Tweet
TURKISH RAPPROCHEMENT IN CRISIS - ARMENIAN ANALYST
Kamala Mammadova
news.az
March 2 2010
Azerbaijan
Alexander Iskandaryan News.Az interviews Alexander Iskandaryan,
Armenian political scientist and director of the Caucasus Institute.
The Armenian parliament submitted the Armenian-Turkish protocols to
parliament, but decided to postpone their discussion. The Turkish
side, in turn, accused Armenia of not being constructive. How do you
evaluate Turkish-Armenian relations? Has the process reached deadlock?
The presidents of Armenia and Turkey have submitted the protocols to
their parliaments and in both cases the discussions are frozen. The
legislative procedures in the two countries are a little different:
the protocols had to undergo consideration in the Constitutional Court
in Armenia. In fact, there is nothing extraordinary about the "freeze",
the problem is complicated, there are many foreign and domestic policy
considerations and it is unrealistic to expect everything to proceed
smoothly in two days.
What further steps will be taken? Will the parliaments of both
countries ratify the protocols?
This depends on very many parameters: on the approval of House
Resolution 252 in the US Congress foreign affairs committee [on
recognizing the Armenian genocide], the dynamics of the ruling party's
rating in Turkey, the possible change of date in the parliamentary
elections in this country from 2011 to autumn 2010, the parameters of
tacit competition in Gul and Erdogan's secret cooperation and so on. I
think the process is in crisis though there is a small possibility
of ratification. Meanwhile, the problems mostly lie with Ankara. No
one doubts that the Armenian parliament will ratify the protocols if
the executive authorities have the political will.
What do you expect from 24 April? Will the US president use the term
"genocide" to describe the 1915 events in his traditional speech?
He will do it in any form. He did it last year. Mets Yegern is the
Armenian equivalent of "Holocaust", which is the name of the Armenian
Genocide. I think the possibility of his using the word "genocide" in
English, which is painfully perceived by Turks, is low. The Americans
would hardly benefit from losing the opportunity to put pressure on
Turkey over the issue after 24 April.
What are the current dynamics in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations? Are
achievements on Karabakh possible in the near future?
There have been no dynamics in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations at least
since 2001 if not since 1996. These relations are static rather than
dynamic. There is a dynamic of rhetoric, which is toughened or softened
at different times. This is connected not with Armenian-Azerbaijani
relations but with resistance to attempts by foreign powers to
settle the conflict. Theoretically, both parties want the conflict
to be settled, but their scenarios are so discrepant that they are
incompatible. Meanwhile, the real settlement is only possible if
both sides lose something. As the sides are not ready for this,
the process is turning into the imitation of a settlement. I dare
say that had it not been for the external world, none of the parties
would have conducted any negotiations at all.
What is the role of the superpowers in the Karabakh settlement?
It is significant. The superpowers are a serious part of the balance
of overlapping interests in the region. The more or less expressed
consensus of the superpowers stabilizes the situation in the conflict
area.
What do you think can put an end to the conflict between Armenians
and Azerbaijanis?
Nothing in the political perspective. In the historical perspective
a solution can become possible through changes in the mentality of
the population from a zero-sum-game to other concepts, permitting
the perception of the negotiation process not as a bludgeon but as a
search for compromise. Then the politicians may have carte blanche
to develop a mutually profitable settlement option. Of course,
the chance of such a solution may appear. but the current political
situation does not leave hope for this. Therefore, I have no hopes for
a settlement in the short or medium term. Resistance to resolution
inside the region is stronger than pressure from outside. I do not
believe the discourse of war is serious. If we count out settlement
and war, that leaves us with nothing.
Kamala Mammadova
news.az
March 2 2010
Azerbaijan
Alexander Iskandaryan News.Az interviews Alexander Iskandaryan,
Armenian political scientist and director of the Caucasus Institute.
The Armenian parliament submitted the Armenian-Turkish protocols to
parliament, but decided to postpone their discussion. The Turkish
side, in turn, accused Armenia of not being constructive. How do you
evaluate Turkish-Armenian relations? Has the process reached deadlock?
The presidents of Armenia and Turkey have submitted the protocols to
their parliaments and in both cases the discussions are frozen. The
legislative procedures in the two countries are a little different:
the protocols had to undergo consideration in the Constitutional Court
in Armenia. In fact, there is nothing extraordinary about the "freeze",
the problem is complicated, there are many foreign and domestic policy
considerations and it is unrealistic to expect everything to proceed
smoothly in two days.
What further steps will be taken? Will the parliaments of both
countries ratify the protocols?
This depends on very many parameters: on the approval of House
Resolution 252 in the US Congress foreign affairs committee [on
recognizing the Armenian genocide], the dynamics of the ruling party's
rating in Turkey, the possible change of date in the parliamentary
elections in this country from 2011 to autumn 2010, the parameters of
tacit competition in Gul and Erdogan's secret cooperation and so on. I
think the process is in crisis though there is a small possibility
of ratification. Meanwhile, the problems mostly lie with Ankara. No
one doubts that the Armenian parliament will ratify the protocols if
the executive authorities have the political will.
What do you expect from 24 April? Will the US president use the term
"genocide" to describe the 1915 events in his traditional speech?
He will do it in any form. He did it last year. Mets Yegern is the
Armenian equivalent of "Holocaust", which is the name of the Armenian
Genocide. I think the possibility of his using the word "genocide" in
English, which is painfully perceived by Turks, is low. The Americans
would hardly benefit from losing the opportunity to put pressure on
Turkey over the issue after 24 April.
What are the current dynamics in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations? Are
achievements on Karabakh possible in the near future?
There have been no dynamics in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations at least
since 2001 if not since 1996. These relations are static rather than
dynamic. There is a dynamic of rhetoric, which is toughened or softened
at different times. This is connected not with Armenian-Azerbaijani
relations but with resistance to attempts by foreign powers to
settle the conflict. Theoretically, both parties want the conflict
to be settled, but their scenarios are so discrepant that they are
incompatible. Meanwhile, the real settlement is only possible if
both sides lose something. As the sides are not ready for this,
the process is turning into the imitation of a settlement. I dare
say that had it not been for the external world, none of the parties
would have conducted any negotiations at all.
What is the role of the superpowers in the Karabakh settlement?
It is significant. The superpowers are a serious part of the balance
of overlapping interests in the region. The more or less expressed
consensus of the superpowers stabilizes the situation in the conflict
area.
What do you think can put an end to the conflict between Armenians
and Azerbaijanis?
Nothing in the political perspective. In the historical perspective
a solution can become possible through changes in the mentality of
the population from a zero-sum-game to other concepts, permitting
the perception of the negotiation process not as a bludgeon but as a
search for compromise. Then the politicians may have carte blanche
to develop a mutually profitable settlement option. Of course,
the chance of such a solution may appear. but the current political
situation does not leave hope for this. Therefore, I have no hopes for
a settlement in the short or medium term. Resistance to resolution
inside the region is stronger than pressure from outside. I do not
believe the discourse of war is serious. If we count out settlement
and war, that leaves us with nothing.