was represented by the Head of the Turkey Division of the Institute of
Oriental Studies of the RA National Academy of Sciences, candidate of
historical sciences Ruben Safrastian. Noyan Tapan's correspondent Susanna
Petrosyan approached Ruben Safrastian for an interview to summarize the results
of the seminar.
- Q. What was the aim of that seminar?
- A. This workshop should be
regarded as part of a broader effort aimed at setting up a group of Armenian
and Turkish scientists and scholars for debating such a major issues as the
Armenian Genocide. Similar events are very important for Turkey, for, given the
country's state policy, it is very difficult to find intellectuals in Turkey
that could freely express their views different from those of the state.
At this event the Turkish specialists
mainly represented Turkish scientific circles, among them was the well-known
intellectual Murat Belge, who is an outspoken advocate of the thesis that the
Armenian Genocide did take place and that Turkey's official stance negating
this fact is a crime not only against Armenians but also against the Turks themselves.
It can be regarded, as significant progress there are such people in Turkey. Of
course, they are individuals not identified with the Turkish state, which keeps
negating the Genocide.
- Q. Was that group for holding debates
on the Armenian Genocide eventually set up?
- A. Yes it was. A panel of specialists
able to express their thoughts and viewpoints on the subject in a free and
unfettered manner was set up. This is one of the most important results of the
seminar.
In particular, groups for scientific
debate are created, i.e. not "it [genocide] was or it was not", but
"it was, how did it happen, why did it happen”, what were the
ramifications for the two nations. It is a very important issue, because it
opens the way for more thorough studies of genocide as a multifaceted
phenomenon in the future.
- Q. You mentioned that American
scientists were attending the meeting. What role did their attendance play?
- A. It was the first time that American
scientists were represented by such prominent figures. Well-known specialists
in genocide studies were participating. It is noteworthy that the presence of
American specialists added a peculiar coloring to the whole seminar. Their
participation means that the issue of the Armenian Genocide is beginning to
arouse interest among academic circles in the United States. While in the
1970s-80s the issue of the Armenian Genocide was regarded as an ethnic problem
between Armenians and Turks and academic circles in the United States showed no
interest whatsoever in this issue, then in the 1990s the attitude changed
following a series of committed genocides and atrocities. Then liberal
scientists in the U.S. started to raise their voice of protest against the
policies of their Government, which did not step in to preclude somehow similar
crimes.
In this regard, there emerged some
interest towards all genocides of the 20th century, and of course, towards the
Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide began to be widely regarded in
researches as the first genocide of the 20th century. Lately, advocating
pro-Turkish theses in American universities has become a disrespected thing. That
is, if someone in an American university argued that the Armenian Genocide did
not effectively take place, he wouldn't be considered a man of science. There
was no similar approach either in the 70s or 80s. They said then that maybe the
genocide was or may be wasn't committed.
Now the case is different.
Everyone has already acknowledged the Genocide. Simply, there is some
disagreement over terminology, as some think it could be termed an ethnic
cleansing, or else genocide with certain peculiarities. Nevertheless, these are
secondary questions. The important thing is that in U.S. scientific debates the
Armenian Genocide is viewed as the first genocide of the 20th century and it
largely lessens the chances of Turkish state propaganda.
- Q. What prospects do such gatherings
have? Will the series of these seminars be continued?
- A. It is the organizers' firm belief
that similar symposiums must be continued and must be further shifted onto the
second stage dealing with specific aspects of the Armenian Genocide. For
example, parallels between the Armenian Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust,
comparative studies, etc. Then, the events will be not only of public
significance but will also arouse purely scientific interest. The organizers
expect Europe to host the next seminar hopefully followed by seminars in Turkey
and Armenia. An opportunity is thus created for as broad circles of scientists
as possible to join in this ongoing scientific debate.
"TURKEY HAS NO
POTENTIAL FOR STRENGTHENING
AT THE CURRENT STAGE":
TURKOLOGIST
YEREVAN, April 9 (Noyan Tapan).
