Tweet
Complicated Issue for Armenia. Vector Cannot Be Changed
Igor Muradyan
16:47 31/12/2012
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/28553
NATO's Regional Policy 2013-2014
NATO's regional policy will soon be a key issue for the Mediterranean,
Caucasian, Central Asian and the Near Eastern states. Perhaps, the
profile lines and specific aims of this policy will become known only
at the end of 2013.
Failing to set down the definition `NATO's regional policy',
nevertheless, NATO's Chicago Summit marked the start of a new policy
of the alliance in the regions. Technically, it is not the role and
importance of the alliance itself but NATO partners. At the same time,
Turkey whose doctrine of neo-Ottomanism has been defeated has decided
to forestall the developments and pursue its ambitions and obtain a
new place in the NATO strategy.
Turkey thereby tries to ensure informal legitimacy of its policy.
Reportedly, Turkey's foreign minister Davutoglu has come up with an
initiative of corrections to Partnership for Peace, underlining a more
active participation of the Central Asian states, Azerbaijan, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, as well as Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco in NATO
programs. In reality, it means that Turkey is trying to establish
neo-Ottomanism in NATO and have these countries involved in close
partnership in the alliance.
This is certainly a challenge to the European states and these
attempts will hardly go unheeded. Against the scandalous turn with an
`Islamic finish' the `Christian' states of the alliance could involve
the Eastern European `Christian' countries in a close partnership. I
wonder if the United States will approve this policy. Will the United
States wait or will it support it in the framework of NATO decisions?
In fact, of these states only Azerbaijan can be Turkey's partner in
creating `an alliance in an alliance'. If Egypt, Morocco or Central
Asian states wished to appear on the orbit of Turkey's strategy, it
would have already happened. Nevertheless, in the regional aspect, the
states which aspire to the role and functions of a NATO partner must
understand that they will face a new situation. Nevertheless, Turkey
intends to gain influence and pressure on not only the Western
community but also the neighboring regions.
It is not even about NATO but a visible correction of Turkey's foreign
policy which is trying to impose its own problems on its formal
allies. Provision of air defense systems by Germany and Holland for
the protection of Turkey's territory is a decorative move while Turkey
needs no defense. This move was the compensation, in fact, but the
ally will demand more, which will lead to a new stage of crisis
between Turkey and NATO. The key NATO members, including the United
States, are not interested in the solution of disputable issues with
Turkey. They prefer keeping issues in the current form and content.
Turkey has appeared in a complicated and harmful situation which is
related to the unprecedented dependence on the United States. Ankara
is trying to get out of this situation by playing games but in
accordance with NATO rules. Turkey may succeed but since World War II
Turkey has not had to resolve such a delicate issue. It has not had
such economic and political importance for decades.
Considering this prospect, Armenia must expand its cooperation with
NATO and try to do what it has not been able or has been reluctant to
do in the relations with Russia and CSTO, namely introduce the
practice of regular and systemic political consultations with NATO.
Turkey's former and current policy creates more favorable conditions
for the NATO-Armenia cooperation. It should be taken into account that
not only experts but also officials still have an archaic thinking,
referring to formal arguments, relying on paper arguments and from
time to time being startled by U-turns in international policy.
However, besides problems relating to Turkey, in its cooperation with
NATO Armenia will encounter issues relating to Russia's interests.
NATO is torn by serious internal controversies and there will
certainly be interests with the help of which Armenia will be used to
irritate or put pressure on Russia. Since the Russian politicians are
used to `absence of problems' with Armenia, only inappropriate
reaction is expected from them.
The clean-up of the ruins of Armenian-Russian relations will reveal
Moscow's real concerns due to not only NATO-Armenia rapprochement but
also NATO's new opportunity to have Russia follow the rules of the
alliance and pressure. Therefore, the other issue of Armenia is not to
allow itself to be a lever of pressure against Russia. The problems
relating to Russia's political interests will be more complicated than
the entire set of Turkey's problems.
Is this possible? Of course, if we try to think otherwise, as well as
clean the jammed corridors of the government. (For example, it is
advisable to hold extraordinary parliamentary elections one year after
the presidential elections.)
If Armenia wants to save its sovereignty, it had better ensure its
sovereignty and economic development, as well as not allow outsiders
to make decisions on the destiny of Karabakh which has to pass a
complicated way of foreign policy. This vector cannot be changed, the
question is which team must continue and finish it.
I will a Happy New Year to everyone.
Igor Muradyan
16:47 31/12/2012
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/28553
NATO's Regional Policy 2013-2014
NATO's regional policy will soon be a key issue for the Mediterranean,
Caucasian, Central Asian and the Near Eastern states. Perhaps, the
profile lines and specific aims of this policy will become known only
at the end of 2013.
Failing to set down the definition `NATO's regional policy',
nevertheless, NATO's Chicago Summit marked the start of a new policy
of the alliance in the regions. Technically, it is not the role and
importance of the alliance itself but NATO partners. At the same time,
Turkey whose doctrine of neo-Ottomanism has been defeated has decided
to forestall the developments and pursue its ambitions and obtain a
new place in the NATO strategy.
Turkey thereby tries to ensure informal legitimacy of its policy.
Reportedly, Turkey's foreign minister Davutoglu has come up with an
initiative of corrections to Partnership for Peace, underlining a more
active participation of the Central Asian states, Azerbaijan, Bosnia
and Herzegovina, as well as Egypt, Tunisia and Morocco in NATO
programs. In reality, it means that Turkey is trying to establish
neo-Ottomanism in NATO and have these countries involved in close
partnership in the alliance.
This is certainly a challenge to the European states and these
attempts will hardly go unheeded. Against the scandalous turn with an
`Islamic finish' the `Christian' states of the alliance could involve
the Eastern European `Christian' countries in a close partnership. I
wonder if the United States will approve this policy. Will the United
States wait or will it support it in the framework of NATO decisions?
In fact, of these states only Azerbaijan can be Turkey's partner in
creating `an alliance in an alliance'. If Egypt, Morocco or Central
Asian states wished to appear on the orbit of Turkey's strategy, it
would have already happened. Nevertheless, in the regional aspect, the
states which aspire to the role and functions of a NATO partner must
understand that they will face a new situation. Nevertheless, Turkey
intends to gain influence and pressure on not only the Western
community but also the neighboring regions.
It is not even about NATO but a visible correction of Turkey's foreign
policy which is trying to impose its own problems on its formal
allies. Provision of air defense systems by Germany and Holland for
the protection of Turkey's territory is a decorative move while Turkey
needs no defense. This move was the compensation, in fact, but the
ally will demand more, which will lead to a new stage of crisis
between Turkey and NATO. The key NATO members, including the United
States, are not interested in the solution of disputable issues with
Turkey. They prefer keeping issues in the current form and content.
Turkey has appeared in a complicated and harmful situation which is
related to the unprecedented dependence on the United States. Ankara
is trying to get out of this situation by playing games but in
accordance with NATO rules. Turkey may succeed but since World War II
Turkey has not had to resolve such a delicate issue. It has not had
such economic and political importance for decades.
Considering this prospect, Armenia must expand its cooperation with
NATO and try to do what it has not been able or has been reluctant to
do in the relations with Russia and CSTO, namely introduce the
practice of regular and systemic political consultations with NATO.
Turkey's former and current policy creates more favorable conditions
for the NATO-Armenia cooperation. It should be taken into account that
not only experts but also officials still have an archaic thinking,
referring to formal arguments, relying on paper arguments and from
time to time being startled by U-turns in international policy.
However, besides problems relating to Turkey, in its cooperation with
NATO Armenia will encounter issues relating to Russia's interests.
NATO is torn by serious internal controversies and there will
certainly be interests with the help of which Armenia will be used to
irritate or put pressure on Russia. Since the Russian politicians are
used to `absence of problems' with Armenia, only inappropriate
reaction is expected from them.
The clean-up of the ruins of Armenian-Russian relations will reveal
Moscow's real concerns due to not only NATO-Armenia rapprochement but
also NATO's new opportunity to have Russia follow the rules of the
alliance and pressure. Therefore, the other issue of Armenia is not to
allow itself to be a lever of pressure against Russia. The problems
relating to Russia's political interests will be more complicated than
the entire set of Turkey's problems.
Is this possible? Of course, if we try to think otherwise, as well as
clean the jammed corridors of the government. (For example, it is
advisable to hold extraordinary parliamentary elections one year after
the presidential elections.)
If Armenia wants to save its sovereignty, it had better ensure its
sovereignty and economic development, as well as not allow outsiders
to make decisions on the destiny of Karabakh which has to pass a
complicated way of foreign policy. This vector cannot be changed, the
question is which team must continue and finish it.
I will a Happy New Year to everyone.