Tweet
TURKEY NEEDS RUSSIA TO BRING PEACE TO CAUCASUS
news.az
Jan 21 2010
Azerbaijan
Gareth Jenkins News.az interviews Gareth Jenkins, non-resident Turkey
expert at the USA's Johns Hopkins University.
Will Turkey's peacemaking initiative in the South Caucasus be
successful?
I don't think Turkey has been successful yet, although I don't
doubt the commitment of the Turkish authorities. But Turkey has had
difficulty moving from rhetoric to reality, particularly with regard
to Azerbaijan and Armenia. It is all very well to adopt "zero problems
with neighbours" as a slogan but some of the countries in the region
have problems with each other. Once Turkey becomes more engaged with
its neighbours, then it also becomes more involved in their problems;
and it sometimes simply isn't possible to keep everybody happy.
Like it or not, it is also a fact that the dominant power in
the Caucasus is still Russia. Although Turkey can play a role in
peacemaking in the Caucasus, my feeling is that the most it can hope
for at the moment is to play a supporting role. For longstanding
problems such as Nagorno-Karabakh, it is still Russia which has the
best chance of brokering a settlement.
Is the Turkish initiative on stability and security in the Caucasus
realistic?
I am not a supporter of the AK Party [Turkey's ruling Justice and
Development Party], but I think its initiative to establish stability
and security in the Caucasus was well-intentioned. But the fact remains
that Turkey does not have the ability to create it. For the moment
at least, only Russia can do that and the most that Turkey can do is
to help. This is not to say that Turkey is wasting its time. But it
is possible to foresee Russia creating peace and stability in the
Caucasus without Turkey. It is not possible to see Turkey creating
peace and stability in the Caucasus without Russia.
Turkey and Russia agreed during Prime Minister Erdogan's recent visit
to Moscow to intensify bilateral relations. Could this cooperation
have a positive influence on the situation in the Caucasus?
The intensification of bilateral relations between Russia and Turkey
is likely to have a positive rather than a negative impact on the
Caucasus. But it is not a solution in itself. Ultimately, there
is not going to be peace and security in the Caucasus unless the
disputes and frozen conflicts are resolved (e.g. Russia-Georgia and
Azerbaijan-Armenia). Closer ties between Russia and Turkey are not,
by themselves, going to solve these problems.
How serious is the recent diplomatic scandal between Turkey and Israel?
The latest diplomatic scandal between Turkey and Israel would not
be so serious if it had come in isolation. But, set in the context
of other things that have happened in the last year (e.g. the
cancellation of the Anatolian Eagle military exercises, Davos 2009
etc), then it is indicative of how fraught the relationship has now
become. The tensions in the relationship become clearer when one
looks at Turkey's relations with other countries in the Middle East
over the last couple of years. Although some relationships have not
changed much (e.g. with Egypt, Jordan), others have grown much closer
(Syria, Iran). The only country with which Turkey's relationship has
deteriorated considerably is Israel. I think that the latest tensions
are more important as symptoms of the poor health of the relations
than important in themselves.
Could this scandal harm the military cooperation between the two
countries?
The closer ties between Turkey and Israel were driven by the two
countries' militaries at a time when the Turkish military dominated
certain aspects of Turkish foreign policy. The Turkish military's
political influence in Turkey is currently much less than it was in
the past, largely as the result of the campaign against the military
by supporters of the AK Party government. It is significant that the
decision to ban Israel from the Anatolian Eagle military exercises was
taken by the Turkish government not the Turkish military. Until only
a few years ago, the Turkish government would not even have dared to
take such a decision in an area regarded by the Turkish military as
its prerogative. But military cooperation had declined even before
the latest tensions - again largely as a result of the anti-Israeli
policies and rhetoric of the AK Party government. Although there are
areas in which the militaries of the two countries would probably
be happy to cooperate more closely (training, defence industry etc),
while the AK Party is in power, it is difficult to see how ties will
become as close as they were in the late 1990s.
Gareth Jenkins is senior associate fellow at the Joint Centre's Silk
Road Studies Program, Turkey Initiative, Johns Hopkins University.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
news.az
Jan 21 2010
Azerbaijan
Gareth Jenkins News.az interviews Gareth Jenkins, non-resident Turkey
expert at the USA's Johns Hopkins University.
Will Turkey's peacemaking initiative in the South Caucasus be
successful?
I don't think Turkey has been successful yet, although I don't
doubt the commitment of the Turkish authorities. But Turkey has had
difficulty moving from rhetoric to reality, particularly with regard
to Azerbaijan and Armenia. It is all very well to adopt "zero problems
with neighbours" as a slogan but some of the countries in the region
have problems with each other. Once Turkey becomes more engaged with
its neighbours, then it also becomes more involved in their problems;
and it sometimes simply isn't possible to keep everybody happy.
Like it or not, it is also a fact that the dominant power in
the Caucasus is still Russia. Although Turkey can play a role in
peacemaking in the Caucasus, my feeling is that the most it can hope
for at the moment is to play a supporting role. For longstanding
problems such as Nagorno-Karabakh, it is still Russia which has the
best chance of brokering a settlement.
Is the Turkish initiative on stability and security in the Caucasus
realistic?
I am not a supporter of the AK Party [Turkey's ruling Justice and
Development Party], but I think its initiative to establish stability
and security in the Caucasus was well-intentioned. But the fact remains
that Turkey does not have the ability to create it. For the moment
at least, only Russia can do that and the most that Turkey can do is
to help. This is not to say that Turkey is wasting its time. But it
is possible to foresee Russia creating peace and stability in the
Caucasus without Turkey. It is not possible to see Turkey creating
peace and stability in the Caucasus without Russia.
Turkey and Russia agreed during Prime Minister Erdogan's recent visit
to Moscow to intensify bilateral relations. Could this cooperation
have a positive influence on the situation in the Caucasus?
The intensification of bilateral relations between Russia and Turkey
is likely to have a positive rather than a negative impact on the
Caucasus. But it is not a solution in itself. Ultimately, there
is not going to be peace and security in the Caucasus unless the
disputes and frozen conflicts are resolved (e.g. Russia-Georgia and
Azerbaijan-Armenia). Closer ties between Russia and Turkey are not,
by themselves, going to solve these problems.
How serious is the recent diplomatic scandal between Turkey and Israel?
The latest diplomatic scandal between Turkey and Israel would not
be so serious if it had come in isolation. But, set in the context
of other things that have happened in the last year (e.g. the
cancellation of the Anatolian Eagle military exercises, Davos 2009
etc), then it is indicative of how fraught the relationship has now
become. The tensions in the relationship become clearer when one
looks at Turkey's relations with other countries in the Middle East
over the last couple of years. Although some relationships have not
changed much (e.g. with Egypt, Jordan), others have grown much closer
(Syria, Iran). The only country with which Turkey's relationship has
deteriorated considerably is Israel. I think that the latest tensions
are more important as symptoms of the poor health of the relations
than important in themselves.
Could this scandal harm the military cooperation between the two
countries?
The closer ties between Turkey and Israel were driven by the two
countries' militaries at a time when the Turkish military dominated
certain aspects of Turkish foreign policy. The Turkish military's
political influence in Turkey is currently much less than it was in
the past, largely as the result of the campaign against the military
by supporters of the AK Party government. It is significant that the
decision to ban Israel from the Anatolian Eagle military exercises was
taken by the Turkish government not the Turkish military. Until only
a few years ago, the Turkish government would not even have dared to
take such a decision in an area regarded by the Turkish military as
its prerogative. But military cooperation had declined even before
the latest tensions - again largely as a result of the anti-Israeli
policies and rhetoric of the AK Party government. Although there are
areas in which the militaries of the two countries would probably
be happy to cooperate more closely (training, defence industry etc),
while the AK Party is in power, it is difficult to see how ties will
become as close as they were in the late 1990s.
Gareth Jenkins is senior associate fellow at the Joint Centre's Silk
Road Studies Program, Turkey Initiative, Johns Hopkins University.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress