Ambassador of Turkey to Georgia on World Order & Turkey-Georgia Relations
Interview
The Georgian Institute for Security Policy (GISP) sat down with the Ambassador of Turkey to Georgia, Her Excellency Fatma Ceren Yazgan, to discuss the dynamics of the relationship between the two countries. First, we asked for her assessment on the latest events that took place in Idlib.
“At this point, I can only tell you certain facts: On the night of 27 February, a Turkish military convoy deployed to reinforce a Turkish observation post, as well as some fortifications, were deliberately targeted in the vicinity of the Balyun village of the Jabal Zawiyah region, south of the Idlib de-escalation area. We lost 33 soldiers as a result of a series of airstrikes. Our losses since early February have reached 45. We have not identified the nationality of the aircrafts which struck our convoy and bases. The radar tracks demonstrate that the regime and Russian aircrafts were in formation flight.
“Turkey is committed to the territorial integrity and political unity of Syria. Turkey will do its utmost to contribute to restoring Syria’s territorial integrity and political unity once the Syrian-led and Syrian-owned, UN-facilitated political process establishes a credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance.”
We next asked the Ambassador about the speech that her Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Cavusoglu, delivered at the Davos Forum. It is no news that Turkey has been a strong proponent of Georgia becoming a NATO member, nevertheless the added twist was pointing the finger at the reluctance of Western allies to, so to say, accept Georgia into the flock, out of fear of “not provoking Russia”. He said – “I do not know why are we not inviting Georgia as a member of the Alliance”. We asked if she had the answer to that question, or could suggest why it has not happened yet.
“I think you should ask that question in Brussels,” the Ambassador told us. “Because ‘it is not happening’ in Brussels. My being here and me being closer to Georgian developments as an observer, does not necessarily make me more knowledgeable about why Georgia has not yet been invited as a full member. Let us look at the bigger picture. In this era of international relations, where things previously unforeseeable and unthinkable are happening all the time, the way the states manage their own interests and their allies’ interests, has become quite unpredictable. We have a crisis in Iraq, we have a huge crisis in Syria, we have a crisis in Ukraine, where Crimea has been illegally annexed, and the Black Sea region has not become a more secure space either. The world that we thought we were going to have in the 1990s is simply not here. Far from it: we have less stability, less security and we have less predictability. And all this is a source of concern for Turkey. As for Georgia, it is a neighbor that we have very stable and predictable relations with, and I must underline that among all its neighbors, Turkey is the only country with which Georgia has a clearly demarked and recognized border, and the society of Georgia, its government and opposition, all agree in favor of NATO membership. Plus, Georgia has contributed to NATO. We can discuss whether Georgia’s capabilities can be enhanced, whether there are any deficiencies in terms of security that need to be improved, but there is no denying Georgia’s contribution and its determination as to where it wants to be. That’s why we argue that Georgia needs to be given a clear MAP and that is what Minister Cavusoglu yet again reiterated at Davos. And it was also our response against baseless allegations that we are not ‘dependable allies’ for the so-called West, made in the context of our relations with Russia.”
We asked her to elaborate on the nature of this relationship, noting Georgia’s sense of alarm that while relations between Turkey and the US seem more complicated than before, a better relationship and understanding between Moscow and Ankara might spell trouble for us.
“First off, about the US and Turkey relationship: while it might seem under stress presently, it has nothing to do with Georgia and we intend to keep it that way. Georgia is not a part of that equation. Whatever our differences might be, on Georgia, both the US and Turkey have a very stable, static convergence of interests: we both want to see a stable, secure and prosperous Georgia. Both Washington and Ankara strongly support the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Georgia. So if the concern is that Turkish and American, or even Turkish and Russian relations might impact Georgia, let me ask: why should it? For its entire existence, which spans more than two thousand years, Georgia has been able to balance and navigate between the different powerful actors in the region. Whenever finding this balance was no longer a possibility, problems would start for the Georgian state. This need to balance has not changed, it’s still here: we today have a multipolar, inconsistent world order.”
We asked: And in that world of ever-shifting alliances and allegiances, does Georgia have to worry that the Turkish-Russian relationship might have some influence on Turkey’s continual support towards Georgia?
“Of course not. This is exactly what my minister said: we are working with Russia, as any country does. Not more, not less. When other NATO allies work on a relationship with Russia, it doesn’t seem to be a problem. So why are we singled out? A weak, isolated Turkey, that is considered unreliable, whose interest is that in? Certainly not in Georgia’s interests. Turkish behavioral patterns, unlike many of our Western allies, are very easy to read. For us, our land is sacred. We won’t leave an inch of our land unprotected, that is unthinkable. Territorial integrity for us is a sacred concept. And we pursue our interests through diplomacy. We won’t instigate anything, we only answer if we are provoked. And I think it’s the same approach for Georgia. Georgia should not feel alone in this. And I think that was very well conveyed in the Minister’s speech. Do not think that nobody will help you: if Georgia needs it, there will be an alliance, there will be partners, there will be neighbors who will come to your aid. But diplomacy comes first and that is why with Russia we will always try to have dialogue. We need to persuade our Russian friends that, in the long run, it is beneficial for all of us to have stability here, instead of conflicts.”
We enquired as to whether the Ambassador thought that the visions of Russia and Turkey, when it comes to stability in this region, matched each other?
“Our job, through diplomacy, is to make sure that they proximate. We cannot achieve full proximity of interests between different nations, it’s near impossible, but the mastery of diplomacy lies in finding some sort of mutual vision. The ultimate goal of diplomacy in international relations is to avoid conflicts and find common denominators, and that is what we are striving to do. But we are principled in our position. For example, we do not discuss the issue of Georgia’s territorial integrity with Russia because our visions are so conflicting on that issue. We have a very clear-cut vision on Georgia’s territorial integrity and that is not going to change, it is not a subject of discussion or compromise.”
Does saying Georgia should be a member of NATO not at least indirectly affect Russian-Turkish relations? we wonder. With the Turkish Minister pointing at Western allies, saying they’re concerned about “provoking Russia” with potential membership for Georgia, why, we ask, is Turkey is not concerned about the same thing?
“Because we do not believe that is a factor in that decision,” the Abassador answers. “Provoking what? NATO membership, per se, has never been designed to threaten a third party. Basically, what we’re saying is that we are not a country that is blocking or preventing Georgia from becoming a NATO member, quite the contrary. Our position is that this decision is not related to our relationship with Russia in other areas. The same goes for the Crimea issue.”
We next ask her what the impact was of the Minister’s statement. As welcome as such a vocal expression of support is, what practical progress can be expected from it?
“I think the impact should be a discussion in Georgia. I will not give you a very diplomatic answer about this. A diplomatic answer should have been something like this: Oh, we will discuss it further in Brussels. I think we owe it to Georgia, as a good neighbor, to say it in a plainer and more honest way: There should be a discussion in Georgia regarding what to actually expect from NATO. People have to understand that entering NATO should not be a goal by itself: the goal for Georgia should be providing and acquiring more security.”
By Vazha Tavberidze
Iage source: hurriyet.com.tr