Tweet
TURKISH-ISRAELI STADOFF OPEN UP NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR ARMENIA
http://noravank.am/en/?page=news&nid= 2356
03 March 2010
The interview of the director of "Noravank" Scientific-Educational
Foundation Gagik Harutyunyan to ArmInfo news agency
Harutyunyan, standoff between Israel and Turkey is gradually going
forward. How advantageous is it for Armenia in the light of the
observed progress in the direction of the recognition by Israel the
Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire?
In the long-term outlook this recognition is quite possible. The
standoff has really existed since 2002, when scandal connected with
the avionics for helicopters broke between Israel and Turkey. Today the
relations between them have become even more aggravated and there are
real economic and geopolitical reasons for it. The primary reason is
the Kurdish issue in the form of Iraqi Kurdistan where the influence
of Israel is strong. All those elements plus the new mission of Turkey
in the world contradict to the interests of Israel and US.
But the relations between two states in the modern world, in fact,
are a complex of pluses and minuses. In case with Israel and Turkey
a number of other signs are indicative of the deterioration of the
relations. Among them is the policy of the Jewish lobby in American
Congress saying about the necessity to put forward the issue of the
Armenian Genocide in the House of Representatives of the US, and in
Israel such tendencies are also present. But at the same time I would
like to mention that it is considered in the strategy that the threat
is more effective than its implementation. That is why it is not clear
yet whether that threat will bring to its implementation both on part
of the US and Israel. I do not think that under such conditions Armenia
can influence those processes essentially, but the scenario, according
to which this standoff can turn to our favour, is rather possible.
What is the new mission of Turkey, you mentioned, and how does it
coincide with the logics of the Israeli-Turkish standoff?
The so-called New Turkey of Gul and Erdogan has its prehistory,
which formally began after the accession to power of Erbokan's
fundamentalist-Islamic party "Prosperity" (by the way the incumbent
prime-minister Erdogan was his associate) in that country in 1996.
Erbokan, particularly, called to exit from NATO and distance themselves
from the US for what he, of course under other pretext, was put under
house arrest and his party was banned. That was a signal for the US,
especially after 9/11, to try to redirect the Islamist movement in
Turkey to more moderate direction in the spirit of their political
traditions. Here the "neocons" who had strong stance in the Bush
administration did their best and the theoretical basis was provided by
RAND "think tank", which particularly, published the conceptual work
"Building Moderate Muslim Networks". Let us mention that the moderate
Islamists represented by Erdogan and the Justice and Development
Party (JDP) who came to power after the elections in 2002 are rather
adequate to the tendencies which are characteristic of Turkish society
today. For example, in 2007 the public opinion poll was carried out
among those who voted for the Republican People's Party (RPP) and
JDP and it turned out that more than 80% of the supporters of the
JDP considered themselves both Muslims and Turks at the same time,
while only 60% of those who voted for the RPP considered themselves
Turks and 40% considered themselves Muslims.
Today when the world is multi-polar Turkey is searching its place and
the Turks get carried away by this process and try to take leading
stance in the region and Muslim world competing Iran. Digressing from
the theme, I would like to mention that there is an impression that
Turkey has inferiority complex in regard to Iran which is a nuclear
power and in this context it is remarkable that both Turkey and Iran
take the leading positions in the world as for the growth of the
number of scientific publications. That is why, it is quite possible
that the hidden programme of the Islamists headed by Erdogan and Gul
is becoming the nuclear country and the projects of Turkey to build
the nuclear plant attest to it.
Besides, today rather interesting developments in ideological plane
can be observed in Turkey: among them we can mention the formation of
neo-Ottomanism, the attempts to Turkishize the Eurasianism conception,
the revival of pan-Turkism and etc. But there is a kind of system in
that chaos: all those trends are of distinct expansionist character.
Besides, we also know about the so-called Caucasian platform; the
idea of creation of such a platform was sounded after the five days
war on 08.08.08. Today the American influence on our region weakened
a little, and that is why even Azerbaijan allows itself to behave a
little independently. And this intermediate vacuum which formed in the
South Caucasus after the partial departure of the Americans and the
so-called arrival of the Russian is tried to be filled by the Turks.
This happens not only in regard to the relations with Armenia which
are added up to the diplomatic scrapes, but also in regard to Georgia
where Turkey increases its influence and tries to take necessary
positions. As for Azerbaijan the Turks believe that there is nothing
it can do, and this is true in principle whatever Baku do demanding
from Ankara "to return" Karabakh". I think that such an offensive
policy fraught with unpredictable consequences firstly for Turkey.
How does the aspiration of Armenia to open the border with Turkey
coincide with our interests taking into consideration the Turkish
policy of neo-Ottomanism you spoke about?
This is rather complicated issue especially at the background of the
policy of relaxation between the US and Russia and the UE at some
extent. They all realize that there are enough risks and challenges
in the modern world and they all aspire to relax the situation, and
of course each of them in accordance with it own ideas. Thereafter,
there is a kind of consensus on the issue of opening Armenian-Turkish
border and the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I believe that
Armenia will benefit mostly not from the opening of the border from the
point of view of economics or the deterioration of Azerbaijani-Turkish
relations but from the fact of beginning relations with Turkey without
preconditions. I think that Turkey is de-facto part to the conflict
in Nagorno-Karabakh that is why that will be a precedent that one
of the parts to the conflict will embark on the negotiations with
Armenia without preconditions. And it is important that the initiative
is taken by Armenia: the well-known decision of the Constitutional
Court is of great importance; the visit of Robert Kocharyan to Iran
which allowed us to enlist Tehran's support both in the processes
connected with Turkey and developments round Nagorno-Karabakh is also
crucial. Besides we made rather interesting statements on those two
issues. These and the speeches of the Deputy Head of the RA president
Apparatus Vigen Sargsyan in the US and Turkey, as well the programme
address of President Serj Sargsyan in London which made a strong
impression not only on the politicians and analysts in the West but
also on our society.
So, can it be supposed that the superpowers took pro-Armenian stance
in the Armenian-Turkish dialogue?
I think that at given stage - yes. This is proved by the fact that
the Russian leadership strictly and distinctly separated the NKR
issue from the Armenian-Turkish diplomatic relations and the US
initiated the consideration of the Armenian Genocide in the Congress,
thus indirectly, but rather transparently expressing its attitude
towards the Armenian-Turkish process. In this context, of course,
I am not sure that the Protocols will be ratified soon but there are
good chances for that.
What was the aim of President Sargsyan's visit to London, and what
is the reason of such an attention of Anglo-Saxons towards Armenia?
There has always been an interest towards Armenia and region in
general on behalf of the British. The "wicked tongues" say that the
English "comrades" were at the bottom of the "colour" revolution in
Armenia. Even more, many believe that the British are the moderators
and the brains centre of the American policy in the region. I think
that the main reason of the visit of president to London was the
opportunity to express the position of Armenia on the NKR and Turkey
issues on the authoritative ground of Chatham House where, by the way,
last year Aliyev made an address. The British analytical community
took Sargsyan's speech rather adequately, so I think that this visit
can be considered as rather successful.
Recently the ambassador of Iran to Armenia said that his country in
fact had recognized the NKR long ago, because it is the country which
had a common border. The other day the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Iran Mottaki said in Baku that his country recognized the territorial
integrity of the AR. Which of those two statements reflects the real
stance of Iran?
I think that both stances are acceptable. The truth is that Tehran is
really interested in the normalizing of the relations with Baku and
they have already lifted the visa regime and etc, but at the same time
it is sure that the status-quo in regard to the NKR cannot be changed.
Actively broadcasts its TV channels in Azerbaijan...
It proves that Iran gradually enters Azerbaijan.
In this context what role does the threat of American invasion to
Iran play?
American military doctrine supposes that the US can fight efficiently
no more than on two fronts, that is why the Americans by themselves
will never start the operation against Iran, especially if we take into
consideration rather complicated situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
only scenario acceptable for the US is the delivering surgical strikes
to Iran. At the same time it is very risky scenario.
Both Iran and Israel are theocratic states. For the political elites
of such countries sometimes the principles are of more importance
than pragmatic considerations and this causes great concern. I am
sure that Iran possesses nuclear weapon. And both the Americans has
spoken about it and the Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed
Forces Baluevsky mentioned it 7 years ago. It means that the there
is rather big possibility of retaliatory blow of Iran to Israel and
that would be disastrous for the entire region, including Armenia.
Interviewed by David Stepanyan 26.02.10 ArmInfo
http://noravank.am/en/?page=news&nid= 2356
03 March 2010
The interview of the director of "Noravank" Scientific-Educational
Foundation Gagik Harutyunyan to ArmInfo news agency
Harutyunyan, standoff between Israel and Turkey is gradually going
forward. How advantageous is it for Armenia in the light of the
observed progress in the direction of the recognition by Israel the
Armenian Genocide in the Ottoman Empire?
In the long-term outlook this recognition is quite possible. The
standoff has really existed since 2002, when scandal connected with
the avionics for helicopters broke between Israel and Turkey. Today the
relations between them have become even more aggravated and there are
real economic and geopolitical reasons for it. The primary reason is
the Kurdish issue in the form of Iraqi Kurdistan where the influence
of Israel is strong. All those elements plus the new mission of Turkey
in the world contradict to the interests of Israel and US.
But the relations between two states in the modern world, in fact,
are a complex of pluses and minuses. In case with Israel and Turkey
a number of other signs are indicative of the deterioration of the
relations. Among them is the policy of the Jewish lobby in American
Congress saying about the necessity to put forward the issue of the
Armenian Genocide in the House of Representatives of the US, and in
Israel such tendencies are also present. But at the same time I would
like to mention that it is considered in the strategy that the threat
is more effective than its implementation. That is why it is not clear
yet whether that threat will bring to its implementation both on part
of the US and Israel. I do not think that under such conditions Armenia
can influence those processes essentially, but the scenario, according
to which this standoff can turn to our favour, is rather possible.
What is the new mission of Turkey, you mentioned, and how does it
coincide with the logics of the Israeli-Turkish standoff?
The so-called New Turkey of Gul and Erdogan has its prehistory,
which formally began after the accession to power of Erbokan's
fundamentalist-Islamic party "Prosperity" (by the way the incumbent
prime-minister Erdogan was his associate) in that country in 1996.
Erbokan, particularly, called to exit from NATO and distance themselves
from the US for what he, of course under other pretext, was put under
house arrest and his party was banned. That was a signal for the US,
especially after 9/11, to try to redirect the Islamist movement in
Turkey to more moderate direction in the spirit of their political
traditions. Here the "neocons" who had strong stance in the Bush
administration did their best and the theoretical basis was provided by
RAND "think tank", which particularly, published the conceptual work
"Building Moderate Muslim Networks". Let us mention that the moderate
Islamists represented by Erdogan and the Justice and Development
Party (JDP) who came to power after the elections in 2002 are rather
adequate to the tendencies which are characteristic of Turkish society
today. For example, in 2007 the public opinion poll was carried out
among those who voted for the Republican People's Party (RPP) and
JDP and it turned out that more than 80% of the supporters of the
JDP considered themselves both Muslims and Turks at the same time,
while only 60% of those who voted for the RPP considered themselves
Turks and 40% considered themselves Muslims.
Today when the world is multi-polar Turkey is searching its place and
the Turks get carried away by this process and try to take leading
stance in the region and Muslim world competing Iran. Digressing from
the theme, I would like to mention that there is an impression that
Turkey has inferiority complex in regard to Iran which is a nuclear
power and in this context it is remarkable that both Turkey and Iran
take the leading positions in the world as for the growth of the
number of scientific publications. That is why, it is quite possible
that the hidden programme of the Islamists headed by Erdogan and Gul
is becoming the nuclear country and the projects of Turkey to build
the nuclear plant attest to it.
Besides, today rather interesting developments in ideological plane
can be observed in Turkey: among them we can mention the formation of
neo-Ottomanism, the attempts to Turkishize the Eurasianism conception,
the revival of pan-Turkism and etc. But there is a kind of system in
that chaos: all those trends are of distinct expansionist character.
Besides, we also know about the so-called Caucasian platform; the
idea of creation of such a platform was sounded after the five days
war on 08.08.08. Today the American influence on our region weakened
a little, and that is why even Azerbaijan allows itself to behave a
little independently. And this intermediate vacuum which formed in the
South Caucasus after the partial departure of the Americans and the
so-called arrival of the Russian is tried to be filled by the Turks.
This happens not only in regard to the relations with Armenia which
are added up to the diplomatic scrapes, but also in regard to Georgia
where Turkey increases its influence and tries to take necessary
positions. As for Azerbaijan the Turks believe that there is nothing
it can do, and this is true in principle whatever Baku do demanding
from Ankara "to return" Karabakh". I think that such an offensive
policy fraught with unpredictable consequences firstly for Turkey.
How does the aspiration of Armenia to open the border with Turkey
coincide with our interests taking into consideration the Turkish
policy of neo-Ottomanism you spoke about?
This is rather complicated issue especially at the background of the
policy of relaxation between the US and Russia and the UE at some
extent. They all realize that there are enough risks and challenges
in the modern world and they all aspire to relax the situation, and
of course each of them in accordance with it own ideas. Thereafter,
there is a kind of consensus on the issue of opening Armenian-Turkish
border and the settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I believe that
Armenia will benefit mostly not from the opening of the border from the
point of view of economics or the deterioration of Azerbaijani-Turkish
relations but from the fact of beginning relations with Turkey without
preconditions. I think that Turkey is de-facto part to the conflict
in Nagorno-Karabakh that is why that will be a precedent that one
of the parts to the conflict will embark on the negotiations with
Armenia without preconditions. And it is important that the initiative
is taken by Armenia: the well-known decision of the Constitutional
Court is of great importance; the visit of Robert Kocharyan to Iran
which allowed us to enlist Tehran's support both in the processes
connected with Turkey and developments round Nagorno-Karabakh is also
crucial. Besides we made rather interesting statements on those two
issues. These and the speeches of the Deputy Head of the RA president
Apparatus Vigen Sargsyan in the US and Turkey, as well the programme
address of President Serj Sargsyan in London which made a strong
impression not only on the politicians and analysts in the West but
also on our society.
So, can it be supposed that the superpowers took pro-Armenian stance
in the Armenian-Turkish dialogue?
I think that at given stage - yes. This is proved by the fact that
the Russian leadership strictly and distinctly separated the NKR
issue from the Armenian-Turkish diplomatic relations and the US
initiated the consideration of the Armenian Genocide in the Congress,
thus indirectly, but rather transparently expressing its attitude
towards the Armenian-Turkish process. In this context, of course,
I am not sure that the Protocols will be ratified soon but there are
good chances for that.
What was the aim of President Sargsyan's visit to London, and what
is the reason of such an attention of Anglo-Saxons towards Armenia?
There has always been an interest towards Armenia and region in
general on behalf of the British. The "wicked tongues" say that the
English "comrades" were at the bottom of the "colour" revolution in
Armenia. Even more, many believe that the British are the moderators
and the brains centre of the American policy in the region. I think
that the main reason of the visit of president to London was the
opportunity to express the position of Armenia on the NKR and Turkey
issues on the authoritative ground of Chatham House where, by the way,
last year Aliyev made an address. The British analytical community
took Sargsyan's speech rather adequately, so I think that this visit
can be considered as rather successful.
Recently the ambassador of Iran to Armenia said that his country in
fact had recognized the NKR long ago, because it is the country which
had a common border. The other day the Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Iran Mottaki said in Baku that his country recognized the territorial
integrity of the AR. Which of those two statements reflects the real
stance of Iran?
I think that both stances are acceptable. The truth is that Tehran is
really interested in the normalizing of the relations with Baku and
they have already lifted the visa regime and etc, but at the same time
it is sure that the status-quo in regard to the NKR cannot be changed.
Actively broadcasts its TV channels in Azerbaijan...
It proves that Iran gradually enters Azerbaijan.
In this context what role does the threat of American invasion to
Iran play?
American military doctrine supposes that the US can fight efficiently
no more than on two fronts, that is why the Americans by themselves
will never start the operation against Iran, especially if we take into
consideration rather complicated situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
only scenario acceptable for the US is the delivering surgical strikes
to Iran. At the same time it is very risky scenario.
Both Iran and Israel are theocratic states. For the political elites
of such countries sometimes the principles are of more importance
than pragmatic considerations and this causes great concern. I am
sure that Iran possesses nuclear weapon. And both the Americans has
spoken about it and the Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed
Forces Baluevsky mentioned it 7 years ago. It means that the there
is rather big possibility of retaliatory blow of Iran to Israel and
that would be disastrous for the entire region, including Armenia.
Interviewed by David Stepanyan 26.02.10 ArmInfo