However, the process by which the protocols signed last week were prepared and adopted shows that this is not a valid perception; it turns out that this genocide issue is fairly simple to resolve considering that the parties have agreed to refer it to a commission of historians whose decisions will not affect either of the parties; it is obvious that such a commission will not resolve any dispute or make any concrete contributions to the settlement of the issue. In other words, the parties do not expect a new state of affairs with respect to the genocide issue; most likely they do not want any resolution at all. The current status quo appears to satisfy both parties. As long as it draws the support and agreement of the international community, the Armenian side feels comfortable and does not feel the need to exert pressure on Turkey by making reference to its policy of denial. As for Turkey, it can overcome this problem by integrating it into the process of democratization; to do this, it needs time and further discussion. The tension during the signing ceremony was caused by the Turkish side's use of vague statements in an attempt to act cleverly. The excerpt from the speech by Ahmet Davutoğlu which reads, “We believe that the subcommission will do the necessary scientific research and shed light on what really happened,” was not suitable for the course of the process. It was improper because the statement implied that the allegations were not based on scientific findings and that the truth still remained buried. For a country that banned the addressing of the issue via discussions, this may be viewed as a display of crude power. Apparently, Turkey needs time to mature sufficiently. In another contentious sentence, Davutoğlu said, “This journey might be completed by all Caucasian nations walking hand in hand.” In other words, the Turkish side wanted to keep the circle as wide as possible to include Azerbaijan in the process. However, excessive cleverness is not good enough in diplomacy. The current world needs sincerity rather than cleverness, and Turkey confirms that it is not there yet, as evidenced by its tactical moves.
On the other hand, the speech prepared by Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian included some statements which were uncomfortable for Turkey, and for this reason, the crisis was resolved by the withdrawal of the speeches. The controversial speech made reference to unconditional negotiation. Obviously, Nalbandian was not referring to the genocide issue in the statement because the genocide issue is a condition for Armenia alone, and Armenia, relying on its will, wants unconditional negotiation anyway. In short, it seems that the actual problem is the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Armenia wants to keep the question out of the discussions and negotiations with Turkey and the dynamic of normalization with this country. On the other hand, Turkey seeks to include the controversy in the process. There is no comfortable or simple solution to this issue like the historical commission offered to resolve the genocide issue.
Therefore, whether Armenia acknowledges it or not, the shadow of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue will keep haunting the protocols. And ironically, the actual actor in the process is Azerbaijan -- not Armenia -- because Armenian withdrawal from Azerbaijani soil will not resolve the issue; quite the contrary, this will revive a frozen controversy. This issue depends on how democratic Azerbaijan is. Just as Turkey indirectly encouraged Kurdish secessionism by remaining reluctant about introducing democratic reforms, Azerbaijan will never be able to properly address the separatist tendencies of the Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh unless it takes bold steps.
For this reason, if the world community wants the normalization of bilateral relations between Armenia and Turkey, it has to focus on the democratization of Azerbaijan. Consolidation of democracy in this country will make the Armenian occupation dysfunctional as long as such a process of democratization recognizes the universal rights and freedoms of Armenians there. In this way, the speeches that were not delivered at the ceremonies held to honor the protocols will have the chance to be made, because in that case, neither Armenia nor Turkey will be uncomfortable about the emphasis on the unconditional negotiations.
However, the Nagorno-Karabakh issue depends on how functional the protocols are in the official channels. It should be noted that the protocols will also have some psychological impact and this will create quite surprising outcomes in a very short time. It will be only natural to witness that the sphere of rapprochement pioneered by artists and young people of both nations will be further expanded thanks to the positive impact of the protocols. It could be argued that the actual normalization will take place in this field and this will simply relieve the parties. And if the Azerbaijani and Nagorno-Karabakh people could participate in this civil society dynamic, the long-awaited peace may be achieved in Caucasus; in such an environment, these nations may rebuild their futures.
History teaches us that the earth has never possessed a peaceful core. These nations should turn their eyes to the people instead of the earth. This is the only way to do away with the shadow that has been cast over the earth.
