Introduction
The historical and political issues between Turkey and Armenia have been a major source of tension since the early 20th century. The events of 1915 remain one of the biggest obstacles to relations between the two countries, and in addition, Turkey's closure of its borders with Armenia and the lack of diplomatic relations have created a lasting status quo. This study analyzes how improving relations between Turkey and Armenia could be a rational strategy for both countries within the context of game theory. Furthermore, it is anticipated that improving these relations could contribute to global and regional peace.
Armenia
The history of Armenia is quite rich and complex. The region has been under the influence of various civilizations throughout history. In ancient times, it was the center of significant cultural and political formations like the "Urartian Kingdom." Urartu was an empire that expanded from the eastern regions of Anatolia to the Caucasus in the 9th century BC(^1). Later on, it came under the dominance of the Persian Empire and then became part of the Macedonian Empire with the conquests of Alexander the Great(^2). Subsequently, it fell under the control of the Roman Empire and its eastern successor, the Byzantine Empire(3).
The adoption of Christianity by Armenia occurred in AD 301 during the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great. This made Armenia one of the first Christian states in the world. Throughout the Middle Ages, the region frequently changed hands between the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanian Empire (the successor of the Persian Empire)(^5),(^6); with the dominance of Muslim Arabs in the 7th century, Islam and its culture also became influential(^6).
Armenia re-emerged as an independent kingdom in the 11th century. However, throughout the Middle Ages, the region fell under the rule of the Seljuk Turks, Mongols, and other Turkic states from Central Asia(^7). In the 19th century, it came under the influence of the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, and in 1918, the independent Democratic Republic of Armenia was established, but it soon became part of the Soviet Union(^8). With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the present Republic of Armenia was formed. Today, Armenia continues to exist as an independent state and plays a significant role in the geopolitical and cultural dynamics of the region(^9).
The Historical Background of Turkey-Armenia Relations
The foundation of Turkey-Armenia relations lies in deep historical ties and conflicts dating back to the Ottoman Empire. The events of 1915, referred to as “tehcir“ (forced relocation) in Turkey and “genocide“ in Armenia and the Armenian diaspora, led to a profound trauma between the two societies. During this period, the Armenian population living in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire was subjected to relocation on the grounds that they cooperated with the Russians under wartime conditions, resulting in the loss of hundreds of Armenian lives.
Turkey does not recognize these events as genocide, arguing that they occurred during a civil war and forcible relocation. Armenia, on the other hand, regards these events as the Armenian Genocide and demands that Turkey formally apologize and provide compensation. This historical tension has been a major factor in the inability to establish diplomatic relations between the two countries(^10).
Armenia gained its independence in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, since then, its relations with Turkey have never normalized. One of the reasons behind Turkey closing its borders with Armenia in 1993 was the Nagorno-Karabakh issue between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Turkey, as an ally of Azerbaijan, reacted to Armenia’s military presence in these territories, insisting that this issue be resolved before starting diplomatic relations(^11). This situation continues to be a significant bottleneck in Turkey-Armenia relations.
In 2009, a diplomatic rapprochement initiative known as the “Zurich Protocols“ took place between Turkey and Armenia, facilitated by Switzerland. These protocols envisioned the opening of borders and the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries; however, due to internal political pressures in both countries and strong objections from Azerbaijan, this process ended in failure(^12).
The Nagorno-Karabakh Issue
Nagorno-Karabakh is a region located within the borders of Azerbaijan, but it has historically been predominantly inhabited by Armenians. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Armenia claimed rights over this region and controlled it between 1991 and 1994. During this time, Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Azerbaijani territories were occupied by Armenia, which prompted a reaction from Azerbaijan on the international stage.
In 2020, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale operation with the political and military support of Turkey, regaining some of the territory it had lost in Nagorno-Karabakh. At the end of this six-week war, a ceasefire agreement was signed, mediated by Russia, and Azerbaijan recovered a significant portion of its territories around Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result of this war, Azerbaijan's sovereignty over the region has been re-established, but the status of Nagorno-Karabakh itself remains unresolved.
Today, the relationship between Turkey and Armenia is directly linked to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Turkey has long suspended its diplomatic relations with Armenia due to its support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Turkey closed its borders in 1993 because of Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijani territories in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, which has hindered the improvement of Turkey-Armenia relations. However, since 2021, a dialogue and normalization process has been initiated between the two countries.
Turkey-Azerbaijan relations are based on a strong bond of brotherhood and strategic partnership. The improvement of relations between Armenia and Turkey, as well as peace negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, are crucial for ensuring stability in the region. However, the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh and achieving lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan will be key to reducing tensions in the region.
Game Theory
Game theory is a mathematical model that analyzes the strategic interactions of decision-makers. It helps explain the dynamics of competition and cooperation in a framework where players consider the strategies of others to maximize their own interests. The relationship between Turkey and Armenia can be analyzed especially through the "prisoner’s dilemma" model. In this model, the losses increase if neither side cooperates, while cooperation could be more beneficial for both sides(^13).
The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a commonly used scenario in game theory that describes a situation where two individuals must decide whether to cooperate with each other. It is usually illustrated through an example involving criminals.
Game theory is an important tool used to analyze the foreign policy decisions and behaviors of states. It is very useful for understanding the strategic nature of interactions between states in international relations and can provide scientific insight.
Game theory focuses on analyzing situations where rational actors make strategic decisions, particularly dealing with uncertainty, trust issues, and conflicts of interest faced by states in international relations. States operate within mutual interactions when making foreign policy decisions, and each decision must take into account the strategies and reactions of other actors. Game theory helps us understand how these interactions develop.
1. The Prisoner's Dilemma and the Security Dilemma
One of the most well-known game theory models in international relations is the "Prisoner's Dilemma," which shows how a lack of trust between states can lead to conflicts. This model is used to explain situations where states fail to cooperate due to mutual distrust. For example, if both states distrust each other and ramp up their defenses, they can both end up in a less secure situation overall[^14]. This situation is known as the "security dilemma," and it illustrates how mutual distrust can drive states into conflict.
2. Zero-Sum and Non-Zero-Sum Games
Game theory also presents the concepts of "zero-sum" and "non-zero-sum games" in foreign policy analysis. "Zero-sum games" are situations where one state's gain equates to another's loss. A prime example of this would be the nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Both sides made massive investments in nuclear armaments to gain an advantage over each other, but in the end, both put their security at risk[^15].
"Non-zero-sum games" refer to scenarios where cooperation is possible. In some cases, states can reach a balance where both sides benefit from cooperation. For instance, international trade agreements or multilateral pacts aimed at combating climate change are examples of non-zero-sum games where states collaborate for their common interests[^16].
3. Nuclear Deterrence and the Cold War
Game theory has been used, especially for analyzing "nuclear deterrence" strategies. The concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" describes a situation where parties in a nuclear arms race have the capacity to destroy each other. This leads states to take deterrent measures to reduce the likelihood of nuclear attacks against one another. Game theory has been employed to analyze this strategic balance. The balance of nuclear weapons between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War can be explained through this kind of game theory analysis.
4. Negotiation and Bargaining Games
Game theory also plays a significant role in analyzing negotiation and bargaining processes in foreign policy. Concepts like "Nash Equilibrium" show that states can reach optimal outcomes by considering each other's actions. This can help in understanding the strategies used in international trade agreements, border disputes, and diplomatic relations.
The Limits of Game Theory
While game theory is a powerful tool in foreign policy analysis, it has its limitations. Game theory often assumes that states are rational actors trying to maximize their interests. However, cultural, historical, emotional, and psychological factors can also influence states' foreign policy decisions. Therefore, game theory cannot always fully explain all foreign policy dynamics(^19).
The historical and political issues between Turkey and Armenia have been a major source of tension since the early 20th century. The events of 1915 remain one of the biggest obstacles to relations between the two countries, and in addition, Turkey's closure of its borders with Armenia and the lack of diplomatic relations have created a lasting status quo. This study analyzes how improving relations between Turkey and Armenia could be a rational strategy for both countries within the context of game theory. Furthermore, it is anticipated that improving these relations could contribute to global and regional peace.
Armenia
The history of Armenia is quite rich and complex. The region has been under the influence of various civilizations throughout history. In ancient times, it was the center of significant cultural and political formations like the "Urartian Kingdom." Urartu was an empire that expanded from the eastern regions of Anatolia to the Caucasus in the 9th century BC(^1). Later on, it came under the dominance of the Persian Empire and then became part of the Macedonian Empire with the conquests of Alexander the Great(^2). Subsequently, it fell under the control of the Roman Empire and its eastern successor, the Byzantine Empire(3).
