Tweet
RUSSIAN ANALYST: RAPPROCHEMENT WITH RUSSIA IS NOT BENEFICIAL TO TURKEY
H. Hamidov Day.Az
Today
http://www.today.az/news/politics/64 015.html
March 15 2010
Azerbaijan
Interview with well-known Russian journalist, political expert and
publicist Leonid Radzikhovsky.
In your opinion, what is the aim of adoption of the "Armenian genocide"
resolution by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Relations- to
accelerate the process of opening the Armenian-Turkish border or to
prevent Turkey from excessive recent rapprochement with Russia in
trade, economic and even military fields, or something else?
All that you said is quite possible. But we should not forget about
one more thing, quite typical for American system of governance -
representative democracy. Congressmen often act against the White
House interests and even against interests of the administration of
their party.
For example, a Congressman may represent interests of a very
influential Armenian Diaspora in the United States without thinking
about what implications his decision on the resolution may have in the
near future. The most important for him is re-election in a few years
depending on the voters, among whom there are influential individuals
and sponsors from the Armenian lobby. And the fact that the "genocide"
has already been recognized by a number of countries is not due to high
level Armenian foreign policy, but focused actions of the Armenian
Diaspora. That is, there is pressure from not individual voters,
but well-organized groups.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the Armenian Diaspora in the U.S. is
unlikely to be larger than the Turkish or Azerbaijani Diasporas.
However, we must admit that it is well organized, and its
representatives act in concert. Jewish, Ukrainian and Polish Diasporas
of the U.S. also act in a similar way.
In your opinion, what will be fate of the Turkey-U.S. relations?
The United States cannot afford spoiling relations with Turkey
seriously. In particular, one cannot forget deteriorating relations
between the U.S. and Iran. In the meantime, Turkey is a NATO member
and the only key player for Americans in the Middle East for all
its parameters. The White House has enough resources to stop, or
at least suspend, recognition of "genocide". So, I do not expect
conflict between the U.S. and Turkey. Americans perfectly understand
what implications it might have.
In addition, internal political situation in Turkey must also be taken
into account. Internal split prevails in the country. There is very
strong trend towards development of Islamic fundamentalism. At the same
time, army and supporters of secular development of the country enjoy
great influence. In such situation to spoil relations with Turkey,
in general, means a great favour for the Islamists and weakening of
pro-Western forces in that country. Why? For the sake of resolution
on what, something, that happened some 90 years ago?
Americans will not do this, because it is vital for Washington
to preserve the secular pro-Western Turkey with all the ensuing
consequences.
The paradox is that the country that desired adoption of the resolution
most of all suffered from the decision of the Congress committee more
than the rest, since opening of the Turkey-Armenia border fell into
oblivion for near future at least. Do you share this statement?
It is worth recall what Hillary Clinton said. She noted that such
a resolution would complicate the normalization of Armenian-Turkish
relations ... Yes, this is largely true, but in this case one should
also understand that the interests of Armenia and the Armenians
self-esteem are not the same. Armenians of the U.S. have nationalistic
sentiments, but they do not live in Armenia, and do not feel effects
of opening or closing the border with Turkey.
So, recognition of the "genocide" is very important for their national
pride and identity. So, there is also an internal conflict among
Armenians in the U.S. What effect it will have on situation back
in homeland is important, but the recognition of "genocide" is even
more important. The struggle between national ambitions and pragmatic
interests is obvious.
For example, let's cite the Karabakh conflict as an example. Did
occupation of lands bring happiness to Armenia? Is it not advantageous
for them to simply return the land and establish normal relations
with Azerbaijan and Turkey? It is profitable for them. It cannot to
happen overnight because it is a question of national identity.
Can we say that Russia is happy at complicated relations between
Turkey and the U.S.? Because now it can come even closer to Ankara
and solve problems of the region without intervention of a distant
America. What can you say about this?
