Category: 2022

By Sabina Mammadli

Despite a mutual agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia to establish a working group by the end of April, the promised meeting of the delegations has not taken place yet, Azernews reports.

At a meeting with the Lithuanian president in Baku on May 18, President Ilham Aliyev said that Azerbaijan set up its working group on time and was ready to send out a delegation for the first meeting with Armenia.

The president added that Azerbaijan called on Armenia to embark on the process of delimitation of the border. He further added that even though it was the Armenian Foreign Ministry that proposed to hold the first meeting on the border issue, and though Azerbaijan accepted it, it was canceled at the last minute.

Aliyev stressed that even more disappointing than that was Armenia’s refusal to hold another meeting on the border issue on 7-11 May, based on Armenia’s initial proposal.

“We are waiting for new dates from Armenia to start work. Because such an irresponsible position, of course, is worrying,” the president stated.

Today Azerbaijan is focused on turning the South Caucasus into a region of peace, cooperation, and interaction. As President Aliyev mentioned, there is a single opportunity to create this format of cooperation after the second Karabakh war.

Furthermore, the president shared that as soon as the second Karabakh war ended, Azerbaijan started to openly come out in favor of the signing of a peace agreement and the establishment of a joint commission on the delimitation of borders. However, this was not welcomed by Armenia.

On the other hand, the situation in the region has changed positively since Armenia officially accepted the 5-point fundamental principles put forward by Azerbaijan to sign a peace agreement. These fundamental principles are based on international law, the UN Charter, the Helsinki Final Act, and good international practices.

Ilham Aliyev also emphasized Azerbaijan’s permanent commitment to its obligations.

“If we promised, in the presence of the president of the European Council, that we were ready to meet by the end of April, we were committed to our word. However, we must see the same level of responsibility from Armenia. In other words, even though we have certain optimism, such maneuvers and fairly strange steps of the Armenian government actually undermine certain confidence,” he stated.

In the meantime, Secretary of the Armenian Security Council Armen Grigoryan said on May 19 that Armenia had formed a commission for the delimitation of the border with Azerbaijan.

“The composition of the commission is ready. The working group will make a relevant statement at the appropriate time,” he added.

Earlier, Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan said that it was possible to start negotiations on the demarcation of the border with Azerbaijan in the near future.

“The meeting on the demarcation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, scheduled for May, has not yet taken place. But I can assure you that we will continue our discussions on organizing this meeting. There are some technical details that the parties must agree on. And I hope that the meeting will finally take place in the coming days or maybe weeks,” Mirzoyan noted.

The trilateral ceasefire deal, signed by the Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders with the mediation of the Russian president on November 10, 2020, ended the three-decade conflict over Azerbaijan’s Karabakh region, which along with the seven adjacent regions came under the occupation of the Armenian armed forces in the war in the early 1990s.

The deal also stipulated the return of Azerbaijan’s Kalbajar, Aghdam and Lachin regions. Before the signing of the peace deal, Azerbaijan liberated 300 villages, settlements, city centers, and historical Shusha city that had been under Armenian occupation for about 30 years.

By Vugar Khalilov

The Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders are slated to meet in Brussels again on May 22 to think over ways of overcoming an impasse and advance the peace agenda, Azernews reports.

This meeting, like the ones in December 2021 and April 2022, is expected to proceed under the mediation of European Council President Charles Michel.

The Apil 6 meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders registered progress in their approaches to tackle problems and establish working groups for the border delimitation and peace deal. The meeting at that point agreed on establishing working groups by the end of April to kick off talks, albeit this did not materialize.

On May 18, at the press conference with his Lithuanian counterpart, President Aliyev said that Armenia canceled the previously agreed meeting of the border commissions scheduled for the end of April.

“Azerbaijan set up its working group on time and was ready to send out a delegation. This was agreed with the Armenian side. By the way, it was the Armenian Foreign Ministry that proposed to hold the first meeting on the border issue. Azerbaijan accepted the offer and we were ready to send out a delegation. However, on the last day, on 29 April, Armenia canceled the agreed meeting. This is very disappointing. Even more disappointing was Armenia’s refusal to hold a different meeting on the border issue on 7-11 May, based on Armenia’s initial proposal. So we are waiting for new dates from Armenia to start work,” Aliyev stated.

