A STEP BACKWARDS?

- The media are increasingly inflating reports about the possible opening of the Turkish-Armenian frontier in exchange for the withdrawal of Yerevan's troops from a number of [Armenian-]occupied districts in Azerbaijan. The visit to Armenia by [Turkish Foreign Minister] Ahmet Davutoglu can in theory form part of a logical chain. What do you think about what has happened recently and about Turkey's role in the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict on the whole? Do you think the frontier is likely to be opened in these circumstances?

 -   The plan to open the Turkish-Armenian frontier is an American project. Washington wants to   make Armenia break away from Russia and join up with the West by means of Turkey. This is the explanation for the "Armenian initiative" which emerged a few years ago and the subsequent signing of the Armenian-Turkish protocols. Nevertheless, this initiative and these protocols could not be implemented owing to the Turkish people's categorical reaction to them. Now the Turkish authorities want to revive the process, most likely on the  insistence of the USA. They evidently want to force Turkey to make yet another concession to Armenia. The frontiers should not be opened unless the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict is completely resolved and Armenia renounces its claims to Azerbaijan's territories that it has occupied. This step should not be taken either until Armenia renounces its claims on Turkish territories and withdraws its accusations of "genocide". Naturally a dialogue and friendship with Armenia should be developed, but for this to happen, Armenia has to restrain itself from its aggressive policy towards Turkey and Azerbaijan. Besides this, I think it quite appropriate for Turkey to keep Baku regularly informed about what is going on. This will help to boost fraternal relations between the two countries.

- When you were living in Russia, you spent a long time studying the archives and published a series of extremely valuable books about events during the First World War and the so called "Armenian genocide". Can we expect more of this research?

- The Russian archives are packed with materials about the "Armenian issue". Consequently, there are sufficient documents to be disclosed and studied. I can even say that I have in my possession many more materials than I have published. In the first stage I shall publish the court's shorthand reports from the Tsar's Army in the Caucasus. It is clear from the reports of hundreds of the Tsar's generals and officers and also from the shorthand reports and verdicts of the Tsar's military courts that during the First World War the Armenian volunteer detachments massacred the Muslim population and looted people's possessions. These documents confirm that the policy of massacring and looting was carried out in a systematic manner. This is why many Armenian officers and soldiers were sentenced to death by military field courts. It is extremely important to note that this brutality and looting began long before the deportation of the Armenians. I am currently preparing more than 800 pages of documents for publication.

- When we talk about the "Armenian genocide", we should not forget that in 2015 the Armenian lobby world-wide is preparing to mark the centenary of these events and to obtain from everyone, and mainly from Turkey, recognition of these events as an act of genocide. What can Turkey do to stave off the global Armenian campaign and are the measures currently being taken sufficient?

- There are two aspects to this activity: a historical one and a political one. A more in-depth study of the history of this subject needs to be facilitated, publications need to be issued in different languages so that common platforms are created for discussions between the opposing sides. On the other hand, from the moment that it emerged to the present day, the Armenian issue has become a political tool in the hands of the Western powers for exerting pressure on Turkey. An important indicator of this is that, together with the academic studies, this issue is being discussed in the parliaments of different countries, followed by the adoption of the corresponding draft laws and laws. Consequently all this requires a political response. If a firm and independent foreign policy is not pursued, so that historical truth does not appear to be on your side, there is no means of proving that you are right. Now the revival of the "Armenian thaw", kick-started by the USA, is primarily a threat to Turkish foreign policy interests. Every concession to Armenia means ever stronger assertions relating to the so-called genocide.

 - What do have to say about the statements made by Turkish statesmen regarding your country's intentions to join the member-countries of or organizations like the ???ShOS or the Customs Union? Are they a method of playing a political game with the West or would Turkey really be able to become a member of the above-mentioned structures?

- Currently representatives of the American establishment are already recognizing that the economic centre of power has shifted from the Atlantic to the Asia-Pacific region. We are increasingly aware that the single-focus system is collapsing and moving in the direction of  Eurasia. This possibly might lead to the partitioning of Turkey within the framework of the "Greater Middle East" [New Middle East] project. Turkey's pro-Western policy is detrimental to its relations with its neighbours, the myth regarding the European Union is fast fading. From the point of view of national security, territorial integrity and the economy, Turkey needs to develop good relations with neighbouring and Eurasian states. This is why the idea of becoming part of Eurasia is rapidly gathering strength in Turkey. It is already impossible to halt this trend now. When they observe this, the ruling elite sometimes makes statements like that in order to keep this process under control or even to sabotage it.

- You are one of the few Turkish politicians who are familiar with Russia and Russian foreign policy. How would you describe Russia's policy in the region? How determined is the West's struggle for influence and what might the outcome ultimately be for the countries in the region?

During the time of Gorbachev and Yeltsin Russia found itself in a humiliating situation with regard to the West. It has got back on its feet during Putin's term in office and is going to considerably greater pains to protect its national interests now. It is precisely during this period that Russia has been gathering strength. But it is reluctant to occupy a definite position and has avoided taking certain steps. The war with Georgia in 2008 was a turning point. The period of reconciliation with the West gave way to bolder actions. The attitude to the Syrian issue and achievements in foreign policy uphold our arguments.

From a strategic point of view the USA is known to have its sights set on Central Asia for the purpose of taking control of the sources of energy and the delivery routes. The Caucasus has an important part to play here. Another of the USA's problems is how to get access to the Black Sea because that is the only zone where it does not have a presence.

Therefore there is a conflict of interests between Russia and the USA, in which the sides cannot come to a compromise. If it is to attain its strategic aims, Washington will have to get the upper hand over Moscow. But the USA is at a considerable disadvantage. This is the substantial difference between its ambitions and its possibilities. Moreover, the desire to keep the whole world under control means it has to come face to face with powerful forces. The interests of the whole of Eurasia, including Russia, China, Iran, Turkey and the countries of the Middle East are in contradiction to those of the USA. The American threat is making the countries of Eurasia band together in their actions. In these circumstances, if Russia is able to establish a partnership in which the countries of the region enjoy equal rights, both the region and Russia itself will benefit from it.