Tweet
US HAS 'NO LEVERAGE' ON ARMENIA, TURKEY
Aysor
April 14 2010
Armenia
Vugar Seyidov News.Az interviews Vugar Seyidov, political reviewer
for AzerTAg news agency.
When he met Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, Barack Obama urged
Armenia and Turkey to take steps to improve relations. What role may
the US factor play in Turkish-Armenian reconciliation?
It plays the role of a persuader. The United States has no real levers
to put pressure on either Turkey or Armenia. Armenia is well beyond
the radius of US coverage. It is under the complete control of another
pole [Russia]. Washington will be unable to put any real pressure on
Yerevan. It can cancel its annual assistance to Armenia or stop direct
financial support to the separatists, but I am sure Armenia would
survive this. All these losses would be compensated by its northern
neighbour to whom several millions are nothing. You might say that
the United States will take a pro-Azerbaijani position on the Karabakh
issue, but the Americans are not alone in the OSCE Minsk Group.
Washington's inclination towards Baku (or the threat of inclination)
is easily neutralized by the tough position of another, well known
co-chair, Russia, for whom Armenia is an outpost.
The Americans have no levers of pressure on Turkey either. Whoever
thinks that Turkey can be blackmailed with the resolution on the
recognition of the fictional 'genocide' is mistaken. This is a
senseless threat. Recognition will give nothing, except for five
days of joy to the Armenians. Then there will come the realization
'what next?' Nothing. The world can recognize the 'genocide' and
this will be nothing but a senseless political declaration. A court
recognition is more important but it will never happen as the Malta
tribunal was held long ago and did not recognize the genocide. There
will be no new court hearing in the Hague, as the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court allows the consideration of acts of
genocide that took place after 2002. Parliamentarians can adopt any
resolution. They have no importance for Turkey. Lawmakers in several
countries have passed resolutions and Turkey has not collapsed as a
result. This made the Armenians happy for a couple of days and that's
all. Their brandy is finished.
The United States has no levers of pressure on any of the countries,
but Turkey has something to punish the Americans with and they know
this full well, especially now that the status of the Manas airbase
in Kyrgyzstan is uncertain, so the Americans can do nothing in this
case other than ask and persuade.
Obama said Turkey remains a US strategic ally. Does it mean that
in his traditional message to the Armenian community on 24 April,
Obama will avoid the word 'genocide' when describing the 1915 events
in the Ottoman Empire?
Though I am not a political scientist or Nostradamus and I do not
like to make forecasts, I dare say that Obama will not say the word
'genocide'. If he did not do it in the first year of his presidency,
he is hardly likely to do it now. But at the same time, I would like
to repeat that whether Obama says this word or not, nothing will
change. Obama is not the court of last instance. He is a human being.
The 1915 events will not become 'genocide' just because he uses
the word 'genocide'. Let's remember that he has said 100 times that
this was 'genocide'. Nothing will change if he repeats this as the
US president.
Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reports that during their meeting in
Washington, Sargsyan reminded Erdogan that the protocols do not contain
a word about Karabakh. He said that despite this the Turkish side
wants to see active steps on withdrawal from the occupied Azerbaijani
lands. Do you think Turkey will stick to its position?
I will be brief - I have no doubt that Turkey will maintain its
position. Ankara's position on the Karabakh issue will not change. The
protocols do not contain a single word about 'genocide', nevertheless,
the Armenians continue to insist on this word. The protocols are a
two-edged sword. By the way, the protocols also do not say a word
about timescales. Therefore, it is possible to agree with Sargsyan's
argumentation but at the same time to keep the protocols on the back
burner. What's most important is to bring the message to the attention
of the Armenians. It has already been brought to their attention. They
are well aware of what to do to accelerate the process. It is up to
them whether the border opens or remains closed.
After his meeting with Erdogan, Sargsyan said at the National
Cathedral in Washington that Armenia did not intend to make the
'genocide' the subject of an investigation and did not believe that
Turkey could play a positive role in the Karabakh negotiating process.
What does this position mean for Armenian-Turkish relations?
Nothing good. The talks have failed. The protocols are a long way off
ratification. However, I do not doubt that Armenia will make the first
step. I mean the liberation of five districts and 14 villages in Lachin
District at the first stage. The border will open only AFTER that.
How can you explain the policy of Yerevan which states its intention
to normalize ties with Azerbaijan and Turkey but makes every effort
in the opposite direction?
How can Yerevan's policy be explained if the government is run by
political dilettantes and amateurs? There is a good proverb: Wise men
learn from other men's mistakes, fools from their own. The Armenian
leadership is constantly making mistakes but I not sure that it learns
from them. Sargsyan and his predecessor are stuck in deadlock and it
will take time to get out of it.
May Obama play an active role in resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict or are his statements just declarative?
No co-chair will be able to settle anything separately. The
negotiations will not advance until they all come to a common
denominator, until they work out a single platform and decide for
themselves what party they support most - either the unlimited
self-determination of Karabakh Armenians which will damage the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan or self-determination within the
framework of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Neither Armenia nor
Azerbaijan will budge from their positions without pressure from the
mediators. The co-chairs should first come to a common denominator
and then bring pressure to bear. If they continue to say that pressure
is not part of their mandate, the negotiations will never be effective.
Thus, Obama's role in this case is zero if taken individually.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Aysor
April 14 2010
Armenia
Vugar Seyidov News.Az interviews Vugar Seyidov, political reviewer
for AzerTAg news agency.
When he met Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, Barack Obama urged
Armenia and Turkey to take steps to improve relations. What role may
the US factor play in Turkish-Armenian reconciliation?
It plays the role of a persuader. The United States has no real levers
to put pressure on either Turkey or Armenia. Armenia is well beyond
the radius of US coverage. It is under the complete control of another
pole [Russia]. Washington will be unable to put any real pressure on
Yerevan. It can cancel its annual assistance to Armenia or stop direct
financial support to the separatists, but I am sure Armenia would
survive this. All these losses would be compensated by its northern
neighbour to whom several millions are nothing. You might say that
the United States will take a pro-Azerbaijani position on the Karabakh
issue, but the Americans are not alone in the OSCE Minsk Group.
Washington's inclination towards Baku (or the threat of inclination)
is easily neutralized by the tough position of another, well known
co-chair, Russia, for whom Armenia is an outpost.
The Americans have no levers of pressure on Turkey either. Whoever
thinks that Turkey can be blackmailed with the resolution on the
recognition of the fictional 'genocide' is mistaken. This is a
senseless threat. Recognition will give nothing, except for five
days of joy to the Armenians. Then there will come the realization
'what next?' Nothing. The world can recognize the 'genocide' and
this will be nothing but a senseless political declaration. A court
recognition is more important but it will never happen as the Malta
tribunal was held long ago and did not recognize the genocide. There
will be no new court hearing in the Hague, as the Rome Statute of
the International Criminal Court allows the consideration of acts of
genocide that took place after 2002. Parliamentarians can adopt any
resolution. They have no importance for Turkey. Lawmakers in several
countries have passed resolutions and Turkey has not collapsed as a
result. This made the Armenians happy for a couple of days and that's
all. Their brandy is finished.
The United States has no levers of pressure on any of the countries,
but Turkey has something to punish the Americans with and they know
this full well, especially now that the status of the Manas airbase
in Kyrgyzstan is uncertain, so the Americans can do nothing in this
case other than ask and persuade.
Obama said Turkey remains a US strategic ally. Does it mean that
in his traditional message to the Armenian community on 24 April,
Obama will avoid the word 'genocide' when describing the 1915 events
in the Ottoman Empire?
Though I am not a political scientist or Nostradamus and I do not
like to make forecasts, I dare say that Obama will not say the word
'genocide'. If he did not do it in the first year of his presidency,
he is hardly likely to do it now. But at the same time, I would like
to repeat that whether Obama says this word or not, nothing will
change. Obama is not the court of last instance. He is a human being.
The 1915 events will not become 'genocide' just because he uses
the word 'genocide'. Let's remember that he has said 100 times that
this was 'genocide'. Nothing will change if he repeats this as the
US president.
Turkish newspaper Hurriyet reports that during their meeting in
Washington, Sargsyan reminded Erdogan that the protocols do not contain
a word about Karabakh. He said that despite this the Turkish side
wants to see active steps on withdrawal from the occupied Azerbaijani
lands. Do you think Turkey will stick to its position?
I will be brief - I have no doubt that Turkey will maintain its
position. Ankara's position on the Karabakh issue will not change. The
protocols do not contain a single word about 'genocide', nevertheless,
the Armenians continue to insist on this word. The protocols are a
two-edged sword. By the way, the protocols also do not say a word
about timescales. Therefore, it is possible to agree with Sargsyan's
argumentation but at the same time to keep the protocols on the back
burner. What's most important is to bring the message to the attention
of the Armenians. It has already been brought to their attention. They
are well aware of what to do to accelerate the process. It is up to
them whether the border opens or remains closed.
After his meeting with Erdogan, Sargsyan said at the National
Cathedral in Washington that Armenia did not intend to make the
'genocide' the subject of an investigation and did not believe that
Turkey could play a positive role in the Karabakh negotiating process.
What does this position mean for Armenian-Turkish relations?
Nothing good. The talks have failed. The protocols are a long way off
ratification. However, I do not doubt that Armenia will make the first
step. I mean the liberation of five districts and 14 villages in Lachin
District at the first stage. The border will open only AFTER that.
How can you explain the policy of Yerevan which states its intention
to normalize ties with Azerbaijan and Turkey but makes every effort
in the opposite direction?
How can Yerevan's policy be explained if the government is run by
political dilettantes and amateurs? There is a good proverb: Wise men
learn from other men's mistakes, fools from their own. The Armenian
leadership is constantly making mistakes but I not sure that it learns
from them. Sargsyan and his predecessor are stuck in deadlock and it
will take time to get out of it.
May Obama play an active role in resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict or are his statements just declarative?
No co-chair will be able to settle anything separately. The
negotiations will not advance until they all come to a common
denominator, until they work out a single platform and decide for
themselves what party they support most - either the unlimited
self-determination of Karabakh Armenians which will damage the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan or self-determination within the
framework of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. Neither Armenia nor
Azerbaijan will budge from their positions without pressure from the
mediators. The co-chairs should first come to a common denominator
and then bring pressure to bear. If they continue to say that pressure
is not part of their mandate, the negotiations will never be effective.
Thus, Obama's role in this case is zero if taken individually.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress