Tweet
YEREVAN-ANKARA NEGOTIATIONS: DERIVATIVE PROCESSES
Haykaram Nahapetyan
"Noravank" Foundation
11 January 2010
Besides the proper Armenian-Turkish relations and the processes going
on in Armenia and Diaspora the last stage of the dialogue between
Armenia and Turkey put forward some "sideline" or "derivative"
processes which are also of certain interest for the Armenian party.
Let us introduce several preliminary observations: recently the
interest towards Armenia has grown in the West and mainly in the US
both on political level and in the media. There have been statements
made by the White House and the US Department of State rather often
in the recent period.
Particularly, recently, there have been new statements concerning the
"protocols" made every day by the Department of State. On the day
of the signing of the "protocols" several publications regarding
those protocols, situation in Armenia and Diaspora appeared in
the Washington Post. The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune,
the Christian Science Monitor, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston
Globe and other newspapers, as well as CNN, ABC, NBC and other TV
channels applied to the issue. The theme was on the agenda during
the developments preceding to the signing, mainly during the visit
of the RA president to the US. While working with the search engines
it would be clear that during those months the American press more
often applied to Armenia than, for example, to their traditional ally
Georgia or Ukraine. One can suppose that the "protocols" will pass
through many "challenges" and "adventures" and the interest on behalf
of the US will not fade. On October 11 The New York Times brings the
words of the American officials that the opening of the border is
prospective from the point of view of providing new energy carriers
to the West. Regardless of the attitude towards the "protocols" it
should be accepted that rather peculiar situation has been formed in
which Armenia acquired new significance for the West.
In fact Armenian-Turkish process in our region develops in 2+1 format
and directly includes Armenia and Turkey and indirectly Azerbaijan
which "meddles" into the Armenian-Turkish negotiations, trying to
make profit from "one nation, two states" format, the underlying
deep connections with Turkey and definite gas and oil influence
factors. It is remarkable that in all those three countries society and
political fields express serious dissatisfaction with the processes;
there has even been formed a kind of crisis situation. It is almost
exceptional case when in all the three countries they speak about the
neglecting of the national interest, about the serious sacrifices
for the insignificant or even no achievements. When the Turkish
Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutoglu initiated his meetings
with political parties, the head of the Nationalist Movement Party
of Turkey Devlet Bahceli simply refused to meet him. Republican
People's Party leader Deniz Baykal found it impermissible to open
the border before the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
and blamed the government in telling lies, the deputy from the same
party Oymen mentioned that "the signing of the protocols finished the
principle position of Turkey concerning Karabakh issue". The leader
of the Great Union Party Yalcin Topcu during the meeting with the
Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Turkey signed the protocols
under the pressure of Washington. According to him the Turkish party
should demand for "the opening of the border to go alongside with the
withdrawal of the Armenian forces from Karabakh". And the leader of
the Democratic Party, the former speaker of the Turkish parliament
Husamettin Cindoruk mentioned that he supported the settlement of the
Armenian-Turkish relations but he did not agree with all the items of
the protocols. In the opinion of the deputy of the Turkish parliament,
the former ambassador to the US Sukur Elekdag Armenia pursued the aim
to open the border after which Yerevan would return to the question
of the Genocide.
In Turkey they are discontented that Switzerland, which recognized the
Armenian Genocide, is the negotiator. The Turkish lobbyist living
in Washington, analyst Ergun Kirlikovali on "History of Truth"
web-site answering the question whether "Armenia would refuse from
the Genocide claims or the reshaping of the borders" said the one
should not count the chickens before they are hatched. "Now it will
be more difficult to settle Karabakh conflict. Why does Armenia have
to find it necessary to stop its military occupation and allow the
return of Azerbaijani refugees if it has already received what it
wants? What will happen if we lose the support of Azerbaijan because
of some obscure deal with Armenia? Who will fill the Baku-Ceyhan oil
pipeline?", - says Kirlikovali. Though the suspension of Baku-Ceyhan
project by Baku seems to be a bit unrealistic because it affects
the interests of Great Britain and the US, the usage of some energy
leverages by Baku in regard to Turkey is not excluded and it is
possible that this topic is already on the agenda of behind-the-scenes
Turkish-Azerbaijani discussions. Kirlikovali notices that alongside
with the development of the Turkish-Armenian relations Azerbaijan
initiated the discussions with Moscow on selling Azerbaijani gas. The
Majlis deputy Canan Aritman finds that the protocols serve not to
the interests of Turkey or Azerbaijan but to the interests of Armenia.
The discontent of the Azerbaijan party has almost reached the level
of political hysteria. President Ilham Aliyev, the Minister of
foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan (at least three times), deputy Mnister
of Foreign Affairs Araz Azimov, the speaker of the parliament Oktay
Asadov, vice-speaker Ziyafet Askerov, the vice-chairman of "Ana Vatan"
party Zahit Oruc, political scientist Rasim Musabekov, too active
deputy Ganira Pashayeva and other officials and structures have
made statements for many times in the recent months saying that the
opening of the border contradicts to the Baku interests and "signaled"
about the prospects of the deterioration of the Turkish-Azerbaijani
relations. Oruc also expressed the opinion that before the signing of
the Armenian-Turkish document Baku should have initiated the signing
of the Azerbaijani-Turkish protocols which would have stipulated that
Ankara would not initiate any steps contradicting to the interests
of Baku. Deputy Nizami Jafarov reminded Erdogan his promise given
in Baku on May 12 that the border would not be opened. The consul
of Baku to Los Angeles Elin Suleymanov stated that Turkey must count
with Azerbaijan's opinion. We can go on bringing such examples.
The other process which is derived from the Armenian-Turkish talks is
the current condition of the relations between Azerbaijan and the US.
It is clear that Washington is interested in Armenian-Turkish
negotiations. The opposing of Azerbaijan to the relations between
Armenia and Turkey means the opposing to the regional interests of
Washington, and the US may express their attitude towards that. In
fact, Baku has already received some warnings from the United States:
firstly, Barak Obama has not set aside the resolution 907, which
prohibits the direct American material help to Baku. As it is known,
in 2001 the Congress carried the document which allowed the president
every year to set aside resolution 907 for a period of one year.
George Bush used to do it every January while Barak Obama has not made
such a decision till the moment of publication of this article. The
representatives of the Armenian Diaspora in the US suppose that maybe
the White House tends to employ the resolution 907 as a trump card
to exert pressure on Azerbaijan. It is remarkable that most of the
members of the US Congress commission on the issues connected with
Azerbaijan and Turkey are the same. Thus the congressmen fell between
two stools. It is characteristic that the congressmen taking into
consideration the interests of Turkey and the US from time to time
make statements supporting the protocols which, in fact, contradicts
to the policy of Baku, though a part of those congressmen are among
the friends of Baku.
On September 18, 2009, in the Georgetown University in Washington
"The US-Azerbaijan Strategic Partnership: New Bilateral and Regional
Dimensions" conference was arranged. The participant to that event
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov in
his presentation devoted to the Armenian-Turkish negotiations
mentioned that the re-opening of the border would deteriorate not
only Azerbaijani-Turkish relations but also the relations between
Azerbaijan and the US. It is remarkable that the undersecretary of
state William Burns who was present at the event stated that there
was no connection between the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey
and the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. At the same time
Burns and former undersecretary of state, the representative of the
Marshal Foundation David Kramer criticized Azerbaijan for ceasing
the broadcasting of Freedom, American Voice, BBC radio stations and
the arrests of the oppositional bloggers Emin Mili and Adnan Hajizade.
Kramer also touched upon the referendum on Ilham Aliyev's aspiration
to become lifelong president allotting Araz Azimov another portion
of criticism. In its turn Azimov rebuked the Department of State for
the uncertainty round the resolution 907 and expressed his discontent
with the fact that no US State Secretary had ever visited Baku. Despite
the loud headline the conference passed in the atmosphere negative to
Azerbaijan. One can suppose had there been mutual understanding and
completely friendly atmosphere in the relations between Azerbaijan
and the US, such bilateral allegations would have not prevailed. In
the general scope of the bilateral contradictions, the lobbying of
Washington directed to the re-opening of the Armenian-Turkish border
has a definite "share". At the same time it should be mentioned that,
according to various sources, recently the programme of renting
Gabalar radar station in Azerbaijan has been discussed and this can
again bring to the certain rapprochement between the US and Azerbaijan.
Other issues of author
PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN PERIODICALS CONCERNING NAGORNO-KARABAKH
IN 1918-20 [22.10.2009] INSTITUTE FOR ARMENIAN STUDIES IN ANKARA
[06.10.2008] PROPAGANDISTIC ACTIVITIES OF AZERBAIJANI "DIASPORA"
[07.07.2008] DISCUSSIONS ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION DAY
IN TURKISH MASS MEDIA [19.06.2008] ON THE PROBLEM OF THE INCREASING
NUMBER OF AZERBAIJANI WEB-SITES IN THE INTERNET [31.01.2008] ON
PURPOSEFUL DISINFORMATION ACTIVITY IN AZERBAIJAN [03.09.2007] The
dynamic of carrying on the Azerbaijani lobbing [16.05.2007]
Haykaram Nahapetyan
"Noravank" Foundation
11 January 2010
Besides the proper Armenian-Turkish relations and the processes going
on in Armenia and Diaspora the last stage of the dialogue between
Armenia and Turkey put forward some "sideline" or "derivative"
processes which are also of certain interest for the Armenian party.
Let us introduce several preliminary observations: recently the
interest towards Armenia has grown in the West and mainly in the US
both on political level and in the media. There have been statements
made by the White House and the US Department of State rather often
in the recent period.
Particularly, recently, there have been new statements concerning the
"protocols" made every day by the Department of State. On the day
of the signing of the "protocols" several publications regarding
those protocols, situation in Armenia and Diaspora appeared in
the Washington Post. The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune,
the Christian Science Monitor, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston
Globe and other newspapers, as well as CNN, ABC, NBC and other TV
channels applied to the issue. The theme was on the agenda during
the developments preceding to the signing, mainly during the visit
of the RA president to the US. While working with the search engines
it would be clear that during those months the American press more
often applied to Armenia than, for example, to their traditional ally
Georgia or Ukraine. One can suppose that the "protocols" will pass
through many "challenges" and "adventures" and the interest on behalf
of the US will not fade. On October 11 The New York Times brings the
words of the American officials that the opening of the border is
prospective from the point of view of providing new energy carriers
to the West. Regardless of the attitude towards the "protocols" it
should be accepted that rather peculiar situation has been formed in
which Armenia acquired new significance for the West.
In fact Armenian-Turkish process in our region develops in 2+1 format
and directly includes Armenia and Turkey and indirectly Azerbaijan
which "meddles" into the Armenian-Turkish negotiations, trying to
make profit from "one nation, two states" format, the underlying
deep connections with Turkey and definite gas and oil influence
factors. It is remarkable that in all those three countries society and
political fields express serious dissatisfaction with the processes;
there has even been formed a kind of crisis situation. It is almost
exceptional case when in all the three countries they speak about the
neglecting of the national interest, about the serious sacrifices
for the insignificant or even no achievements. When the Turkish
Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutoglu initiated his meetings
with political parties, the head of the Nationalist Movement Party
of Turkey Devlet Bahceli simply refused to meet him. Republican
People's Party leader Deniz Baykal found it impermissible to open
the border before the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
and blamed the government in telling lies, the deputy from the same
party Oymen mentioned that "the signing of the protocols finished the
principle position of Turkey concerning Karabakh issue". The leader
of the Great Union Party Yalcin Topcu during the meeting with the
Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Turkey signed the protocols
under the pressure of Washington. According to him the Turkish party
should demand for "the opening of the border to go alongside with the
withdrawal of the Armenian forces from Karabakh". And the leader of
the Democratic Party, the former speaker of the Turkish parliament
Husamettin Cindoruk mentioned that he supported the settlement of the
Armenian-Turkish relations but he did not agree with all the items of
the protocols. In the opinion of the deputy of the Turkish parliament,
the former ambassador to the US Sukur Elekdag Armenia pursued the aim
to open the border after which Yerevan would return to the question
of the Genocide.
In Turkey they are discontented that Switzerland, which recognized the
Armenian Genocide, is the negotiator. The Turkish lobbyist living
in Washington, analyst Ergun Kirlikovali on "History of Truth"
web-site answering the question whether "Armenia would refuse from
the Genocide claims or the reshaping of the borders" said the one
should not count the chickens before they are hatched. "Now it will
be more difficult to settle Karabakh conflict. Why does Armenia have
to find it necessary to stop its military occupation and allow the
return of Azerbaijani refugees if it has already received what it
wants? What will happen if we lose the support of Azerbaijan because
of some obscure deal with Armenia? Who will fill the Baku-Ceyhan oil
pipeline?", - says Kirlikovali. Though the suspension of Baku-Ceyhan
project by Baku seems to be a bit unrealistic because it affects
the interests of Great Britain and the US, the usage of some energy
leverages by Baku in regard to Turkey is not excluded and it is
possible that this topic is already on the agenda of behind-the-scenes
Turkish-Azerbaijani discussions. Kirlikovali notices that alongside
with the development of the Turkish-Armenian relations Azerbaijan
initiated the discussions with Moscow on selling Azerbaijani gas. The
Majlis deputy Canan Aritman finds that the protocols serve not to
the interests of Turkey or Azerbaijan but to the interests of Armenia.
