While an enormous action continue in Turkish foreign policy, significant and unusual developments are being experienced in Nagorno-Karabakh case. But, where Ankara stands in these developments in Karabakh and to what extent follows these developments? It is hard to respond positively to this query. Yet, in the recent two months the crisis with Israel along with the Gaza case and Turkey’s attitude toward the sanctions of the United States against Iran are predominantly taking place in Turkey’s main axis of foreign policy. In this context, the axis shift discussions in the West and their reflections in Turkey and yet again the terrorist incidents experienced in parallel with these developments remain in the forefront. We face with a vision and perception of Turkey which had failed to respond adequately and promptly  to the  internal disputes between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan in accordance with being on the verge of a war with Israel as a result of the developments in the relations with Iran and Gaza and also in parallel with the warming relations with Iran and alienation with the USA in return. In the presence of this view, Turkey is unlikely to follow the extraordinary diplomatic activity in the Nagorno-Karabakh case.

 

Nagorno-Karabakh centric extraordinary developments are being experienced in the region. At the outset, now Azerbaijan considers war as a serious option. On June 17, 2010 Sarkhisyan-Aliyev-Medvedev trilateral meeting was realized in Petersburg within the scope of 14^th International Economic Forum. While the 7^th face to face meeting was planning, the Azerbaijani Parliament has increased the defense budget of the state 400 million Manat more raising it to 2.2 million Manat before the attendance of Azerbaijani President to the 6^th of these meetings.  In fact this amount is even more than the Armenian budget in general and it reflects the extent to where Azerbaijani defense has come. As the Petersburg Summit remained inconclusive, an anxiety erupted in the region, notably in Armenia. Yet, recently several conflicts are arising in the front.

 

State of war persists between Azerbaijan and Armenia for 22 years. Also a truce was declared for approximately 16 years and 2 months. However, a peace treaty has not been signed yet. As we mentioned in our previous articles in detail, Armenia is well-known not to give an inch to peace before 2015 in accordance with its 100-year strategy. At the same time, Azerbaijan is growing stronger both in population and in weight in the region. On the other hand, Armenia is losing ground with its decreasing population and diminishing economic resources. The current situation, in which Azerbaijani army has gained the strength to easily defeat Armenia, alarms Armenia whereas it encourages Azerbaijan to take back its occupied territories. Armenia occasionally opens harassment fire throughout the front line to test Azerbaijan’s firepower and conflicts arise frequently in the region.

 

In a period when the process between Azerbaijan and Armenia came to a deadlock, the presidents of OSCE-Minsk Group’s co-chair countries US President Barack Obama, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and French President Nicolas Sarkozy convened a trilateral summit and proclaimed a declaration drawing a road map in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In this declaration, in brief, the current situation in the negotiation process carried out by Azerbaijan and Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was pointed out and stated that “the drafting of Peace Treaty should be initiated. Besides, in the text the term occupant was used for Armenia.

 

In the declaration proclaimed in the L’Aquila Summit of three Presidents, the principles of the treaty were proposed to be within the scope of the following:

 

• The occupied territories in the surrounding of Nagorno-Karabakh should be evacuated.

 

• An interim administration to maintain the security and the self-management should be established.

 

• A corridor to connect Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia should be founded.

 

• The return of the refugees and of those who left their homelands should be maintained.

 

• The security guarantees should be afforded including the peace keeping forces.

 

• The final status of the region with a declaration of will by the people of region should be determined in a future date.

 

 After this declaration was proclaimed Armenia primarily and Azerbaijan in pursuit declared the agreement on these principals in general.

 After Obama- Medvedev- Sarkozy declaration the visit of the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the region was realized and the efforts kept Azerbaijan away from the option of war and directed to the peace negotiations which are being carried out for 16 years and 2 months. These efforts are inconclusive for now. However, after the recent developments one can make the following assessments:

 

1.          The straining of Turkish-Israeli and Turkey-US relations directed both states to Azerbaijan in the region. The already existing importance of Azerbaijan in the region has increased.

 

2.          As the sanctions against Iran tighten, the efforts to contain this country gradually increase. In this context winning Azerbaijan is very important.

 

 

3.          In Russia the differing perception of administration between Dmitri Medvedev and Vladimir Putin apparently comes to the forefront. Medvedev is increasingly taking the law in his own hands. Medvedev has bold assertions in establishing good relations with West and in alienating Iran. This weakens Iran and Turkey’s position whereas strengthens Azerbaijan’s position.

