ONE SHOULD NEITHER OVERESTIMATE, NOR UNDERESTIMATE THE POLITICAL IMPORTANCE OF ARMENIA
Mariam Levina

ArmInfo
2007-12-05 14:44:00

Interview with Dr. Gayane Novikova, Director of the Center for
Strategic Analysis SPECTRUM

Q) How successful can be considered the Armenian foreign policy,
taking into account that because of the Azerbaijani efforts Armenia
does not take part in any regional project?

I would not tie up the effectiveness of the foreign policy of our
state only with participation or non-participation in the regional
projects, although undoubtedly it impacts the economical situation in
the country. Taking into account that Armenia’s immediate neighbors –
Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey – have a common vision of the policy
(although with different reasons) regarding our country, so Armenia
should search allies outside the region. I mean not only Russia,
the United States and European Union. The relations with them are
more or less predictable and are developing with their inner logic.

It is necessary to intensify contacts and try using, first, political,
and then, economical possibilities, which should be found in relations
with Ukraine, Kazakhstan, China, as well as the Balkan states. In
these directions we are losing, because they are considered maybe
as secondary.

Q) Armenian authorities insist on necessity of the Euro-integration
of the country, strengthening our relations with the USA and NATO, at
the same time saying that these processes do not oppose the relations
with traditional partners, in particular, Russian Federation. How long
is such a position possible, or is it possible only up to "some time"?

If we speak about the political processes, then taking into
consideration the trends, getting momentum in the region and in the
relations of the leading non-regional actors, the statements about the
Euro-integration as one of Armenia’s priorities should be considered
as the only correct. In general, the United States, as well as the
Euro-Atlantic structures (first of all, NATO and EU), being unable
to propose Armenia any principally new level of relationship, treat
Armenia’s relations with Russia, the use of such structures as the CIS,
CSTO and in the future maybe the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
by Armenia as much as it can, where Russia plays the leading role,
with due understanding.

It is possible to note quite interesting combination of Armenia’s
models of the political behavior. As regards to Europe, we demonstrate
our striving to democracy, readiness to share European values, the
common civilization identity. In the relations with United States the
factor of Diaspora is added to the adherence to democratic values. In
relations with Russia, which does not show any care with democracy in
the South Caucasian space today, Armenia is trying to look politically
attractive, strengthening its attractiveness, attracting the Russian
capital.

However, I think that we should expect pressure from the both sides
and Armenia can face the choice.

Q) Is there any necessity for re-orientation of Armenia, so to say,
"strictly to the West"?

I do not think so. Armenia is in quite a complicated situation,
mostly due to the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, almost
permanent instability in Georgia and the lack of possibility of
normalization of relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey even in the
long-term perspective. So it is necessary to solve the issue of
partners and allies strictly pragmatically: to increase relations
with the West, and , as I have just mentioned, to intensify relations
with some CIS and South Eastern European states, as well as China,
not narrowing the field of interaction with Russia. Taking into
account the participation of Russia in the economy of our country and
the level of cooperation in the military sphere, the re-orientation
"strictly to the West" can have disastrous consequences for Armenia.

Q) How do you evaluate the relations with Russia? How justified in
your opinion the statements about the "vassal" relations?

As far as the West as a whole does not consider Armenia as the
key state of the South Caucasian sub-region, and therefore, its
economical policy regarding our state sometimes is built on the
residual principle, so against that background the development of
relations with Russia, showing some economic interest, should be
evaluated as positive.

Speaking about the "vassal" relations" is incorrect. One should
not overestimate the Russian factor and underestimate the political
importance of Armenia for the same Russia.

Q) How satisfactory are the Armenian-Georgian relations? Can we
consider that there are no problems in these relations? Can the
periodical statements on the negative attitude of the central Georgian
authorities regarding the Armenians, living in Samtskhe-Javakheti
lead to aggravation of relations?

I do not consider the relations of the two states satisfactory. A year
ago our Center held a seminar, dedicated to the problems, existing in
the Armenian-Georgian relations with participation of representatives
of the Georgian expert community. A wide spectrum of mutually acute
problems was touched upon in the seminar, and appropriate risks and
threats for the both states were singled out.

