On April 24, Armenia will hold events to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire. Similar events will also be held, as experience suggests, in all the countries and cities where there are at least a small Armenian community. Today the Genocide is recognized by 20 countries of the world, by 43 US states, and a number of European institutions. Some countries adopted a Law on prosecuting for denying the Genocide.

The Genocide recognition process is expanding, despite the opposition of Turkey, which sometimes denies this great tragedy that claimed, to various estimates, lives of 1 to 2 million people, and sometimes promotes additional examination of the circumstances of the massacre of Armenians and other ethnic minorities in the Ottoman Empire. As the anniversary date approaches, Ankara toughens its rhetoric, and takes various steps to smooth the international attention. In particular, this year Turkish authorities are planning to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli exactly on April 24. In his interview for the French TV channel France24, Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, ended up accusing Yerevan of having deliberately planned to hold the commemoration on April 24 in order to distract attention of the international community from the historic battle of Çanakkale (Gallipoli).

“This year Turkey celebrates the 100th anniversary of the Battle of Çanakkale and is not going to ask Armenia for permission. This is a historic date, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the events in Armenia. On the contrary, they scheduled the commemoration date in such a way that it coincides with our date,”- Erdogan said.

The truth, however, is on the surface. Battles of Gallipoli were mostly of positional character and lasted for almost a year. Turkey has never before celebrated the anniversary of the battle on April 24. While in Armenia this day has been a day of mourning from time immemorial.

Another statement made by Recep Tayyip Erdogan to the same TV channel is also surprising: “When the problems between Turkey and Armenia are in issue, it has always been Turkey that moved in positive direction and offered a hand of peace. But Armenia has never accepted the hand of peace.”

Let us recall that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Turkey was among the first states to recognize the independence of Armenia. However, during the Nagorno-Karabakh War it broke diplomatic relations with Armenia to demonstrate solidarity with Azerbaijan and closed the Turkish-Armenian border in support of the blockade of Armenia, declared by Azerbaijan. Political relations between Yerevan and Ankara did not practically exist until September 2008, when the Armenian side initiated the so-called “football diplomacy”. Suddenly, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan invited his Turkish colleague Abdullah Gul to Yerevan to visit the match between the national teams of the two countries, which were sorted by lots into the same group of the qualification round for the 2010 World Cup. Gul arrived. Later Sargsyan made a return “football visit” to Bursa.

The “Football Diplomacy” was culminated by signing in Zurich the Protocols on Normalization of Relations by Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Turkey. The document provided for opening diplomatic missions, deblocking the border and transportation. As for painful issues in the history of relations, the parties agreed to form, if required, joint commissions to examine the circumstances. The signed protocols were delivered for ratification in the parliaments of the two countries, but …

Ankara felt strong pressure from its allied Baku which reproached Turkey for betraying their brotherhood. Turkish authorities were also harshly criticized by a major part of their own society that believed that the improvement of relations with Armenia was unacceptable at the expense of changing to the worse the relations with Azerbaijan. Soon, using a formal pretext, the Turkish party accused Armenians of derailing the Zurich agreements and delaying the ratification of the protocols. The fact is that according to the Armenian Constitution any international treaty should be first considered by the Constitutional Court of the Republic, and only after that by the parliament. The explanations of Yerevan did not have any effect on Ankara, and the Armenian parliament members were forced to return like for like – they froze the process of ratification of the Zurich protocols. The international community made several attempts to put the process in motion, but they failed. The culmination (probably a temporary one) already took place this year, and it was not what many hoped for.

Yerevan invited many foreign leaders to the events marking the centennial of the Genocide. Recep Tayyip Erdogan was among those invited. Ankara responded by inviting Serzh Sagrsyan to celebration of the 100th anniversary of the battle of Gallipoli. The Armenian side, having fairly taken it for cynicism of the action, bluntly called for a sober assessment of the situation and realistic approach to the historical events of the past. After that, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, using his constitutional right, demanded the Parliament to drop the Zurich protocols off the agenda once and for all. That was promptly done, and, according to comments from Ankara, Turkey hardly expected it. The case, however, was not over: the National Assembly of Armenia (the parliament) delivered one more blow, recognizing that Greeks and Assyrians were also subject to Genocide in the Ottoman Empire during the same time as Armenians. In response, Ankara accused Yerevan of non-neighborly actions that could not stimulate detente in the region. After that, Erdogan made the above-mentioned accusations. However, Armenia did not react to them in any way. The Republic is preparing for the centennial of the tragic events, receiving numerous foreign high-ranking officials, including President Vladimir Putin, the leaders of France, Greece, Cyprus, parliamentary and government delegations from other countries, who recognize or have started the process of recognition of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire, which was, according to a number of historians, the first time in the history of mankind that a state massacred its own citizens because of their ethnicity.

Andrey Belyaev, an expert on the South Caucasus region and a columnist for the internet journal “New Eastern Outlook”. 

The holiday is over, but in the morning the city’s inhabitants did not find the monument in its place. It was far outside the city. As the locals found out, the monument was demolished and removed by security officers and soldiers of the Iranian army. One of the local Georgians expressed general resentment on the pages of Facebook: “We are trying to defend our identity, but here this… Over the four centuries of our stay in Fereydan nothing has happened like what happened in these days. The whole area is awash with intelligence agencies.” The event could be attributed to purely “internal rules” of the game in Iran, if not for one “but”, for which the Fereydan Georgians can be “grateful” to the government of their historical homeland.

Recently, the Iranian Embassy in Tbilisi issued a statement in which it accused the Minister of Justice of Georgia Thea Tsulukiani of xenophobia, and expressed regret that the statements that were made by the Minister could overshadow the friendly neighborly relations between Iran and Georgia.

The issue is that the Georgian authorities, trying to get a visa-free regime with the European Union at the May summit of “Eastern Partnership” in Riga, whether at the instigation of the EU, or on its own initiative, rushed to tighten its visa regime with many countries of the world. You can have different attitudes toward the former government of Georgia – Mikheil Saakashvili’s government, but the fact is that it knew the major role tourism can play in the normal existence of the country. And therefore it abolished the visa regime with almost all countries of the world, at the same time thereby facilitating conditions for potential investors to enter and stay in Georgia. Actions immediately took effect. The number of tourists dramatically increased. Businessmen, having freedom of entry and residence, never ceased to extol the progressiveness of the Georgian government. Such advertising could not be faked – entrepreneurs are lured to Georgia by the simplicity of life and business.

Once in power, the “Georgian Dream” soon revised the procedures for entry and rules of residence in Georgia, restoring visa requirements for citizens of some states and term limits for other citizens. These actions had an immediate effect – the number of tourists has decreased slightly, but the number of entrepreneurs who conduct business in Georgia decreased noticeably. Especially since some of them are faced with serious problems entering Georgia.

Minister of Justice Thea Tsulukiani, whose department developed and implemented a new regulation, in a speech on local television stations seeking to prove the correctness of the government’s actions, issued an incorrect statement, the meaning of which boiled down to the following: think of it, 42,000 less Iranians, Egyptians, Chinese, and Iraqis have arrived – but control has increased, only well-wishers can come to the country, and it is hoped that this will be evaluated on the merits at a summit in Riga, where Georgia may obtain a visa-free regime with the EU.

The Iranian Embassy was piqued by the dismissive tone of Tsulukiani and the fact that the Iranians were recorded as potential detractors. In a special statement, the diplomatic mission of the country, said: “We want to say a few words in connection with the unqualified and ill-considered statement of Mrs. Tsulukiani… Throughout history, the Iranians, as intelligent and highly cultured people, wherever they lived, facilitated the success and well-being of the country of residence.

So, we can consider the established restrictions for Iranian investors and tourists as a loss by Georgia of knowledge, capital, and valuable cooperation with Iranian friends. However, this will not affect the existing relations of the peoples of the world, despite the racist and xenophobic views of some officials.”

The Ministry of Justice of Georgia responded to the “insult” the Iranian Embassy statement with a reply, in which it tried to smooth out the ambiguous statement of the head official. However in the public and political circles of Georgia at the time controversy was sparked over whether it was necessary to abandon the general liberal visa regime embedded by the former authorities and the dive between the Justice Department and the Embassy of Iran had receded far into the background.

By the way, it is curious that despite having recognized the new regulations in general as not in the interests of Georgia, the government has not yet started their abolition. Only repentance was heard for the haste and rashness of its actions. And this begs the question – what’s in the way of stopping the self-flagellation, just fixing the mistake, and getting everything back to normal?

Of course, the events in Fereydan may not be directly related to the inaccurate statement of the Minister of Justice of Georgia, but the “themes are too intertwined”. So, in Fereydan the Iranian side has decided to show the Georgian side: the manifestation of xenophobia. And in general, what happened to some extent reflects the unattractive feature of the Georgian government – solving their problems, not thinking about the fact that at the same time neighboring countries taking a different line on a certain issue may be affected.

