Football Diplomacy. Maia Manchkhashvili. Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia

Transcription

1 Journal of Literature and Art Studies, March 2017, Vol. 7, No. 3, doi: / / D DAVID PUBLISHING Football Diplomacy Maia Manchkhashvili Tbilisi State University, Tbilisi, Georgia This research Football Diplomacy represents a political activity implemented in the Caucasian policy of Turkey in one special direction, in particular it addresses settlement of relations broken off with the Republic of Armenia in the early 1990s. The author of the submitted political project is the President of Turkey, Abdullah Gül together with the Foreign Minister by that time Ahmet Davutoglu. By his direct instruction, the Turkish diplomacy developed one more plan known under the name of Football Diplomacy by Despite the fact that high-rank officials of both countries were engaged in implementation of this plan and works necessary for consolidation of public opinion were carried out in both countries, the process was suspended anyway and principal changes have not occurred in bilateral relations until now. Keywords: Turkey, Football Diplomacy, Armenia, restoration of diplomatic relations Introduction Despite the fact that the Russian diplomacy worked very successfully and tried to suspend implementation of Turkish political projects in the South Caucasian region, the South Caucasian direction is still given great importance in the foreign policy of Turkey and the Turkish diplomacy works hard to achieve success in this regard. Therefore, we consider that adequate attention must be dedicated to study of Turkish (and not only Turkish) projects and their analysis in terms of foreign political interests. As we have repeatedly mentioned, Turkey is a regional power and it has its political, economic, cultural interests in the South Caucasus. But it is not the sole regional force: whether or not acceptable for us, the Russian Federation is a political actor stronger than Turkey in the region and Turkey has not yet managed to score a political goal against Russia; We should not forget about interests of the US, including, particularly, energy interests and also the Caucasian interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran rich in natural resources and already released from yoke of sanctions which as it is felt, will activate its policy towards Europe, first of all, and later Caucasus; and other actors. Therefore, the Caucasian policy of Turkey will have more to experience and overcome more difficulties than before. After collapse of the Soviet Union the Turkish diplomatic authority developed only several political plans reflecting its interests in the South Caucasus and we can say only about two of them that they succeeded as a project. The first was the Caucasian Security Platform and the other was Football Diplomacy. There is one difference between them: only the project Football Diplomacy was intended for normalization of relations with one specific country and Turkey planned to settle relations with Armenia by means of face-to-face dialogue. All the remaining versions, even working versions, for example the initiative of Süleyman Demirel implied a dialogue around the South Caucasus in a single format. In terms of time, both projects were submitted Maia Manchkhashvili, Ph.D. Student of Political Science, Tbilisi State University.

2 FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY 367 the same year. The first project was submitted on August 11, 2008 and the other one begins from autumn of 2008 and by autumn of 2009 it was already clear the process was suspended. There is an impression that the August 2008 War provoked the Turkish diplomacy and it became activated. Due to the above, one thing is undisputable: Armenia, as a not so much significant political factor even in the regional context is a very significant hindering factor in the Caucasian policy of Turkey and a rather successfully usable factor in the hands of Russian diplomacy for the purpose of control of the South Caucasian states. As for Azerbaijan, the issue of territorial unity which is of state importance for it has been bound to this state a long time ago. At this stage we avoid to evaluate foreign or domestic political readiness of Georgia in response to this policy which we have addressed in other research. Below we will try to explain the events preceding commencement of negotiations between the Republics of Turkey and Armenia, what Zurich Protocols and the Road Map implied and why the processes developed the way they did. Research Hypothesis and Research Questions Many questions arose during the working process, among them, unresponded ones: would the year 2009 be the start of great changes for the South Caucasian region if the expectations were met and the borders were opened during the match scheduled for October 15, 2009? What possible results would it bring to the region and each country of the region from political point of view? Would the geography of the energy policy change in case of its implementation? What were the reasons for failure of one more political project of the Turkish diplomacy in the South Caucasus? Research hypothesis is that Russia as the strongest actor of the region would prevent losing control over the former Soviet republics. Dissolution of the Soviet Union, as the already existing reality, is perceived by it as the equivalent to catastrophe, i.e. we would like to say once again that the idea of the South Caucasian cooperation, regardless of its type, is not implementable, in our opinion. Qualitative Research Methods The research is mainly based on the qualitative research methods. When collecting data we used the method of interviews and document analysis. When selecting interviewees we relied on target selection method. Finally, we managed to interview nine experts. The expert interview was based on the preliminarily developed questions. In the process of document analysis, we used the works found in Ankara and Yerevan and analyzed the interviews taken specially for this research. Theoretical Framework As you are aware, in accordance with this theory, relations between states are defined by the structure of international relations. But international politics is not a mechanical sum of foreign policy of sovereign states and other participants engaged in the system but it is defined by peculiarities common for this system. According to the same theory, the third element of the international system capacities of the states constituting the system, indices of power and influence are changed from one epoch to another, from one system to another, i.e. the same international system structure predetermines and gives an impetus to changes in the international policy.

3 368 FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY It means that on the one hand, the international system itself is governing and defining the actions of the units constituting this system and the foreign policy of weak and powerful states fundamentally differ from each other. On the other hand, within the framework of the existing system comparatively weaker states or secondary political actors are allowed to give up their political role and manage to shift to other positions and become leading political actors based on their forces. Due to the above, the opportunities of implementation of political plans of Turkey are clearly seen: the regional balance existing in the South Caucasus is controlled by the Russian Federation. It has gained a foothold due to the place and role of Russia on the political map of the world. Russia responds to any attempt of entry in the area of its interests with strict actions. Whether acceptable to Turkey or not, but the fact is that Russia is one of the main elements of the international system and predetermines the nature of the international system. The states which represent secondary political actors are forced to act in the limited political area and not to violate the order established based on the interests of the leading actors by their actions. Another side of the issue is whether the secondary political actors, Turkey in this case, can strengthen to such level or carry out such flexible policy to bring a discord to the existing system. As we have mentioned above, if based on the same theory, any state has an opportunity to change its political role and reality, why should not Turkey try it, especially that this country managed and reevaluated the fundamental interests of the country and developed new ideological principles?! Of course, it has a right as the state and from the period following dissolution of the Soviet Union it permanently tries to become the leading actor and the leader state. But the fact is that yet it has not managed to overweigh or even balance the political weight of Russia even at the regional level. Turkey spared no efforts in implementation of its political plans in the South Caucasus. As it seems, the diplomatic corps of the country worked and works in this direction intensely. This is also confirmed by submission of models. Development of processes in August 2008 the way they developed makes us think that at some point Turkey considered that it could seriously think about implementation of its plans related to balancing the Russian power in the region and became activated. But its aspiration to give up the role of the secondary regional actor was unsuccessful. As it is clearly seen from development of processes, Russia is the political power which no matter what type of confrontation it has with the political actors of the world is still the power to be taken into account and can neutralize the obstacles arising in the areas of its influence. It means that the theory of neorealism allows us to explain how correctly Turkey has evaluated its own powers when it actively began to make steps bringing a discord to the international order. Review of Literature We would like to note that there is no online media all over the world, popular or less popular, especially Turkish and Armenian, as well as Russian mass media, which has not published at least one interview or article about Football Diplomacy. Therefore, vast newspaper and journal materials are accumulated about this topic. But we cannot say the same in terms of scientific works. Of course, there are scientific works on this issue, but not too much. During the research process we found the works of primarily Turkish and Armenian authors as well as the Georgian, Russian and other authors regarding this issue. We reviewed the articles and evaluations of the leading media outlets, such as BBCTurkish, CNNTurk, Lemonde, Wall Street Journal, Eurasianet and World Politics Review.

4 FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY 369 We became familiarized with the materials of the Turkish and Armenian press, for example: Today s Zaman, Hurriyet Daily News, Cumhuriyet, as well as interviews and articles published by Regnum, Inosmi, Foreignpress, Araratnews, News.am, Tert.am, Panorama.am, Arminfo. We found several scientific articles in the scientific database of G-store ( database of the Caucasus Institute of Armenia ( database of the Turkish scientific journals and research centers, for example, USAK ( Certain parts of online media outlets are full of skeptic opinions. But some of them evaluate the started negotiations as the process of settlement of relations between the two countries and talk about their successful finalization. As for scientific researches, major part of analytical works, as a result of thorough analysis, express the opinion that the parties need great efforts to overcome the obstacles between the two countries and reach certain agreements. Among Turkish scientists we should mention Dr. ÖZBAY Fatih who associates the failure of the Armenia-Turkey dialogue to the US in one of his articles. According to him, the statement made by the US President in connection with the fact that happened in 1915 was the expression of the attitude of America which together with other factors determined the fate of these negotiations. According to O. Fatih, the Armenian diaspora in the US was waiting to read the comment of the US Present with four eyes : The Big Squeeze was the message that the Present sent to them to demonstrate his attitude. But at the same time, it was a message sent to Turkey as well about what it might expect from the strategic ally. The author remembers that everything became absolutely clear after the issue of recognition of genocide was raised in the Congress. The author considers that if Turkey wants its policy of approximation to the EU to be successful, the country will need to create a stable environment around it, open more diplomatic channels and create reliable security guarantees in the South Caucasian region heading to the Central Asia. In this context, it considers necessary to settle relations with Armenia. But the Caucasian policy of Turkey runs against the interests of Russia in this region and conflict of these interests poses threat to implementation of the North-South policy of Russia. Russia tried to neutralize the actions carried out by Turkey, including the attempt to create a commission on the issue of genocide, the benefits caused by giving guarantees of maintaining cultural identity to few number of Armenians living in Turkey and block realization of plans of Turkey. A well-known Turkish scientist Prof. Kamer KASIM studies the Caucasian policy of Turkey extensively and has dedicated a number of scientific works to this topic. Naturally, he has works regarding the significance of restoration of relations with Armenia for Turkey. In one of his articles, Kamer Kasim says that Turkey was the first to recognize independence of Armenia in 1990s and wanted to establish good-neighborly relations with it. But after occupation of Kelbecer by Armenia, Turkey was forced to close borders. He asks a question: what changes opening the border and restoration of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia will make to the international system and says that this is such a wide-known issue that it must be resolved comprehensively together with the US, because according to him, as shown by 2008 Russo-Georgian War, the Russian policy will take more steps and the Road Map contains greats risks in this respect. He does not note the attempt to restore relations with Armenia only as the Turkish initiative. According to Kamer Kasim, it is in the interests of the US and the EU to place Armenia on their orbit and Turkey is just a chain in this system. The keystone of all of these processes is to create energy security line between Europe, America and Russia.

5 370 FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY One Russian author, Ramis Yunusov calls launch of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue a bit ambiguous. It focuses on the fact that it is not excluded that energy policy of Azerbaijan may change in respect to Ankara, despite the fact that according to Ilham Aliev, he is receptive to the issue of restoration of relations between Turkey and Armenia. This author also reviews the issue of opening borders between the two countries in the context of the energy policy of the US and Europe and mentions that even though America gave rise to launch of these processes, but when Ankara thought that it was protected from possible complications from Azerbaijan, it received an unpleasant surprise from America too exactly at that time, which it considers to be attributable to the Armenian lobby. This author remembers the part of the Armenian population who do not want to open the border with Turkey along the assumed demarcation line opened at this stage and they also have claims on the areas of Armenian settlements of the period of the Ottoman Empire. Not only raising such claim but also the existence of such idea already excludes any possibility of starting the dialogue between the two parties. It mentions that not only Barak Obama but also other presidents of the US have the same attitude towards the issue of genocide of Turkey and the genocide because they always take the Russian factor into consideration. The Russian politologist, Yevgeny Krishtalev, tries to explain why the goal of Ankara is to settle relations with Armenia. In his opinion, several factors determine the policy of Ankara: first of all, improvement of relations with the EU: it is well-known that Ankara is often given instructions from Brussels to settle relations with Yerevan for the purpose of expression of solidarity to the fraternal nation. Ankara broke off diplomatic relations with Yerevan for the purpose of political support to Baku. Thirdly, this is a gesture for Turkey as the mediator of regional level. However, according to the politologist, Ankara did not settle relations with Yerevan but its actions caused insult of fraternal Azerbaijan. One more Russian researcher, for example, Azhdar Kurtov, in his letters rather extensively talks about the impediments caused by adoption of the Road Map between the parties as well as between the Armenian powers. Adoption of the Road Map in Yerevan was even followed by burning the Turkish flags by certain groups because their position about the issue of recognition of genocide was not reflected in it. It was clear that confrontation between the Armenian forces powers insurmountable because all political groups had their own demands, while interests of all parties could not have been reflected and considered simultaneously. Dashnaktsutun had its own demands towards the ruling coalition. The author says that Armenians deeply respect their history and the issue of the Turkish-Armenian border must be defined. Armenia has a very interesting geographic location and rich past and the Armenian people will not tolerate disrespect of the above. Finally he concludes that the Armenian people will not allow restoration of any diplomatic relations with Turkey bypassing the issue of Mountainous Karabagh and without consideration of interests of Armenia. As for the majority of politologists of Azerbaijan, they seem discontent with the political gestures of Turkey used by Ankara in respect to Yerevan. They consider the territorial claims of Armenia to lands of Azerbaijan as unfair. For example, the politologist Vafa Guluzade adheres to the politologists who support the creation of a neutral commission for the purpose of establishment of historic reality of these issues. He considers that no Road Map will change their loyalty to the issue of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and it is impossible to settle Armenian-Turkish relations at this expense. He doubts that this Road Map, the kind of document he has seen many times, will ever work. The politologist Rasim Musambekov welcomes the fact that there is an attempt to settle relations in the region. But he does not believe in the Road Map because as declared by R.T. Erdoğan, if the border is not

6 FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY 371 opened until resolution of Karabagh conflict, the parties will have to wait a lot for opening the border. The politologist Mubariz Ahmedoglu also shares the opinion that the Road Map must have been based on other principles and after that the parties would be given an opportunity to start a meaningful dialogue. As the issue of territorial integrity is not secured by this plan, its implementation is under question. The researcher Rustam Mamedov calls the Road Map a meaningless project and says that if Armenia had territorial claims to Azerbaijan until now, it will not give up its proposal now and will not agree with the plan which does not contain these demands. It considers that there is one way for Armenia to escape the blockade to release Mountainous Karabagh and return the seized territories occupied by its troops to Azerbaijan. The Armenian researcher Richard Giragosian mentions in one of his interviews that the issue of genocide is the issue which has never been so pressing as in the recent period and recognition of this fact by the European countries is a strong message for Turkey to revise its position 1. However, it considers that agreement may be reached regarding this issue as well. Interestingly, as he confirmed in the interview given to us 2, he is also very actively engaged in the process of settlement of the Turkish-Armenian relations. The place of their meeting to conduct negotiations is Tbilisi. Despite the unsuccessful finalization of the Football Diplomacy, Mr. Giragosian is optimistic about the results of the further rounds between the two countries. The Director of the Caucasus Institute, Alexander Iskanderian, declares in his interviews 3 that despite the desire of Turkey to have zero problems with its neighbors, it is unachievable yet. The researcher considers that the issue of genocide has become an issue of political importance for Turkey rather than for Armenia. In his deep belief, both America and Russia are interested in resolution of this issue. America wants to see Turkey in the EU and helps it to resolve its problems, while restoration of relations with Armenia is one of the requirements of EU in respect to Turkey. Among the Georgian authors we should mention articles of Ivliane Khaindrava, Gia Khukhashvili, Gia Nodia, Simon Kiladze, Giorgi Lomsadze, works dedicated to study of this issue by young researchers of the Georgian Institute for Russian Studies Teona Turashvili, Teona Dalakishvili, Iveta Gogava, etc. We also found interesting articles on the above issue prepared by the European and American researchers and will address them below, in the research. The Attempt to Start a New Round The dialogue on restoration of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia became activated once again from autumn 2008 within the framework of the Football Diplomacy. However, similar attempts were certainly made by both parties before and certain grounds were prepared. On April 22, 2007 the foreign authorities of Turkey made an official but brief statement that an agreement has been reached for preparation of the Road Map by the mediation of Switzerland. After that the first step was to send diplomats to Tbilisi by Turkey and Armenia based on the principle of mutuality. The second large step was to ensure opening of diplomatic representations in Ankara and Yerevan. Before that, the Armenian President invited his Turkish colleague, Abdullah Gül to his country for face-to-face negotiations as well as to attend the football match between the teams of Armenia and Turkey. 1 Turkey may resume football diplomacy Armenian expert, , retrieved from 2 Date of taking the interview: March 16, 2016, Yerevan, Armenia. 3 Date of taking the interview from us: March 18, 2016, Yerevan, Armenia.

7 372 FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY During the meeting both parties expressed readiness to conduct extensive negotiations which was followed by drafting special protocols by working groups. On October 10, 2009 the Foreign Affairs Ministers of Armenia and Turkey signed the above protocols. Ratification of these protocols by the parliaments of both countries would be followed by restoration of diplomatic relations and opening the border. In the early 2009 the work groups prepared the so-called Road Map which represented a specific plan of settlement of bilateral relations: (1) Armenia had to recognize the inviolability of the border between the two countries established by the Treaty of Kars (1921); (2) a respective document should have been executed by the virtue of which the border between the two countries would be opened; (3) embassies in the capitals of both countries should have been opened; (4) the parliament of both countries had to ratify the treaties; (5) a commission had to be established to study the events of The Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Eduard Nalbandian expressed hope and stated in the interviews with journalists that the protocols adopted in Zurich would open the closed doors which are closed for a long time. 4 But the point is that there were people in the parliament of both countries who categorically opposed approval of these protocols because they conflicted with their national interests. Armenian politicians called on Turkey to be the first to take this step and ratify the protocols. For example, Eduard Sharmazanov, member of the parliament of Armenia and the press-speaker of the Republican Party noted: It will be logical if Turkey will be the first to ratify protocols because it closed the border. 5 Respective statements were heard in respect to Armenian MPs from Ankara as well followed by series of mutual accusations. Due to the fact that the border between the two countries was closed in 1993 because of Azerbaijan, Turkey was observing the positions of these countries and reactions of Ilham Aliev very attentively during the entire period. Even though the authorities led by Ahmet Davutoğlu knew well that restoration of diplomatic relations with Armenia would cause at least moral damage to Azerbaijan, Turkey was ready to take these steps and transform the policy announced by it zero problems with neighbors into a political course which would be closer to reality. It should be mentioned, that had the diplomatic authorities of Turkey viewed the relations between Turkey and Armenia comprehensively earlier, it would not have taken the radical steps which it took. By the moment of starting negotiations, the Turkish and Armenian parties assumed that the position of Azerbaijan could not have decisive significance on the processes. Turkish politicians stated this issue had to be resolved at the level of the political dialogue and only between two countries. But finally it appeared that the activity of the political elite of Azerbaijan as well as the Azerbaijani diasporas made a modest contribution to suspension of this process and it soon became clear that without consultations with Baku it was impossible to conduct the process. Therefore, dialogue with Baku was launched simultaneously. And, what is the most important in all these processes is Russian interests. From statement of the Russian President made at the official level to statements of the Russian Duma or other politicians, everybody only welcomed the attempt to establish peace in the region and normalize relations between the two countries. But if we judge by facts and analysis of steps made by Russia, we will see that control over the new neighborhood is strategically important for Russia and vital for maintaining the national idea. 4 Armenia-Turkey: football diplomacy over, , retrieved from 5 Football diplomacy ended: Who will first ratify protocols? , retrieved from

8 FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY 373 The Russian press and scientific community have already started wide review of the Road Map and the positive and negative sides of the Turkish-Armenian dialogue based on the interests of Russia. For example, the comment made by a Russian politologist, Ivan Sukhov conveys the idea of the Russian approach to these processes well: If Russia had allowed to realize the Road Map, this would mean withdrawal of Russia from Caucasus. 6 The US and the EU openly expressed support to the parties and welcomed the attempt of the two countries to restore the relations broken off a long time ago at all levels. But despite carrying out a whole range of measures, it became clear before October 15, 2009 that the Armenian President would miss the event to which he was invited a year ago and would not attend the scheduled match in Turkey. The negotiation process failed. At that time, the Armenian press wrote: The Turkish-Armenian Football Diplomacy has come to its logical end 7. Later, the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Eduard Nalbandian, while talking about the reasons for failure of negotiations mentioned that when starting the negotiations Armenia was ready to reach an agreement without any preconditions but he did not specify what preconditions Armenia planned not to establish and he added that diplomacy is the best instrument for reconciliation and avoidance of using forceful methods. 8 Anyway, development of processes this way shows that in this case diplomacy failed to serve as a good instrument for resolution of regional issues. The Russian military and political gestures have brought negotiations to a standstill and their successful finalization was not in its interests. The Caucasian policy of Russia implies not weakening of control but rather gaining more influence on the states of the region: at the example of Armenia it can be said that Russian succeeds in it; In case of Georgia, its methods of deviation from the Western course, as well as forceful methods, work well yet. As for Azerbaijan, the fact is that after the Russo-Georgian War in August 2008, more warming is observed in the relations between these two countries, which was expressed by the bilateral agreement on sale of gas to Russia. Discussion The Turkish diplomatic school should not be surprised to hear that it often acted spontaneously in the period after the end of the Cold War and did not have a strategically developed pragmatic political course. Closing the border with Armenia also demonstrates this fact; If Turkey is guided by principles of friendship when establishing the foreign political course, to leave aside that this is a demonstration of its weakness, why should the example of Azerbaijan be an exception and why the Central Asian countries should not enjoy the same, they are also Turkish-speaking nations, aren t they? Is not the policy carried out by Russia in respect to the Central Asia perceived as unfriendly for it? So, should it break off diplomatic relations with Russia too? Why was it necessary to break off diplomatic relations at all?! Who knows better than Turkey that the policy of mild power does not work less better than taking radical steps or policy based on raw military power, i.e. we would like to say that Turkey is reaping the fruits of failure to maintain the balance between the foreign course based on friendship and pragmatism in the politics of 1990s. 6 Sukhov Ivan, Road Maps, Russia risks to depart from Transcaucasia forever, , retrieved from 7 Armenia-Turkey: football diplomacy over, , retrieved from 8 Edward Nalbandian: Serzh Sargsyan's 'football diplomacy' is a wise and justified initiative, retrieved from

9 374 FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY The Turkish diplomacy tried to correct the mistake made owing to this friendship by starting the round of Football Diplomacy with Armenia but after 1993 the processes had gone so far that the Turkish policy came to a deadlock. Due to this closed border, the Turkish political elite has its hands tied in the region and is unable to act at least as a regional leader country. Conclusion Football Diplomacy is a one more Turkish political project that failed in the South Caucasian region. The reasons for that must be looked for in planning of the Turkish foreign policy as well as in the political situation created in the South Caucasus. Had this undertaking of Turkey ended with results desirable for it, the South Caucasian region would face an absolutely new political and energy political reality. This would change the balance of powers in the region and this would be neutralization of Russia, as the super power, which would increase the significance of not only Turkey but also of the South Caucasian countries as independent states and their role in the regional politics. But the Russian politics fought for enhancement of this balance in summer 2008 too in the South Caucasian region and would not allow Turkey or any other power to enter the area of its interests so easily. If we rely on the well-known materials of WikiLeaks that in August 2008 Turkey was ready for military confrontation with Russia if its troops approached the Turkish border within the radius of 100 km, then it is evident that the issue is not so simple and the attempt to violate the regional balance by Turkey using diplomatic means will be perceived as a very weak step considering that the parties were even ready for military confrontation. In the context of the theory of neorealism it can be said that the international balance created by Russia to a certain extent, together with other super-powers, does not yet allow Turkey to introduce itself as a strong actor in the South Caucasian region. The political melody of the South Caucasus, at this stage at least, is the anthem of Russia. The existing international system forces Turkey to be content with the role which it has currently. However, there are authors who think differently. For example, as the French Drano Bernard considers, when evaluating the power of the country, it should not be reviewed from the political aspect only: Turkey is the main actor in the Caucasus already. This is confirmed by the economy of Azerbaijan and Georgia as well where Turkey is the first investor and the commodity turnover with Armenia proves the same despite the fact that the borders between these countries are closed. 9. Yes, it is impossible not to agree with the author. The data of the trade-economic turnover really prove this, 10 but if we count political goals, Turkey is not too successful in this respect. Among the problems identified as hindering factors in the process of Football Diplomacy there are the deep controversies between Armenia and Azerbaijan around which even a dialogue is perceived as betrayal of the national interests. The issue of recognition of genocide and the issue of Mountainous Karabagh are the issues whose settlement goes around a vicious circle yet. But still, each attempt which will give an impetus to their peaceful resolution is welcomed. 9 Drano Bernard, La Turquie, acteur majeur dans le Caucase, retrieved from 10 For study of the Turkish activity in this respect, we obtained materials from the National Statistics Bureau and will explain the results in another sub-chapter.

10 FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY 375 References Football diplomacy ended: Who will first ratify protocols? ( ). Retrieved from Armenia and Georgia: Dynamics of internal political development and foreign attraction centers. (February 17, 2014). South Caucasus regional bureaus of Heinrich Böll Foundation, Public Discussion. Armenia-Turkey: football diplomacy over. ( ). Retrieved from Chislett, W. (January 2010). Turkey and Armenia move to bury the hatchet (ARI), 72/2009. Alexander Iskandaryan, Sergey Minasyan, pragmatic policies vs. historical constraints: Analyzing Armenia-Turkey relations. Caucasus Institute Research Papers, #1. De Waal, T. ( ). South Caucasus: (Almost) grown up at 20. Retrieved from Edward Nalbandian: Serzh Sargsyan s football diplomacy is a wise and justified initiative. Retrieved from Gia, N. (n.d.). Expected settlement of Turkish-Armenian relations: Influence on Georgia. New Challenges or New Opportunities? Policy report 2010, Caucasian Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development. Retrieved from Grigoryam, M. ( ). Armenia: Yerevan growing more cautious on reconciliation with Turkey. Retrieved from Khaindrava, I. ( ). For the issue of Turkish-Armenian relations. Retrieved from Mustafa, A. (October, 2009). Armando Garcia Schmidt, Tabib Huseynov, Alexander Iskandaryan, Andrei Zagorski. After Soccer Diplomacy: The Turkish-Armenian Relations. Normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations: Significance for the region. ( ). Retrieved from Owen, E. ( ). Talking Turkey in the South Caucasus. Retrieved from Phillips, D. L. (2012). Diplomatic history: The Turkey-Armenia protocols. New York: Columbia University. Turkey may resume football diplomacy Armenian expert. ( ). Retrieved from