“New diplomacy” emerging in world – Azeri TV
ANS TV, Baku
19 Dec 04
An analytical programme on Azerbaijan’s ANS TV has said that old
diplomacy is being replaced with a new system of diplomatic relations
in the world. Commenting on the Azerbaijani president’s recent remarks
in response to the Russian speaker’s statement that Armenia is a
Russian outpost in the South Caucasus, ANS said that the new system
is open, short and strict and is based on “athletic capabilities
and frankness” rather than techniques, which is why President Ilham
Aliyev was also frank when he questioned Armenia’s independent policy.
The following is an excerpt from the “Otan Hafta” weekly analytical
programme by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 19 December. Subheadings
have been inserted editorially:
Direct, strict and clear
[Presenter] On 17 December, or to be more precise, on the day of the
municipal elections, [Azerbaijani President] President Aliyev made an
important statement after casting his vote. The head of state expressed
an opinion questioning Armenia’s state independence in an interview
with journalists. We will look at this opinion against the background
of the qualitative changes that contemporary diplomacy is undergoing.
[Passage omitted: definitions of diplomacy on the screen]
[Ilham Aliyev, shown speaking to journalists] You know that the
chairman of the Russian State Duma said in Armenia that Armenia is
Russia’s outpost in the South Caucasus. So, we do not know, we have
always thought that Armenia is a state. But it turns out to be an
outpost. Shall we negotiate with the outpost or its owner? If this
issue is clarified in Armenia, better conditions will be created for
successful negotiations.
[Presenter over video of scenes in Yerevan and President Aliyev]
That’s it. Direct, strict and clearer than any hint – the Azerbaijani
president’s statement concerning Armenia’s state independence. Was
it really an emotional outburst of the head of state who could not
bridle his feelings? Let us not hurry to answer in the affirmative
and look at this statement along with similar statements that we have
encountered in the world recently and that are rising in numbers. By
saying that Armenia is not a state, but an outpost, Aliyev questions
its ability to make an independent decision. And this was the
first time that official Baku had put the issue in this way: who
shall we negotiate with? The outpost or its owner? In other words,
Russia or Armenia? This question also contains a logical answer. It
stresses the real objective of Russia, which is actually supposed to
be impartial in the group negotiating the restoration of Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity. On the other hand, it outlines the final picture
of the biased positions of the states which normally say that the
resolution of the Karabakh problem is the exclusive authority of
the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents. It is also a response to
the fact that Yerevan points to Xankandi as the new and old address
of the negotiations. In other words, Yerevan should thank Baku for
negotiating with Yerevan. In fact, the negotiations should have been
conducted with Armenia’s owner, Moscow.
Unprecedented openness
Incidentally, Azerbaijan has never accused Moscow in a presidential
statement. Yes, in isolated cases [Azerbaijani ex-President] Heydar
Aliyev condemned the fact that some circles in the Kremlin stand up for
Armenia, drew Moscow’s attention, with serious complaints and concern,
to the fact that some high-ranking officials of the Russian Defence
Ministry had sold Armenia weapons worth 1bn dollars and said that he
did not consider the forced statements of the Russian co-chairman [of
the OSCE Minsk Group] on the recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity to be the Kremlin’s position. But in all these cases, the
talk was about some people and certain unidentified top officials,
while the recent statement was far away from being ambiguous with
a clear attribute and objective: Armenia is Russia’s outpost, it
is not a state. Thus, the Azerbaijani president came up with an
openness that we have not observed in domestic diplomacy so far. Is
it accidental? I think not. A new diplomatic environment and its
regulations are taking shape in the world. If we count similar
cases that we promised [to talk about] earlier to support our idea,
we can see that here the talk is not about an autonomous change in
the extraordinary separate policy of Azerbaijan. The fundamental
principles of the techniques of old diplomacy, which has been in
place to date, are failing. Now let us cite [examples]. Commenting
on the statement issued in defiance of Tbilisi by the winner of
the presidential elections in separatist Abkhazia, Sergey Bagapsh,
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who is facing the problem of
preserving his country’s territorial integrity, says that Bagapsh will
have to return to his native Russia. This is not the first serious
message sent by the Georgian leader to Moscow, which has managed to
keep its monopoly on the Abkhazia and South Ossetia problems so far
and is secretly Russifying the populations of these rebellious regions.
New diplomacy
Let us recall Moscow’s active involvement in the developments and
the Russian Foreign Ministry’s statements interfering in the internal
affairs of that country when Aslan Abashidze was removed from power
in Ajaria. The fact that Saakashvili named Russia again in the row
of separatists in his latest statement is an indication that Tbilisi
is speaking to Moscow in a new language of diplomacy.
Russia’s crude involvement in the developments in Ukraine and Moscow’s
interference in that country’s political fate are not a thing of the
remote past. And we clearly saw the Kremlin’s old diplomacy failing
when it tried to defend its position on developments in another
country. Renowned Moscow political image maker Gleb Pavlovskiy’s
attempts to install a pro-Russian Putin in Kiev collapsed in front
of our eyes.
Turkey’s long-time policy pursued in accordance with the rules of
old diplomacy for accession to the EU compelled Ankara to speak in an
abbreviated political language. The Turkish prime minister made a clear
hint that Turkey, which has been knocking on the door of the EU for
41 years, will not wait for another term and will follow the example
of Norway, which means a decision not to enter that entity. The most
interesting thing in all these developments is the fact that new
diplomacy is a system of regulations formed not from above by the
world’s super powers, but from below by weak countries which usually
see their rights trampled upon and suffer from discrimination and
administration of justice [as heard]. History is changing, while
suffering countries see a solution to their problems dragging on
for dozens of years and witness that old-fashioned negotiations do
not actually resolve any issue, but on the contrary, the problem is
getting forgotten as the generations change. The famous slogan of old
diplomacy, think about one thing, say another thing and do a different
thing is being seriously edited. Of course, diplomacy has now become
as frank as it can be. Since the world has become smaller and life is
passing faster, the old diplomacy has died out. The leaders of the
new generation want to remain in history not as people who used to
be just leaders for a certain time, but as historic personalities who
accomplished a great mission. The rules of dialectics are penetrating
diplomacy, too. Double standards are forcing the countries suffering
from international discrimination to take specific steps. The countries
that have consecutively faced discrimination and insistent distortion
of facts concerning them are responding to these approaches with
counter-measures. The number of biased approaches that have been
elevated to the level of international impudence is being felt in
their quality, and at this point, the rule of negating the negative
comes into effect.
The world’s super powers also have to play by the new rules. The
USA openly revises and criticizes the role of a gendarme Russia
wants to play in the former Soviet area, while Russia reminds the
USA specifically of what it committed in Iraq and Kosovo and stresses
that the democracy it exports is a combination designed for situations
that are of benefit to the White House. Even the powers like Russia
and the USA realize that the old diplomacy has already failed. The
system of new diplomatic relations is open, short and strict and rests
on athletic capabilities and frankness rather than techniques. The
Azerbaijani president was also frank at that moment.