Tweet
MERCAN: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE NEEDED FOR ARMENIAN PROTOCOLS
Today's Zaman
Feb 23 2010
Turkey
Noting that the Armenian constitutional court's recent decision
created uncertainty with respect to the protocols, Turkish Parliament
Foreign Affairs Commission Chairman Murat Mercan said the only way
to overcome this uncertainty would be to produce an international
diplomatic solution.
In an exclusive interview with Today's Zaman, EskiÅ~_ehir deputy
Mercan said a win-win-win process from which Turkey and Armenia as
well as Azerbaijan would benefit could solve the problem.
Speaking on Turkey's relations with neighbor Iran, Mercan noted
that Turkey will "continue to play a positive role in eliminating the
tension regarding Iran." The chairman explaining that the international
community should support Turkey's attempts on this issue; however,
Iranian officials should pay heed to the rising discomfort of the
world. Underlining that politicians' primary goal is ensuring domestic,
regional and global peace, Mercan asserted that "political polemics,
debates and statements as well as strategic moves and games should
not disrupt stability.
"As a politician and as someone who understands how international
relations work, I really don't want to lose hope, but unfortunately
my hope about Iran is slowly fading," explains Mercan, who gave a tour
d'horizon of foreign policy, responding to Today's Zaman's questions.
How do you view assessments that the Armenian constitutional court's
decision on the protocols will not have a negative impact on the
process and that the connection to the Karabakh issue will not be
accepted?
When we look at the Armenian constitutional court's ruling, we see that
there are clear provisions in the text stating how the protocols can
and cannot be interpreted. After all, it is an agreement between two
countries. It is not an international agreement. Only those countries
that are party to an agreement are bound by that agreement.
We should also analyze the Armenian constitutional court's decision
from the perspective of international law. International legal experts
need to assess the issue. While there are some lawyers and some
circles who say the court's decision does not constitute the basis of
the protocols, others have different opinions. In this respect, there
is uncertainty over the issue. At best there is uncertainty. In this
kind of a situation, the conditions for implementing an international
bilateral agreement are not completely clear. Take, for example, the
issue of opening borders. The court's decision clearly states that
"opening the borders does not mean recognition of the Treaty of Kars."
Will this uncertainty affect Parliament's ratification of the
protocols?
I think it is very difficult for Turkey to ratify the protocols under
these conditions because there is some level of uncertainty. There is
no clarity about how the protocols will be interpreted. Without this
clarity, we should not expect the Turkish Parliament to ratify the
protocols. While there is a negative attitude regarding two critical
factors from Turkey's perspective, I don't think it is likely for
Turkey to accept just opening the borders.
NATO's future depends on its success in Afghanistan
Has NATO achieved in Afghanistan what Turkey has been saying from
the very beginning?
Sometimes some things are learned the hard way. What we have
been saying from the very beginning is that consolidating the
social foundation, ensuring the participation of all groups in the
political process and minimizing or, if possible, completely avoiding,
military interventions is more important than military interventions
in Afghanistan.
It's pleasing to now hear that a military solution is not the only
solution. Likewise, it is good to hear that there is a need for more
of an effort to consolidate the social foundation. It's also pleasing
to hear some people voice the opinion that even the Taliban might be
able to participate in the election and solution processes. But if
you ask if we've obtained a sufficient outcome, my answer would be no.
There are assessments about engaging Taliban having 'reasonable' or
'approachable' components.
I think dividing the Taliban into good Taliban, bad Taliban and
semi-harsh Taliban goes against the nature of the issue. If you
want to find a solution with the Taliban, then you need to talk with
whoever the relevant person is. But I think the perception that some
components within the Taliban are "good and reasonable" while others
are not will not yield results. It just goes against the grain.
Doesn't it make matters worse when operations harm civilians?
Of course, this is a very disturbing issue. Civilians need to be
protected from NATO operations. The more civilians are harmed, the
less chance NATO will have of achieving success. NATO is at a much
better level than it used to be. It has a better understanding of
Turkey's position. But I think more positive steps need to be taken
to ensure the protection of civilians.
