STORM IN A TEACUP OR TOMORROW'S PROBLEM?

It started innocently enough. On Saturday 23 July, the Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan attended the  "5th All Armenian Olympiad on Armenian Language, Literature and Armenian studies" where he presented certificates to the young participants. Participants than asked him questions.

According to the web site of the Armenian President, the last question was asked by Grigor Hambartsumian from the Shahumian school in Ararat marz. "Mr. President, Armenia is one of the ancient countries of the world and once also used to be one of the most powerful states, in Tigran the Great’s times. However, the same cannot be said about the Armenia of our days. My question is: will our future be reminiscent of Batum agreement, when in a German diplomat’s words, we were left with a territory just enough to swim in Lake Sevan, but with no room for drying up, or it will be a future which will return the Western Armenia, along with Ararat?"

It was a question loaded with symbolism and the heavy baggage of history. Mount Ararat - considered by the Armenians as the spiritual symbol of their nation is in Turkey, as are the lands the Armenians sometimes call Western Armenia.

It is not known if this was a planted question or if the young man was just simply reflecting a thought that came out of the course he had just finished. Very likely the latter.

Sargsyan's answer, according to the President's website was as follows:

"It depends on you and your generation. I believe, my generation has fulfilled the task in front of us; when it was necessary in the beginning of the 90-s to defend part of our fatherland – Karabakh – from the enemy, we did it. I am not telling this to embarrass anyone: my point is that each generation has its responsibilities and they have to be carried out, with honor. If you, boys and girls of your generation spare no effort, if those older and younger than you act the same way, we will have one of the best countries in the world. Trust me, in many cases the country’s standing is not conditioned by its territory: the country should be modern, it should be secure and prosperous, and these are conditions which allow any nation to sit next to the respectable, powerful and reputed nations of the world. We simply must fulfill our duty, must be active, industrious, must be able to create bounty. And we can do that, we very easily can do that, and we have done it more than once in our history. I am certain about it, and I want you to be certain too. We are a nation that always rises from the ashes like phoenix – again and again".

Was Sargsyan ditching the question, or did his answer imply that Armenia had territorial ambitions on Turkey. The Turks certainly thought so.

On Tuesday, the spokesperson of the Turkish Foreign Ministry issued the following terse statement:

 

"We strongly condemn the reply given by President Sargsyan to a question from a student during the Armenian language and literature competition held in Armenia on 25 July 2011.

Preparing his society, in particular the youth, for a peaceful, serene and prosperous future should be the primary duty of statesmen. Giving advice to the youth and the next generations with a quite opposite approach and in a way that will provoke an ideology of hostility and hatred among societies is an extremely irresponsible behavior.

At a time when the quest of establishing peace has accelerated in the region, the statements Mr. Sargsyan has given without finding them harmful, indicate that he does not intend to work for peace.

We believe that everyone who has exerted effort to ensure peace and stability in the region will deduce the right conclusions from Mr. Sargsyan's unfortunate statements that we find regrettable".

Since than there has been a free for all exchange between Yerevan and Ankara, with Baku weighing in on the Turkish side. Aliev and Sargsyan traded insults against each other and other officials joined the fray. Nationalists on both sides have been pouring oil over the fire.

Some have described the incident as a storm in a tea cup, and indeed if anybody else had made the "offending" remarks they would have probably gone unnoticed. However the fact that they were made by the President, even if they were unscripted, gave them a lot of significance. The timing was also sensitive. Prime Minister Erdogan paid an offical visit to Baku this weeK - an ocassion for pan Turkic solidarity despite the differences that are emerging between Baku and Ankara. The Karabakh peace process is also in limbo since the Kazan summit. For Sargsyan to hint that the issue of the border with Turkey was somehow something for a future generation to solve was unfortunate and will be used by hard liners in Turkey in the future to prove Armenian bad intentions.

The incident needs however to be seen also in context. The atmosphere in the region has been poisoned for some time. Efforts to normalise Armenia-Turkish relations and to resolve the Karabakh conflict have so far failed. There is an arms race going on - part overt, part covert. Attempts at building confidence have not been very successful, despite some heroic efforts, especially by civil society actors.

The latest exchanges once more highlight the need for a much broader and comprehensive effort to deal with the post cold war order in the wider caucasus region. A new generation of leaders and citizens need to go through the process of negotiating, agreeing and embracing their version of the Helsinki Final Act, as their predecessors did in 1975. It is in that Act which came to symbolise the new Europe, that the answer to the question put by young Grigor to President Sargsyan can be found.

This commentary was contributed by LINKS for commonspace.eu

(c) commonspace.eu

 

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)