Ce diaporama a bien été signalé.
Nous utilisons votre profil LinkedIn et vos données d’activité pour vous proposer des publicités personnalisées et pertinentes. Vous pouvez changer vos préférences de publicités à tout moment.

Master thesis2012_Gunay_Ismayilova

564 vues

Publié le

Publié dans : Formation
  • Identifiez-vous pour voir les commentaires

  • Soyez le premier à aimer ceci

Master thesis2012_Gunay_Ismayilova

  1. 1. Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement: Leading Narratives ofArmenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and InternationalCommunity. Investigation of Dialogue among Parties.Master ThesisStudent: Gunay IsmayilovaAcademic Advisor: Dr. Elnur SoltanovBaku, AzerbaijanSpring Term2012
  2. 2. 5 Days Flag Crisis: 5 days flag crisis
  3. 3. The Research Questions:I. What are the leading narratives of key parties about Turkish-Armenian Normalization?II. How do narratives of key parties change within a set timeframe?III. Is there any visible pattern and dialogue across the parties in the set time frame?
  4. 4. Theoretical Framework:     ?  Conflict ? Resolution Conflict Escalation Positions, Multi-issue and De-escalation Interests, Bargaining s.c. Model Turkey close Needs 1 attempts st Model Process in Armenia Nagorno- of Turkey “Football Signing“Armenian borders with Protocols- deadlock within USSR Karabakh and Armenia Diplomacy”Genocide” - Armenia- 2009 2010 - - 1920-1990 conflict- 1991 to reconcile - 2008 1915 1993 current 2001 Periods of hostility Detente
  5. 5. What is “Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement”? “The attempts of governments of the Republic of Turkey and theRepublic of Armenia to reconcile and build diplomatic relations, after thelong history of hostilities, started from ethnic tensions in 1915-1923 in theOttoman Empire and followed by closing borders and termination of alldiplomatic relations in 1993, as a result of Nagorno-Karabakh War. “
  6. 6. Why This is Important to Analyze? Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: 20% of occupied territories of Azerbaijan Republic Military situation and closed borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan 600,000 IDPs and 250,000 refugees left without permanentaccommodation
  7. 7. Why This is Important to Analyze? Impact on Geopolitics of the Region: Azerbaijan – Turkey alliance Russia – Armenia allianceIran – Armenia alliance Georgia’s position, as country’s, whose transit role can beshirked or partially lost
  8. 8. Why This is Important to Analyze? The Fate of Energy and Transportation Paths  Baku – Tbilisi – Ceyhan  Baku – Tbilisi – Kars  South Caucasus Gas Pipeline  Future energy and transportation projects
  9. 9. What Has been Said by Now?“Maybe soccer diplomacy could break the ice between Armenia and Turkey in the same way ping- pong diplomacy launched relations between the United States and Communist China” US-based Radio Liberty " Baku made it amply clear before the protocols were signed that the opening of this border would represent a strategic blow to its efforts to put pressure on Armenia over Karabakh. Thus, Turkey’s diplomatic game plan was spoiled even before the start of the normalization process in Zurich. Semih Idiz, “ Insight Turkey” Journal “My prediction is that if the Turkish-Armenian border is opened, the Azerbaijani people will find themselves in a hopeless, desperate situation, and will lose faith in Turkey.” Elkhan Mehtiyev, Peace and Conflict Resolution Center, Baku, AzerbaijanBy spring 2010, mistrust of Turkey grew significantly even among those political circles in Armenia that were originally very pro-rapprochement and argued in favor of it in discussions with nationalists and Diaspora actors. Armenian society’s perspective on relations with Turkey is again moving closer to that of the Diaspora. Sergey Minasyan, Political Studies Department, Caucasus Institute, Yerevan
  10. 10. What Does This Research Paper Addinto Discussion? • Finds dominating narrative for each key-1 player • Analyzes how key narratives change over time2 and for what reason (defining turning points) • Looks for a dialogue among parties3
  11. 11. Methodology
  12. 12. Main ParametersAnalyzed Parties Armenia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, International community (the US, Europe)Time frame August 2008 – August 2010 (25 months)Type of Analysis Content AnalysisUnit of Analysis articles from online newspapers
  13. 13. Methodology:States Chosen Sources # of articlesArmenia www.newsarmenia.ru 197Azerbaijan www.trend.az 117Turkey www.hurriyetdailynews.com 101International www.newyorktimes.com 14 Scale:Shall Rapprochement happen? Scale yes 1 conditional yes 2 conditional no 3 no 4
