Three countries, one regional leader
Güncelleme Tarihi:
As we hope our coverage makes clear today – with our reporters spread from Yerevan to Baku to Kars – we believe reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia to be imperative. As our dispatches also make clear, this is an extraordinarily complex diplomatic challenge. There is suspicion in Armenia, government-fanned paranoia in Azerbaijan and plenty of confusion here.
In this highly symbolic week, with April 24 again the tapestry on which politicians will paint their appeals to the basest of sentiments, we will continue to advocate a more sophisticated dialogue between all three countries. We don’t want to prejudge the work of diplomats that is ongoing as this column is being written. But we do risk the temerity of adding two points to the discussion.
The first is that the current situation serves no one. Armenia’s foreign policy has long been held hostage by its diaspora community for whom a strategy centered on genocide resolutions (alleged in our opinion) may make for brave marches in distant capitals but has stunted and paralyzed the growth and maturation of Armenian culture and society. For the Armenian diaspora, history ended in 1915. It deserves new life.
Turkey’s foreign policy has also run its cynical course. For a generation, a similarly resolution-centric foreign policy has relied on a formula: A $1 million check to some defeated American congressman-turned-lobbyist in the Democratic Party, one to a loser in the Republican Party and a phone call or two to the Israeli lobby. This has thwarted passage of resolutions. But “so what?” is a reasonable question.
On Azerbaijan, yes, Turkey has deep fraternal ties. Azerbaijanis suffered and continue to suffer grievously from the Armenian seizure of Nagorno-Karabakh and the expulsions of hundreds of thousands. But what has the family business that runs Azerbaijan done either to resolve the issue or help its internal refugees? Not much other than use this injustice to justify rule by a police state with scant regard for human rights, democracy or freedom of speech.
Our second point is that much intellectual discussion, and helpful mediation by the United States and Russia, turns on the assumption that this three-way parley is a negotiation between comparable actors. What will Turkey get? What will Armenia get? What will Azerbaijan get?
It is worth reminding the interlocutors in this discussion that there is only one real democracy in the discussion. It is worth remembering that there is only one modern economy involved. It is worth remembering that both Armenia and Azerbaijan are small states whose populations would fit handily into just a few precincts of Istanbul.
Turkey is the regional power in this negotiation. Turkey is the authority in these talks. Only Turkey can truly lead. We expect Turkey to do just that.