OBAMA’S KARABAKH PLEDGE ‘DOES NOT MEAN SATISFACTION’ FOR TURKEY
Kamala Mammadova
news.az
April 14 2010
Azerbaijan
Manvel Sargsyan News.Az interviews Manvel Sargsyan, an expert at the
Armenian Centre of Strategic and National Studies.
How do you assess the Washington meetings between Erdogan and Sargsyan,
Obama and Sargsyan and Obama and Erdogan?
I suppose this is an important stage on the way to overcoming complex
hindrances in our region. The US role in this process should not be
underestimated, especially since according to US officials, the country
is cooperating with Russia. Considering the fact that the United
States and Russia are Turkey’s main partners, the developments must
play a decisive role with the direct involvement of the United States.
In this sense, the US position on all aspects of the ‘Armenian
issue’ and on the principles of approaches to the normalization of
Armenian-Turkish relations was initially of great importance. I mean
the approach that predicates the normalization of relations without
preconditions, as well as the inexpedience of binding the Karabakh
conflict to the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. The
meetings in Washington provide further proof that the United States
sticks to this position. In addition, there has been no clarification
of the US attitude to the recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide.
Turkey’s desire to take this problem off the agenda has not
received obvious support yet. Neither the US nor Armenia accept any
preconditions for the ratification of the Armenian-Turkish protocols.
I think Turkey’s leadership has only just started to understand
the full complexity of the international situation. The attempts to
begin rapprochement with Armenia from the starting point of demands
to acknowledge the legitimacy of Turkey’s many claims on regional
problems have created great difficulties for Turkey. This approach
by Turkey has not received international support.
The US president has urged the parties to normalize relations. Is the
United States interested in the resolution of the Armenian-Turkish
conflict?
Armenian-Turkish relations are a political phenomenon that goes beyond
the narrow framework of relations between Armenia and Turkey. They have
a significant geopolitical importance. The aforementioned approaches
of the superpowers to the settlement of these relations are connected
with this. The world wants to see new relations between Turkey and
Armenia on the basis of clear prerequisites. That is, there is an
intention to change not only the scheme of political relations in
the region but also Turkey’s philosophy and they are trying to make
Turkey disavow most of its traditional approaches in its policy.
Turkey is not perceived as an appropriate partner in its current
political image. The normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations is
a specific examination for Turkey.
The Turkish prime minister said none of the US leaders had ever used
the word ‘genocide’ and ‘we hope Obama will also not use this word’.
What do you think about this statement and the issue overall?
Turkey sees political sense in the US approach to the problem of the
1915 genocide or, to be more exact, it links this approach to the
nature of the United States’ relations with Turkey. As an important
US partner, Turkey does not consider the accusations of a grave crime
appropriate. Nevertheless, the Turkish leadership is facing a reverse
trend: the parliaments of Western countries continue to discuss and
recognize the Armenian genocide. If the United States takes this step,
Western demands on Turkey will become tougher and will be turned into
deliberately consolidated policy.
As the Turkish leadership has adopted the tactic of rejecting the
1915 genocide and builds its policy on this tactic, the possible
recognition of this historical fact by the United States can frustrate
the important basis of foreign and domestic policy. The resolution
adopted by the US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign
Affairs on 4 March urges the president ‘to ensure the conduct of
a foreign policy that reflects an adequate understanding of issues
connected with human rights, ethnic cleansing and genocide’.
Certainly, if this resolution is adopted by the US Congress, it will
influence the country’s policy towards Turkey.
This very circumstance has made the problem of genocide the leading
issue in Turkey’s policy. Undoubtedly, it has become the main concern
of the Turkish leadership in the current meetings in Washington.
How can the Washington meetings affect the Karabakh conflict
settlement?
US President Barack Obama is reported to have assured Turkish Prime
Minister Erdogan that he will spare no effort for the resolution of the
Karabakh conflict. However, there are no hints that this problem can
be bound to the problem of the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish
relations.
The problem is that Turkey’s understanding of the settlement of the
Karabakh conflict does not mesh with the outlook of most leading
centres of power. Turkey’s willingness to use the Armenian-Turkish
process to transfer Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan cannot be an
acceptable provision in international affairs. The promise to settle
the Karabakh conflict does not mean the satisfaction of Turkey’s
demands at all.
Possibly, Turkey also agrees to any method to settle the conflict
over Nagorno-Karabakh. The constant pressure by Azerbaijan is also
unacceptable for Turkey in the long term since Turkey’s policy has
been hostage to Azerbaijani demands for two years now. Though the
factor of Azerbaijan may be valuable for Turkey, it cannot paralyse
its policy for long, because it just becomes senseless. Therefore,
Turkey’s interests on Karabakh cannot be completely identical to
those of Azerbaijan. The development of the international situation
over Armenian-Turkish relations makes Turkey more convinced about it.
Most assessments of the Washington meetings between the leaders of
Turkey, Armenia and the United States show a restrained attitude
of the Turkish leadership to the Karabakh issue as a precondition
for Armenian-Turkish rapprochement. Turkey is likely to persuade
Azerbaijan that such a precondition may be harmful to Azerbaijani
interests too. Any unaccepted precondition may cause new waves of
confrontation which will ultimately worsen the state of the region.