TURKEY’S CAUCASUS STABILITY AND COOPERATION PLATFORM DEMANDS AN "OPEN GAME"

PanARMENIAN.Net
06.10.2008 14:15 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkey’s Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform
demands an "open game", a Russian expert said.

"As a rule, cooperation becomes possible if the sides waive
their national interests to combat a common enemy or if there is
a necessity of diversification of economic relations. Under the
global financial and energy crisis, the Caucasus states could reach
an agreement to resolve the existing conflicts and secure beneficial
economic cooperation. However, there are some irrational historical
factors that hamper normalization of relations," senior lecturer at
Saint-Petersburg State University, deputy editor at the Center of
Oriental Studies, Ph.D. in history Alexander Sotnichenko said in an
interview with PanARMENIAN.Net.

Armenia could officially renounce territorial claims against Turkey
and stop the worldwide campaign calling for recognition of the Armenian
Genocide. In response, Turkey could reconsider its position on Nagorno
Karabakh and open the border with Armenia, according to him.

"A similar precedent was in case with Syria. As soon as Damask
recognized territorial integrity of Turkey and stopped laying
claims to the province of Hatay that was annexed to Turkey in 1838,
the relations between the two states considerably improved, not to
mention the economic factor. Presently, Turkey is mediating for the
Syrian-Israeli reconciliation, what is convenient for both sides. I
am hopeful that the Caucasus nations will overcome their historic
hostility and establish fruitful political and economic cooperation,"
Dr. Sotnichenko said.

Full text of the interview

Alexander Sotnichenko:

Caucasus nations most interested in peaceful development of the region
Given the latest changes on the regional political map, the growing
attention to the Caucasus is not surprising. Recognition of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia’s independence, Turkey’s Caucasus Stability
and Cooperation initiative and forthcoming presidential election in
Azerbaijan are among the most topical issues. Senior lecturer at
Saint-Petersburg State University, deputy editor at the Center of
Oriental Studies, Ph.D. in history Alexander Sotnichenko comments on
the situation to PanARMENIAN.Net.

06.10.2008 GMT+04:00 Can we suppose that the U.S. and EU are against
normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations?

Surely, no. Both the U.S. and EU hope for successful resolution of the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict and normalization of the Armenian-Turkish
relations. Nevertheless, they want it to happen through their
mediation. European countries and organizations, such as NATO, EU
and OSCE want to be direct intermediaries in settling conflicts in
the Caucasus in order to expand their influence throughout the region.

How could you explain the precedent of conflicts in Kosovo, South
Ossetia and Abkhazia? Both the U.S. and Russia insist that other
conflicts, including Nagorno Karabakh and Transnistria, should be
resolved in a different way…

There is no system of international relations which could regulate the
world politics on the basis of universally recognized international
law. Each event is interpreted from the position of strength and
benefit. Since 1991, the ideas of "state sovereignty" and "right
of nations to self-determination" have been interpreted one-sidedly
by the world powers. Both Nagorno Karabakh and Transnistria can be
internationally recognized if their longing for independence will
coincide with strategy of one or several world players. The case
with Nagorno Karabakh is demonstrative: I can’t name a power which
is interested in recognition of this territory.

Does the Caucasus Stability Platform have any future?

Such projects demand an "open game". As a rule, cooperation becomes
possible if the sides waive their national interests to combat a
common enemy or if there is a necessity of diversification of economic
relations. Under the global financial and energy crisis, the Caucasus
states could reach an agreement to resolve the existing conflicts
and secure beneficial economic cooperation. However, there are some
irrational historical factors that hamper normalization of relations.

Armenia could officially renounce territorial claims against Turkey
and stop the worldwide campaign calling for recognition of the Armenian
Genocide. In response, Turkey could reconsider its position on Nagorno
Karabakh and open the border with Armenia.

A similar precedent was in case with Syria. As soon as Damask
recognized territorial integrity of Turkey and stopped laying
claims to the province of Hatay that was annexed to Turkey in 1838,
the relations between the two states considerably improved, not to
mention the economic factor.

Presently, Turkey is mediating for the Syrian-Israeli reconciliation,
what is convenient for both sides. I am hopeful that the Caucasus
nations will overcome their historic hostility and establish fruitful
political and economic cooperation.

What’s your vision for the Caucasus?

All depends on the countries’ willingness to maintain friendly
ties. Moreover, they should stop building their national policy
dependently from the powers beyond the region. The August conflict
demonstrated that Washington’s power is not universal. With
Russia mediating for the Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution
and with Turkey alleviating tensions between Georgia and Russia,
the Caucasus states will be able to implement their economic and
political strategic for the glory of the region. However, if some of
the countries orient for the West, like Georgia does, new conflicts
are possible. Deployment of NATO troops in Georgia will aggravate
tensions between the U.S. and Iran. Escalation will involve Turkey,
Armenia and Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, Georgia may provoke a new war in
an attempt to take back Abkhazia and Ossetia with the help of the
U.S. forces.

Are there parallels between the Israeli-Palestinian and Nagorno
Karabakh conflicts?

I do not see vivid parallels. Religion is the key factor between
Arabs and Jews. Besides, Israel enjoys support of a superpower –
the United States, while majority of the UN member states recognize
Palestine as an independent entity.

Don’t you think that it’s unreasonable to decide the fate of Nagorno
Karabakh people behind their back? Are the borders of the former
soviet republic correct?

I think a decision that will satisfy all parties to conflict
will be the reasonable one. The notion of justice is absent in the
international law, all the more so in present days, when sovereignty
of states is violated so often. Certainly, the borders between the
soviet republics were outlined proceeding from the interests of the
empire. Actually, the USSR decline provided the people living in the
Caucasus with a possibility to decide their fate themselves.

As result of the unfair soviet policy, we received three unrecognized
republics, dozens of thousands of victims of inter-ethnic conflicts,
hundreds of thousands of refugees, destroyed infrastructure and
agriculture. The policy of nationalists, who came to power in Caucasus
states in 1991, yielded deplorable results.

I am confident that territorial and national problems can be resolved
through dialog, multilateral meetings and agreements. Caucasus people
are most interested in a peaceful development of the region. Meanwhile,
the goal of mediators from outside is to strengthen their positions. If
peace is established in the Caucasus, no one will need American bases.