BORDER ISSUES DEBATED BY TURKISH AND ARMENIAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 ISTANBUL 000900

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/03/2017
TAGS: PREL AM ECON ETRD PREL TU
SUBJECT: BORDER ISSUES DEBATED BY TURKISH AND ARMENIAN
ACADEMICS

ISTANBUL 00000900 001.2 OF 002


Classified By: CONSUL GENERAL SHARON WIENER, REASONS 1.4 (b),(d)

This message is a joint Istanbul/Ankara product


1. (SBU) SUMMARY: Turkish and Armenian academics came
together in Istanbul and Ankara in September for coordinated
conferences on the Economic and Social Consequences of
Opening the Armenia-Turkey Border. The conferences,
supported by the Eurasia Foundation with funding from USAID,
were a follow-up to a January 2007 conference in Yerevan on
the same topic. While the focus of the discussions was
supposed to be on the economic benefits of opening the border
-- something all the invited panelists actually supported --
both sides found it difficult to avoid descending into heated
political debates. Participants recognized the significance
of having a free and open debate in Turkey on
Turkish-Armenian relations. The program was particularly
significant for the Armenian participants visiting Ankara for
the first time, and both sides often invoked their shared
identities, even as they argued about almost everything else.
END SUMMARY.

THE ISTANBUL CONFERENCE
--------------


2. (SBU) The Armenia International Policy Research Group
(AIPRG) and the ARI Movement, an independent organization
that encourages young professionals to find solutions to
challenges facing Turkey, organized the September 18
conference in Istanbul. ARI acted as part-time moderator,
part-time agitator. AIPRG,s Tigran Mkrtchyan and Mher
Baghramyan, and Vahram Ter-Matevosyan, of the National
Academy of Sciences of Armenia, presented research papers
focusing on the economic benefits of opening the border,
notably the benefits that shortened trade-routes would bring.
One paper claimed that for every 10% reduction in distance,
a 15.6% increase in Turkish imports to Armenia would follow.


3. (SBU) The Turkish academics in attendance (many from
Bilgi University -- the hosting institution -- and the ARI
Movement) sat quietly through the statistics barrage.
However, Turkish participants reacted when the Armenian
panelists suggested that the business/NGO community had to
develop before progress could be made on "peripheral"
political issues (i.e., Nagorno-Karabakh and historical
commissions). The Turks (including the ARI moderator)
refused to separate economic issues from the political. A
question posed during the discussion period aptly summarizes
the Turks' position with regards to the Armenians'
"open-the-border-now-talk-later" proposal: "How are we to
lobby for normalization of trade-routes or relations with a
country that is actively attempting to damage our reputation
abroad?" And, "What are we supposed to say to our Azeri
brothers?" As a result, the conference devolved into heated
commentary.

THE ANKARA CONFERENCE
--------------


4. (SBU) Turkish academics Sedat Laciner (International
Strategic Research Organization) and Burcu Gultekin Punsmann
(Middle Eastern Technical University) joined their Armenian
counterparts in presenting at the September 20 Ankara
round-table, organized by the Turkish Armenian Business
Development Committee (TABDC) and AIPRG, and hosted by the
Turkish Democracy Foundation. As in Istanbul, the Armenian
panelists claimed that open borders would usher in economic
benefits to both Armenia and Turkey (citing, for example,
strong and growing Turkey-Georgia trade ties). Panelists
stressed that trade is already taking place between Turkey
and Armenia, through Georgia, and that Turkey actually
constitutes one of Armenia's largest trading partners. Even
as they emphasized the economic benefits, the Armenian
panelists made sure to stress that Armenia's economic
development continued absent significant Turkish trade and
investment: i.e., Armenia doesn't need Turkey any more than
Turkey needs Armenia. The Turks, again focused on the
political. For them, an enhanced role in the Caucasus and
diminishing pressure on genocide recognition are the key
motivators for opening the border and normalizing relations.
The economic benefits of trade with such a small nation, they
argued, are simply too small to alone justify this
significant political step. Despite differing objectives and
rationale, and despite the tendency on both sides to become
overly defensive, the participants managed to maintain a
constructive dialogue (thanks, in large part, to professional
and impartial moderation by TABDC).


ISTANBUL 00000900 002.2 OF 002


FRUSTRATION WITH THE DIASPORA
--------------


5. (C) COMMENT: Beneath the Armenians, advocacy for
opening borders before addressing "peripheral" political
questions, was an underlying frustration on the part of the
Armenians with the Armenian Diaspora, and with the inability
of Turks to distinguish between the policies of Yerevan and
the Diaspora's agenda. Armenian participants, more than
once, had to clarify, for example, that the government of
Armenia does not oppose Turkey's EU accession. Commenting on
the Diaspora's lobbying in Washington, AIPRG,s Mkrtchyan
said, "...this would not be the first time organizations
abroad have damaged Armenian relations at home." Despite
these frustrations and the resulting tendency to talk around
each other more than to each other, the conferences revealed
-- among Turkish and Armenian academics -- a desire to at
least discuss unsticking the Armenian-Turkish relationship,
even while demonstrating how difficult it is to disaggregate
border issues from the normalization of political relations.
END COMMENT



WIENER