Isn't NATO's performance in Afghanistan a key to the future role
of NATO?
Afghanistan is a litmus test for NATO. NATO's future actually depends
on its success in Afghanistan. If NATO is unsuccessful in Afghanistan
and fails to solve the problem or contribute to finding a solution,
it will lead to serious debates about NATO's future, and this will
increase international security concerns and apprehension. It is
for this reason that NATO must be successful in Afghanistan. It must
produce and observe policies it is not used to for the sake of peace.
In this respect, Turkey makes and will continue to make an enormous
contribution.
How will the uncertainty be resolved?
I believe there have been some attempts in the international arena
and some diplomatic attempts to resolve this uncertainty. I don't
know what kinds of diplomatic solutions these will produce, but I
think we need to give these efforts some time. We will be able to make
assessments once a solution is devised. The second point is that the
international world must consider a very important point, and that is
when changing the balances in the Caucasus, it is important to pursue
a balance that will benefit everyone. Disrupting other balances while
trying to change one balance is like shaking a hornet's nest. There
are two main problems in the Caucasus that directly concern Turkey.
One of these is relations between Turkey and Armenia, and the other
is solving the problems between Armenia and Azerbaijan. When we look
at these two balances, if the ratification of the protocols between
Turkey and Armenia is going to exacerbate problems between Armenia
and Azerbaijan or severely jeopardize Azerbaijan's national interest,
then the world should not want it, either. In other words, it's very
important to maintain a balance.
Are there benefits in the process that will satisfy all three sides?
If we want a win-win-win situation then it has to be in the following
way. It must be beneficial for Armenia to contribute to solving these
two problems.
It's important to clearly see what Armenia will gain if the border is
opened, if diplomatic relations are established and if the problems
between Armenia and Azerbaijan are solved. The advantages that are
obvious as of now are Armenia's border to the international world will
be opened, Armenia's foreign trade will increase and Armenia will be
added to the natural gas and oil pipeline routes originating from
Azerbaijan. All these will significantly contribute to Armenia's
economy. Azerbaijan's President Ä°lham Aliyev clearly told me
that once problems were solved, good economic relations would be
established between Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. Armenia is going
to obtain a major advantage in terms of economy. On the other hand,
Turkey will have made a certain level of progress on the recognition
of its borders and on the genocide issue. If the problem is solved
and Armenia withdraws from Azerbaijan's territories, Armenia will
not lose anything. That is because the international community sees
Armenia as an occupier and does not approve of its occupation.
Moreover, the UN has also determined that Azerbaijani territories are
under Armenian occupation. In other words, the territories that Armenia
is occupying are not recognized as Armenian soil. It is identified as
a grey zone under occupation. Armenia's withdrawal from these areas
would not constitute a loss.
What will the status of the mountainous Karabakh region be?
At present it is an unrecognized region that has no status. If
Karabakh's status were to be determined with these developments, the
power balances in the region would be changed in favor of everyone,
and everyone would benefit. No one would lose anything. If this
does not happen, in other words, if relations between Turkey and
Armenia normalize but other balances are not considered, then the
international community should be unhappy about this as it will become
harder to solve the problems, and conditions that will most likely
lead to conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan will develop. In
other words, the risk the international community will face if the
problem is not completely solved will be greater than the risk they
currently face. Countries in the region, Europe, America and Russia
should not want this possibility. It is for this reason that we should
not look at the issue as one that only concerns Turkey and Armenia
because this would be an incorrect point of view. The failure to
show the necessary level of caution and sensitivity could lead the
countries mentioned above to sacrifice their own strategic interests
and policies for domestic policies. A prudent person would realize
the need for caution. Strategic interests should not be sacrificed.
How will this process affect Nabucco?
This is one of the risks I was mentioning earlier. The West's energy
security will be at risk.
What is Turkey's strategy regarding Iraq?
Turkey defines its Iraq strategy by taking into account the interests
of the international community. The negative effects of instability
in Iraq, which has the potential to turn into conflict, will not only
affect the countries in the region. The spread of this instability
will first pose a serious threat to energy security.
This is our main and primary concern. Our second view is that stability
in the region is for our benefit, and prosperity in the region is for
our benefit. That is because we are the first ones to be affected by
any unrest that arises.
After the massacre in Halabja, 500,000-600,000 Iraqis sought refuge in
Turkey. Therefore, we will do everything that is necessary to ensure
stability in the region. And we will do this with accountability.
So when we look at it from this perspective, what is it that we want
in the region? We want a structure that will ensure Iraq's territorial
and political integrity. There are two main conditions to achieve
this. The first is ensuring Iraq's political reconciliation, and the
other is strengthening of the bureaucratic foundation as a natural
outcome of political reconciliation. Political stability requires all
components in Iraq to participate in the democratic political process.
If you do not guarantee this, then division and internal conflict
will be inevitable.
Does the election commission's decision to veto some names create
concern?
Frankly, this concerns us. It would be wrong to say that it doesn't.
As you know, the Iraqi Parliament's foreign relations committee
chairman, Humam Baqir Hamoudi, and a delegation accompanying him
visited us a few days ago. During the visit, we clearly expressed
sensitivity about this matter. We drew their attention to banning
people from running in general elections and said the ban could lead
to a number of complications.
A political ban today does not mean a ban forever. Sunnis need to
definitely contribute to the democratic process. Our chairman [Recep
Tayyip Erdogan] could not participate in the first elections after
we came to power. But this did not end his political career. We are
obliged to maintain the democratic process with confidence. If there
is something lacking in this, the consequences will be uncontrollable.
We explained this to everyone loudly and clearly. Turkey meets with
all sides, and the one suggestion it makes to everyone is to protect
and consolidate the political structure. The other two main issues for
Iraqis after political stability are oil and the status of Kirkuk. We
try to approach these two issues in a way that does not jeopardize
stability not only to the sides in Iraq but to everyone including
the US, and we have been receiving very positive results. I must
say Turkey has played an active role in the current stability and
potential positive developments in the region.
If Turkey had not insisted on determining the future status of
Kirkuk, sharing oil revenue and having all political actors engaged
in nation-building to ensure stability, the country would have fallen
apart, and there would be no country such as Iraq today. Internal
conflict could have riddled the entire region, and the region
supplying 60 percent of the world's oil could have turned into a pool
of blood. The possibility of all of this happening was not all that
far off.
Turkey played and continues to play a major role in the development
of bureaucratic structures. It provided training to the military,
police and other bureaucratic structures to allow them to improve
their standards.
It is said that Turkey's biggest test in foreign policy will be related
to Iran. There are serious concerns about Iran's nuclear plan being a
program to develop nuclear arms. What's happening on the Iranian front?
Turkey will continue to play a positive role in eliminating the
tension regarding Iran as long as it can. My opinion is that the
international community needs to support Turkey's attempts on this
issue. Likewise, Iranian officials need to pay heed to the increasing
discomfort of the world. As politicians our primary goal is ensuring
peace for our people and then for the region and the world. We all
have a responsibility to contribute to this issue. Political polemics,
debates and statements as well as strategic moves and games should
not disrupt stability. As a politician and as someone who understands
how international relations work, I really don't want to lose hope,
but unfortunately my hope about Iran is slowly fading. I hope there
will be positive developments related to this issue in the coming days.
If the UN Security Council decides to impose an embargo, will Turkey
comply?
First, we need to see the structure of the embargo. There are
major debates on whether this kind of decision will be reached. The
international community is talking about reserves in countries such
as China and Russia. It's impossible for us to know what will be
debated at the Security Council. I think these kinds of decisions
in politics need to be made when the right time comes. Hopefully,
we won't need to make such decisions. I am saying this as a wish for
the Iranian people. I am hoping for our neighboring Iranian people
that we won't come to that point.
Today's Zaman
Feb 23 2010
Turkey
Noting that the Armenian constitutional court's recent decision
created uncertainty with respect to the protocols, Turkish Parliament
Foreign Affairs Commission Chairman Murat Mercan said the only way
to overcome this uncertainty would be to produce an international
diplomatic solution.
In an exclusive interview with Today's Zaman, EskiÅ~_ehir deputy
Mercan said a win-win-win process from which Turkey and Armenia as
well as Azerbaijan would benefit could solve the problem.
Speaking on Turkey's relations with neighbor Iran, Mercan noted
that Turkey will "continue to play a positive role in eliminating the
tension regarding Iran." The chairman explaining that the international
community should support Turkey's attempts on this issue; however,
Iranian officials should pay heed to the rising discomfort of the
world. Underlining that politicians' primary goal is ensuring domestic,
regional and global peace, Mercan asserted that "political polemics,
debates and statements as well as strategic moves and games should
not disrupt stability.
"As a politician and as someone who understands how international
relations work, I really don't want to lose hope, but unfortunately
my hope about Iran is slowly fading," explains Mercan, who gave a tour
d'horizon of foreign policy, responding to Today's Zaman's questions.
How do you view assessments that the Armenian constitutional court's
decision on the protocols will not have a negative impact on the
process and that the connection to the Karabakh issue will not be
accepted?
When we look at the Armenian constitutional court's ruling, we see that
there are clear provisions in the text stating how the protocols can
and cannot be interpreted. After all, it is an agreement between two
countries. It is not an international agreement. Only those countries
that are party to an agreement are bound by that agreement.
We should also analyze the Armenian constitutional court's decision
from the perspective of international law. International legal experts
need to assess the issue. While there are some lawyers and some
circles who say the court's decision does not constitute the basis of
the protocols, others have different opinions. In this respect, there
is uncertainty over the issue. At best there is uncertainty. In this
kind of a situation, the conditions for implementing an international
bilateral agreement are not completely clear. Take, for example, the
issue of opening borders. The court's decision clearly states that
"opening the borders does not mean recognition of the Treaty of Kars."
Will this uncertainty affect Parliament's ratification of the
protocols?
I think it is very difficult for Turkey to ratify the protocols under
these conditions because there is some level of uncertainty. There is
no clarity about how the protocols will be interpreted. Without this
clarity, we should not expect the Turkish Parliament to ratify the
protocols. While there is a negative attitude regarding two critical
factors from Turkey's perspective, I don't think it is likely for
Turkey to accept just opening the borders.
NATO's future depends on its success in Afghanistan
Has NATO achieved in Afghanistan what Turkey has been saying from
the very beginning?
Sometimes some things are learned the hard way. What we have
been saying from the very beginning is that consolidating the
social foundation, ensuring the participation of all groups in the
political process and minimizing or, if possible, completely avoiding,
military interventions is more important than military interventions
in Afghanistan.
It's pleasing to now hear that a military solution is not the only
solution. Likewise, it is good to hear that there is a need for more
of an effort to consolidate the social foundation. It's also pleasing
to hear some people voice the opinion that even the Taliban might be
able to participate in the election and solution processes. But if
you ask if we've obtained a sufficient outcome, my answer would be no.
There are assessments about engaging Taliban having 'reasonable' or
'approachable' components.
I think dividing the Taliban into good Taliban, bad Taliban and
semi-harsh Taliban goes against the nature of the issue. If you
want to find a solution with the Taliban, then you need to talk with
whoever the relevant person is. But I think the perception that some
components within the Taliban are "good and reasonable" while others
are not will not yield results. It just goes against the grain.
Doesn't it make matters worse when operations harm civilians?
Of course, this is a very disturbing issue. Civilians need to be
protected from NATO operations. The more civilians are harmed, the
less chance NATO will have of achieving success. NATO is at a much
better level than it used to be. It has a better understanding of
Turkey's position. But I think more positive steps need to be taken
to ensure the protection of civilians.
Isn't NATO's performance in Afghanistan a key to the future role
of NATO?
Afghanistan is a litmus test for NATO. NATO's future actually depends
on its success in Afghanistan. If NATO is unsuccessful in Afghanistan
and fails to solve the problem or contribute to finding a solution,
it will lead to serious debates about NATO's future, and this will
increase international security concerns and apprehension. It is
for this reason that NATO must be successful in Afghanistan. It must
produce and observe policies it is not used to for the sake of peace.
In this respect, Turkey makes and will continue to make an enormous
contribution.
How will the uncertainty be resolved?
I believe there have been some attempts in the international arena
and some diplomatic attempts to resolve this uncertainty. I don't
know what kinds of diplomatic solutions these will produce, but I
think we need to give these efforts some time. We will be able to make
assessments once a solution is devised. The second point is that the
international world must consider a very important point, and that is
when changing the balances in the Caucasus, it is important to pursue
a balance that will benefit everyone. Disrupting other balances while
trying to change one balance is like shaking a hornet's nest. There
are two main problems in the Caucasus that directly concern Turkey.
One of these is relations between Turkey and Armenia, and the other
is solving the problems between Armenia and Azerbaijan. When we look
at these two balances, if the ratification of the protocols between
Turkey and Armenia is going to exacerbate problems between Armenia
and Azerbaijan or severely jeopardize Azerbaijan's national interest,
then the world should not want it, either. In other words, it's very
important to maintain a balance.
Are there benefits in the process that will satisfy all three sides?
If we want a win-win-win situation then it has to be in the following
way. It must be beneficial for Armenia to contribute to solving these
two problems.
It's important to clearly see what Armenia will gain if the border is
opened, if diplomatic relations are established and if the problems
between Armenia and Azerbaijan are solved. The advantages that are
obvious as of now are Armenia's border to the international world will
be opened, Armenia's foreign trade will increase and Armenia will be
added to the natural gas and oil pipeline routes originating from
Azerbaijan. All these will significantly contribute to Armenia's
economy. Azerbaijan's President Ä°lham Aliyev clearly told me
that once problems were solved, good economic relations would be
established between Armenia and Azerbaijan as well. Armenia is going
to obtain a major advantage in terms of economy. On the other hand,
Turkey will have made a certain level of progress on the recognition
of its borders and on the genocide issue. If the problem is solved
and Armenia withdraws from Azerbaijan's territories, Armenia will
not lose anything. That is because the international community sees
Armenia as an occupier and does not approve of its occupation.
Moreover, the UN has also determined that Azerbaijani territories are
under Armenian occupation. In other words, the territories that Armenia
is occupying are not recognized as Armenian soil. It is identified as
a grey zone under occupation. Armenia's withdrawal from these areas
would not constitute a loss.
What will the status of the mountainous Karabakh region be?
At present it is an unrecognized region that has no status. If
Karabakh's status were to be determined with these developments, the
power balances in the region would be changed in favor of everyone,
and everyone would benefit. No one would lose anything. If this
does not happen, in other words, if relations between Turkey and
Armenia normalize but other balances are not considered, then the
international community should be unhappy about this as it will become
harder to solve the problems, and conditions that will most likely
lead to conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan will develop. In
other words, the risk the international community will face if the
problem is not completely solved will be greater than the risk they
currently face. Countries in the region, Europe, America and Russia
should not want this possibility. It is for this reason that we should
not look at the issue as one that only concerns Turkey and Armenia
because this would be an incorrect point of view. The failure to
show the necessary level of caution and sensitivity could lead the
countries mentioned above to sacrifice their own strategic interests
and policies for domestic policies. A prudent person would realize
the need for caution. Strategic interests should not be sacrificed.
How will this process affect Nabucco?
This is one of the risks I was mentioning earlier. The West's energy
security will be at risk.
What is Turkey's strategy regarding Iraq?