I agree that the failure of the U.S. is seen as a success in Russia,
and vice versa. Speaking specifically, I do not think that Russia can
substitute the United States for Turkey. First, we must not forget
that Russia has recognized the "Armenian genocide."
A more significant is the following circumstance - Turkey remains a
NATO member which is crucial for it. Russia can offer nothing like that
to Turkey. Turkey's main concern like all developing countries is not
to get closer to Russia, but only to the EU, Western civilization, etc.
Therefore, strategically, Russia is not comparable centre of influence
for Turkey's. The only alternative for Turkey at the moment is to
build a society oriented either to the West or the Islamic society.
Russia is not an attractive force here as well.
Tactically, it is possible to increase military contacts with Russia.
It is unpleasant for the U.S. and one can speculate on that. Turkey
also may conduct negotiations with Russia on Nabucco.
Apart from this, everyone knows that not the U.S., but Russia shapes
Armenia's policy. Because no matter how influential Armenian diaspora
in the U.S. is, America is far away while Russia is not. Armenia
cannot simply exist without Russia's help. Turkey needs to understand
to what degree relations with Ankara is important for the Kremlin in
order to put pressure on Armenia about the disputed issues.
The answer is obvious: today Russia lacks influence (or maybe it does
not have willingness, but this is another question) to ensure that
Armenia has changed its position at least on a historical topic of
"genocide". In the meantime, Russia is a strategic partner for Armenia,
and will not easily give up this partnership. Russia's politicians
are well aware that Turkey is a strong country, which will always
be independent from Russia and will always be in a close touch with
NATO while Armenia is a country totally dependent on Russia, one of
the few remaining junior partners. Russia cherishes relations with
Armenia at least for this reason.
So, strategically, Turkey will not move from pro-Western and pro-NATO
position to the pro-Russian position. It will not benefit the country.
In this situation, the maximum that Russia could do is to organize
a tripartite conference involving Turkey and Armenia, or even
Azerbaijan. Such meetings are not usually productive, but nevertheless
it would be a spectacular move on part of Russia's diplomacy.
H. Hamidov Day.Az
Today
http://www.today.az/news/politics/64 015.html
March 15 2010
Azerbaijan
Interview with well-known Russian journalist, political expert and
publicist Leonid Radzikhovsky.
In your opinion, what is the aim of adoption of the "Armenian genocide"
resolution by the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Relations- to
accelerate the process of opening the Armenian-Turkish border or to
prevent Turkey from excessive recent rapprochement with Russia in
trade, economic and even military fields, or something else?
All that you said is quite possible. But we should not forget about
one more thing, quite typical for American system of governance -
representative democracy. Congressmen often act against the White
House interests and even against interests of the administration of
their party.
For example, a Congressman may represent interests of a very
influential Armenian Diaspora in the United States without thinking
about what implications his decision on the resolution may have in the
near future. The most important for him is re-election in a few years
depending on the voters, among whom there are influential individuals
and sponsors from the Armenian lobby. And the fact that the "genocide"
has already been recognized by a number of countries is not due to high
level Armenian foreign policy, but focused actions of the Armenian
Diaspora. That is, there is pressure from not individual voters,
but well-organized groups.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the Armenian Diaspora in the U.S. is
unlikely to be larger than the Turkish or Azerbaijani Diasporas.
However, we must admit that it is well organized, and its
representatives act in concert. Jewish, Ukrainian and Polish Diasporas
of the U.S. also act in a similar way.
In your opinion, what will be fate of the Turkey-U.S. relations?
The United States cannot afford spoiling relations with Turkey
seriously. In particular, one cannot forget deteriorating relations
between the U.S. and Iran. In the meantime, Turkey is a NATO member
and the only key player for Americans in the Middle East for all
its parameters. The White House has enough resources to stop, or
at least suspend, recognition of "genocide". So, I do not expect
conflict between the U.S. and Turkey. Americans perfectly understand
what implications it might have.
In addition, internal political situation in Turkey must also be taken
into account. Internal split prevails in the country. There is very
strong trend towards development of Islamic fundamentalism. At the same
time, army and supporters of secular development of the country enjoy
great influence. In such situation to spoil relations with Turkey,
in general, means a great favour for the Islamists and weakening of
pro-Western forces in that country. Why? For the sake of resolution
on what, something, that happened some 90 years ago?
Americans will not do this, because it is vital for Washington
to preserve the secular pro-Western Turkey with all the ensuing
consequences.
The paradox is that the country that desired adoption of the resolution
most of all suffered from the decision of the Congress committee more
than the rest, since opening of the Turkey-Armenia border fell into
oblivion for near future at least. Do you share this statement?
It is worth recall what Hillary Clinton said. She noted that such
a resolution would complicate the normalization of Armenian-Turkish
relations ... Yes, this is largely true, but in this case one should
also understand that the interests of Armenia and the Armenians
self-esteem are not the same. Armenians of the U.S. have nationalistic
sentiments, but they do not live in Armenia, and do not feel effects
of opening or closing the border with Turkey.
So, recognition of the "genocide" is very important for their national
pride and identity. So, there is also an internal conflict among
Armenians in the U.S. What effect it will have on situation back
in homeland is important, but the recognition of "genocide" is even
more important. The struggle between national ambitions and pragmatic
interests is obvious.
For example, let's cite the Karabakh conflict as an example. Did
occupation of lands bring happiness to Armenia? Is it not advantageous
for them to simply return the land and establish normal relations
with Azerbaijan and Turkey? It is profitable for them. It cannot to
happen overnight because it is a question of national identity.
Can we say that Russia is happy at complicated relations between
Turkey and the U.S.? Because now it can come even closer to Ankara
and solve problems of the region without intervention of a distant
America. What can you say about this?
I agree that the failure of the U.S. is seen as a success in Russia,
and vice versa. Speaking specifically, I do not think that Russia can
substitute the United States for Turkey. First, we must not forget
that Russia has recognized the "Armenian genocide."
A more significant is the following circumstance - Turkey remains a
NATO member which is crucial for it. Russia can offer nothing like that
to Turkey. Turkey's main concern like all developing countries is not
to get closer to Russia, but only to the EU, Western civilization, etc.
Therefore, strategically, Russia is not comparable centre of influence
for Turkey's. The only alternative for Turkey at the moment is to
build a society oriented either to the West or the Islamic society.
Russia is not an attractive force here as well.
Tactically, it is possible to increase military contacts with Russia.
It is unpleasant for the U.S. and one can speculate on that. Turkey
also may conduct negotiations with Russia on Nabucco.
Apart from this, everyone knows that not the U.S., but Russia shapes
Armenia's policy. Because no matter how influential Armenian diaspora
in the U.S. is, America is far away while Russia is not. Armenia
cannot simply exist without Russia's help. Turkey needs to understand
to what degree relations with Ankara is important for the Kremlin in
order to put pressure on Armenia about the disputed issues.
The answer is obvious: today Russia lacks influence (or maybe it does
not have willingness, but this is another question) to ensure that
Armenia has changed its position at least on a historical topic of
"genocide". In the meantime, Russia is a strategic partner for Armenia,
and will not easily give up this partnership. Russia's politicians
are well aware that Turkey is a strong country, which will always
be independent from Russia and will always be in a close touch with
NATO while Armenia is a country totally dependent on Russia, one of
the few remaining junior partners. Russia cherishes relations with
Armenia at least for this reason.
So, strategically, Turkey will not move from pro-Western and pro-NATO
position to the pro-Russian position. It will not benefit the country.
In this situation, the maximum that Russia could do is to organize
a tripartite conference involving Turkey and Armenia, or even
Azerbaijan. Such meetings are not usually productive, but nevertheless
it would be a spectacular move on part of Russia's diplomacy.