By Armen Gevorgyan

The other day the Azerbaijani ANS TV Channel broadcast a rather strange and hardly trustworthy statement made by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. He allegedly stated that in his talks with the Russian and U.S. Presidents he called on them to have the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settled, which would allow the Armenian-Turkish problem to be resolved.

“From the very beginning we have been saying to U.S. representatives: if you have the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settled, you will thereby get the Armenian-Turkish problem resolved. I plainly stated this opinion to Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev, and both of them answered: ‘We will speed up the process,’” the Turkish Premier stated as quoted by the ANS TV Channel.

Well, if the report is at least 50% true (which is substantial progress), the Turkish Premier can be said to have made a rather bold step on the threshold of his meeting with U.S. President Brack Obama.

Thus, Turkey has started dictating the rules of the game in the Near East and South Caucasus to the United States and Russia, applying the following methods:

1. Blackmailing the United States by supporting Iran and by taking advantage of its own conflict with Israel;
2. Bribing Russia by providing transit corridors bypassing Ukraine and Georgia;
3. Blockading Armenia, which makes the development of the region and implementation of most important projects impossible.

Thus blackmail, bribery and blockade remain the principal means of Turkish foreign policy. But, as Mr. Otto von Bismarck would say, politics is the art of the possible, and each nation has its own conception of art and culture. For example, the Turks, who are seeking EU membership and feel indignant at the antidemocratic referendum in Switzerland, which banned the construction of minarets, consider demolishing churches, blockading the neighboring country and denying the Genocide of an entire people part of their culture and art, that is, a constituent part and distinctive feature of their mentality. This, however, does not change the situation. Since the Armenian-Turkish dialogue, at least its “publicly available” phase, got under way, each Armenian, both in Armenia and in the Armenian Diaspora, hashad an inner feeling that the Turkish will play a trick.

The risk of dealing with Turkey and getting a stab in the back on Turkey’s part while dealing with Azerbaijan or vice versa, on Azerbaijan’s part while dealing with Turkey – it is political, historical and geographical reality for each Armenian.

So how, under the circumstances, can Armenia and the Armenian people work out and develop their positions on the two potentially dangerous directions – Azerbaijan and Turkey? It should be noted that, although the Turkish Premier linked the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with the Armenian-Turkish relations, he did not specify what kind of solution he expects from Russia and the United States – one can guess, though. To be frank, Recep Erdogan would not object to Armenia’s capitulation and to an end to the Armenian factor in the region. Nothing has changed in this respect since the time of Sultan Abdülhamid II.

In this context, a strong Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora’s political potential remain the Armenian side’s most important resource, most crucial element of national security and a chance of retaining statehood and national identity.

The army versus Azerbaijan and the Diaspora versus Turkey – this is the strategic “pin” which, if weakened, may have disastrous consequences for the Armenian people. Preventing the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process from being linked to the Armenian-Turkish relations is a vital strategic task of Armenia’s foreign policy.

It is no mere coincidence that the Turkish Premier delivers a blow on this strategic task. Earlier he attempted a public blow on the other, much more important, component of the Armenian national security, namely, the Armenia-Diaspora cooperation. His phrase “Armenia does not need the Diaspora – it is only to her detriment” can be defined as nothing but an act of sabotage against Armenia’s national security. Thus the Turkish Premier feels the important aspects of Armenia’s security at a “genetic level,” using them as “point targets.”

In this respect the Armenia-Diaspora disagreements over the Armenian-Turkish protocols for Recep Erdogan are like a sight for sore eyes. Moreover, the Diaspora’s uncompromising position on the reopening of the Armenian-Turkish border is nothing but a mirror image of Azerbaijan’s position. And the Diaspora’s uncompromising position is unacceptable for Armenia. The Diaspora, instead of ruling out any possibility of dialogue with Turkey, could have welcomed the possible reopening of the Armenian-Turkish border and establishment of bilateral diplomatic relations provided Turkey did not interfere in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process and, in the other hand, admit the Armenian Genocide.

Thus, under the circumstances, Armenia and the Diaspora could oppose Azerbaijan and Turkey, applying the following logic:

1. An Armenian-Turkish dialogue with the Diaspora’s strong but covert support in the struggle for international recognition of the Armenian Genocide;
2. A hard line in the negotiations with Azerbaijan, with the Diaspora’s strong and overt support for Nagorno-Karabakh;
3. Breaking off the negotiations with Turkey if that state delays the ratification of the protocols and threatening with pulling out of the talks if Turkish statesmen, especially Recept Erdogan, continue practicing blackmail, as it is an immediate threat to Armenia’s national security;
4. Claims against Turkey lodged by the Armenian Diaspora, as well as by relevant Armenian organizations, for the destruction of Armenian cultural heritage and ban on the installation of crosses on churches;
5. Demands on the part of individual citizens of different countries for the Armenian-Turkish intergovernmental commission to put the Armenian side’s territorial and material claims on its agenda.
6. Creating conditions for Nagorno-Karabakh, as an international entity, to intensify its foreign policy.
7. Immediately linking the terms of determining Nagorno-Karabakh’s independent status to any change in the status quo in the conflict zone.

Much of the above may seem too aggressive or hardly feasible. However, the aggressive statements by Ilham Aliyev and Recept Erdogan do not allow a soft line to be followed: “The war is going on,” Aliyev says — “The Blockade will go on,” says Erdogan. And it would be a fatal blunder to ignore their stance.