“The Big question: Is the bitter divide between Turkey and Armenia coming to an end?” the title of the article by Marcus Tanner published in The Independent reads. Speaking about Armenian-Turkish relations, the author recalls the accusations against Ankara related to events in Ottoman Empire, recognized as Genocide by many countries. Whereas “ Turks disagree passionately, although Ankara's position has oscillated between flat denial and cagey admission that a number of people died in eastern Turkey in a series of disorganised tit-for-tat killings in which Turks were victims as well as aggressors.”

“Not quite, though the signing in Switzerland was a breakthrough of sorts. Under the terms of the accord, both countries have agreed to appoint experts to a joint commission that will examine the facts and – a long shot – come up with an agreed version about what happened. And in the meantime Turkish nationalists are outraged. Until recently Turkish writers who even edged towards admitting a slaughter of Armenians occurred in the First World War risked imprisonment for insulting the state. The Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk was prosecuted for precisely this crime in 2005 although the Justice Ministry refused to let a trial proceed, following an embarrassing international outcry.

In Turkey the policy of simply silencing debate about what happened to the Armenians is breaking down as more and more writers and intellectuals question the official line. The persistence of the dispute with Armenia is also damaging Turkey's hopes of joining the EU, partly because pro-Armenian sentiment is strong in some key states like France. In any case, the EU is unlikely to accept Turkey as a member while it has a ‘frozen conflict’ with its eastern neighbour and while its frontier with Armenia remains shut,” Tanner says.

The political analyst also comments on U.S. role in the process: “Hillary Clinton's presence in Switzerland at the weekend, urging the two sides to hurry up and sign the accord, was evidence of the importance that the US attaches to the dispute. The US is in a dilemma over Armenia. As a senator, Barack Obama vocally supported the Armenian cause and pledged to publicly describe the events of 1915-19 as Genocide if elected president. The main Armenian lobby groups in the US then urged their supporters to vote for Obama. Once in the White House, he started fudging the issue. Ideally Obama would like to square his earlier pro-Armenian commitments with the reality that Turkey is a far more important player than Armenia. If the two sides wind down the dispute themselves, of course, it helps Obama get out of a tight spot.

How does Azerbaijan come into the dispute? This is where it gets complicated. The main reason why Turkey closed the border with Armenia is not because Armenians accuse Turks of genocide. It is because in 1993 Armenia invaded its own eastern neighbour, Azerbaijan, on behalf of the embattled and besieged Armenian enclave of Nagorny Karabakh, which had proclaimed independence from Azerbaijan.”"The signing of the accord is a milestone in the story of Armenian-Turkish relations but not the end of the story by any means. The two parliaments in Yerevan and Ankara must ratify the accord and a “yes” vote is not guaranteed in either assembly.

As for the joint commission to examine what happened in the First World War, the question of who joins it and what it does will be enormously controversial. It may never get off the ground. But even if it doesn't, the reopening of the border between these two countries is an event of more than regional significance. Whatever reservations are felt on either side, the accord has to be good news," Tanner writes.

Finally the author brings the arguments for and against whether “the accord going to end decades of hatred.”

“Yes

Whatever the Armenian diaspora says, growing numbers of people in Armenia want to trade and travel. Historians on both sides of the frontier are increasingly determined to query 'official' versions of history. Turkey knows it cannot advance its EU hopes while relations with its eastern neighbour are frozen.

No

Nationalists in both countries are determined to prevent reconciliation and will lobby their two parliaments.

Even if the two assemblies do ratify the agreement, it will do very little to undo decades of mutual animosity.

By raising hopes that cannot be satisfied, the accord, paradoxically, may end up making matters worse.”