Much has been spoken lately about the serious or even
crucial influence of the war in Iraq on the situation in the world and the
Great Middle East region. Some Armenian analysts fear that Turkey's involvement
in these developments paves the way for this country's strengthening in the
region and, in particular, its raised status as a regional power. Noyan Tapan's
correspondent Susanna Petrosyan interviewed the Head of the Turkey Division of
the Institute of Oriental Studies of the RA National Academy of Sciences Ruben
Safrastian on the role of Turkey in the region and its stance on the Iraqi war.
- Q. What are the main goals of Turkey in
this war?
- A. In this war Turkey's main goals are
to prevent the emergence of a Kurdish state, to prevent Kurdish refugees from
entering Turkish territory as well as to solve the problem of the oil-rich town
of Mosul in Northern Iraq, which once belonged to Turkey.
- Q. Some analysts observe
that for the first time since World War II some coolness can be observed in U.S.-Turkish
relations. How would you comment on that?
- A. Turkey's activities
over the past one-year period preceding the war proved a great surprise for
military and diplomatic circles in the United States. They had relied on
Turkish support and had considered it to have been enlisted. Turkey's position
was criticized rather vehemently. Thus, one senior U.S. official compared the
current authorities in Turkey to fraudulent "carpet dealers".
However, it is necessary to consider Turkey's geopolitical significance in the
region and the circumstance that being a Muslim country, it is a NATO member.
One should also consider the
fact that some principles of Western democracy operate in Turkey, and, of
course, ruling circles in the United States are not interested in worsened
U.S.-Turkish relations. We see that lately certain steps have been made by the
United States towards ironing out the existing differences. The evidence of
this is U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent visit to Turkey. It had a
symbolic significance: the Americans show to the Turks that they still
appreciate them.
- Q. If Americans appreciate the Turks,
then why do they use Kurdish armed units in the war in Iraq, taking into
account the well-known problems existing between the Turks and the Kurds?
- A. I would like to point out one
interesting circumstance here. Turkish agreement as to the further course of
military operations was supposedly achieved during Powell's visit. One can
conclude that it was not until Powell left Ankara that Kurdish attacks on
Iraqis' positions began. That is, the U.S. coordinated the entry of Kurds into
hostilities with the Turkish side. Currently, many criticize the U.S.
Government for inappropriate arms supply to Kurdish fighters.
As you see, the Americans
are acting rather cautiously lest they should in any way offend Turkey. It
testifies to the fact that Turkey's role figures prominently on the U.S. policy
agenda. Even George W. Bush urged the Congress to assign $1 billion in aid to
Turkey. With the hostilities continuing, it is difficult to say what is going
to happen next. However, at this stage both the U.S. and Turkey are trying to
find a certain compromise. Turkey appears to have abandoned some of its major
goals. In particular, Turkey attempted to introduce its army a few miles inside
Northern Iraq but stopped short of further advancing deep inside after the move
was criticized by the U.S. and the European Union. In fact, it has withdrawn
its army.
- Q. The impression is that despite U.S.
efforts to keep Turkish feelings intact, an attempt is being made in every
possible way to restrict Turkey's activities and influence on the region.
- A. Yes, you are right. The United
States in fact disallowed the Turkish army to enter Northern Iraq. The U.S.
rhetoric was unprecedented tough in diplomatic practice. Statements like "Turks
have nothing to do there" are tough enough.
- Q. And what will happen after the war?
Will Turkey become stronger?
- A. I do not agree with this thought.
First, Turkey has no potential for becoming economically stronger at this
stage. The Turkish economy is known to be living through difficult times as it
fully hinges on the West. Secondly, one should consider the circumstance that
Turkey's strengthening does not suit either the European Union or the United
States. We see that over the last year the U.S. has formed a new foreign policy
under which the U.S. assumes the duty of policing "hot spots" instead
of entrusting this role to others and acting through them, as it was the case
in the past.
