Armenian journalist Hakob Chaqrian: recent rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey may disturb some circles

Chaqrian, who came to Turkey to watch the soccer game between the Turkish and Armenian teams in Bursa, spoke to Sunday's Zaman. The Armenian journalist stressed that the Armenian diaspora, eager to prevent close ties between the two nations, actually put the future of their native country in jeopardy.

Chaqrian, a former academic at the then-USSR Academy of Science, is a renowned scholar on the Seljuks. Chaqrian, who returned to his homeland after the collapse of Soviet Union, fights for normalization between the two countries. Noting that the Armenian diaspora feels uncomfortable with the recent moves, Chaqrian stresses that some countries, including Russia, are uneasy about the developments.

How would you interpret the recent moves to maintain close ties between the two nations?

We are witnessing pretty historic and delicate steps; both countries are leaving the Cold War era behind. When it acquired its independence in 1991, Armenia was aware that it had to establish good relations with Turkey. It should be noted that the legendary leader of the Turkish nationalists, Alparslan Türkeş, established diplomatic relations with Armenian back then. However, following the remarks by President Turgut Özal, who said after the occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh that there would be nothing if a few bombs were dropped on Armenian lands, Armenia felt it had to look for other protectors, and Russia has become that protector. Turkey's negative attitude moved Armenia towards Russia.

 How's the Russian response to current developments?

I do not think Russia is pleased with them; even though they raise no objections to the recent moves between Turkey and Armenia I do not think they will allow Armenia to maintain close relations with Turkey as they did in the case of Georgian-Turkish rapprochement. The current delicate balance in Caucasus requires this.

Who else is bothered by this rapprochement?

The Armenian diaspora is disturbed by it because they will have no material at hand, and they actually admit it. Georgia is also partly uncomfortable. It is worried that it will no longer be an asset for Turkey.

Do you think that nationalist and fanatic groups may rely on provocative action in both countries?

Absolutely, they will; both Sarksyan and Erdoğan have taken serious risks. Both leaders may become the targets of radical groups. They have to be careful. [But] both leaders will consolidate their positions if this process goes smoothly. I think Sarksyan will face some difficulties for a while, but in the end the peace lovers will win. I hope the same happens in Turkey as well.

Nationalists in Nagorno-Karabakh attacked the Parliament in the past…

It was a whole different incident. Turkish people thought Karabakh nationalists did this but the incident had nothing to do with the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

Is it possible that the nations will achieve peace after these moves?

I believe that conciliation between the two nations will take quite little time. If this process goes this way, the nations will achieve peace and a common understanding after a 90-year-long disagreement. The problems may be overcome in a decade. Both nations need time. We have to be patient; we should not expect that the issues will be resolved overnight.

Do you think both nations need to reset their minds and memories?

To me, this should not be an option; clearing the memories will do nothing but freeze the issues. Some may reinvent or revisit these issues some time later. For this reason, the issues have to be discussed; there are many countries that have done this. They now have good ties.

What was the primary incentive and motivation for such a sudden consensus to take steps toward rapprochement?

I am an Armenian born in Turkey; Turkey is going through a rapid transformation. The republic had four untouchables when it was founded: Kurds, Armenians, [Mustafa Kemal] Atatürk and the activities of the General Staff. It was impossible for the intellectuals and the writers to disagree with the established and imposed facts and arguments in respect to these issues. It was a crime to make reference to the Kurdish issue; being critical of Atatürk was an offense. The activities of the military were immune to investigation. You had to call the genocide the so-called or alleged genocide. There are no longer lawsuits against writers who do not do so.

So the current process is a result of this transformation?

No, I wish it was. This process is the result of work required by international actors; both parties agreed to resolve their problems after international pressure because the Caucasus is an extension of the Middle East. The international system is concerned about chronic problems in this region. I would rather see resolution of the bilateral problems via deliberate and voluntary moves by the parties instead of international pressure; but it did not happen. Yet, regardless of who initiated the process, what has been done so far is proper and right.

What are your views with respect to the genocide issue?

Some bad and embarrassing incidents took place on this soil in 1915; it is not possible to achieve a resolution by denying this. Nobody would benefit from reluctance to deal with this problem. Everybody has to face their past. Armenians did not just evaporate in these lands.

Do you think the diaspora will cease its support for Armenia because of the recent moves?

They already have. Armenia has been unable to receive support from the diaspora in recent years. The financial and material support provided by the diaspora has already been reduced by 80 percent because of the financial crisis. Currently, Armenia relies on the support of the diaspora in Moscow; others provide no support. Armenia has to survive by a reliance on its own resources from now on.

Does Armenia's survival depend on the opening of the border?

This issue is actually exaggerated. The diaspora does not want the opening of the border; we are able to connect to the world via the Georgian border, but this cannot go on this way.

It seems that the determination to keep the border closed has been quite a cost and burden for Armenia?

I think both countries are losing because of the continuation of this situation where the issues remain unresolved. Armenia is not the only party that loses. If both parties were able to sustain the close ties established in 1991, oil and natural gas pipelines would have been installed appropriately and feasibly. There would have been no delays in the construction of these lines.