TURKEY/ARMENIA: YEREVAN'S RESPONSE TO JOINT

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 ANKARA 002410

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/02/2026
TAGS: PREL PHUM AR TU
SUBJECT: TURKEY/ARMENIA: YEREVAN'S RESPONSE TO JOINT
COMMISSIONS PROPOSAL

REF: A. ANKARA 2385


B. ANKARA 1651

Classified By: DCM Nancy McEldowney for reasons 1.4 (b,d).


1. (S) On April 28 the MFA provided us, in confidence, a copy
of Yerevan's response to Turkey's March 10 non-paper seeking
to bridge the gap between Turkey's April 2005 proposal for
the establishment of a Joint Historical Commission and
Armenia's counter-proposal of an Intergovernmental
Commission. The Yerevan note is dated April 19. Text as
received is at para 4.


2. (S) MFA Deputy Undersecretary Ahmet Uzumcu told EUR A/S
Daniel Fried and NSC Senior Director Judith Ansley during
April 26 discussions that the MFA is still analyzing the
Armenian response but is not entirely happy with it (ref a).
In follow up discussions on April 28, MFA Caucasus Department
Head Suleyman Gokce told us the MFA is disappointed at the
lack of coherence and detail in Yerevan's response. The MFA
also does not know what to make of the note's reference to
Armenia's concerns "that dialogue is proceeding for
dialogue's sake" and other negative references. Despite its
frustrations with the note, Gokce said the MFA remains
committed to the process of seeking reconciliation with
Armenia.


3. (S) We have and will continue to urge the Turkish
government to focus on the positive response contained in the
last sentence of the Armenian note and, on that basis, to
engage Yerevan on moving the bilateral dialogue forward.


4. (S) Text of Armenian Non Paper, dated April 19:

For nearly one year, we have met and exchanged views on
various matters, including concrete measures necessary for
the creation of an amicable environment between our peoples
and for normalization of relations between our two countries.

We have acknowledged that the relevant issues include but are
not limited to the events of 1915, the reopening of the
border between Armenia and Turkey, the establishment of
diplomatic relations between our two countries, direct
economic relations, cultural and social cooperation.

At the same time, these meetings have generated a degree of
mutual understanding that some of the above-mentioned issues
should be treated very sensitively within both societies
given the existence of a regrettable historic divide between
our two peoples, which has been further exacerbated by
certain developments both bilaterally and internationally
since the beginning of the 1990s. These are indeed matters
of deep concern which still need to be addressed bilaterally.

Taking into full account the views presented in the N/P of
March 10, 2006, as well as reiterating our desire to continue
on the path of serious and sincere dialogue aimed at
normalization of our bilateral relations, we are concerned
that dialogue is proceeding for dialogue's sake. We would
like to stress the further development and elaboration of the
current format of our intergovernmental contacts - conducted
by the two Ministries of Foreign Affairs at the level of
deputy ministers - to deal with the existing issues in two
major clusters:


1. the furtherance of academic/research cooperation and
social-cultural ties


2. the reopening of the border between Armenia and Turkey,
the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two
countries, other political issues, as well as the development
of the direct economic relations.

There is already a great deal of momentum in the first
direction: conferences, informal and formal groups of
academicians, dialogue, organized and ongoing workshops, and
as such, there are contacts and extensive debate.

Still, the first cluster would focus on the whole specter of
long-standing relations between the Armenian and Turkish
peoples, including the events of 1915. The format will
encourage and support production or commissioning of joint
studies, books, conferences, seminars, etc. It will also
coordinate and facilitate bilateral social-cultural
exchanges.

Regarding the issues which fall into the second cluster,
however, we are concerned that the process will become a
facade and the existence of the working clusters will become
self-serving. Unlike the first cluster, there is no movement
of any sort in the second area, and on the contrary, the
conditions and linkages with third party issues are becoming

ANKARA 00002410 002 OF 002


stronger and graver. As a result, we are concerned that the
entire process may fail because of a lack of will to support
the process in its entirety.

Nevertheless, we are willing to give this format a try, and
if there is progress, the number of participating officials
may increase, the Terms of Reference and Order of Business
agreed, and the meetings may become regular.

End Text.

Visit Ankara's Classified Web Site at
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/ankara/

WILSON