The adoption of Christianity by Armenia occurred in AD 301 during the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great. This made Armenia one of the first Christian states in the world. Throughout the Middle Ages, the region frequently changed hands between the Byzantine Empire and the Sassanian Empire (the successor of the Persian Empire)(^5),(^6); with the dominance of Muslim Arabs in the 7th century, Islam and its culture also became influential(^6).
Armenia re-emerged as an independent kingdom in the 11th century. However, throughout the Middle Ages, the region fell under the rule of the Seljuk Turks, Mongols, and other Turkic states from Central Asia(^7). In the 19th century, it came under the influence of the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, and in 1918, the independent Democratic Republic of Armenia was established, but it soon became part of the Soviet Union(^8). With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the present Republic of Armenia was formed. Today, Armenia continues to exist as an independent state and plays a significant role in the geopolitical and cultural dynamics of the region(^9).
The Historical Background of Turkey-Armenia Relations
The foundation of Turkey-Armenia relations lies in deep historical ties and conflicts dating back to the Ottoman Empire. The events of 1915, referred to as “tehcir“ (forced relocation) in Turkey and “genocide“ in Armenia and the Armenian diaspora, led to a profound trauma between the two societies. During this period, the Armenian population living in the eastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire was subjected to relocation on the grounds that they cooperated with the Russians under wartime conditions, resulting in the loss of hundreds of Armenian lives.
Turkey does not recognize these events as genocide, arguing that they occurred during a civil war and forcible relocation. Armenia, on the other hand, regards these events as the Armenian Genocide and demands that Turkey formally apologize and provide compensation. This historical tension has been a major factor in the inability to establish diplomatic relations between the two countries(^10).
Armenia gained its independence in 1991 with the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, since then, its relations with Turkey have never normalized. One of the reasons behind Turkey closing its borders with Armenia in 1993 was the Nagorno-Karabakh issue between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Turkey, as an ally of Azerbaijan, reacted to Armenia’s military presence in these territories, insisting that this issue be resolved before starting diplomatic relations(^11). This situation continues to be a significant bottleneck in Turkey-Armenia relations.
In 2009, a diplomatic rapprochement initiative known as the “Zurich Protocols“ took place between Turkey and Armenia, facilitated by Switzerland. These protocols envisioned the opening of borders and the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries; however, due to internal political pressures in both countries and strong objections from Azerbaijan, this process ended in failure(^12).
The Nagorno-Karabakh Issue
Nagorno-Karabakh is a region located within the borders of Azerbaijan, but it has historically been predominantly inhabited by Armenians. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Armenia claimed rights over this region and controlled it between 1991 and 1994. During this time, Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Azerbaijani territories were occupied by Armenia, which prompted a reaction from Azerbaijan on the international stage.
In 2020, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale operation with the political and military support of Turkey, regaining some of the territory it had lost in Nagorno-Karabakh. At the end of this six-week war, a ceasefire agreement was signed, mediated by Russia, and Azerbaijan recovered a significant portion of its territories around Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result of this war, Azerbaijan's sovereignty over the region has been re-established, but the status of Nagorno-Karabakh itself remains unresolved.
Today, the relationship between Turkey and Armenia is directly linked to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Turkey has long suspended its diplomatic relations with Armenia due to its support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Turkey closed its borders in 1993 because of Armenia's occupation of Azerbaijani territories in and around Nagorno-Karabakh, which has hindered the improvement of Turkey-Armenia relations. However, since 2021, a dialogue and normalization process has been initiated between the two countries.
Turkey-Azerbaijan relations are based on a strong bond of brotherhood and strategic partnership. The improvement of relations between Armenia and Turkey, as well as peace negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia, are crucial for ensuring stability in the region. However, the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh and achieving lasting peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan will be key to reducing tensions in the region.
Game Theory
Game theory is a mathematical model that analyzes the strategic interactions of decision-makers. It helps explain the dynamics of competition and cooperation in a framework where players consider the strategies of others to maximize their own interests. The relationship between Turkey and Armenia can be analyzed especially through the "prisoner’s dilemma" model. In this model, the losses increase if neither side cooperates, while cooperation could be more beneficial for both sides(^13).
The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a commonly used scenario in game theory that describes a situation where two individuals must decide whether to cooperate with each other. It is usually illustrated through an example involving criminals.
Game theory is an important tool used to analyze the foreign policy decisions and behaviors of states. It is very useful for understanding the strategic nature of interactions between states in international relations and can provide scientific insight.
