Beril Dedeoglu - Today’s Zaman
“We have defended Karabakh from the enemies, what to do with Mount Ağrı [or Ararat] depends on your generation.” These are the words of Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan.
He uttered these words when Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was in Azerbaijan, his second official visit abroad as head of the new government. It’s obvious that Sarksyan deliberately targeted both Azerbaijan and Turkey.
President Sarksyan was not talking about defending people, but only about defending territories. As Mount Ağrı is Turkish territory and Nagorno-Karabakh is within Azerbaijan’s borders, he gives the image of a Cold War era politician who has territorial claims on territories in bordering countries and who praises violence. Armenia’s current problems will not be resolved with the expansion of its territory, but with providing better living conditions for its population.
When making the remarks, Sarksyan was probably aware that Turkey and Azerbaijan would reply angrily. There are many topics of debate between Turkey and Armenia which doesn’t allow for Turkey’s response to be justified in the eyes of the world, but in this particular matter Sarksyan’s attitude does justify Turkey’s harsh response. Moreover, a declaration which can be interpreted as a call for young Armenians to wage war does not bode well for Armenia’s democratic future. He’s almost saying “once we have dealt with the Azeris, we’ll deal with the Turks.”
This statement does not reflect the truth about the real situation. First, Nagorno-Karabakh is not a liberated territory; the issue is not yet settled and the outcome will not be decided by Armenia and Azerbaijan alone. Pretending that the current situation will remain as it is, is unrealistic because the negotiations to find a peace agreement continue. Talking of Ağrı when the future of Nagorno-Karabakh is not yet settled is incongruous.
What is more interesting is to figure out why this antagonistic and obsolete nationalistic language is now being used. It is no secret that there are several disagreements between Turkey and Azerbaijan. Some believe that if these two countries settle their problems, this will harm the normalization between Armenia and Turkey. There are also bigger bargains at stake, such as the debate about whether or not the Kosovo model is applicable to Palestine, to Karabakh or to Northern Cyprus. If it is, then one must find a way to ensure the recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC), but not of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Turkey insinuates that it supports Palestine’s statehood in the hope that it will serve as another precedent for recognition of the KKTC. Armenia would like to see Nagorno-Karabakh recognized, but it never takes a step in helping Turkish diplomacy on other issues.
Under these circumstances, a statement which makes the normalization of the Turkish-Armenian relations almost impossible intends to keep the status quo: no normalization, no recognition and no progress in resolving any of the remaining problems. Nevertheless, the lasting settlement of the problems between these three countries will connect them better to global dynamics, reinforce their domestic democratic transparency and put the “people” at the center of all political efforts. Harsh statements bring harsh replies, serving only the interests of those who benefit from this conflict.
Turkey has shaped its Armenia policy in relation with Ankara’s expectations from Azerbaijan, even though Turkey is generally disappointed. However, we all know that there are other factors and countries one must take into account; Russia and its relations with other countries for example. Armenia and Azerbaijan have to make their decisions by looking at Russia’s policy choices. Only after that can Turkey possibly adopt a clearer position.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
