Tweet
FIASCO OF FOOTBALL DIPLOMACY: OUR OPPOSITION AND NATIONAL INTERESTS
Elshad Iskenderov
news.az
April 28 2010
Azerbaijan
Elshad Iskenderov News.Az reprints from AzerTAc an article by Elshad
Iskenderov, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference
youth forum.
Under the international protocol, a person who represents an
international organization cannot go into the political discussions of
the member-states of this organization, including his own country. I
have been trying to adhere to this practice throughout the activity
in the OIC Youth Forum. Even considering the fact that the basis of
diplomatic services are changing in the globalizing world: from time to
time an official of a regional organization (usually, western one) goes
into an internal political discussion of any state (a newly independent
state, as a rule). Therefore, the opinion fixed below, even if it is a
personal opinion of the author is an exception of the rule. The reason
for such an exception has become an extremely incorrect and absolutely
unprincipled happiness of some national oppositionists caused by the
latest episode of the soap opera in the Armenian-Turkish normalization,
placed on the background of Washington's decorations this time. Though
strange it may seem, but this joy turned out to be groundless with
the statement of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan who has, in fact,
signed under the failure both of the stage of the football diplomacy
and his mission in Washington. Let's start from the beginning. First,
let's see the reason for the joy. Due to Azerbaijan's nonparticipation
in the Washington nuclear summit, some opposition circles who missed
such grounds have developed the following quasi thesis: "...the
Azerbaijani leadership accepts the losing Madrid principles, at the
same time Washington applies sanctions by not inviting us for the
summit, Turkey rescues us, while official Baku contends itself with
the role of an observer". "So, does Karabakh belong to Azerbaijan or
Turkey?", asks a politician who has also become a blogger by results
of an imagined script either affected by geographical amnesia or
striving to please someone.
But not only the thesis itself filled with illogical equilibristic is
ridiculous but the very ton of admiration about the "foreign policy
failure" (as interpreted by the author of the thesis) of the state and
the intention to please foreign supporters. For professional purposes
I often visit most OIC countries and meet wide specter of community,
including those who oppose the authorities, including the countries
where opposition complaints about the insufficient area of wards
rather than the absence of the office in the center of city.
These are the countries where the opposition leaders do not change
their sponsors with the frequency of Paris coquettes changing her
umbrellas. But the opposition claiming for becoming the national
political power does not demonstrate such a masochist ecstasy if there
is a threat to national interests, demonstrating full incompetence
in such concepts as "political dividends" and "vital interests of
the nation". Now, about logics, that is the alogism of the thesis.
Alogism 1. Azerbaijan has entrusted the conflict settlement to Turkey.
Yes, the summit held in Washington is primarily an integral part of
Washington's policy for creating coalition against the Iranian nuclear
program. This is why, the leader of Turkey, a key regional player
and an important factor in the US strategy on Tehran's international
isolation, was invited to Washington. Turkey's position in the issue
of stiffening sanctions against Tehran is as known as Washington's
intention to change this position. Any methods are applied here
including the use of the "Armenian map" as a means of pressure
on Ankara,
Alogism 2. Sargsyan's participation in the summit is a foreign policy
success of Armenia.
Sargsyan was invited to Washington as a means of pressure on Turkey.
This is the real reason rather than the alleged acceptance of the
shooting of demonstration and political opponents characterizing the
current Yerevan regime by the United States as a proof of Armenia's
democracy. Meanwhile, Sargsyan taking the advantage of all means to
legitimate his authorities allows using himself as such a subsidiary
means. His confession proves the success he has gained in Washington.
Armenia that has been attempting to sow a discord in the
Azerbaijani-Turkish relations by its ambiguous statements throughout
the whole process of "football diplomacy", has confessed on the highest
level that Turkey is not ready to continue the initiated process and
move without preconditions (read-without guarantees of Yerevan's
prevention of aggressive policy). This confession along with the
freezing of the issue on recognition of genocide in the Congress is
a sad result of the Washington voyage of Sargsyan and the fiasco of
the Armenian policy (at least at the current stage) in the raising of
its geopolitical role and settlement of a vitally important issue of
opening of borders with Turkey without the resolution of the conflict
with Azerbaijan.
Alogism 3. Azerbaijan's nonparticipation in the Washington summit
proves the weakness of our positions in the resolution process.
On the other hand, some in Washington consider sincerely and others
by interest that the Armenian-Turkish normalization without binding
to the Karabakh process is a complete welfare. Unfortunately, I have
to note that the firm opinion developed on the shores of Potomaka
is that if the socioeconomic sufferings of the Armenian people are
relieved and it lives better on the Turkish grub, the aggressive
component of Sargsyan's regime will weaken, which will accelerate the
Karabakh conflict settlement. We should also not forget that Obama's
administration has come to power thanks to the wide support of the
Armenian lobby. Without having an opportunity to keep the promise to
recognize the "Armenian genocide" in frames of the real policy, the
White House has to maneuver and make concessions to the Armenian side.
But whatever is concealed behind this position-this is an American, not
Azerbaijani position. Therefore, considering its national interests,
the Azerbaijani leadership protests any double standards.
Unlike oppositional , theorists, the United States understands this
well, like they understand the determination of the Azerbaijani
president to defend the national interests of their country and
like they understand (including by results of firm invitations of
the Azerbaijani president for the Istanbul summit of the last year)
and the fact that no protocol encouragement can change Ilham Aliyev's
determination to defend these interests by any means.
The position of Azerbaijan's president is as follows: the
aforementioned concept does not only contradict to the national
interests of the country: it is completely erroneous and dangerous for
prospects of stability in the region. In addition, our point of view
is based not only on the subjective experience of being familiar with
the Armenian perfidy from the first source but also on the historical
experience. No policy of calming down has ever prevented the ambitions
of any aggressor. The classical Munich plot which is featured in all US
textbooks on international relations is a bright evidence not speaking
of the latest history with the Saddam aggression against Kuwait. Any
man of sense cannot be happy when the principles of international
law are violated along with the demonstration of double standards. A
person who calls himself a patriot cannot be happy with the threat
for the national interests of his own country and with the pressure
on the strategic ally of his country. Even if such a pressure serves
the interests of the political tactics of your sponsor.
Thus, who does the Karabakh land belong to?
Prime Minister of fraternal Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
demonstrated firmness both in the issue of genocide and impossibility
of the further promotion of the normalization process without
Armenia's demonstration of a good will in the Karabakh conflict. On
the first part everything is clear- it is impossible to accept the
historical memory imposed by the Armenian diaspora to Turkey with a
population of 70 million people. Principality in the Karabakh issue
is also not the result of the influence of the romantic Turkish soap
operas of the 80's on the Turkish premier. Turkey conducts pragmatic
foreign policy in such a sensitive region as South Caucasus and the
firmness demonstrated in Washington is a result of the year of hard and
delicate work, patient contacts of the Azerbaijani leadership which has
strengthened Ankara's position on the parallelism of the process of
the Armenian-Turkish normalization and the Karabakh settlement. This
have caused appeals from Erdogan to the Armenian side to follow the
spirit of the Zurich protocols which envision the Armenian-Turkish
normalization targeting the stabilization of the situation in the
South Caucasus and not turning into the tool of encouraging the
aggressor. Unfortunately, in this period, oppositionists who are
boasting about their contacts in Turkey, have not played any role
in this national work, contending themselves with cheap actions and
attempting to earn money on the difficulties of the sustained period.
Finally, the basic reason of the Turkish position was made public by
the Turkish premier in Washington: Azerbaijan is a strategic country
in the region and stability in the region is impossible without its
participation and observation of its interests. I think everyone has
guessed who has contributed to such an assessment to the growing role
of the country.
P.S. Sargsyan's confessions have shown that the stage of "football
diplomacy" has ended. Armenia has started transition from to the chess
game with Turkey, like Armenian political scientist Kirakosian said.
This is a new stage for all players in the region and primarily for
Azerbaijan. There will be many chess steps in our direction and this
is not only for the players but also for the fans to define their
sympathies, because the national interests of the Azerbaijani people
that will define our future for the long-term are at stake rather
than the momentous political ambitions.
Elshad Iskenderov is a Secretary General of the OIC youth forum,
an international organization affiliated with the Organization of
Islamic Conference. He finished the graduate school of the US Columbian
University by the specialty of international relations. He has a rank
of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Azerbaijan.
