Tweet
/PanARMENIAN.Net/
Does England engage in game in South Caucasus?
Most likely Ankara will ratify Protocols to prevent adoption of the
Resolution on the Armenian Genocide in the U.S. Congress.
05.02.2010 GMT+04:00
The process of normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations has
entered, so to speak, homestretch, the most interesting fact being
Armenia's (for the first time) more advantageous situation in
comparison with Turkey. In this regard, the visit of U.S. Deputy
Secretary of State James Steinberg to Yerevan was a landmark event
that almost clashed with the arrival of first Deputy Prime Minister
Igor Shuvalov. U.S. and Russia have obviously decided not to interfere
with each other in forcing Turkey to ratify the Protocols, meanwhile
clearly adhering to their own interests.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In this confrontation Armenia can acquire some
political dividends, without openly taking anyone's side. But UK's
engagement in the process was somewhat unexpected. The invitation
extended to the Armenian President for delivering a speech at Chatham
House is very serious, especially taking into account the fact that
Serzh Sargsyan is to speak of the Armenian-Turkish relations there.
Apparently, in 2010 Britain is really determined to intensify its
policy in the region, and the Armenian-Turkish process is almost a
unique opportunity. Britain supports Turkey's integration into Europe
and is well aware that Ankara's path to Europe lies through Armenia.
Thus, we have a very interesting configuration: USA and UK with EU
against Russia. By the way, history is aware of such confrontation. It
was during the Crimean War of 1854-1855, when Russia was defeated. And
though the USA was not involved then, key players were almost the
same. Also the Armenian issue was rather sharp then, ending with the
Berlin Treaty of 1861, which led to pogroms and massacres in the
Ottoman Empire.
It should be noted that for a long time Turkey had not experienced
such pressure from the world powers. Statements about the importance
of a `bridge between East and West' are gradually yielding to
pragmatism: how important the role of Turkey is in this new,
`post-American' world, as Fareed Zakaria calls it. The fine
geo-strategic position, which Turkey has always used to its advantage
winkling out the maximum benefit possible, could one day turn to be
`inconvenient' for border states and interested countries. The thing
is the excessive ambitions of the country, pressing towards the
establishment of the Great Turan, which we have already explored in
our earlier analyses.
In all of this `chess game' Azerbaijan is hardly noticeable. The
position of Baku should be viewed in the light of American military
intelligence, which has already warned Azerbaijan against the
impendent war which, even if starts, will end in a defeat for
Azerbaijan.
Russia, as always, is doing its best not to yield `a single inch' in
the vitally important for her region, realizing perfectly well that
return is impossible. Moscow now has to put forth every effort in the
`catch-up' game with the U.S., trying to enlist the support of Yerevan
and not that of Baku, which has nothing but oil and gas.
Reverting to the beginning, let us repeat that London's claim for the
role of another player in the region is rather serious. Britain has
always been experienced in Eastern issues, especially if it comes to
the British influence that somewhat declined after the World War II,
or rather after Winston Churchill's defeat in the parliamentary
elections of 1945.
In short, the closer April 24 is, the higher the rates are. Turkey's
position is rather complicated, as she may be left with only one ally
against ratification of the Armenian-Turkish Protocols, namely
Azerbaijan, an unreliable ally, ready for blackmail and betrayal. The
case of the Azeri gas tariff should have served as a lesson to Ankara.
And maybe it did, who knows? Everything will be settled or unsettled
by April. Most likely Ankara will ratify the Protocols to prevent
adoption of the Resolution on the Armenian Genocide in the U.S.
Congress.
Karine Ter-Sahakyan
Does England engage in game in South Caucasus?
Most likely Ankara will ratify Protocols to prevent adoption of the
Resolution on the Armenian Genocide in the U.S. Congress.
05.02.2010 GMT+04:00
The process of normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations has
entered, so to speak, homestretch, the most interesting fact being
Armenia's (for the first time) more advantageous situation in
comparison with Turkey. In this regard, the visit of U.S. Deputy
Secretary of State James Steinberg to Yerevan was a landmark event
that almost clashed with the arrival of first Deputy Prime Minister
Igor Shuvalov. U.S. and Russia have obviously decided not to interfere
with each other in forcing Turkey to ratify the Protocols, meanwhile
clearly adhering to their own interests.
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In this confrontation Armenia can acquire some
political dividends, without openly taking anyone's side. But UK's
engagement in the process was somewhat unexpected. The invitation
extended to the Armenian President for delivering a speech at Chatham
House is very serious, especially taking into account the fact that
Serzh Sargsyan is to speak of the Armenian-Turkish relations there.
Apparently, in 2010 Britain is really determined to intensify its
policy in the region, and the Armenian-Turkish process is almost a
unique opportunity. Britain supports Turkey's integration into Europe
and is well aware that Ankara's path to Europe lies through Armenia.
Thus, we have a very interesting configuration: USA and UK with EU
against Russia. By the way, history is aware of such confrontation. It
was during the Crimean War of 1854-1855, when Russia was defeated. And
though the USA was not involved then, key players were almost the
same. Also the Armenian issue was rather sharp then, ending with the
Berlin Treaty of 1861, which led to pogroms and massacres in the
Ottoman Empire.
It should be noted that for a long time Turkey had not experienced
such pressure from the world powers. Statements about the importance
of a `bridge between East and West' are gradually yielding to
pragmatism: how important the role of Turkey is in this new,
`post-American' world, as Fareed Zakaria calls it. The fine
geo-strategic position, which Turkey has always used to its advantage
winkling out the maximum benefit possible, could one day turn to be
`inconvenient' for border states and interested countries. The thing
is the excessive ambitions of the country, pressing towards the
establishment of the Great Turan, which we have already explored in
our earlier analyses.
In all of this `chess game' Azerbaijan is hardly noticeable. The
position of Baku should be viewed in the light of American military
intelligence, which has already warned Azerbaijan against the
impendent war which, even if starts, will end in a defeat for
Azerbaijan.
Russia, as always, is doing its best not to yield `a single inch' in
the vitally important for her region, realizing perfectly well that
return is impossible. Moscow now has to put forth every effort in the
`catch-up' game with the U.S., trying to enlist the support of Yerevan
and not that of Baku, which has nothing but oil and gas.
Reverting to the beginning, let us repeat that London's claim for the
role of another player in the region is rather serious. Britain has
always been experienced in Eastern issues, especially if it comes to
the British influence that somewhat declined after the World War II,
or rather after Winston Churchill's defeat in the parliamentary
elections of 1945.
In short, the closer April 24 is, the higher the rates are. Turkey's
position is rather complicated, as she may be left with only one ally
against ratification of the Armenian-Turkish Protocols, namely
Azerbaijan, an unreliable ally, ready for blackmail and betrayal. The
case of the Azeri gas tariff should have served as a lesson to Ankara.
And maybe it did, who knows? Everything will be settled or unsettled
by April. Most likely Ankara will ratify the Protocols to prevent
adoption of the Resolution on the Armenian Genocide in the U.S.
Congress.
Karine Ter-Sahakyan