• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Thomas de Waal"
  ],
  "type": "commentary",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Europe",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Europe",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [
    "Eurasia in Transition"
  ],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Türkiye",
    "Caucasus",
    "Azerbaijan",
    "Armenia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Commentary
Carnegie Europe

Awkward in Yerevan

The Armenians can use Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s visit to vent some of their frustrations with Turkey—and then get back to talking again.

Link Copied
By Thomas de Waal
Published on Dec 11, 2013
Project hero Image

Project

Eurasia in Transition

Learn More

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu goes on his first visit to Armenia on Thursday. He will attend a meeting of the foreign ministers of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC).

In the past, BSEC was a good forum for the two countries, which have no diplomatic relations and a closed border, to talk to each other, with the Armenian ambassador to the Istanbul-based organization serving as an informal envoy to Turkey.

More recently, even that channel has not worked. Since the failure of the Zurich protocols in October 2009, official contacts have been at their lowest since Armenia gained independence in 1991. The two foreign ministers, Davutoğlu and Eduard Nalbandian, signed the Protocols but they were never ratified by the two parliaments, with the blame for the failure generally placed more on the Turkish than the Armenian side.

It is an awkward case of "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" for Davutoğlu. If he had turned down the opportunity to attend the meeting in Yerevan he would have been seen to be snubbing the Armenians. (His predecessor Ali Babacan visited Yerevan for a similar meeting in April 2009, but those were much more auspicious times for bilateral relations).

Now that he is coming, Davutoğlu is being greeted with scorn by the Armenian media and certain Armenian officials. The pugnacious Deputy Foreign Minister Sharvarsh Kocharyan made it clear that Davutoğlu was not welcome in Yerevan, reiterating his government's position on Armenian-Turkish normalization. “Turkey can contribute to the normalization of relations with Armenia by ratifying and putting into practice, without any preconditions, the Turkish-Armenian Protocols signed in Zurich in 2009,” Kocharyan said.

Davutoğlu will not win himself friends in Yerevan if he floats the ideas on Nagorny Karabakh he reportedly discussed in Washington last month. That would break the Armenian taboo, supported by Washington and Moscow, which is based on the notion that the Karabakh peace process and the bilateral Armenian-Turkish process must be de-linked.

That knot cannot be untangled quickly. Azerbaijan has basically asserted its veto rights over the Turks making a bilateral deal with Yerevan without at least some progress on the Karabakh conflict.

But there are plenty of smaller but important issues that the two governments need to talk about, from business relations to the status of Armenian cultural monuments in Turkey to consular services for Armenians visiting Turkey. The Armenians can use Davutoğlu's visit to vent some of their frustrations with Turkey—and then get back to talking again.

About the Author

Thomas de Waal

Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe

Thomas de Waal is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Managing Montreux: Turkey and the Russia-Ukraine War in the Black Sea

      Thomas de Waal

  • Commentary
    There Is No Shortcut for Europe in Armenia

      Thomas de Waal

Thomas de Waal
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Europe
Thomas de Waal
Foreign PolicyMiddle EastTürkiyeCaucasusAzerbaijanArmenia

Carnegie India 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.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.