The Development of Turkish-Armenian Relations After the So-Called Armenian Genocide: History, Politics, and the Search for Normalization

 

 

The friendly relations between Turkish and Armenian societies, which had lived together in Anatolia for nearly a thousand years, began to deteriorate from the early 19^th century. With the influence of the nationalism brought by the French Revolution, an Armenian issue emerged within the Armenian community. 

Especially the events taking place in the Balkans and the provocations of the Armenian Patriarchate by Russia, England, and France gave this issue an international character after the signing of the Ayastefanos (Yeşilköy) Treaty following the 1878–79 Ottoman-Russian War. 

When the expectations of the Armenian community were not met in the Berlin Treaty, the armed organizations they established and the developments that led to one of the century’s most significant relocations with the Law of Relocation and Resettlement (Tehcir) produced highly important national and international consequences.

This historical event, inherited after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, became one of the major issues of the new Turkish state’s foreign policy.

 

Historical Background of Armenian Uprisings and the Relocation Practice

The Armenian issue that emerged in the late Ottoman period gained an international dimension from the second half of the 19^th century onwards. After the 1860s, some associations founded for social purposes transformed into politically motivated committees under the influence of foreign powers; these structures laid the organizational foundations of Armenian nationalism.

The Armenekan Committee, founded in Van in 1885, the Hunchak in Geneva in 1887, and the Dashnaktsutyun in Tbilisi in 1890, soon became organizations that carried out armed actions against the state. Between 1882 and 1909, a total of 38 uprisings took place; among these, the Kumkapı, Sasun, Zeytun, Erzurum, Van, Adana, and Erzincan incidents were the most extensive ones.

The 1909 Adana incidents showed that even after the Second Constitutional Era, the Armenian committees continued their revolutionary character. These incidents, which broke out immediately after the 31 March Incident, claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people. 

World War I and Armenian Uprisings 

By 1915, when the Ottoman Empire was at war against Russia on the Eastern Front, Armenian committees intensified their activities in the region. Armenian militia groups joined the Russian army, refused conscription, smuggled weapons and ammunition, and attacked Ottoman troops. Especially the Van Uprising (April–May 1915) coincided with the Russian army’s advance; it is reported that many civilians lost their lives before and after the city was occupied.

The Ottoman administration regarded these developments as a threat to the security of the front and decided, on April 24, 1915, to close down Armenian committees, arrest their leaders, and relocate individuals deemed dangerous. Within this decision, about 2,345 people were arrested. April 24 would later be commemorated as the start date of the so-called “genocide” allegations.

 

The Relocation (Sevk ve İskân) Law

Amid increasing uprisings and sabotage acts, the Ottoman government enacted the “Temporary Law of Relocation and Resettlement” on May 27, 1915. The law stipulated, for military security reasons, the transfer of the civilian population identified as collaborating with the enemy or living near the battlefronts to safer areas.

 

Accordingly:

Armenians from Erzurum, Van, and Bitlis regions were sent to the south of Mosul, Zor, and Urfa districts;Those from Adana, Aleppo, and Maraş were relocated to the eastern and southeastern parts of Syria.Between 1915 and 1916, about 391,000 people were relocated. According to Ottoman statistics, approximately 167,000 Armenians in regions such as Istanbul, Bursa, and Aydın were excluded from the relocation.

Official records indicate that severe losses occurred during the migration process due to attacks, harsh climatic conditions, and epidemics. According to Yusuf Halaçoğlu (2001), of the 438,000 people subjected to relocation, about 56,000 died during this process.

The Ottoman administration issued orders to ensure the subsistence and security of those relocated and punished officials found negligent. However, due to wartime conditions and a lack of authority, the implementation was often carried out uncontrollably in many regions.

 

Post-Relocation Period and the Internationalization of the Armenian Issue

Armenian committees and the diaspora described the 1915 relocation decision as “genocide.” This claim became the central point of debate against the Ottoman administration’s defense that the relocation policy was a wartime security measure.

After the Lausanne Treaty, Soviet Armenia and diaspora organizations united around four main goals:

To preserve Armenian identity, language, and culture,

To keep the “genocide” allegations alive in global public opinion,

To bring demands for compensation and territory to international institutions,

To continue aid activities for Armenian migrants.

From the 1970s onwards, legislative initiatives to “recognize the Armenian Genocide” were brought up in various countries’ parliaments; with the 2000s, many countries adopted such resolutions. Turkey argues that these initiatives distort historical facts and pave the way for future compensation and territorial claims.

The Armenian uprisings and the relocation process were complex phenomena where domestic security, ethnic nationalism, and foreign interventions intersected during the disintegration period of the Ottoman Empire. Although the Relocation and Resettlement Law of May 27, 1915, was designed as a military precaution under wartime conditions, it later became the main basis of the “genocide debate” in international law and politics.

In analyzing this issue historically, not only the political and military dimensions but also the geostrategic position of the Caucasus, the diasporic transformation of Armenian identity, and the moral-symbolic dynamics in Western public opinion must be considered. Historical data reveal the necessity of evaluating the matter not through unilateral “guilt” or “victimhood” narratives but within a multidimensional framework of empathy and historical context. 

Turkish-Armenian Relations After 1991 

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, three new states emerged in the South Caucasus: Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Armenia. This development created both new opportunities and new challenges for Turkey. Turkey immediately recognized these newly independent countries and sought to take positive steps in regional stability, trade, and cultural ties. However, relations with Armenia soon became strained due to historical disputes and the Karabakh conflict.