Taking into account both the
heavy economic situation in Turkey and the attitude of the West towards the
Middle East, I do not think that
Turkey's role will increase in the Middle East. I
have no doubts that Turkey will surely attempt to solidify its positions in the
Transcaucasia. It seems to me that the U.S. is also interested in it. It means
that the U.S. would rather see Turkey with its highly ambitious foreign policy
agenda applying its potential in the Transcaucasia.
- Q. Do you mean to say that the
Americans do not restrict Turkey in our region?
- A. It seems to me that not yet, as it
is through Turkey that Americans can restrict Russian influence in our region.
PENTAGON INTERESTED IN
OPENING
OF ARMENIAN-TURKISH BORDER…
01.07.03 - The opinion that the American-Turkish
relations suffer some kind of coldness has become quite frequent recently.
After the war in Iraq, the USA is likely to review its policy in the Middle
East and the South Caucasus, the regions where Turkey has always been its
strategic partner.
The “De-Facto” agency asked Director of the
Department for Turkish Studies of the Institute of Oriental Studies of Armenian
National Academy of Sciences Dr. Ruben Safrastyan to comment whether
such statements are grounded.
A. - It is for the first time after the
World War II that disagreements between the two states are of strategic nature
rather then of tactical one. As you can remember, Turkey refused from providing
its territory to the American troops during the intervention into Iraq. It was
the General Staff that made the final decision on this issue basing on the
analysis that Americans may change their plans with regard to Iraq, and not the
political leadership of the country.
Turkish militaries considered that a large-scale wave of protest rises
in the world, and it will make the USA to refuse from its plans. This decision
was fully supported by Erdougan's pro-Islamic government that aspires for
strengthening ties with the Islamic world at the same time adhering to the
traditional pro-West foreign policy.
In this connection, a not
large historical excursus will not be out of place. In the period of the first
Islamic campaign in 1991, the top leadership of Turkey in the person of
President Ozal decided to support the USA, and Head of the General Staff of
that time sent in his resignation as a token of protest. The prime minister,
who was also against Ozal's individual decision, resigned as well. As a result,
Turkey's economy suffered tangible losses from the war, but it managed to
maintain the status of the strategic partner of the USA with all the privileges
proceeding from this. This time everything proved to be otherwise. The joint
decision of the General Staff and the Government of Turkey approved by the
country's parliament endangered the close allied relations with the United
States, the basic principle of Turkey's foreign policy of the last fifty years.
The Turkish position aroused the deep dissatisfaction of the USA, which even
much deepened when Turkey tried to keep in contact with Syria and Iran, which
were included in the list of “rogue-states” by the USA.
Some analytical materials of
the influential Washington think tanks filtered into the American press,
according to which, Turkey has already lost its status of a strategic partner
of the USA, and it will be very difficult for Turkey to restore it even after
resumption of the contacts between the two states at the previous high level. Besides,
I world like to dwell on the following fact. At present, Bush's doctrine is
much spoken of in the USA, which, in its core, comes to the following:
Americans, maintaining the allied relations with their traditional partners, on
the whole, count on new countries that occurred in the territory of the former
Soviet Union and on the countries of Eastern Europe. In particular,
considerable contingents of U.S. troops quartered in Western Europe are
relocating there. Versions of reducing the military presence of the USA in such
countries as Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the traditional allies of the USA in the
Middle East, are considered. At present, Iraq alongside with Israel is a strong
point of the American military-and-political influence in the region.
Besides, Iraq is supposed to
play the role of the most important military base in the region. The planned
establishment of the branched system of not large American bases in the
territory of Georgia and Azerbaijan plays an auxiliary role from the viewpoint
of support to the main contingent in Iraq. On the other hand, American bases in
the South Caucasus have a considerable independent value, and the consideration
of its parameters would take us far away from the subject of our interview.
Thus, in the eyes of American militaries the value of both the base in Incirlik,
Turkey, and the Turkish armed forces, on the whole, drops.
Let us summarize the results
of our not large analysis. In case of realization of all these plans, within
the coming years the geopolitical situations in the Middle East will undergo
considerable changes. One of the aspects of these changes will become the
lowering of Turkey's importance as the USA's ally, on the whole.
