NIKOLAI OGANESJAN: NATO IS ACTIVELY COURTING ARMENIA
by Nora Kananova
Translated by A. Ignatkin

Source: Novoye Vremya (Yeveran), March 20, 2007, EV
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
March 28, 2007 Wednesday

NIKOLAI OGANESJAN, PRESIDENT OF THE ARMENIAN ATLANTIC ASSOCIATION:
TIME TO START THINKING ABOUT THE ADVANCEMENT OF OUR RELATIONS WITH
NATO; An interview with Nikolai Oganesjan, President of the Armenian
Atlantic Association.

NATO Week in Armenia is over. What Armenia means for NATO and vice
versa is the question with which Novoye Vremya approached Nikolai
Oganesjan, an outstanding scientist and President of the Armenian
Atlantic Association. Oganesjan met with NATO leaders on many occasions
in this capacity and that makes him an authority on the finer points
of the not exactly simple Armenian-NATO relations.

Question: The NATO Week in Armenia should probably be regarded as
an expansion of cooperation. Why is the Alliance so interested in
our country?

Nikolai Oganesjan: The NATO Week was a planned action or
representatives of the upper echelons of the Alliance would not have
come. I mean NATO Deputy General Secretary Jean Fournet and George
Katsirdakis of the NATO Defense Policy and Planning Division.

Acknowledging that Armenia is not going to join the Alliance in the
near future, NATO is determined to do whatever it takes to bring
Armenia as close as possible so as to use it to its own benefit.

Armenia is an integral part of the geopolitical region comprising
the Middle East and the Caucasus which is currently in the focus
of interests of the Alliance and its leader, the United States. The
southern part of the Caucasus interests NATO and the United States as
an integral region, and not by parts. That is why they are courting
Armenia so actively now.

However, there is more to it. Armenia is Russia’s strategic partner.

It interests the Alliance in this capacity as well. NATO may use
its cordial relations with Armenia to advance its own relations with
Russia. Should its relations with Russia plummet, the Alliance may
use Armenia to mend them and avoid a collision. Hence the recently
unthinkable claims on the part of spokesmen for NATO that the
advancement of Armenia’s relations with the bloc must not jeopardize
its friendly relations with its old friends and partners. Katsirdakis
emphasized this when NATO Week in Armenia was ending. "NATO does
not demand that Armenia abandon its old friends and allies. Close
relations with Russia and membership in the CIS Collective Security
Treaty Organization are not supposed to interfere with the close
cooperation between Armenia and NATO," he said.

And here is another point. Relations between NATO and the CIS
Collective Security Treaty Organization are not clear at this point,
but that is going to change sooner or later. The two blocs will have
to define themselves sooner or late. It is safe to assume, therefore,
that NATO leaders hope to use their relations with Armenia to span
the gap between the Alliance and the CIS Collective Security Treaty
Organization. In other words, Armenia may become an important link
in the chain of development of relation between NATO on the one hand
and Russia and the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization on
the other.

Contacts between Armenia and NATO are varying. NATO specialists
assist the Armenians in mastering new military hardware and new
standards. NATO provides equipment and teaches our military. Contacts
in the fields of education and science were established as well.

Fournet and Katsirdakis never missed a chance to emphasize how
pleased NATO was with the degree and intensiveness of its relations
with Armenia.

Armenia is a member of the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization,
a structure which is pretty much amorphous at this point. No effort
is spared to make it a serious organization but who can guarantee
that it won’t end up the way the Warsaw Pact did?

Moreover, the Organization includes certain states (say, Kazakhstan)
that promote the interests of Azerbaijan in the Karabakh conflict.

Since there are no guarantees that the Organization will back Armenia
and not Muslim states, it will be prudent for Yerevan to at least
start thinking about the advancement of relations with NATO.

Question: Can we say NATO has been involved in the Karabakh conflict
resolution?

Nikolai Oganesjan: Not as an organization, it hasn’t. On the other
hand, France and the United States are leading NATO countries, and
their stand on the Karabakh issue should be regarded as the position
of the Alliance itself. Neither the United States nor France have
ever put pressure on us. Neither has ever demanded that we turn these
territories over to Azerbaijan.

Question: What do you think of Georgia’s chances of becoming a NATO
country in the near future?

Nikolai Oganesjan: According to Katsirdakis, this particular issue
is still in the initial phase of discussion now. I do not think that
Georgia’s entry into NATO will set up a new dividing line because
the United States and NATO are interested in an integral framework of
relations spanning all the entire southern part of the Caucasus. The
fact that Armenia does not aspire to NATO membership and that the
Alliance does not insist that it do so may actually ease tension in
the relations between Russia and NATO should it escalate over the
matter. Nothing prevents cooperation between Russia and the Alliance
in this part of the world. Why is there the notion that someone must
drive the other out? If Moscow and Washington promote a well-balanced
and farsighted policy in the region, a more flexible policy, then both
will be able to remain here and serve the interests of the countries
of the region. We should find out exactly what Russia and the United
States want here and do whatever it takes to make sure that their
own interests do not take precedence over ours. The southern part of
the Caucasus will then cease being a battlefield and become a bridge
between East and West, North and South.

Question: If Georgia is accepted into NATO, despite the unresolved
conflicts, does it mean that Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be
eventually returned to Tbilisi’s jurisdiction with help from the
Alliance?

Nikolai Oganesjan: It depends on exactly what NATO wants to
accomplish. If it wants to defend Georgia from Russia, then the
runaway provinces may be reacquired even before Georgia formally
joins NATO. On the other hand, Georgia may be pursuing false hope
concerning its ability to secure NATO’s help in conflict resolution
once it is a NATO member. Article Five of the North Atlantic Treaty
states that an aggression against a NATO member is regarded as an
aggression against all and that other NATO countries must come to its
help only if the member in question was not the one to provoke the
aggression. I do not really expect that NATO will want to be drawn
into the hostilities over an age-old conflict.