Tweet
ARMENIA MUST HAVE THE FUTURE OF CROSSROADS
Lusine Petrosyan
A1+
[12:39 pm] 30 September, 2008
The President of NATO Parliamentary Assembly Mr. Jose Lello paid an
official visit to Armenia on September 17-18. Still several months ago
the Spokesman of Armenian Parliament Mr. Tigran Torosyan had invited
NATO PA President to make this tour. On quest's arrival Mr. Torosyan
was already resigning from office, so the Deputy Spokesman of
Parliament as well as several ministers and the President of Republic
met with Mr. Lello.
Taking into account that relations with Euro-Atlantic structures under
the light of recent events in South Caucasus had become an important
discussion topic not only for authorities but also for Armenian people,
Mr. Lello found a short while to give this interview to our newspaper
before his departure.
-Dear PA President, as the time is short I'd like not to touch the
Russian-Georgia conflict and the EU-NATO involvement in it's settlement
but rightly to turn to this conflict's impact on South Caucasus region,
and on Armenia in particular.
- Well, the recent events in Georgia in some aspect created new
perspectives. In certain way I think it came with facilitating some
processes of stabilization in South Caucasus.
For example the case of Armenia - during of Georgian crisis the
Armenia's economy sensibly suffered because of blockade. This has
stressed the geopolitical constraints to Armenia. But on the other
way identifying the fragility of situation on Georgia it for example
I think facilitated the visit of President Gul to Armenia.
Armenia that was really very fragile in its geopolitical posture
became in certain way potentially rather important in geostrategical
aspect. Armenia gained a real potential to be an alternative as a
crossroad between let's say...
-Caspian Sea and Europe. - Exactly. I'd say not only Caspian Sea,
even Central Asia and Europe, because the pipelines now are coming
from Azerbaijan, but in future they'll come from Kazakhstan.
So in certain way the situation unfolded in region during recent
events clarified some great possibilities for Armenia. And the paradox
is that this move creates, in my point of view, also a possibility
for another accommodation - let's say to process of real negotiating
and regulating the relations with its neighbors. This, if happens in
future, can create a new security system for South Caucasus.
I think this system, if it's possible, must be created on a base of
rational approach. The partners must have a rational attitude. There
are certain examples from the past how former enemies committed
themselves to rational approach to pursue common interest. Foreign
relations are not based on passion; they are not based, in most of
times, also on historical heritage or emotions. They are based on
interest - e.g. the Cyprus problem. Both parties the Greeks and the
Turks didn't became partners with a great aim or great passion. They
realized that for their both interest it will be better to have
a settlement of problem and open the borders. Looking to Armenia -
forming relations and opening the boards is utmost important here. When
you see the cost of, for example oil barrel arriving to Armenia or
cost of exporting products from Armenia to foreign markets, surely
the high cost undermines their competitively. So I think the Armenian
people and Armenia authorities must look on perspectives emerging
from open borders with great pragmatism.
In this regard I think the football has been not only a game, but
became a catalyst for a new approach. I'm looking to the future with
optimism. A kind of regulation, a settlement of relations between
Armenia and Turkey I think will have an immediate impact on solution
of Nagorno-Karabakh problem. It's important to create a base of
confidence measures, to reach a kind of official solution for the
entity of Nagorno-Karabakh and then both parties will have to look
to the future, to growth and prosperity. It is the best way. And the
history will go on to accommodate the rest during the history itself.
So briefly I think there is a possibility for stabilizing the
situation in South Caucasus and achieving a comprehensive cooperation
and progress here not on the base of "three minus one" approach but
on the base of "three equal to three" formula. None of three South
Caucasus nations must be excluded from regional projects leading to
3-1 situation, but the "3 must be equal to 3" and all the nations
must get involved into regional processes.
-In recent days so many configurations are being made with these
figures 3+2, 3+3. Turkey displayed an initiative, then Russia told
something, then Iran decided to get involved. Still I think the core
transformation that brought all these local "super-powers" into move
is the fact that EU and NATO entered South Caucasus, isn't it?
- It's sure. And here I'd like to specify that most of people identify
NATO with a military organization. Still nowadays NATO is essentially
a political organization. Of course the military branch is very
important. There is no capacity for negotiations without military
component, it's a base for good starting for negotiations. But the
organization is profoundly a political one and its presence in South
Caucasus must not cause alarm to Russia or other neighbors.
In the case of Russia - we are living in partnership with
Russia. Russia has a lot of interest in Euro-Atlantic area and in
relation with this area. I may tell honestly, I can't understand
very well this new approach of Russia to old fashion systems
of behavior. Their blitzkrieg on Georgian territory was totally
disproportioning to the situation aroused in South Ossetia. I'm not
going into detail about who started, who didn't start, who made the
motivation? Russia was disproportionate.
Moreover I can't understand why Russia recognized the independence
of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In fact they say that the Kosovo was
a precedent. Then while being against the Kosovo independence why
to create more strong precedents pretty close to their own borders,
especially beside those unrest sections inside their own territory
that may similarly get involved into the process. Is Russia going
to recognize Ingushetia? Are they recognizing Chechnya? So I think
they created a situation that doesn't accord even to their own
interests, it looks more as if playing with fire. Russia is playing
with fire. Honestly I don't understand Russians. And even now they
made a military agreement with Abkhazia and Ossetia. This is really
not a quite understandable jest or decision.
But anyway Russia in global world, as far as we are living in
today, has a lot of interests in EU. It had received a lot of
investments from European Union; the EU is a great customer of
its energy supplies. There are firm economic ties and interests in
fact. Nevertheless Russia has to understand that life is not only
energy, oil and gas.
- And weapon. - Well, in weapons I have my doubts.
- They equally use energy or weapon depending on advisability.
- Well, but concerning to effectiveness of weapon, even recently in
Georgia they had some setbacks. It's not quite understandable how
many aircrafts there were been shut down during that period, you see.
Still anyhow looking to the future for a new security system in South
Caucasus the dialogue with neighbors is surely essential - with Russia,
with Turkey and with Iran. The policy of good neighboring is essential,
it's fundamental. We can choice the friends; we can't make any choice
on neighbors.
- Yes. Mr. Lello, I'd like to turn to theme of NATO and EU presence
in South Caucasus once more. Our authorities talk about integration
with EU but even opposition tries to escape from talks about joining
the NATO. Yet for many people in region it's important to be sure that
EU and NATO will be here and stand with us until we become part of it.
- When we talk about integration with Europe and Euro-Atlantic
structures, namely the EU, NATO etc, we must always remember, that
more than physical and structure integration, joining to Europe
means joining to a model. Europe is a model of civilization, model of
democracy, model of tolerance, model of respect of human rights, model
of ideology. And this European model had spread all over the world
as a model of real democracy and a system of better co-existence of
nations. It's a good example where countries with lots of differences
and bitter history like France and Germany or even Poland and Germany
came to peaceful coexistence and started to cooperate in interest of
their states and peoples.
So more than a structure, Europe is a model, an ideological model
and countries like Armenia follow this model. The countries choose
European model as a goal and hope for better future of growth and
development on a sustainable base, but also on a base where people
have capacity to decide for themselves about their future with terms
of tolerance and peaceful co-existence. So this is the model
NATO itself is already in Armenia, due to IPP (Individual
Partnership Plan) developed with your authorities. NATO supports
Armenia in modernization of your military system creating a better
interoperability, creating a better military doctrine, creating a
legislative system where the military are controlled by the parliament,
by political forces. So this is NATO not only as a system that is
changing with great reforms your defense and security environment,
but also as an ideological tool.
It's a new way and tool. It's a better insurance for peace. With NATO
adventures are not possible. With NATO any military action depends
on agreement of other allies, it depends on political parliamentary
control over the military decisions. This is the core of ideological
model. You can't forget that Europe has been through history a stage
for battles, wars and disasters. And in the last more than sixty
years Europe is enjoying peace thanks to created ideological model
of co-existence and peace.
In this respect and considering the positive experience in peaceful
conflict settlements that Europe already possesses, I think NATO is
a framework, a basis, a common ground that may also contribute to
developing a dialogue between Armenia and it's neighbors to solve
the problems. With different cards or different entrance capacities
but all the parties are members of same club. Therefore I'm looking
to situation with great optimism.
- I think many people would like to share your optimism, but
until Azerbaijan accuses Armenia for occupying it's territories,
something that actually isn't true (if intending to occupy Azerbaijan
territories why would the Armenians occupy Karabakh instead of
Kazakh region that would allow to control oil and gas pipelines or
Nakhijevan - establishing full communication with Middle East?), so
until Azerbaijan doesn't stop to falsify and present the self-defense
of Nagorno-Karabakh as an occupation by Armenia, how the essence of
problem may be identified for further solution?
- Well, but let's look to facts. In fact Armenia is occupying
Azerbaijan territory. Why? In order to create a connection between
Karabakh and your territory some lands outside Nagorno Karabakh were
occupied. So in case of full settlement there must be a withdrawal
from these territories, surely on the base that there will not be
any blockade from Armenia to Karabakh as well as from Azerbaijan
to Nakhijevan..
On the base of co-existence of course they will allow you to cross
their territories, you will allow them to cross your territory, the
trains will lead to Yerevan, Baku, Nakhijevan, etc. And there will
be totally different environment.
In Europe nowadays we don't have any blockades; you can't even
recognize the borders because everyone passes. Yet we are not loosing
our sovereignty or control over our territory, but we do this on base
of cooperation between powers, between police. We have even agreement
that police if pursuing some criminals they can go even inside the
other country. So this is a part of ideological system that has to be
exported to this part of world. So I think further steps must be taken.
-Still I can't agree that Armenia and not the Nagorno Karabakh
had occupied any territories, but your belief into European type
post-conflict settlement truly inspires. And let's in the end go
to another blocked frontier - between Armenia and Turkey. Surely I
must ask has NATO ever appreciated the Turkish policy of blockading
Armenia and why does NATO tolerates it?
- For us, we hope this situation is going to have a positive
evolution. We'd like to be more and more involved in this process. As
far as we have a good relationship with Armenia and good relationship
with Turkey - this is a faithful ally for long time - our aim is
to assist a certain settlement between the two countries in order
to overcome these constraints. I hope in near future we can assist
opening the frontiers to permit the flow of your goods through Turkish
highroads system because it's more developed than the Iranian. The
Iranian system doesn't have good infrastructure.
-Turkey is preferable simply because of exit to Mediterranean. For
millenniums there was Armenia Major. Today rightly or wrongly partly
it's called Turkey, O.K. But when this Turkey blocks the reach of
Armenians to Mediterranean...
- I'll tell you. The day when the frontiers will be opened you'll
get the reach to wider world through Turkey. Those who criticize this
policy of improving the relations between two countries they must think
about the change. There will be a great revolution in your economy. The
day you have open borders your goods can flow without high cost...
-Perhaps, but there is a more profound problem - the Armenians to
stop perceiving Turks as enemy. I suppose the Turks know what they
have committed through history and still they keep on their hostile
policy - they close our borders, they damage our economy...
- Both sides are sleeping and living with history too long. We can't
forget history. History is always a good example to avoid new dangers
in future. But anyway as I told in the beginning what is needed is
rational approach. Don't forget the history. But look not only into
history of past but also into history of future.
And of course the opening of borders between Armenia and Turkey
is an issue that either NATO, either European Union are pursuing
now. Armenia can be a crossroad. And Armenia being a crossroad will
have prosperous future.
- Let the assumptions become true. And surely thanks for interview.
Lusine Petrosyan
A1+
[12:39 pm] 30 September, 2008
The President of NATO Parliamentary Assembly Mr. Jose Lello paid an
official visit to Armenia on September 17-18. Still several months ago
the Spokesman of Armenian Parliament Mr. Tigran Torosyan had invited
NATO PA President to make this tour. On quest's arrival Mr. Torosyan
was already resigning from office, so the Deputy Spokesman of
Parliament as well as several ministers and the President of Republic
met with Mr. Lello.
Taking into account that relations with Euro-Atlantic structures under
the light of recent events in South Caucasus had become an important
discussion topic not only for authorities but also for Armenian people,
Mr. Lello found a short while to give this interview to our newspaper
before his departure.
-Dear PA President, as the time is short I'd like not to touch the
Russian-Georgia conflict and the EU-NATO involvement in it's settlement
but rightly to turn to this conflict's impact on South Caucasus region,
and on Armenia in particular.
- Well, the recent events in Georgia in some aspect created new
perspectives. In certain way I think it came with facilitating some
processes of stabilization in South Caucasus.
For example the case of Armenia - during of Georgian crisis the
Armenia's economy sensibly suffered because of blockade. This has
stressed the geopolitical constraints to Armenia. But on the other
way identifying the fragility of situation on Georgia it for example
I think facilitated the visit of President Gul to Armenia.
Armenia that was really very fragile in its geopolitical posture
became in certain way potentially rather important in geostrategical
aspect. Armenia gained a real potential to be an alternative as a
crossroad between let's say...
-Caspian Sea and Europe. - Exactly. I'd say not only Caspian Sea,
even Central Asia and Europe, because the pipelines now are coming
from Azerbaijan, but in future they'll come from Kazakhstan.
So in certain way the situation unfolded in region during recent
events clarified some great possibilities for Armenia. And the paradox
is that this move creates, in my point of view, also a possibility
for another accommodation - let's say to process of real negotiating
and regulating the relations with its neighbors. This, if happens in
future, can create a new security system for South Caucasus.
I think this system, if it's possible, must be created on a base of
rational approach. The partners must have a rational attitude. There
are certain examples from the past how former enemies committed
themselves to rational approach to pursue common interest. Foreign
relations are not based on passion; they are not based, in most of
times, also on historical heritage or emotions. They are based on
interest - e.g. the Cyprus problem. Both parties the Greeks and the
Turks didn't became partners with a great aim or great passion. They
realized that for their both interest it will be better to have
a settlement of problem and open the borders. Looking to Armenia -
forming relations and opening the boards is utmost important here. When
you see the cost of, for example oil barrel arriving to Armenia or
cost of exporting products from Armenia to foreign markets, surely
the high cost undermines their competitively. So I think the Armenian
people and Armenia authorities must look on perspectives emerging
from open borders with great pragmatism.
In this regard I think the football has been not only a game, but
became a catalyst for a new approach. I'm looking to the future with
optimism. A kind of regulation, a settlement of relations between
Armenia and Turkey I think will have an immediate impact on solution
of Nagorno-Karabakh problem. It's important to create a base of
confidence measures, to reach a kind of official solution for the
entity of Nagorno-Karabakh and then both parties will have to look
to the future, to growth and prosperity. It is the best way. And the
history will go on to accommodate the rest during the history itself.
So briefly I think there is a possibility for stabilizing the
situation in South Caucasus and achieving a comprehensive cooperation
and progress here not on the base of "three minus one" approach but
on the base of "three equal to three" formula. None of three South
Caucasus nations must be excluded from regional projects leading to
3-1 situation, but the "3 must be equal to 3" and all the nations
must get involved into regional processes.
-In recent days so many configurations are being made with these
figures 3+2, 3+3. Turkey displayed an initiative, then Russia told
something, then Iran decided to get involved. Still I think the core
transformation that brought all these local "super-powers" into move
is the fact that EU and NATO entered South Caucasus, isn't it?
- It's sure. And here I'd like to specify that most of people identify
NATO with a military organization. Still nowadays NATO is essentially
a political organization. Of course the military branch is very
important. There is no capacity for negotiations without military
component, it's a base for good starting for negotiations. But the
organization is profoundly a political one and its presence in South
Caucasus must not cause alarm to Russia or other neighbors.
In the case of Russia - we are living in partnership with
Russia. Russia has a lot of interest in Euro-Atlantic area and in
relation with this area. I may tell honestly, I can't understand
very well this new approach of Russia to old fashion systems
of behavior. Their blitzkrieg on Georgian territory was totally
disproportioning to the situation aroused in South Ossetia. I'm not
going into detail about who started, who didn't start, who made the
motivation? Russia was disproportionate.
Moreover I can't understand why Russia recognized the independence
of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In fact they say that the Kosovo was
a precedent. Then while being against the Kosovo independence why
to create more strong precedents pretty close to their own borders,
especially beside those unrest sections inside their own territory
that may similarly get involved into the process. Is Russia going
to recognize Ingushetia? Are they recognizing Chechnya? So I think
they created a situation that doesn't accord even to their own
interests, it looks more as if playing with fire. Russia is playing
with fire. Honestly I don't understand Russians. And even now they
made a military agreement with Abkhazia and Ossetia. This is really
not a quite understandable jest or decision.
But anyway Russia in global world, as far as we are living in
today, has a lot of interests in EU. It had received a lot of
investments from European Union; the EU is a great customer of
its energy supplies. There are firm economic ties and interests in
fact. Nevertheless Russia has to understand that life is not only
energy, oil and gas.
- And weapon. - Well, in weapons I have my doubts.
- They equally use energy or weapon depending on advisability.
- Well, but concerning to effectiveness of weapon, even recently in
Georgia they had some setbacks. It's not quite understandable how
many aircrafts there were been shut down during that period, you see.
Still anyhow looking to the future for a new security system in South
Caucasus the dialogue with neighbors is surely essential - with Russia,
with Turkey and with Iran. The policy of good neighboring is essential,
it's fundamental. We can choice the friends; we can't make any choice
on neighbors.
- Yes. Mr. Lello, I'd like to turn to theme of NATO and EU presence
in South Caucasus once more. Our authorities talk about integration
with EU but even opposition tries to escape from talks about joining
the NATO. Yet for many people in region it's important to be sure that
EU and NATO will be here and stand with us until we become part of it.
- When we talk about integration with Europe and Euro-Atlantic
structures, namely the EU, NATO etc, we must always remember, that
more than physical and structure integration, joining to Europe
means joining to a model. Europe is a model of civilization, model of
democracy, model of tolerance, model of respect of human rights, model
of ideology. And this European model had spread all over the world
as a model of real democracy and a system of better co-existence of
nations. It's a good example where countries with lots of differences
and bitter history like France and Germany or even Poland and Germany
came to peaceful coexistence and started to cooperate in interest of
their states and peoples.
So more than a structure, Europe is a model, an ideological model
and countries like Armenia follow this model. The countries choose
European model as a goal and hope for better future of growth and
development on a sustainable base, but also on a base where people
have capacity to decide for themselves about their future with terms
of tolerance and peaceful co-existence. So this is the model
NATO itself is already in Armenia, due to IPP (Individual
Partnership Plan) developed with your authorities. NATO supports
Armenia in modernization of your military system creating a better
interoperability, creating a better military doctrine, creating a
legislative system where the military are controlled by the parliament,
by political forces. So this is NATO not only as a system that is
changing with great reforms your defense and security environment,
but also as an ideological tool.
