On September 6, 2008, under the shadow of Mount Ararat, an Airbus A-319 with the red Turkish flag on its tail landed at Yerevan’s Zvartnots Airport. The aeroplane brought President Gül to Armenia. With a broad smile under his mustache, Gül walked down the steps.
With young Dashnakist activists whistling and calling for “recognition,” Nalbandyan greeted Gül on the tarmac. The two then sat in a bulletproof car, which had been specially sent from Turkey, and drove away. The Armenian authorities had done everything in their power to keep Gül as far as possible from the protest actions of the ARF.
“I am from Kars,” “I am from Ardahan,” “I am from Van,” “I am from Igdir,” the placards read. Thousands of Armenians, mostly members and supporters of the ARF, formed a human chain lining the streets of central Yerevan along the route the president of Turkey was expected to travel on September 6, the first-ever visit of a Turkish president to Armenia. They were protesting Turkey’s denial of the genocide and its anti-Armenian policies.
Anahit Berberyan, whose ancestors had lost their home and property in Van, stood on Baghramyan Avenue and held up a poster that read, “My homeland is near Lake Van”. “Unfortunately I have seen Van only in pictures. I believe that if I go to Van it will intensify the pain of having lost a fatherland,” she said while holding the placard in her hand, waiting for Gül.
Armine Khachaturyan’s roots are from Kars: “My grandmother and grandfather were raised in an American orphanage. They lost their parents during the genocide. Up until the day she died, my grandmother would see the genocide in her dreams and wake up from them. Even in her dreams she was running from the Turks.”
In general, except for the ARF and like-minded media, the visit of the Turkish president did not cause protests in Armenia’s political and social circles. Armen Rustamyan, one of the ARF’s leaders, described the impression of those days in the following way: “There was an incomprehensible excitement on the domestic level, as if our lost brother [Gül] had been found. And sometimes such steps are taken that even we do not comprehend how much we are belittling our dignity.”
On the eve of September 6, Turkey missed the chance to open the border with Armenia, even if just for a few days. Armenia had renovated its section of the Kars-Gyumri railway. Turkey carried out no such renovation of its portion of the track and, thus, no work to even temporarily open the border.
The Turkish president’s car reached the city centre via Admiral Isakov Avenue, named after a leading Armenian military figure in the Soviet army during World War II. It crossed Victory Bridge, built in 1945 to commemorate the end of a war in which 450,000 Armenians fought in the ranks of the Red Army against Nazi Germany. The motorcade continued along Mesrop Mashtots Avenue, named after the fifth-century monk who invented the Armenian alphabet, before arriving at the newly-built Golden Palace Hotel, where the Turkish football team was staying. Looking west from the top floor of the hotel, over the Ararat plain, one can easily make out the contours of Mount Ararat on the other side of the Turkish-Armenian border. Ararat appears everywhere in Yerevan – on mineral water bottles, company logos, hotels and shops, and on the Armenian coat of arms.
A few days before the Armenia-Turkey football match, Mount Ararat – the biblical resting place of Noah’s Ark, a holy site, and a national symbol for the Armenians, though located within present-day Turkey– still featured on the kit of the Armenian football team, until the Armenian Football Federation decided to change its logo. Whereas the old logo consisted of a soccer ball and a representation of Mount Ararat, the new logo portrayed a soccer ball over Armenia’s coat of arms. The absence of Mount Ararat was striking because the sudden change in the logo was announced just days before the match.
Facing a storm of criticism, the head of the federation reacted defensively: “I admit that we made a mistake. However, it does not mean that I should be blamed for every sin. I did not sign either the Treaty of Kars or the Treaty of Alexandrapol.” One month after the qualifying game, Mount Ararat was put back on the logo with a new design.
On September 6, most Armenian dailies carried an advertisement in Armenian and English that read, “Welcome Honourable President Abdullah Gül. Fair play beyond 90 minutes. That’sour wish.” Some of those dailies that ran the ad are usually ready to tear apart anyone who talks about the necessity to normalise Armenian-Turkish relations. Armenian television stations were flooded with sentiments harbouring the promise of improved future Armenian-Turkish relations and broadcast very little that was anti-Turkey.
Many in Armenia publicly welcomed Sargsyan’s move to invite Gül to Yerevan.
“I can only welcome Gül’s invitation, especially because it is a convenient opportunity. There are no political intrigues at play, only a sporting event that may provide the conduit to begin melting the ice,” Levon Ter-Petrosyan said. “It is strange that no high-ranking Turkish official has ever come to Armenia. I went to Turkey three times as Armenia’s president and [former president] Robert Kocharyan also went. Armenian presidents have been in Turkey four times, and not one high-ranking Turkish official has ever been to Armenia.”
Many in Armenia openly criticised Sargsyan for inviting Gül to Yerevan. Reaction in Turkey to Gül’s Yerevan trip was also mixed.
Deniz Baykal, the leader of the opposition Republican People’s Party, was caustic in his criticism. “Perhaps Gül should go and pray at the Armenian Genocide memorial and lay a wreath. Did Armenia recognise Turkey’s borders, did it abandon genocide claims, and is it pulling out of the Karabakh lands it occupies? If these things did not happen, why is he going?” Baykal said.
Journalist and commentator Cengiz Çandar, a member of the “I Apologise” campaign, had travelled to Yerevan with a few other Turkish pundits on the eve of Gül’svisit. On his return to Turkey, he wrote a piece in the press, saying that he would have liked to have seen Gül, unscripted and without warning, walk up the steps leading to the Genocide Memorial, lay a wreath, and pray for the Armenian and other victims of the First World War.
Gül’s Yerevan visit was criticised by Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the second-largest opposition party, the nationalist MHP. He accused Gül of caving in to foreign pressure, calling the visit a “historical mistake” that would “damage Turkey’s honour.”
In response, Babacan reminded Bahçeli of the earlier contacts between party founder Alparslan Türkeş and Armenian officials, including the first president, Ter-Petrosyan.
“Gül was willing to go. Not all diplomats were happy about it. He got lots of letters telling him not to go. After such a traumatic relationship, could we start at a football match in front of 50,000 people? There was the security risk, the threat of provocations, opposition on both sides. One small incident could spoil everything,” a Turkish official said.
The Armenian side had done everything possible to avert any inappropriate incident during Gül’s visit. A fifty-man Turkish security task force arrived to protect Gül. Eight Turkish snipers were despatched as well. They were to team up with Armenian snipers to safeguard Gül’s security in Yerevan and at the Hrazdan stadium. During the football match, the two presidents sat behind bullet-proof glass. Gül’s armoured limousine and other security items were sent to Yerevan as precautionary measures.
The football match was the last part of Gül’s six-hour visit. Prior to the game, the Turkish president had been taken from the airport to the Golden Palace Hotel, where he met and encouraged members of his country’s national football team. After a one-hour rest, Gül was escorted to 26 Baghramyan Avenue, the Presidential Palace. The Armenian tricolour and the Turkish crescent and star had been placed together, next to the large reception doors.
The historic moment had arrived. Standing in front of the Presidential Palace, Sargsyan and Gül shook hands and smiled broadly. Under the September sun, their faces were beaming with joy.
President Gül visited Armenia for just six hours. The presidential jet that brought him kept its engines running. In private meetings, the two presidents basked in an aura of self-satisfaction. They also welcomed the football fans gathered at Hrazdan Stadium with waves and very content smiles.
The Office of the Armenian President circulated a statement regarding the Sargsyan-Gül meeting, saying that broad possibilities had been opened towards the establishment of Armenian-Turkish relations. Gül announced that, by inviting him to Armenia, President Sargsyan had taken the first step, and that, by accepting it, a joint initiative had been launched. Gül described it as an example for the entire region. Sargsyan said that, if dialogue was to commence, it would be possible to review all issues, even the most intractable ones. “We must strive to resolve all outstanding issues as soon as possible and not burden future generations with them,” Sargsyan stressed.
After the meeting, diplomats of both countries continued their talks during a working dinner.
“It was a very good first meeting. They had their vodkas, the president had his orange juice. They didn’t get into details, but in general their approach coincided. … There was understanding on many points,” a Turkish official said.
After the meeting, Sargsyan and Gül made their way to Hrazdan Stadium.
The game began with the playing of the national anthems. On a hill across from the stadium, protestors had lit candles and torches in front of the Armenian Genocide memorial.
When Turkey’s national anthem began playing, some spectators sat down, others booed, and some whistled disrespectfully, but the vast majority of fans remained standing. Before the start of the game, the lyrics to Armenia’s national anthem had been passed around, but no one needed it, as everyone began belting out the words as soon as the Mer Hayrenik (“Our Fatherland”) began playing. Turkish fans, about a hundred of them, under the heavy protection of police, were seated in a section allocated especially for them. They had brought Turkish flags with them and several large banners, one of which read, “Brotherhood knows no borders”.
Although organisers had announced several times that banners bearing political messages would not be allowed into the stadium, members of the United Liberal National Party (closely associated with President Sargsyan) had brought in a large banner reading, “Forward Armenia,” (his election campaign slogan) while members of the ARF Youth Organisation had brought in several banners, three of which bore the words, “Recognition, Restitution, and Reparation”. The young activists were able to open the banners just as the national anthems began playing. The banners were then confiscated by the police.
The match was unremarkable, with the Turkish guests scoring two goals in the second half to secure a 2:0 victory. By midnight, Gül had gone back home. The visit had passed without incident.
Based on their countenance and pronouncements, one can safely say that President Sargsyan, the entire state apparatus, the ruling parliamentary coalition, pro-government analysts and politicians, the “palace intelligentsia”, and most of the TV stations, appeared nearly overjoyed at the Turkish president’s visit.
A few days later, Sargsyan said that, “All reports show that the majority of people in both societies viewed the initiative and the visit of the honourable Mr. Gül to Armenia positively.” He added: “During the negotiations, President Gül mentioned more than once that there is political will present today in Turkey to talk about the problems existing between us. I think it is noteworthy that he didn’t base these words on any provision. That is very important for us. I am also glad that President Gül shared his impression of our meeting with the president of Azerbaijan, and I believe that it is vital that the spirit, the atmosphere, and the letter of these negotiations are further extended. During the meeting, President Gül said that he was ready, if necessary, to assist in improving Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, and I accepted that offer with pleasure, since only a madman can refuse assistance. Assistance should be distinguished from mediation. I am confident that any move that can assist the co-chairs of the Minsk Group in solving the issue should be viewed only as positive.”
Later on he insisted: “I believe Turkey can assist the settlement process of the Karabakh issue and even now I think it can. President Gül’s visit to Yerevan, the ongoing Armenian-Turkish negotiations, are very good examples of how to solve a very difficult issue. I am sure that, if Turkey opens the borders and establishes diplomatic relations with Armenia, it will greatly enhance the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.”
Gül assessed his visit to Yerevan as “fruitful and promising”, expressing hope that it might be a turning point for Armenian-Turkish relations. In the aeroplane during his flight back from Yerevan, he told journalists: “The most important issue in the Caucasus is the Karabakh issue. My visit to Yerevan can contribute to the settlement of that issue.” He was also quoted as saying, “I believe that my visit broke the psychological barrier in the Caucasus. If this atmosphere continues, everything will move forward and will stabilise. I concluded my meeting with positive feelings and thoughts.” Turkish journalists also insist that there was no mention made about the Armenian Genocide during the meetings. Instead, the Turkish foreign minister soon went on record as saying, “If we succeed in quickly registering progress, then there won’t be a need for the parliaments of third countries to comment on this issue. We’ll be able to say to them, go concentrate on your own affairs, Armenia and Turkey are talking to each other.”
Much later, when asked by an American reporter to comment about the possibility of Turkish mediation in the Karabakh conflict settlement, Gül replied, “We sincerely desire to see a resolution of the existing problems between Armenia and Azerbaijan and are ready to assist in the process. When I was in Yerevan, President Sargsyan raised the matter himself.”
Even though many, especially the international community, described Gül’s visit to Yerevan as historic, Ankara’s policy did not change. Furthermore, Turkey’s prime minister and other officials began to employ vocabulary towards Armenia and the Armenian people that they had not used before. The Turkish-Armenian border remained closed, diplomatic relations were not established, and Ankara continued to link any improvement of relations with the Karabakh issue.