Commenting on Aliyev’s statement that Yerevan twice refused to hold pre-agreed meetings on border delimitation, Armenian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Vahan Hunanyan said that the Armenian side did not refuse to meet with Azerbaijan and is ready to start the delimitation and border security commission.

“The Armenian side remains committed to the implementation of the agreements reached. Accordingly, Armenia did not cancel or refuse to hold any meetings. Within the framework of the agreements reached between the leaders of the two countries in Sochi and Brussels, Armenia remains ready to proceed with the commissions,” he added.

Armenia has formed a commission on delimitation and security of the border with Azerbaijan and will publish it in due time, Secretary of Armenia’s Security Council Armen Grigoryan told a briefing on May 19.

“The composition of the commission is ready, I think when the time is right, the working group will make a statement,” he added.

In the meantime, large-scale opposition protests have been underway in Armenia since May 1, involving the Armenia Bloc and the Republican Party, as well as the Dashnaktsutyun and Motherland parties. The protestors claim that Pashinyan intends to sign a peace treaty with Baku, thus recognizing Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.

In another development, rivals of the sitting Armenian prime minister claimed that at a time when the country is in the grip of protests, Pashinyan with his latest meeting with President Putin wanted to display that he has the Russian president’s backing, Armenian Hraparak newspaper writes.

“A proof of this was his visit to the Netherlands, yesterday’s statement by the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia that they ‘seek to help the Armenian people build the kind of future that the Armenian people chose in 2018, and confirmed again during the parliamentary elections in 2021,’ which can even be seen as interference in the internal life of the country,” the newspaper added.

Hraparak writes that Nikol Pashinyan was not originally scheduled to meet with the Russian president at the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) summit in Moscow, as evidenced by the fact that the pre-announced agenda only noted Putin’s meetings with the leaders of Belarus, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, while Armenia was not mentioned. However, it later turned out that there was also a meeting between Pashinyan and Putin. The Russian side said that Pashinyan had asked for a meeting with Putin.

Commenting on allegations, Security Council Secretary Armen Grigoryan said that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has not applied to the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) to resolve the internal political situation in Armenia, Russia’s TASS said.

“Prime Minister Pashinyan has always relied only on the will of the Armenian people in all internal political issues. The information about Armenia’s alleged appeal to the CSTO to resolve internal political issues is also misinformation,” he underlined.

In November 2020, Pashinyan signed a trilateral statement with Azerbaijani and Russian Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Vladimir Putin, ending military operations in the conflict zone around former Nagorno-Karabakh.

Opponents of the Armenian prime minister called the signed document capitulation, and mass protests broke out in Armenia. As a result, Pashinyan called early parliamentary elections, as a result of which, his party strengthened its position, gaining an absolute majority in the legislative body, and Pashinyan was re-elected as prime minister.

By Trend

Statement by US Ambassador to Armenia Lynne Tracy has instigatory character, political analyst and editor-in-chief of the Russian National Defense magazine Igor Korotchenko told Trend.

Korotchenko made the remark commenting on an interview with ambassador, in which she said that “the US recognizes the right of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh to determine their future.”

“The statement made by a high-level official, since the ambassadors speak on behalf of the state, wasn’t any kind of coincidence or a blooper, but a deliberate warming up of the revisionist sentiments that we are seeing in Armenia,” he said. “This is actually support for the efforts of the opposition, as well as the global Armenian lobby to conduct a ‘revision’ of the results of the 2020 second Karabakh war.”

“Of course, this statement cannot be made by the ambassador as personal opinion. This is obviously a reflection of the point of view of the US State Department and the Joe Biden administration,” the analyst noted. “We also cannot rule out that this was done under the active influence of the Armenian lobby in the US, which in one way or another has the opportunity to influence the process of making foreign policy decisions.”

He also noted that in any case, this statement requires an unequivocal condemnation.

Korotchenko expressed regret that all this is again imposed on the events that are observed not only in Yerevan, but also, for example, in Russia, when in recent days a number of active Armenian lobbyists have published an opinion in which they actually called Russia to reconsider approaches to the Armenian-Azerbaijani settlement.

