07YEREVAN77
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin 07YEREVAN77 2007-01-23 06:49 2011-08-24 01:00 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy Yerevan
VZCZCXRO5297 RR RUEHDBU RUEHLN RUEHVK RUEHYG DE RUEHYE #0077/01 0230649 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 230649Z JAN 07 FM AMEMBASSY YEREVAN TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 4762 INFO RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA 1176 RUEHIT/AMCONSUL ISTANBUL 0518 RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE RUEHLMC/MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORP WASHDC 0013 RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 YEREVAN 000077
SIPDIS
DEPT FOR EUR/CARC, EUR/ACE
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECON ETRD EINV ELNT PGOV PREL TU GG AM SUBJECT: OPENING THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN BORDER: BUSINESSES AND ACADEMICS SAY IT'S TIME
YEREVAN 00000077 001.2 OF 003
SUMMARY
¶1. On January 13 and 14 the Armenian International Policy Research Group (AIPRG), with funding from USAID, the British Embassy, and the Eurasia Foundation, held a conference on "The Economic and Social Consequences of Opening the Armenia-Turkish Border." While the caliber of the papers was mixed, the conference itself was generally well received and very well-attended with over 250 enrolled participants and 26 presenters (four of whom were Turkish). The vast majority of presenters and all of the business representatives in attendance said Armenia would benefit significantly (with a potential 10-25 percent increase in GDP) if the border were opened. The conference was widely covered in the media and generated significant public dialogue on how best to move forward normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations. END SUMMARY
TWO PERCENT OR 40 - EXPERTS DEBATE THE IMPACT ON GDP
¶2. One of the critical successful outcomes of this conference was to expand the pool of available academic scholarship on the economic impacts of border opening. Prior to this conference, we knew of just two (controversial) economic studies on the potential economic benefits of opening the Turkish-Armenian border (closed by the Turkish Government in 1993). The first, sponsored by the World Bank, was conducted in 2001 and suggested that opening the border with Turkey would increase Armenian exports by 200 percent and Armenian GDP by 40 percent. A second study, conducted by the Armenian-European Policy and Legal Advice Center (AEPLAC) in 2005, suggested that the Armenian market had largely adjusted to the closed border and that the medium-term impact of border opening on GDP would be between 2-7 percent.
¶3. Most presenters at this conference took issue with both studies. One paper suggested that border opening alone will lead to a 3-7 percent increase in GDP, but there will also be benefits from lower external conflict risk ratings in the international marketplace leading to a 6-17 percent increase in GDP. According to conference organizer and AIPRG Research Fellow Bryan Roberts, the reasonable upper bound for the medium-term impact of opening the border is an extremely impressive 10-25 percent of GDP. (NOTE: Roberts' findings were muddied, however, especially on his external conflict risk assumptions mentioned above, by his failure to disentangle the effects of a Turkish-Armenian rapprochement and border opening, from the effects of a Nagorno Karabakh settlement, which Roberts presumed to go hand in hand with any chance of a Turkish border opening. This point was not made very clear in either his paper or presentation, but was one we elicited from him verbally on the margins. END NOTE)
A WIDE-RANGE OF TOPICS COVERED
¶4. The papers presented at the conference were very wide-ranging and of mixed quality. One paper argued persuasively for the merits of a phased opening of the border, starting at two crossing points and eventually expanding to six. Presenters also considered the potential economic impact on Georgia of opening the Turkish-Armenian border (judged to be minimal because Armenian and Georgian goods are not close substitutes and therefore increased Armenian-Turkish trade will not lead to a significant amount of trade diversion from Georgia). While a number of studies looked at the economic benefits of decreasing the distance Armenian and Turkish goods would have to travel, none considered the additional benefits that reopening the Kars-Gyumri railroad might have on freight forwarding costs, nor entirely new and perhaps unforeseen business/trade opportunities that would arise with an open border.
¶5. In addition to the benefits of increased trade, a number of papers argued that Armenia would likely benefit from increased foreign direct investment as well, as an open border would lower Armenia's high external conflict risk thereby increasing investor confidence. One study suggested that increased investor confidence could lead to a 50 percent increase in FDI and as much as a 10 percent increase in Armenia's overall GDP. There was one paper that, considering some of the potential benefits to Turkey, suggested that the larger cities in Turkey may actually benefit more than Turkey's impoverished eastern provinces, because the cities are better equipped to engage in international trade. The general consensus of conference participants, however, was that the impact of a border opening would be much more significant for Armenia's smaller economy then for Turkey's much larger and diversified
YEREVAN 00000077 002.2 OF 003
economy. All of the conference papers are available at
www.AIPRG.net.
