Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Commentary

Analysis: Special and Strategic Relations - (2) Azerbaijan and Turkey: One nation, two states, separate chequebooks

28 October 2011

Special and Strategic Relations (2)

The relationship between Turkey and Azerbaijan has often been described as "strategic". More often it looked like one of convenience, but recently the partnership has become more equal and solid.

It was perhaps by coincidence, perhaps not, but whilst Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan was being feted in Moscow during his state visit to Russia this week, President Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan travelled to Izmir to participate in the first meeting of the High Level Strategic Council that Turkey and Azerbaijan agreed to establish earlier this year.

“Strategic” is a word used often to describe Turkish-Azerbaijani relations. The deep historical, cultural, linguistic and religious affinities between the two countries have often been underlined by politicians from both sides. Former Azerbaijan President Elchibey was a great believer in pan-Turanism, and his successor President Heidar Aliev, coined the term “One nation, two states” to describe the relationship. Both had expectations from the relationship with Turkey that were not fulfilled. Elchibey, a romantic, was disappointed. Heidar Aliev, a pragmatist, understood the limitations of the relationship and worked within them.

For the last two decades the relationship looked more like one of mutual convenience. Turkey benefited from access to Azerbaijani markets. It could rely on Azerbaijan for support on such issues as Cyprus. Azerbaijan benefited from some Turkish investment, from the use of Turkey as a transit route for its energy resources on their way to the world markets, and from a modest amount of military support and undefined promises of defence guarantees. Turkey also gave Azerbaijan moral and diplomatic support in its standoff with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, including by closing its land border with Armenia.

It was this issue that two years ago put the relationship between Azerbaijan and Turkey to its biggest test ever. When in 2009 Turkey, urged on by the whole international community, moved to normalise relations with Armenia, including by establishing diplomatic relations and opening the land border, Azerbaijan reacted sharply. The Turkish government was surprised and taken aback by the reaction, and to everybody’s surprised backtracked on its agreements with Armenia.

This was the moment Turkish-Azerbaijani relations entered a new stage.

For most of the last two decades Turkey acted as a patron to Azerbaijan, and the relationship was far from equal. Azerbaijan in 2011 is however a very different country from ten years ago. Buoyed by revenues from energy resources, it is now much more self-confident. Its election last week as a non -permanent member of the UN Security Council is justifiable described as a sign of the success of its foreign policy. The new Azerbaijan is no longer ready to be a junior partner in its relationship with Turkey.

It however must not itself now make the mistake of not appreciating the changes that are going on in Turkey. Turkey is also now a much more self-confident country then it was ten years ago. Its political texture has changed dramatically. It sees its role as that of a regional, in some ways even global, power. This new Turkey is demanding respect from its neighbours, regardless of whether they are Muslim, Turkic, European or whatever. Azerbaijan will have to manage its relations with Turkey very carefully if it wants to maintain the “strategic” element of the relationship.

The key is through economic co-operation. In many ways the economies of Azerbaijan and Turkey have now become complimentary. Azerbaijan has natural resources, excess financial liquidity and a huge amount of infrastructure that it needs building. Turkey has a skilled labour force, access to world markets and the need for investment for its growing economy. There is much that can be done to develop the economic co-operation between the two, and the meeting in Izmir was an indication that this work has now begun.

Azerbaijan has started investing seriously in the Turkish economy. In Izmir this week Turkey and Azerbaijan also signed 15 documents, including an agreement to sell gas to Turkey from the Shah Deniz-2 in 2017, and an agreement on transit of gas from Shah Deniz-2 to Turkey in 2017-2042 via the networks of Turkish Botas State Pipeline Company. The long awaited gas agreeements will consolidate Turkey’s position as an energy hub, and justify the construction of the Nabucco pipeline. These are all projects from which both countries can benefit.

Now that Azerbaijan is mature and affluent enough to get its own cheque book it is likely that its relations with Turkey, whilst not being without their problems, will actually be more fruitful, regardless of whether or not they are also called “strategic”.

source: This is the second article of a three part series on "special and strategic relations" in the South Caucasus and was prepared for commonspace.eu by the analytical team of LINKS. Opinion expressed does not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of the website. The third and final article in this feature will be published on Monday, 31 October.

read the first part of this feature: Armenia in the bosom of Mother Russia

photo: President Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan and Turkish Prime Minister recip Tayip Erdogan signing bilateral agreements in Izmir on 26 October 2011 (picture courtesy of the Press Service of the President of Azerbaijan

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut