SPEAKING TO BE HEARD: AN INTERVIEW WITH VARTAN OSKANIAN
Hourig Mayissian

The Armenian Weekly
The Civilitas Foundation
Wednesday, 03 June 2009 14:06

Hourig Mayissian: What led you to prepare Speaking to Be Heard?

Vartan Oskanian: Even when I was in office, I was conscious that
a public official–elected or appointed–has a responsibility to
communicate with the public, especially in a country like ours,
where every event, every agreement, every international organization,
everything is new. It is a learning process for all of us, and it’s
important to share that process with our public so that expectations
are realistic. At the same time, in the sphere of public and foreign
policy, I have always believed that the Armenian perspective needs to
be heard from every possible podium, in every possible forum. Each of
these speaking opportunities was a chance to explain our positions,
our limitations, our expectations, our policies. So, when you live
your life that way for 10 years, at the end you realize there is a
body of work there that represents a 10-year evolution. And I wanted
that to be available as a historic record of how our history and our
policies have evolved.

And I had another reason. I am honored to have served in that capacity
for a decade, and in this small way, I wanted to share my experience
with readers.

H.M.: As the minister of foreign a ffairs of Armenia for 10 years,
you delivered a substantial number of speeches articulating Armenia’s
positions on a wide range of national and international issues from
various influential platforms, such as those of international or
regional organizations, important conferences, and universities. The
book features only a selection of these speeches. How was the selection
process made and what does it reflect?

V.O.: There is much more included than excluded. There were some
speeches that we did not have saved, some which were never recorded
or transcribed.

There were also some that were repetitive. In the process of explaining
policy, it is important to deliver the same message consistently. As
a result, sometimes within the space of several weeks, there were
several similar speeches. That’s fine, when you’re presenting them
to different audiences. It’s not fine when a reader is reading them.

H.M.: In your book, you underline the importance of these speeches
in getting across Armenia’s positions and interests on various
issues. What has guided your speech-writing throughout?

V.O.: I have always been conscious that I have two audiences–domestic
and international. Actually, three audiences–the [Armenian] Diaspora
too. So, I have always been careful to frame issues in a way that is
relevant and understandable to all of them, because in today’s world,
there is no international border for news and information. Everyone
hears, reads everything. Even in the case of the international
audience, there are two segments–those who understand and support
our positions, and those who, to put it mildly, don’t. There again,
a speech has to be aimed at all those segments, and has to use the
opportunity to gain support and understanding.

H.M.: You are known as one of the architects of the policy of
"complementarity," which has been the basic principle guiding Armenian
foreign policy over the last decade. In your book, you outline the
difference between this and the policy of balance adopted by the
first government. Can you elaborate?

V.O.: It’s a nuanced difference, but one that frees you to act more
boldly. When we were applying a policy of balance, it meant balancing
one act among different countries. But I wanted to achieve the maximum
for Armenia, out of our various relationships, and this led me to
think that we have to complement what we do with one country with
what we can do with another. The nuance here is that you are doing
similar things with rivals in the same area–in security, economy,
energy. You are doing more with more partners, always trying not to
exacerbate their differences, not necessarily to do the same thing
with one as with the other, but to do what is possible with each,
to complement that which is being done with each.

H.M.: In your introduction to the book, you emphasize the importance of
multilateral diplomacy in Armenian foreign policy. An integral part of
this policy is membership in regional and international organizations
(such as the CoE, OSCE, CIS, partnerships with NATO, and the EU)
which serve as opportunities for not only pursuing national interests
beyond borders but also for lesson-drawing through interaction
with the representatives of other states. As a newly independent
country with little diplomatic and political experience, what were
some of the important lessons Armenia drew from its membership in
these organizations?

V.O.: Not only did we have little diplomatic or political experience,
we also had limited resources. So, if we only had 10 or later 20
embassies around the world, it is difficult for us to communicate
with the other 180 capitals around the world. The first thing
international organizations made possible was direct contact. It was
during those annual or semi-annual meetings that we could converse
with ambassadors of those other countries and make sure they understood
our perspectives, our policies, our positions.

We also learned a very important lesson about multilateralism,
that is, if you want others to be interested in your issues, your
causes, your problems, you must be interested in theirs. We cannot
be a member of the world community and not be concerned with global
issues like weapons of mass destruction, climate change, mi nority
rights, migration, reforming international institutions. If we’re not
interested in those topics, if we don’t have something to say about
them, then we shouldn’t be surprised if they leave the room when we
start talking about self-determination or genocide recognition or
regional cooperation. International organizations force you to become
a member of the international community.

H.M.: What would you say is your most important foreign policy legacy
of the two governments you were a part of?

V.O.: One was clearly our willingness to enter into relations with
Turkey with no pre-conditions. This was a noble gesture on our
part. After all, we are the survivors of the genocide, yet we are
the ones who extended our hand, unconditionally. This is what has
made it possible to even contemplate normalizing relations between
our countries. The other is our clear commitment to Europe. Although
we haven’t done enough I think to move towards European values and
traditions, we have stated clearly from the beginning that our view is
toward Europe, that is where we belong. Europe knows this, our people
know this. What remains is that we give them the tools to get there.

I would add that the work we did during the last 10 years especially
on bringing the international community to a more supportive position
for self-determination of Karabagh was very important. Our history
will show that the first administr ation did what it could to secure
Karabagh’s security during and after a time of war. During our decade,
we had the task of reversing Lisbon, of rejecting autonomy as the
maximal possible status for Karabagh, and of bringing an international
community to regard Karabagh’s right to self-determination as
equally important to stability in the region. We ought to maintain
that thinking.

H.M.: In the book, you mention your intention to write another
book. Tell us about your plans in this regard.

V.O.: It’s probably better I not saying anything until the book is
further along. It will be a memoir of the 10 years I spent in office.

It’s being written from the same sense of responsibility that moved
me to write the first one–that this is our history and it should
be shared.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress