Recently there have been some indications that certain negative developments shall occur concerning the issue of border gate between Turkey and Armenia. The news that the gates will be opened has elicited reactions from the public as well as the media and the politicians in Azerbaijan and senior officials indicated that they don't expect Turkey to take such a step. This issue is not the main topic of conversations as the Cyprus problem filled the agenda in Turkey. However as is known, propaganda bombardments can occasionally take place in connection with this issue in order to establish an infrastructure for this issue. We will try to deal with certain dimensions of this issue that is very important with respect to currency and permanent interests.

Theoretically every state gives importance to being on good terms with other states particularly with their neighbors. The more/less problems it has in relations with other states particularly neighbors the more likely it is to use the resources at hand in more productive/less productive fields. However having good relations with neighbors is not a target or an asset on its own. It is only a sub purpose. The states enjoy objectives of existence going beyond and taking precedence over this sub objective and also threats to its existence. The basic aim is to act according to targets of existence and long term strategies determined based on the targets of existence. Accordingly it is the aim of the states to have good relations with as many states as possible. There is no such a rule that the state will have good relations with all its neighbors whatever the costs may be. IT is possible for a state not to have good relations with another state even if this state is its neighbor or to have tensions with that state when it is required by its objectives of existence or when it is in conformity with its long or short term strategies. There are many examples, in our recent history, of states waging war with their neighbors even with s state that is far away because of their interests. Undoubtedly we consider war as the drama of humanity and don't advocate the use of such means in foreign affairs. "The principle that we never take a stand against anybody whatever happens" is an unacceptable "naïve" principle that is disapproved of not only in interstate relations but also in relations between companies and people.

There are somehow efforts to present the Turkey-Armenia relations and the issue of border gate between the two states as an asset on its own right, overlooking the above mentioned points. Leaving aside the various dimensions of the issue, it is emphasized that Turkey should immediately establish good relations with Armenia bring to the foreground only "neighborliness" "commercial relations" "the demands of the West" and similar concepts. We will try to deal with the dimensions of the problems in relations the potential of bilateral trade and the future of relations between Turkey and Armenia.

Relations between Turkey and Armenia

Closing of the Border and the following events

The developments in Soviet Union in the second half of the 1980's have played an important role in the shaping of the destinies of the republics that emerged after the breakup of the union. Apart from the seeds of enmity towards Turkey and Turkish people that have been sown among the Armenian people for a long time, Armenia was successful in its independence movement that developed in parallel to its territorial demands from Azerbaijan and Occupation of Azerbaijan by Armenia has been a decisive factor in the developments within this country as well as the foreign affairs. Undoubtedly Turkey got its share from this process. When we look at the initial periods of Turkish-Armenian relations, We see that Turkey has pursued policies intended to improve the relations despite the negative attitude of Armenia. In the 11th article of Independence charter approved by the Armenian Parliament on 23rd August 1990, The East Anatolian of Turkey was referred to as "Western Armenia" and emphasis has been made on efforts to ensure international recognition of so-called "Armenian Genocide". (1) The second paragraph of the 13th article of Armenian Constitution has shown Mountain of Ararat in the State armorial bearings. (2) Armenia still claims that 1921 Kars and 1920 Gümrü Treaties that determine the border between Armenia and Turkey are no longer valid.

Apart from its occupation efforts Armenia against Azerbaijan, Turkey didn't ignore Armenia When it sent committees to Caucasia and Turkistan (Central Asia) to make observations in September of 1991 even if Armenia adopted an aggressive attitude toward Turkey during its independence movement. (3) Recognizing the independence of Armenia on 16th of December 1991 sent humanitarian aid to Armenia, which was suffering from economic hardships. Moreover Turkey let the aid supplies pass through its territory. Armenia was invited as a founding member to the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization formed on 25th June 1992. But Turkey couldn't establish diplomatic relations with Armenia because of the combative stance of Armenia against Turkey. (4)

Although some people, from time to time, indicated the need to leave aside so-called Genocide claims and improve the relations with Turkey, Armenia continued to pursue its aggressive policy. The last straw was the occupation by Armenia of Kelbecer rayon (rayon is a local administrative unit smaller than a city bigger than a town) at a time When Armenia was receiving the most aid from Turkey (Turkish officials sent a 100 tones of Wheat aid to Armenia just before the occupation). Having warned Armenia to stop its aggression against Azerbaijan in April 1993, Turkey indicated that it wasn't going to be responsible for the negative results in the relations unless it did so. (5) Following the occupation of Kelbecer by Armenia on 3rd of April 1993, Turkey continued to call Armenia to stop the occupation and in the mean time began gradually to curtail the relations, Turkey closed its borders with Armenia as it didn't give its aggressive policy, Foreign affairs Minister Hikmet Çetin, who joined ,on 5th of April 1993, the trip to Turkic Republics alongside Turgut Özal, then the president of Turkey, stated in a press conference that "Following the latest attacks of Armenia against Azerbaijan, all the humanitarian aid flights that pass over Turkey have been stopped, no permission shall be given to any flight, the planes wanting to pass despite these warnings shall be shot down if necessary". (6) When the Armenian Defense Minister Vazgen Manukyan claimed to TASS agency that The Erivan administration didn't accept the principle of unchanging of borders and this principle was valid for the Western and European borders that emerged as a result of two world wars. "the borders of former Soviet Union that had been drawn randomly couldn't be recognized within the framework of the same principles", Turkish officials considered this stance as an indication that Armenia is pursuing its dream of "Great Armenia" (7)

President Özal and all the important opposition parties accused the government of that time of remaining passive in the face of expansive policies of Armenia; however Prime Minister Süleyman stated on 13th of April 1993 that the cold-blooded stance of Turkey wasn't to be misunderstood by the world opinion. (8) Prime Ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia respectively Ebulfez ELçibey and Levon Ter Petrosyan, who were in Ankara for the funeral of Özal met for the first time on 21st of April 1993 but Armenia didn't take any steps to stop the occupation following this meeting.

In the Aftermath Turkey made many efforts to normalize the relations with Armenia but couldn't get any result. For example, it allowed the opening of the H-50 air corridor allowing the flights between İstanbul-Erivan and this air corridor is still open. (9) Armenia gave ever harsher response to Turkey despite these developments. Armenia continued to accuse Turkey at the level of international institutions and foreign states and gave support to PKK terror organization. Armenia gave the most intensive military aid to PKK at a time When Turkey was grappling with terror. Following the shooting of a Turkish helicopter by a PKK rocket in northern Iraq in May 1997 Erol ÖZkasnak, then the General Secretary of Office of Chief of Staff stated in a press conference held at his office that there are decisive intelligence sources demonstrating that Armenia was one of the states providing rocket and training to PKK. (10)

Armenian Prime Minister Robert Koçaryan accused Turkey of committing so-called "genocide" and not accepting this in his speech he gave in the UN Millennium summit held in New York from 6th to 8th of September 2000. (11)

The last session devoted to general meetings of the 55th UN General Assembly that was held in September 2000 was a stage of verbal duel between Turkey and Armenia. Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Vartan Oskaryan, who spoke first, accused Turkey of denying the so-called "genocide" and Altay Cangizer, in his response to this accusation, stated that "Armenian issue must be dealt with an impartial eye. History mustn't be used to create enmity between countries." Trying to give response to the words of Cengizer Oskanyan put forward again the known Armenian claims making reference to Hitler and Lord Curzon. (12) In his interview with journalist Mehmet Ali Birand, Prime Minister Robert Koçaryan indicated that "he wanted not an indirect but a direct meeting with Turkey" and "the recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide will be enough for them" as if it were insignificant. (13)

Views on the issue in Turkey and Azerbaijan in the face of efforts to ensure the opening of the border

Efforts intended to ensure that the border be opened and Turkey improves its relations with Armenia continued in the meantime. Views on this issue have been put forward in Turkey and moreover demands were made from outside, namely USA and European Union. Demands related to this issue were clearly made and Turkey was criticized for keeping the border closed in the meetings of USA officials with Turkey and Armenia and in their evaluations to the press and the reports of EU institutions. Those advocating this stance indicate that the steps to be taken by Turkey would bring enormous benefits for Turkey and change the political tendency of Turkey. İT is clearly known by those who are familiar with the region and Armenia that this wouldn't be the case. Looking from the economic point, it is obvious that the revenues of Turkish companies won't be over 50 million dollars. Why? Total foreign trade volume of Armenia is around 1.5 billion dollars. (14) One can foresee that Turkey will be able to get no more than a share of %10 (150 million dollars) in the foreign trade of Armenia, considering the ethnical hatred to Turkey in Armenia, the protests that may result from this trade and the potential of Turkey and the alternatives of Armenia in foreign trade. The highest annual trade volume was 287 million dollars during the period from the opening of the border between Turkey and Georgia to today. (15)150 million dollars can be said to be exaggerated considering the fact that Georgia doesn't have a neighbor with a serious economy other than Turkey and its population is %60 more than Armenia and 90 million dollars of its total trade volume comprises the trade with Armenia and Azerbaijan made over Georgia. 60% (90 million US Dollars) of this amount will consist of import of Turkey to Armenia (%60 share in the foreign trade of Armenia belong to import and this will continue to a great extent in the trade with Turkey.) we have an amount of 45 million dollars given that a profit of %50 would be obtained with the best possibility.

Now let's look at the current views of Turkey and Azerbaijan on this issue.

Whenever the issue became the topic of agenda after the closure of the border, Turkey emphasized that the opening of the border is out of question as long as Armenia didn't withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijan territories. It has been seen that Turkey faced systematic demands regarding the relation with Armenia especially after 2000. A Senior official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicated that the normalization of the relations depended upon three parameters following a tense controversy during the Kars City Assembly and clarified these parameters as "Occupation of the 20% of the Azerbaijan, Armenia constantly putting forward its so-called "Armenian Genocide" claims and territorial claims from Turkey as set out in the Armenian Constitution". (16)

Afterwards Bülent Ecevit put forward 3 conditions to establish relations with Armenia during his meeting with the Defense Minister of USA Donald Rumsfeld in 2001 then he indicated in his meeting with Bush in January of 2002 that Turkey is ready to have good relations with Armenia but this depended on the acceptance of 4 important conditions.
(17):
1. Giving up of the Genocide obsession;
2. Armenia should withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijan land;
3. Opening of a corridor to Nahcıvan;
4. Return of the refugees to their homes.

In the different assessments made in the meantime, the four provisions were revised with the replacement of "refugees" condition by the condition that "Armenia give up its territorial claims against Turkey". Lastly current Prime Minister of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in his speech during his Kars Trip on 27th June 2003 put forward two conditions for the opening of the border, these conditions are Armenia's giving up its territorial claims from Turkey and stopping its so-called "genocide" claims. (18)

Looking at the views of the Azerbaijan the same statement is made whenever the issue became the topic of the day: "We are sure that Turkey will not improve its relation with Armenia until it withdraws from the occupied land." Although it has been stated from time to time that Turkey would improve its relations with Armenia at the expense of Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan gave a positive response to the desire of Turkey to improve relation with Turkey. These statements were disowned by Azerbaijan and Turkish officials.. The officials of Azerbaijan indicate that Turkey also has problems with Armenia. For example Haydar Aliyev the Prime Minister of Azerbaijan stated in his conference before his departure to Moscow to attend the Summit meeting of the BDT that the news that the Armenian and Turkish border would be opened is unfounded gossip and indicated that Turkish government made no effort so far to open the Armenian border adding that "all the Turkish people particularly President Süleyman Demirel will not allow this to happen." Indicating that all these claims are the products of fictitious scenario Aliyev made it clear that "the key of the Armenian-Turkish border is no in our hands. The key is at the hands of Azeri and Turkish people." (19)

Minister of Turkish Foreign Affairs, Abdullah Gül, stated in his press conference following his meeting with the Minister of Azeri Foreign Affairs in Ankara on 11th September 2003 that the statement of Armenian Defense Minister Serj Sarkisyan that the border would be opened in the near future didn't reflect reality. (20)