It's a new way and tool. It's a better insurance for peace. With NATO
adventures are not possible. With NATO any military action depends
on agreement of other allies, it depends on political parliamentary
control over the military decisions. This is the core of ideological
model. You can't forget that Europe has been through history a stage
for battles, wars and disasters. And in the last more than sixty
years Europe is enjoying peace thanks to created ideological model
of co-existence and peace.
In this respect and considering the positive experience in peaceful
conflict settlements that Europe already possesses, I think NATO is
a framework, a basis, a common ground that may also contribute to
developing a dialogue between Armenia and it's neighbors to solve
the problems. With different cards or different entrance capacities
but all the parties are members of same club. Therefore I'm looking
to situation with great optimism.
- I think many people would like to share your optimism, but
until Azerbaijan accuses Armenia for occupying it's territories,
something that actually isn't true (if intending to occupy Azerbaijan
territories why would the Armenians occupy Karabakh instead of
Kazakh region that would allow to control oil and gas pipelines or
Nakhijevan - establishing full communication with Middle East?), so
until Azerbaijan doesn't stop to falsify and present the self-defense
of Nagorno-Karabakh as an occupation by Armenia, how the essence of
problem may be identified for further solution?
- Well, but let's look to facts. In fact Armenia is occupying
Azerbaijan territory. Why? In order to create a connection between
Karabakh and your territory some lands outside Nagorno Karabakh were
occupied. So in case of full settlement there must be a withdrawal
from these territories, surely on the base that there will not be
any blockade from Armenia to Karabakh as well as from Azerbaijan
to Nakhijevan..
On the base of co-existence of course they will allow you to cross
their territories, you will allow them to cross your territory, the
trains will lead to Yerevan, Baku, Nakhijevan, etc. And there will
be totally different environment.
In Europe nowadays we don't have any blockades; you can't even
recognize the borders because everyone passes. Yet we are not loosing
our sovereignty or control over our territory, but we do this on base
of cooperation between powers, between police. We have even agreement
that police if pursuing some criminals they can go even inside the
other country. So this is a part of ideological system that has to be
exported to this part of world. So I think further steps must be taken.
-Still I can't agree that Armenia and not the Nagorno Karabakh
had occupied any territories, but your belief into European type
post-conflict settlement truly inspires. And let's in the end go
to another blocked frontier - between Armenia and Turkey. Surely I
must ask has NATO ever appreciated the Turkish policy of blockading
Armenia and why does NATO tolerates it?
- For us, we hope this situation is going to have a positive
evolution. We'd like to be more and more involved in this process. As
far as we have a good relationship with Armenia and good relationship
with Turkey - this is a faithful ally for long time - our aim is
to assist a certain settlement between the two countries in order
to overcome these constraints. I hope in near future we can assist
opening the frontiers to permit the flow of your goods through Turkish
highroads system because it's more developed than the Iranian. The
Iranian system doesn't have good infrastructure.
-Turkey is preferable simply because of exit to Mediterranean. For
millenniums there was Armenia Major. Today rightly or wrongly partly
it's called Turkey, O.K. But when this Turkey blocks the reach of
Armenians to Mediterranean...
- I'll tell you. The day when the frontiers will be opened you'll
get the reach to wider world through Turkey. Those who criticize this
policy of improving the relations between two countries they must think
about the change. There will be a great revolution in your economy. The
day you have open borders your goods can flow without high cost...
-Perhaps, but there is a more profound problem - the Armenians to
stop perceiving Turks as enemy. I suppose the Turks know what they
have committed through history and still they keep on their hostile
policy - they close our borders, they damage our economy...
- Both sides are sleeping and living with history too long. We can't
forget history. History is always a good example to avoid new dangers
in future. But anyway as I told in the beginning what is needed is
rational approach. Don't forget the history. But look not only into
history of past but also into history of future.
And of course the opening of borders between Armenia and Turkey
is an issue that either NATO, either European Union are pursuing
now. Armenia can be a crossroad. And Armenia being a crossroad will
have prosperous future.
- Let the assumptions become true. And surely thanks for interview.