They wanted to please the EU, and “hook” to Iran, but there was still no guarantee that the EU will somehow positively appreciate the manifestation of “zeal”.

Andrey Belyaev, an expert on the South Caucasus region and a columnist for the internet journal “New Eastern Outlook”. 

The “Anschluss” of farmland has suddenly occurred. Just the other day at the border, at the river separating Georgia from Turkey, Turkish border guards crossed with dogs and blindsided those working in the fields, demanding that they immediately vacate the area and henceforth never again appear on Turkish soil… “What can we do? We had to comply,” said the residents of Kirnati to well-known Georgian journalist and a Tbilisi mayoral candidate, Irma Inashvili.

To interrupt my election campaign in the capital and set out to the other side of Georgia has, to a large extent, been forced by the position of the authorities, who, in response to the pleas for help coming from Kirnati, pretended nothing had even occurred, and in fact one of the officials in the region even stated that the truth was on the Turkish side. After Tbilisi media interpreted the situation in Turkey’s favor. And while Inashvili with a small delegation arrived in Kirnati, authorities there slightly altered their position, acknowledging that in Adjara a border incident had indeed occurred.

“Georgia doesn’t possess so much land that it can afford to lose any or give it away. If the pain felt by the residents of Kirnati doesn’t become the pain felt by the entire nation, then the country will just simply implode,” said Inashvili. Upon the arrival of a group of people from Tbilisi, Kirnati responded with an impromptu village gathering. People did not hide their indignation at the State for not taking measures to ensure their protection; and even more so, practically blamed it for the provocation, and justifying the actions of the Turkish border guards: “And the very same thing was reported on TV channels, without even bothering to think about an alternative interpretation of the events, if they could not even get to us.”

The Tbilisi delegation explained the reason for the strange attitude of authorities to the situation as the following: Mikhail Saakashvili shortly before his resignation conceded several hundred (or even thousands) hectares of land bordering Turkey. Georgia’s new authorities, knowing full well that they were in no condition to play the situation and confront Ankara, tried working the problem at first by “chewing” on it. And when that didn’t work, they declared that the local residents themselves had encroached on Turkish territory, forcing a reaction from the Turkish border guards. According to Irma Inashvili, she met with the chairman of the Department of Border Protection, Zurab Gamezardashvili. He confirmed to her the information about the conflict, but did not mention about Turkish border guards crossing the border. Obviously, an analysis of the events occurring at the border is complex. But now experts are rather pessimistic: if Saakashvili really transferred land to Turkey for a nominal amount, and in this respect there is a document (as without it, turkey would not allow itself to do what more than a 100 residents of Kirnati accuse it of doing), it is unlikely the land will be returned.

Representatives of the radical opposition of Georgia call the happenings in Kirnati as the first sign of “”brotherly” relations with Turkey. They argue that not only the village or farmland was transferred to a neighboring country, but indeed all of Adjara. “Just go and see who owns and operates businesses in Batumi, the dubious entertainment establishments in Gonio, Kobuleti and all along the Adjarian coast. Note how Turkish citizens there behave as masters,” said the “radicals”, accusing Saakashvili and his regime of creating conditions favoring Turkey and in addition accusing the current government of inaction.

Indeed, the collective appeals of the residents of Adjara to the press, outlining the various complaints against foreigners has become rather common. It is of course very frustrating when guests for one reason or another act beyond the rules of proper etiquette. On the other hand a painful reaction to the residents of Adjara as “off the scale”, according to their opinion, the Turkish presence in the autonomous republic; it can be considered a kind of exaggerated perception of reality, a probable consequence of their own business or other failures in their native land. However, the Georgian side indicates a more serious problem than domestic “inconsistencies” with representatives of Turkey in Adjara.

Certain Turkish circles consider autonomous republic as being temporarily lost, remembering the period when Adjara was part of the Ottoman Empire. It is not uncommon to find modern maps printed in Turkey where Adjara appears as a Turkish province. It is troubling that the airport in Batumi was recently taken over by the Turkish company and placed under the management to function within the rules for domestic traffic. Finally, the Georgian side points to progress on intergovernmental agreements on historical heritage. According to documents agreed upon, Turkey must restore within its territory early medieval monastic complexes, Ishkhani and Oshki, while Georgia is to construct several mosques in Adjara and Javakheti instead of them being demolished. As reported by expedition members charged with monitoring the progress in Turkey, restoration is not always carried out efficiently and often times they neglect or fail to take care of architectural monuments. And while Turkish authorities react formally to complaints coming from the Georgian side, if not dismissively, Turkey meticulously monitors the work occurring on the Georgian side, insisting the Georgians follow the requirements strictly.

