United States, Turkey and the contradictions in Transcaucasia | information

The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has contours that show the United States with very little diplomatic activity in the tasks it is supposed to perform in its capacity as co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.

A verifiable assertion, given Washington’s conduct in avoiding including in the negotiations the point related to the deployment of an OSCE peacekeeping mission in Nagorno-Karabakh, considered by the United Nations (UN) as a territory occupied by Armenia.

Along with the development of events, after the November 2020 war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the region of Transcaucasia and Central Asia specifies a zone of influence in which Turkey wishes to predominate.

This will be a reality in the event that Washington’s foreign policy, after the inauguration of Joe Biden, denies or delays taking action to counter the policy led by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is supposed to be an ally of the United States and of NATO. (a) and today with the idea of ​​​​reintroducing the theory of strategic depth and that this will mean a qualitative weakening of the positions of the United States in the region (of them).

Caucasus view from space

Critics of both Erdogan and Joe Biden consider that the latter, with this immobility, favors the Turkish leader’s policy of spreading radical ideas among the population of Central Asia and the Transcaucasian region, particularly given the government’s refusal American to reconsider the idea of ​​maintaining a strategic partnership with Ankara.

Impediment, which has forced the government of Turkey as well as that of Azerbaijan to become extremely close to the American regime, which prevents the imposition of sanctions against officials and trade representatives of the two countries. A sign of Washington’s ambition not to lose influence in the area.

The analysis of opinions regarding the management of the conflict with Azerbaijan underlines that the current American administration “closes its eyes” to what it considers to be the mistakes of the Armenian leadership in terms of political, economic and military reforms, which for the world essential opposed to Nikol Pashinian (re-elected on June 20 in the legislative elections held in Armenia) are among the causes of his failure in the war waged by Nagorno-Karabakh against the Republic of Azerbaijan between July 12 and 16 2020. An American government that in turn has distanced itself from any investigation into the human costs of said conflict.

Perhaps the explanation for this indolence on the part of Washington is that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict shows that the alliance between Ankara and Baku has no intention of promoting American interests in the region and we know that when Washington is not the center of the party tends to return earlier or to demand political unconditionality, even if this is impossible.

The examination of various political analyzes of the events in the so-called Transcaucasia zone shows the very clear lack of initiatives by the United States (which in other regions means multiple actions), in terms of setting up a policy of sanctions or maneuvers of economic, military pressure concerning Turkey and its influence in the region of Transcaucasia.

Considering in this respect the enormous geopolitical and energy importance of the region, in terms of gas and oil exploitation, the passage of oil and gas pipelines and a fundamental element of the so-called New Silk Road, directed by the People’s Republic of China.

Washington, which has called itself and considers itself the international arbiter par excellence, has not put on the table for discussion any type of sanction policy against the countries that participate in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

The Europe of 28 notes with concern that Washington, with the behavior described, is inciting contradictions between this community of nations and Turkey, with the idea and the strategy, typical of a hegemonic power, of maintaining its own unconditional leadership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), including, through the tacit encouragement to pursue Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s aspirations to expand the Turkish sphere of influence within the borders and territories of the former ottoman empire.

(a) Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan met US President Joe Biden (behind closed doors) as part of the NATO summit held in Brussels on June 14. The polite words that are usually spoken in such meetings, made Erdogan declare that “Turkey and the United States have agreed to use the direct channels of dialogue effectively and regularly, as befits both allies and strategic partners… There is no problem that cannot be solved in the relations between Turkey and the United States… the areas of cooperation are broader and richer than the problem areas.”

(of them) Geopolitical doctrine developed by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, between 2009 and 2014, then Prime Minister until 2016, Ahmet Davutoglu. Considered the architect of the said doctrine which has presided over the new orientation of Turkish foreign policy since the arrival in government of the Justice and Development Party (AKP, a liberal-conservative Islamist) and its leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in 2003. According to him is underlined in a study on Davutoglu at https://www.cidob.org/biografias_lideres_politicos/europa/turquia/ahmet_davutoglu “A comparative researcher of the political theories of the West and Islam, this influential intellectual has forged Turkey’s “strategic depth” concept, which urges it to integrate cooperation and good neighborly relations with Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as with the Balkans and the South Caucasus, in its diplomatic priorities. Disenchantment with the EU and the regional leadership vacuum – evident among Sunni Muslims, with the eclipse of Egypt – are encouraging Ankara’s protagonism, which includes controversial changes, worrying for the American ally, such as rapprochement with Iran, dialogue with Palestinian Hamas and angry scrutiny of relations with Israel. A paradigm shift, often described as neo-Ottoman, which according to Davutoglu does not imply a questioning of the Western and European identity of this crossroads country.

Leave a Comment