Tweet
ERDOGAN'S VISIT TO WASHINGTON ENDS IN A FIASCO
David Stepanyan
ArmInfo
December 11 2009
Interview with Sergey Shakaryants, expert at Political Research
Institute, Presidential Administration
Mr. Shakaryants, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's visit to Washington
became the reason for the heated comments in Armenian and Azerbaijani
Mass Media. Particularly, Baku's propaganda says Karabakh conflict
was on agenda of Obama-Erdogan meeting...
First, Erdogan visited Washington not to speak of Armenia or Karabakh,
and he didn't touch on settlement of the problems connected with
Azerbaijan at all. Actually, the parties discussed these issues, but
in the range of problems that are far from being the most important
ones worrying Ankara because of the USA's role in the region adjoining
the South Caucasus. One of the first responses from the USA after
Erdogan's departure shows that Washington once again ruled out Iran's
involvement in the communication projects of the West. This proves that
it was the Iranian problem that Ankara wanted to solve in Washington,
and not the problems connected with the South Caucasus.
That is to say, Erdogan once again tried to raise the Turkish factor
in the problems between the USA and Iran, including the nuclear
one, and to become the mediator between Tehran and Washington but
he failed to. Moreover, on December 9 the Iranian foreign ministry
managed to announce Iran's refusal to use Turkey as a mediator in the
American-Iranian relations on the nuclear problem. The second issue,
which Erdogan left to bargain for with the USA, was Iraq, specifically
Kurdistan. This intention of the Turkish prime minister failed too.
Why do you think so?
The news line broadcasted since December 8 on all the channels, except
the Turkish media, allows me thinking so. That is, despite Erdogan's
genuine efforts, the arrangements between US president and the
president of Iraqi Kurdistan Massoud Barzani have remained in force.
In the given case the matter is the Kurdish problem in Turkey,
specifically, belonging of Kirkuk and the whole Kirkuk region with its
oil and gas reserves, as well as the Kurdish intifada against Turks.
In addition, Turkey continues making allegations to the world
community that certain cycles in the West promote terrorism against
Turkey. Vice Premier of that country Cemil Cicek has officially made
such allegations quite recently. In addition, Turks are trying to
close down the only and parliamentary pro-Kurdish Democratic Society
Party. Against such background, the USA's decision to provide that
party with an office in Washington is a bright evidence of Turkey's
failure in the negotiations with the USA.
In other words, the USA has not refused its plans to create independent
Kurdistan including in the lands that Turkey believes its historical
ones?
Yes, of course. Turks did not even oppose creation of Kurdistan,
they just debated for Kirkuk that is currently in the Iraqi Kurdistan.
Turkey has faced some acute problems that bear no relations to Armenia,
Azerbaijan and much less to Nagorny Karabakh. In addition, Kurds have
not bite the statement by the Turkish authorities, which say that
they are allegedly going to revise their policy towards national
minorities. In this context, Kurds always appeal to international
support creating certain tension in Turkey and constantly threatening
with interference by the international community into internal affairs
of Turkey. Turkey may be whipped for incompliance with European
standards, the Western democracy and a number of other standards,
which will, actually, become a bur in the throat of Ankara considering
Erdogan's aspiration to the EU.
Kurdish and Armenian issues are a bludgeon raised over Turkey by the
West. If Erdogan failed to settle the Kurdish problem, can we say
the same about the Armenian one?
I believe that Turkey failed to solve even prior problems leaving
aside the secondary ones. That was proved by the indirect response
by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which said
immediately after Erdogan's visit that Americans allowed themselves
to be led by Turkey and that US presidents will promise to recognize
the Genocide and fail to do that with every passing year.
That powerful statement by ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian
will be used by US Department of State to demonstrate that nobody
should have grounds to doubt that the USA keeps on guarding democracy
in the world, especially in Turkey, which continues being the USA's
satellite. There can be no doubts that Ankara has ever been able to
wage its foreign policy independently.
Nevertheless, Turkey began making fully independent steps in foreign
policy because of the Kurdish problem, particularly, US policy in
the Middle East. It was not because of its desire to get rid of US
control that Turkey acts independently. Simply, Ankara is well aware
that establishment of Kurdistan will be a prologue to disintegration
processes inside Turkey. The statement made by the president of
the Iraqi Kurdistan Barzani quite recently saying that only American
generals and servicemen are the real friends of Kurdistan was a bright
evidence of the aforementioned. Therefore, it is no secret for Turks
that the American servicemen deployed allegedly in Iraq, but actually
in Kurdistan, are their potential enemies who stimulate the start
of the Kurdish intifada. Against the background of starting serious
geopolitical changes in that region, the Armenian-Azerbaijani issues
are overshadowed by the flow of information from Tehran, Erbil and
Baghdad. Therefore the Armenian-Turkish relations have been sidelined
by the American-Turkish ones. Iran is the issue of prior importance,
then comes Kurdistan.
