ACNIS reView from Yerevan

The operation of the Turkish army in northern Syria has radically changed the global arrangement of interests. A crisis has arisen within NATO. Key members of that organization favor the idea of ​​imposing sanctions on Turkey. The US has already begun implementing such sanctions. At the same time, the US president stated that he does not care who will settle the situation in Syria, because the United States does not want to fight for the Kurds. Especially since the Syrian army has come out against Turkey. Donald Trump indirectly pointed at Russia and China. The president of Russia immediately went to work – Turkey invited the president to Moscow. The allied and anti-combat image existing in the world until now has been blurred. Rather, this is an irreversible process. Accordingly, the changes are also irreversible, both at the regional and global level. And now the question is what will happen when the Syrian and Turkish armies come face to face. So far, Russia has announced that it will act as a mediator between the leaderships of Syria and Turkey. And US President Donald Trump said that there is nothing wrong if Syria receives help from Russia. And he described his policy of the last days as a brilliant action.

The concern about how such changes may affect the security of Armenia and Artsakh is completely justified. There are already many reasons to worry. On October 14, the President of Turkey, already “out of sight internationally”, left for Baku to participate in the session of the Council of Turkic States. There was nothing unexpected in it. Only Azerbaijan, Pakistan and Qatar supported Turkey’s actions in Syria. Even the league of Arab countries condemned Turkey. In Baku, President Erdogan openly announced that “Turkey is waiting for the strong support of brotherly countries in the fight against terrorism.” However, there was no joint statement of the members of the Council of Turkic countries. It could be expected, because Turkey had invented a very dangerous game so that it could so easily unite even the “national” countries around it.

But in this case, we are more interested in the fact that the president of Azerbaijan took advantage of the situation to advance his own interests. He recalled his old thesis that “the transfer of Zangezur to Armenia divided the Turkic world from a geographical point of view.” According to him, “from that point of view, the adoption of the decision to create a Turkic Council in Nakhichevan has a symbolic meaning for the entire Turkic world.” Observers immediately noticed that the mention of Zangezur by the President of Azerbaijan on such a political basis is not just a historical excursus. Basically, Ilham Aliyev is returning the Zangezur issue to the political agenda. The signs of this were noticeable At the last CIS summit in Ashgabad, where the president of Azerbaijan discussed the image and nature of activities of Garegin Nzhdeh. After all, it is precisely with the name of Nzhdeh that the preservation of Zangezur in the Soviet Armenia is associated. Aliyev was looking far away. 

Already after the session of the Council of Turkic States, the Azerbaijani press began to circulate the idea that “Azerbaijan should use the precedent of “anti-terrorist cleansing” created by Turkey in Karabakh.” Proposals were put forward that “there is a high probability that Azerbaijan will simply take advantage of the precedent created by Ankara”. They recalled the resolutions of the UN Security Council of 1993, even more so the right of self-defense. But, most interestingly, the main topic of debate was whether Russia and the US would support similar hypothetical intentions of Azerbaijan.

The last circumstance is extremely interesting, especially in the context of the recent statement of the Minister of Defense of Azerbaijan that “the international situation does not allow starting a war against Nagorno Karabakh”. Well, of course, Azerbaijan understands that it can try to achieve its goals only when the superpowers not only light khouse their programsn:, but also “ktie» Arms of Armenia, as in April 2016. Everyone understands that no statement from the Turkish leadership supportwho belongs to Azerbaijan, cannot be a guarantee for the implementation of the latter’s plans. 

At the moment, it can be noted that there are no signs that anyone wants to give Azerbaijan a carte blanche to “try its luck” in Turkey. This can be evidenced by the fact that on the day of the meeting of the Council of Turkic States in Baku, on October 14, at the session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the North Atlantic Alliance, NATO main Secretary Jens Stoltenberg announced that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has no military solution. But the most interesting is the following. The Secretary General of NATO said that he met with the Prime Minister of Armenia at the UN and, according to him, “Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan recently announced that the solution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict should be equally acceptable to the people of Armenia, Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan.” That message fully corresponds to the calls of the OSCE Minsk Group to prepare societies for peace. Unfortunately, the other side did not respond to the said statement. Moreover, Aliyev continues his military rhetoric. I have a question in this regard. How can NATO contribute to the fair and stable settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and, in particular, how can NATO support the efforts of the Minsk Group?

This statement is unprecedented. For the first time, unilaterally at such a high international level, Azerbaijan is blamed for its destructive position. Nothing else could be expected when Azerbaijan openly supports Turkey’s actions against the Syrian Kurds. But even without that support, NATO’s position would hardly change. And not only NATO. This is already visible from the Minsk Group’s current visit to the region. conversations are narrowed down to the level of humanitarian issues. In the created international situation, there is no possibility to seriously talk about the settlement of the conflict.

In the created situation, the statement of Konstantin Zatulin, the head of the CIS, Eurasian integration and relations with compatriots committee of the Russian State Duma, at the “Cooperation for Justice and Peace” international conference or, in other words, the “Forum of Friends of Artsakh” held in Stepanakert, was also responsive. That famous figure just once again repeated his opinion that “conscience and justice are the side of the people’s struggle for self-determination, the side of Nagorno Karabakh”. And that he sees no prospect of returning Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan sent a note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia with a request to comment on Zatulin’s statement. But without commenting, it is clear that Azerbaijan’s desire to use the precedent of “anti-terrorist cleansing” in Karabakh created by Turkey with the further resettlement of another population is in no way compatible with the interests of the persons from whom it expects to sponsor such programs.

In any case, everyone who is interested in the logic of international relations in the 21st century can learn many lessons from the urgent events described above at the current moment in international politics. Subjects wishing to protect their interests and security should not allow external transactions to take place around their issues. If such a thing is allowed, no one can help them anymore.

Manvel Sargsyan