A high ranking Georgian source, commenting on the situation in Adjara, said that nothing particularly alarming is occurring with regards to its in autonomy. “Post-Soviet history of Adjara can be divided into two stages, before the Rose Revolution of 2003 and after. Before the revolution, an autonomous republic rule of the Supreme Council of Aslan Abashidze was formally subordinate to Tbilisi. Saakashvili de facto returned Adjara to Georgia, however, the autonomous rights of the republic were, in a certain sense, affected. This same period saw a strong influx of Turkish investments, direct entry of Turkish business into the region, and as a consequence, increased Turkish influence. And it should have been for the Georgian authorities, if not troublesome, then at least something to keep them vigilant, remembering that the autonomous status of Adjara agreed upon by the terms of an international treaty, signed in Kars in 1921, a guarantor of the this autonomy being Russia and Turkey,” said the author of the source.

Andrey Belyaev, an expert on the South Caucasus region and a columnist for the internet journal “New Eastern Outlook”. 

South Ossetia celebrates the fifth anniversary of the military conflict with Georgia as a partially recognized state.The states that drowns in miles and miles of barbed wire, presented with a handful of economic challenges that, it seems at times, cannot be addressed without the external help, the troubled state.

 But there’s people who look at this situation from a different perspective – says the Russian Ambassador in South Ossetia Dmitry Medoev. He’s pretty confident that there’s still room for hope and optimism in this state today due to its geographical position and the deposits of natural resources. All these allows the young Republic to improve its economic situation within a relatively short time span. “If they play it right” – D.Medoev insists – “there will be a drastic change”.

A 20 years long political and economical siege of this country has put it in dire straits. And the Georgian military aggression has struck the final blow on the well-being of South Ossetia. But this was a prosperous region back in the USSR days D.Medoev says, and there’ s no preventing it from development today.

“What is of utmost importance is to create a legislative field in South Ossetia, that will be adequate to the present day realities. When it’s done, we can negotiate the possible invesments” – hints D.Medoev.

It’s clear that when we’re talking about investments, we speak about the Russian interest in the economical development of this country. There’s little chance that other countries are going to invest their funds in the partially recognized state. There’s a chance that Venezuela that has recognized South Ossetia is going to help it, but it looks more like a wishful thinking that anything else.

After the so-called Five-Day-War in South Ossetia, the Russian Federation took the responsibilities of providing peace and stability in this country. But some aspects of bilateral relations of the two countries are getting on the nerves of the South Ossetian politics. According to the recent statement that the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvev has made during his interview to Russia Today TV channel shows that Russia is not going to prevent South Ossetia and Abkahzia from reuniting with Georgia if the people of the former two states see it fit.

This statement was considered to be a good omen in Tbilisi. Today the former pro-national regime in Georgia, out of the blue, starts to call the former “separatists and unworthy traitors” no less than “the dear Abkazian and South Ossetian neigbours”. It doesn’t mean that Georgians have turned back on the idea of bringing the two former regions back. The difference is in the methods they are ready to employ to achieve this goal. According to the Georgian authorities they want to show that it’s more convenient to leave within Georgia borders than across them.

This position is not new, the Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili was a keen defender of the creation of the attractive image of Georgia, telling time and time again that he wanted Georgia to be a home for anybody, regardless of his nationality or believes. But when the things got complicated Saakashvili decided that such a hospitable country as Georgia can easily point barrels at its former citizens.

“Discussing a so-called friendly approach to the conflict may and will be regarded as a childish position. South Ossetia is a country, independent country and it’s a fact. The Georgian authorities don’t want to look at the situation this way. But sooner or later they will have to understand that they must find a way to build respectful bilateral relations with South Ossetia. But it takes political maturity, which is a rare thing in the present day Georgia” – says D.Medoev.

As far as the Georgian refugees are concerned, Dmitry Medoev believes that they would be better called Saakashvili’s accomplices, since they left their house more than two weeks before the conflict started. This means that they were aware of the Georgian intentions and approved of them. They should hold responsible themselves and their government for the property they’ve lost.

Andrey Belyaev, an expert on  South Caucasus, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.