Tweet
PRECONDITIONS CONTINUE TO REMAIN AS PRECONDITIONS EVEN IF NOT EXPRESSED DIRECTLY
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
16 Sep 2008
Armenia
VAHRAM ATANESYAN, Head of the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations
of the NKR National Assembly, presents his views on the recent
developments in the Armenian-Turkish relations.
"All in all, I estimate Mr. Gul's visit as positive. There are a great
number of unresolved issues in the Armenian-Turkish relations, and the
ways towards their solution should be sought in the dialogue between
Armenia and Turkey, the Armenian people and the Turkish society. In
this respect, it is necessary to welcome the Armenian President's
initiative of getting the dialogue on the start. Naturally, it is
impossible to make predictions on the future of the Armenian-Turkish
relations by one meeting only.
Especially considering the fact that during his visit to Baku, the
Turkish President made certain accentuations which, in my opinion,
do not quite correspond to the reality. The general impression is
that Turkey continues to stipulate its relations with Armenia by the
Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and the fact of the Karabakh issue
being unsettled.
This obviously contradicts to the general viewpoint, i.e. there
should be no precondition for establishing relations between the
two countries."
"Before and after his visit to Armenia and even during his meeting
with20 Mr. Aliev in Baku, the Turkish President refrained from the
traditional practice of communicating with Armenia in the language
of ultimatums."
"Preconditions, in all cases, remain as preconditions regardless
whether they are expressed in a direct or indirect manner. President
Gul's visit to Baku testifies to the fact that Turkey does really see
those preconditions in its agenda. The conversation is about both
the Treaty of Kars and the recognition of the Genocide, as well as
the pro-Azerbaijani settlement of the Karabakh issue. I do really
have such a feeling."
"Nevertheless, let's agree that this was the first case that the
Azerbaijani President, in his turn, refrained from bellicose statements
and was relatively restrained in his expressions."
"What restrains the Azerbaijani President is the current situation in
the region. Making bellicose statements after the recent developments
in South Ossetia will not simply fit the general logic of the regional
and geopolitical processes. Therefore, I wouldn't account for it
by the fact that the Turkish President has given Mr. Aliev certain
guarantees as a result of which the latter has mitigated his rhetoric.
Or rather, the general atmosphere is such that the Azerbaijani
President could not have possibly made a statement on solving the
issue of the 'occupied territories' through military operations. It
would also be illogical to consider the Turkish President's visit to
Armenia as a 'mutual concession' to the Armenian side. Whereas the
Azerbaijani media and politicians are inclined to interpret Mr. Gul's
visit in their context, saying that the Turkish President has made a
concession by visiting Yerevan, and the 'ball' is on the playground
of the Armenian side, so to say. This is an unserious approach."
"Does it mean you don't believe in Mr. Gul's sincerity when he
expresses his willingness to assist in the process of the settlement
of the Karabakh conflict?"
"In my opinion, even the Turkish President himself does not believe in
his own sincerity when the conversation goes around the fair solution
of the Karabakh issue. That's to say, the accentuations he voiced
in Baku do not show any change in Turkey's attitude; neither do they
give any hint that President Gul is going to demonstrate impartiality
with respect to the Karabakh issue. This should be clear to everybody.
It's one thing when the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group or the G-8
Foreign Ministers say that the settlement should be based upon
all the fundamental principles of international law including the
peoples' right to self-determination, and quite a different thing
when speaking about the 'occupied territories' and the return of the
refugees, the Turkish Pres ident seems to be putting a full stop at
this point. By doing this, he actually 'proofreads' the general logic
of the negotiation process, which implied a mutual concession.
If the President of Turkey puts a full stop after the return of
the 'occupied territories' and the refugees, and that full stop is
political in its nature, then it really doesn't correspond either to
the developments that took place before August and the developments
that are taking place now. There is such an impression that Turkey
is trying to do something which Azerbaijan didn't manage to do so
far and is assuming the role of a guarantor to prevent Azerbaijan
from using force against us.
God grant that I were mistaken, and my feeling proved to be wrong."
"Does the Karabakh side find the replacement of the Co-Chairs
acceptable, especially considering that this policy works to the
benefit of Turkey and to the detriment of Russia?"
"I don't think it would be right to prefer one of the mediators to
the other. As regards Turkey, its unilateral participation cannot
certainly be constructive.
In my opinion, it would be better if the three Co-Chairs continued
working on the principles which were being discussed till the last
moment and around which the parties had expressed willingness to
negotiate in the near future."
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
16 Sep 2008
Armenia
VAHRAM ATANESYAN, Head of the Standing Committee on Foreign Relations
of the NKR National Assembly, presents his views on the recent
developments in the Armenian-Turkish relations.
"All in all, I estimate Mr. Gul's visit as positive. There are a great
number of unresolved issues in the Armenian-Turkish relations, and the
ways towards their solution should be sought in the dialogue between
Armenia and Turkey, the Armenian people and the Turkish society. In
this respect, it is necessary to welcome the Armenian President's
initiative of getting the dialogue on the start. Naturally, it is
impossible to make predictions on the future of the Armenian-Turkish
relations by one meeting only.
Especially considering the fact that during his visit to Baku, the
Turkish President made certain accentuations which, in my opinion,
do not quite correspond to the reality. The general impression is
that Turkey continues to stipulate its relations with Armenia by the
Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and the fact of the Karabakh issue
being unsettled.
This obviously contradicts to the general viewpoint, i.e. there
should be no precondition for establishing relations between the
two countries."
"Before and after his visit to Armenia and even during his meeting
with20 Mr. Aliev in Baku, the Turkish President refrained from the
traditional practice of communicating with Armenia in the language
of ultimatums."
"Preconditions, in all cases, remain as preconditions regardless
whether they are expressed in a direct or indirect manner. President
Gul's visit to Baku testifies to the fact that Turkey does really see
those preconditions in its agenda. The conversation is about both
the Treaty of Kars and the recognition of the Genocide, as well as
the pro-Azerbaijani settlement of the Karabakh issue. I do really
have such a feeling."
"Nevertheless, let's agree that this was the first case that the
Azerbaijani President, in his turn, refrained from bellicose statements
and was relatively restrained in his expressions."
"What restrains the Azerbaijani President is the current situation in
the region. Making bellicose statements after the recent developments
in South Ossetia will not simply fit the general logic of the regional
and geopolitical processes. Therefore, I wouldn't account for it
by the fact that the Turkish President has given Mr. Aliev certain
guarantees as a result of which the latter has mitigated his rhetoric.
Or rather, the general atmosphere is such that the Azerbaijani
President could not have possibly made a statement on solving the
issue of the 'occupied territories' through military operations. It
would also be illogical to consider the Turkish President's visit to
Armenia as a 'mutual concession' to the Armenian side. Whereas the
Azerbaijani media and politicians are inclined to interpret Mr. Gul's
visit in their context, saying that the Turkish President has made a
concession by visiting Yerevan, and the 'ball' is on the playground
of the Armenian side, so to say. This is an unserious approach."
"Does it mean you don't believe in Mr. Gul's sincerity when he
expresses his willingness to assist in the process of the settlement
of the Karabakh conflict?"
"In my opinion, even the Turkish President himself does not believe in
his own sincerity when the conversation goes around the fair solution
of the Karabakh issue. That's to say, the accentuations he voiced
in Baku do not show any change in Turkey's attitude; neither do they
give any hint that President Gul is going to demonstrate impartiality
with respect to the Karabakh issue. This should be clear to everybody.
It's one thing when the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group or the G-8
Foreign Ministers say that the settlement should be based upon
all the fundamental principles of international law including the
peoples' right to self-determination, and quite a different thing
when speaking about the 'occupied territories' and the return of the
refugees, the Turkish Pres ident seems to be putting a full stop at
this point. By doing this, he actually 'proofreads' the general logic
of the negotiation process, which implied a mutual concession.
If the President of Turkey puts a full stop after the return of
the 'occupied territories' and the refugees, and that full stop is
political in its nature, then it really doesn't correspond either to
the developments that took place before August and the developments
that are taking place now. There is such an impression that Turkey
is trying to do something which Azerbaijan didn't manage to do so
far and is assuming the role of a guarantor to prevent Azerbaijan
from using force against us.
God grant that I were mistaken, and my feeling proved to be wrong."
"Does the Karabakh side find the replacement of the Co-Chairs
acceptable, especially considering that this policy works to the
benefit of Turkey and to the detriment of Russia?"
"I don't think it would be right to prefer one of the mediators to
the other. As regards Turkey, its unilateral participation cannot
certainly be constructive.
In my opinion, it would be better if the three Co-Chairs continued
working on the principles which were being discussed till the last
moment and around which the parties had expressed willingness to
negotiate in the near future."