David Shahnazaryan. “Armenia has serious opportunity to gain weight and influence in the region”

20:56 Yerevan | 16:56 GMT | Friday 31 October 2008

Emma Gabrielyan

David Shahnazaryan. “Armenia has serious opportunity to gain weight and influence in the region”

- Mr. Shahnazaryan, what is your estimation of the situation in the region after the five days long Russian-Georgian war? The President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev arrived on an official visit in Yerevan, what issues did official Moscow solve by this visit in the process of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution?

- The visit of the Russian President to Armenia has two constituent parts. This visit, first of all, had a formal aim: President Medvedev had already been to Baku, and to keep the balance of the policy that Russia carries out, he had to also visit Armenia. The visit was presented under the pretense of trade-economic and other agreements on cooperation in other spheres between Russian regions and the Armenian Government that, to put it mildly, was not serious.

In my opinion, the main reason of Medvedev’s visit wasn’t that. The priorities of Russian policy in our region during the last six months have undergone essential changes. At first glance, it seems that as the result of the Georgian conflict, Russia has strengthened its influence in the Southern Caucasus, but in my opinion it’s the contrary, Russian influence has weakened after the Georgian-Russian war. Moreover, I am inclined to think that even before the recent conflict with Georgia, Russia realized distinctly that its influence in the region was weakening and maybe it was one of the reasons that Russia entered the conflict with Georgia in August. Besides, Russia aimed to counteract the West over the Kosovo issue.

The imbalance of global political forces in our region could have unpredictable consequences especially for us, which comes from the bitter historical experience of Armenia. The fact that Russia does not seem to be against the strengthening of Turkey in the region is significant. The meetings between the Russian and the Turkish high ranking officials during the last months were not mere coincidences. The official visit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to Ankara was on July 2 was followed by the visit of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to Moscow on August 13, with the return to Anaka of Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on September 2. Thus, it is clear to Russia, that it can not act alone in the region and, factually, Russia had to make a choice. Of course, that best choice would have been if strong Russian-American cooperation had started, but there is a littlie probability of this in the result of the policy adopted by Russia, particularly in the Southern Caucasus. Russia had decided to cooperate with Turkey long before the incidents in August, and it was more than beneficial for Turkey.

As for Russian President Medvedev's visit and the process of Mountainous (Nagorno) Karabakh conflict mediation, it should be stated that serious processes have started in Armenian-Turkish relations. Officially, Moscow tries not to stay behind the West in its last initiatives. As much as the role of Russia was weakened in the region, it was similarly weakened in the process of Mountainous Karabakh conflict mediation. It is a fact, that to expect drastic changes, developments in South Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts in the nearest future is not realistic and de facto there exists only one conflict in the Southern Caucasus, i.e. the Mountainous Karabakh conflict, while Russia carries out a policy of not to stay behind the incidents, as it is clear that United States assumed the main role in the process of conflict mediation.

- What should be Armenia's position be over the South Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts?

- Armenia has to solve issues of great significance. I assess positively the fact that the issue of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is not on the agenda of the Armenian policy. Moreover, the recent announcements made concerning the strengthening of Armenian-Georgian relations, particularly the necessity of easing the visa regime on the border of the two neighboring states, alas, stayed only as announcements. By the way, I declared last year that the borders between Armenia and Georgia should be open, and both the opposition and the government seconded my proposal in the Georgian press. As to the declaration of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, that the border between Armenia and Georgia should be like the one between Switzerland and France, and Switzerland and Germany, is not satisfying. The Armenia-Georgian border should be like the one between Germany and France, and there should not be hesitation in this issue, it should be done as soon as possible, because it is in the interests of Armenia and Georgia.

I am certain that Armenia has a unique opportunity in existing situation in the region today. During Robert Kocharyan's ten-year presidency, Armenia has lost any factors of opportunity of having influence on its neighbors. Armenia can gain such leverage in today's situation. The facts that the president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, and the special representative of the NATO General Secretary in the Caucasus and Central Asia, Robert Simmons, were in Armenia at the same time is notable. This is further evidence of the fact that Armenia can use leverage on its neighbors. There does exist other means as well, but I prefer not to speak about them in the press, but the Armenian authorities should be aware of them.

- What leverage can Armenia use on Georgia?

