Tweet
Shavarsh Kocharyan: Turkey May Claim OSCE MG Co-Chairmanship As Soon As It Recognizes Nagorny Karabakh Republic
By Oksana Musaelyan
ArmInfo
2009-11-13 12:27:00
ArmInfo's exclusive interview with Shavarsh Kocharyan, Deputy Foreign
Minister of Armenia
Alaattin Buyukkaya, the head of the Turkish Delegation to the OSCE PA,
Turkish parliamentarian representing Justice and Development Party
(AKP), has recently voiced a statement saying that Turkey will fight
for restoration of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan till the very
end. In addition, he called on Baku for growing military potential
and enhancing fight for its own interests. How can such statement
fit into the logic of the Armenian-Turkish process?
The call by the head of the Turkish delegation for further
militarization of Azerbaijan contradicts to the logic of the
negotiation process, the Madrid principles, and the Maindorf
Declaration saying that the settlement of the conflict must be peaceful
without use or threat of force. This statement contradicts even the
spirit, the content and the goals of the Armenian-Turkish Protocols
waiting for their ratification.
Such statements support Azerbaijan's destructive stance. To negotiate
constructively, Azerbaijan should stop blaming the Armenian parties
for the conflict aftermaths. The fact of Nagorny Karabakh people's
self-determination is in the basis of the conflict. The power politics
of Azerbaijan, in particular, the pogroms of the Armenian population
throughout Azerbaijan, ethnic purges in the territories nearby the
NKR and inside the NKR, as well as the large-scale military aggression
against Nagorny Karabakh escalated the conflict. That power politics
has led to today's status-quo including regarding the territories
under control of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic and the territories
of the NKR under control of Azerbaijan. The negotiation process will
not progress as long as Azerbaijan denies the fact that it deals with
the self-determined and de-facto full-fledged country.
The same parliamentarian says that Armenia has unofficially agreed
to hand over the territories of the security zone to Azerbaijan. In
addition, certain political forces in Armenia also alarm about that.
This statement does not meet reality. In fact, the top leaderships
of the Armenian parties - Republic of Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh
Republic, have repeatedly stated that no issues will be discussed,
much less materialized until the problems with the status of Nagorny
Karabakh and security of the NKR people are settled.
Do you think that Turkey has no way to maneuver to bring the issue
of Karabakh back to the negotiations with Armenia?
Armenia and Turkey have never negotiated on the Karabakh problem.
Moreover, we have not had diplomatic relations. Now normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations is on the agenda. We have enough problems
on top of that and the attempts to link the two processes may torpedo
both processes.
The Turkish representative to the OSCE PA is sure that Yerevan's stance
has become softer and now it will not oppose Turkey's co-chairmanship
at OSCE MG if this issue is discussed at the given organization. How
much is that statement justified?
The given statement is groundless and contradicts the real state
of affairs. To become a candidate for the OSCE MG co-chairmanship
a country must have a neutral position to the conflict. Turkey has
never been a neutral country. Therefore, Turkey has no opportunity to
become an OSCE MG co-chair-state. Here is the stance of the Armenian
parties - the NKR and Armenia, and it hasn't changed. If Turkey's
stance changes in future and it begins demonstrating neutrality,
maybe, it will be possible to return to this issue. It is groundless
discussing this issue at present. Besides, the statements voiced
by the Turkish representative to the OSCE testify to the opposite
i.e. Turkey demonstrates the same stances as Azerbaijan does.
Do you think that Turkey should change? What does it mean for Turkey
to be "neutral"?
This, at least, means that Turkey will not close eyes on the real
aggressor. This means admitting that Azerbaijan has occupied the
territories of Nagorny Karabakh. This means seeing the interests of
all the parties and admitting that there are refugees on both parties
and declaring that openly without trying to ignore that the NKR is
a party to the conflict enforced by Azerbaijan. Admitting this fact
Azerbaijan would ruin the concept of Baku that the territorial dispute
between the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan underlies the conflict.
This concept distorts the real state of affairs. The shortest way for
Turkey to demonstrate its refusal from the policy of supporting and
encouraging Azerbaijan is to recognize the Nagorny Karabakh Republic.
In this case Turkey may probably be able to claim for the OSCE MG
co-chairmanship.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Oksana Musaelyan
ArmInfo
2009-11-13 12:27:00
ArmInfo's exclusive interview with Shavarsh Kocharyan, Deputy Foreign
Minister of Armenia
Alaattin Buyukkaya, the head of the Turkish Delegation to the OSCE PA,
Turkish parliamentarian representing Justice and Development Party
(AKP), has recently voiced a statement saying that Turkey will fight
for restoration of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan till the very
end. In addition, he called on Baku for growing military potential
and enhancing fight for its own interests. How can such statement
fit into the logic of the Armenian-Turkish process?
The call by the head of the Turkish delegation for further
militarization of Azerbaijan contradicts to the logic of the
negotiation process, the Madrid principles, and the Maindorf
Declaration saying that the settlement of the conflict must be peaceful
without use or threat of force. This statement contradicts even the
spirit, the content and the goals of the Armenian-Turkish Protocols
waiting for their ratification.
Such statements support Azerbaijan's destructive stance. To negotiate
constructively, Azerbaijan should stop blaming the Armenian parties
for the conflict aftermaths. The fact of Nagorny Karabakh people's
self-determination is in the basis of the conflict. The power politics
of Azerbaijan, in particular, the pogroms of the Armenian population
throughout Azerbaijan, ethnic purges in the territories nearby the
NKR and inside the NKR, as well as the large-scale military aggression
against Nagorny Karabakh escalated the conflict. That power politics
has led to today's status-quo including regarding the territories
under control of the Nagorny Karabakh Republic and the territories
of the NKR under control of Azerbaijan. The negotiation process will
not progress as long as Azerbaijan denies the fact that it deals with
the self-determined and de-facto full-fledged country.
The same parliamentarian says that Armenia has unofficially agreed
to hand over the territories of the security zone to Azerbaijan. In
addition, certain political forces in Armenia also alarm about that.
This statement does not meet reality. In fact, the top leaderships
of the Armenian parties - Republic of Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh
Republic, have repeatedly stated that no issues will be discussed,
much less materialized until the problems with the status of Nagorny
Karabakh and security of the NKR people are settled.
Do you think that Turkey has no way to maneuver to bring the issue
of Karabakh back to the negotiations with Armenia?
Armenia and Turkey have never negotiated on the Karabakh problem.
Moreover, we have not had diplomatic relations. Now normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations is on the agenda. We have enough problems
on top of that and the attempts to link the two processes may torpedo
both processes.
The Turkish representative to the OSCE PA is sure that Yerevan's stance
has become softer and now it will not oppose Turkey's co-chairmanship
at OSCE MG if this issue is discussed at the given organization. How
much is that statement justified?
The given statement is groundless and contradicts the real state
of affairs. To become a candidate for the OSCE MG co-chairmanship
a country must have a neutral position to the conflict. Turkey has
never been a neutral country. Therefore, Turkey has no opportunity to
become an OSCE MG co-chair-state. Here is the stance of the Armenian
parties - the NKR and Armenia, and it hasn't changed. If Turkey's
stance changes in future and it begins demonstrating neutrality,
maybe, it will be possible to return to this issue. It is groundless
discussing this issue at present. Besides, the statements voiced
by the Turkish representative to the OSCE testify to the opposite
i.e. Turkey demonstrates the same stances as Azerbaijan does.
Do you think that Turkey should change? What does it mean for Turkey
to be "neutral"?
This, at least, means that Turkey will not close eyes on the real
aggressor. This means admitting that Azerbaijan has occupied the
territories of Nagorny Karabakh. This means seeing the interests of
all the parties and admitting that there are refugees on both parties
and declaring that openly without trying to ignore that the NKR is
a party to the conflict enforced by Azerbaijan. Admitting this fact
Azerbaijan would ruin the concept of Baku that the territorial dispute
between the Republic of Armenia and Azerbaijan underlies the conflict.
This concept distorts the real state of affairs. The shortest way for
Turkey to demonstrate its refusal from the policy of supporting and
encouraging Azerbaijan is to recognize the Nagorny Karabakh Republic.
In this case Turkey may probably be able to claim for the OSCE MG
co-chairmanship.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress