Analyst Amanda Paul argues that Turkey needs to have "zero problems" with all Caucasus states

With the emergence of Turkey’s “zero problems with neighbours” policy Turkey has become one of the most dynamic states in Eurasia, reasserting itself in its neighbourhood by pursuing a proactive policy of strategic engagement aimed at defending and satisfying the strategic interests of the country.

Turkey has already achieved considerable success in its Middle East/North African neighbourhood and in the Western Balkans where it has used its unique identity to pave the way to foster better political and economic ties. Turkey is also trying to get a stronger foothold in the South Caucasus.  Ankara understands that the region is of strategic importance and has sought to diversify and upgrade its influence.  However, despite the fact the region is geographically in Turkey’s direct neighbourhood, its efforts to deepen its engagement have not achieved the desired result and Turkey has, to a certain extent added to regional tensions rather than help diminish them.  Because of the complex relations between the countries themselves, their large neighbours, and Turkey’s own and very different relationships with each of the  three states (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia),Russia and Iran, Turkey as failed to develop the type of special role it has managed to carve out for itself elsewhere.

Ankara’s re-emergence and foreign policy shift toward the South Caucasus came principally in the aftermath of the August 2008 Russia-Georgia War which shattered the political status quo in the region.  With concerns over stability (including Turkey’s aims to be an energy bridge between the Caspian and Europe), and fear that the US was losing interest in the region, Ankara launched two initiatives which it hoped would bring about greater regional stability as well as allow it to play a larger role in regional conflicts such as that between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. The first was the “Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform”; the second a process of rapprochement with Armenia with which Turkey has had a closed border and no diplomatic ties since 1993.  Both initiatives also came at a time when Ankara’s relations with Russia were witnessing a dramatic improvement (something that Turkey believed would facilitate success).  Given Russia remains the real power broker in the region, any efforts to alter the geostrategic status quo need Moscow’s blessing. Thereby, Turkey’s foreign policy in the South Caucasus will very much be shaped through Ankara’s relations with Russia and to a lesser extent  the EU as it takes on a great role there.

Unfortunately Ankara miscalculated and neither initiative bore fruit.  In particular, the failed rapprochement only served to increase regional tensions and undermine international efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict

Turkey underestimated the reaction of its “kin”, Azerbaijan to rapprochement with Yervevan and the ability of the Armenian diaspora to pressure Armenia’s leadership.  Turkey’s decision to link rapprochement with progress on Karabakh was destined to bring it to a halt in early 2010 because Ankara over-estimated Russia’s readiness to “cajole” Armenia into concessions.  Ankara’s credibility was damaged, its relations with Azerbaijan took a step backwards and in Armenia there was a significant increase in mistrust towards Turkey with Yerevan going on to further increase security ties with Moscow.  Moreover, it resulted in a stalling of the Karabakh peace talks and increased ceasefire violations.

The Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform aimed at building confidence among the countries, by creating a forum for dialogue between the three countries, Turkey and Russia.  Launched without much thought it had very little (if any) meat on the bones, received very little enthusiasm from most of those invited to join and excluded important international actors such as the EU and US.  Therefore it never really got off the starting block.

While Turkey may have up-graded relations with both Georgia and Azerbaijan, its failure to mend fences with Armenia mean that in a broader regional sense Turkey’s initiatives have only resulted in a more complicated regional situation.   For Turkey to have a real role in the region Ankara first needs to concentrate on implementing “zero problems” within regional countries.  Proposals to create stability pacts and platforms can only be implemented in the event of a normalization of bilateral relations between the three regional states and Russia and if Turkey’s relations with each develops in a consistent manner which is presently not the case.

Furthermore, while Turkey continues to build-up its strategic relationship with Azerbaijan, to be a credible regional player it needs to find a way of getting its rapprochement with Armenia back on track without making any linkage to Nagorno-Karabakh given that it has been duly recognised that Ankara has no role to play in the solution of this conflict.  Turkey cannot be an honest broker, because it supports Azerbaijan’s arguments.  The most Turkey can do is to try to play an instrumental role in encouraging Russia, who it set to remain the key player in the region for sometime to come, to work harder for a lasting solution. 

Amanda Paul is an analyst at the European Policy Centre in Brussels. (a.paul@epc.eu). She contributed this op-ed to commonspace.eu

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
COP 17 in Armenia

COP 17 in Armenia

Armenia is currently hosting the COP17 conference of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which began earlier this week (19 October) and will run until 30 October, bringing around 15,000 participants from 196 different countries to Yerevan. At a leaders' summit held as part of COP17, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan expressed realistic ambitions: “We are halfway towards achieving these goals (Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made.” Pashinyan pointed towards Armenia's own records, noting that the whitefish stock in Lake Sevan has increased substantially in the last ten years. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze also addressed the summit, with Turkiye sending its agriculture minister. However, there were no reports of Azerbaijani representatives attending. The conference has given Yerevan a valuable international platform, yet the absence of Azerbaijan is likely to be read as a sign that the peace process in the South Caucasus has not yet been translated into wider regional cooperation. The leaders' summit was opened by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who stressed that hosting the conference was a great honour for Armenia. He expressed hope that it would 'be productive and contribute to protecting our planet's biodiversity'. 'We – the citizens of Armenia, the government, state authorities and local governments – owe a debt to our nature,' the prime minister said. He noted that the international community had already developed the concept of 'living in harmony with nature’ and adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, setting out goals and specific targets to be achieved by 2030. 'We are halfway towards achieving these goals, and we must honestly acknowledge that we are not yet moving in the right direction. Our task now is not to make new promises, but to fulfil the commitments we have already made,' Nikol Pashinyan said. The COP17 conference is expected to adopt a declaration at leaders' level. More than 30 documents are scheduled for discussion. If approved, the commitments set out in them will become legally binding on countries that are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.”
Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)