Sargsyan, based on his speeches and interviews, seemed to believe that Turkey had changed vis-à-vis its rejectionist stance. On September 24, 2008, during an address to the Armenian community in the US, Sargsyan cited the following words of Turkey’s foreign minister: “Turkey is ready to look at its past and is ready to face up to the conclusions of the planned commission.” In Armenia’s president’s opinion, “These are the words of a courageous administration’s representative. Now, we must think of ways to assist Turkish society to turn the pages of its own history more impartially.”
Armen Ayvazyan is one of the few historians in Armenia who publicly and harshly chided Sargsyan, stressing that, “Incorrect evaluations are being given to Turkey’s current Armenophobic authorities and political leaders”. He continued: “Armenia’s top leaderships calls them ‘courageous partners,’ no more or no less, and doesn’t wish to notice that they are today’s followers of the traditional Turkish genocidal policy. Let us recount the sharp reactions of Israel and German leaders, their honourable stance, when the Iranian president attempted to deny the Holocaust. Our president, however, regards those individuals who deny the genocide, Erdoğan and Gül, as courageous partners.”
In November 2008, countries that had participated in the conflict commemorated the 90th anniversary of the end of World War I and memorialised those who died. “It was only Armenia, which had suffered and given more victims in that war than all the rest, which failed to utter one word to mark that anniversary on an official level, so as not to blow up the hollow illusions of the Armenian political elite regarding Armenian-Turkish reconciliation,”Ayvazyan said.
None of Armenia’s three presidents has ever made territorial demands of Turkey, either publicly or during talks with Ankara. No government of Armenia has ever pronounced the Treaty of Kars, which defined the borders between the Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and Soviet Armenia, to be null and void. While Ter-Petrosyan and Kocharyan only hinted at the fact that Armenia could never make territorial demands of Turkey, Sargsyan openly stated this to be so.
On the eve of Gül’s Yerevan visit, Sargsyan went further in an interview with the Turkish newspaper Radikal: “I have heard concerns regarding Western-Eastern Armenia even from some Turkish officials, which is quite odd for me. These are geographical terms coming from the 19th century. To reject these geographical names would mean something similar to the rejection and elimination of the names such as Sparta, the Russian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, or many other geographical names for that matter. If it were our official policy, our name would be not the Republic of Armenia, but rather the Republic of Eastern Armenia.”
Many Armenian historians expressed their displeasure, but only a few had the courage to raise criticisms publicly. During a TV broadcast, Ayvazyan noted: “In his April 24 address, the Armenian president said that the genocide had taken place in Ottoman Turkey. In Armenia’s Declaration on Independence, the wording is different. There it says the genocide ‘which took place in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia’. So why does the president avoid using the term ‘Western Armenia’? When responding to a Turkish reporter, the president says that Western Armenia is a geographical term. The goal of the Turkish intelligence apparatus from day one has been to transform the name Armenia into a geographical term.”
In April 1991, when Armenia was still a part of the Soviet Union, the then-chairman of the parliament, Ter-Petrosyan, when responding to a question posed by a Cumhuriyet reporter about territorial demands, said: “Today, we give primary importance to economic issues. After establishing economic relations and mutual confidence, it is possible that we could also bring political issues to the agenda. The land issue is a delicate matter. In the legislation passed by the Armenian parliament describing the 1915 events as genocide, there is no mention of territorial demands. At the time, we didn’t support turning political issues into hotly-contested ones.” When asked if he was saying that the time might come when such issues could be raised, Ter-Petrosyan replied, “Giving a quick answer to this is difficult. We want relations to develop on a good basis. For this reason, it is useless to bring such issues to the agenda right now.”
As ARF member Giro Manoyan put it: “Armenia, today, is not capable of making territorial demands of Turkey. It’s not able not because there are no documents, but simply because it doesn’t yet have the power. The political moment isn’t favourable. But Armenia should not take steps that would hinder making such demands in the future.”
The times and the last twenty years of Armenia-Turkish contacts, primarily “football diplomacy”, proved that not making territorial demands of Turkey was not enough for Ankara to go ahead and establish relations with Yerevan. In reality, Turkey demands that Yerevan sign a document to the effect that it will never make territorial demands in the future. In other words, Turkey is demanding a rejection of something that Armenia is not demanding today.
