TURKEY :EXPANSIONIST?

[khodja]

Do Azerbaijan and Turkey have designs on the territory of Republic of Armenia? Recent rumblings in Azerbaijan claiming that historical Azerbaijan covered the territory of present day Armenia makes one wonder. Armenia is just a speck of land in a vast Turkish sea of Turkey, Azerbaijan and the Central Asian Turkic Republics. Turkey invaded Cyprus. Azerbaijan had it's chance to treat the Azeri Armenian with repect as a minority and failed miserably. (remember Sumgait?) There is no insurance that they wont treat Armenians under their control poorly again should they ever regain Karabagh. All their propaganda about Karabagh does not bring into question their treatment of the Armenians in Azerbaijan.

[Juggernaut]

It is no secret, that Turkey is seeking to become the leader of 'Turkic' nations and unite them into a single entity. The trouble is the Central Asian countries are not interested.

[khodja]

Ali,

 

Thank you for the dialogue.

Any student of history will soon realize that the Greeks are no angels when it comes to how they treat subject peoples. The Byzantines destroyed their eastern flank by perpetually disrupting the social fabric of the Armenian provinces under their control. Demonizing Turkey, while whitewashing the past activities of the Greeks and other Western Christians is revisionism as any statement that there was no Genocide.

[aurguplu]

khodja, jug,

 

in analysing turkey, one should not make the mistake of generalisation. in fact, this is true of analysing any society, organisation or group.

 

there are, to be sure, some turks in every aspect of turkey, who would like to see everything armenian evaporate. they are fortunately neither representative of turkey nor very powerful inside it.

 

the foreign policy of turkey is dictated by the following principles:

 

1. peace at home, peace in the world. turkey does not (officially) have an expansionist policy.

 

2. capability: why does the dog lick its balls? 'cause it can! turkey is a medium-sized power, politically, financially and militarily dependent on western aid. you cannot use arms given by someone else to do something that that someone strongly disapproves of, or you risk losing your arms supply (or worse). as we say in turkish "you cannot have intercourse with a woman with someone else's penis".

 

cyprus: in my opinion, turkey was right to intervene in 1974 to stop the turks getting massacred by the greeks (which they were), but was wrong when it separated the island into two by the declaration of the TRNC in 1981? 83? (dates may be wrong). turkey (or rather the military) had several objectives there, i think: 1) to deny the greeks the possibility to arm the island for a potential offensive against southern turkey, 2) to make turkish accession into the european union as difficult as possible, 3) to give concessions to the extreme right and canalise their energies elsewhere, 4) to create a state that no-one recognises so that it can be used for all sorts of money, laundering, smuggling, trafficking purposes (the south does that, too).

 

karabagh: right now armenia occupies 20% of azerbaijan that is not karabagh, in the name of building a "corridor" of land to karabagh proper. there armenia is clearly the aggressor and is recognised as such, but of course the world recognises that armenians have a legitimate reason to believe they cannot live together with the azeris. i believe most people realise that karabagh itself is gone and that is not necessarily a bad thing. what they want back is the non-karabagh parts of azerbaijan. this we will see.

 

as for the presence of the grey wolves in azerbaijan, it was more like a move to divert their energies from inside turkey than anything else.

 

and as for a "grand turkic empire from anatolia to china", this was always a more romantic than practical approach, and now is a dead issue.

 

bottom line: turkey does not have an expansion policy, but a lot of fractions at home which want to see turkey get into trouble internationally so that it reains weak so that they can exploit it with ease.

 

hope this has helped a bit.

 

cheers,

[wh00t]

Ali, the "20%" figure you argue is inflated. Please see http://groong.com/ro/ro-19970917.html for more detail.

[aurguplu]

khodja,

i agree with you 100%. the thing is, the greeks are - by dint of classical history - a most inseparable part of european history, and therefore they get the sympathy of the latter. also, they have been subjects of the ottomans for so long, which also contributes to that symphathy. also, the things they did to the armenians (and other christians, e.g. the egyptians) are so far remote in history that people tend to forget. even armenians do that! also, the fact that the muslim turks are perceived as the common enemy helps them to iron out "past differences".

but of course, history is there to stay.

i wonder how the perceptions of armenians will change once turkey comes clean with the genocide, and these karabagh etc. problems are sorted out, i.e. when we will clearly have ceased to be the "enemy".

cheers,

[khodja]

Ali,

 

Your analysis is precise. The two factors which keep the Armenians and Turks at each other's throats are the Genocide and Karabagh issues. As long as the geopolitical situation remains as it is, past history will (Re: Greeks, Western Christians) be ignored. It no wonder that some Armenians go berserk when I claim that we Armenians have some Hebrew and Mongol blood. With Turkey and Israel viewed as enemies such talk is anathema. (Realize that Armenian propaganda is fueled by the myth that Turks are Mongol savages, while Arabized Armenians buy into demonizing Israel). The history of the Christian West is peppered with many instances of brutality. The Roman Church history is filled with the spilling of human blood, Islamic, Jewish and Christian. Armenian clerics do not discuss these things. Discussing all this killing in the name of Jesus would not bode well for the maintaining loyalty of their "flock."

As I have stated before, it is the Turkish government which has to decide whether it wants the Armenians within their sphere of influence again, At present, it has created a situation which places the Armenians in the Russian and Iranian spheres of influence. Denying the deeds of the Young Turk leaders or ignoring the miserable tratment of Azeri Armenians which led to the secession of Karabagh will keep the Armenians in the Russian and Iranian camps.