Unfortunately, the emphasized orientation of Georgia to the West and
the huge dependence on the transit of energy resources have led to the
loss of its ability to maneuvering, which has its inevitable impact on
the relations with Armenia. Along with political problems, there are
also some economic problems – so as a whole, it is possible to say that
Georgia, having its own aims and obligations to its regional allies –
Azerbaijan and Turkey, does not make efforts to include Armenia into
the integration processes on the regional level, or, if we put it in
other words, does not hamper exclusion of Armenia from them.

As for Armenians of Samtskhe-Javakheti, then provocative statements
from the both sides, Georgian and Armenian, exactly do not
promote any stabilization and positive development of the bilateral
relations. Georgia is busy with the painful statehood-building process,
and quite often acts by the principle "you cannot make an omelet
without breaking eggs;" however, it is necessary to take into account
that in case if relations are aggravated, no matter who initiates
it and in which context, the final result will be bad for the two –
Georgia and Armenia.

Q) The relations with Iran. Armenian and Iranian representatives
from time to time make statements on the close economic cooperation
of the two states.

Do you think that the continuing intensification of relations may
have its impact on Armenia’s relations with the United States?

I do not think so. One should not forget that an interesting trend is
being outlined in the US-Iranian relations: the United States is trying
to engage Iran into settlement of the situation in Iraq and Lebanon. In
addition, requiring from Armenia to make any anti-Iranian statements
or actions would mean throwing our country into a very complicated
situation. I think that taking into account some objective factors,
the Armenia’s consistent position is being well-understood both in
the United States and in Iran.

Q) The relations with Turkey. Do you see any possibility in
normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations? How soon Turkey can
become the EU member?

No, I do not think that we can expect normalization of the
Armenian-Turkish relations even in the intermediate perspective. Even
more, the model of political behavior, chosen by Turkey, shows that
this country has no any intention to change the status quo in relations
with our state. As for the Turkish membership in the European Union,
the speed of the process most probably depends on how soon the Turkish
lobbyists inside this European structure will manage to convince their
Ñ~Aвои Ñ… vis-a-vis that, now let me quote one of experts of our
Center, "Turkey will enter the EU, and not the EU will enter Turkey."

Q) Can we consider the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement successful,
and if yes – how much?

Taking into account that the cease-fire is preserved along the
contact-line, then we can speak about the positive.

If we approach the issue from the view of awareness on the peace
process itself, then it is too low, although periodically the veil is
lifted. Let us take for example, the recent report by the International
Crisis Group on the situation in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, where many aspects of the negotiating process are made
public with quoting unnamed diplomats. I am not confident that it is
reasonable in the conditions of not only increasing aggressiveness in
the rhetoric of the Azerbaijani leadership, but also its preparations
to revanche.

In addition, the permanent references of the mediators that societies
are not prepared to the peaceful settlement indirectly reflect the
existence of much deeper contradictions between the negotiating
parties.

The absence of the NKR representatives at the negotiating table at
least causes regret and delays the process of settlement.

Q) Do you think that there will be any changes in the foreign policy
of the country after elections in Armenia? Is it possible to expect
changes in the Karabakh issue?

It depends on those who will be in power, although taking into account
the geo-strategic situation of Armenia, most probably, there will be
insignificant shifts in accents, and not drastic changes. The only
justified approach is continuation of balancing between the main
non-regional actors.

As for the changes in the Karabakh issue, I think that Armenia should
insist on getting Nagorno-Karabakh back to the negotiating process as
a full-fledged party. However, I have to point out that inclusion of
the "Karabakh card" into the pre-election campaign and using it for
discrediting each other by both – opposition and pro-governmental
forces is only in the interests of our opponents.

Q) In your opinion, is the international community showing up "double
standards" in approaching to various conflicts?

Each conflict is unique despite some similarities. So the approaches
of the international community should dynamic. Another matter is
what can be taken and how by this or that party to a conflict in its
own interests.

–Boundary_(ID_1/cpu6/WGCQFIiWzH5RuIA) —