  14. 14. Results
  15. 15. 1. Finding Dominating Narrative for Each Key-Player
  16. 16. Overall Attitudes of Each Party:90% Shall Turkey and Armenia Reconcile?80%70%60%50% 83%40% 77% 75%30% 60%20% 41%10% 23% 25% 17%0% YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO ARM AZE TR INT
  17. 17. Positions, Interests, and Needs: Armenia Armenia will reconcile with Turkey w/0 any preconditions. Turkey should first ratify Protocols •Economics Azerbaijan Turkey NONE •Politics •Ideology • Security • Territorial Azerbaijan & Turkey Integrity Turkey is for “Zero- are allies. Turkey • Survival Problems” Thus, Turkey Should consider NK wants to reconcile & conflict before •Politics open borders, but ratifying protocols •Energy Projects since Azerbaijan is and opening borders •Trade crucial for Turkey, Armenia should •Culture resolve NK conflict •Ideology first.
  18. 18. 2.Analysis of How Key NarrativesChange Over Time and for WhatReason
  19. 19. Intensity indicators:45 Domestic Protests INTENCITY40 Signing Protocols353025 Int. support articles ARM20 Signing Protocols AZESep 6thMatch in Yerevan Agreeing on Roadmap15 TR INT10 50
  20. 20. Comparison of Opinions: 40 35 Domestic Protests 30 OPINIONS AGAINST 25 Armenian Parliament Protests from Diaspora takes the issue from ARM 20 15 and Dashnaks party agenda AZE 10 TR 5 INT 030 OPINIONS FOR Signing Protocols2520 Signing Protocols ARM15 Roadmap Int. support AZE TR10 INT 50
  21. 21. Multi Issue Bargaining Model before and afterAzerbaijan’s Intervention:Turkey Armenia Turkey Armenia EA5 B5 A6 a6 b6 B6A4 a4 b4 B4 A5 a5 b5 B5A3 a3 S b3 B3 A4 a4 E b4 B4A2 a2 b2 B2 A3 a3 b3 B3A1 a1 b1 B1 A2 a2 b2 B20a 0b A1 a1 S b1 B1 0a 0b 1. A1 – B1 = Security concerns 5. A4 – B4 = Open Borders 2. A2 – B2 = Cultural Exchange 6. A5- B5 = Armenian Genocide 3. A3-B3 = Possibility for 7. A6 – B6 = Resolution of NK conflict Armenians to visit Van City in 8. S = Bargaining Space Eastern Turkey
  22. 22. Analysis of a Dialogue Among Parties
  23. 23. Correlation analysis for finding dialogueamong parties: ARM AZE TR ARM - no no AZE no - no TR no no - 4.5 Average Indicator 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 ARM 1.5 AZE 1 TR 0.5 0
  24. 24. Further Predictions
  25. 25. Positions of Key Players in Future: 43.5 3 ARM2.5 AZE 2 TR1.5 INT 10.5 0 "The question of Turkeys opening borders with Armenia is closed and there will be no more return to this topic again“ Ilham Aliyev, the President of Azerbaijan Republic
  26. 26. Limitations of current research
  27. 27. Bibliography• News Armenia (www.newsarmenia.ru)• Trend Information Agency (www. trend.az)• Hurriyet Daily News (www.hurriyetdailynews.com)• The New York Times (www.ny.com)• An Azerbaijani Perspective. (2010).Insight, 12(2), 41-47.• Aras, B., & Özbay, F. (n.d.). Turkish-Armenian Relations  Will Football Diplomacy Work  Seta, (10). : ?• Baran, Z. (2002). The Caucasus  Ten Years after Independence. International Studies, 221-234. :• Cornell, S. E. (2006). Turkey and the conflict in Nagorno Karabakh  a delicate balance, (March 2012), 37-41. :• Gunter, M., & Rochtus, D. (2010). Special Report: The Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement. Middle East Critique, 19(2), 157-172. doi:10.1080/19436149.2010.484532• Investments, D., & Services, C. (2005). Prospects for Cooperation Foreign Economic Relations Board of Turkey, (February).• Ismailzade, F. (2005.). Turkey-azerbaijan: the honeymoon is over, 1-11.• Mikhelidze, N. (2010). The Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement at the Deadlock. Europe, (March).• Seyma Akkoyunlu. (2008).Politics.• Pinar Ipek (2009). Azerbaijan ’ s Foreign policy and Challenges for Energy Security. Middle East Journal, 63(2).• Sovacool, Benjamin K, Cursed by Crude: the Corporatist Resource Curse and the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan Pipeline, Environment, November 2010• S. Minasyan, S. Prospect of Normalization between Armenia and Turkey: View from Erevan, Insight, 2010• Mikhelidze, Nona, The Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement at the Deadlock, Europe, 2010• Mehmet F. Military Relations of Turkey and Azerbaijan, July 2011• Chappell, Gareth, Military Relations of Turkey and Azerbaijan, Security, 2010• Karaalp, H Simay, Competitiveness of Turkey in Eurasia : A Comparison With CIS Countries, Business, 2011• Zalewski, Piotr, The bumpy road to Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, Business, 2009• Caucasus Research Resource Center, http://www.crrc.az/• Global Security online magazine, http://www.globalsecurity.org/• New York Times• Radio Liberty• MFA of Azerbaijan Republic, http://www.mfa.gov.az/