“If we compare all these events, statements and opinions, we’ll see that this is an active phase of the efforts of the Armenian lobby to conduct a revision of the results of the second Karabakh war by influencing the government and public opinion,” Korotchenko stressed.

According to him, the statement of the US ambassador to Armenia in fact is pushing the region to disrupt the peace agreement.

“At the same time, there are realities that no US position can refute and change: Azerbaijan’s military victory in the second Karabakh war actually ended the Karabakh problem. Moreover, in February, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev signed a Declaration on allied cooperation, where Russia reaffirmed its commitment to the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan,” said Korotchenko.

“Therefore, the moment is quite tense now. We must carefully monitor and assess the situation, and, of course, respond quickly and promptly so that the plans of Armenian lobbyists to provoke a new conflict fail,” he said.

– The writer is a Turkiye-based journalist, who writes analyses on Turkish foreign policy.

ISTANBUL

The report titled “NATO 2030: Unity for a New Age”, which was discussed at the NATO leaders’ summit in Brussels on June 14, 2021, showed that a new concept had entered into force in the history of the alliance. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced concrete decisions in eight key areas.

The fifth of these decisions declared that the alliance would “intensify its work to preserve the rules-based international order and to that end strengthen partnerships with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea in the Asia-Pacific.”

This statement brought to the fore the idea that NATO’s eastward expansion goals were aimed at even surpassing Russia and reaching China. As the NATO summit in Madrid, where the answer to this question will be given, is approaching, the developments regarding the war in Ukraine pointed out that NATO is on the verge of a concept and a paradigm shift. NATO is preparing to incorporate new members into its body while it is increasing its dominance in the world with the new alliances developed by the US and the UK. NATO is turning into an organization on which the sun never sets, like what was once the British Empire.

Why NATO did not complete its mission after the end of the Cold War?

The North Atlantic Alliance was designed in 1949 as a defense organization that would permanently protect Western Europe from the threat of a totalitarian force like Germany. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) was the main reason for the existence of the alliance during the First Cold War. With the disintegration of the USSR and after the Warsaw Pact ceased to have an effect, the question of “What is the need for NATO if there is no communism threat anymore?” came to the fore, even in the Western world. The “Sixth Strategic Concept”, issued in Washington in 1999, laid the first stones of the turning point reached by the alliance today. With the adoption of the new concept, the alliance had decided to transform into a “global security provider” instead of having a Europe-centered structure. Ignoring the voices coming from Russia, the first expansion step “on the way to globalization” was taken with the inclusion of Czechia, Hungary and Poland in the alliance. The terrorist attacks carried out by the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization on Sep. 11, 2001 on the US territory was the beginning of a new process for the Washington administration and the globalizing NATO. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty was put into effect for the first time. Thus, the fight against global terrorism was included in the joint defense obligations of the North Atlantic Pact.

Even if Turkiye, which has been fighting against PKK terrorism since the 1980s, demanded this article to be put into effect also for itself, NATO members, including France, Italy, Greece, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, have embraced the PKK terrorist organization for years. PKK actions were defended against Turkiye under the guise of “peaceful protests”, and the financing of PKK camps in northern Iraq with the tribute collected in these countries was tolerated. It was no coincidence that Ocalan, the so-called leader of the PKK, knocked on the door of NATO members Italy and Greece after he had to leave Syria in 1998. The Lisbon Summit in 2010 marked the beginning of a new era in which the global role of the alliance was emphasized until 2021. The 11-year period was also a process in which NATO was criticized for losing its military power.

The process leading to the NATO’s globalization

Although the alliance decided to become a global security organization in 1999, no action was taken on this issue until the UK left the EU by making the “Brexit” decision in 2016. Another critical step was renaming the US Navy’s “Pacific Command” as “Indo-Pacific Command” in 2018. Preparations have begun for the US-British fleet to patrol the Indian Ocean. The announcement of the AUKUS Alliance, consisting of the US, UK and Australia, in Sept. 2021, constituted the most crucial pillar of the NATO-led global security structure outside Europe. Japan was invited to this alliance in April 2022. On the other hand, the US started a process to end the strategic relations between India and Russia through the QUAD (Quadruple Security Dialogue) formed with India, Japan, and Australia.

With their move to include India in the AUKUS Alliance, the US and UK aimed at ending India’s dependence on Russia in the defense industry in the short term. The US attempt to provide 500 million dollars of foreign military aid to India, of which 60% of its weapons systems originate from Russia, will be recorded as one of the important developments that will change the geopolitical balances in 2022. If this aim is realized, India, which has acquired the S-400 missile defense system from Russia, will be the country that receives the most military aid from the US after Israel and Egypt.

“Eastern Mediterranean Energy Forum”, which was first initiated as an energy cooperation project and then gained a military character, as well as the security agreements signed by the UK with Poland and Ukraine on Feb.17, and with Sweden and Finland on May 11, may be given as examples to the NATO’s regional alliance steps to expand its sphere of influence with the help of the UK and the US.

When we look at the developments from this broad perspective, we see that the alliance will undergo a comprehensive paradigm shift at the 2022 Madrid Summit. At this point, Turkiye reminds us that the new paradigm to be built should serve the purposes of the entire alliance, not just the US-UK duo.

Turkiye’s demand is very clear

Turkiye’s demand for the NATO membership of Sweden and Finland, which came to the fore with the Ukraine War, is very clear. Turkiye demands that the alliance take a common stance against the terrorism which is targeting the country, just as Article 5 was put into practice when the US became the target of a terrorist attack on Sept.11, 2001.

For 40 years, Turkiye has made efforts to keep the alliance alive but its “allies” have hosted ASALA, PKK, DHKP-C and FETO terrorist organizations, exempting them from being tried and even assisted them with weapons, as well as attempting to give them political legitimacy. However, with such a comprehensive paradigm shift on the agenda, this unequal relationship within the alliance is not sustainable anymore.

The fresh media reports about Swedish Foreign Minister Ann Linde and Defense Minister Peter Hultqvist’s meetings with the so-called military and political representatives of the PKK/YPG terrorist organization in 2021 and 2022 and their hosting in the Swedish parliament can be found in the archives. While these countries impose an embargo on Turkiye in the field of defense industry, Swedish-made weapons are being uncovered in the arsenals of the terrorist organization. After Turkiye’s statements, including a veto warning, came to the fore, Swedish Foreign Minister Linde threatened the country by saying that “strong members of the alliance” were behind them. After Ankara displayed a determined stance, she defended herself by saying: “My words were misunderstood.”

Swedish Defense Minister Hultqvist, on the other hand, said that they would send a delegation to Turkiye to “try to understand what the problem is.” The PKK and its extensions, who unfurled the organization’s posters and banners and lit torches on Kungsatan Street in central Stockholm the day after this statement, gave the necessary response to Hultqvist. The fact that Hultqvist and other politicians in Stockholm, Washington and Paris, who have a similar mentality, must understand is that Ankara is not the address to go to understand what the “problem” is. The place to go to understand the “problem” is the US Congress which has been a prisoner of Greek and Armenian lobbies for a long time and the Swedish Parliament where various groups are making efforts to make the assembly adopt the claim that Armenians, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Pontians were subjected to genocide during the Ottoman Empire.

Sweden, which has embraced all anti-Turkiye terrorist organizations since the 1970s, is the pioneer and implementer of all anti-Turkiye policies in Europe and has encouraged other countries in this direction. As Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan told the parliamentary group meeting of Turkiye’s Justice and Development (AK) Party in the capital Ankara on May 18: “It is incoherent for Sweden and Finland to seek our support to join the military alliance when they provide all kinds of support to PKK/YPG terrorists.” Due to this inconsistent policy of Sweden, it does not seem very likely that the Finnish and Swedish delegations, which are expected to be in Ankara on Monday, will get positive results from their meetings with Turkish authorities.

