Tweet
news.az, Azerbaijan
July 30 2011
Sargsyan's words strengthened Azerbaijan's argument
Sat 30 July 2011 07:00 GMT | 3:00 Local Time
News.Az interviews Gareth Jenkins, non-resident Turkey expert at the
USA's Johns Hopkins University.
How would you estimate territorial aspirations to Azerbaijan and
Turkey said by Armenian president?
I think that, in some ways, what Sargsyan said about Nagorno Karabakh
actually strengthened Azerbaijan's argument. He made it clear that
Armenian support for the ethnic Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh was not
about "rights" or "freedoms" but territorial acquisition, namely
Armenia attempting to annex part of Azerbaijan. I understand why many
people were angry but it was also effectively an admission of guilt;
and reinforced what Azerbaijan has been saying all along.
I don't think anybody takes seriously any Armenian claims to Turkish
territory. But what disturbed me was the way in which Sargsyan
appeared to be suggesting that Armenia was trading the area around
Mount Ararat for Nagorno Karabakh. First of all, Turkey and Azerbaijan
are two separate, sovereign states. Just because Sargsyan believes
that Armenia should have had some of what is now Turkey -- and there
are agreements guaranteeing the border between Turkey and Armenia --
that does not give Armenia to steal territory from another state to
compensate.
Erdogan said in Baku, that Sargsyan should apologize for his words. Is it real?
I think it is unrealistic to expect an apology and I think it was a
mistake for Erdogan to demand one because it distracts from the main
issue and makes it look as though the dispute is all about pride. It
is not. The issue is respect for international agreements and
internationally accepted principles. The focus should not be whether
or not Sargsyan apologies for what he said. It should be Nagorno
Karabakh.
Does this statement harm Turkish-Armenian normalization process?
Undoubtedly. I think it also demonstrates the incompetence of the
Armenian government. Regardless of whether or not it should have been
signed, I think there was a time after the agreement in Switzerland in
October 2009 when Armenia could claimed that it was doing more to
implement that agreement than Turkey, and that Ankara was the main
obstacle to the
normalization of ties that so many countries - particularly the US -
had been pushing for. Responsibility for the lack of progress began to
shift after Sargsyan suspended the parliamentary ratification of the
agreement with Turkey. After his most recent statement, and the
underlying mentality it revealed, I think that the international
community will be a lot more
sympathetic to Turkey's protests that the real obstacle to any
normalization of ties is Armenia.
International mediators talk a lot about a need of trust measures
between Armenia and its neighbors - Azerbaijan and Turkey. What are
the prospects of reproaching process between them when one of the
leaders makes such a statements?
In a word, zero. The irony is that Armenia was so pleased that it had
managed to get the agreement in Switzerland without the normalization
of ties being linked to Nagorno Karabakh, and now Sargsyan has linked
ties with Turkey to Nagorno Karabakh by claiming that the Armenian
occupation of Azeri territory is some kind of revenge. I hope that
this spurs the international community into action. A solution is not
going to happen if the international community steps backs and allows
Sargsyan to continue thinking and speaking like this.
F.H.
News.Az
July 30 2011
Sargsyan's words strengthened Azerbaijan's argument
Sat 30 July 2011 07:00 GMT | 3:00 Local Time
News.Az interviews Gareth Jenkins, non-resident Turkey expert at the
USA's Johns Hopkins University.
How would you estimate territorial aspirations to Azerbaijan and
Turkey said by Armenian president?
I think that, in some ways, what Sargsyan said about Nagorno Karabakh
actually strengthened Azerbaijan's argument. He made it clear that
Armenian support for the ethnic Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh was not
about "rights" or "freedoms" but territorial acquisition, namely
Armenia attempting to annex part of Azerbaijan. I understand why many
people were angry but it was also effectively an admission of guilt;
and reinforced what Azerbaijan has been saying all along.
I don't think anybody takes seriously any Armenian claims to Turkish
territory. But what disturbed me was the way in which Sargsyan
appeared to be suggesting that Armenia was trading the area around
Mount Ararat for Nagorno Karabakh. First of all, Turkey and Azerbaijan
are two separate, sovereign states. Just because Sargsyan believes
that Armenia should have had some of what is now Turkey -- and there
are agreements guaranteeing the border between Turkey and Armenia --
that does not give Armenia to steal territory from another state to
compensate.
Erdogan said in Baku, that Sargsyan should apologize for his words. Is it real?
I think it is unrealistic to expect an apology and I think it was a
mistake for Erdogan to demand one because it distracts from the main
issue and makes it look as though the dispute is all about pride. It
is not. The issue is respect for international agreements and
internationally accepted principles. The focus should not be whether
or not Sargsyan apologies for what he said. It should be Nagorno
Karabakh.
Does this statement harm Turkish-Armenian normalization process?
Undoubtedly. I think it also demonstrates the incompetence of the
Armenian government. Regardless of whether or not it should have been
signed, I think there was a time after the agreement in Switzerland in
October 2009 when Armenia could claimed that it was doing more to
implement that agreement than Turkey, and that Ankara was the main
obstacle to the
normalization of ties that so many countries - particularly the US -
had been pushing for. Responsibility for the lack of progress began to
shift after Sargsyan suspended the parliamentary ratification of the
agreement with Turkey. After his most recent statement, and the
underlying mentality it revealed, I think that the international
community will be a lot more
sympathetic to Turkey's protests that the real obstacle to any
normalization of ties is Armenia.
International mediators talk a lot about a need of trust measures
between Armenia and its neighbors - Azerbaijan and Turkey. What are
the prospects of reproaching process between them when one of the
leaders makes such a statements?
In a word, zero. The irony is that Armenia was so pleased that it had
managed to get the agreement in Switzerland without the normalization
of ties being linked to Nagorno Karabakh, and now Sargsyan has linked
ties with Turkey to Nagorno Karabakh by claiming that the Armenian
occupation of Azeri territory is some kind of revenge. I hope that
this spurs the international community into action. A solution is not
going to happen if the international community steps backs and allows
Sargsyan to continue thinking and speaking like this.
F.H.
News.Az