Armenia will officially recognize the border agreement signed between Turkey and the Soviet Union in 1921. And a commission including third parties will be established to deal with the question as to what happened to the Ottoman Armenians during World War I.We do not know when the agreement will be signed, what sort of obstacles the road map will encounter or how rapidly it will be possible to implement it. There is no doubt, however, that the agreement promises not only to help improve Turkish-Armenian relations, but also to pave the way for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia. That is why both governments have to be commended for taking this brave step forward. This is surely in the national interests of both sides.
That the road map was announced at the eleventh hour, just a day before April 24, when US President Barack Obama was expected to make his statement on the occasion of Armenian Remembrance Day, shows that Ankara was particularly motivated to ease some of the pressure placed on his position. And Obama kept to the declaration he made in Ankara on April 6 and avoided interfering with the efforts toward normalization between Turkey and Armenia by not fulfilling his campaign promise of labeling as "genocide" the tragedy that befell Ottoman Armenians during World War I. Obama chose to use the Armenian expression "Meds Yeghern" (Great Catastrophe) instead, and thus avoided reactions from Ankara that might have not only brought to an end the road map, but also might have seriously harmed Turkish-American relations, which are expected to assume the character of a "model partnership" with the coming to power of Obama. This indicates how even the very use of the concept of "genocide" to describe the tragedy has been and continues to be an obstacle to Turkish-Armenian normalization.
There is no doubt that what befell the Ottoman Armenians during World War I due to forced deportation by the Ottoman dictators was a great tragedy, during which hundreds of thousands lost their lives in massacres and because of starvation and illness. There is also no doubt that Turkish society, which has largely been kept ignorant about the tragedy, needs more time to face it. The claim, on the other hand, that the deaths were due to the decision by Ottoman rulers to deliberately annihilate the Armenian population is disputed even by non-Turkish Ottoman historians. The claim that the tragedy that befell Ottoman Armenians is similar to that suffered by the Jews in Nazi Germany is surely even more controversial.
The parliaments of many countries where the Armenian diaspora has a strong presence have adopted resolutions that label the tragedy as genocide. In other countries, however, such resolutions have either not been on the agenda at all or have been rejected, most remarkably in Sweden, on the grounds that parliaments are not entitled to legislate on history. Bilateral relations between Turkey and countries whose parliaments have adopted Armenian genocide resolutions have not been harmed permanently, if at all affected. That the adoption of such a resolution can seriously harm bilateral relations between Turkey and the US, on the other hand, only indicates the great importance attached to the US by Turkish elites and the public at large.
Azerbaijan's insistence that Turkey refrain from normalizing its relations with Armenia before the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute is resolved does not make sense. Yes, Azerbaijan is historically and culturally the closest state to Turkey. Some even describe their relationship as "one nation, two states." But they are still two different states, and their national interests do not always overlap. This is why, for instance, Ankara has not demanded that Baku recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC). By normalizing relations with Armenia, Turkey will undoubtedly have much greater leverage to help solve the Karabakh dispute.
There is nothing surprising, on the other hand, in that the two main opposition parties in Turkey -- that is, the Republican People's Party (CHP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) -- oppose normalization with Armenia without the resolution of the Karabakh dispute, because they care only about their party interests, which prompts them to oppose every domestic or foreign policy initiative of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government.
That most of the Armenian diaspora organizations and most of the political opposition in Armenia are not only strongly objecting to Yerevan's policy of normalization with Ankara without preconditions, but are also accusing Obama of betrayal by not using the word "genocide" in his statement, only means that their main interest may be in the continuation of historical animosities between Turks and Armenians.
