As a matter of fact, the statement is the Catholic Church’s interference in Turkish-Armenian relations. Despite the Pope represents a religious authority, and the Catholic Church has a serious power worldwide, the closure of the Turkish-Armenian borders is a secular problem. From a logical point of view, the Vatican leader’s one-sided interference in this process is inadmissible and absurd (despite the history of Vatican is full of thousands of such absurd facts about the Pope playing a political role). So is the magnificent welcoming ceremony for the leader of a state and a church that have recognized the so-called Armenian “genocide”…
The question is not about the Pope calling for the solution to a secular problem; it’s about the call being biased. Turkey closed the border with Armenia not only because of the invasion of Azerbaijani lands, but also because of the claims about the so-called Armenian “genocide”. Such a statement by the Pope runs quite contrary to the position of Turkey, because the head of the Catholic Church in fact supports the “reality” of the Turks committing genocide against the Armenians back in 1915 and by demanding the opening of the border clearly shows he does not accept Turkey’s position.
Another biased approach is related with the church’s attitude toward the events of 1915. As a country recognizing "genocide", Vatican drew a thick line on the principle “not politicians, but historians must assess these events” and supported Armenia in this issue. The statement by Pope Francis doesn't reflect sincere notes. His attitude would then be considered sincere as he took the same attitude toward Khojaly genocide, Srebrenica genocide. At the same time, Pope's words can be perceived sincere if he discloses main reasons for the closure of borders, before calling on to open the Turkish-Armenian border.
Is Pope's request to open the border with Armenia a means of putting pressure on Turkey? In fact, it is not, because Pope Francis is the representative of Argentina where the Armenian lobby has the most powerful position and head of the Vatican – that recognized so-called "Armenian genocide". Therefore, it would be more interesting if Pope didn’t touch on the issue of borders with Armenia. His statement “Turkish-Armenian borders should be opened" was expected, but the interesting part of the process is Ankara's attitude regarding this statement.
This attitude will reveal the true position of Turkey on issue of opening the border with Armenia. Ankara can react to this statement in three ways:
a) Tough stance – Turkey can officially re-announce the reasons for the closure of the border with Armenia and conditions for its opening, accuse Vatican of taking a biased position in this process.
b) Soft position – Turkey can announce that it is ready for the opening of border with Armenia, it has taken necessary steps in this regard, but they failed and hint at possible activities to be carried out for normalization of the relations with Armenia.
c) Indirect position – Ankara does not react against Pope's statement. Instead, it can form public opinion like “There is serious pressure on Turkey" and try to justify the necessity of easing relations with Armenia on the eve of the 100-year anniversary of the “Armenian Genocide” taking advantage of media.
Tough position can be demonstrated in the case that Turkey takes into account not only its own interests, but also the interests of Azerbaijan, its strategic ally. However, Turkey’s position toward the Armenian policy shows that Pope's statement will be subjected to tough position.
Soft position is intended for the Catholic Church, Armenia, Azerbaijan and domestic public opinion. If Ankara takes this position it will have the opportunity to maneuver between all parties (to please all).
The demonstration of an indirect position will show Ankara’s readiness for major changes in the policy toward Armenia. From this perspective, after the Pope's statement, it is necessary to follow and monitor the position of media.
One of the missions of the Catholic Church and the Vatican, its supreme religious guidance, is to give messages of tolerance and humanism. The Vatican, taking advantage of being the center of the Catholic world, carries out missionary activity based on this religion’s principles of humanism. Therefore, every message of the Pope should include the principles of tolerance and humanism. These messages are given back to Christianity and the Catholic Church as a dividend with growing confidence. The messages given to increase the mass of followers and the interest in the church should differ with their objectivity and therefore, religious leaders always pay attention to maintain the balance in their messages. However, the messages Francis gave in Istanbul are biased and don’t meet these principles.
Taking the pro-Armenian position, the Pope with insincerity demonstrated that he stands against not only Turkey but also Azerbaijan.
Commenting on the so-called genocide claims to be studied by historians and the fact of closed borders, the Pope, of course, can not be in the dark about the Armenia’s aggressive policy (this fact is reflected in the four UN resolutions) and occupation of 20 percent of the neighboring state by Armenia. Chief of the Catholic Church, which regularly commemorates “genocide victims”, is well aware that people as many as the Armenians claimed killed in 1915 have been living as refugees and IDPs over the last 25 years as a result of Armenia’s aggressive policy. If the Pope is one who represents humanism, he would not have been so passionate in protecting the interests of a country which took civilians hostage, killed a nine-year-old child with a sniper shot. If the Pope, who demands Turkey opens the border, is just, then aggressive mono-ethnic Armenia, which violates principles of humanism, would not be heavier than multinational tolerant Azerbaijan on the scales of justice (If there is).
So therefore, the essence of the visit and the outcome of the statement made are as follows: Pope beside Armenia against Turkey and Azerbaijan. It’s nothing new. Even in the period of globalization the factor of religious and ethnic identity continues to play its role in policy. These factors, which are overshadowed in all process, are often the main directive forces behind processes (especially in the South Caucasus and the Middle East). And the Pope of Rome who is supposed to represent humanism is the first of those who increase the part of religion in policy.
Pressures on Turkey to make it compromise in the Armenia policy has another positive side as well – pressure also unites the sides suffering from it. Because of this reason Ankara has faced a dilemma: either it bows to pressures or these pressures unite the sides suffering from it even tighter. This is very important on the eve of the 100th anniversary, especially for Ankara to get rid of this fright and properly coordinate steps to be taken with Azerbaijan, assessing the processes calmly.
Vugar Masimoghlu, APA Analytical Center
Follow us on Telegram
t.me/apanewsaz
Follow us on Instagram
Follow us on TikTok
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on X