What about Nabucco project? How important is it considering Erdogan's
statement in Washington saying that the share of Azerbaijani gas in
Nabucco will not exceed 10%?
Nabucco project is more important for Turkey than the
Armenian-Azerbaijani problems, but less important than the Iranian
and Kurdish ones. The European Commissioner on Energy Andris Piebalgs
said earlier that Europe will try to use Kirkuk, i.e.
Kurdistan's gas for Nabucco. Moreover, for a long period of time Europe
via the UN has been offering Kurds to refuse their rights on Kirkuk.
Does the Armenian-Turkish border have at least a little part in
this context?
It plays absolutely no part. The role of the border between Armenia
and Turkey is for Turks at least a guarantee of keeping their borders
on the east against the background of establishment and international
recognition of the new state Kurdistan. The Turkish officials have
confessed it.
That is, Turks are rather interested in implementation of the Protocols
with Armenia, since they suggest mutual recognition of borders.
I do not rule out that factor, though I cannot say anything more
specifically. The process between Armenia and Turkey will not be
suspended, of course, but this will hardly become of prior importance
for the East, the USA and even Turkey. That is, the Armenian-Turkish
process will be in the air as long as the USA achieves an agreement
with Turkey on the Kurdish problem. This will not be easy since
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoghlu is currently waging the policy
of Neo-Ottomanism that makes Turkey responsible almost for all the
Muslims in the world. This is the same Pan-Turkism in a new wrapper.
Do you think that the USA and Europe are really interested in
acceleration of the Karabakh conflict's resolution?
I think the USA and Europe are not interested in acceleration of the
Karabakh conflict settlement as, in fact, they want no interrelation or
distinct preconditions to be between the Armenian-Turkish and Karabakh
processes. In this format both the USA and Europe, and even Russia
agreed to solve the problem of borders and relations between Armenia
and Turkey. In this context, Turkish Premier Erdogan's statement that
the parliament is uncontrollable sounds simply ridiculous as his party
has control over the Turkish parliament. And everybody understands
this, including Washington, as much as they understand that this is
just an attempt by Erdogan to gain time.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
David Stepanyan
ArmInfo
December 11 2009
Interview with Sergey Shakaryants, expert at Political Research
Institute, Presidential Administration
Mr. Shakaryants, Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan's visit to Washington
became the reason for the heated comments in Armenian and Azerbaijani
Mass Media. Particularly, Baku's propaganda says Karabakh conflict
was on agenda of Obama-Erdogan meeting...
First, Erdogan visited Washington not to speak of Armenia or Karabakh,
and he didn't touch on settlement of the problems connected with
Azerbaijan at all. Actually, the parties discussed these issues, but
in the range of problems that are far from being the most important
ones worrying Ankara because of the USA's role in the region adjoining
the South Caucasus. One of the first responses from the USA after
Erdogan's departure shows that Washington once again ruled out Iran's
involvement in the communication projects of the West. This proves that
it was the Iranian problem that Ankara wanted to solve in Washington,
and not the problems connected with the South Caucasus.
That is to say, Erdogan once again tried to raise the Turkish factor
in the problems between the USA and Iran, including the nuclear
one, and to become the mediator between Tehran and Washington but
he failed to. Moreover, on December 9 the Iranian foreign ministry
managed to announce Iran's refusal to use Turkey as a mediator in the
American-Iranian relations on the nuclear problem. The second issue,
which Erdogan left to bargain for with the USA, was Iraq, specifically
Kurdistan. This intention of the Turkish prime minister failed too.
Why do you think so?
The news line broadcasted since December 8 on all the channels, except
the Turkish media, allows me thinking so. That is, despite Erdogan's
genuine efforts, the arrangements between US president and the
president of Iraqi Kurdistan Massoud Barzani have remained in force.
In the given case the matter is the Kurdish problem in Turkey,
specifically, belonging of Kirkuk and the whole Kirkuk region with its
oil and gas reserves, as well as the Kurdish intifada against Turks.
In addition, Turkey continues making allegations to the world
community that certain cycles in the West promote terrorism against
Turkey. Vice Premier of that country Cemil Cicek has officially made
such allegations quite recently. In addition, Turks are trying to
close down the only and parliamentary pro-Kurdish Democratic Society
Party. Against such background, the USA's decision to provide that
party with an office in Washington is a bright evidence of Turkey's
failure in the negotiations with the USA.
