Pope: Against Turkey, Beside Armenia – ANALYSIS
As a matter of fact, the statement is the Catholic Church’s interference in Turkish-Armenian relations. Despite the Pope represents a religious authority, and the Catholic Church has a serious power worldwide, the closure of the Turkish-Armenian borders is a secular problem. From a logical point of view, the Vatican leader’s one-sided interference in this process is inadmissible and absurd (despite the history of Vatican is full of thousands of such absurd facts about the Pope playing a political role). So is the magnificent welcoming ceremony for the leader of a state and a church that have recognized the so-called Armenian “genocide”…
The question is not about the Pope calling for the solution to a secular problem; it’s about the call being biased. Turkey closed the border with Armenia not only because of the invasion of Azerbaijani lands, but also because of the claims about the so-called Armenian “genocide”. Such a statement by the Pope runs quite contrary to the position of Turkey, because the head of the Catholic Church in fact supports the “reality” of the Turks committing genocide against the Armenians back in 1915 and by demanding the opening of the border clearly shows he does not accept Turkey’s position.
Another biased approach is related with the church’s attitude toward the events of 1915. As a country recognizing "genocide", Vatican drew a thick line on the principle “not politicians, but historians must assess these events” and supported Armenia in this issue. The statement by Pope Francis doesn't reflect sincere notes. His attitude would then be considered sincere as he took the same attitude toward Khojaly genocide, Srebrenica genocide. At the same time, Pope's words can be perceived sincere if he discloses main reasons for the closure of borders, before calling on to open the Turkish-Armenian border.
Is Pope's request to open the border with Armenia a means of putting pressure on Turkey? In fact, it is not, because Pope Francis is the representative of Argentina where the Armenian lobby has the most powerful position and head of the Vatican – that recognized so-called "Armenian genocide". Therefore, it would be more interesting if Pope didn’t touch on the issue of borders with Armenia. His statement “open the Turkish-Armenian borders" was expected, but the interesting part of the process is Ankara's attitude regarding this statement.
This attitude will reveal the true position of Turkey on issue of opening the border with Armenia. Ankara can react to this statement in three ways:
a) Tough stance – Turkey can officially re-announce the reasons for the closure of the border with Armenia and conditions for its opening, accuse Vatican of taking a biased position in this process.
b) Soft position – Turkey can announce that it is ready for the opening of border with Armenia, it has taken necessary steps in this regard, but they failed and hint at possible activities to be carried out for normalization of the relations with Armenia.
c) Indirect position – Ankara does not react to the Pope's statement. Instead, it can form public opinion like “There is serious pressure on Turkey” and by taking advantage of media try to justify the necessity of easing relations with Armenia on the eve of the 100-year anniversary of the so-called “Armenian Genocide”.
The demonstration of a tough stance is possible in the case that Turkey takes into account not only its own interests, but also the interests of Azerbaijan, its strategic ally. However, Turkey’s policy toward Armenia shows that a tough stance will not be taken regarding Pope's statement.
Soft position must mean for the Catholic Church, Armenia, Azerbaijan and domestic public opinion. If Ankara takes this position it will have the opportunity to maneuver between all parties (to please all).
The demonstration of an indirect position will show that Ankara is ready for major changes in the policy toward Armenia. From this perspective, after the Pope's statement, it is necessary to follow and monitor the position of media.
Vugar Masimoghlu, APA Analytical Center
Related news releases
- 18.05.2018PACE’s proposal to Samad Seyidov: ‘admit all and we will leave you alone” - ANALYSIS
- 05.02.2018Why solidarity with oppressed Kashmiris? - Article
- 15.01.2018Criteria for ‘Index of Sympathy for Americans’: Numbers of Muslims, refugees and IS militants - ANALYSIS
- 18.11.2017Such ill-mannered attitude towards Turkey ‘unacceptable’ - Azerbaijani MP
- 14.09.2017The Contract of the New Century: New opportunities to strengthen independence, political and economic stability
- 09.09.2017Azerbaijan newspaper: Obama-era stereotypes still exist in the US
- 07.09.2017Why did Israel choose Azerbaijan? - ANALYSIS
- 31.05.2017Political analyst: Trump’s letters indicate beginning of new period in US-Azerbaijan relations
- 13.03.2017Trace of "Armenian Connection" in Strasser fantasy
- 06.03.2017The Armenian Connection: How a secret caucus of MPs and NGOs, since 2012, created a network within PACE to hide violations of international law - ANALYSIS
- 19.09.2016Failed rallies that proved unworthy of being called ‘mass’ - ANALYSIS
- 24.08.2016Referendum Act: The Cabinet of Ministers could not change to locomotive of economic reforms – ANALYSE
- 24.06.2016Tseghakronism – fascist doctrine of Garegin Nzhdeh - ARTICLE
- 08.06.2016More people displaced than at any time since WW2- Global Peace Index
- 07.05.2016Sargsyan’s failed attempt of demarche against Kremlin - ANALYSIS
- 13.04.2016Helsinki Final Act – the main factor in breaking Karabakh deadlock - ANALYSIS
- 07.04.2016‘Four-day war’: Changed status quo, balance against Armenia
- 02.04.2016Azerbaijani president’s visit to Washington: Maximal use of all opportunities of essential platform for dialogue - ANALYSIS
- 11.02.2016Turkey and Israel: Rapprochement arising from mutual need - ANALYSIS
- 22.09.2015Russian military support to Syria: A second Afghanistan?
- 11.09.2015European Parliament “annexing” Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia - ANALYSIS
- 09.09.2015Europe’s migration policy: Is Schengen area regime being abolished? - ANALYSIS
- 26.08.2015Who benefits from Greece’s exit from Eurozone? - ANALYSIS
- 10.07.2015Representatives of Azerbaijani community in Nagorno-Karabakh will also address Chatham House, says FM
- 02.07.2015Expectations arising from a default in Greece - ANALYSIS
- 29.06.2015US legalizing ISIL de facto - ANALYSIS
- 22.06.2015Rebecca Vincent – problem of anti-Azerbaijani network - ANALYSIS
- 22.06.2015Western technologist’s lies proved by figures
- 18.06.2015Democracy and human rights lessons from totalitarian Poland under democracy guise - ANALYSIS
- 17.06.2015The Guardian and principles of journalism - ANALYSIS
- 10.06.2015National Endowment for Democracy - generator of coups and chaos - ANALYSIS
- 09.06.2015BBC: Anti-Azerbaijan campaign deriving from Islamaphobia
- 22.05.2015‘Good’ and ‘bad’ separatists classified by West, Azerbaijan’s right to change partners - ANALYSIS
- 27.04.201524 April: Who won? Who lost? - ANALYSIS
- 18.04.2015Human Rights Watch – joint organization of Soros and Obama - ANALYSIS
- 16.04.2015European Parliament’s resolution incapable of changing realities in the region - ANALYSIS
- 02.04.2015“Georgian expert card” against Georgia - ANALYSIS
- 13.02.2015Southern Gas Corridor: unique project of common interests to all parties - ANALYSIS
- 16.01.2015Azerbaijan-US relations: Tension after returning to bipolar world order - ANALYSIS
- 10.12.201421st member of G20: Azerbaijan - ANALYSIS
- 02.12.2014Panoramic notes (first part) – ANALYSIS
- 03.12.2014Panoramic notes (second part) - ANALYSIS
- 05.12.2014Putin's visit to Turkey: messages, offers, opportunities ... - Analysis
- 28.11.2014Conflicting interests of Turkey and Iran against background of Syrian crisis - ANALYSIS
- 24.11.2014Indirect diplomacy: Turkey’s plan of third border crossing point with Armenia - ANALYSIS
- 14.11.2014Downed Armenian helicopter consequence of Yerevan’s military-political provocation - ANALYSIS - PHOTOSESSION