• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
11.01.2010

YEREVAN-ANKARA NEGOTIATIONS: DERIVATIVE PROCESSES

   

Haykaram Nahapetyan

Besides the proper Armenian-Turkish relations and the processes going on in Armenia and Diaspora the last stage of the dialogue between Armenia and Turkey put forward some “sideline” or “derivative” processes which are also of certain interest for the Armenian party. Let us introduce several preliminary observations: recently the interest towards Armenia has grown in the West and mainly in the US both on political level and in the media. There have been statements made by the White House and the US Department of State rather often in the recent period.

Particularly, recently, there have been new statements concerning the “protocols” made every day by the Department of State. On the day of the signing of the “protocols” several publications regarding those protocols, situation in Armenia and Diaspora appeared in the Washington Post. The New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Christian Science Monitor, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe and other newspapers, as well as CNN, ABC, NBC and other TV channels applied to the issue. The theme was on the agenda during the developments preceding to the signing, mainly during the visit of the RA president to the US. While working with the search engines it would be clear that during those months the American press more often applied to Armenia than, for example, to their traditional ally Georgia or Ukraine. One can suppose that the “protocols” will pass through many “challenges” and “adventures” and the interest on behalf of the US will not fade. On October 11 The New York Times brings the words of the American officials that the opening of the border is prospective from the point of view of providing new energy carriers to the West. Regardless of the attitude towards the “protocols” it should be accepted that rather peculiar situation has been formed in which Armenia acquired new significance for the West.

In fact Armenian-Turkish process in our region develops in 2+1 format and directly includes Armenia and Turkey and indirectly Azerbaijan which “meddles” into the Armenian-Turkish negotiations, trying to make profit from “one nation, two states” format, the underlying deep connections with Turkey and definite gas and oil influence factors. It is remarkable that in all those three countries society and political fields express serious dissatisfaction with the processes; there has even been formed a kind of crisis situation. It is almost exceptional case when in all the three countries they speak about the neglecting of the national interest, about the serious sacrifices for the insignificant or even no achievements. When the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs Ahmet Davutoglu initiated his meetings with political parties, the head of the Nationalist Movement Party of Turkey Devlet Bahceli simply refused to meet him. Republican People’s Party leader Deniz Baykal found it impermissible to open the border before the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and blamed the government in telling lies, the deputy from the same party Oymen mentioned that “the signing of the protocols finished the principle position of Turkey concerning Karabakh issue”. The leader of the Great Union Party Yalcin Topcu during the meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Turkey signed the protocols under the pressure of Washington. According to him the Turkish party should demand for “the opening of the border to go alongside with the withdrawal of the Armenian forces from Karabakh”. And the leader of the Democratic Party, the former speaker of the Turkish parliament Husamettin Cindoruk mentioned that he supported the settlement of the Armenian-Turkish relations but he did not agree with all the items of the protocols. In the opinion of the deputy of the Turkish parliament, the former ambassador to the US Sukur Elekdag Armenia pursued the aim to open the border after which Yerevan would return to the question of the Genocide.

In Turkey they are discontented that Switzerland, which recognized the Armenian Genocide, is the negotiator. The Turkish lobbyist living in Washington, analyst Ergun Kirlikovali on “History of Truth” web-site answering the question whether “Armenia would refuse from the Genocide claims or the reshaping of the borders” said the one should not count the chickens before they are hatched. “Now it will be more difficult to settle Karabakh conflict. Why does Armenia have to find it necessary to stop its military occupation and allow the return of Azerbaijani refugees if it has already received what it wants? What will happen if we lose the support of Azerbaijan because of some obscure deal with Armenia? Who will fill the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline?”, - says Kirlikovali. Though the suspension of Baku-Ceyhan project by Baku seems to be a bit unrealistic because it affects the interests of Great Britain and the US, the usage of some energy leverages by Baku in regard to Turkey is not excluded and it is possible that this topic is already on the agenda of behind-the-scenes Turkish-Azerbaijani discussions. Kirlikovali notices that alongside with the development of the Turkish-Armenian relations Azerbaijan initiated the discussions with Moscow on selling Azerbaijani gas. The Majlis deputy Canan Aritman finds that the protocols serve not to the interests of Turkey or Azerbaijan but to the interests of Armenia.

The discontent of the Azerbaijan party has almost reached the level of political hysteria. President Ilham Aliyev, the Minister of foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan (at least three times), deputy Mnister of Foreign Affairs Araz Azimov, the speaker of the parliament Oktay Asadov, vice-speaker Ziyafet Askerov, the vice-chairman of “Ana Vatan” party Zahit Oruc, political scientist Rasim Musabekov, too active deputy Ganira Pashayeva and other officials and structures have made statements for many times in the recent months saying that the opening of the border contradicts to the Baku interests and “signaled” about the prospects of the deterioration of the Turkish-Azerbaijani relations. Oruc also expressed the opinion that before the signing of the Armenian-Turkish document Baku should have initiated the signing of the Azerbaijani-Turkish protocols which would have stipulated that Ankara would not initiate any steps contradicting to the interests of Baku. Deputy Nizami Jafarov reminded Erdogan his promise given in Baku on May 12 that the border would not be opened. The consul of Baku to Los Angeles Elin Suleymanov stated that Turkey must count with Azerbaijan’s opinion. We can go on bringing such examples.

The other process which is derived from the Armenian-Turkish talks is the current condition of the relations between Azerbaijan and the US. It is clear that Washington is interested in Armenian-Turkish negotiations. The opposing of Azerbaijan to the relations between Armenia and Turkey means the opposing to the regional interests of Washington, and the US may express their attitude towards that. In fact, Baku has already received some warnings from the United States: firstly, Barak Obama has not set aside the resolution 907, which prohibits the direct American material help to Baku. As it is known, in 2001 the Congress carried the document which allowed the president every year to set aside resolution 907 for a period of one year. George Bush used to do it every January while Barak Obama has not made such a decision till the moment of publication of this article. The representatives of the Armenian Diaspora in the US suppose that maybe the White House tends to employ the resolution 907 as a trump card to exert pressure on Azerbaijan. It is remarkable that most of the members of the US Congress commission on the issues connected with Azerbaijan and Turkey are the same. Thus the congressmen fell between two stools. It is characteristic that the congressmen taking into consideration the interests of Turkey and the US from time to time make statements supporting the protocols which, in fact, contradicts to the policy of Baku, though a part of those congressmen are among the friends of Baku.

On September 18, 2009, in the Georgetown University in Washington “The US-Azerbaijan Strategic Partnership: New Bilateral and Regional Dimensions” conference was arranged. The participant to that event Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan Araz Azimov in his presentation devoted to the Armenian-Turkish negotiations mentioned that the re-opening of the border would deteriorate not only Azerbaijani-Turkish relations but also the relations between Azerbaijan and the US. It is remarkable that the undersecretary of state William Burns who was present at the event stated that there was no connection between the rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey and the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. At the same time Burns and former undersecretary of state, the representative of the Marshal Foundation David Kramer criticized Azerbaijan for ceasing the broadcasting of Freedom, American Voice, BBC radio stations and the arrests of the oppositional bloggers Emin Mili and Adnan Hajizade. Kramer also touched upon the referendum on Ilham Aliyev’s aspiration to become lifelong president allotting Araz Azimov another portion of criticism. In its turn Azimov rebuked the Department of State for the uncertainty round the resolution 907 and expressed his discontent with the fact that no US State Secretary had ever visited Baku. Despite the loud headline the conference passed in the atmosphere negative to Azerbaijan. One can suppose had there been mutual understanding and completely friendly atmosphere in the relations between Azerbaijan and the US, such bilateral allegations would have not prevailed. In the general scope of the bilateral contradictions, the lobbying of Washington directed to the re-opening of the Armenian-Turkish border has a definite “share”. At the same time it should be mentioned that, according to various sources, recently the programme of renting Gabalar radar station in Azerbaijan has been discussed and this can again bring to the certain rapprochement between the US and Azerbaijan.


Return
Another materials of author