 

Historical Background

At the core of Turkish-Armenian relations lie the 1915 events and their differing interpretations. The Armenian diaspora and Armenia define these events as “genocide,” while Turkey categorically rejects this claim, maintaining that the incidents were a wartime tragedy. This historical disagreement has been one of the biggest obstacles to diplomatic relations between the two countries.

1991–1993: Initial Contacts and Breaking Point

When Armenia gained independence, Turkey was among the first countries to recognize it on December 16, 1991. At first, there were hopes that relations would improve. However, shortly after, the Nagorno-Karabakh War broke out. Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijani territories led Turkey to support Azerbaijan and close its border gates with Armenia. In 1993, the Turkey-Armenia land border was completely closed, and this situation has largely remained unchanged to this day.

 

Normalization Efforts in the 2000s

In the 2000s, various initiatives were undertaken to normalize relations between the two countries.

The most notable of these was the “Zurich Protocols,” signed in 2009 under the mediation of Switzerland.

These protocols aimed to establish diplomatic relations and open the border between the two states.

However, due to internal political pressures in both Turkey and Armenia, the protocols were never ratified.

 

The 2020 Karabakh War and a New Era

In 2020, as a result of Azerbaijan’s military successes, the balance in Nagorno-Karabakh shifted, and Armenia suffered a significant defeat. Following this, more moderate voices emerged in Armenia advocating for the restoration of relations with Turkey. Since 2022, “normalization talks” have resumed; special representatives were appointed, and flight connections were reestablished. However, there has still been no concrete progress regarding the opening of borders or the establishment of full diplomatic relations.

 

Current Situation and Evaluation 

Today, despite past problems, Turkey-Armenia relations are in a cautious dialogue process. Although direct interaction between the peoples of the two countries remains limited, civil society initiatives for cooperation are increasing. Turkey’s policy of supporting stability in the South Caucasus and Armenia’s desire to end regional isolation indicate that relations may evolve toward a more balanced direction in the future.

Since 1991, Turkish-Armenian relations have been shaped by historical disputes, the Karabakh conflict, and the influence of the diaspora. Although there have been hopeful developments from time to time, lasting normalization has not been achieved. However, the post-2020 process suggests that rapprochement based on mutual interests may be possible. The future of these relations depends on achieving regional peace and the willingness of both societies to overcome the burdens of the past.

Conclusion 

The debate over the so-called Armenian genocide has constituted the century-old fault line of Turkish-Armenian relations. Nevertheless, in the 21^st century, both regional dynamics and social transformations have directed both sides not toward “historical confrontation” but toward “pragmatic normalization.”

For Armenia, Turkey is seen as an economic gateway; for Turkey, Armenia represents a strategic bridge to the South Caucasus. Building lasting peace in the future depends on both sides easing the weight of history and strengthening mutual trust in economic, cultural, and humanitarian fields.

In this regard, the lessons learned from the failure of the Zurich Protocols have laid a more realistic diplomatic groundwork in the post-2020 period.

References

• Center for Security Studies (CSS). (2009). Armenia–Turkey Normalization Accord. ETH Zürich.

• Chatham House. (2023). Fate of vulnerable minority looms over Armenia-Azerbaijan peace.

• de Waal, T. (2022). Third Time Lucky for Armenia and Turkey? Carnegie Europe.

• European Parliament. (2009). Protocol on the development of bilateral relations (TR-AM).

• Göksel, D. N., & Gündoğan, N. (2008). Turkey-Armenia Relations: A Vicious Circle. TESEV.

• Grigoryan, A. (2019). Armenia-Turkey border opening: What determines the attitude of Armenians? Caucasus Survey, 7(1), 25–46.

• International Crisis Group. (2009). Turkey and Armenia: Opening Minds, Opening Borders. ICG Europe Report No. 199.

• KAS. (2025). The Armenian-Turkish Normalization Process (Discussion Paper). Konrad Adenauer Stiftung.

• Papazian, H. (2024). Turkey and “Turks” in Postwar Armenia. Nationalities Papers.

• TESEV. (2012). Turkey and Armenia Post-Protocols: Back to Square One? TESEV Publications.

• TESEV & Caucasus Institute. (2011). Turkey-Armenia Dialogue Series: Breaking the Vicious Circle. TESEV.

• Akçam, T. (2012). The Young Turks’ Crime against Humanity: The Armenian Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing in the Ottoman Empire. Princeton University Press.

• Bloxham, D. (2005). The Great Game of Genocide: Imperialism, Nationalism, and the Destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. Oxford University Press.

• Erickson, E. J. (2013). Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

• Gürün, K. (1985). Ermeni Dosyası. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.

• Hovannisian, R. G. (Ed.). (1992). The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times (Vol. II). New York: St. Martin’s Press.

• Lewy, G. (2005). The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide. University of Utah Press.

• McCarthy, J. (1995). Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821–1922. Princeton: Darwin Press.

• Ortaylı, İ. (2014). İmparatorluğun En Uzun Yüzyılı. İstanbul: Kronik Kitap.

• Shaw, S. J., & Shaw, E. K. (1977). History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey (Vol. II). Cambridge University Press.

• Sonyel, S. R. (1987). The Displacement (Tehcir) of Armenians: Its Historical Background. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları.

 

Edanur AYDIN

Regional Analysis Community

Political Science and International Relations

Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University