EurasiaNet Eurasia Insight - ARMENIAN-TURKISH RECONCILIATION COMMISSION ENCOUNTERS SKEPTICISM

EURASIA INSIGHT

ARMENIAN-TURKISH RECONCILIATION COMMISSION ENCOUNTERS SKEPTICISM

Haroutiun Khachatrian 9/10/01

A non-governmental initiative that aims to promote Armenian-Turkish friendship has encountered initial resistance from many political parties and individuals in Armenia. Several experts, however, say the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission has the potential to help the traditional enemies forge a new spirit of understanding and cooperation.

The formation of the reconciliation commission, or TARC, was announced on July 9 following meetings held under the auspices of the Diplomatic Academy in Vienna. The group comprises four Armenian and six Turkish representatives. None of the members has any direct link to either the Armenian or Turkish governments, yet most have extensive political connections.

Thus far, TARC’s emergence has generated broad skepticism in Armenia. Many in the political establishment are concerned that the commission may be used to hinder attempts to win international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

"Nobody is allowed to circumvent the issue of Turkey’s recognition of the Armenian Genocide under the guise of "reconciling" the two nations, which jeopardizes the process of the international recognition of the Genocide." the Dashnaktsutyun party (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) said in a statement. "There can be no reconciliation without the recognition of the historical truth."

Another complication is Turkey’s support for Azerbaijan in negotiations to find a political solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Peace talks are now deadlocked. Azerbaijan wants to grant Karabakh broad autonomy under Azerbaijani jurisdiction, while Armenia insists on independence for the enclave. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. TARC critics in Armenia declare that no reconciliation between Ankara and Yerevan is realistic until Turkey revises its Karabakh position, and lifts a blockade imposed on Armenian trade.

Some nationalists see TARC as a manifestation of "anti-Armenian" sentiments by the United States. TARC, according to this view, is partially a creation of the United States. This claim is based on the fact that one of the commission members, Van Krikorian, is a leader of the Armenian Assembly of America, an influential lobby group with good working relations with the US State Department. Stoking Armenian suspicions is the perception that the US government is opposed to recognition of the Genocide, based on the US Congress’ decision not to approve a recognition resolution.

According to the nationalists’ reasoning, the United States, acting in concert with Turkey, is seeking ways to expedite construction of the so-called Baku-Ceyhan pipeline. One of several large obstacles to pipeline construction is the lack of a Karabakh settlement, which would significantly stabilize the security environment in the South Caucasus. Thus, Armenians fear the TARC could be utilized by the United States to promote solutions to diplomatic issues, including the Karabakh question, that run counter to Armenian interests.

Domestic political consideration also fuels opposition to TARC. Most critics claim the commission, in particular its Armenian membership, is "not representative." Severe criticism has been aimed at TARC member Alexander Arzumanian, a former Foreign Minister and the current leader of the Armenian National Movement, the party of the former president Levon Ter-Petrossian. Most of the political forces currently in the power are hostile to Ter-Petrossian’s legacy.

The official position of the Armenian government is that they were aware that such a Commission was being created, but did not intervene. "The main venue for the normalization of the Turkish-Armenian bilateral relations should be the dialog between the Governments of Armenia and Turkey. At the same time, a responsible and impartial participation of non-government organizations and individuals also has a role in that process," said Arman Kirakossian, the Armenian Ambassador to the United States.

The Armenian members of the commission have declared they do not seek to circumvent regular diplomatic exchanges between Armenia and Turkey. "The four of us are acting in our individual capacities but working as a team," they said in a joint statement early in August. "There is no debate about the validity of the Armenian Genocide; it is an internationally recognized fact. The Armenian Genocide is not the only issue that divides Armenians and Turks. We intend to look at differences and areas of common ground."

Amidst the widespread skepticism, some experts suggest TARC can emerge as a catalyst for improved Armenian-Turkish relations. "The creation of this commission is a victory for all Armenians," said Onnig Beylerian, Professor of the International Relations at the University of Quebec at Montreal. "For many years the Turkish ruling elites simply refused to recognize the necessity of reaching out to Armenians, considering them as mischievous at worst and born losers at best... But this track-two diplomatic initiative could serve Armenian interests as well."

Dennis R. Papazian of the University of Michigan-Dearborn likewise said TARC could end up advancing Armenian interests by fostering new attitudes in Turkey. "Several people have rightly pointed out that the members of the Turkish team are hardliners," he said. "Rather than frightening me, it gives me hope. It took a Charles de Gaulle to separate Algeria from France. It will take hardliners to change Turkey’s old public stance."

TARC has so far sought to promote awareness of its own existence. Its true test will come when it attempts to implement program activities. Only when (and if) it does, will it be possible to evaluate the commission’s chances for success.

Editor�s Note: Haroutiun Khachatrian is a Yerevan-based writer specializing in economic and political affairs.

The Central Eurasia Project aims, through its website, meetings, papers, and grants, to foster a more informed debate about the social, political and economic developments of the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is a program of the Open Society Institute-New York. The Open Society Institute-New York is a private operating and grantmaking foundation that promotes the development of open societies around the world by supporting educational, social, and legal reform, and by encouraging alternative approaches to complex and controversial issues.

The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the position of the Open Society Institute and are the sole responsibility of the author or authors.