Q. -
In the context of the aforementioned, it would be interesting to try to
forecast the impact of these processes on the Turkish-Armenian relations, as
well as the USA's position in the given problem...
A. - One should not be a military
strategist to understand from a glance on the map that the opening of all the
communication lines in our region and, first of all, the Turkish-Armenian
boundary, becomes prior from the view point of protection of the military
interests of the USA. Thus, in this case as well, we have quite new situation
in principle: American military department is directly interested in lifting
the blockade of the Turkish-Armenian boundary.
It should be noted that
Turkey's blockade of the last years is an important component of this country's
"coercive policy" regarding Armenia, pursuing a goal of achieving
beneficial changes in its foreign policy, in particular, in the issues of the
Karabakh conflict's settlement and recognition of the Genocide. I think after
the Pentagon's mediation, the U.S. pressure on Turkey in this issue has
considerable increased.
I do not rule out that in
the near future Turkey will have to make some concessions in this issue. At the
same time, being aware of the Turkish mentality and having studied the manners
and the methods of the Turkish diplomacy for years, I am sure that Turkey will
further wage the “coercive policy” regarding Armenia, but using other means of
pressure. The “Turkish direction” will further demand the young Armenian
diplomacy to exert all the possible efforts....
Q. -
If Turkey is no longer the USA's ally, so, what about the Israeli-Turkish
relations. Israel is known to support Turkey in many issues, isn't it?
A. - Really, the majority of Jewish
organizations in the USA supported Turkey in different issues, including in the
issue of recognition of the Genocide. It was connected with the fact that
Turkey and Israel were in close cooperation in the military-political sphere. I
think that new trends have recently been observed there as well. One of the
influential Jewish lobbying organizations, the Jewish Institute For National
Security Affairs, in one of its recent analytical references has arrived to a
conclusion that Turkey “overstepped the limits” in its relations with the USA
and it could infringe the interests of Israel. “We cannot forgive Turkey for
it,” say the specialists of the institute in the reference. Just this institute
has lobbied the idea of the Turkish-Israeli “strategic partnership” in the USA
for the last ten years…All the aforementioned can be compared with what leading
authors in Israel write on the possibility of establishment of independent
Kurdistan in the territory of Northern Iraq even to the prejudice of Turkey's
interests.
Thus, for example, recently,
in an article published by the Jerusalem Post, one of the world leading experts
of Middle East affairs Professor Shlomo Avineri called for not taking into
account the extremely negative position of Turkey in the issue of establishment
of independent Kurdistan when solving this issue, as Turkey is no longer a
reliable ally of the USA and, therefore, of Israel. He called for proceeding
from the interests of Israel, which is for establishment of a non-Arab state in
the territory of the Arab country.
Q. - You participated
in the last session of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission as an
observer…
A. -
Yes, I took part in the last session of the Turkish - Armenian Reconciliation
Commission (TARC) as observer, which was held in Istanbul on June 5-6. I was
invited by the American University (Washington), which coordinates the work of
the commission. I think in the light of the above trends the commission's
importance increases. It should be noted that the TARC was founded with support
and mediation of the USA, and its future depends on the political factors in
our region. The role of such commissions is working out of practical recommendations
on solution to complicated problems that can be sent to the governments of the
states interested in future.
I think the
TARC will further work, as a working atmosphere has been created there, and it
must be confessed that it is an important circumstance. I would like to touch
upon another aspect of the TARC's activity. As it is known, the TARC earlier
applied to rather an influential American organization, The International
Center for Transitional Justice, for experts' legal assessment of the events of
1915. In the February of 2003, the Center published a relevant document, which
makes a conclusion on the legality of determining these events as Genocide. When accepting the
invitation of the American University, this circumstance played a crucial role
for me, as a historian, the specialist in history of Turkey, for whom the fact
of the Genocide not only arouses no doubts, but also is a subject of
research.