How would you estimate territorial aspirations to Azerbaijan and Turkey said by Armenian president?
I think that, in some ways, what Sargsyan said about Nagorno Karabakh actually strengthened Azerbaijan's argument. He made it clear that Armenian support for the ethnic Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh was not about "rights" or "freedoms" but territorial acquisition, namely Armenia attempting to annex part of Azerbaijan. I understand why many people were angry but it was also effectively an admission of guilt; and reinforced what Azerbaijan has been saying all along.
I don't think anybody takes seriously any Armenian claims to Turkish territory. But what disturbed me was the way in which Sargsyan appeared to be suggesting that Armenia was trading the area around Mount Ararat for Nagorno Karabakh. First of all, Turkey and Azerbaijan are two separate, sovereign states. Just because Sargsyan believes that Armenia should have had some of what is now Turkey -- and there are agreements guaranteeing the border between Turkey and Armenia -- that does not give Armenia to steal territory from another state to compensate.
Erdogan said in Baku, that Sargsyan should apologize for his words. Is it real?
I think it is unrealistic to expect an apology and I think it was a mistake for Erdogan to demand one because it distracts from the main issue and makes it look as though the dispute is all about pride. It is not. The issue is respect for international agreements and internationally accepted principles. The focus should not be whether or not Sargsyan apologies for what he said. It should be Nagorno Karabakh.
Does this statement harm Turkish-Armenian normalization process?
Undoubtedly. I think it also demonstrates the incompetence of the Armenian government. Regardless of whether or not it should have been signed, I think there was a time after the agreement in Switzerland in October 2009 when Armenia could claimed that it was doing more to implement that agreement than Turkey, and that Ankara was the main obstacle to the
normalization of ties that so many countries - particularly the US - had been pushing for. Responsibility for the lack of progress began to shift after Sargsyan suspended the parliamentary ratification of the agreement with Turkey. After his most recent statement, and the underlying mentality it revealed, I think that the international community will be a lot more
sympathetic to Turkey's protests that the real obstacle to any normalization of ties is Armenia.
International mediators talk a lot about a need of trust measures between Armenia and its neighbors - Azerbaijan and Turkey. What are the prospects of reproaching process between them when one of the leaders makes such a statements?
In a word, zero. The irony is that Armenia was so pleased that it had managed to get the agreement in Switzerland without the normalization of ties being linked to Nagorno Karabakh, and now Sargsyan has linked ties with Turkey to Nagorno Karabakh by claiming that the Armenian occupation of Azeri territory is some kind of revenge. I hope that this spurs the international community into action. A solution is not going to happen if the international community steps backs and allows Sargsyan to continue thinking and speaking like this.
source news.az
