TURKEY DEFRAUDS THE MAXIMUM: AND WE?
James Hakobyan
Lragir.am
13:37:39 – 25/02/2009
The Turkish and Azerbaijani authorities keep announcing that Turkey
did not change its stance on the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh when
establishing the Armenian and Turkish relations. The stance of
Turkey on the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh is clear to everyone:
Turkey demands the Armenian army’s withdrawal from the region and
considers that the conflict should be settled in the framework of
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan considering it as a ground for
resumption of the Armenian and Turkish relations. Consequently, if
Turkey does not change its stance on the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh
the establishment of our relations is not to Armenia’s interests. It
might seem that in this case Armenia should reject further development
of our relations with Turkey if Turkey and Azerbaijan do not change
their stance on the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, Armenia not only does not reject it but also continues
the Armenian and Turkish meetings and even expresses optimism on
the perspectives of the normalization of the Armenian and Turkish
relations. It turns out, that either the Armenian authorities are
not honest in their public announcements on the Armenian and Turkish
relation or Azerbaijan and Turkey are not honest when announcing no
change of their stance. Of course, for the societies it is difficult
to guess who is honest20or not but it should not be a secret for the
sides. In other words it should be clear to Armenia whether Turkey
has changed it stance continues demanding the withdrawal of the
Armenian army.
On the other hand, in case of invariability of the stance of Turkey the
Armenian and Turkish dialogue must not be considered unnecessary. Maybe
the aim of the Armenian government is just to make Turkey change
its stance through dialogues and to establish relations with Armenia
without a precondition. So, it is not ruled out, that none of the sides
is dishonest: Turkey’s stance is unchangeable but Armenia continues
the negotiations in order to change its stance. From this point of
view, the settlement of the Armenian and Turkish relations which was
launched or activated with the help of so called football diplomacy
may not contradict Armenia’s interests at all.
Perhaps, the problem is that the Armenian and Turkish relations have
two layers: bilateral and geopolitical while the importance of the
second layer maybe bigger. However, it is obvious that the problem
must be examined in this context too. And when it is considered in
this context it becomes clear that if Armenia does not lose almost
anything from bilateral point of view it can even win something if
Armenia is able to persuade Turkey and as for the geopolitical point
of view till Armenia does not persuade Turkey it loses. Armenia loses
because Turkey =0 D under the veil of settlement the Armenian and
Turkish relations liberates itself from international pressure. And
in this case without this pressure afterwards more confident tries
to defraud the maximum for its geopolitical and regional purposes.
The Armenian and Turkish relations are not profitable for Armenia from
geopolitical and regional points of view, as even if the borders are
open it will not enhance Armenia’s geopolitical and regional weight
and its role though. Moreover, it may seem a paradox but Armenia can
be more valuable as a geopolitical factor in case of closed borders.
Consequently, undertaking this process of settlement of the Armenian
and Turkish relations and considering it as a possibility for its
development Armenia should gain a very tangible success through
enhancing its official potential and competitiveness in order to
justify the nutrition of the Turkish success by this process started
by Armenia. No prospect for such a success seems to have been outlined
for Armenia so far which means that Armenia is charging the Turkish
interests unilaterally.