Tweet
Hurriyet, Turkey
April 2 2010
Who deceived whom in secret meetings?
Friday, April 2, 2010
MEHMET ALÄ° BÄ°RAND
Yerevan
There is only one reason why the protocols between Turkey and Armenia
are not approved and the Armenian initiative remained where it
started.
Is there a connection between the approval and implementation of the
protocols and the Karabakh issue?
While the Armenians state they have been reassured during negotiations
that there is no such link, the Turks say that even though it has not
been explicitly written in the signed texts there is such link of
which the Armenians were informed about.
The Azerbaijani on the other side say Turkey did not inform them about
this agreement and that they only found out after the signing of these
texts that they opposed.
Ankara is very clear about it and says the Azerbaijani were constantly
informed and Baku reacted to it later on.
It is difficult to find out who is telling the truth. Since we can't
have the three parties sit together and ask `What did you say, when
did you do what?' each party has to trust its own government.
At various opportunities I talked to officials of the three countries
summarizing words of each of them. It's your decision¦
Turks say, `We won't ask Baku for permission in politics'
Armenian officials who literally participated in negotiations with the
Turkish committee are very clear about it. They say there is no
connection or condition linked to the signing and implementing of the
protocols and the Karabakh issue or any progress thereof.
One of them even said to the Turkish committee and others the
following interesting words:
`We asked the Turks, `What will happen with the Azerbaijani if they
oppose?' They very clearly stated `don't you worry we took care of
that. If we can agree on politics amongst us we won't ask the
Azerbaijani for permission.' We prepared the agreement without any
conditions but only to make a start. Nothing else could be accepted
anyway. First protocols will be signed, then diplomatic relations
established and a Historians Commission established. We were stunned
when all of a sudden Turkey upon brisk reaction from the Azerbaijani
threw in the Karabakh condition.'
One other Armenian official went even further saying, `During the
meeting in Davos we told Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an that there won't be
any link between Karabakh and these protocols. Then we told Gül when
he came here. And we repeated it in the meeting in Prague.
You may remember that in Geneva the signature ceremony underwent some
danger. Then it was stated that the parties could not agree on the
upcoming speeches thus they cancelled them.
So what had happened that lead to this delay?
`We sent the speech prepared by us to the Turkish side before hand.
But their speech arrived only 10 minutes before and we saw that their
speech included sentences in the lines of indirectly addressing the
Karabakh and genocide issues. Thus we objected and cancelled both
speeches and sufficed with the signatures. This attitude was a sign
that we did not accept the precondition or link between the two,' says
the Armenian official whom we reminded of the Armenian Constitutional
Court.
He started off by saying, `You are wrong. The court's first sentence
states that these protocols conform to the constitution.'
But what about other warnings? What about the part that talks about
the Historians Commission and the objection to accepting borders in
its present shape?
`The court does not go beyond drawing attention in extremely obscure
way. And we stated the meaning very clearly to the Turks. Turkey only
makes this an issue because it tries to find a reason for its present
attitude. But it knows that the content does not pose an obstacle.'
Turkey informed us too late
The attitude of the Azerbaijani in this respect is very different.
I met with Ramiz Mehdiyev, the state secretary of the presidential
palace, in Istanbul and asked him the same question: `Turkey says that
it constantly kept you informed. When did you first hear about the
content of the protocols?'
To tell the truth, there were unclear parts in the response he gave.
There is some confusion between officials of the Azerbaijani Foreign
Ministry and the presidential palace.
According to the presidential palace the protocols were initialed in
April 2009 and initial information reached them in June 2009. And
there has not been any detailed information given in the period of
April-June 2009 not even during Babacan's visit in April or ErdoÄ?an's
visit in May to Baku. For the first time there was detailed
information given in June and the protocols were signed in October
2009.
The Azerbaijani Ministry for Foreign Affairs in a slightly embarrassed
way said that Babacan in April 2009 during his visit to Baku (after
the initialing of the protocols) gave some initial information. But
after comparing dates he had to join the view of the presidential
palace.
My second question was, `Why did you show such brisk reaction? Aren't
the opening of borders and Turkey's increased influence on Armenia a
good thing for you?'
Mehdiyev's reply was very sincere and right, `This is politics. It was
politics that made us show such brisk reaction,' he said and
continued:
`When in 1993 the Armenians went into Karabakh, Turkey closed its
doors. For us this was a sign from Ankara that it won't reopen borders
until the Karabakh issue has been resolved. That's why we were so
stunned. And besides, you should know that our brisk reaction was good
for you. This reminded you of who your real ally is.'
That's the Azerbaijani approach.
It is obvious that there is some confusion.
`We were very open with the Armenians and Azerbaijani'
Now let's talk about the explanations from Turkish officials.
If you were to pay attention, you'll notice that the Armenians as well
as the Azerbaijani make serious allegations regarding the Turkish
approach.
According to country officials Turkey did not keep its promise.
If we were to believe the statements, Turkey turned the wheel after it
signed the protocols with the Armenians and after the Azerbaijani
protested. The Prime Minister must have not expected such brisk
reaction from Baku that he immediately went to Aliyev for fine-tuning
the protocol!
How true is this?
I asked the same questions to officials of the Ministry for foreign
affairs and Minister for Foreign Affairs DavutoÄ?lu who were involved
in negotiations from the very beginning.
`There has not been a precondition or link made to the Karabakh issue.
There is no written proof. For, the Armenians wouldn't accept it but
our president clearly stated that Turkish Armenian relations won't get
on track before Azerbaijani and Armenian relations, i.e. the Karabakh
issue, is not resolved. Almost in each meeting we implied to Armenians
of various levels that even if there is nothing explicitly stated
there needs to be such link for moral boost. A different kind of
relation couldn't be possible,' say Turkish officials who also stress
that it would be impossible to think of politics in which we turn our
backs to the Azerbaijanis or sell them off in respect to politics.
According to Turkish Foreign Affairs, Armenia is the one that truly
spoiled the game:
`Sarkisyan considered these protocols as an investment and took it
from the opposite side. The Turkish Parliament should first approve,
they said (the Armenians made this statement after Turkey's Karabakh
condition. MAB) Then, the decision of the Constitutional Court came
about which overshadowed the protocols. Sarkisyan was not behaving
well-intentioned.'
So, have the Azerbaijani been well informed?
DavutoÄ?lu told me several times that our Azerbaijani friends have
constantly been informed and nothing was kept a secret.
If they were informed then why did the Azerbaijani show such brisk reaction?
The Turkish side is uncomfortable in this respect.
They think that the Azerbaijani have unnecessarily shown reaction.
April 2 2010
Who deceived whom in secret meetings?
Friday, April 2, 2010
MEHMET ALÄ° BÄ°RAND
Yerevan
There is only one reason why the protocols between Turkey and Armenia
are not approved and the Armenian initiative remained where it
started.
Is there a connection between the approval and implementation of the
protocols and the Karabakh issue?
While the Armenians state they have been reassured during negotiations
that there is no such link, the Turks say that even though it has not
been explicitly written in the signed texts there is such link of
which the Armenians were informed about.
The Azerbaijani on the other side say Turkey did not inform them about
this agreement and that they only found out after the signing of these
texts that they opposed.
Ankara is very clear about it and says the Azerbaijani were constantly
informed and Baku reacted to it later on.
It is difficult to find out who is telling the truth. Since we can't
have the three parties sit together and ask `What did you say, when
did you do what?' each party has to trust its own government.
At various opportunities I talked to officials of the three countries
summarizing words of each of them. It's your decision¦
Turks say, `We won't ask Baku for permission in politics'
Armenian officials who literally participated in negotiations with the
Turkish committee are very clear about it. They say there is no
connection or condition linked to the signing and implementing of the
protocols and the Karabakh issue or any progress thereof.
One of them even said to the Turkish committee and others the
following interesting words:
`We asked the Turks, `What will happen with the Azerbaijani if they
oppose?' They very clearly stated `don't you worry we took care of
that. If we can agree on politics amongst us we won't ask the
Azerbaijani for permission.' We prepared the agreement without any
conditions but only to make a start. Nothing else could be accepted
anyway. First protocols will be signed, then diplomatic relations
established and a Historians Commission established. We were stunned
when all of a sudden Turkey upon brisk reaction from the Azerbaijani
threw in the Karabakh condition.'
One other Armenian official went even further saying, `During the
meeting in Davos we told Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an that there won't be
any link between Karabakh and these protocols. Then we told Gül when
he came here. And we repeated it in the meeting in Prague.
You may remember that in Geneva the signature ceremony underwent some
danger. Then it was stated that the parties could not agree on the
upcoming speeches thus they cancelled them.
So what had happened that lead to this delay?
`We sent the speech prepared by us to the Turkish side before hand.
But their speech arrived only 10 minutes before and we saw that their
speech included sentences in the lines of indirectly addressing the
Karabakh and genocide issues. Thus we objected and cancelled both
speeches and sufficed with the signatures. This attitude was a sign
that we did not accept the precondition or link between the two,' says
the Armenian official whom we reminded of the Armenian Constitutional
Court.
He started off by saying, `You are wrong. The court's first sentence
states that these protocols conform to the constitution.'
But what about other warnings? What about the part that talks about
the Historians Commission and the objection to accepting borders in
its present shape?
`The court does not go beyond drawing attention in extremely obscure
way. And we stated the meaning very clearly to the Turks. Turkey only
makes this an issue because it tries to find a reason for its present
attitude. But it knows that the content does not pose an obstacle.'
Turkey informed us too late
The attitude of the Azerbaijani in this respect is very different.
I met with Ramiz Mehdiyev, the state secretary of the presidential
palace, in Istanbul and asked him the same question: `Turkey says that
it constantly kept you informed. When did you first hear about the
content of the protocols?'
To tell the truth, there were unclear parts in the response he gave.
There is some confusion between officials of the Azerbaijani Foreign
Ministry and the presidential palace.
According to the presidential palace the protocols were initialed in
April 2009 and initial information reached them in June 2009. And
there has not been any detailed information given in the period of
April-June 2009 not even during Babacan's visit in April or ErdoÄ?an's
visit in May to Baku. For the first time there was detailed
information given in June and the protocols were signed in October
2009.
The Azerbaijani Ministry for Foreign Affairs in a slightly embarrassed
way said that Babacan in April 2009 during his visit to Baku (after
the initialing of the protocols) gave some initial information. But
after comparing dates he had to join the view of the presidential
palace.
My second question was, `Why did you show such brisk reaction? Aren't
the opening of borders and Turkey's increased influence on Armenia a
good thing for you?'
Mehdiyev's reply was very sincere and right, `This is politics. It was
politics that made us show such brisk reaction,' he said and
continued:
`When in 1993 the Armenians went into Karabakh, Turkey closed its
doors. For us this was a sign from Ankara that it won't reopen borders
until the Karabakh issue has been resolved. That's why we were so
stunned. And besides, you should know that our brisk reaction was good
for you. This reminded you of who your real ally is.'
That's the Azerbaijani approach.
It is obvious that there is some confusion.
`We were very open with the Armenians and Azerbaijani'
Now let's talk about the explanations from Turkish officials.
If you were to pay attention, you'll notice that the Armenians as well
as the Azerbaijani make serious allegations regarding the Turkish
approach.
According to country officials Turkey did not keep its promise.
If we were to believe the statements, Turkey turned the wheel after it
signed the protocols with the Armenians and after the Azerbaijani
protested. The Prime Minister must have not expected such brisk
reaction from Baku that he immediately went to Aliyev for fine-tuning
the protocol!
How true is this?
I asked the same questions to officials of the Ministry for foreign
affairs and Minister for Foreign Affairs DavutoÄ?lu who were involved
in negotiations from the very beginning.
`There has not been a precondition or link made to the Karabakh issue.
There is no written proof. For, the Armenians wouldn't accept it but
our president clearly stated that Turkish Armenian relations won't get
on track before Azerbaijani and Armenian relations, i.e. the Karabakh
issue, is not resolved. Almost in each meeting we implied to Armenians
of various levels that even if there is nothing explicitly stated
there needs to be such link for moral boost. A different kind of
relation couldn't be possible,' say Turkish officials who also stress
that it would be impossible to think of politics in which we turn our
backs to the Azerbaijanis or sell them off in respect to politics.
According to Turkish Foreign Affairs, Armenia is the one that truly
spoiled the game:
`Sarkisyan considered these protocols as an investment and took it
from the opposite side. The Turkish Parliament should first approve,
they said (the Armenians made this statement after Turkey's Karabakh
condition. MAB) Then, the decision of the Constitutional Court came
about which overshadowed the protocols. Sarkisyan was not behaving
well-intentioned.'
So, have the Azerbaijani been well informed?
DavutoÄ?lu told me several times that our Azerbaijani friends have
constantly been informed and nothing was kept a secret.
If they were informed then why did the Azerbaijani show such brisk reaction?
The Turkish side is uncomfortable in this respect.
They think that the Azerbaijani have unnecessarily shown reaction.