With support from the University of Richmond

History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.

Edward Nalbandian: Turkey Has Gone Back on its Word

[Mr. Nalbandian is Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia.]

Last year on Oct. 10 in Zurich, after intensive negotiations, Armenia and Turkey reached agreement and the foreign ministers of the two countries signed the protocols on the establishment of diplomatic relations, opening of the border and development of bilateral relations.

The Armenian-Turkish relations were in a deadlock when President Serzh Sargsyan initiated the normalization process with Turkey. We in Armenia were guided by a vision of a future in which generations would live in peace and safety. This Armenian initiative met a positive response by the Turkish President and allowed us to make a confident investment in a durable rapprochement.

Our position was reflected in the well-known approach of normalization of relations without any preconditions. It was the bottom-line principle for starting the negotiations with Turkey. With this common understanding we started, conducted this process and came to the agreements. From the beginning of the process up until now this approach has been shared by the whole international community—starting from the Swiss mediators to the secretary-general of the U.N., the OSCE, the EU, the U.S., Russia, France and many other countries.

Unfortunately Turkey has backtracked from the agreements. Not only has it refrained from ratifying the protocols, but Ankara has returned to the language of preconditions that it had used before the beginning of the process.

It seems we speak in different languages. On the one hand, the Turkish leaders pretend that they always respect the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), but on the other hand, they refrain from ratifying and implementing the agreements signed by themselves in Zurich. What does that mean? They claim they have no preconditions, that they simply demand that we fulfill this or that before they can proceed with the ratification. Does this mean they have no preconditions?..
Read entire article at WSJ