Tweet
COULD THERE BE A STATE NOT STANDING FOR ITS SIGNATURE?
Cuneyt Ulsever
Hurriyet Daily News
Tuesday, October 06 2009 14:55 GMT+2
I found the news story in daily Hurriyet on Sunday odd. "Cannot be
without Karabakh," was titled and penned down by Ugur Ergan in Ankara.
It was about a quartet summit between President Abdullah Gul and his
Azeri counterpart Ilham Aliyev as well as the foreign ministers of
the two countries.
The main theme was the assurance Turkey provided to
Azerbaijan. "Without finding a solution in the Armenian-occupied
Karabakh, protocol to be signed with Armenia cannot be sent to
Turkish Parliament," it read. Azerbaijan's reaction in the story was
"we were relieved."
***
I was attracted to the following paragraph in the article.
Turkish officials said:
"The formation of a joint history commission and re-opening the border
are included in the document. However, they can be put into effect only
after a solution is found to the Karabakh issue. Without a solution
to the Karabakh conflict, this protocol cannot be transferred to
Parliament. Even then, Parliament does not adopt it. So, relax. Turkey
signed a protocol with the European Union on the Cyprus issue. What
happened? Did Turkey open its ports to South Cyprus vehicles for the
last four years?"
What the Turkish side tells Azeris can be interpreted as:
"Don't worry about our protocol with Armenia. Yes, a protocol will
be signed but don't take this seriously. Take our word."
In order to help Azeris to feel at ease, a tangible example is given
in the story:
"We promised the EU to open Turkish ports to Greek Cypriot vehicles
because it was necessary. But see, we did not keep our promise."
***
In short, the Turkish Foreign Ministry means: "Please, don't take
our signature seriously; don't worry about it!"
***
I do not discuss the accuracy of the protocol here.
The point I discuss is if it is possible for a state to deny a
signature and to accept it as long as it serves t doesn't claim
its signature?
I wrote a few times that "multi-dimensional foreign policy" sauced with
"zero problem with neighbors" on top may turn into a simple game of
pleasing everyone.
***
Here is a solid example:
1) We promised to re-open the Armenian border in order to prevent
U.S. President Barack Obama from signing the genocide bill on the
eve of April 24.
2) As Azeris are offended by our word, Turkey's prime minister said,
"The border cannot be opened before the Karabakh issue is resolved,"
immediately after we circumvented the April 24 crisis.
3) But contacts with Armenia continue, so we have learned. This time,
we faced the protocol pending for signature on Oct. 10. The Karabakh
issue is not included inside the document. The Armenian side clearly
said the protocol has nothing to do with the Karabakh conflict. And
I thought it was left to Russia to resolve this problem.
4) But according to the news article that was not denied by the
Foreign Ministry, we are to sign this protocol "just for fun"!
As we did to the EU with the Cyprus issue!
Cuneyt Ulsever
Hurriyet Daily News
Tuesday, October 06 2009 14:55 GMT+2
I found the news story in daily Hurriyet on Sunday odd. "Cannot be
without Karabakh," was titled and penned down by Ugur Ergan in Ankara.
It was about a quartet summit between President Abdullah Gul and his
Azeri counterpart Ilham Aliyev as well as the foreign ministers of
the two countries.
The main theme was the assurance Turkey provided to
Azerbaijan. "Without finding a solution in the Armenian-occupied
Karabakh, protocol to be signed with Armenia cannot be sent to
Turkish Parliament," it read. Azerbaijan's reaction in the story was
"we were relieved."
***
I was attracted to the following paragraph in the article.
Turkish officials said:
"The formation of a joint history commission and re-opening the border
are included in the document. However, they can be put into effect only
after a solution is found to the Karabakh issue. Without a solution
to the Karabakh conflict, this protocol cannot be transferred to
Parliament. Even then, Parliament does not adopt it. So, relax. Turkey
signed a protocol with the European Union on the Cyprus issue. What
happened? Did Turkey open its ports to South Cyprus vehicles for the
last four years?"
What the Turkish side tells Azeris can be interpreted as:
"Don't worry about our protocol with Armenia. Yes, a protocol will
be signed but don't take this seriously. Take our word."
In order to help Azeris to feel at ease, a tangible example is given
in the story:
"We promised the EU to open Turkish ports to Greek Cypriot vehicles
because it was necessary. But see, we did not keep our promise."
***
In short, the Turkish Foreign Ministry means: "Please, don't take
our signature seriously; don't worry about it!"
***
I do not discuss the accuracy of the protocol here.
The point I discuss is if it is possible for a state to deny a
signature and to accept it as long as it serves t doesn't claim
its signature?
I wrote a few times that "multi-dimensional foreign policy" sauced with
"zero problem with neighbors" on top may turn into a simple game of
pleasing everyone.
***
Here is a solid example:
1) We promised to re-open the Armenian border in order to prevent
U.S. President Barack Obama from signing the genocide bill on the
eve of April 24.
2) As Azeris are offended by our word, Turkey's prime minister said,
"The border cannot be opened before the Karabakh issue is resolved,"
immediately after we circumvented the April 24 crisis.
3) But contacts with Armenia continue, so we have learned. This time,
we faced the protocol pending for signature on Oct. 10. The Karabakh
issue is not included inside the document. The Armenian side clearly
said the protocol has nothing to do with the Karabakh conflict. And
I thought it was left to Russia to resolve this problem.
4) But according to the news article that was not denied by the
Foreign Ministry, we are to sign this protocol "just for fun"!
As we did to the EU with the Cyprus issue!