BUSINESSES READY TO ENGAGE, PARTICULARLY IN CONSTRUCTION
¶6. One of the most interesting components of the conference was a businessmen's roundtable. Representatives from a number of prominent Armenian businesses said that they were anxious to see the border open. They said they were ready for the increased competition and saw strong potential for Armenian exports to the Turkish market. Cement and construction materials were identified as sectors where Turkish local production may not be sufficient to meet local demand, resulting in ripe opportunities for Armenian exporters. Critical to this type of export would be the reopening of the Kars-Gyumri railroad, an issue which Armenian businesses have long championed. According to TABDC Europe Coordinator Burcu Gultekin, a number of the participants discussed holding a similar conference in Turkey next year and brainstormed about other ways to promote better Armenian-Turkish business relations in the future.
INEVITABLE POLITICAL COMMENTARY
¶7. While the conference organizers were surprisingly successful at keeping the focus on economic analysis, there were some moments of inevitable political discussion. At the opening of the conference, CDA called on participants and panelists to set politics aside. The goal, he added was not just economic growth, but the increased stability and security which comes from economic integration. Deputy Armenian Foreign Minister Arman Kirakossian in his opening remarks clearly laid out the longstanding official GOAM position that Armenia is prepared to establish diplomatic relations "without precondition." He continued by saying Azerbaijan is "trampling international law" by supporting the Azerbaijani position on NK, violating a "bilateral agreement" with the border closure (he did not specify which one, but we infer he meant the 1921 Kars Treaty between Turkey and the USSR) and carrying out a program to "oust" Armenia from the regional economy. He also suggested that Turkey was failing to live up to its commitments as an EU candidate country and should work hard to normalize relations, particularly given that Armenia recently joined the European Neighborhood Program. He underscored the need to reopen the Kars-Gyumri railroad and said that while economic and civil society contacts are useful, they cannot replace intergovernmental dialogue.
GOOD WILL AND A CALL FOR FACE-SAVING MEASURES
¶8. Turkish participants and scholars played an important role in the success of the conference and their presence in Yerevan and active engagement on the border issues was welcomed by Armenian scholars and businessmen alike. Indeed, at one point an Armenian presenter and the Turkish discussant of her work embraced each other, a sign of the good will which the conference generated. Managing Editor of the Turkish Policy Quarterly Erkut Emcioglu repeatedly underscored the need for Armenia to provide face-saving measures to allow Turkey to open the border. He explained that Turkey's ties with Azerbaijan were strengthening and that it would be politically difficult for Turkey to change its position without some sort of concession from the Armenian side. Turkish Co-Chairman of the Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council (TABDC) Kaan Soyak underscored this message, saying that the BTC pipeline made it increasingly risky for Turkey to take political decisions which might harm Turkish-Azerbaijani relations. He said that the Azerbaijani lobby was growing stronger both in Ankara and the U.S. and suggested that Armenia needed to be more sensitive to political pressures in Turkey.
EXTENSIVE MEDIA COVERAGE
¶9. Armenian television stations and print media outlets, as well as foreign media outlets such as the Washington Post, extensively covered the conference, the U.S. Embassy Charge's opening remarks, and the preceding press conference announcing the event. Media outlets reported that all participants, including representatives of the U.S. and Armenian governments and Turkish scholars, agreed that the opening of the border would be economically beneficial for both countries. International coverage was generally positive. The headline of a Reuters article carried in the Washington Post was "Turkish, Armenian Businesses Demand Border Opening."
YEREVAN 00000077 003.2 OF 003
¶10. Local editorial comments were mostly pessimistic, remarking that the conference would not be able to change the situation, especially since the border was closed by Turkey. Azg, a center-right daily, published an article commenting that it was irrational to discuss issues that were obvious to everyone since no one could deny that opening the border would increase prosperity in both countries. The author of the article also remarked that it did not make sense to hold the conference in Armenia since it was Turkey that closed the border. Haykakan Zhamanak, a sensationalist daily, said that the conference's predictions of how much Armenia was losing due to the closed border were unimportant since it was clear that Armenia was suffering regardless of the dollar figure.
COMMENT:
¶11. Both Turkish and Armenian conference participants heralded this event as a significant step forward in advancing the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border. Business representatives engaged in a productive dialogue and said they were anxious to find new ways to promote Turkish-Armenian trade. Thanks to the conference, there is also a larger body of empirical data which can be used to persuade both the Armenian and Turkish governments of the merits of opening the border. Normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey is an important USG priority and a Mission MPP objective. This conference advanced that objective in important ways and we will continue to look for opportunities to capitalize on the momentum of this event.
GODFREY