Tweet
TURKISH-ISRAELI CONFRONTATION OPENS NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR ARMENIA
ArmInfo
2010-03-02 20:52:00
Interview of Director of Scientific and Educational Fund 'Noravank',
Gagik Haroutyunyan, with ArmInfo news agency
Mr.Haroutyunyan, the confrontation between Israel and Turkey is
gradually gaining new momentum. How much beneficial is it for Armenia,
taking into account the progress in the process of Israel's recognition
of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire?
In the long-term outlook the recognition is quite possible. Actually,
confrontation has existed even since 2002, when a scandal broke out
between Israel and Turkey, connected with supply of avionics for
helicopters to Turkey by Israel. The relations between them have
currently aggravated, and there are real economic and geopolitical
reasons for that, the first of which is the Kurdish problem in the
form of Iraqi Kurdistan where the Israeli influence is very strong.
All these elements, as well as the new mission of Turkey in the
world conflict with the interests of Israel and the USA. But the
mutual relations of the two states in modern world are always a
complex of advantages and disadvantages. A number of other signs
indicate aggravation of these relations, including the behavior of the
Jewish lobby in the US Congress showing the necessity of raising the
Armenian Genocide issue at the House of Representatives. These trends
on recognition of the Genocide are apparent also in Israel. Along
with it, I'd like to say that a threat often works stronger than
its execution. Therefore, it is still quite unclear to me how much
this threat will lead to the possibility of its execution from both
the American and Israeli parties. I do not think that Armenia may
essentially affect the course of these processes in this situation,
however, the scenario, according to which this confrontation will
turn in our favor, is quite probable.
What is the new mission of Turkey restricted to and how much does
the Israeli-Turkish confrontation meet its logic?
The so-called New Turkey of Gul and Erdogan has its prehistory that
formally originated when Leader of the Fundamental Islamic Party
N.Erbakan came to power in Turkey in 1996. The incumbent Prime Minister
Erdogan was Erbakan's supporter. Thus, the latter urged Turkey to
withdrew from NATO and distance itself from America. That became the
reason of his successful house arrest, naturally on another pretext,
and closing of his party. The aforementioned incidents were an alarm
for the USA, especially after September 11, to try to reorient the
Islamic movement in Turkey to a more moderate direction.
The Neocons having strong positions in the Bush's Administration
did their best for that purpose and RAND corporation provided the
necessary theoretical basis publishing the conceptual work "Building
Moderate Muslim Networks". The moderate Islamists in the person of
Erdogan and Justice and Development Party that came to power in 2002
are quite adequate to the present trends characteristic of the Turkish
public. Thus, in 2007 a public poll in Turkey among the supporters of
the Justice and Development Party and the People's Republican Party
(PRP) revealed that over 80% of the supporters of Erdogan's Party
feel themselves Muslims and Turks at the same time. Whereas only 60%
of the voters for the PRP considered themselves Turks and nearly 40%
called themselves Muslims.
Today, in the conditions of multi-polarity Turkey is looking for its
place in the world. Turks have got engrossed with this process and
are trying to occupy the leading positions in the region and the
Islamist world, via competing with Iran. I have got an impression
that Turkey has a complex of inferiority regarding Iran, which I am
sure is nuclear power. Incidentally, in this context today Turkey and
Iran occupy the leading places in the world by growth of the rates
of scientific publications. For this reason it is quite possible that
establishment of Turkey as a nuclear country is a hidden programme of
soft Islamists headed by Erdogan and Gul. The projects on nuclear power
plants construction in Turkey are evidence of it. In addition, very
interesting development of events is taking place at the ideological
front of Turkey at present: formation of neo-osmanism, the attempts
to turn Euro-Asian conception into the Turkish one, reanimation of
Pan-Turkism, etc. There is a certain system in this chaos: all these
tendencies are of a bright expansionist nature.
Moreover, we are also aware of the so-called Caucasus Platform the
idea of setting of which was voiced after the five-day war in the
South Ossetia.
At present, the American influence in our region has somewhat weakened,
so, even Azerbaijan allows itself to stand somewhat independently
with respect to the superpowers. Currently, Turks try to replenish
this intermediate vacuum, which has been formed in the South Caucasus
with partial departure of the Americans and arrival of the Russian,
with their presence. This happens not only in relations with Armenia,
which come down to diplomatic woes, but also in relations with Georgia
where Turkey is gradually increasing its influence and trying to
hold the required positions. As for Azerbaijan, Turks think that
this country has nowhere to go from it, which meets the truth, no
matter how much Baku requires from Ankara to "return" Karabakh. I
think such an offensive and aggressive policy of Ankara is fraught
with unpredictable consequences, and his concerns Turkey, first of all.
How much does Armenia's striving to open the border on Turkey meet
our interests, taking into account the Turkish policy of neo-osmanism?
It is a rather complicated question, especially against the background
of the political disengagement between the USA, Russia and, to some
extent, the EU. All of them are well aware that there are quite many
risks and challenges in the world at present and are trying to easy
the situation according to their own ideas. These countries have a
certain consensus on the necessity of opening the Armenian-Turkish
border and regulation of the situation around the NKR. Armenia
will benefit from establishing relations with Turkey without
preconditions rather than from opening the border and aggravating
the Azerbaijani-Turkish relations. I think that Turkey is a de-facto
participant in the Karabakh war. So, this will be a precedent since
Turkey, a participant in the Karabakh war, has taken its place at
the negotiating table with Armenia without preconditions.
It is important that the initiative in this issue is currently in
Armenia's hands: the well-known decision of the Constitutional Court of
Armenia and the visit of Robert Kocharyan to Iran are very important,
that allowed Armenia to win Tehran's support in the processes with
Turkey and the ones related to the NKR. Moreover, we have voiced
interesting statements on these two issues. These are the speeches
by Deputy Head of the Armenian Presidential Administration Vigen
Sargsyan in the USA and Turkey and the most significant thing is the
programme speech by President Serzh Sargsyan in London, which very
strongly impressed not only the politicians and analysts of the West
but our society as well.
Can one suppose that the superpowers have taken Armenia's side in
the Armenian-Turkish dialogue?
I think at the given stage - yes. This is proved by the fact that
the Russian authorities have clearly separated the NKR issue from
the Armenian-Turkish diplomatic relations, and the USA has initiated
discussion of the Armenian Genocide issue in the Congress, having
thus expressed their attitude to the Armenian-Turkish process kind
of indirectly but quite transparently. In this context, I am not sure
that the Protocols will be ratified in the near future, though there
are great chances for that.
What was the goal of President Sargsyan's visit to London, and what
is the Anglo-Saxons' intensified attention to Armenia conditioned by?
The British have always shown interest in Armenia and the region in
general. By the way, malicious gossips say that it was the English
"friends" that stood behind the attempt of "colored" revolution in
Armenia. Moreover, many people think that the moderator and brain of
the US policy in the region are the British. I think the key goal of
the president's visit to London was to get an opportunity to express
Armenia's stance on the NKR and Turkey at the Chatem House where, by
the way, Aliyev also made a speech last year. The British analytical
community perceived Sargsyan's speech in London quite adequately;
therefore I consider this visit to be quite successful.
The Iranian ambassador to Armenia has recently said that his country
recognized the NKR long ago as Iran has a common border with Karabakh.
On the other hand, Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki said in Baku that
his country recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Which
of these two statements reflects the real stance of Tehran?
I think both stances are quite compatible. The truth is that Tehran
is really interested in improving relations with Baku. They have
already cancelled the visa regime. But I am also convinced that the
status quo regarding the NKR cannot be changed.
They actively broadcast their TV channels in Azerbaijan...
This demonstrates that Iran is gradually penetrating into Azerbaijan.
What role does the threat of the USA's intrusion into Iran play in
this logic?
The US military doctrine stipulates that the USA can effectively fight
on no more than two fronts; therefore Americans themselves will never
start an operation against Iran, especially, taking into account the
complicated situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only possible war
scenario for Americans is delivering point blows on Iran. At the same
time, this is a very hazardous scenario. Actually, both Iran and Israel
are theocratic states. The political elite of such countries attaches
much significance to principles rather than to pragmatic reasons,
which causes big concern. I am sure Tehran also has nuclear weapon, the
Americans themselves have already said about this, so did Head of the
General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Baluyevsky 7 years ago. That
is to say, Iran's attempt of a return blow on Israel is quite probable,
and this will become a disaster for the region, including Armenia.
Interviewed by David Stepanyan, 26 February 2010, ArmInfo
ArmInfo
2010-03-02 20:52:00
Interview of Director of Scientific and Educational Fund 'Noravank',
Gagik Haroutyunyan, with ArmInfo news agency
Mr.Haroutyunyan, the confrontation between Israel and Turkey is
gradually gaining new momentum. How much beneficial is it for Armenia,
taking into account the progress in the process of Israel's recognition
of the Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire?
In the long-term outlook the recognition is quite possible. Actually,
confrontation has existed even since 2002, when a scandal broke out
between Israel and Turkey, connected with supply of avionics for
helicopters to Turkey by Israel. The relations between them have
currently aggravated, and there are real economic and geopolitical
reasons for that, the first of which is the Kurdish problem in the
form of Iraqi Kurdistan where the Israeli influence is very strong.
All these elements, as well as the new mission of Turkey in the
world conflict with the interests of Israel and the USA. But the
mutual relations of the two states in modern world are always a
complex of advantages and disadvantages. A number of other signs
indicate aggravation of these relations, including the behavior of the
Jewish lobby in the US Congress showing the necessity of raising the
Armenian Genocide issue at the House of Representatives. These trends
on recognition of the Genocide are apparent also in Israel. Along
with it, I'd like to say that a threat often works stronger than
its execution. Therefore, it is still quite unclear to me how much
this threat will lead to the possibility of its execution from both
the American and Israeli parties. I do not think that Armenia may
essentially affect the course of these processes in this situation,
however, the scenario, according to which this confrontation will
turn in our favor, is quite probable.
What is the new mission of Turkey restricted to and how much does
the Israeli-Turkish confrontation meet its logic?
The so-called New Turkey of Gul and Erdogan has its prehistory that
formally originated when Leader of the Fundamental Islamic Party
N.Erbakan came to power in Turkey in 1996. The incumbent Prime Minister
Erdogan was Erbakan's supporter. Thus, the latter urged Turkey to
withdrew from NATO and distance itself from America. That became the
reason of his successful house arrest, naturally on another pretext,
and closing of his party. The aforementioned incidents were an alarm
for the USA, especially after September 11, to try to reorient the
Islamic movement in Turkey to a more moderate direction.
The Neocons having strong positions in the Bush's Administration
did their best for that purpose and RAND corporation provided the
necessary theoretical basis publishing the conceptual work "Building
Moderate Muslim Networks". The moderate Islamists in the person of
Erdogan and Justice and Development Party that came to power in 2002
are quite adequate to the present trends characteristic of the Turkish
public. Thus, in 2007 a public poll in Turkey among the supporters of
the Justice and Development Party and the People's Republican Party
(PRP) revealed that over 80% of the supporters of Erdogan's Party
feel themselves Muslims and Turks at the same time. Whereas only 60%
of the voters for the PRP considered themselves Turks and nearly 40%
called themselves Muslims.
Today, in the conditions of multi-polarity Turkey is looking for its
place in the world. Turks have got engrossed with this process and
are trying to occupy the leading positions in the region and the
Islamist world, via competing with Iran. I have got an impression
that Turkey has a complex of inferiority regarding Iran, which I am
sure is nuclear power. Incidentally, in this context today Turkey and
Iran occupy the leading places in the world by growth of the rates
of scientific publications. For this reason it is quite possible that
establishment of Turkey as a nuclear country is a hidden programme of
soft Islamists headed by Erdogan and Gul. The projects on nuclear power
plants construction in Turkey are evidence of it. In addition, very
interesting development of events is taking place at the ideological
front of Turkey at present: formation of neo-osmanism, the attempts
to turn Euro-Asian conception into the Turkish one, reanimation of
Pan-Turkism, etc. There is a certain system in this chaos: all these
tendencies are of a bright expansionist nature.
Moreover, we are also aware of the so-called Caucasus Platform the
idea of setting of which was voiced after the five-day war in the
South Ossetia.
At present, the American influence in our region has somewhat weakened,
so, even Azerbaijan allows itself to stand somewhat independently
with respect to the superpowers. Currently, Turks try to replenish
this intermediate vacuum, which has been formed in the South Caucasus
with partial departure of the Americans and arrival of the Russian,
with their presence. This happens not only in relations with Armenia,
which come down to diplomatic woes, but also in relations with Georgia
where Turkey is gradually increasing its influence and trying to
hold the required positions. As for Azerbaijan, Turks think that
this country has nowhere to go from it, which meets the truth, no
matter how much Baku requires from Ankara to "return" Karabakh. I
think such an offensive and aggressive policy of Ankara is fraught
with unpredictable consequences, and his concerns Turkey, first of all.
How much does Armenia's striving to open the border on Turkey meet
our interests, taking into account the Turkish policy of neo-osmanism?
It is a rather complicated question, especially against the background
of the political disengagement between the USA, Russia and, to some
extent, the EU. All of them are well aware that there are quite many
risks and challenges in the world at present and are trying to easy
the situation according to their own ideas. These countries have a
certain consensus on the necessity of opening the Armenian-Turkish
border and regulation of the situation around the NKR. Armenia
will benefit from establishing relations with Turkey without
preconditions rather than from opening the border and aggravating
the Azerbaijani-Turkish relations. I think that Turkey is a de-facto
participant in the Karabakh war. So, this will be a precedent since
Turkey, a participant in the Karabakh war, has taken its place at
the negotiating table with Armenia without preconditions.
It is important that the initiative in this issue is currently in
Armenia's hands: the well-known decision of the Constitutional Court of
Armenia and the visit of Robert Kocharyan to Iran are very important,
that allowed Armenia to win Tehran's support in the processes with
Turkey and the ones related to the NKR. Moreover, we have voiced
interesting statements on these two issues. These are the speeches
by Deputy Head of the Armenian Presidential Administration Vigen
Sargsyan in the USA and Turkey and the most significant thing is the
programme speech by President Serzh Sargsyan in London, which very
strongly impressed not only the politicians and analysts of the West
but our society as well.
Can one suppose that the superpowers have taken Armenia's side in
the Armenian-Turkish dialogue?
I think at the given stage - yes. This is proved by the fact that
the Russian authorities have clearly separated the NKR issue from
the Armenian-Turkish diplomatic relations, and the USA has initiated
discussion of the Armenian Genocide issue in the Congress, having
thus expressed their attitude to the Armenian-Turkish process kind
of indirectly but quite transparently. In this context, I am not sure
that the Protocols will be ratified in the near future, though there
are great chances for that.
What was the goal of President Sargsyan's visit to London, and what
is the Anglo-Saxons' intensified attention to Armenia conditioned by?
The British have always shown interest in Armenia and the region in
general. By the way, malicious gossips say that it was the English
"friends" that stood behind the attempt of "colored" revolution in
Armenia. Moreover, many people think that the moderator and brain of
the US policy in the region are the British. I think the key goal of
the president's visit to London was to get an opportunity to express
Armenia's stance on the NKR and Turkey at the Chatem House where, by
the way, Aliyev also made a speech last year. The British analytical
community perceived Sargsyan's speech in London quite adequately;
therefore I consider this visit to be quite successful.
The Iranian ambassador to Armenia has recently said that his country
recognized the NKR long ago as Iran has a common border with Karabakh.
On the other hand, Iranian Foreign Minister Mottaki said in Baku that
his country recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Which
of these two statements reflects the real stance of Tehran?
I think both stances are quite compatible. The truth is that Tehran
is really interested in improving relations with Baku. They have
already cancelled the visa regime. But I am also convinced that the
status quo regarding the NKR cannot be changed.
They actively broadcast their TV channels in Azerbaijan...
This demonstrates that Iran is gradually penetrating into Azerbaijan.
What role does the threat of the USA's intrusion into Iran play in
this logic?
The US military doctrine stipulates that the USA can effectively fight
on no more than two fronts; therefore Americans themselves will never
start an operation against Iran, especially, taking into account the
complicated situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only possible war
scenario for Americans is delivering point blows on Iran. At the same
time, this is a very hazardous scenario. Actually, both Iran and Israel
are theocratic states. The political elite of such countries attaches
much significance to principles rather than to pragmatic reasons,
which causes big concern. I am sure Tehran also has nuclear weapon, the
Americans themselves have already said about this, so did Head of the
General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Baluyevsky 7 years ago. That
is to say, Iran's attempt of a return blow on Israel is quite probable,
and this will become a disaster for the region, including Armenia.
Interviewed by David Stepanyan, 26 February 2010, ArmInfo