Category: Turkey

Azerbaijani opposition against opening of borders

Baku. Elnur Mammadli – APA. Musavat Party made a statement on the talks held on reopening of Turkey-Armenia borders, the party’s press service told APA. The statement expresses concern over Turkey’s establishing relations with Armenia and notes that unilateral reopening of borders is inadmissible.
“Turkey’s paradoxical step towards Armenia, which does not give up territorial claims and genocide claims, will not have positive influence on its national interests, regional development or solution to Karabakh conflict. The developments may damage the relations of Turkey with its ally, friend, brother Azerbaijan,” he said.

The party notes that some forces may take advantage of the problem in Turkey-Azerbaijan relations. Musavat calls on Turkish government not to give grounds to the forces interested in damaging friendship between the two countries.
“Musavat Party, which is concerned over the state of Turkey-Azerbaijan relations, calls on politicians and media to be more delicate. We believe that Turkey-Azerbaijan relations will stand the test and strengthen,” the statement says.

Azerbaijan National Independence Party in its statement expresses concern over the discussions on the reopening of the borders. The party considers that the reopening of borders will not establish peace and welfare in thee region, but create serious obstacles in the settlement of the conflicts.
“Reopening of the borders will pave the way for Armenia’s militarism policy and new territorial claims,” the party says.
The party considers that being strategic ally and friend Turkey should take into account Azerbaijan’s interests.
“Reopening of the borders will damage the Turkic world and Azerbaijan-Turkey relations,” the statement says.

Azerbaijan National Democratic Party also made a statement. The party says if the borders will be reopened, Armenian-Russian military-aggressive base will strengthen. The party notes that realization of this probability will mean great political victory of Armenia, damage the national interest of Azerbaijan and Turkey, impede peace, Turkic world project.
“The party blames Turkish authorities for the project of anti-Turkish forces like the reopening of Turkey-Armenia borders. AKP government is executing anti-Turkish policy of Armenians, Persians, Russians and West,” he said.

April 8, 2009
Yes to a NATO Turkey, no to a European Turkey

Mostafa Zein Al-Hayat – 07/04/09//

Enter NATO with us. Give us your military strength so that we can together defend our borders. We will contain Communism, coming from Russia. We will confront the nationalist currents that are dangerous to us and to Israel. It is no matter if religion is used in this battle. Spread your moderate Islam in the Middle East. But do not come near our European Union, for you are, despite your moderation, backward and different.

This is a summary of European-Turkish relations ever since Kemal Ataturk declared in 1923 his affiliation with the old continent, deluded into thinking that replacing Arabic letters with Latin ones and eliminating the tarboush and the hijab would forge a new identity and erase the long history of enmity between the two sides. It was a relationship that turned Turkey, with its strategic and historical weight, into a mere military arm of NATO.

The best expression of the racist view toward Ankara, despite the need for it, might have come in the speech by French President Nicholas Sarkozy, answering President Barack Obama’s call on the EU to admit Turkey as a member. During the Euro-American Summit in Prague, Sarkozy said, “I work hand in hand with President Obama, but with regard to Turkey’s joining the EU, the decision lies with member states.” He added: “I have always opposed this membership and will continue to do so. I believe that the overwhelming majority of EU states supports France’s position… Turkey is a very big country and an ally of NATO and of the US, and should remain a privileged partner. However, my position will not change.”

Privileged partnership is not the position of the French right alone, as the left shares this vision. In his book “Yes to Turkey,” the French Socialist Michel
Rocard (prime minister under Francois Mitterand and a deputy in the European Parliament) maintained that Ankara’s joining the EU was “a life insurance policy” for Europe. But at the same time, he said that this gift should come in 2023, on the centennial celebration of Turkey’s founding, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. Until then, the EU should work on gradually absorbing Turkey into its institutions, through a privileged partnership that will see it abandon its cultural criteria, to be in line with European standards. Rocard does not forget to recommend that it join, beginning now, common security policies, in order to participate in achieving geopolitical goals for Europe. These include standing up to Iran, and assisting in the control of sources of oil.

The European left and right want Ataturk’s military, but not its culture. The ruling Justice and Development Party, with its moderate Islam, will remain outside the gates, to fend off attacks and spread its message in its own surroundings. It has now begun to play this role, by trying to recover the Ottoman relations, albeit modified, with the Middle East and Central Asia.

April 8, 2009
Azerbaijani-Turkish Businessmen against opening of borders

Baku. Rashad Suleymanov–APA. On April 7, Union of Azerbaijani-Turkish Businessmen issued statement on a protest against the opening of Turkey-Armenia borders, APA reports. If the plans of Armenians and their supporters are realized, the strategic superiorities of Azerbaijan and Turkey will be broken up, political, economic and social relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey will be damaged seriously, which will lead to the weakening of opportunities for the energy resources control in the region. The opening of the borders will be only in favor of Armenia and some third countries supporting Armenia while Armenia is not leaving the territorial and “genocide” compensation claims against Turkey, not leaving the estimation of this issue to the scientists and historians, not stopping use it as a “tool of political pressure” against Turkey, not stopping occupation of Azerbaijan’s internationally-recognized lands, not allowing the refugees and displaced persons to return home”.

April 7, 2009
Milli Majlis against opening of borders

[ 07 Apr 2009 19:35 ]
Baku. Elnur Mammadli–APA. Azerbaijani political parties represented in Milli Majlis (Azerbaijani Parliament) held joint meeting on Tuesday in a protest against the opening of Turkey-Armenia borders, APA reports.

Representatives of the parties of New Azerbaijan, Social Welfare, Ana Vatan, Great System, Justice, Umid, All Azerbaijan Popular Front, Citizen Solidarity, Citizen Unity and Democratic Reforms attended the meeting. The parliamentarians noted that Turkey’s talks toward the opening of borders and establishing of diplomatic relation with Armenia could seriously damage the Turkey-Azerbaijan relations and the idea of Turkic unity completely. The opening of Turkey-Armenia borders was estimated as a support to the aggressors and it was noted that this action would negatively impact on the peace talks over the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. The participants of the meeting called on the Turkish authorities to avoid this action. The political parties issued a joint statement.
Azerbaijani people and public community concern over the Turkey’s talks toward the opening of borders and establishing of diplomatic relations with Armenia and protest against it, the statement reads. “Respecting the Turkey’s independent foreign policy, we would like to state that on the back of occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia, turning of more than one million people into refugees and displaced persons, killing of thousands of peaceful people, committing Khojali Genocide against the humanity, such action will be a support to the Armenia’s occupant policy, false “genocide” claims and its actions to create military-political tensions and humanitarian crisis in the region. It will be painful damage on the Turkey-Azerbaijan brotherhood and on the ideas of Turkic solidarity. It will be credulity to think that Armenians will leave their insidious intentions of territorial claims against Turkey on the plea of so-called “Armenian genocide” after the opening of the borders”. The authors of the statement say that the policy aiming to establish peace and stability in the South Caucasus declared by the Turkish authorities can not only be restricted to the reopening of borders with Armenia.
“The only guarantee of stability in the region should be withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from the occupied territories and restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Otherwise, the reopening of the borders with Armenia will become a factor having negative impact on the ongoing processes and peace talks in the region and serving to increase tension and confrontation,” the statement says.

The parties signing the statement once more note that they attach great importance to Turkey-Azerbaijan strategic partnership and, protest against the steps taken by Turkish authorities for the reopening of borders with Armenia and state that such an act is not in line with friendly relations between the countries and peoples and that this policy contradicts the interests of Turkish Republic. The parties call on Turkish authorities not to establish relations or open borders with Armenia.

April 7, 2009
EU needs to open energy accession chapter with Turkey

ALEXANDROS PETERSEN

06.04.2009 @ 12:08 CET

EUOBSERVER / COMMENT – The White House is touting President Obama’s visit to Turkey as the cure-all that will not only put US-Turkey relations back on track, but help to resolve some of Europe’s energy security concerns.

However, media attention has focused on Mr Obama’s campaign pledge to refer to Turkey’s “genocide” of Armenians in the 20th century, and whether he will backtrack on that language in deference to his hosts. When it comes to the region’s energy geopolitics, however, it is to Turkey’s relations with another Caucasus neighbour, Azerbaijan, that Mr Obama should turn his focus.

The Bosphorus straits: Turkey is a vital energy route for Europe (Photo: wikipedia)

One nation, two countries is what they used to say about Azerbaijan and Turkey. Their culture, language and heritage have much in common, and since Azerbaijan’s conflict with Armenia in the early 1990s, Turkey has supported its linguistic brethren by keeping its border with Armenia closed.

In the past few months, however, Azerbaijani-Turkish relations have become significantly strained, not just because Ankara is entertaining closer ties, including an open border, with Yerevan, but because Ankara and Baku are locked in a struggle over natural gas supplies to Europe. Interestingly, exactly the same issue has at the same time fostered increasingly close relations between Azerbaijan and Greece.

Turkey turning into energy trader with EU

At issue is the so-called Turkey-Greece Interconnector gas pipeline, which is to be eventually expanded across the Adriatic to Italy.

Once completed, this route would theoretically bring Azerbaijan’s Caspian gas resources to energy-hungry southeastern Europe, helping to ameliorate the EU’s overdependence on Russian reserves.

The idea conjured during the Clinton administration, and still pushed by Mr Obama’s newly appointed officials, is that Turkey will serve as an alternative corridor, not under the control of unpredictable decision-makers in the Kremlin.

But, as Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has become increasingly frustrated with the EU’s mixed signals on membership for Turkey, he has pointedly chosen to emulate Moscow in Turkey’s energy relationship with the Union.

As the EU continues to stall on opening the energy chapter of Turkey’s accession negotiations, Ankara’s policy is now to become an energy middle man, not an energy partner for Europe.

So, instead of being a conduit for Azerbaijani gas to Greece and elsewhere on the continent, Turkey is now attempting to strong-arm Baku into selling its gas at discount prices to Ankara, so that Turkey can sell it at almost four times the price to European consumers.

Russia’s attempt to do this with Caspian gas during the past two decades is exactly what prompted countries like Azerbaijan – and attracted US involvement – to seek alternative routes such as Turkey.

Now, Azerbaijan’s leadership is naturally peeved at Turkish decision-makers, choosing instead to work on the other piece of the corridor, namely Greece.

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev visited Athens in February and was greeted warmly by Prime Minister Karamanlis as the two countries agreed on cooperation in a number of spheres: economic, political and energy.

The Azerbaijan-Greece intergovernmental economic commission, which has met since 2005, is now stepping up its activities. Greek companies are increasingly investing in Azerbaijan’s still-growing economy, and not just in the energy sector. As Mr Obama courts Turkey, Baku has a greater friend in Athens than in Ankara.

Need for more EU involvement in Black Sea region

Either way, both Azerbaijan and Greece lose out if Turkey remains an obstacle to the expansion of the Turkey-Greece Interconnector.

The crux of the problem lies in the pace of Western integration in the broader Black Sea region. Despite its cultural, linguistic and historical ties to Cyprus, Greece supports Turkey’s EU accession because its leadership is aware of the enormous benefits in regional development, security and cooperation that can be accrued with the broader region’s greater integration.

While Turkish tactics are certainly questionable, Ankara’s strategic EU accession aims are not only legitimate, but central to the transformation of Europe’s periphery.

At the moment, intransigence by EU member states, such as France and Germany, on the

energy chapter of Turkey’s accession process is not only whipping up a backlash in Turkey, but jeopardizing the EU’s energy security and undermining positive links between EU members such as Greece and EU neighbours like Azerbaijan.

If the current conundrum continues, the only way out for Azerbaijan will be to turn to Russia – now offering Baku better prices for gas than Turkey.

Two days before his Turkey visit, Mr Obama will meet Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy. If he is serious about helping to ameliorate EU energy security, he will politely remind his French and German counterparts that opening Turkey’s energy accession chapter is the first step in acting in their own interests.

Alexandros Petersen is Dinu Patriciu fellow for Transatlantic energy security and associate director of the Eurasia Energy Centre at the Atlantic Council of the United States.

https://euobserver.com/opinion/27904

April 7, 2009
Azerbaijan Seeks To Thwart Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement

Turkey has been one of Azerbaijan’s firmest allies, and backed plans for bringing its oil and gas to Western markets.

April 06, 2009

Senior Azerbaijani officials have reacted with anger and threats to media reports that Turkey will soon sign a landmark protocol with Armenia paving the way to the establishment of formal diplomatic ties and the opening of the two countries’ shared border.

Baku has long insisted that any such formal agreement by Turkey on closer relations with Armenia should be contingent on key concessions by the latter on the terms for a solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, who assured the Turkish parliament last November that “today Turkish-Azerbaijani unity is a stabilizing factor in the region,” was quoted by the Turkish daily “Hurriyet” as threatening on April 1 to suspend natural-gas exports to Turkey, a threat tantamount to cutting off his nose to spite his face in light of the fall in world oil prices to half the $80 per barrel on which Azerbaijan’s state budget expenditure for 2009 was predicated.

Then on April 6, “Hurriyet” confirmed a report published two days earlier in the online daily zerkalo.az that Aliyev has cancelled his participation in the NATO Dialogue of Civilizations conference in Istanbul on April 6-7, despite efforts by Turkish President Abdullah Gul and the U.S. State Department to persuade him to attend.

Baku’s anger derives in large part from the perception that it has been stabbed in the back by the country that it has, despite periodic disagreements, long regarded as its closest ally, partner, and protector. That perception is rooted partly in the very close ethnic and linguistic ties between the two states, and partly in their close cooperation over the past 15 years in the export to Western markets of Azerbaijan’s Caspian oil and gas. (Both main export pipelines run via Georgia to Turkey.) In addition, Ankara has provided guidance and advice to the Azerbaijani military.

But most crucially of all, it has until now unequivocally backed Azerbaijan’s hard-line position with regard to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, pegging any real rapprochement with Armenia to a solution of that conflict on Azerbaijan’s terms. Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov was quoted as telling journalists in Tbilisi on April 2 that if Turkey does not insist as a condition for opening the border that Armenia first withdraw its troops from at least some of the seven districts of Azerbaijan they currently occupy contiguous to the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh republic, “this would be detrimental to Azerbaijan’s national interests.”

Informed analysts have identified as one of the reasons why Ankara has responded positively to repeated overtures over the past two years by Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian frustration that Turkish foreign policy was being held hostage by Azerbaijan’s unyielding position with regard to the Karabakh conflict. On April 5, Interfax circulated a question-and-answer with Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian, who said that “the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations should have no preconditions, and it is with this mutual understanding that we have been negotiating with the Turkish side. Normalization of relations has no linkage to the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.”

On April 6, however, “Hurriyet” reported, quoting unnamed “reliable sources,” that the Turkish-Armenian draft protocol contains the wording “sufficient progress on the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is required before the opening of the [Turkish-Armenian] border,” and that President Aliyev is seeking clarification of what precisely is meant by “sufficient progress.”

The Azerbaijani presidential administration told RFE/RL’s Azerbaijani Service on April 6 they have no idea what the “Hurriyet” article was referring to. But as of mid-afternoon Baku time on April 6, Aliyev had not left for Istanbul.

Speculation that Azerbaijan is out to thwart the signing of the anticipated Turkish-Armenian protocol was fuelled by the unexpected visit to Baku on April 3 by U.S. Assistant Deputy Secretary of State Matthew Bryza for talks with President Aliyev and Foreign Minister Mammadyarov. Bryza was quoted as telling journalists on his arrival that Washington believes that “the positive changes in the region, that is achieving results in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the warming in Turkish-Armenian relations, should proceed parallel with one another.”

Bryza also reaffirmed the prediction made in late February by Ambassador Bernard Fassier, the French co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group that seeks to mediate a solution to the Karabakh conflict, that President Aliyev is likely to meet with his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian on the sidelines of the EU summit in Prague on May 7-8. When that time frame was first made public, it seemed probable that the meeting between the two presidents was intended to finalize the so-called Basic Principles for resolving the conflict that have been on the table for the past three years.

During their talks in Moscow in early November with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Aliyev and Sarkisian reaffirmed their shared commitment to reaching a solution to the conflict that would reflect those principles. Bryza, who is the U.S. Minsk Group co-chairman, told RFE/RL in late January that the co-chairs were hoping that the Basic Principles would be signed in early summer, possibly in June. The Basic Principles entail a withdrawal of Armenian forces from five of the seven occupied Azerbaijani districts; “special arrangements” are to be instituted for the strategic Lachin Corridor that links the NKR with the Republic of Armenia, and for the district of Kelbacar that similarly lies between them.

Bryza’s estimated time frame for the signing of the Basic Principles may, however, be derailed if Azerbaijan continues either to try to pressure Turkey, or to insist on a separate agreement on the withdrawal of Armenian forces as a preliminary to endorsing (or not) the remaining Basic Principles.

Not that Aliyev has any real leverage he could bring to bear. Speculation that Azerbaijan might withdraw its support for the planned Nabucco export pipeline for Caspian gas (from which Turkey would derive considerable profit in transit fees) and opt instead for the planned White Stream pipeline (the brainchild of Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, it would run across the Black Sea bed from the Georgian terminal at Supsa to a Ukrainian port) seems far-fetched, although it cannot be ruled out completely. The Georgian government signed a memorandum of mutual understanding on April 3 with the White Stream Pipeline Company in which the two sides affirmed their commitment to that project, Caucasus Press reported.

https://www.rferl.org/a/Azerbaijan_Seeks_To_Thwart_TurkishArmenian_Rapprochement/1603256.html

April 7, 2009