The Turkish position that may have led to the opening of borders between the two countries has been fundamentally altered with the opposition of its close ally, Azerbaijan, which protested the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations until the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is solved and Armenia returns the 20 percent of Azeri territory that it has occupied since the war that took place between the two countries in the early 1990s. In May, Ankara, under pressure from Baku, linked the reopening of its border with Armenia with a comprehensive solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Turkey had closed its Armenian border in 1993 in support of Azerbaijan, which it called a “kin country” in official and popular parlance. Needless to say, Azerbaijan holds the key to Turkey's bid to be an energy hub for petroleum and gas pipelines that will extend from Asia to Europe. American lawmakers claim that normalization talks between Ankara and Yerevan were supposed to evolve over a “road map.” However, Turkey stalled the process, which was supposed to take place without preconditions. Indeed, Turkey and Armenia signed a document on April 22, pledging to work to normalize their relations. Although their road map has not been made public, sources said it includes the setting up of full diplomatic relations, and, more importantly, the reopening of the two neighbors' land border, which has been closed for 16 years.
Over 80 pro-Armenian members of the US House of Representatives recently sent a letter to President Barack Obama complaining that Turkey is failing to keep its pledge. The congressmen said in the letter that Turkey was in violation of the April deal with Yerevan. Their impression is that even though “the government of Armenia remains committed to this road map and has long offered to establish ties with Turkey without preconditions, Turkey's public statements and actions since April 24 stand in sharp contrast to this agreement and undermine US policy that normalization take place without preconditions” and “within a reasonable timeframe.”
Eighty-one of the 435 members of the House of Representatives known to be pro-Armenian signed the letter sent to President Obama in July. It is these lawmakers that want to pass an “Armenian genocide resolution” pending in the House after Congress reopens in September.
On the home front, relations between Ankara and Yerevan are not getting better. The “soccer diplomacy” initiative appears to have lost momentum. Yerevan seems to be preparing to get “tough” with Ankara. The first sign came with President Sarksyan's declaration on July 28 that he would travel to İstanbul for an Oct. 14 World Cup qualifying match between Turkey and Armenia only if agreements are observed and border gates between the two countries are opened. The Armenian opposition and the critical Armenian diaspora, which has effective leverage on Yerevan, loved this statement. They believe that reconciliation with Ankara is against Armenian interests and will not provide the diplomatic impetus to open up the borders. They believe that President Sarksyan had made every effort to re-establish diplomatic ties with Turkey and have the border reopened, without insisting on conditions for rapprochement. But the Turks have declined.
Opposition spokespersons are bold, for they have nothing to lose, making statements such as “Armenia should have ceased talks immediately after Turkey's statement about Nagorno-Karabakh” or “President Sarksyan's declaration is better late than never.” Yet more balanced commentators say, “Sarksyan seems to be lost in a trap as the soccer diplomacy is coming to an end.” Considering that the framework for a Nagorno-Karabakh resolution is to be handled in October, it is unlikely that any real changes will take place between the two countries' relations before October. Most likely, the Armenian president will not go to Turkey for the soccer match. However, Turkey will take some small steps again, which will prevent Armenia from drifting away while trying not to annoy Azerbaijan. The process will require able diplomats and moderation on the part of politicians.
