Current opinion:

 

Turkey’s EU bid and the Armenian problem

 

by Erhan AKDEMÝR

 

 

The foreign policy of every state is formed within the framework of three basic parameters. These are: sensitivity on national security and territorial integrity, the maximum usage of the country’s resources and the most beneficial use of its position in its region. Sensitivity on national security and territorial integrity comes one step ahead of the other two parameters. In this area, every state expects the highest respect from other states in the international arena.

  

There may well be EU members who wish to hold onto a card that can be used against Turkey, or to keep alive an issue which gives them leverage. Furthermore some may turn this into a regular discourse, and make statements that disturb Turkey, and encourage separatism and divisiveness. All these are possibilities. This is a fact of the foreign policy game. Nevertheless, neither the Turkish public nor persons within decision-making bodies in Turkey can possibly accept the use of such discourses and statements as a political tool within the EU, let alone their expression by official sources, their inclusion in official documents or attempts by the Union to impose them.

 

Besides, for the EU to act in such a manner as an institution is contrary to its own understanding and laws. No such condition or imposition mechanism exists in the Amsterdam Convention or in the EU’s Copenhagen Criteria. Turkey will adapt itself to the EU legal system anyhow, if it is to become a member. The point which Turkey must oppose here is any attempt to make additions to these criteria and to impose stricter rules that were not applied to other candidate countries. In actual practice, the EU policy vis-a-vis Turkey on the Armenian issue is of this nature, and if the EU continues to follow it, it is obvious that it will cosntitue an obstacle to the accession process.

 

Two decades of resolutions

 

The resolution taken by the European Parliament (EP), one of the bodies of EU, dated 18th June 1987, concerning the Armenian genocide has been recorded historically as the first important decision regarding the issue.

 

The resolution, entitled “The Political Resolution to the Armenian Issue”, was adopted three months after Turkey’s application for full membership to the EU (as it called today) by the European Economic Community (EEC) (as it was called in those days), on the grounds of the EEC Agreement Article 237 and 205 and ECSC Agreement Article 98, 14 April 1987. The advisory resolution defines the events which took place between the years 1915 and 1917 as genocide according to the United Nations Convention of 1948 and states that Turkey’s refusal to recognize the genocide will be an obstacle on its way to membership to EU.

 

In the resolution in question, the European Parliament demands that the Council of the European Union should alert the Turkish Government’s attention to the fact that genocide had been conducted towards the Armenians between 1915 and 1917, and to form a dialogue with the Armenian representatives.

 

The European Parliament took more such resolutions following the end of the Cold War. After the Armenian declaration of independence of September 23rd, 1991, the recognition of independence by the EU on December 31st, 1991, and the commencement of diplomatic relations on August 10th, 1992, the dimension of Turkey-Armenia relations also came into play.

 

”Blockade”

 

At a meeting of the EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation Commission held in Brussels on November 19th-21st, 2001, the Armenian delegation mentioned the impact of the blockade applied by Turkey to Armenia, and consequently the EU members called on Turkey to revoke this blockade. The EU members stated that Turkey would face new difficulties in terms of its admission to EU unless this blockage was removed. Also the European delegates stressed that if the EP continued to be committed to the resolution it approved in 1987 with respect to the recognition of the Armenian genocide then further problems would emerge.

 

The “Report on the progress of Turkey towards Accession” was prepared by the European Parliament Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy Committee by reporter Philippe Morillo in 1999, and was adopted by the EP in plenary session on November 15th, 2000. This report included the statement that, “The European Parliament calls, therefore, on the Turkish Government and the Turkish Grand National Assembly to give fresh support to the Armenian minority, as an important part of Turkish society, in particular by public recognition of the genocide which the minority suffered before the establishment of the modern state of Turkey”.

 

Another controversial report accepted by the European Parliament on this issue is the report prepared by Per Garhton, a member of the Swedish Greens Group.  The report named “The European Union’s Relations with the South Caucasus under the Partnership and Cooperation Agreements” was accepted on February 28th, 2002. The report referred to and confirmed the resolution taken by EP in 1987.

 

December 2004

 

These resolutions were referred to in the EP’s Turkey Report of December 15th, 2004, under the clauses mentioned below:

·                    Calls on Turkey to promote the process of reconciliation with the Armenian people by acknowledging the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians as expressed in the European Parliament's earlier resolutions with regard to Turkey's candidate status (from 18 June 1987 to 1 April 2004); (Article 39)

·                    Believes that the Governments of Turkey and Armenia have to continue their process of reconciliation, possibly with the assistance of a bilateral committee of independent experts, in order to overcome explicitly the tragic experience of the past, and requests the Turkish Government to re-open the borders with Armenia as soon as possible; (Article 40)

·                    Calls on the Commission and the Council to demand that the Turkish authorities formally acknowledge the historic reality of the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians in 1915 and open the border between Turkey and Armenia at an early date, in accordance with the resolutions adopted by the European Parliament between 1987 and 2004; (Article 41)

 

As can be seen from this resolution, it is considered that Turkey has failed to fulfil the requirement of the 1987 resolution of the European Parliament and that the issue constitutes an obstacle to Turkish membership of the EU. 

 

Armenian claims and Turkey-Armenia relations have also found reflection in European Commission reports. Statements on the issue were included in the memorandum of the EU Brussels Summit on December 17th, 2004. Paragraph 21 of this document refers to the December 15th EP resolution.

 

Diaspora effect

 

In addition to the EU institutions, the parliaments of many EU member states - Italy, Belgium, Greece, Slovakia, the Netherlands, France, Greek Cyprus - have taken decisions on Armenian claims. All these EU and national decisions appear to reflect the opinions of the public – particularly the French public, influenced by the Armenian diaspora. The arguments used are generally decisions, reports and publications which, while reflecting the known Armenian thesis, are not in accordance with the historical facts and incorrect in legal terms.

   

How these decisions, reports and publications emerge or make their appearance in the EU institutions is a point that should be seriously assessed. The starting point must be the Armenian diaspora organisations in Europe. The European-Armenia Cooperation Forum that aims to provide coordination and facilitate cooperation among Armenian diaspora organisations in Europe heads the list of these organisations. The European-Armenia Cooperation Forum works actively on the issues of genocide claims and Turkey-Armenia relations. The Forum has an office in Brussels to assist the Armenian organisations working with EU institutions and to obtain and present information in the EU on subjects regarding the Armenians. Also the European Committee of Armenian Cause is another effective organisation which has an influence on the decisions made on Armenian issues within the EU. This is also the area in which Turkey is most faulty and weakest: it is unable to express itself on this problem.

 

Caucasia policies

 

Another significant issue is the policies of the European Union towards the whole South Caucasus region and the bilateral relations of EU member states with the countries of this region.

 

The most important link between the EU and South Caucasian countries passes through economic relations. The European Union’s desire to move its relations within the region through an economic ground from the very beginning is the most concrete expression of this. The region’s energy resources and its position as a bridge between Europe and Asia has been a determining factor for European Union’s policies toward the area. Besides the European Union’s policies towards the whole region, EU member states also have bilateral relations with the countries in the area.

 

Britain, Germany and France lead the list of countries interested in the region. There are close relationships between Britain and Azerbaijan, Germany and Georgia, France and Armenia. The presence of a considerable number of Armenians in France certainly increases France’s interest in Armenia. But France also considers the decline of Russia’s control over Caucasus and Central Asia important and wants these regional countries to develop economically and politically as soon as possible. Besides political initiatives, France also has economic expectations, targets and policies towards this region. The region’s dependence on foreign aid in terms of infrastructure, its desire to join Europe and the urgent necessity of technology transfer all attract the attention of the French. Germany has historical ties with the area. The presence of Germany in the area during the First and Second World Wars is very well known.   

 

Not being frank?

 

Despite the fact that the EU has started full membership negotiations with Turkey, it appears that some European countries are opposing Turkey’s membership, and that the leaders of these countries are putting different problems forward instead of frankly saying, “We don’t want Turkey”. The Armenian issue comes first among these problems. If Turkey becomes a member of the EU, it will need to reconcile its legal system with that of the EU. Turkey only expects others to be objective and honest. The Armenians appear to feel that this is an appropriate time to implement the thesis which they have previously had little hope of putting into practice. But to assume that a Turkey on the verge of EU membership, could retreat on the Armenian issue in the face of such deceit on the part of EU countries is a fantasy.

 

 

( DIPLOMAT  -  May 2006  -  Ankara )