Last week there were active political events around several conflict-prone border areas of the Islamic world with non-Muslim countries, which can be considered together. First and foremost are Northern Cyprus, Karabakh, and Kashmir.
During a ceremonial visit, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan stated that a solution of the Cyprus problem based on a united Cyprus of two equal parts is no longer possible, and now the discussion can only be about its solution based on the principles of coexistence of two independent states — Turkish and Greek.
Ankara will seek the recognition of the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus by the international community, primarily by its allies. Azerbaijan and Pakistan have been mentioned as countries that could take such a step. As far as Pakistan is concerned, it has recently taken a step that suggests that such recognition is possible.
The three-day visit of a Pakistani consular group to the unrecognized republic, referred to in official documents as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is a step in the direction of such recognition. In general, this would not be so problematic for Pakistan, considering that it disputes the ownership of Kashmir by India, which is recognized by the majority of the international community. Turkish Cypriots and Kashmiri Muslims themselves face similar problems.
In the case of Northern Cyprus, the Turkish military intervention was in response to the repressive actions of the illegal military government of Greece and its supporters against the Turkish community in Cyprus and their plans to unite Cyprus within Greece, thereby eliminating its independent status, of which Turkey was one of the guarantors.
As for Kashmir, even if we consider that it belongs to India, it was recognized precisely in the status of autonomy, guaranteeing the rights of the local Muslims. However, in recent years, the Hindu nationalist government of India has not only abolished this autonomy, but has also consistently deprived the local Muslims of the rights they had under it. It has even gone so far as to ban Muslims from performing animal sacrifices during Eid al-Adha.
The situation in Azerbaijan, however, is fundamentally different. Its entire international legal position in the Karabakh conflict is based on the consistent defense of the principle of territorial integrity of states. That is why Azerbaijan was one of the countries that did not recognize the independence of Muslim Kosovo (from Serbia), which was recognized by the United States and the majority of European countries. The events around Karabakh this week confirm that Azerbaijan is trying to consolidate its positions based on the principle of recognizing internationally established borders and the territorial integrity of states within these borders.
This week, Ilham Aliyev met with Vladimir Putin and announced the existence of full understanding between Baku and Moscow. In addition, the results of the visit of the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, to Baku were positively evaluated, as he did not raise the issue of «status» and did not use the term «Nagorno-Karabakh», which is considered irrelevant in Azerbaijan, as there is only Karabakh and other regions in this country. In return, Ilham Aliyev once again offered Armenia to conclude a peace agreement in which the parties would recognize each other within internationally recognized borders, thus removing territorial claims against each other from the agenda.
This may seem to contradict Aliyev’s other statements about the historical lands of Azerbaijan in Zangazur and even the Erivan Khanate. But for the time being, the MGIMO graduate is playing a fairly balanced game on this issue. If Azerbaijan officially speaks about the historical ownership of these lands, Armenia continues to openly dispute even the legal and state ownership of the so-called «Nagorno-Karabakh». At the same time, Baku declares that it has no territorial claims on the internationally recognized borders of its neighbors and proposes to mutually establish this absence of claims through a peace treaty with Armenia. However, Armenia’s refusal to do so gives Azerbaijan grounds to make counterclaims on its territory, at least in the historical sense, but who knows what will happen in the future…
In this context, it is difficult to imagine Baku recognizing Turkish Northern Cyprus now, as this would seriously damage its international legal position and arguments. Such recognition can be imagined only in one case — if bridges between Baku and the European Union are burned, as the latter consistently insists on the unity of Cyprus. However, Azerbaijan is no longer in a position where its relations with the EU are a one-way game.
This is especially true with regard to the provocative actions of France, with whom Nikol Pashinyan recently met and whose ambassador to Armenia, Jonathan Lacote, once again raised the issue of the «status of Nagorno-Karabakh». Moreover, there were rumors that even the possibility of the presence of French troops in Armenia to guarantee the security of this failed state, whose president a year ago planned to challenge Turkey’s eastern territories, was discussed.
But if France continues to raise the issue of the «status of Nagorno-Karabakh», why can’t Azerbaijan think about the «status of Northern Cyprus»? In order to avoid this, Brussels and Berlin should silence Paris and clarify their position on Azerbaijan, which will also motivate Azerbaijan to have a clear position in its relations with the EU. However, the prospects of the EU as a whole are questionable in light of the upcoming presidential elections in France, where Marine Le Pen has a good chance of winning. She recently promised to divorce France from Germany and withdraw from the EU, similar to the UK after Brexit.
Therefore, it is likely that the focus will now be on tying knots and major players outlining their claims on various issues. In the same context, the Kremlin’s intensification of claims to the entire territory of Ukraine, statements that Ukrainians are Russians, and so on, should be considered. Most likely, each of these countries has its own scenarios of possible geopolitical moves — from confrontation to compromise (exchange).
And if we go back to the statements of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, he has repeatedly made very tough demands in practice, only to later suspend them within the framework of comprehensive negotiations and deals with counterparts. Northern Cyprus itself is part of the more complex problem of Turkey’s relations with the EU, which it has not yet abandoned its plans to join.
Therefore, the EU itself has to decide whether it wants Turkey’s integration, which would mean forcing the Greeks to accept a compromise solution on Cyprus, or whether it permanently rejects it, which would give Turkey and its allies the freedom to recognize Turkish Cyprus. However, it seems that for this to happen, the future of the EU itself must first be determined, as it is currently demonstrating an inability to make strategic geopolitical decisions.
In any case, the Muslims must strengthen their side of the border and work systematically to achieve their strategic goals under the conditions described.