The latest developments related to the Turkish-Armenian borders took place before and during the visit of İlham ALiyev, Prime Minister of Azerbaijan in Turkey in April of 2004. Prior to the visit, Azeri press stated that Turkey was likely to open its border with Armenia and a committee of media representatives of Azerbaijan organized demonstrations and meetings in Turkey in order to protest this. In the meantime some Turkish newspapers indicated that "it is irrational to keep the borders closed based on the paranoia of Azerbaijan. İlham Aliyev has been assured that the border won't be opened as long as the occupation of Azerbaijan by Armenia is not resolved. Likewise making a statement immediately after the visit, Turkish minister of foreign affairs made the same point. (21)

Conclusion

As we have emphasized at the beginning whether the border is opened or not, bilateral relation aren't an asset on their own. The decisions about the opening of the border are given according to long term strategies and course of foreign policy. Considering the strategic targets of Turkey ant its foreign policy, Turkey has such objectives as being on good terms with neighbors in a general peaceful environment and the protection of the economic and political interests of the country outside the country. Taken from a local perspective, "Caucasia is the natural opening door to Central Asia for Turkey. Moreover, Turkey has political, economic, social and cultural ties with the peoples of Caucasia. Protection of peace, stability and cooperation is crucial for Turkey." (22) It is unacceptable to ask Turkey to make any sacrifices to engage in cooperation with a state, which still hasn't recognized territorial integrity of Turkey and signed a border agreement, is engaging in campaigns against Turkey on all the platform it can have access to, using all the means to this end and in addition threatens the regional peace and security in Caucasia and still keeping under occupation 20% of Azerbaijan, one of its neighbors and making territorial claims against all its neighbors and also Russia (Krasnador) even if it has no border with it and is the biggest obstacle in the transportation from Turkey to Turkistan.

The following 2 issues are particularly important in connection with the opening of Turkish-Armenian border:

A) The stance of Armenia

Altough Ter-PEtrosyon has maintained that Armenia should have good relations with Turkey in order to overcome the dire strait, his administration has pursued aggressive policies against Turkey for a long time based on the expansive ideology. (23) As if the anti-Turkey policies of Armenia at the beginning of 1990s weren't enough, KOçaryan,as soon as he took power, he put forward the condition that Turkey should recognize the so-called 'genocide' for the improvement of relations and they have border problem with Turkey. (24) According to the general point of view, the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border under these circumstances would not only provide economic support to the Koçaryan administration but also ensure that hardliners in Diaspora and Koçaryan administration think that they were successful in their anti-Turkish policies and impair the Azeri-Turkish relations. (25) Moreover even if Turkish side wants to open the border it is still likely that Armenia doesn't take the same decision. (26) The fact that certain officials in Armenia and many politicians have put forward some conditions to open the border is an indication of this likelihood. Such a situation would mean an important loss of prestige for Turkey. We can easily see that the opening of the border would be more beneficial for USA in the sense that it would side with America and considering the high level of activity in Armenia of Russia, which wouldn't desire such a development, it wouldn't be easy to open the border even if Turkey wants this to happen.

B) The course of Foreign Policy of Turkey.

As is indicated above, Turkey has put forward certain demands to improve the relations with Armenia. When we look at these demands, all these demands except one of them are "negative demands". In other words, Turkey doesn't demand Armenia to do something but not to do something. Turkey wants Armenia to give up expansive and occupation policies and also to give up developing or facilitating the development of anti-Turkey policies around the world. Turkey wants Armenia to give up its territorial demands against Turkey. One mustn't expect Turkey to improve its relation with this state as it has no serious economic interest and none of the "negative demands" has been met, made by Turkey, which is an important state at least from a regional point of view, from its small neighbor that has been pursuing aggressive policies and is an obstacle to the implementation of its policies. In this context the opening of air corridor and the starting of flights can be regarded as unilateral concessions with no return. Turkey has already made compromises from three dimensions of its embargo. Turkey has opened its air corridor and started its flights. But it is impossible for it to open its borders with Armenia, which has taken no positive step and on the contrary, intensified its aggression.

Moreover as it has been seen very often in the recent times, the continual efforts to confine the issue to only Azerbaijan are basically devoid of scientific basis, serving only to mislead the public. Consequently, as is explained above, the conditions Turkey put forward for the opening of the borders are primarily related to itself. In view of all the above-mentioned points, Turkey's opening its borders with Armenia can be considered as completely irrational and improbable