Tweet
NO ABRUPT CHANGES EXPECTED IN TURKEY'S POLICY
Anahit Yesayan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
14 Nov 08
Armenia
Interview with HAYK DEMOYAN, Director of the Museum-Institute of
Genocide
"What can you say about the Serge Sargsyan-Abdullah Gul meeting? To
what extent was it beneficial, and what did Armenia gain from it?"
"The proposal of the President of the Republic of Armenia was a
timely step which was diplomatically justified. If we speak about the
results, this was really a step by which Armenia once again showed
its willingness of establishing ties with Turkey, its direct neighbor,
without any preconditions (regardless the fact that there are issues
arousing concern).
In this way, the Armenian side created a certain positive image. This
step of the President was commendable and justified from the diplomatic
point of view.
However, speaking about the 'football diplomacy', I think there
is one more football flank we are required to make use of. That is,
this diplomacy between the two parties implied quick passes, something
which the Turkish side unfortunately didn't manage to do and continues
acting in the same spirit up to date.
The Turkish side should have realized the importance of the moment
considering its own interests; it should have realized that this was
a chance given to it by the Armenian side. However, the prevalent
mentality among the Turk s was that the Armenian party had made the
proposal considering certain circumstances and issues.
This is a misperception. The Turkish party not only failed to make
any attempts for ameliorating the relations in a very short period,
but also reiterated its attitude of advancing preconditions with
regard to two key issues. First, it set forth the well-known thesis of
discontinuing the process of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide
in anticipation of receiving a relevant response from the Armenian
party, and second, it now all the time raises the Karabakh issue,
viewing it as a precondition for regulating the Armenian-Turkish
relations.
This is definitely acceptable to the Armenian side, and in an interview
to one of the German newspapers, President S. Sargsyan made proper
and timely accentuations in this regard.
Such tough and abrupt formulations by the Armenian side were proper and
timely because the mentality that Armenia was ready to any concession
was gradually striking deeper roots in Turkey."
"What was shown by the Turkish President's proposal on becoming an
impartial mediator in the Karabakh settlement process? To what extent
can Turkey be in independent mediator in that regard?"
"Giving a very short answer, I should say that the resolution which
currently serves as a basis for Azerbaijan and Turkey for establishing
and building relations based on the principle 'one nation=2 0- one
culture' does not leave any room for impartiality. As Bismark would
say, the willingness of acting as a "neutral broker" is only for
the naïve. I assure you that the reason there are no abrupt changes
in Turkey's policy is that Azerbaijan is Turkey's chief ally in the
South Caucasus.
The fact of making the Karabakh settlement issue one of the
preconditions for establishing relations with the Armenian side came
to prove once again that Turkey is a party to the conflict on the
Karabakh front."
--Boundary_(ID_g8WPLuSoSJCldp7pF5cKy A)--
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Anahit Yesayan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
14 Nov 08
Armenia
Interview with HAYK DEMOYAN, Director of the Museum-Institute of
Genocide
"What can you say about the Serge Sargsyan-Abdullah Gul meeting? To
what extent was it beneficial, and what did Armenia gain from it?"
"The proposal of the President of the Republic of Armenia was a
timely step which was diplomatically justified. If we speak about the
results, this was really a step by which Armenia once again showed
its willingness of establishing ties with Turkey, its direct neighbor,
without any preconditions (regardless the fact that there are issues
arousing concern).
In this way, the Armenian side created a certain positive image. This
step of the President was commendable and justified from the diplomatic
point of view.
However, speaking about the 'football diplomacy', I think there
is one more football flank we are required to make use of. That is,
this diplomacy between the two parties implied quick passes, something
which the Turkish side unfortunately didn't manage to do and continues
acting in the same spirit up to date.
The Turkish side should have realized the importance of the moment
considering its own interests; it should have realized that this was
a chance given to it by the Armenian side. However, the prevalent
mentality among the Turk s was that the Armenian party had made the
proposal considering certain circumstances and issues.
This is a misperception. The Turkish party not only failed to make
any attempts for ameliorating the relations in a very short period,
but also reiterated its attitude of advancing preconditions with
regard to two key issues. First, it set forth the well-known thesis of
discontinuing the process of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide
in anticipation of receiving a relevant response from the Armenian
party, and second, it now all the time raises the Karabakh issue,
viewing it as a precondition for regulating the Armenian-Turkish
relations.
This is definitely acceptable to the Armenian side, and in an interview
to one of the German newspapers, President S. Sargsyan made proper
and timely accentuations in this regard.
Such tough and abrupt formulations by the Armenian side were proper and
timely because the mentality that Armenia was ready to any concession
was gradually striking deeper roots in Turkey."
"What was shown by the Turkish President's proposal on becoming an
impartial mediator in the Karabakh settlement process? To what extent
can Turkey be in independent mediator in that regard?"
"Giving a very short answer, I should say that the resolution which
currently serves as a basis for Azerbaijan and Turkey for establishing
and building relations based on the principle 'one nation=2 0- one
culture' does not leave any room for impartiality. As Bismark would
say, the willingness of acting as a "neutral broker" is only for
the naïve. I assure you that the reason there are no abrupt changes
in Turkey's policy is that Azerbaijan is Turkey's chief ally in the
South Caucasus.
The fact of making the Karabakh settlement issue one of the
preconditions for establishing relations with the Armenian side came
to prove once again that Turkey is a party to the conflict on the
Karabakh front."
--Boundary_(ID_g8WPLuSoSJCldp7pF5cKy A)--
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress