FIRST LAND, THEN BORDER, THEN GAS

The Turkish Council of Ministers has decided to return to parliament the Armenian-Turkish protocols together with 166 international agreements that were not considered by the last parliament, the Turkish newspaper Takvim reports. In August, the Turkish parliament struck the Zurich protocols off the agenda. In an interview with R+, a deputy of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (parliament) from the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), Irfan Gunduz, reveals the reasons for the sudden return of these documents, and a number of other pressing foreign policy issues, to the Turkish government's agenda:

- The government and parliament of Turkey have clearly stated that the Armenian-Turkish protocols on the restoration of relations between Ankara and Yerevan do not meet the national interests of the Turkish people. What made the government return the protocols to parliament?

- There is one very important factor here. The whole story of the Armenian-Turkish protocols is backed by the European Union and the United States. Remember, the idea of restoring Armenian-Turkish relations emerged shortly after the Russian-Georgian war of 2008. During the fighting in Georgia, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline did not operate. The August war demonstrated how risky it is to have only one route for the transit of Caspian energy to Europe. Apparently, the West decided to create a second route, thus increasing the assurances of uninterrupted supply. And Armenian territory was seen as a possible alternative. For obvious reasons, oil exports via Iran and Russia are not acceptable to the West, while exports of Caspian oil through Armenia would require a restoration of Yerevan's relations with Ankara and Baku. The Turkish government joined this game and did what the Turkish people had expected - made ratification of the protocols conditional on the liberation of Azerbaijani territories. Brussels and Washington understand that for Azerbaijani and Kazakh oil and Azerbaijani and Turkmen gas to go along the proposed new route, maybe Baku-Yerevan-Ceyhan, Azerbaijani lands must be liberated. Turkey is entirely ready for Ceyhan to join this project, and it is up to the West to make it clear to Armenia that liberation of Azerbaijani lands is in the strategic interests of the EU and the USA. All future processes associated with the protocols will follow this scenario. The Turkish rhetoric is that if you want alternative supplies, then have Nagorno-Karabakh liberated and we will ratify the protocols. In this case, the position of the government of Azerbaijan and Turkey is advantageous. The return of the protocols to parliament should not bother Azerbaijan - ratification will not happen without the liberation of Nagornyy Karabakh from Armenian occupation. The border with Armenia will not open.

- Turkey's foreign policy has been experiencing some critical moments of late. Particularly dangerous has been the stand-off with Israel. Is there a hypothetical threat of a military conflict?

- The entire responsibility for the tension in our relations lies with the Israeli government. There is no justification for the actions of the Israeli special forces who attacked the citizens of 31 countries on board the Mavi Marmara ship, which was loaded with humanitarian aid, and killed nine Turkish citizens. It is this illegal and irresponsible act that led to the confrontation. Given the experience of previous years, Ankara has managed to use purely diplomatic means to show the world that the Israeli leadership has committed a crime. Israel was left alone for the first time. Even the USA is not interested in rescuing Israel from the political morass its leaders have got it into. In any case, Turkey will emerge victorious from this incident. Just as the truth is on the side of Azerbaijan in the Karabakh issue, it is on our side in the Mavi Marmara incident.

- No less dangerous is the situation in the Mediterranean Sea. In response to the plans of Greek Cyprus to look for oil in the sea, Turkish survey vessels, accompanied by naval ships, have begun their own oil exploration. In fact, Turkey has expressed its readiness to use force if it is hampered. Is there a threat of an armed conflict in this case?

- The Greek Cypriots, taking advantage of the tension with Israel, have decided to put some pressure on Turkey. But Turkey is strong enough to withstand the pressure of external forces. Turkey will conduct oil exploration in the Mediterranean. I do not think that there will be any armed incidents there. An armed incident with Israel is also ruled out.

- The decision has practically been made to station NATO missile defence systems in Turkey. Ankara has declared the principle of "zero problems with neighbours". But won't Turkey have problems with Russia or Iran in this context?

- The decision to deploy a "missile shield" and radars was taken collectively by NATO members. This system is defensive in nature and aimed at ensuring security in the region. This system does not threaten the security of non-NATO countries. Therefore, I think there will be no problems in relations with Moscow or Tehran.

P.S. Just as this issue of the magazine went to print, the head of the commission on national security and foreign policy of the Iranian parliament, Mohammed Kavshari, said in an interview with the Tehran Times that Turkey's consent to the deployment of radars is a "big strategic blunder". He accused Turkey of conducting a "policy of double standards" and said this decision will cause the "Islamic government of Turkey big problems".