- Georgia today has a reputation as an unreliable state in the sense of communications. The project to construct the Nabucco gas pipe line was stopped for one year, but after the Russian-Georgian war new discussions over the project started again, although many issues are not clear by now concerning this program, but it is a fact that the issue is being treated seriously. Armenia has a serious opportunity to gain new weight and influence in the region, and in the relations with its neighbors, Armenia can gain some leverage which we were deprived of for the last ten years. The Armenian authorities should be given the opportunity in this respect, while in such situation the state interests of the Mountainous Karabakh conflict, and Armenia-Turkish, Armenian-Georgian and Armenian-Iranian relations are priorities.

- How can you comment on the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group over the recent period of time? The United States and Russia, each in turn makes declarations of positive moves and progress in the Mountainous Karabakh conflict resolution process, while the three co-chairmen are unable to even make a joint declaration and record those "progresses". What does this result from and where can lead to?

-The role of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairmen has been lost and it is evident that Russia and the United States make statements separately. The role of Russia in this issue is poor, and President Medvedev's visit to Armenia was an attempt to mark the Russia's presence in the resolution process, at least formally. I am certain that the role of the United States is great in the resolution process, and the US seems to underestimate its opportunities, while Russia on the contrary overestimates its opportunities. It should be stated anyway that for the United States, the resolution of the conflict is extremely important. In contrast to Russia, the United States and the West are interested in the final resolution of the conflicts. In my opinion, the EU will take a serious role in the process of Mountainous Karabakh conflict mediation.

There is another fact concerning the Mountainous Karabakh conflict mediation that is worth mentioning: officially, Russia has declared that Armenian-Turkish relations and the Mountainous Karabakh issues directly depend on one another. On the basis of the declarations of the Russian Federation, lie the positions of official Moscow and Baku. I hope that Armenia will try to separate these issues from one another.

-What's your attitude toward the ""Madrid principles", of course as much as you are aware of their essence? Although Serzh Sargsyan said that they are on the internet, the society is unaware of them. Can the "Madrid principles" be favorable for the Armenian side? What's your attitude toward the news of the past few days that Moscow intends to suggest to the Armenian side the idea of establishing Russian military bases in Armenia or deploying Russian peacekeepers in Mountainous Karabakh?

- First of all Serzh Sargsyan was mistaken in stating that those principles are on the internet. The essence and the main details of the "Madrid principles" were distinctly presented in Levon Ter-Petrosyan's speech delivered during a public meeting on October 17. There are many comments concerning these principles, negotiations still continue and there is not a final agreement concerning them. It should be stated that Robert Kocharyan and Vartan Oskanyan agreed on those principles and all the agreements existing today, nothing else has been added to them by now. Robert Kocharyan's whole policy was not the resolution of the Mountainous Karabakh conflict, the result of which was that an unfavorable version was suggested, compared to the version of the 1997 phase-by-phase resolution. Moreover, Robert Kocharyan and Vartan Oskanyan compromised over more than the four resolutions of UN Security Council 822, 853, 874 and 884 recorded. Robert Kocharyan and Vartan Oskanyan had deliberately excluded Mountainous Karabakh from the negotiation process.

Thus, the same philosophy lies in the basis of the two versions of Mountainous Karabakh conflict resolution, only before, the question was about returning five regions, now it is about seven regions, and today, negotiations are conducted over the status of the Lachin corridor. By the way, I would like to mention that before April 1992, when the Lachin road was totally under the control of Russia, not one single bullet was fired toward Mountainous Karabakh, not even one kilogram of flour passed to Karabakh, which means that the road was totally closed. So, if Robert Kochayan's aim was not the resolution of the conflict, then we should see whether Serzh Sargsyan has real will to resolve the conflict, or should he continue Robert Kocharyan's imitated policy of resolution?

It is worth mentioning that the situation in the negotiation process is really hard and unfavorable. Some issues I find real hard: the return of the Azeri refugees to Mountainous Karabakh, deployment of international peacekeepers, the issues of the Lachin corridor status, etc. The Karabakh conflict should be resolved through compromises, but they should have their limits.

The deployment of international peacekeepers has always been, and still is, a difficult issue in the negotiations. After all that happened in Georgia in August, I think that the possibilities of Russia as one who carries out peacekeeping mission are slim and, besides, this issue depends on Russian-American relations more than on the conflicting parties.

Today it is obvious that Russia has tainted its reputation of a peacekeeper, because it proved with the incidents of August, that it is inclined of changing from peacekeeper to a conflicting party, and then why not to a destabilizing source? I hope that both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani authorities realize this, and at least, the Azerbaijani authorities will not accept the presence of Russian peacekeepers in this process. I do not exclude the fact that it can be tried to change the international peacekeeping forces by an international observing mission. I would like to add that participation of Russia in the peacekeeping processes would essentially impede Armenian-Georgian relations, while our relations with Georgia are of strategic importance.

The "Madrid principles" comprise the following article: the return of Azerbaijani refugees to Mountainous Karabakh in the first phase of resolution. It is extremely dangerous not only for the Armenian side, but also for Azerbaijan, because if official Baku continues to insist on this demand, then it would be hard to avoid the participation of Russian peacekeepers.

-The official Moscow position tries to organize a trilateral meeting around the Mountainous Karabakh conflict regulation in the nearest future. What can be expected from this meeting?

-Even if this meeting is held in the beginning of November it would have only a significance of recording the fact of meeting.

- What's your estimation of the role of Turkey in the region?

-Turkey undertook quite a beneficial role for itself. Turkish foreign policy has essentially activated during the recent period. Along with Armenian-Turkish relations, Turkish-American relations have also improved. Turkey holds important influence in the regional processes and no matter how strange it sounds, Azerbaijan can impede the plans of Turkey concerning the region. It should be observed that the factor of Turkey during the recent developments is seen from the point of view of the necessity of using leverages to press Azerbaijan.

The situation is also extraordinary because of the fact that today Russia is not against the certain improvement of Armenian-Turkish relations, although she was always against it. It is beyond doubt that in this process as well, Russia will try to keep her influence. I am sure that the weakening of Russia’s influence in our region will have permanent and irreversible nature.

-What do you think of Turkey’s initiative to create a stability and security platform? Is it real?

-It’s a mere idea yet, it’s not a new initiative, and there have been such initiatives until now. Besides, at this moment there already exists a serious problem connected with the participation of the Russian and Georgian representatives in the negotiations. Russia shows openly that she considers Georgia as an enemy state. Taking into consideration this fact, it’s an obstacle for the future of the platform.

-And what do you think of the policy of the Armenian authorities in connection with the creation of an Armenian-Turkish committee?

-The problem is not only that it is unacceptable to endanger the fact of genocide. There is also a very serious political problem. First, it means that political relations, relationships of public authorities to some extent depend on historians’ assessments, and it’s quite unnatural. Second, the creation of such a committee may become a serious obstacle in the achievement of certain developments in Armenian-Turkish relations. Let’s try to imagine that such a committee is created. It would make a decision that what happened in Osman Turkey was genocide or it was not genocide. Reaching any of the two decisions will immediately stop the process, and fail any opportunity to develop Armenian-Turkish relations. Third, the committee may work endlessly, without making any decisions, and it will be very beneficial for Turkey, Ankara will admonish the Europeans not to bother the committee to make a decision on genocide. However, the main danger is that in case of a slight disagreement in Armenian-Turkish relations, one of the parties will always has an opportunity to announce: “Let’s wait for the decision of the committee.” Fourth, the committee may announce that it hasn’t made any decision yet, and it will also hinder the possible development of Armenian-Turkish relations. It means that the governmental committee of Armenian and Turkish historians can not be useful in the development of Armenian-Turkish relations; on the contrary, it is full of dangers. However, it doesn’t mean that there can not be communication between Armenian and Turkish historians; the communication should be on the level of public organizations, scientific centers, museums and universities, and not a committee of historians created on the governmental level, however.

-How do you assess the role of Iran, Armenia’s other neighbor, in the region and Armenian-Iranian relations in the recent period?

-It is noteworthy that lately new events have taken place in Russian-Iranian relations; a real collision of interests between these countries is evident. Of course, even today there are common interests between Russia and Iran and political cooperation, as well. However, there are also quite serious contradictions connected with energy carriers, especially over natural gas issues, and in this aspect, Russia and Iran are serious rivals.

It is well known that one of the main problems of the West is to supply gas to Europe by alternative ways. It aims to weaken Russia’s influence on Europe. Moreover, today these relations are mainly and factually conditioned by Russia’s gas policy. From this aspect, Iran starts to gain a more important role, and has quite ambitious plans. An international conference was held in Tehran on October 4-5, and on October 21, Russia, Iran and Qatar agreed on issues connected with the export of gas.

The official representatives of Iran announce that the volume of gas in Europe that passes through Iran should be much increased. I am sure that if the United States continues to isolate and sanction Iran, aiming to hinder its intention to supply gas to Europe, Iran will start to supply gas to the countries of Southeastern Asia.

As for Armenian-Iranian relations, it is noteworthy that recently, under the influence of Russia, the authorities of Armenia announced unexpectedly that they don’t need Iranian gas. This statement has no explanation, and to say more, the Russians suddenly announced in Yerevan that the construction of a petroleum refinery in Armenia was inexpedient. It is interesting to mention that a few months ago both the authorities of Russia and Armenia were ardently advertising and promoting this project. I think that these announcements were conditioned by certain contradictions between Russia and Iran.

-You have spoken at length on the policy conducted by Russia. But what about the United States? If in the coming presidential elections the democrats’ candidate wins, may the policy of the official Washington carried in our region incur any changes?

-The results of the presidential elections in the United States will not have any influence on the regional processes, independently of the fact whether the republican John McCain or the democrats’ candidate Barack Obama will win. The situation is not the same in Europe. During numerous meetings with political-public organizations of Western Europe, I came to the conclusion that most Europeans share the opinion that if Obama wins the elections, Europe-United States relations will strengthen.

-Mr. Shahnazaryan, what do you think, whether the Armenian authorities conduct Western policy or the lack of Serzh Sargsyan’s legitimacy contributes to using the chance?

-Of course, the lack of legitimacy made Serzh Sargsyan look for external aid.

-The decision of ASC on stopping the mass actions for several months was connected with the complicated situation upon the Mountainous Karabakh conflict. There are different opinions on this issue, e.g. if the situation is so dangerous, was it really necessary to stand away... However, was making such a decision the right thing to do?

- Levon Ter-Petrosyan announced distinctly that the ceasing of the activity of the Movement aimed to hold back the authorities from external pressure and inappropriate concessions. Indeed, taking into account the lack of Serzh Sargsyan’s legitimacy, he would make unjustified concessions. It is evident that Russia tries to use this situation in her favor, to gain as much as possible from Azerbaijan. The aims and demands of the official Moscow are obvious: they distinctly say that they are ready to buy gas from Azerbaijan for international prices, they want Azerbaijan oil to pass through Russian oil pipelines and they want Azerbaijan not to supply gas to Georgia. They also want the Russian peacekeepers to participate in the resolution of Mountainous Karabakh conflict.

To say more, I am sure that today in the issues connected with Mountainous-Karabakh, Russia is ready to give Azerbaijan much more than the West. It’s more than evident. I think that today Russia uses Armenia and Mountainous Karabakh to impose a constraint on Azerbaijan. In my opinion, the fact that Levon Ter-Petrosyan through his last speech managed to create real interest and a sincere atmosphere of holding disputes on the Mountainous Karabakh conflict resolution in our society as very important. We should recognize and note that such a phenomenon didn’t take place at the last decade: Robert Kocharyan always tried to solve this problem on his own, and he didn’t let any debates or disputes take place connected with Mountainous Karabakh conflict and he used to say that there was no need to speak of it, as this problem had been solved… Today, on the contrary, the resolution of Mountainous Karabakh conflict is conditioned not only by Serzh Sargsyan , but also by Armenian society and the political sphere.

As to the ceasing of mass actions, I was for that decision and defended it fully. I think that Serzh Sargsyan should have an opportunity not to make inexpedient concessions in the negotiations, as we are now at the center of crucial historical events. Today’s main security problems depend on two factors: United States-Europe relations and United States-Iran relations. Europe needs Iran for alternative gas supply. I think that the international security of the nearest future will depend on these two main problems.

-Mr. Shahnazaryan, can we conclude from your assessments that the official Moscow endeavors to strengthen her positions in the region and not to give final resolution to Mountainous Karabakh conflict?

-Russia tries to lose as little as possible and she plays by her own rules, protecting her rights. We often hear the question “What’s the difference between Russia and Azerbaijan, the policy of both countries is conditioned by oil and gas?” The difference is clear: in Azerbaijan’s economy the income gained from oil and gas exports are less than that of Russia’s. That’s why Azerbaijan’s dependence is much less, and although Azerbaijan incurs losses, as well, Russia’s losses are greater. The whole economy of Russia is based on the export of raw materials, and oil and gas constitute more than two-thirds of it. It’s evident that in case of final resolution of the Mountainous Karabakh conflict, Russia’s influence in Southern Caucasus will decrease considerably.

Monday, 6 September 2010

David Shahnazaryan. “Armenia has serious opportunity to gain weight and influence in the region”

20:56 Yerevan | 16:56 GMT | Friday 31 October 2008

Emma Gabrielyan

Search

Editor’s Choice

Analysis and Comment

David Shahnazaryan. “Armenia has serious opportunity to gain weight and influence in the region”

Politics

Empty Promises about Democracy

World

Turkey & Armenia : Promise amid discord

Archive