The Turkish-Armenian game, played in Washington D.C.

A new stage in the dispute between Turkey and Armenia, concerning the issue of the genocide, was played this week in Washington D.C., after the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted a nonbinding resolution calling the mass killing of Armenians by the Turkish military, at the beginning of the last century a genocide. Turkey already condemned this move, who is risking to endangered the delicate equilibrium between Ankara and Yerevan, after an aparent opening in the second half of the last year.

The resolution was discussed as well in the Senate, in 2007, but given the need of Turkey's support for the war in Iraq by the then W. Bush administration stopped a further materialization of the decision. Both Barrack Obama and Hillary R. Clinton were supportive of the resolution.

The Turkish-Armenian agreement, signed in Switzerland, October 2009, was not fully supported by Armenian community, benefiting of a powerful and influential profile in Washington D.C..

Today, OSCE's Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh isssued a statement calling the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaidjan to settle the conflict, position welcomed by Turkey.

The reconciliation process between the two countries is still extremely long and impredictable. Serious efforts, in the frame of the so-called Track II Diplomacy were made in the last dozen of years for making a dialogue possible. One of the most important issues established last year was the possibility to let the historians to discuss about such an high identity impact issue as the problem of the genocide. In this way, the politicians and diplomats are able to think about the present and the future. A very hard task, for societies where very often politicans are historians and made history focusing on the past.

The decision of the House do not add nothing to this process and complicate a situation that, in fact, was already volatile. Maybe it is a signal sent to Turkey - as long as, for example, this resolution was permanently on the agenda in the last two years but not voted - who is facing various setbacks in terms of coherent engagement regarding European and international politics.

OSCE Chairman welcomes 'historic' accord between Armenia, Turkey

ATHENS, 11 October 2009 - The OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Greek Prime Minister and Foreign Minister George Papandreou, welcomed today the signing of an agreement between Armenia and Turkey to normalize ties. "I welcome the historic agreement to normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia, and commend the effort and political will both leaders have invested to overcome differences and work towards a more secure and stable region, which is in all our interests," Papandreou said.

The accords were signed in Zurich on 10 October following months of Swiss-mediated talks. A roadmap for normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia was agreed in April. Turkey closed its border with Armenia in 1993 because of its war with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Papandreou was sworn in as Greece's Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on 6 October. The Foreign Minister of the country holding the Chairmanship serves as the OSCE's Chairman-in-Office.

-- For PDF attachments or links to sources of further information, please visit: http://www.osce.org/item/40640.html

More about the agreement

Voice of America

Azerbaijan's criticism

When the vote for a song could be a crime

Azerbaijanis in Eurovision probe.

Lessons from the Armenian-Turkish dialogue

Today's editorial from the Lebanese Daily Star is quite interesting, drawing a parallel between the possible settlement of the conflict between Turkey and Armenia and the situation from Middle East. In foreign affairs, comparisons could be quite risky. You have to take into account the historical, international, geographical, cultural, internal contexts, tremendously different from a case to another.

But, a similarity, at least from the technical point of view, it is not completely out of sight. The complicate framework of dialogue between Turkey and Armenia was made possible, among others, by constant and stubborn efforts of Track II diplomacy. If Track I is referring to the usual work of the diplomats from the embassies, Track II have to deal with the informal side of the diplomacy, in which non-officials engage in dialogue for confidence building and conflict resolution. It could involve, for example, meetings between journalists, joint contests of children, concerts etc. The main idea is to make possible knowing the other - a conflictual one - through what it is human, natural and easy to understand. From this slowly and timely built, trust- oriented basis you arrive little by little to the institutional and political levels. This quiet basis in itself could exert a noticeable pressure for change on the institutions and political leaders.

As for the Middle East, such an approach is welcomed. But it have to be filled creatively with the proper content, tailored on the measure and scale of the conflict. And maybe wait for another generation.

See more:

Nagorno-Karabakh, history of the conflict

Middle East Institute, Washington DC, links on Lebanon and current evolutions in the Middle East

Track II diplomacy, lessons from the Middle East