PROTOCOLS COULD BE A MAJOR HEADACHE FOR TURKEY: ZAMAN

News.am
12:16 / 10/15/2009

Armenia-Turkey Protocols will become the matter of the various
discussions and forecasts also after being signed in Zurich October
10. Commenting on the problem, political analyst Emre Uslu draws
attention at TV debates of four Turkish politicians, two of them are
liberals and the rest nationalists.

Nationalists claim that Protocols are "a major failure for Turkish
diplomacy," bringing the signing ceremony as an argument.

"What they were arguing was that the photograph, which shows the
Turkish foreign minister and the Armenian foreign minister signing
the protocols while right behind them the US, Russian, and French
foreign ministers were standing, gives you an impression that these
protocols were signed under the pressure of superpowers; therefore, the
protocols do not serve Turkey’s national interest.," the author says.

NEWS.am issues the full text published in Zaman daily below:

"I have been hearing such arguments from various segments’
nationalists; however, similar arguments that resonate from the
two influential neo-nationalist figures give me an impression that
diplomats in the Turkish Foreign Ministry, although putting forth
superb work on signing protocols, failed to find a way to manage
public diplomacy inside Turkey.

For instance it was Turkish diplomats’ idea to invite member of the
Minsk Group, i.e., the US, Russia and France, to the signing ceremony
to relate the Karabakh issue to the protocols. Armenians initially
opposed inviting the US, Russia and France to the ceremony to avoid
giving the impression that the protocols signed between Turkey and
Armenia were being linked to the Karabakh dispute. Yet it was a success
that Turkish diplomats managed to invite members of the Minsk Group
to the signing ceremony; however, this success of Turkish diplomacy
is not going against the policy of the Turkish Foreign Ministry. Thus
I suggest that Turkish diplomats should find a way to deal with the
lunatics, includ understand what is going on in foreign policy.

The second argument that has been circulated among nationalist
circles is what if the international community put pressure on Turkey
without putting pressure on Armenia to solve the Karabakh dispute
to ratify the protocols. Given that concerning the Cyprus problem,
the international community, especially the EU, without keeping its
promises to stop the isolation of Northern Cyprus, has been increasing
its pressure on Turkey to open its ports to ships that carry Greek
Cypriot flags, saying such a scenario could be possible. However,
Turkish diplomacy once again fails to convince the Turkish public
that the Cyprus problem and the problem in Karabakh are two separate
problems and that such a comparison has no merit.

In Cyprus, the international community considers Turkey an invader who
tries to take advantage of international politics for its national
gain; however, concerning the Karabakh issue it is the Armenians
who are considered an invader that needs to cooperate with the
international community. Thus in a case where the international
community decides to put pressure on Turkey to ratify the signed
protocols, Turkey would have power to say that it is the Armenians who
invaded the Azeri lands; therefore, we are expecting its cooperation
with international community, i.e., the Minsk Group to find a solution
for the Karabakh dispute first.

Related to the second argument some argue that the powerful Armenian
Diaspora could use its influence over states like the US, Russia and
France to put pressure on Turkey to ratify the protocols before finding
a solution to Karabakh, thereby aiming to separate Azerbaijan-Turkey
alliances against Armenia. To counter this argument one could suggest
that it is the Armenian Diaspora who vehemently opposes the protocol;
therefore, it would be illogical to expect the Diaspora to change its
position. More importantly the power of the Diaspora comes from the
victimization argument that has been developed against the Turkish
state since g the Karabakh issue it is the Armenians who victimized
Azeri civilians when they invaded Azeri lands. For this very reason,
the Armenian Diaspora has a tendency to avoid being involved in the
Karabakh dispute to mount pressure on foreign powers.

All in all, despite their shortcomings in managing the political
debates more positively, Turkish diplomats have successfully carved
out two protocols that give a huge advantage to Turkish and Azeri
causes. Yet success of implementation of the protocols depends on how
and in what direction the international developments will evolve in
the near future. Given that there are too many unknowns in the region,
i.e., whether Iran will cooperate with the international community
to terminate its Uranium enrichment program, whether Russia will
continue to support Iran, how the energy policies would change the
attitudes of international players, it could be a wise policy for
Turkish diplomacy to apply pressure on the Minsk Group to finalize
the Karabakh disputes sooner than later. The sooner the Karabakh
dispute is solved the better it is for Turkey to collect the fruits
of the protocols. If the Karabakh disputes continue, the protocols
could be a major headache for Turkey as well…"