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": [
"Türkiye",
"Caucasus",
"Armenia"
],
"topics": []
}REQUIRED IMAGE
While there is virtually no hope that the 2009 Armenian–Turkish Protocols will be ratified soon, the parties should take small steps to rebuild confidence and affirm their faith in the process.
WASHINGTON, Apr 9—The current crisis between Armenia and Turkey will likely reach a head by April 24, the date commemorated as Armenian Genocide Day. While there is virtually no hope that the 2009 Armenian–Turkish Protocols will be ratified soon, the parties should take small steps to rebuild confidence and affirm their faith in the process, concludes a new policy brief by Thomas de Waal.
If ratified, the Protocols would open the closed Armenia–Turkey border, promising Armenia long-term economic transformation and an end to its regional isolation. For Turkey, ratifying the Protocols gives it a new role in the Caucasus and is a major step toward ending the humiliation of foreign parliaments passing genocide resolutions condemning Turkey.
Key Conclusions:
“The Turkey–Armenia process was the most positive initiative in the South Caucasus in years and still has the potential to transform the region. If the process is to get back on track, all involved parties, including the United States, should articulate a strategic vision for the region, and for resolution of the Karabakh conflict,” writes de Waal. “The centenary of the Armenian tragedy in 2015 is a good reference point by which to set the goal of Armenian–Turkish normalization.”
###
NOTES
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
The Alliance is being pulled toward a NATO 3.0 model by two structural drivers: the changing character of warfare, made visible by the war in Ukraine, and the redistribution of transatlantic burden-sharing as the United States gives greater priority to homeland security and the Indo-Pacific.
Alper Coşkun, Fatih Ceylan, Tacan İldem, …
European allies are less focused on appeasing Trump and more focused on smoothing the transition to a Europe-led alliance.
Sophia Besch, Alper Coşkun, Nate Reynolds, …
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