NATO decisions should not be taken in haste: the example of Greece

Turkiye’s approval of Greece’s return to NATO’s military wing and the implementation of this decision by the alliance took place in a short period of 45 days following the Sept.12 military coup in the country. When we look back at the past with the information we have today, we see that the roots of the process go back to Jimmy Carter’s election as the US President in 1977 and the appointment of Kenan Evren as the Chief of Staff in 1978. There are examples of Evren bypassing Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel, the political authority in the country, in the decisions regarding Greece just before he staged the coup.

The decision, which was presented as a military-technical issue, was taken by isolating it from politics and diplomacy and, without signing any written agreement, caused irreparable harm for Turkiye. One of the first actions of PASOK, led by Andreas Papandreou, who came to power in Greece in 1981, was the breaking of promises made to Turkiye after their return to NATO’s military wing. Turkiye does not have the luxury of making the same mistake again, 40 years later, when the NATO alliance is undergoing a paradigm shift.

Keeping the process on hold until the parliamentary elections to be held on Sept. 11, 2022, in Sweden and reconsidering the issue with the conservative-liberal Moderate Party, which is more likely to emerge as the first political party in the elections, would be the most rational solution for Turkiye. A fierce advocate of membership in the NATO alliance, Moderate Party Chairman Ulf Kristersson has followed more rational policies in relations with Turkiye since he was elected party leader in 2017. As British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has said, there is still plenty of time for the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO, given that the Ukraine War may continue until 2023.

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu Agency.

*This analysis is translated to English by Zehra Nur Duz in Ankara.

ANKARA

Turkish boxer Buse Naz Cakiroglu won the gold medal on Friday in the 50 kilogram category of the IBA Women’s World Boxing Championships.

Cakiroglu beat Colombia’s Ingrit Lorena Valencia Victoria 5-0 in the Women’s Light Fly final.

The bronze medals were shared between Uzbek Aziza Yokubova and Spaniard Laura Fuertes Fernandez.

The 25-year-old Cakiroglu had eliminated Mongolian Mungunsaran Balsan in the first round, Algerian Roumaysa Boualam in the second, Aira Cordero Villegas in the quarterfinals, and Fernandez in the semifinals.

Hatice Akbas wins gold in 54 kg

In the Women’s Bantam (52-54 kg) category, Hatice Akbas was awarded the gold on Friday after beating Lacramioara Perijoc of Romania 3-2 in the final.

The bronze medals were shared by Kazakh Dina Zholaman and Thai Preedakamon Tintabthai.

After passing the first round without a match, the Turkish boxer eliminated German Zeina Nassar in the second round, followed by Armenian Ekaterina Sycheva in the third, Bulgarian Stanimira Petrova in the quarterfinals, and Thai Tintabthai in the semifinals.

This marked the third gold medal for Turkiye in the organization as Ayse Cagirir had bagged another top prize in the women’s 48 kg category.

WASHINGTON

The US State Department welcomed on Friday ongoing bilateral talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan before a key meeting geared toward the establishment of peace in the south Caucasus.

“We remain committed to promoting a peaceful, democratic and prosperous future for the South Caucasus region,” State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters on a conference call.

“As part of that, we do urge this dialogue to continue, and for the parties to intensify their diplomatic engagements, to make use of existing mechanisms for direct engagement in an effort to find comprehensive solutions to all outstanding issues related to or resulting from the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and, to normalize their relations,” he added.

The US remains ready to assist Yerevan and Baku in the efforts, added Price.

Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashiyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev are slated to hold a trilateral meeting this weekend in Brussels with European Council President Charles Michel. The meeting will mark the second such sit-down in as many months as the parties seek to broker a peace agreement.


Following April’s meeting, Michel said Aliyev and Pashinyan stated their desire to “move rapidly towards a peace agreement between their countries.”

“To this end, it was agreed to instruct the ministers of foreign affairs to work on the preparation of a future peace treaty which would address all necessary issues,” he said in a statement.

The parties also agreed to convene a Joint Border Commission by the end of April.

Relations between the two former Soviet countries have been tense since 1991, when the Armenian military occupied Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory internationally-recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and seven adjacent regions.

New clashes erupted in September 2020, and the 44-day conflict saw Azerbaijan liberate several cities and over 300 settlements and villages that were occupied by Armenia for almost 30 years.

A tripartite agreement was brokered by Russia to bring an end to the war in November 2020.