In other words, the USA has not refused its plans to create independent
Kurdistan including in the lands that Turkey believes its historical
ones?
Yes, of course. Turks did not even oppose creation of Kurdistan,
they just debated for Kirkuk that is currently in the Iraqi Kurdistan.
Turkey has faced some acute problems that bear no relations to Armenia,
Azerbaijan and much less to Nagorny Karabakh. In addition, Kurds have
not bite the statement by the Turkish authorities, which say that
they are allegedly going to revise their policy towards national
minorities. In this context, Kurds always appeal to international
support creating certain tension in Turkey and constantly threatening
with interference by the international community into internal affairs
of Turkey. Turkey may be whipped for incompliance with European
standards, the Western democracy and a number of other standards,
which will, actually, become a bur in the throat of Ankara considering
Erdogan's aspiration to the EU.
Kurdish and Armenian issues are a bludgeon raised over Turkey by the
West. If Erdogan failed to settle the Kurdish problem, can we say
the same about the Armenian one?
I believe that Turkey failed to solve even prior problems leaving
aside the secondary ones. That was proved by the indirect response
by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), which said
immediately after Erdogan's visit that Americans allowed themselves
to be led by Turkey and that US presidents will promise to recognize
the Genocide and fail to do that with every passing year.
That powerful statement by ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian
will be used by US Department of State to demonstrate that nobody
should have grounds to doubt that the USA keeps on guarding democracy
in the world, especially in Turkey, which continues being the USA's
satellite. There can be no doubts that Ankara has ever been able to
wage its foreign policy independently.
Nevertheless, Turkey began making fully independent steps in foreign
policy because of the Kurdish problem, particularly, US policy in
the Middle East. It was not because of its desire to get rid of US
control that Turkey acts independently. Simply, Ankara is well aware
that establishment of Kurdistan will be a prologue to disintegration
processes inside Turkey. The statement made by the president of
the Iraqi Kurdistan Barzani quite recently saying that only American
generals and servicemen are the real friends of Kurdistan was a bright
evidence of the aforementioned. Therefore, it is no secret for Turks
that the American servicemen deployed allegedly in Iraq, but actually
in Kurdistan, are their potential enemies who stimulate the start
of the Kurdish intifada. Against the background of starting serious
geopolitical changes in that region, the Armenian-Azerbaijani issues
are overshadowed by the flow of information from Tehran, Erbil and
Baghdad. Therefore the Armenian-Turkish relations have been sidelined
by the American-Turkish ones. Iran is the issue of prior importance,
then comes Kurdistan.
What about Nabucco project? How important is it considering Erdogan's
statement in Washington saying that the share of Azerbaijani gas in
Nabucco will not exceed 10%?
Nabucco project is more important for Turkey than the
Armenian-Azerbaijani problems, but less important than the Iranian
and Kurdish ones. The European Commissioner on Energy Andris Piebalgs
said earlier that Europe will try to use Kirkuk, i.e.
Kurdistan's gas for Nabucco. Moreover, for a long period of time Europe
via the UN has been offering Kurds to refuse their rights on Kirkuk.
Does the Armenian-Turkish border have at least a little part in
this context?
It plays absolutely no part. The role of the border between Armenia
and Turkey is for Turks at least a guarantee of keeping their borders
on the east against the background of establishment and international
recognition of the new state Kurdistan. The Turkish officials have
confessed it.
That is, Turks are rather interested in implementation of the Protocols
with Armenia, since they suggest mutual recognition of borders.
I do not rule out that factor, though I cannot say anything more
specifically. The process between Armenia and Turkey will not be
suspended, of course, but this will hardly become of prior importance
for the East, the USA and even Turkey. That is, the Armenian-Turkish
process will be in the air as long as the USA achieves an agreement
with Turkey on the Kurdish problem. This will not be easy since
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoghlu is currently waging the policy
of Neo-Ottomanism that makes Turkey responsible almost for all the
Muslims in the world. This is the same Pan-Turkism in a new wrapper.
Do you think that the USA and Europe are really interested in
acceleration of the Karabakh conflict's resolution?
I think the USA and Europe are not interested in acceleration of the
Karabakh conflict settlement as, in fact, they want no interrelation or
distinct preconditions to be between the Armenian-Turkish and Karabakh
processes. In this format both the USA and Europe, and even Russia
agreed to solve the problem of borders and relations between Armenia
and Turkey. In this context, Turkish Premier Erdogan's statement that
the parliament is uncontrollable sounds simply ridiculous as his party
has control over the Turkish parliament. And everybody understands
this, including Washington, as much as they understand that this is
just an attempt by Erdogan to gain time.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress