Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Türkiye",
"Caucasus",
"Armenia"
],
"topics": []
}REQUIRED IMAGE
In 2009, Armenia and Turkey began a historic rapprochement and signed two protocols on normalizing their relations. Unfortunately, the process stalled in April 2010. In an updated policy brief, Thomas de Waal argues that the protocols—the most positive initiative in the South Caucasus for many years—must be kept alive as the process still has the potential to transform the region.
WASHINGTON, October 6—One year ago, Armenia and Turkey began a historic rapprochement and signed two protocols on normalizing their relations. Unfortunately, the process stalled in April. In an updated policy brief, Thomas de Waal argues that the protocols—the most positive initiative in the South Caucasus for many years—must be kept alive as the process still has the potential to transform the region.
Key Conclusions:
“If the process is to get back on track, all involved parties, including the United States, should set their sights on longer-term goals several years hence and ‘make haste slowly’ toward them,” de Waal writes. ”The centenary of the Armenian tragedy in 2015 is a good reference point by which to set the goal of full Armenian-Turkish normalization.”
NOTES
Click here to read the full brief
Thomas de Waal is a senior associate in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment, specializing primarily in the South Caucasus region comprising Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia and their breakaway territories, as well as the wider Black Sea region. His latest book, The Caucasus: An Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2010), provides a timely account of this turbulent region. He is also the author of the authoritative book on the Karabakh conflict, Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War (NYU Press, 2003).
The Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Program has, since the end of the Cold War, led the field on Eurasian security, including strategic nuclear weapons and nonproliferation, development, economic and social issues, governance, and the rule of law.
Press Contact: Kendra Galante, 202-939-2289, pressoffice@ceip.org
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
As Russia's war on Ukraine drags on, NATO is expanding its footprint in the Black Sea. Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria are upgrading their fleets and deepening trilateral cooperation.
Dimitar Bechev
For ninety years, Turkey has been positioned as the principal gatekeeper of Black Sea security. As a result, European and NATO efforts to support Ukraine will require closer engagement with Ankara.
Thomas de Waal
The EU’s new migration policy is not suited to today’s realities. With climate change increasingly becoming a driver of displacement, Europe needs to rethink its deterrence-focused approach.
Shana Tabak
Europe seems to have accepted its sidelining in the Middle East. The EU must reassert its support for the international rules-based order and step up engagement.
Rym Momtaz