Tweet
ABDULLAH GUL'S STATEMENTS - IN PLAY AND SERIOUSLY
ArmInfo
2009-10-06 15:01:00
ArmInfo. Azerbaijani Mass Media have already begun misinterpreting
the statements by Turkish officials.
This time they distorted the statements by Turkish President Abdullah
Gul.
Thus, Bakililar.az reported A. Gul as stating that the Turkish-Armenian
protocols will not be ratified in the parliament unless the Karabakh
conflict is settled by that period of time. Gul said that Turkey's
principal position was resented to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
during the meeting with Turkish president at the summit of Turkic-
states leaders in Nakhijevan. Gul declared that Azerbaijani president
was satisfied with the position of his Turkish counterpart.
Gul's statements actually exerting direct pressure on the Turkish
parliament were not available in the Turkish press. The Hurriyet
reported the foreign ministers and the presidents of Azerbaijan and
Turkey met as part of the above summit. The Turkish source reported
that the above idea was expressed during the meeting. However, the
source did not mention who particularly expressed such idea. A question
arises: if the author of the above item was present at the meeting
or his assurances to "Azerbaijani brothers" from "Turk-brothers" were
his personal initiative? Another item in the same newspaper entitled
"Could there be a state not standing for its signature?" levers harsh
criticism at the aforementioned article. Thus, the author writes:
"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 a purpose. Or more clearly, can a state be taken
seriously if it 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."
ArmInfo
2009-10-06 15:01:00
ArmInfo. Azerbaijani Mass Media have already begun misinterpreting
the statements by Turkish officials.
This time they distorted the statements by Turkish President Abdullah
Gul.
Thus, Bakililar.az reported A. Gul as stating that the Turkish-Armenian
protocols will not be ratified in the parliament unless the Karabakh
conflict is settled by that period of time. Gul said that Turkey's
principal position was resented to Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
during the meeting with Turkish president at the summit of Turkic-
states leaders in Nakhijevan. Gul declared that Azerbaijani president
was satisfied with the position of his Turkish counterpart.
Gul's statements actually exerting direct pressure on the Turkish
parliament were not available in the Turkish press. The Hurriyet
reported the foreign ministers and the presidents of Azerbaijan and
Turkey met as part of the above summit. The Turkish source reported
that the above idea was expressed during the meeting. However, the
source did not mention who particularly expressed such idea. A question
arises: if the author of the above item was present at the meeting
or his assurances to "Azerbaijani brothers" from "Turk-brothers" were
his personal initiative? Another item in the same newspaper entitled
"Could there be a state not standing for its signature?" levers harsh
criticism at the aforementioned article. Thus, the author writes:
"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 a purpose. Or more clearly, can a state be taken
seriously if it 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."