Turkey defines its Iraq strategy by taking into account the interests
of the international community. The negative effects of instability
in Iraq, which has the potential to turn into conflict, will not only
affect the countries in the region. The spread of this instability
will first pose a serious threat to energy security.
This is our main and primary concern. Our second view is that stability
in the region is for our benefit, and prosperity in the region is for
our benefit. That is because we are the first ones to be affected by
any unrest that arises.
After the massacre in Halabja, 500,000-600,000 Iraqis sought refuge in
Turkey. Therefore, we will do everything that is necessary to ensure
stability in the region. And we will do this with accountability.
So when we look at it from this perspective, what is it that we want
in the region? We want a structure that will ensure Iraq's territorial
and political integrity. There are two main conditions to achieve
this. The first is ensuring Iraq's political reconciliation, and the
other is strengthening of the bureaucratic foundation as a natural
outcome of political reconciliation. Political stability requires all
components in Iraq to participate in the democratic political process.
If you do not guarantee this, then division and internal conflict
will be inevitable.
Does the election commission's decision to veto some names create
concern?
Frankly, this concerns us. It would be wrong to say that it doesn't.
As you know, the Iraqi Parliament's foreign relations committee
chairman, Humam Baqir Hamoudi, and a delegation accompanying him
visited us a few days ago. During the visit, we clearly expressed
sensitivity about this matter. We drew their attention to banning
people from running in general elections and said the ban could lead
to a number of complications.
A political ban today does not mean a ban forever. Sunnis need to
definitely contribute to the democratic process. Our chairman [Recep
Tayyip Erdogan] could not participate in the first elections after
we came to power. But this did not end his political career. We are
obliged to maintain the democratic process with confidence. If there
is something lacking in this, the consequences will be uncontrollable.
We explained this to everyone loudly and clearly. Turkey meets with
all sides, and the one suggestion it makes to everyone is to protect
and consolidate the political structure. The other two main issues for
Iraqis after political stability are oil and the status of Kirkuk. We
try to approach these two issues in a way that does not jeopardize
stability not only to the sides in Iraq but to everyone including
the US, and we have been receiving very positive results. I must
say Turkey has played an active role in the current stability and
potential positive developments in the region.
If Turkey had not insisted on determining the future status of
Kirkuk, sharing oil revenue and having all political actors engaged
in nation-building to ensure stability, the country would have fallen
apart, and there would be no country such as Iraq today. Internal
conflict could have riddled the entire region, and the region
supplying 60 percent of the world's oil could have turned into a pool
of blood. The possibility of all of this happening was not all that
far off.
Turkey played and continues to play a major role in the development
of bureaucratic structures. It provided training to the military,
police and other bureaucratic structures to allow them to improve
their standards.
It is said that Turkey's biggest test in foreign policy will be related
to Iran. There are serious concerns about Iran's nuclear plan being a
program to develop nuclear arms. What's happening on the Iranian front?
Turkey will continue to play a positive role in eliminating the
tension regarding Iran as long as it can. My opinion is that the
international community needs to support Turkey's attempts on this
issue. Likewise, Iranian officials need to pay heed to the increasing
discomfort of the world. As politicians our primary goal is ensuring
peace for our people and then for the region and the world. We all
have a responsibility to contribute to this issue. Political polemics,
debates and statements as well as strategic moves and games should
not disrupt stability. As a politician and as someone who understands
how international relations work, I really don't want to lose hope,
but unfortunately my hope about Iran is slowly fading. I hope there
will be positive developments related to this issue in the coming days.
If the UN Security Council decides to impose an embargo, will Turkey
comply?
First, we need to see the structure of the embargo. There are
major debates on whether this kind of decision will be reached. The
international community is talking about reserves in countries such
as China and Russia. It's impossible for us to know what will be
debated at the Security Council. I think these kinds of decisions
in politics need to be made when the right time comes. Hopefully,
we won't need to make such decisions. I am saying this as a wish for
the Iranian people. I am hoping for our neighboring Iranian people
that we won't come to that point.