YEREVAN – Will Turkey’s current turmoil between Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdoğan and the country’s powerful army complicate and delay the country’s boldest initiatives in years – the moves to address decades-old tensions with both Armenians and Kurds?

Restructuring the role of Turkey’s army is vital, but if Turkey cannot follow through with the Armenian and Kurdish openings, the country’s own domestic situation, its relations with the two peoples, as well as tensions in the Caucasus, will undoubtedly worsen. Of the several flashpoints in the region, including that between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the tension between Armenians and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh is among the most challenging.

As to Georgia and Russia, the disproportionate size, weight, and power on one side are enough to deter any return to violence. Moreover, there are no entangling alliances complicating the matter.

First Step – Capitulation: The ill-constructed protocols signaling the beginning of formal relations between Armenia and Turkey received an uncertain and inauspicious signing in Zurich. The parties themselves and the representatives of the world powers, all were present but all remained silent. When such a ‘historic’ moment goes by with none of the sides or the witnesses able to say anything acceptable to the rest, either about the long-awaited event itself or the content of the documents being signed – it becomes obvious that these documents are in fact full of the contradictions and expectations that do not engender the serious trust and respect necessary for stable and respectful relations between countries.

Those within and outside Armenia who support this process label all those against it as nationalists, extremists or those who categorically reject all relations with Turkey. But I, and others like me, who have for decades wanted and continue to believe in the importance of Armenia-Turkey rapprochement are neither extremists or nationalists.

Instead, we have been presented documents which reject the past, which endanger a stable future. This, at least in part because the processes were co-opted for domestic political purposes.

In Turkey, a popular government, eager to improve its place in the region and its image in the world, decided to open the border with Armenia, but by exacting a price from Armenia.

In Armenia, an unpopular government, eager to improve its own image in the world and its place at home, decided to take the risky step of pursuing closer relations, but without considering the costs.

We are at a crossroads in our history. We have on the table the first bilateral document that the independent sovereign Republic of Armenia intends to sign with the Republic of Turkey. This is an unprecedented process that is far-reaching and irreversible.

Yet, the debate on the issue is going in the wrong direction. It is hugely insulting that high-level government officials can be this dismissive and trivializing on a matter that is so critical for our people.

There is no sense whatsoever in telling us that what we see is not what we get.

The topic of national mobilization is urgent today. Of course, given our size – small territory, small population – and given Turkey’s and Azerbaijan’s enormous capabilities and sophisticated machinery, we have always used all national and international resources albeit with varying intensity, scope, depth and effectiveness, but nevertheless we have used them.

Today, the changing circumstances around us, and the new challenges emerging before us, make the need for this kind of new mobilization more timely and necessary.

Let me cite four major reasons for this kind of mobilization at this time.

It is a difficult time. What should have been an act of public courage is instead being viewed as an expedient political maneuver.

Most of those arrested and charged with involvement in the public events on and around March 1 and the violence which followed have been released. This would have been welcome, had it taken place in April last year, immediately upon the President’s inauguration. It did not. President Sargsyan took no such step.

Such a step would have been welcome anytime during this difficult, polarized, tense year. It did not happen. President Sargsyan did not resort to declaring amnesty until ‘the public urged him to do so.’ This pretense at public responsiveness came days after a disputed mayoral election, and days before another Council of Europe hearing on Armenia’s democratization processes.

On this April 24, I have come from Armenia where I live and whose citizen I am, through Syria where I was born, to Lebanon where I’ve always felt at home, to say this.

All of us together live in an interdependent world and we should act like it.
All countries live in a global community and we should all sustain it.
All neighbors should cross borders to build cooperation and understanding, not close them and fuel hostility and fear.

The official statistics released in February simply reiterate the inarguable truth: Armenia is heading towards a recession.

Although these facts are not being hidden, they are not being explained either. The government continues to believe (and rightfully so) in the importance of confidence as a key factor of economic stability and is therefore trying to inspire trust and faith. But it is doing so without basing its oratory and encouragement on economic realities, or without actions which assure the population that steps are being taken to ameliorate the situation.

Two events of great consequence – one throughout the globe and the other in our region – have rattled the world's assumptions in the second half of this year.

The first – the global financial shake-up – has been so broad and so deep that even the lame-duck status of George Bush's presidency proved no obstacle to the leaders of the world's 20 largest economies gathering in mid-November in Washington to discuss cures.

Russia is poised to strike the final blow to the European Nabucco gasline project, by making the most of its renewed influence in the Caucasus after the “five-day war” in Georgia. This is part of an all-out diplomatic drive launched by Moscow, in the aim of luring Azerbaijan into its sphere of influence. Gazprom’s purchase offer for the Azeri gas, which in principle is intended for the Nabucco project, is a central piece in this strategy. If it succeeds, the Europeans will see the main potential gas source for Nabucco slip from their grasp.
 

Once again, the issue of bombing or sanctioning Iran has resurfaced. For years, debate about Iran has oscillated between two bad alternatives. Some are convinced that a nuclear Iran is the worst of all possible scenarios, worse even than the fall-out from a pre-emptive strike. But neither a nuclear-armed Iran nor air strikes against it are wise options, certainly not for this region. 

Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan's recent invitation to Turkish President Abdullah Gul to visit Yerevan to watch the FIFA football match together was historic. Given the two countries' long-strained relations, this visit would have been remarkable at any time. But coming as it does only one month after the alarming Russian-Georgian confrontation, it may offer real hope that tensions in the volatile Caucasus region can be eased.