Category: Azerbaijan

  • Turkish-Azerbaijani Circles Federation addresses Abdullah Gul

    Turkish-Azerbaijani Circles Federation addresses Abdullah Gul

    Baku–APA. Turkish-Azerbaijani Circles Federation addressed Turkish president Abdullah Gul. While results and tragedies of Karabakh war are before eyes, outside pressures on Turkey to open its borders with Armenia are increased, the Federation said, the State Committee for Diaspora Activity told APA. The Federation authorities said that no problem would be resolved without returning of occupied territories to Azerbaijan. “How can those, who call Eastern Anatolia the “Western Armenia” and Agri Mountain the “Ararat” and those, who committed genocide against the Turkish people for many times, to demand the opening of borders?”
    “Both Turkey and Azerbaijan have a historic responsibility to defend their peoples. Turkey fulfilled this responsibility so far and will fulfill it further. We, the citizens of Turkish Republic, have no doubt that Turkey will do that. Azerbaijan is not alone. We have no right to lose the belief and love of Azerbaijani people”, said the Federation.

  • Obama Urges Turkey, Armenia To Normalize Ties Soon

    Obama Urges Turkey, Armenia To Normalize Ties Soon

     

      

    Reuters, RFE/RL

    U.S. President Barack Obama urged the foreign ministers of Turkey and Armenia during a meeting late Monday to complete talks aimed at restoring ties between the two neighbors.

    Ankara and Yerevan are engaged in high-level negotiations to end nearly a century of hostility, including the reopening of the border — a move which could help shore up stability in the volatile Caucasus.

    “On the margins of tonight’s Alliance of Civilizations dinner, the president met the foreign ministers of Turkey, Armenia and Switzerland to commend their efforts toward Turkish-Armenian normalization and to urge them to complete an agreement with dispatch,” a senior U.S. official told reporters in Istanbul.

    The official was referring to a U.N.-backed conference in Istanbul organized to discuss ways of building bridges between the Muslim world and the West, which Obama attended on Monday as part of his visit to Turkey.

    “President Obama voiced support for efforts by the leaders of Armenia and Turkey to normalize bilateral relations, expressing satisfaction with progress made in the negotiations of late,” Tigran Balayan, a spokesman for the Armenian Foreign Ministry, said, commenting on the meeting. He said Obama “encouraged” the two sides to sign a relevant agreement “in the near future.”

    “In the words of President Obama, the steps taken by the leaders of Armenia and Turkey are historic and courageous and the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border can earn the two peoples a peaceful and prosperous future,” Balayan told RFE/RL from Istanbul.

    Speaking at a joint news conference with Turkish President Abdullah Gul in Ankara earlier on Monday, Obama said the Turkish-Armenian negotiations “could bear fruit very quickly, very soon.” He indicated that he will therefore be very careful in his public pronouncements on the 1915-1918 mass killings and deportations of Armenians in Ottoman Empire. He at the same time stood by his earlier statements describing the deaths of more than one million Armenians as genocide.

  • Azerbaijan Seeks To Thwart Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement

    Azerbaijan Seeks To Thwart Turkish-Armenian Rapprochement

    B2A43343 7339 4D35 A8D8 E4A4CEB783F2 w393 s

    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

  • TURKEY’S LOCAL ELECTIONS AND THE ARMENIAN ISSUE

    TURKEY’S LOCAL ELECTIONS AND THE ARMENIAN ISSUE

    On March 29, over 48 million voters cast their ballots in Turkey’s local elections to elect mayors and councils. The vote was seen as a referendum on the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), a view for which the AKP’s leader, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, was largely responsible. Prior to the vote he had extensively toured the country to rally supporters, and according to observers the mood was closer to a general election than a local one (BBC News, March 30).

    Mr Erdogan’s confidence was somewhat misplaced. Voters delivered a stinging – and surprising – rebuke to AKP. Although the party still won, with 40% of the overall vote, and maintained its grip over central Anatolia, its share of the vote slumped by 8% since 2007’s general election, it failed to make inroads on the coasts and it was soundly beaten by Kurdish parties in the southeast. 15 mayoralties were lost. One of the biggest winners was the secular Republican People’s Party (CHP).

    AKP has always had a fractious and divided base of support. Its EU ambitions, economic reform and commitment to democracy have rested uneasily alongside its Islamic heritage, accusations of authoritarianism and its frequent battles with the secular establishment. Its supporters have been united by Mr. Erdogan’s charisma, strong economic growth and the lack of a realistic alternative, rather than a belief in the party’s policies. That AKP’s support has finally cracked somewhat, especially given the financial crisis, should therefore come as no surprise.

    What does weakened support mean for Turkey’s biggest geopolitical tangles – the EU and Armenia? It could be a blessing or a curse, and it will greatly depend on the country’s internal dynamics. Mr. Erdogan’s weakened mandate should tone down the authoritarian, combative streak which his previous victories, and his party’s survival in the face of repeated legal challenges from secularists, had instilled. Most analysts agree that he will be forced to work with opposition parties, but what does this mean in practice? The elements represented by the opposition distrust each other for a number of reasons, and siding with any one of them will draw criticism from the others.

    The other parties are, however, united in their opposition to negotiations with Armenia. Nationalists, Islamists and secularists have distrusted the diplomatic thaw and have strongly criticised the parallel initiative of apologies and historical revisionism undertaken by some Turkish academics. The Armenia issue is an explosive one in Turkish politics, and is not to be handled lightly. Previously, AKP had done so using its comfortable majority, without bothering to consult opposition parties (Eurasia Daily Monitor, March 27). Failure to do so now would cost it dearly.

    There are now two factors that the government must contend with if it is to carry through its aim of normalising relations with Armenia. The first is Azerbaijan. Baku has made it clear to Turkey that it is very concerned about the resumption of formal ties between its closest ally and its rival (APA, April 3). Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has reportedly refused to attend an international conference in Istanbul on April 6-7 in protest, and Hurriyet has reported that Azerbaijan may even stop selling gas to Turkey if the borders with Armenia open (Hurriyet, April 2). Exactly how Ankara intends to mollify Baku is not yet clear: it is also uncertain how this rapprochement would affect the delicate negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Azerbaijan seems to be concerned that the opening of Turkish-Armenian borders could lead to hardening of the already tough positions in Armenia with regard to concessions on the Nagorno Karabakh issue. Turkey’s lengthy attempts to persuade Azerbaijan otherwise have seemingly yielded no results. Baku may, after much indignation, settle down and resume the peace process with Yerevan. However, it may equally feel so betrayed that it can gradually turn away from Turkey and the Western states. Azerbaijan’s recent signing of an MoU with Russia on the beginning of gas sale talks could also possibly be understood as a sign of its frustration in this regard.

    Now Ankara’s position will be significant: Turkey may, for instance, continue to make the opening of borders conditional on clear progress towards a withdrawal of Armenian troops from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan or other confidence-building measures. But if this was the case, we should expect Azerbaijan’s reaction to have been far more muted.

    The second factor is Washington. Barack Obama, who began his visit to Turkey on April 5, promised during his election campaign to recognise the Armenian ‘genocide’. His trip to Turkey is widely recognised as an attempt to, amongst other things, reassure AKP that he will pressure Congress not to pass a bill recognising the 1915 events as genocide. Obama’s promise to reach out to the Muslim world means that he needs pro-Western Muslim states like Turkey, far more than he needs the Armenian lobby in Washington. Provided that Mr. Erdogan receives a satisfying answer, he may be able to press on with opening the border whilst disarming nationalists by blocking Congress’ ‘genocide’ recognition.

    If the newly-weakened AKP does achieve a diplomatic breakthrough with Armenia, the backlash at home will be intense. It could even start off a new round of confrontation with the military. The investigation into Ergenekon, a shadowy conspiracy by hardline secularists to allegedly mount a coup, rumbles on – rapprochement with Armenia will provide the General Staff and their supporters with more reasons to distrust the AKP as betrayers of Ataturk’s republic. If the backlash is strong enough, or if President Obama goes ahead and recognises the ‘genocide’ anyway, it is not unreasonable to suppose that Turkish politics will be paralysed yet again, which could further delay EU membership and polarise the electorate.

    Restarting ties with Armenia was never an easy task. The Erdogan government has managed to make as much progress as it has through stubborn determination and a refusal to be dictated to the opposition parties. Now, with its political capital diminished and one eye on the general elections, will it be able to keep up the negotiations? And at what cost?

  • MP’s questionnaire to Erdogan

    MP’s questionnaire to Erdogan

     
     

    [ 06 Apr 2009 20:19 ]
    Ankara – APA. Turkish MP from CHP Canan Aritman has sent an official questionnaire to Prime Minister Erdogan regarding the reports on opening of borders between Armenia and Turkey. APA reports quoting ANKA agency.

    As The Wall Street Journal writes that the borders will be opened on April 16, Aritman gave these questions to the Prime Minister: As your government, and Foreign Ministry have not made any statement on this issue inside the country, is the statement they have made in the United States true? Will you open the borders between Armenia and Turkey? The 11th article of the Armenian Declaration of Independence reads that eastern region of Turkey is a land of Armenia and it will be returned back. Are you aware of these? Do you know that the constitution and state emblem of Armenia reflect the name and picture of Ağrı Mountain? Are you aware of the fact that 20 percent of territories of Azerbaijan are under Armenian occupation? Will you have any international diplomatic initiatives for helping more than one million Azerbaijani refugees go back to their homelands? Do you know that Armenians have killed ten thousands of Turks in different times, including in Khojali Genocide and more than 70 Turkish diplomats? Do you know that Armenia does not recognize the border between Turkey and itself? Do you think that Turkish People will easily accept your initiative on opening of Armenia-Turkey borders?  

  • Campaign against opening of borders

    Campaign against opening of borders

     
     

    [ 06 Apr 2009 20:12 ]
    Baku. Vugar Masimoglu – APA. Those protesting against opening of borders with Armenia launched internet-campaign in Turkey, APA reports. About thousand of people joined the campaign on .

    The people, who joined the campaign, appealed to Turkish President Abdullah Gul, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other officials.

    “Media and some nongovernmental organizations often discuss opening of borders with Armenia. Taking into account the following truths, we are thinking of reassessing this probability. When Turkey took steps to improve the relations with Armenia, the opposite side did not give similar reaction. Unilateral approach started with football diplomacy resulted in the statements of Armenian officials that they would not give up their policy. Armenia has not recognized Turkey’s territorial integrity yet and is still using Agri Mountain as a national symbol in official documents,” the appeal says.

    Improvement of Turkey-Armenia relations may damage Turkey-Azerbaijan relations because of Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Turkey’s stipulation to solve Nagorno Karabakh conflict lasting for 17 years in favor of Azerbaijan does only arise from Azerbaijan’s natural resources and increase of trade turnover with this country. It arises from historical support of Turkey and Azerbaijan “one nation, two states”. If Turkey does this for some profit, in this case relations with Azerbaijan have more privileges. Azerbaijan, which has a lot of oil and gas resources and plays the role of a door to the Central Asia, is more important for Turkey. Armenia can give nothing positive to Turkey.

    We all know that Azerbaijan offered material and military assistance to Turkey during the battle of Canakkale. Of course we do not forget Turkey’s supports to Azerbaijan. Turkey has always supported Azerbaijan in the international platforms. Media writes that “the borders may be opened to prevent adoption of the so-called Armenian genocide in the US Congress”. What will Turkey, which will lose Azerbaijan this year, sacrifice next year in order to prevent recognition of the “Armenian genocide?”

    We do not believe that Turkey will leave Azerbaijan alone in the issue of Nagorno Karabakh and sign this appeal believing that Turkey-Armenia borders will not open unless Nagorno Karabakh’s occupation by Armenia ends.