Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

BAKU: Fiasco Of Football Diplomacy: Our Opposition And National Inte

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BAKU: Fiasco Of Football Diplomacy: Our Opposition And National Inte

    FIASCO OF FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY: OUR OPPOSITION AND NATIONAL INTERESTS
    Elshad Iskenderov

    news.az
    April 28 2010
    Azerbaijan

    Elshad Iskenderov News.Az reprints from AzerTAc an article by Elshad
    Iskenderov, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference
    youth forum.

    Under the international protocol, a person who represents an
    international organization cannot go into the political discussions of
    the member-states of this organization, including his own country. I
    have been trying to adhere to this practice throughout the activity
    in the OIC Youth Forum. Even considering the fact that the basis of
    diplomatic services are changing in the globalizing world: from time to
    time an official of a regional organization (usually, western one) goes
    into an internal political discussion of any state (a newly independent
    state, as a rule). Therefore, the opinion fixed below, even if it is a
    personal opinion of the author is an exception of the rule. The reason
    for such an exception has become an extremely incorrect and absolutely
    unprincipled happiness of some national oppositionists caused by the
    latest episode of the soap opera in the Armenian-Turkish normalization,
    placed on the background of Washington's decorations this time. Though
    strange it may seem, but this joy turned out to be groundless with
    the statement of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan who has, in fact,
    signed under the failure both of the stage of the football diplomacy
    and his mission in Washington. Let's start from the beginning. First,
    let's see the reason for the joy. Due to Azerbaijan's nonparticipation
    in the Washington nuclear summit, some opposition circles who missed
    such grounds have developed the following quasi thesis: "...the
    Azerbaijani leadership accepts the losing Madrid principles, at the
    same time Washington applies sanctions by not inviting us for the
    summit, Turkey rescues us, while official Baku contends itself with
    the role of an observer". "So, does Karabakh belong to Azerbaijan or
    Turkey?", asks a politician who has also become a blogger by results
    of an imagined script either affected by geographical amnesia or
    striving to please someone.

    But not only the thesis itself filled with illogical equilibristic is
    ridiculous but the very ton of admiration about the "foreign policy
    failure" (as interpreted by the author of the thesis) of the state and
    the intention to please foreign supporters. For professional purposes
    I often visit most OIC countries and meet wide specter of community,
    including those who oppose the authorities, including the countries
    where opposition complaints about the insufficient area of wards
    rather than the absence of the office in the center of city.

    These are the countries where the opposition leaders do not change
    their sponsors with the frequency of Paris coquettes changing her
    umbrellas. But the opposition claiming for becoming the national
    political power does not demonstrate such a masochist ecstasy if there
    is a threat to national interests, demonstrating full incompetence
    in such concepts as "political dividends" and "vital interests of
    the nation". Now, about logics, that is the alogism of the thesis.

    Alogism 1. Azerbaijan has entrusted the conflict settlement to Turkey.

    Yes, the summit held in Washington is primarily an integral part of
    Washington's policy for creating coalition against the Iranian nuclear
    program. This is why, the leader of Turkey, a key regional player
    and an important factor in the US strategy on Tehran's international
    isolation, was invited to Washington. Turkey's position in the issue
    of stiffening sanctions against Tehran is as known as Washington's
    intention to change this position. Any methods are applied here
    including the use of the "Armenian map" as a means of pressure
    on Ankara,

    Alogism 2. Sargsyan's participation in the summit is a foreign policy
    success of Armenia.

    Sargsyan was invited to Washington as a means of pressure on Turkey.

    This is the real reason rather than the alleged acceptance of the
    shooting of demonstration and political opponents characterizing the
    current Yerevan regime by the United States as a proof of Armenia's
    democracy. Meanwhile, Sargsyan taking the advantage of all means to
    legitimate his authorities allows using himself as such a subsidiary
    means. His confession proves the success he has gained in Washington.

    Armenia that has been attempting to sow a discord in the
    Azerbaijani-Turkish relations by its ambiguous statements throughout
    the whole process of "football diplomacy", has confessed on the highest
    level that Turkey is not ready to continue the initiated process and
    move without preconditions (read-without guarantees of Yerevan's
    prevention of aggressive policy). This confession along with the
    freezing of the issue on recognition of genocide in the Congress is
    a sad result of the Washington voyage of Sargsyan and the fiasco of
    the Armenian policy (at least at the current stage) in the raising of
    its geopolitical role and settlement of a vitally important issue of
    opening of borders with Turkey without the resolution of the conflict
    with Azerbaijan.

    Alogism 3. Azerbaijan's nonparticipation in the Washington summit
    proves the weakness of our positions in the resolution process.

    On the other hand, some in Washington consider sincerely and others
    by interest that the Armenian-Turkish normalization without binding
    to the Karabakh process is a complete welfare. Unfortunately, I have
    to note that the firm opinion developed on the shores of Potomaka
    is that if the socioeconomic sufferings of the Armenian people are
    relieved and it lives better on the Turkish grub, the aggressive
    component of Sargsyan's regime will weaken, which will accelerate the
    Karabakh conflict settlement. We should also not forget that Obama's
    administration has come to power thanks to the wide support of the
    Armenian lobby. Without having an opportunity to keep the promise to
    recognize the "Armenian genocide" in frames of the real policy, the
    White House has to maneuver and make concessions to the Armenian side.

    But whatever is concealed behind this position-this is an American, not
    Azerbaijani position. Therefore, considering its national interests,
    the Azerbaijani leadership protests any double standards.

    Unlike oppositional , theorists, the United States understands this
    well, like they understand the determination of the Azerbaijani
    president to defend the national interests of their country and
    like they understand (including by results of firm invitations of
    the Azerbaijani president for the Istanbul summit of the last year)
    and the fact that no protocol encouragement can change Ilham Aliyev's
    determination to defend these interests by any means.

    The position of Azerbaijan's president is as follows: the
    aforementioned concept does not only contradict to the national
    interests of the country: it is completely erroneous and dangerous for
    prospects of stability in the region. In addition, our point of view
    is based not only on the subjective experience of being familiar with
    the Armenian perfidy from the first source but also on the historical
    experience. No policy of calming down has ever prevented the ambitions
    of any aggressor. The classical Munich plot which is featured in all US
    textbooks on international relations is a bright evidence not speaking
    of the latest history with the Saddam aggression against Kuwait. Any
    man of sense cannot be happy when the principles of international
    law are violated along with the demonstration of double standards. A
    person who calls himself a patriot cannot be happy with the threat
    for the national interests of his own country and with the pressure
    on the strategic ally of his country. Even if such a pressure serves
    the interests of the political tactics of your sponsor.

    Thus, who does the Karabakh land belong to?

    Prime Minister of fraternal Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
    demonstrated firmness both in the issue of genocide and impossibility
    of the further promotion of the normalization process without
    Armenia's demonstration of a good will in the Karabakh conflict. On
    the first part everything is clear- it is impossible to accept the
    historical memory imposed by the Armenian diaspora to Turkey with a
    population of 70 million people. Principality in the Karabakh issue
    is also not the result of the influence of the romantic Turkish soap
    operas of the 80's on the Turkish premier. Turkey conducts pragmatic
    foreign policy in such a sensitive region as South Caucasus and the
    firmness demonstrated in Washington is a result of the year of hard and
    delicate work, patient contacts of the Azerbaijani leadership which has
    strengthened Ankara's position on the parallelism of the process of
    the Armenian-Turkish normalization and the Karabakh settlement. This
    have caused appeals from Erdogan to the Armenian side to follow the
    spirit of the Zurich protocols which envision the Armenian-Turkish
    normalization targeting the stabilization of the situation in the
    South Caucasus and not turning into the tool of encouraging the
    aggressor. Unfortunately, in this period, oppositionists who are
    boasting about their contacts in Turkey, have not played any role
    in this national work, contending themselves with cheap actions and
    attempting to earn money on the difficulties of the sustained period.

    Finally, the basic reason of the Turkish position was made public by
    the Turkish premier in Washington: Azerbaijan is a strategic country
    in the region and stability in the region is impossible without its
    participation and observation of its interests. I think everyone has
    guessed who has contributed to such an assessment to the growing role
    of the country.

    P.S. Sargsyan's confessions have shown that the stage of "football
    diplomacy" has ended. Armenia has started transition from to the chess
    game with Turkey, like Armenian political scientist Kirakosian said.

    This is a new stage for all players in the region and primarily for
    Azerbaijan. There will be many chess steps in our direction and this
    is not only for the players but also for the fans to define their
    sympathies, because the national interests of the Azerbaijani people
    that will define our future for the long-term are at stake rather
    than the momentous political ambitions.

    Elshad Iskenderov is a Secretary General of the OIC youth forum,
    an international organization affiliated with the Organization of
    Islamic Conference. He finished the graduate school of the US Columbian
    University by the specialty of international relations. He has a rank
    of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Azerbaijan.
Working...