Turkey-Armenia Relations: NATO's Evaluation
By Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
lragir.am - 6/1/2016
Related
Normalization That Will Fundamentally Change World
NATO's Proposals to Armenia
Western Criticism Against Russia
Relations between NATO, U.S. and Turkey Are Changing
Armenia Might Miss Its Last Chance
The United Kingdom always thought that Turkey as a country which hasachieved big success in economic development and strong statehood hasthe right to a new, a more significant role in international politics.The role of the United Kingdom is big enough in the cooperation withTurkey in the sphere of defense and security.
Turkey is ambitious but its policy on neighbors and partners iscorrect, it observes rules of conduct accepted in NATO, is an activeand disciplined partner.
At present the United States has realized that the time when it waspossible to point Turkey to one characteristics or another andpolitical directions and conduct has passed.
The reaction of its partners in Europe is quite regular because theyare used to Turkey carrying out its commitments to NATO and the EUand, at the same time, being quite modest in international politics.
NATO and the West need Turkey at present because new challenges haveoccurred in the Near East and Asia, and without Turkey it would bedifficult to resolve these problems. Turkey immediately headed for theregions, trying to gain new positions and caused the countries ofthese regions to worry. Now it is believed that the policy of `zeroproblems with neighbors' has failed or at least has not achievedsuccess. However this policy has not been completed, and only itsfirst phase is over.
It is beyond doubt that Turkey is undertaking new approached towardsthe implementation of this policy though it has understood a lot andhas drawn conclusions on the strengths and weaknesses of its foreignpolicy.
The countries of the West acted incorrectly when they did not supportTurkey's regional policy. As a result, the problems of the Near Eastwere complicated, and it is time to coordinate efforts with Turkeyover the problems of this region.
NATO can hardly imagine Turkey's intervention in the South Caucasus,even in case of resumption of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.Turkey is following attentively the situation and processes in theSouth Caucasus and the Black Sea region and is reacting operatively,raising relevant issues in NATO, bringing very valuable information.
NATO is used to considering the developments in this region inaccordance with the initiatives of Turkey, using the information itpossesses. It should be noted that Turkey's reaction to thesedevelopments is always reserved and aimed at the politicalparticipation of NATO in alleviating tension in the region.
Experts interviewed by us think that Turkey is so closely linked toNATO and separate countries of the West that it bewares occurrence ofa military conflict in the South Caucasus; there is no reason forTurkey to be interested in military actions.
Experts noted that the Near East is a priority of the Turkish foreignpolicy, and this direction alone takes all of the country's politicalresources. While Turkey is busy dealing with the problems of the NearEast, it is not capable of political activity in the South Caucasus,especially in Central Asia.
In answer to the question what will happen when Turkey's policy in theNear East is exhausted for one reason or another, NATO expertsannounced that in fact the problem is not in the Near East; Turkey'sforeign political actions are limited to its commitments to NATO. Itcherishes its relations with NATO, the United States, other memberstates of the alliance and the European Union on which its economicand political wellbeing, as well as its security depend.
For example, now Turkey has many reasons for military intervention inits neighboring regions, Iraq and Syria because the ongoingdevelopments threaten its security. However, it cannot do it withoutagreeing with NATO.
As to the need for integration of the Eastern European countries,including Armenia, with NATO, NATO is working out new approaches todevelopment of partnership with countries which are not in NATO. It isnoted that many NATO member states are interested in Armenia and theyare ready to lobby for the participation of Armenia in the processesof integration with NATO.
These are countries like France, Germany, Greece, Poland, Slovakia andpossibly Bulgaria. As to the United Kingdom, it prefers viewing theintegration of the countries of the South Caucasus with NATO on thecondition of promoting the settlement of conflicts. In answer to thequestion whether the United Kingdom lobbies the interests ofAzerbaijan in NATO, experts answered that this is the first time theyheard about this, and nothing of the kind can happen unilaterally.
Any interest and any intention have time factors, and a lot may changein the course of regional developments. It is understood that theUnited States has changed its intentions and interests in the NearEast, as well as in its adjacent regions. In this case no doubt isleft that it is impossible to analyze the U.S. foreign policy,proceeding from its own experience of the past decades.
The American politicians cannot conduct a global action policy underthe current conditions. The example of the previous threeadministrations proves this. The Americans understand that the presentconfiguration in the Near East must be destroyed, and new realitiesmust be created excluding former partners and allies of the UnitedStates.
In this sense, one should understand that a new society has beenformed in the United States which is optimistic. The Americans areclinging to their country and do not want to hear anything about othercountries. Even the diasporas pay less attention to their countries oforigin.
The United States has found those few ones which could be new partnersin the region or those who are not a state but have a state'sambitions.
Control over the Near East is important for the United States toexercise global control. Therefore, the United States is viewing thesecountries independently from the extent to which the local `elites'and communities are capable of thinking and reflecting. This is notimportant. Another thing is important ` their interests which can bedetected at the most sensitive moments for the region.
Interests are created not on the basis of ambitions of these peoplesbut as a result of absorption by foreign forces. In this sense, itturns out that the more primitive and meaningless the existence ofthese people, the more effective what can be called services on callwill be.
This is a time when NATO became a different organism which needs selectivity. Selectivity is used not only upon membership to NATO butalso discharge from this organization.
The Americans have prepared for a lasting `attack - defense' of theNear East, and not only in this region. Who would believe that thecurrent oil world has ollapsed quite toughly and without doubts ofspontaneity?
However, what matters is that decision making is found not only in theUnited States but also NATO, which is obvious and beyond doubt.