Armenia-Turkey Protocols will become the matter of the various discussions and forecasts also after being signed in Zurich October 10. Commenting on the problem, political analyst Emre Uslu draws attention at TV debates of four Turkish politicians, two of them are liberals and the rest nationalists.

Nationalists claim that Protocols are “a major failure for Turkish diplomacy,” bringing the signing ceremony as an argument.

“What they were arguing was that the photograph, which shows the Turkish foreign minister and the Armenian foreign minister signing the protocols while right behind them the US, Russian, and French foreign ministers were standing, gives you an impression that these protocols were signed under the pressure of superpowers; therefore, the protocols do not serve Turkey's national interest.,” the author says.

NEWS.am issues the full text published in Zaman daily below:

“I have been hearing such arguments from various segments' nationalists; however, similar arguments that resonate from the two influential neo-nationalist figures give me an impression that diplomats in the Turkish Foreign Ministry, although putting forth superb work on signing protocols, failed to find a way to manage public diplomacy inside Turkey.

For instance it was Turkish diplomats' idea to invite member of the Minsk Group, i.e., the US, Russia and France, to the signing ceremony to relate the Karabakh issue to the protocols. Armenians initially opposed inviting the US, Russia and France to the ceremony to avoid giving the impression that the protocols signed between Turkey and Armenia were being linked to the Karabakh dispute. Yet it was a success that Turkish diplomats managed to invite members of the Minsk Group to the signing ceremony; however, this success of Turkish diplomacy is not going against the policy of the Turkish Foreign Ministry. Thus I suggest that Turkish diplomats should find a way to deal with the lunatics, including well-educated lunatics and nationalists who have no capacity to understand what is going on in foreign policy.

The second argument that has been circulated among nationalist circles is what if the international community put pressure on Turkey without putting pressure on Armenia to solve the Karabakh dispute to ratify the protocols. Given that concerning the Cyprus problem, the international community, especially the EU, without keeping its promises to stop the isolation of Northern Cyprus, has been increasing its pressure on Turkey to open its ports to ships that carry Greek Cypriot flags, saying such a scenario could be possible. However, Turkish diplomacy once again fails to convince the Turkish public that the Cyprus problem and the problem in Karabakh are two separate problems and that such a comparison has no merit.

In Cyprus, the international community considers Turkey an invader who tries to take advantage of international politics for its national gain; however, concerning the Karabakh issue it is the Armenians who are considered an invader that needs to cooperate with the international community. Thus in a case where the international community decides to put pressure on Turkey to ratify the signed protocols, Turkey would have power to say that it is the Armenians who invaded the Azeri lands; therefore, we are expecting its cooperation with international community, i.e., the Minsk Group to find a solution for the Karabakh dispute first.

Related to the second argument some argue that the powerful Armenian Diaspora could use its influence over states like the US, Russia and France to put pressure on Turkey to ratify the protocols before finding a solution to Karabakh, thereby aiming to separate Azerbaijan-Turkey alliances against Armenia. To counter this argument one could suggest that it is the Armenian Diaspora who vehemently opposes the protocol; therefore, it would be illogical to expect the Diaspora to change its position. More importantly the power of the Diaspora comes from the victimization argument that has been developed against the Turkish state since the early 1920s.

However, concerning the Karabakh issue it is the Armenians who victimized Azeri civilians when they invaded Azeri lands. For this very reason, the Armenian Diaspora has a tendency to avoid being involved in the Karabakh dispute to mount pressure on foreign powers.

All in all, despite their shortcomings in managing the political debates more positively, Turkish diplomats have successfully carved out two protocols that give a huge advantage to Turkish and Azeri causes. Yet success of implementation of the protocols depends on how and in what direction the international developments will evolve in the near future. Given that there are too many unknowns in the region, i.e., whether Iran will cooperate with the international community to terminate its Uranium enrichment program, whether Russia will continue to support Iran, how the energy policies would change the attitudes of international players, it could be a wise policy for Turkish diplomacy to apply pressure on the Minsk Group to finalize the Karabakh disputes sooner than later. The sooner the Karabakh dispute is solved the better it is for Turkey to collect the fruits of the protocols. If the Karabakh disputes continue, the protocols could be a major headache for Turkey as well…”