Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARF candidate Discusses Military, FP with Military Diplomat Magazine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ARF candidate Discusses Military, FP with Military Diplomat Magazine

    ARF presidential candidate Vahan Hovanessian Discusses Military,
    Foreign Policy with Military Diplomat Magazine


    Horizon
    2008-02-01


    The Russian Military Diplomat Magazine recently interviewed Armenian
    Presidential Candidate Vahan Hovannesian during which many issues were
    explained and new ones were raised. Hovannesian is deputy Speaker of
    the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, a member of the
    Parliamentary faction of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, and a
    member of the ARF Bureau.

    Military Diplomat: Due to the kick-off of the Armenian presidential
    election campaign and the opposition supported by foreign players
    becoming more active, do you think a so-called "colored revolution" is
    possible in Armenia? Why, if it is?
    Vahan Hovanessian: Firstly, let us see how 'colored revolutions' brew
    up, since they are not a mere mechanical implementation of political
    projects brought from without. In the post-Soviet environment, they are
    mostly grounded in the population's dissatisfaction with its social
    standing and the lack of democratic rule in a particular country, in
    the first place. I dare say the popular protests, owing to which
    revolutions are carried out, are driven by the wish for justice and
    wellbeing, rather than by a steadfast striving for NATO or the European
    Union, of which the people certainly have a rather hazy idea. Leaders
    of such revolutions, who use the popular disappointment to pursue their
    own agendas and are supervised by foreign advisors, are quite another
    kettle of fish. Democracy and improving the people's life standards do
    not top their agendas. All 'colored revolutionaries' in the former
    Soviet Union have showed this graphically.
    I guess Armenia is not looking at a 'colored revolution' and here is
    why Firstly, this is because the first Armenian President, Levon
    Ter-Petrosyan - a figure very vulnerable in many respects - is claiming
    the role of the 'colored revolution' principal driving force. He will
    fail to lure the people with promises of a better life nit because the
    population of Armenia is happy with its current social status or
    because justice and democracy reign in the country, not at all. The
    Armenian people crave for a radical change in their life and in the
    country but they do not want the country led by the president named
    Levon Ter-Petrosyan. People have rightfully associated this name with
    the upheaval, political instability, crippling economic and social
    crises, mass emigration, etc.
    Secondly, an important fact is the Armenian people's historically
    established attitude to Russia that is still regarded by most Armenians
    as a true, reliable ally despite the seeds of dissatisfaction with the
    current Russian policies, growing within the Armenian society and
    encouraged by certain political forces. There are many reasons for
    that, which are grounded in the people's memory of generation, and the
    instinct of self-preservation of the nation, and the spiritual kinship
    of the two peoples, and good judgment grounded in consideration of a
    whole range of geopolitical, historic and regional factors, national
    security issues and matters of the state's smooth development.
    Therefore, 'colored revolutions' do not pose a threat to Armenia at
    present, and time will tell what the sweeping change stoked by
    onrushing global processes will bring about.

    M.D.: The Dashnaktsutyun party, of which you are a member, has a
    presidential nominee of its own. What are the party's domestic and
    foreign policies to be proposed during the election?
    V.H.: As is known, Dashnaktsutyun is not the party in power, but it is
    loyal to it. Its loyalty is not due to Dashnaktsutyun being pleased
    with all of the policies pursued by the authorities. It cannot be
    pleased because it is a party of the socialist trend, while the current
    Armenian authorities continue the course of the first Armenian
    president for unchecked liberalism that has substituted civilized
    market relations and sacrificed competition for wild monopolism in all
    sectors of economy, which led to pauperization, the mass exodus of
    people from the country and lack of a real eradication of corruption
    and crime that engulfed the society.
    Our party is determined, once it assumes power, to pursue policies in
    accordance with the socialist principles and mechanism of the state
    having a true market economy, healthy competition, determined struggle
    against corruption and strengthening of social justice. Dashnaktsutyun
    is loyal to the current authorities in the first place because the
    current foreign policy is generally in accordance with the party's
    policies. I mean the recognition of the genocide of the Armenians by
    Ottoman Turkey - the issue vital to the Armenian nation, state and our
    party, as well as a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem and
    setting foreign policy and national security priorities.
    What is most important, Dashnaktsutyun, unlike newly fledged greenhorn
    parties, understands well the scope of responsibility for any political
    decision that could be fraught with unpredictable consequences for the
    country and the people. Given the current volatile situation in the
    Caucasus, coupled with the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh problem, rocking
    the boat in the political life in the country would be most careless.
    M.D.: Russia is the principal strategic partner of Armenia. How do you
    envision the evolution of the bilateral relations, and how can it alter
    with a new person assuming the top post in Armenia?
    V.H.: Armenia is integrated in the political, economic and especially
    defense cooperation with Russia. An abrupt change of its foreign policy
    might result in the collapse of the armed services and the whole of
    defense efforts of the country.
    I am certain that the populists, who are proactive in trying to cash in
    on all things Western for the time being, realize this as well. A good
    case in point is Levon Ter-Petrosyan himself who can hardly be
    suspected of pro-Russian sentiments but who, when president of Armenia,
    signed the Treaty of friendship and cooperation with Russia and made
    Armenia an active member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization
    (CSTO).
    Therefore, I am certain that any Armenian president to assume
    responsibility for the future of his country will have to consider the
    realities and follow the way ensuring the independence of his country
    and security of his people. To date, such a way, no doubt, runs via the
    cooperation with our tried ally, the Russian Federation.
    M.D.: How do you see the ratio of proponents and opponents of Armenia's
    accession to NATO in the Armenian society and in the parliament?
    V.H.: First off, the Armenians see NATO's presence in the region not in
    the shape of France, Belgium or Greece, but Turkey - the country
    apparently hostile to Armenia and the Armenians. However, the situation
    is not that simple. I think, the previous discourse have already
    answered your question to a certain extent. According to polls, the
    ratio between the NATO accession proponents and opponents among the
    Armenians remains in favor of the opponents so far. However, one cannot
    be dead sure that this will be the fact for along time, because shrewd
    technologies to plant most unexpected intentions into peoples' minds
    have been used repeatedly in many countries, and Armenia is not an
    exception here.
    In this connection I would like to note the hazy position of Russia
    that seems to believe that its former Soviet satellites are a given and
    it has not to keep on doing its best to preserve alliance with them.
    However, the events in the former Soviet Union in the recent years
    should have signaled that the situation has changed radically and that
    Russia has to do its utmost to prove to its formers comrades that they
    will benefit immeasurably from an alliance with it. Russia should do it
    in any effective manner.
    Does Russia do it in a sufficient fashion? I do not think so. At least,
    it does not do it with respect to Armenia. It is possible that this is
    due to unfavorable geopolitical factors enabling some in Russia to
    believe that they can deal shortly with Armenia because 'it has nowhere
    to go'. There is, however, an old rule: he who decides that his ally is
    in the bag himself serves a reason for the ally to distrust him and
    motivates the ally to weaken the relations. The rule is effective even
    if oil revenues are on the rise.
    Therefore, I am reluctant to say that the current upper hand the NATO
    opponents have among the people and in the parliament will remain for a
    long time.
    M.D.: There is a trend towards the emergence of the Ankara-Baku-Tbilisi
    geopolitical axis. How feasible, you think, is the
    Tehran-Yerevan-Moscow axis to offset it? What part could SCTO play in
    this?
    V.H.: You are right, there is such a trend, I would even say it is not
    just a trend, rather a looming outline and prospect of Ankara, Baku and
    Tbilisi's economic and political partnership.
    Establishing the Tehran-Yerevan-Moscow axis is important not only as a
    counterbalance: there is an obvious need for it, the need that is vital
    to Armenia. Unless measures are taken to oppose the countries of the
    former axis, the steps they make may well transform into cynical
    efforts to put the lid on all those who is not with them.
    I think the recent frequent meetings of and concrete steps by the
    Russian, Armenian and Iranian heads of state, aimed at more close
    economic cooperation among the countries will produce a positive effect
    and will facilitate implementation of the projects conceived.
    M.D.: On the one hand, Moscow strives for military-technical
    cooperation with Armenia; on the other, its economic and especially
    energy policies is too pragmatic with respect to its strategic ally,
    i.e. an increase in the price of gas and assuming control of Armenian
    industrial companies as an offset of the country's national debt. Does
    this approach play into the hands of Russia's enemies? How can the
    optimum combination of the national interests of the two countries be
    achieved?
    V.H.: I believe, such an attitude to Armenia is the reason to think
    that Russia is its own enemy and that no other enemies can hurt it more
    than it can hurt itself. Of course, it is not up to us to tell our
    Russian colleagues what their interest and benefit lie in. it seems
    that everybody has interests and benefit of his own.
    I would like to reiterate that it looks like Russia is following the
    way of countries, whose policies are derivatives of the goals of their
    major trade and industrial corporations, and its economic interests are
    beginning to prevail over political expediency. It seems that we have
    to get used to the new character of Russia, in which Gazprom or UES
    will determine its foreign policy, rather than the Kremlin, and we have
    to draw a conclusion.
    By the way, these issues have been touched upon in virtually all
    sessions of the Interparliamentary Cooperation Commission set up by the
    National Assembly of Armenia and the Federal Assembly of Russia, of
    which I have the honour to be a cochairman. It is good that the Russian
    members of parliament raise the same question and not always share the
    position of their government with respect of their staunch allies.
    Certainly, the optimum balance of economic and political interests can
    be struck. I would rather not offer rush recipes, but a mutually
    acceptable solution could be found by the politicians of the two
    countries, if they really want to, but they have to want it first.
    Maybe, they should learn, say, from the United States. In a word, they
    have to be willing to roll up their sleeves.
    M.D.: The Minsk Group on settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
    has been taking a lot of flak lately. What prospects do you think it is
    facing, and are there the alternative to it at present?
    V.H.: Until recently, OSCE's Minsk Group has worked fruitfully and
    given no rise to complaints on our part, until Azerbaijan started
    behaving at the talks in an inadmissible aggressive manner. This is
    explained by the fact that it is becoming ever more evident that
    Azerbaijan is not acting on its own; rather, it is controlled by a
    state that is not part of the Minsk Group de-jure but paralyzes
    Azerbaijan's independent decision-making process de-facto. Turkey tells
    Azerbaijan to set up absolutely unacceptable claims; particularly,
    Azerbaijan has started guising maintenance of peace in the region as a
    concession on its part. Thus, hostile Turkey influencing the Minsk
    Group by proxy of Azerbaijan violates the original principle of
    involving neutral states in the Minsk Group.
    This is happening with international organizations turning the blind
    eye to the fact. There is also the need of getting Nagorno-Karabakh
    back at the bargaining table. I think, if the two issues are settled,
    nobody will have to look for an alternative to the Minsk Group, which
    does not exist though.


    Biography of Vahan E. Hovannesian
    Born 16 August 1956 in Yerevan.
    1978 - graduated from the Moscow Pedagogical University.
    Historian, archaeologist, holder of an MA diploma.
    1978-80 - serviceman of the Soviet Army.
    1980-89 - researcher, Erebuni Museum section chief.
    1989 - researcher of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of
    the Armenian Academy of Sciences.
    1990-92 - participant in the liberation fight in Nagorno-Karabakh.
    1995-98 - imprisoned on charges that were proven groundless afterwards.
    1998-99 - advisor to the president of the Republic of Armenia, Chairman
    of the Local Government Commission.
    1999-2003 - member of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia,
    Chairman of the Standing Committee for Defense, National Security and
    Internal Affairs.
    2003 to date - member of the National Assembly of the Republic of
    Armenia
    Since 12 June 2003 to date - deputy Chairman of the National Assembly
    of the Republic of Armenia, member of ARF, member of the Bureau of ARF.
    Presidential nominee from ARF for the 2008 election.
    Married, two children.
Working...
X