Elshad Iskenderov
news.az
April 28 2010
Azerbaijan
Elshad Iskenderov News.Az reprints from AzerTAc an article by Elshad
Iskenderov, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference
youth forum.
Under the international protocol, a person who represents an
international organization cannot go into the political discussions of
the member-states of this organization, including his own country. I
have been trying to adhere to this practice throughout the activity
in the OIC Youth Forum. Even considering the fact that the basis of
diplomatic services are changing in the globalizing world: from time to
time an official of a regional organization (usually, western one) goes
into an internal political discussion of any state (a newly independent
state, as a rule). Therefore, the opinion fixed below, even if it is a
personal opinion of the author is an exception of the rule. The reason
for such an exception has become an extremely incorrect and absolutely
unprincipled happiness of some national oppositionists caused by the
latest episode of the soap opera in the Armenian-Turkish normalization,
placed on the background of Washington's decorations this time. Though
strange it may seem, but this joy turned out to be groundless with
the statement of Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan who has, in fact,
signed under the failure both of the stage of the football diplomacy
and his mission in Washington. Let's start from the beginning. First,
let's see the reason for the joy. Due to Azerbaijan's nonparticipation
in the Washington nuclear summit, some opposition circles who missed
such grounds have developed the following quasi thesis: "...the
Azerbaijani leadership accepts the losing Madrid principles, at the
same time Washington applies sanctions by not inviting us for the
summit, Turkey rescues us, while official Baku contends itself with
the role of an observer". "So, does Karabakh belong to Azerbaijan or
Turkey?", asks a politician who has also become a blogger by results
of an imagined script either affected by geographical amnesia or
striving to please someone.
But not only the thesis itself filled with illogical equilibristic is
ridiculous but the very ton of admiration about the "foreign policy
failure" (as interpreted by the author of the thesis) of the state and
the intention to please foreign supporters. For professional purposes
I often visit most OIC countries and meet wide specter of community,
including those who oppose the authorities, including the countries
where opposition complaints about the insufficient area of wards
rather than the absence of the office in the center of city.
These are the countries where the opposition leaders do not change
their sponsors with the frequency of Paris coquettes changing her
umbrellas. But the opposition claiming for becoming the national
political power does not demonstrate such a masochist ecstasy if there
is a threat to national interests, demonstrating full incompetence
in such concepts as "political dividends" and "vital interests of
the nation". Now, about logics, that is the alogism of the thesis.
Alogism 1. Azerbaijan has entrusted the conflict settlement to Turkey.
Yes, the summit held in Washington is primarily an integral part of
Washington's policy for creating coalition against the Iranian nuclear
program. This is why, the leader of Turkey, a key regional player
and an important factor in the US strategy on Tehran's international
isolation, was invited to Washington. Turkey's position in the issue
of stiffening sanctions against Tehran is as known as Washington's
intention to change this position. Any methods are applied here
including the use of the "Armenian map" as a means of pressure
on Ankara,
Alogism 2. Sargsyan's participation in the summit is a foreign policy
success of Armenia.
Sargsyan was invited to Washington as a means of pressure on Turkey.
This is the real reason rather than the alleged acceptance of the
shooting of demonstration and political opponents characterizing the
current Yerevan regime by the United States as a proof of Armenia's
democracy. Meanwhile, Sargsyan taking the advantage of all means to
legitimate his authorities allows using himself as such a subsidiary
means. His confession proves the success he has gained in Washington.
Armenia that has been attempting to sow a discord in the
Azerbaijani-Turkish relations by its ambiguous statements throughout
the whole process of "football diplomacy", has confessed on the highest
level that Turkey is not ready to continue the initiated process and
move without preconditions (read-without guarantees of Yerevan's
prevention of aggressive policy). This confession along with the
freezing of the issue on recognition of genocide in the Congress is
a sad result of the Washington voyage of Sargsyan and the fiasco of
the Armenian policy (at least at the current stage) in the raising of
its geopolitical role and settlement of a vitally important issue of
opening of borders with Turkey without the resolution of the conflict
with Azerbaijan.
Alogism 3. Azerbaijan's nonparticipation in the Washington summit
proves the weakness of our positions in the resolution process.
On the other hand, some in Washington consider sincerely and others
by interest that the Armenian-Turkish normalization without binding
to the Karabakh process is a complete welfare. Unfortunately, I have
to note that the firm opinion developed on the shores of Potomaka
is that if the socioeconomic sufferings of the Armenian people are
relieved and it lives better on the Turkish grub, the aggressive
component of Sargsyan's regime will weaken, which will accelerate the
Karabakh conflict settlement. We should also not forget that Obama's
administration has come to power thanks to the wide support of the
Armenian lobby. Without having an opportunity to keep the promise to
recognize the "Armenian genocide" in frames of the real policy, the
White House has to maneuver and make concessions to the Armenian side.
But whatever is concealed behind this position-this is an American, not
Azerbaijani position. Therefore, considering its national interests,
the Azerbaijani leadership protests any double standards.
Unlike oppositional , theorists, the United States understands this
well, like they understand the determination of the Azerbaijani
president to defend the national interests of their country and
like they understand (including by results of firm invitations of
the Azerbaijani president for the Istanbul summit of the last year)
and the fact that no protocol encouragement can change Ilham Aliyev's
determination to defend these interests by any means.
The position of Azerbaijan's president is as follows: the
aforementioned concept does not only contradict to the national
interests of the country: it is completely erroneous and dangerous for
prospects of stability in the region. In addition, our point of view
is based not only on the subjective experience of being familiar with
the Armenian perfidy from the first source but also on the historical
experience. No policy of calming down has ever prevented the ambitions
of any aggressor. The classical Munich plot which is featured in all US
textbooks on international relations is a bright evidence not speaking
of the latest history with the Saddam aggression against Kuwait. Any
man of sense cannot be happy when the principles of international
law are violated along with the demonstration of double standards. A
person who calls himself a patriot cannot be happy with the threat
for the national interests of his own country and with the pressure
on the strategic ally of his country. Even if such a pressure serves
the interests of the political tactics of your sponsor.
Thus, who does the Karabakh land belong to?
Prime Minister of fraternal Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
demonstrated firmness both in the issue of genocide and impossibility
of the further promotion of the normalization process without
Armenia's demonstration of a good will in the Karabakh conflict. On
the first part everything is clear- it is impossible to accept the
historical memory imposed by the Armenian diaspora to Turkey with a
population of 70 million people. Principality in the Karabakh issue
is also not the result of the influence of the romantic Turkish soap
operas of the 80's on the Turkish premier. Turkey conducts pragmatic
foreign policy in such a sensitive region as South Caucasus and the
firmness demonstrated in Washington is a result of the year of hard and
delicate work, patient contacts of the Azerbaijani leadership which has
strengthened Ankara's position on the parallelism of the process of
the Armenian-Turkish normalization and the Karabakh settlement. This
have caused appeals from Erdogan to the Armenian side to follow the
spirit of the Zurich protocols which envision the Armenian-Turkish
normalization targeting the stabilization of the situation in the
South Caucasus and not turning into the tool of encouraging the
aggressor. Unfortunately, in this period, oppositionists who are
boasting about their contacts in Turkey, have not played any role
in this national work, contending themselves with cheap actions and
attempting to earn money on the difficulties of the sustained period.
Finally, the basic reason of the Turkish position was made public by
the Turkish premier in Washington: Azerbaijan is a strategic country
in the region and stability in the region is impossible without its
participation and observation of its interests. I think everyone has
guessed who has contributed to such an assessment to the growing role
of the country.
P.S. Sargsyan's confessions have shown that the stage of "football
diplomacy" has ended. Armenia has started transition from to the chess
game with Turkey, like Armenian political scientist Kirakosian said.
This is a new stage for all players in the region and primarily for
Azerbaijan. There will be many chess steps in our direction and this
is not only for the players but also for the fans to define their
sympathies, because the national interests of the Azerbaijani people
that will define our future for the long-term are at stake rather
than the momentous political ambitions.
Elshad Iskenderov is a Secretary General of the OIC youth forum,
an international organization affiliated with the Organization of
Islamic Conference. He finished the graduate school of the US Columbian
University by the specialty of international relations. He has a rank
of ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Azerbaijan.