Tweet
VITAL FACTOR OF SECURITY
by Oleg Gorupai (courtesy of the Press Service of the Defense Ministry of Armenia)
Source: Krasnaya Zvezda, May 15, 2007, p. 3
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 18, 2007 Friday
Defense Minister Of Armenia, Mikael Arutjunjan, On The Cis Collective Security Treaty Organization
An interview with Defense Minister of Armenia, Mikael Arutjunjan.
Question: Armenia is an active member of the CIS Collective Security
Treaty Organization (Organization). What objectives is this membership
expected to accomplish?
Mikael Arutjunjan: Armenia regards the Organization as a vital factor
of its security. By advancing and promoting cooperation within it in
every conceivable way, Armenia hopes to ensure the stability of its
national security and safety.
The Armenian leadership views the existing challenges and threats to
security as a matter deserving unwavering attention. These threats
and challenges are well known throughout the world - regrettable as
this is. On the other hand, there are certain specific threats unique
to Armenia alone that should be addressed as well. I refer to the
danger of another round of hostilities that Azerbaijan may initiate,
the blockade in force, and immigration.
It is common knowledge that the Organization set up by regional army
groups in the Eastern Europe (Russia - Belarus), Caucasus (Russia
- Armenia), and Central Asian (Russia - Kazakhstan - Kyrgyzstan -
Tajikistan) regions.
Our participation in the processes of military integration and
cooperation within the framework of the Organization remained active
in 2006. Armenia and its partners made an emphasis on the betterment
and development of military structures of the Organization and on
establishment of practical mechanisms of military-technical and
military-economic cooperation. Attention was also paid to joint
personnel training. Some serious progress was made in advancement of
cooperation within the framework of the Organization in dealing with
global threats such as international terrorism and traffic. Exercise
Border and anti-traffic operation Channel are run on a regular basis
to keep up proper coordination between members of the Organization.
In short, Armenia's long-term cooperation with its partners within the
Organization may actually play a significant role in development of
the national Armed Forces and the betterment of the whole framework
of national security.
Question: The military-technical cooperation is one of vital spheres
of interaction within the framework of the Organization. Is there
anything about it Armenia would have changed if given a chance?
Mikael Arutjunjan: What would we have changed? Unfortunately, the
rate of development of interaction in this particular sphere is not
exactly to our liking. As I see it, development of military-technical
cooperation under the auspices of the Agreement on Military-Technical
Cooperation must be given priority from the standpoint of a more
energetic rearmament of armies of the Organization with modern military
hardware. A great deal has to be done by way of improving the national
mechanisms of decision-making and implementation of decisions regarding
military-technical aid to the members of the Organization that find
themselves facing a threat of aggression or already under attack. The
bodies responsible for the implementation of these decisions must
be selected. We need a mechanism of military hardware deliveries to
the armed formations that do not belong to the existing regional army
groups; the deliveries in question must be made under the terms of the
same Agreement on Military-Technical Cooperation. The same goes for
special equipment for law enforcement agencies and secret services that
should also be entitled to getting it all at a discount. Something has
to be done about matters involved in the implementation by members of
the Organization of the Agreement on Military-Technical Cooperation
in fulfillment of contracts for military hardware. Actually, this is
a matter where the Organization needs better coordination than it has
so far enjoyed. A lack of harmony between the national legislations
of member states and provisions of the Agreement on Military-Technical
Cooperation (with supplements to it) is what impedes military-technical
cooperation between members of the Organization. That is why we never
cease looking for better and more efficient ways of implementing the
Agreement on Military-technical cooperation in the name of a stable
and safe development of members of the Organization.
Question: Would you please compare the professionalism of the
servicemen who studied at military colleges of NATO and members of
the Organization?
Mikael Arutjunjan: Armenia activated a bilateral cooperation with
foreign partners in the sphere of military education. Where personnel
training is concerned, we cooperate with Russia, Greece, United
States, Italy, Great Britain, Lithuania, Germany, China, and some
other countries. There is more to these contacts than basic military
education as such. Special attention is paid to short-term refresher
and advancement courses for officers. Needless to say, emphasis is
made on personnel training within the framework of the Organization,
and specifically in the Russian Federation.
On June 23, 2005, Armenia signed and eventually ratified the Agreement
on Military Personnel Training for members of the Organization. The
document provided a basis for the regulatory framework in this
particular sphere of cooperation. I appreciate how constructive
the Russian Federation is in personnel training programs with
Armenia. There are no complaints at all, discounting some minor
matters that have yet to be addressed (matters like the organization
of joint training).
It is the most promising and trained officers who are selected
for training abroad, the ones who will later take positions within
structures of the Defense Ministry and army headquarters.
As for where in my opinion officers are trained better, in NATO or
in the Organization, I'd say that the levels are practically equal.
Personnel training programs allow for better training of specialists
with the use of different methods.
Question: Armenia must have some ideas concerning the betterment of
cooperation and interaction between members of the Organization. How
do you perceive its future, in general?
Mikael Arutjunjan: We perceive the Organization as something that
harmoniously combines the functions of dealing with both traditional
and new challenges and threats. An optimal balance in the structure of
forces and means of dealing with various threats is what is needed to
make the Organization universally efficient. Where dealing with new
challenges and threats is concerned, the Organization puts together
a system of auxiliary structures and forces.
Institutionalizing international cooperation against terrorism and
traffic and setting up contingents of peacekeepers, it should also
deploy mechanisms of cooperation in the sphere of rapid response to
emergencies, natural and technical alike.
Attention to the military component of the Organization, significant
as it is, should remain of primary importance. Members of the
Organization should put more effort in completing the regulatory
framework pertaining to the mechanism of international cooperation
whenever Article 4 of the CIS Collective Security Treaty is to be
invoked. Among other things, what I'm talking about is the adoption
of the protocol on the mechanism of military-technical aid to members
of the Organization.
by Oleg Gorupai (courtesy of the Press Service of the Defense Ministry of Armenia)
Source: Krasnaya Zvezda, May 15, 2007, p. 3
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 18, 2007 Friday
Defense Minister Of Armenia, Mikael Arutjunjan, On The Cis Collective Security Treaty Organization
An interview with Defense Minister of Armenia, Mikael Arutjunjan.
Question: Armenia is an active member of the CIS Collective Security
Treaty Organization (Organization). What objectives is this membership
expected to accomplish?
Mikael Arutjunjan: Armenia regards the Organization as a vital factor
of its security. By advancing and promoting cooperation within it in
every conceivable way, Armenia hopes to ensure the stability of its
national security and safety.
The Armenian leadership views the existing challenges and threats to
security as a matter deserving unwavering attention. These threats
and challenges are well known throughout the world - regrettable as
this is. On the other hand, there are certain specific threats unique
to Armenia alone that should be addressed as well. I refer to the
danger of another round of hostilities that Azerbaijan may initiate,
the blockade in force, and immigration.
It is common knowledge that the Organization set up by regional army
groups in the Eastern Europe (Russia - Belarus), Caucasus (Russia
- Armenia), and Central Asian (Russia - Kazakhstan - Kyrgyzstan -
Tajikistan) regions.
Our participation in the processes of military integration and
cooperation within the framework of the Organization remained active
in 2006. Armenia and its partners made an emphasis on the betterment
and development of military structures of the Organization and on
establishment of practical mechanisms of military-technical and
military-economic cooperation. Attention was also paid to joint
personnel training. Some serious progress was made in advancement of
cooperation within the framework of the Organization in dealing with
global threats such as international terrorism and traffic. Exercise
Border and anti-traffic operation Channel are run on a regular basis
to keep up proper coordination between members of the Organization.
In short, Armenia's long-term cooperation with its partners within the
Organization may actually play a significant role in development of
the national Armed Forces and the betterment of the whole framework
of national security.
Question: The military-technical cooperation is one of vital spheres
of interaction within the framework of the Organization. Is there
anything about it Armenia would have changed if given a chance?
Mikael Arutjunjan: What would we have changed? Unfortunately, the
rate of development of interaction in this particular sphere is not
exactly to our liking. As I see it, development of military-technical
cooperation under the auspices of the Agreement on Military-Technical
Cooperation must be given priority from the standpoint of a more
energetic rearmament of armies of the Organization with modern military
hardware. A great deal has to be done by way of improving the national
mechanisms of decision-making and implementation of decisions regarding
military-technical aid to the members of the Organization that find
themselves facing a threat of aggression or already under attack. The
bodies responsible for the implementation of these decisions must
be selected. We need a mechanism of military hardware deliveries to
the armed formations that do not belong to the existing regional army
groups; the deliveries in question must be made under the terms of the
same Agreement on Military-Technical Cooperation. The same goes for
special equipment for law enforcement agencies and secret services that
should also be entitled to getting it all at a discount. Something has
to be done about matters involved in the implementation by members of
the Organization of the Agreement on Military-Technical Cooperation
in fulfillment of contracts for military hardware. Actually, this is
a matter where the Organization needs better coordination than it has
so far enjoyed. A lack of harmony between the national legislations
of member states and provisions of the Agreement on Military-Technical
Cooperation (with supplements to it) is what impedes military-technical
cooperation between members of the Organization. That is why we never
cease looking for better and more efficient ways of implementing the
Agreement on Military-technical cooperation in the name of a stable
and safe development of members of the Organization.
Question: Would you please compare the professionalism of the
servicemen who studied at military colleges of NATO and members of
the Organization?
Mikael Arutjunjan: Armenia activated a bilateral cooperation with
foreign partners in the sphere of military education. Where personnel
training is concerned, we cooperate with Russia, Greece, United
States, Italy, Great Britain, Lithuania, Germany, China, and some
other countries. There is more to these contacts than basic military
education as such. Special attention is paid to short-term refresher
and advancement courses for officers. Needless to say, emphasis is
made on personnel training within the framework of the Organization,
and specifically in the Russian Federation.
On June 23, 2005, Armenia signed and eventually ratified the Agreement
on Military Personnel Training for members of the Organization. The
document provided a basis for the regulatory framework in this
particular sphere of cooperation. I appreciate how constructive
the Russian Federation is in personnel training programs with
Armenia. There are no complaints at all, discounting some minor
matters that have yet to be addressed (matters like the organization
of joint training).
It is the most promising and trained officers who are selected
for training abroad, the ones who will later take positions within
structures of the Defense Ministry and army headquarters.
As for where in my opinion officers are trained better, in NATO or
in the Organization, I'd say that the levels are practically equal.
Personnel training programs allow for better training of specialists
with the use of different methods.
Question: Armenia must have some ideas concerning the betterment of
cooperation and interaction between members of the Organization. How
do you perceive its future, in general?
Mikael Arutjunjan: We perceive the Organization as something that
harmoniously combines the functions of dealing with both traditional
and new challenges and threats. An optimal balance in the structure of
forces and means of dealing with various threats is what is needed to
make the Organization universally efficient. Where dealing with new
challenges and threats is concerned, the Organization puts together
a system of auxiliary structures and forces.
Institutionalizing international cooperation against terrorism and
traffic and setting up contingents of peacekeepers, it should also
deploy mechanisms of cooperation in the sphere of rapid response to
emergencies, natural and technical alike.
Attention to the military component of the Organization, significant
as it is, should remain of primary importance. Members of the
Organization should put more effort in completing the regulatory
framework pertaining to the mechanism of international cooperation
whenever Article 4 of the CIS Collective Security Treaty is to be
invoked. Among other things, what I'm talking about is the adoption
of the protocol on the mechanism of military-technical aid to members
of the Organization.