Game theory focuses on analyzing situations where rational actors make strategic decisions, particularly dealing with uncertainty, trust issues, and conflicts of interest faced by states in international relations. States operate within mutual interactions when making foreign policy decisions, and each decision must take into account the strategies and reactions of other actors. Game theory helps us understand how these interactions develop.
1. The Prisoner's Dilemma and the Security Dilemma
One of the most well-known game theory models in international relations is the "Prisoner's Dilemma," which shows how a lack of trust between states can lead to conflicts. This model is used to explain situations where states fail to cooperate due to mutual distrust. For example, if both states distrust each other and ramp up their defenses, they can both end up in a less secure situation overall[^14]. This situation is known as the "security dilemma," and it illustrates how mutual distrust can drive states into conflict.
2. Zero-Sum and Non-Zero-Sum Games
Game theory also presents the concepts of "zero-sum" and "non-zero-sum games" in foreign policy analysis. "Zero-sum games" are situations where one state's gain equates to another's loss. A prime example of this would be the nuclear arms race between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Both sides made massive investments in nuclear armaments to gain an advantage over each other, but in the end, both put their security at risk[^15].
"Non-zero-sum games" refer to scenarios where cooperation is possible. In some cases, states can reach a balance where both sides benefit from cooperation. For instance, international trade agreements or multilateral pacts aimed at combating climate change are examples of non-zero-sum games where states collaborate for their common interests[^16].
3. Nuclear Deterrence and the Cold War
Game theory has been used, especially for analyzing "nuclear deterrence" strategies. The concept of "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" describes a situation where parties in a nuclear arms race have the capacity to destroy each other. This leads states to take deterrent measures to reduce the likelihood of nuclear attacks against one another. Game theory has been employed to analyze this strategic balance. The balance of nuclear weapons between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War can be explained through this kind of game theory analysis.
4. Negotiation and Bargaining Games
Game theory also plays a significant role in analyzing negotiation and bargaining processes in foreign policy. Concepts like "Nash Equilibrium" show that states can reach optimal outcomes by considering each other's actions. This can help in understanding the strategies used in international trade agreements, border disputes, and diplomatic relations.
The Limits of Game Theory
While game theory is a powerful tool in foreign policy analysis, it has its limitations. Game theory often assumes that states are rational actors trying to maximize their interests. However, cultural, historical, emotional, and psychological factors can also influence states' foreign policy decisions. Therefore, game theory cannot always fully explain all foreign policy dynamics(^19).
| Game Theory Model | Application | Foreign Policy Context | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prisoner's Dilemma | Lack of trust between two states. | Arms races or security policies (e.g., the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War). | Both states arm themselves; if cooperation fails, the likelihood of conflict increases. |
| Zero-Sum Game | One state's gain is the other's loss. | Competitive relations (e.g., territorial disputes, war). | The winning state gains, while the other loses. Conflict may become inevitable. |
| Non-Zero-Sum Game | Situations where both sides can benefit. | Cases requiring cooperation, such as trade agreements or environmental policies. | Both parties come out ahead through collaboration. |
| Nuclear Deterrence | Deterrence through mutually assured destruction (MAD). | Nuclear armament and deterrence strategies (e.g., during the Cold War). | Parties avoid nuclear war, but a constant race for deterrence continues. |
| Negotiation and Bargaining Games | Diplomatic negotiations between states. | Trade negotiations, border disputes, peace talks. | Peaceful resolutions can be achieved through optimal agreements. |
Prisoner's Dilemma Scenario
Two criminals (A and B) have been caught and placed in separate cells. Both criminals are faced with the following options:
1. Not Confessing (Cooperating): If both criminals do not confess (that is, cooperate), each will be tried for a minor crime and both will receive a light sentence (for example, 1 year in prison).
2. Confessing (Betraying): If one confesses while the other does not, the one who confesses will be released, while the one who does not confess will receive a heavy sentence (for example, 10 years in prison).
3. If Both Confess: If both criminals betray each other, both will receive a moderate sentence (for example, 5 years in prison).
Options:
- If both remain silent (cooperate): 1 year in prison.
- If one remains silent and the other betrays: The betrayer goes free, while the silent one gets 10 years in prison.
- If both betray: Both get 5 years in prison.
Dilemma:
If both criminals think logically, they might reason that the safest option for themselves is to betray. Because if the other side stays silent, there’s a chance to go free, but if the other side betrays, the one who stays silent will receive a heavy sentence. However, if both sides betray, both will receive a moderate penalty, while if they cooperate, they will get the lowest sentence (1 year).
This situation shows that even though collaborating generally leads to better outcomes, pursuing personal interests (betrayal) can be rationally preferred. Therefore, the prisoner's dilemma is an example of game theory illustrating how the lack of trust between individuals can lead to negative consequences for all parties involved.
Prisoner’s Dilemma Between Turkey and Armenia
The current status quo between Turkey and Armenia can be defined as a “steady state“ where both sides approach each other with distrust and make no attempts at rapprochement or diplomatic contact. This can be likened to the "defection" strategy in the prisoner's dilemma model. Both countries are trying to enhance their security by maintaining diplomatic isolation or keeping their borders closed, yet this leads to greater losses for both sides.
Situation 1: Neither Country Cooperates
In this scenario, while Turkey continues to keep its borders closed and does not establish diplomatic relations with Armenia, Armenia engages in activities against Turkey on the international stage. This situation results in economic, political, and social losses for both countries. For instance, Turkey is unable to develop trade routes with the Caucasus and Central Asia, while Armenia loses out on economic growth and development opportunities due to the effects of regional isolation(^20).
Situation 2: Unilateral Cooperation (Turkey's or Armenia's One-Sided Approach)
Even if one side is willing to cooperate, the lack of cooperation from the other side can reinforce distrust and does not yield positive results in the long term. For example, if Turkey opens its borders and establishes diplomatic relations, but Armenia does not reciprocate, this could pose a political risk for Turkey and harm its national interests. Similarly, if Armenia takes positive steps but Turkey does not respond, Armenia faces similar risks(^21).
Situation 3: Mutual Cooperation
The choice of both parties to cooperate is the optimal outcome predicted by game theory. The improvement of Turkey-Armenia relations will enhance economic cooperation, contribute to regional peace, and help both countries gain a more positive image internationally. By opening its borders with Armenia, Turkey can establish a stronger transport route to Central Asia and the Caucasus, while Armenia can gain significantly in terms of trade and investments by collaborating with Turkey(^22).
Recommendations and Conclusion
Armenia’s perspective on Turkey has been shaped by historical and political dynamics. The presentation of the events of 1915 as the Armenian Genocide is a fundamental source of tension between the two countries. While Armenia recognizes the 1915 events as genocide, Turkey rejects this characterization and does not revisit the events in question. These differing viewpoints are the most significant barrier to relations between the two countries. Additionally, the Armenia-Turkey border has been closed since 1993, which has been a limiting factor for Armenia in terms of economic and political cooperation with Turkey. One of the international reasons for the border closure is Turkey's close relationship with Azerbaijan and its support for Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
When looking at this through the lens of game theory, the current "status quo" between Turkey and Armenia is harming both countries. On the other hand, a mutual cooperation strategy could create a situation where both sides benefit. Steps like implementing confidence-building measures, initiating diplomatic contacts, and enhancing mutual trade relations will serve the long-term interests of both countries.
| Turkey's Strategy | Armenia's Strategy | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|
| Maintain the Status Quo | Maintain the Status Quo | Both sides continue to suffer from lack of trade and diplomacy (Prisoner's Dilemma: Lose-Lose). |
| Cooperate | Maintain the Status Quo | Turkey benefits, Armenia continues to suffer (Gain-Loss). |
| Maintain the Status Quo | Cooperate | Armenia benefits, Turkey continues to suffer (Loss-Gain). |
| Cooperate | Cooperate | Both sides gain economically, diplomatically, and in terms of security (Cooperation: Win-Win). |
• Maintaining the Status Quo: If both countries continue the current conflict situation, both sides will keep losing out on potential gains.
• Collaborating: If both sides opt for a collaboration strategy, a win-win situation will emerge. Confidence-building measures and trade relations will strengthen regional stability.
Fixing the relationship is important not just for the two countries, but also for regional and global peace. In light of game theory, mutual trust and cooperative steps will benefit both countries and minimize potential risks. Therefore, improving relations should be seen as a strategic necessity.
• Collaborating: If both sides opt for a collaboration strategy, a win-win situation will emerge. Confidence-building measures and trade relations will strengthen regional stability.
Fixing the relationship is important not just for the two countries, but also for regional and global peace. In light of game theory, mutual trust and cooperative steps will benefit both countries and minimize potential risks. Therefore, improving relations should be seen as a strategic necessity.
