Turkey could play positive role in normalizing Armenia-Azerbaijan relations by leveraging close ties with Azerbaijan, says MEP

Nacho Sánchez Amor, the European Parliament's Standing Rapporteur for Turkey, believes that “Turkey could play a positive role in the process of normalizing relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.”

According to him, Turkey can do this by leveraging its close relationship with Azerbaijan.

In an interview with an Armenpress correspondent in Brussels, MEP and rapporteur on Turkey Nacho Sánchez Amor discussed the European Parliament's latest report on Turkey, EU–Turkey relations, the new political situation in Turkey following the self-dissolution of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, and the pressure on political opponents by the Turkish authorities.

– Your recent report on Turkey focused on the importance of regional peace. Given Parliament’s call for a balanced and rights-based EU engagement in the South Caucasus, what role can Turkey play in supporting a just and sustainable peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan?

I believe Turkey has a very important role to play, as it is a significant neighbor both for us and for you. The report primarily distinguishes between membership and partnership. Membership is currently frozen, as everyone is aware of the situation regarding democratic standards. However, we can explore and promote a partnership, which could be more realistic—political, private, and perhaps more transactional. We need to find a balance in supporting mutual interests.

As part of this partnership, we always call on our partners to maintain good neighborly relations. This is our approach to international relations, and it’s what we urge Turkey to do—maintain good neighborly relations with Armenia. There is already an agreement between the special representatives. We greatly appreciate the possible partial opening of the border for citizens of third countries, as well as the opening of the border for humanitarian aid to Syria.

However, the fundamental role we believe Turkey should play in its northern neighborhood is to contribute positively to easing Armenia–Azerbaijan tensions and to help prevent any form of violence or war. Given its close ties with Azerbaijan, Turkey should use its influence to discourage the renewed use of force in those relations.

– The report notes that EU accession negotiations with Turkey are at an impasse. Do you see a real path for re-engagement, or is the phase of Turkey’s EU membership already in the past, with a new phase of EU–Turkey relations beginning?

-That’s a good question. You see, the progress of the accession process depends on political will. This is the most important factor. It is not about how many years it takes, but about how many chapters of the EU membership criteria are opened and closed.

There have been some temptations to formally close the accession process. However, if you talk to Turkish civil society, they have one consistent plea: do not close the door and do not destroy their hope.

A different approach from the Turkish authorities is possible in the future—there could be renewed political will and a new stance, and we must be ready to restart the process if that happens.

At present, the accession process is frozen for valid reasons but we want to keep it in its current state because the political environment may change. If it does, we should be prepared to re-engage.

–The new political situation in Turkey is related to the disarmament process of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). What possible consequences could the PKK’s disarmament have for Turkey's internal stability and democratic progress, and how is this development viewed at the European level?

-Yes, this is very good news. I am from Spain, and we struggled for many years against ETA and other terrorist groups and we won. That shows democracy can overcome terrorism.

The news that the PKK, following Öcalan’s call, is renouncing all forms of political violence is very encouraging and should be supported. It offers hope for a peaceful reconciliation process, which could lead to many positive developments.

However, one key step for Turkish civil society—if terrorism is truly coming to an end—is to review, repeal, or reform anti-terrorism laws. These laws have been applied in many cases even when there was no direct link to political violence. Changing them could create a more supportive environment for democratic progress.

This is the main idea. And from the EU side, if necessary, we are willing to help. If there is a request, we can try to use all our influence to support this process.

The only message I want to convey to the Kurdish movement is this: the process is happening in Turkey, and it must be resolved within the framework of Turkey’s constitution. This is not about ideas like a “Greater Rojava.” This is about Turkey—its citizens, its Kurdish population—and any resolution must remain within the Turkish constitutional framework.

– How do you assess the political and legal consequences of the verdict against Ekrem İmamoğlu? Is this a reflection of deeper concerns about the rule of law and democratic retreat in Turkey?

– This is a very, very serious retreat. Sometimes, certain EU partners suddenly "discover" Turkey's authoritarian nature. However, the reality is that this trend has been ongoing for nearly a decade.

This is not the first sign of democratic backsliding — it is yet another setback. Ekrem İmamoğlu is widely seen as President Erdoğan’s main rival in the upcoming elections, whenever they are held. That is why this verdict can be viewed as another maneuver to “clear the field” of competition.

At the same time, the Turkish authorities are reaching out to the HDP, the former pro-Kurdish party, seeking support for a constitutional amendment that would allow Erdoğan to run again. But democracy must function as democracy.

One must play by the rules — to compete, campaign, and contend with political opponents fairly. Any interference with the position or rights of your rivals constitutes unfair competition. It means you are creating an artificial advantage for yourself.

That is why I consider this a very serious step — one that causes significant harm to Turkey's reputation.

It becomes increasingly difficult to communicate in Brussels and in European capitals that we can continue to cooperate as usual, regardless of such developments. That is simply not possible. Things are not the same.

The European Parliament responded swiftly. Several planned meetings were cancelled. Commissioner for Enlargement Olivér Várhelyi did not attend the Antalya Diplomacy Forum.

There was indeed a reaction. However, I must say that the responses from European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas were disappointingly mild.

If Turkey is a partner, then we must engage with them openly and directly. We should express both approval and disapproval when necessary. But the mild response from the Commission sent a poor signal to Turkish civil society.

– How do you explain this? The issue isn’t limited to Turkey. Countries like Azerbaijan are also frequently criticized by the European Parliament, yet the reaction from the executive branch is often restrained. It seems the gap between the EU’s executive and legislative bodies is growing. How would you explain this?

-This is, in fact, a traditional pattern. The European Parliament is the institution most closely aligned with values and principles. The Council and the Commission, on the other hand, are compelled to act based on political and strategic constraints.

So, in a sense, this is normal. I don’t find it extraordinary. But what is essential is that values and principles are embedded in our foreign policy. This is not optional, it is a treaty obligation. It’s not merely a political choice but a constitutional duty.

There is indeed a gap, I often refer to it as the “Rue Belliard Gap.” On one side of Rue Belliard is the European Parliament, and on the other are the Council and the Commission. That gap exists. And our role is to help bridge it.

I also believe there is, at times, inconsistency in the Commission’s messaging. If we consider these countries partners, then we must speak with them directly and clearly. They already understand the principles on which the EU conducts its international relations.

We can express our criticism without damaging the relationship. I do it regularly. At the same time, I maintain a constructive attitude and continue cooperation with Turkey in various fields.

The Turkish authorities have always welcomed me warmly, which shows they recognize that I am not an adversary of their country. I am a friend of Turkey. But given my role, I must speak out when necessary  and they understand that. I believe the Commission should take the same approach.