 

4.          United States and Russia do not want a war in the region. On the other hand Azerbaijan is increasingly speaking of a war option.  The United States, which is focused to Iran, desire both the prompt solution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the normalization of the relations between Turkey and Armenia and the re-opening of the borders

 

5.          In parallel with the trend in Turkish-Israeli relations and dynamics of Turkey-US relations, the alleged genocide slanders may be added to the agenda of the House of Representatives. This yet again may distress the Turkey-US relations.

 

 

6.     Armenia is unwilling for a solution until 2015, on the one hand. On the other hand, it is under the pressure of the war threat of Azerbaijan and even partially under the pressure of Russia pushing for a solution.

As mentioned above, unusual or extraordinary developments are being experienced in the Caucasus region. Though Ankara relieves itself by saying “we have passed to quiet diplomacy”, it does not have any place in these unusual developments. Turkey is spending its energy in different areas and arranging its foreign policy priorities incorrectly.

 

If one of the main objectives of the visit of the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is to keep Azerbaijan in the direction of peace, the other objective is to realize the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations The statement of the United States Assistant Secretary of State Phillip Gordon, when presenting the details of Clinton’s Eastern Europe and South Caucasus visits, mentioning that these visits shall be a good motivation in giving an acceleration to the normalization process of Armenian-Turkish relations which was suspended throughout the ratification of Armenian-Turkish Protocols constitutes an evidence to this. On the other hand, the acceleration of the working of Russian State-Railways in maintenance and renovation of Armenian Railways near the Turkish-Armenian border can be evaluated as a significant “clue”.

 

We observe Clinton’s efforts to persuade Azerbaijan against an armed solution from the statements of the US Secretary of State herself. In one of her statements she pointed out: “The United States is committed to a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of territorial integrity, non-use of force, the right to self-determination and on the basis of the Helsinki principles. The U.S. cannot resolve the conflict, but can help bring the parties closer so that they can reach an agreement. The United States is ready to be a dynamic partner in the negotiations between the two countries.” As it is seen, the United States follows two important matters in the region in ultimate level. On the other hand, Turkey is not yet a play maker in this matter; instead it is just a part of a settlement of global powers.

 

In the view of these developments can it be a matter of discussion for Yerevan to renounce 2015 strategy and take steps in the direction of contributing to the solution in the short run? Armenian Government is stalemated with a global pressure for the solution. However, this pressure is not in the form of forcing Armenia to make concessions. Armenia is just trying to be ‘persuaded kindly’ by global powers. On the other hand, the real pressure is on Turkey and Azerbaijan. Thus, as we mentioned on several occasions before, the real power to force Yerevan to peace is the increasing strengthening of Azerbaijan economically and militarily instead of the pressures of global powers. Yerevan shall not agree easily to renounce its 2015 strategy. Above all, when the conjuncture (when Turkey-Israeli and Turkey-US relations are in such awful condition) is in favor of Armenians, they shall want to use the advantage of this to the end. Yet, as we also mentioned before, this has just one exception. It is that Yerevan is seriously considering war risk on agenda. As the harassment fires and limited clashes become frequent between the two countries lately, this becomes more apparent.

 

Conclusively, Armenia shall try to avoid peace until 2015. However, it may choose to abandon some rayon by maneuvering when the war is in evitable. Otherwise, we foresee a short time war as inevitable till autumn. In our article of June 27, 2010 we mentioned that “The possibility of the harassment fires, started after the visit of the United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Azerbaijan and Armenia, to turn out to a medium quarrel is gradually increasing. The unwillingness of Yerevan in sitting the bargaining table for peace may give Azerbaijan the opportunity to reveal its power to Armenia with harassment fires and let it force Armenia for peace. This in turn, may raise a question of a medium range war in the region.” http://turksam.org/tr/a2102.html. We still hold our position regardless of all the developments.

 

Last remark:

 

The statements in Turkish press expressing that Hillary Clinton had not visited the monument Armenians call “Çiçernakaberd” and memorialize the 1915 relocation as “genocide” do not reflect the truth. Clinton visiting and leaving flowers had appeared in the Armenian press. The mentioned picture is taken from Armenian press and presented above.