Published in The Armenian Mirror-Spectator By Sheila Paylan
At July’s NATO summit in Washington, Turkey took heat for its double game on the Ukraine war: President Recep Tayyip Erdogan clearly wants the 32-member alliance to not get too much in Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s way. The NATO leadership should be equally concerned about this prickly ally’s flirtation with another dictator: Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev.
Turkey’s relationship with Azerbaijan is at the heart of a web of contradictions that badly undermines the viability of Turkey as an ally of the West, but could be fixed in ways that would genuinely lead to progress in the region and recast Ankara as a good-faith player.
Since the Gaza war broke out, Turkey has been vehemently critical of Israel, presenting its position as moral and deploying the language of justice on behalf of the oppressed of the world. This effort to claim a mantle of righteousness is starkly contradicted by Turkey’s robust alliance with Azerbaijan — a country which is engaged in genuinely heinous actions against its neighbors and its own population (and which is also closely aligned with Israel, which seems to bother Turkey not at all).
Just a little over a week before the Hamas invasion of Israel, Azerbaijan carried out a massive ethnic cleansing of ethnic Armenians in the formerly self-governing republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is the historic heartland of the Armenians, the world’s oldest Christian civilization (dating back to 301).Azerbaijan had been starving the 120,000 people in the enclave for 10 months via a brutal blockade — an action that the
International Court of Justice ordered (repeatedly, in vain) be stopped. Luis Moreno Ocampo, the former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, called this a genocide (based on Article 2C of the United Nations’ Genocide Convention) — again to no avail. And in September 2023 Azerbaijan attacked, compelling the flight of the entire population within days, under the watchful eye of Azerbaijani troops, who also arrested Nagorno-Karabakh’s leadership. They are now being held hostage and subjected to sham trials. Azerbaijan has since busied itself with erasing any trace of the Armenians ever having been there.
Turkey, which calls Israel’s actions in Gaza a “genocide,” has armed a genocidally Armenophobic Azerbaijan and provided diplomatic cover throughout its actions. And, of course, it continues to steadfastly deny the Armenian Genocide by the Ottoman Empire, even though there is no dispute that about 1.5 million Armenians were killed over a few years beginning in 1915.
The Azerbaijani rampage in Nagorno-Karabakh is not the end of the matter. Azerbaijan’s Aliyev has repeatedly suggested he has designs on the territory of Armenia itself. The landlocked country of 3 million people may be small, but it is inconveniently situated for Azerbaijan’s desire for a land bridge to Turkey. It is a goal quietly shared by Turkey, since Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman ambitions would be served by direct access to Azerbaijan and other similarly Turkic nations beyond, in central Asia.
Thus can we expect Azerbaijan to eventually try to seize a slice of Armenia, through what it refers to as the “Zangezur corridor.” This would be intended to connect Azerbaijan with its exclave Nakhchivan via Armenia’s southern Syunik Province. If Azerbaijan attempted such a land grab, it would be doing this with weapons supplied by Turkey — from missile systems and armored vehicles to drones, electronic warfare systems, and anti-tank systems. One could even expect Turkey to provide Azerbaijan with Syrian mercenaries as it did during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War. It would be a blatant assault on the world order and the notion of territorial integrity.
Aliyev does all this while running what every global watchdog sees as one of the most oppressive regimes on earth (see this report from Freedom House).
How can Turkey, a member of NATO who at least theoretically wants close relations with (if not membership in) the European Union, possibly justify any of this?
Historically, Turkey’s foreign policy has been a complex web of strategic alliances and ideological posturing. Under Erdogan, Turkey has sought to become a dominant regional power by leveraging nationalist sentiments and historical grievances to consolidate strength domestically while pursuing an aggressively independent foreign policy (currently exemplified by a double game with Russia, which included efforts to delay and impede the accession to NATO of Finland and Sweden).
It’s an approach that has frequently put Turkey at odds with international norms and expectations. Part of that defiance has been the installation by Erdogan of a prototypical authoritarian democracy, with massive power being concentrated in the hands of the executive and with opponents — be they generals, judges or journalists — languishing in jail.
The result has been significant challenges, including economic instability, internal dissent, and strained relationships with Western allies. For Turkey to step back and address these inconsistencies would require a monumental shift in how it approaches its foreign policy.
It should begin by recognizing the Armenian Genocide, or at least stopping the denial of it. That would not only mend historical wounds but also restore some moral high ground. Additionally, if Turkey aspires to be taken seriously as a leader and a country with any semblance of moral authority, it must reconsider its close alliance with Azerbaijan. It must ask whether that alliance is built on mutual respect and shared values or merely on transient strategic needs that could expose it to valid criticism and diplomatic isolation.
A critical area where Turkey can demonstrate its commitment to a principled foreign policy is in its stance on the so-called “Zangezur Corridor.” If Turkey is to be seen as a responsible regional power, it must ensure that Azerbaijan does not resort to military aggression to carve out this corridor. Turkey should also actively move toward finally normalizing relations with Armenia and opening up a border crossing, regardless of Azerbaijan’s unwillingness to do the same.
Turkey’s role should be one of mediation and restraint, ensuring that any developments in this region are achieved through diplomatic means rather than force. The Erdogan regime must recognize that unwavering support for Azerbaijan’s aggressive ambitions undermines Turkey’s moral and strategic interests. By encouraging Azerbaijan to pursue peaceful negotiations and respecting Armenia’s territorial integrity, Turkey can take a significant step towards restoring its credibility.
Turkey has the potential to play a constructive role in the South Caucasus — but it may need some nudging in this direction. Ankara’s NATO allies should insist that Erdogan cease being an enabler of Aliyev’s aggression and instead use its influence to rein in one of the world’s worst-faith regimes.
(Sheila Paylan (@SheilaPaylan) is a human rights lawyer with more than 15 years of experience advising the United Nations. She regularly consults for a variety of international organizations, NGOs, think tanks, and governments. This opinion piece originally appeared in Newsweek online on July 24.)