The discontent of the Azerbaijan party has almost reached the level
of political hysteria. President Ilham Aliyev, the Minister of
foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan (at least three times), deputy Mnister
of Foreign Affairs Araz Azimov, the speaker of the parliament Oktay
Asadov, vice-speaker Ziyafet Askerov, the vice-chairman of "Ana Vatan"
party Zahit Oruc, political scientist Rasim Musabekov, too active
deputy Ganira Pashayeva and other officials and structures have
made statements for many times in the recent months saying that the
opening of the border contradicts to the Baku interests and "signaled"
about the prospects of the deterioration of the Turkish-Azerbaijani
relations. Oruc also expressed the opinion that before the signing of
the Armenian-Turkish document Baku should have initiated the signing
of the Azerbaijani-Turkish protocols which would have stipulated that
Ankara would not initiate any steps contradicting to the interests
of Baku. Deputy Nizami Jafarov reminded Erdogan his promise given
in Baku on May 12 that the border would not be opened. The consul
of Baku to Los Angeles Elin Suleymanov stated that Turkey must count
with Azerbaijan's opinion. We can go on bringing such examples.
The other process which is derived from the Armenian-Turkish talks is
the current condition of the relations between Azerbaijan and the US.
It is clear that Washington is interested in Armenian-Turkish
negotiations. The opposing of Azerbaijan to the relations between
Armenia and Turkey means the opposing to the regional interests of
Washington, and the US may express their attitude towards that. In
fact, Baku has already received some warnings from the United States:
firstly, Barak Obama has not set aside the resolution 907, which
prohibits the direct American material help to Baku. As it is known,
in 2001 the Congress carried the document which allowed the president
every year to set aside resolution 907 for a period of one year.
George Bush used to do it every January while Barak Obama has not made
such a decision till the moment of publication of this article. The
representatives of the Armenian Diaspora in the US suppose that maybe
the White House tends to employ the resolution 907 as a trump card
to exert pressure on Azerbaijan. It is remarkable that most of the
members of the US Congress commission on the issues connected with
Azerbaijan and Turkey are the same. Thus the congressmen fell between
two stools. It is characteristic that the congressmen taking into
consideration the interests of Turkey and the US from time to time
make statements supporting the protocols which, in fact, contradicts
to the policy of Baku, though a part of those congressmen are among
the friends of Baku.
On September 18, 2009, in the Georgetown University in Washington
"The US-Azerbaijan Strategic Partnership: New Bilateral and Regional
Dimensions" conference was arranged. The participant to that event
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov in
his presentation devoted to the Armenian-Turkish negotiations
mentioned that the re-opening of the border would deteriorate not
only Azerbaijani-Turkish relations but also the relations between
Azerbaijan and the US. It is remarkable that the undersecretary of
state William Burns who was present at the event stated that there
was no connection between the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey
and the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. At the same time
Burns and former undersecretary of state, the representative of the
Marshal Foundation David Kramer criticized Azerbaijan for ceasing
the broadcasting of Freedom, American Voice, BBC radio stations and
the arrests of the oppositional bloggers Emin Mili and Adnan Hajizade.
Kramer also touched upon the referendum on Ilham Aliyev's aspiration
to become lifelong president allotting Araz Azimov another portion
of criticism. In its turn Azimov rebuked the Department of State for
the uncertainty round the resolution 907 and expressed his discontent
with the fact that no US State Secretary had ever visited Baku. Despite
the loud headline the conference passed in the atmosphere negative to
Azerbaijan. One can suppose had there been mutual understanding and
completely friendly atmosphere in the relations between Azerbaijan
and the US, such bilateral allegations would have not prevailed. In
the general scope of the bilateral contradictions, the lobbying of
Washington directed to the re-opening of the Armenian-Turkish border
has a definite "share". At the same time it should be mentioned that,
according to various sources, recently the programme of renting
Gabalar radar station in Azerbaijan has been discussed and this can
again bring to the certain rapprochement between the US and Azerbaijan.
Other issues of author
PUBLICATIONS IN AMERICAN PERIODICALS CONCERNING NAGORNO-KARABAKH
IN 1918-20 [22.10.2009] INSTITUTE FOR ARMENIAN STUDIES IN ANKARA
[06.10.2008] PROPAGANDISTIC ACTIVITIES OF AZERBAIJANI "DIASPORA"
[07.07.2008] DISCUSSIONS ON THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE COMMEMORATION DAY
IN TURKISH MASS MEDIA [19.06.2008] ON THE PROBLEM OF THE INCREASING
NUMBER OF AZERBAIJANI WEB-SITES IN THE INTERNET [31.01.2008] ON
PURPOSEFUL DISINFORMATION ACTIVITY IN AZERBAIJAN [03.09.2007] The
dynamic of carrying on the Azerbaijani lobbing [16.05.2007]