RELATIVELY SPEAKING AZERBAIJAN IS LESS IMPORTANT FOR TURKEY: ARIEL COHEN

news.az
Nov 20 2009
Azerbaijan

Ariel Cohen Interview with Ariel Cohen, Senior Research Fellow
and leading expert on Russia and Eurasian region, Institute for
International Studies, Heritage Foundation.

How do estimate the normalization of Turkey and Armenia relations
taking into account Nagorno-Karabakh problem? Will the protocols be
ratified until end of the year?

I think that the situation in the Caucasus right now is changing
very significantly very deeply changing. This is post post-soviet
development in which the position of the US is diminishing. The US was
here in the early 90-es relatively strong. Russia resisted and resented
American presence. And now US is focusing on Afghanistan, Pakistan,
relations with Iran and the Obama administration does not prioritize
South Caucasus as much as Clinton and J. W. Bush administration
did. So if vacuum is created when Russia and Turkey will step in,
in particular, Turkey. Turkey wanted to put the relationship with
Armenia on a new footing. That will include opening the border but
also other things like the discussion of the events of 1915. I think
from the Turkish point of view it makes a lot of sense.

Because otherwise it was a stuck problem that kept creating lots
of problems for Turkey. Now this new development opens at least
the chance for further resolution. Whether the protocols will be
ratified by parliaments, I don’t know. I don’t know how long is
going to take, but I am also concerned that if they ratify it puts
Azerbaijan in disadvantage. Because Turkey and Armenia will have they
own relationship, their own dynamic. In Azerbaijan will be sort of
left behind. It is also important to understand that Azerbaijan today
represents a different model than Turkey. Azerbaijan is secular and
this goes back all the way to the end of the 19 century-beginning of
the 20 century where Azerbaijan was developing as a secular republic
even before the soviet experience. Turkey is no longer secular in a
full sense like it was in Ataturk period. It has now air leadership
that emphases religion and is in the process of bringing more and more
religion in the public sphere in Turkey. It is developing very strong
relationship through the Muslim world with countries like Iran etc.

And Azerbaijan is no longer brotherhood and sisterhood relationship
which characterized this relationship until recent years, until the
AKP party got a power.

Turkey also got much closer to Russia. And what you have known is
an attempt to build a condominium between Russia and Turkey in South
Caucasus which means that the sovereignty of Azerbaijan, Armenia and
Georgia may be diminished. Because if two strong regional players get
together there the position if not to dictate at least to strongly
influence, that comes in the region. So that’s puts Azerbaijan and
Georgia at a disadvantage. It improves the Armenia’s situation.

Because Armenia has it’s old ally -Russia. And now it is developing
relationship with Turkey. Armenia also has very good relationship
with Iran. So Armenia is a winner and Georgia and Azerbaijan are the
losers of this new development that I mentioned before.

You mentioned that US position became more and more in the region. But
some expert think that the normalization relationship between
Turkey and Armenia was US initiative and they push Turkey toward
these steps…

Apparently there is some truth in this discussion that US is
supportive of Turkish-Armenia rapprochement. Both because the US
grew other the years, second tired of this lock jam, of this stuck
situation I mean other Karabakh and between Turkey and Armenia, but
also because of domestic considerations improvement between Turkey
and Armenia plays to the domestic audiences that are interested
in opening a new page. Although there are people in US, who would
probably Armenian community, that will demand Turkey recognizing the
event of 1915 as a genocide. So because of the domestic politics,
because of the Armenian caucus in the congress, they are strong voice
supporting Turkish Armenia rapprochement and that’s also a position of
US government and of the Russian government. So far, there is some of
a competition between Moscow and Washington who takes ownership over
this achievement. But that’s not to say that I am convinced it is
going to be ratified. But some time in the future it may be ratified
and then the challenge for the US and for Turkey, and for Russia,
because Russia is interested in good relation with Azerbaijan, I hope.

Parallel process, but why the ministers of foreign affairs of the
Minsk group co-chair countries were at the signing of protocols?

In diplomacy you have a lot of times a situations were public
announcement don’t correspond with real policy and that is exactly
what I was concerned about when I was saying that Azerbaijan can be
left behind. Stuck in a situation when its territory remains occupied,
so that is a serious concern. And then the question is can Turkey
eternally and because of its historic ties with Azerbaijan can afford
to just leave Karabakh issue aside and if this was a Â"old secular
TurkeyÂ" I would say – don’t worry, they will work with you, but as I
said before, this is not the same Turkey, this is not the same policy,
this is not the same leadership. And they in my view are pursuing a
policy in which relatively speaking Azerbaijan is less important. Not
just Azerbaijan, even the US and Europe are less important and
the Islamic more are more important. And in that respect, almost
paradoxically for them, management of the Turkey-Armenia relations
becomes more important than Karabakh.

Prognosis over the resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, is it
possible this year?

I am encouraged that presidents Aliyev and Sargsyan are talking
regularly, that is good. If I compare this with the Middle East Â"peace
processÂ" the high level meetings between the two presidents and sort
of discussion seems to be more pragmatic and meetings more frequent
than in Israel and Palestinian case for example. But at the same time
I do not hear any new ideas, especially not from Armenian side. I
heard Armenian representatives recently in Washington and they stick
to the old position, the old thinking of Karabakh being independent,
of Karabakh never going back to Azerbaijan or Azerbaijan refugees
not going back to Karabakh. So this is an intransigent position, and
that makes me wonder how you going to change that and who in terms of
international community – US, Russia, Europe – are going to prevail
over the Armenian leadership to choose a peaceful track over Karabakh.

There is a famous opinion that Moscow and Washington have the key to
Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The US and Russia seemed to have updated
the relations, reached an agreement, though partial, on missile
defense system. It turns out that a mutual understanding has been
reached. Is this so?

First of all, the US and Russia have not reached an agreement on
missile defense system. This is the unilateral decision of the Obama
administration not to update missile defense system in Czech Republic
and Poland. This was the advance given to Moscow to improve the
situation in the negotiations concerning START and achieve Russia’s
support with respect to Iran. I do not know whether this policy will
work or not, but I think this step is not so successful. But I do not
agree to the question. The key to the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh
conflict is in Yerevan and Baku, not in Washington and Moscow. Of
course, if the elite and people of both countries want peaceful
settlement, they can achieve it, Washington and Moscow will be glad.

All the countries of the South Caucasus want peace agreement and
settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict, these nations are also
interested in the restoration of Georgia’s territorial integrity.

Changing of the borders in the post-Soviet space is very dangerous
for all. Changing of the borders in the areas, where there are
mutual claims and conflicts, – in Ukraine, Northern Kazakhstan, or
any other place, is Pandora’s box. If the changing of the borders
begins, it should be realized by mutual consent, in accordance with
the requirements of the international law. Russia, Armenia, or any
other state has no right to change the borders unilaterally.