Tweet
president.am, Armenia
June 26 2010
President Sargsyan's speech at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation
Mr. Chairman,
Dear Friends,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am thankful for the opportunity to be here today, at this reputable
Foundation which is named after the first Chancellor of the Federal
Republic of Germany. I salute all the participants of today's meeting,
the leadership of the Foundation, and particularly Mr. Pottering with
whom I once had a chance to work. I am glad, Mr. Pottering, to see you
again and to know that you maintain continued interest toward our
region. Konrad Adenauer's vision, which defined the post-war Germany's
political development and made possible the implementation of the idea
of a United Europe, is a brilliant example of political wisdom, which
has not diminished even now, decades later.
Dear Friends,
Today, I will talk about the South Caucasus, about its role,
significance, about its past, and, what's even more important, about
its future. Our region has been defined in different terms ` a bridge
between Asia and Europe, a knot of energy security, a factor of
stability or instability, a transit zone for communication routes, a
stage where forces compete and interests are juxtaposed ` the list
goes on and on. All these definitions are impersonal, aloof and
unconcerned since they do not reveal but rather conceal differences
existing among the inhabitants the region, differences among the
peoples- bearers of collective national identity and culture,
differences among the vectors and trends of their development.
Moreover, perceptions shaped by such definitions are obstructive for
us too and create a situation when according to Adenauer `We all live
under the same sun, but don't have the same horizon.'
Certainly, there are not too many places in the world where one can
find such a diversity of nations, ethnic groups, cultures, religions
and civilizations. But all of it combined constitutes our real wealth.
We should be able to rise and move forward, working not against this
diversity or rejecting each other but rather complementing and
mutually enriching each other - just like other European states do.
International borders in the Caucasus run for 3000 kilometers, and I
note with regret that these borders divide us rather than unite. It is
also true, that there are not too many places in the world where the
inhabitants have similar historical problems, anguish and even
animosity towards each other. However, the example of Konrad Adenauer
is relevant in this context as well ` he saw Europe's future and
Germany's place in that Europe.
Is it possible to build a similar future for our region? Of course, it
is possible. It is possible if there is a political leadership able to
see far and deep, to set the goal, to show unified approach, proper
rationalization, strong will to accept it and move toward that goal
together. Does it sound like too difficult a task? Probably, it is.
But not here, in Europe. Achievements of those who passed that road
are obvious for everyone. These achievements are inspiring, the manner
in which the road was passed ` exemplary.
The end of Cold War brought peace stability to many places in the
world. But there are still places, including the South Caucasus, where
the end of Cold War heralded the era of fierce conflicts.
State-building of newly independent countries has been accompanied by
wars, coups, severe economic crises, militarization of societies,
xenophobia, intolerance and hatred. Almost two decades have passed.
Have we learned the lessons of our not so distant past? I think, no.
In a post-crisis society the easiest and the most tempting solution
for a politician is to employ chauvinism. For the society which is
emerging from wars, crises, economic recession it could be perceived
as a promise of salvation: `I will save you because we are the same
kind.' Even though it can in short-term mobilize the society's
internal forces, this is an erroneous solution, this is not a solution
aimed into future. It cannot be. To repair your own apartment in a
crumpling building, hoping that you are taking care of your personal
safety, is useless. Moreover, it is inadmissible to build your own
security at the expense of your neighbors. The neighbors will not
forget that. A couple of pipes running to the neighboring building can
provide neither security, nor prosperity, nor improve the image of the
residents in the eyes of the others.
The greatest economic project implemented in our region so far, was
the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Some even called it a `world
project', the `project of the century', etc. During the August 2008
war in Georgia, when the pipeline ceased operations, the world oil
market didn't register any fluctuations. For me personally that was
the best indicator of the project's `world' caliber. What brought the
project to the region? Deepening dividing lines, arms race, sharp
increase in bellicose rhetoric¦Was it the anticipated `security and
prosperity'? God forbid the region to taste all the `benefits' of that
project.
With this regard, it is important that all the future projects and
scenarios maintain balance and do not instigate disagreements or heat
up temptations to resort to force for the resolution of the problems.
>From time to time I hear a representative of a country to boast that
his or her nation is situated on the `crossroads of civilizations'. To
be frank, I have used the same definition myself on a number of
occasions. I am indeed a representative of the nation which through
the millennia of its existence has always been positioned on such a
crossroads. And not only geographically. We were at the crossroads of
religions, imperial ambitions, languages, world outlooks, and in the
20th century ` also on the crossroads of ideologies. That reality
advanced the spiritual and cultural development of our nation. But it
had also become a source of horrendous tragedies for my people. Small
nations living on the crossroads will understand us.
We are swiftly entering a historic phase which assumes a multipolar
world. I think that apprehensions that even the slightest
manifestations of North-South-East-West confrontation may `dissect'
our `crossroads'-region are justified, while the stability can be
maintained only until the first shot is fired. In 2008 the spread of
the military confrontation was averted only because of great efforts
and restrain. It may not be possible to do it for the second time.
After all, hundred years ago nobody would imagine that the
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the
Austro-Hungarian throne, would result in the death of 16 million
people and would impair another 31 million.
If we are to choose among the depictions of our region mentioned
above, the people of South Caucasus have only one way to avoid a
disastrous scenario such as that one ` to see and recognize the
future, our `common horizon'.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Condensed human experience proves that nothing stimulates nations to
reach agreement more than the anticipated economic profit. There are
multiple examples which prove that integration through economic
cooperation and political solutions guarantee long-term stability.
The South Caucasus is a place where interests of all parties ` partner
states, regional leaders, and interests of investors, can connect. In
a situation where all players ` superpowers, regional leaders and
other interested parties have the opportunity to complement each other
and efficiently serve their interests, anyone who's trying to stir up
things must be kept at bay.
I realize that against the backdrop of the sanctions against Iran,
some skeptics will doubt my approach, but I am confident that with
regard to regional solutions Iran cannot be overlooked or neglected.
It is very important for the region to dissipate the feeling that Iran
is in danger. Otherwise, there will be no solution - neither for the
issues of tomorrow nor for today's nuclear problems.
Will the South Caucasian `economic pie' satisfy everyone's appetite?
Probably, partition of a small pie will not satisfy everyone's
craving, however the decision to hand the pie to one or two players is
not right either, since it will only instigate new problems. It is
simply necessary to bake a larger pie.
If we speak about energy, it means that the region instead of being a
source of energy should become an energy knot. If we speak about
dead-ends and closed borders, it means that the region should become a
transportation knot, connecting North and South, East and West. It is
necessary to diversify the programs. Pipelines and communications
running from East to West cannot ensure security, stability and
prosperity of the region.
In recent year, we have initiated a number of major programs.
We have tangible developments in the energy area. We have concluded
the construction of a new thermo-energy station and continue to
operate the old one. We have also undertaken the construction of a
new, more powerful bloc of the Armenian Nuclear Power Station. As a
result, our country can become an important supplier of electric power
in the region.
We are also commencing works on the construction of a highway which
will connect the Georgian sea ports via Armenia with the Iranian
border. We are also planning to start the project development of the
Armenia-Iran railroad. These infrastructure development projects may
hold revolutionary significance for transport communication connecting
the Black Sea to Persian Gulf and the Indian ocean, running through
Iran to Central Asia and beyond - to Pakistan and India.
Searching for sponsors and supporters of these projects we have been
looking at a wide range: from Washington to Moscow, from Brussels to
Beijing and Tokyo. We are not limiting the problem by merely finding
investors. In our perception the issue is larger than that: To create
a wide network encompassing interested parties and consequently to
balance as many interests as possible. We would love to see the
European leaders ` Germany and France ` to have a more pronounced
participation in that area. After all, it's not about whether you're
ready or not to invest in this or that area. The question is larger
than that ` are you ready to invest into the future of the region.
Approaching the issue from the viewpoint of economic benefit only, we
are overlooking its most important component ` considerable increase
of security and proportionate development level. Eventually, the maxim
that internal region's problems are no more than region's internal
problems and if necessary they can be frozen on the regional level,
still want some validation.
I must also disagree with the viewpoint or approach which maintains
that first it is necessary to achieve some kind of political solution,
which later will be `sugar-coated' with generous economic assistance.
I have serious doubts that such approach will be viable in our region.
Approaches such as this one work in the situations when the
`persuading' party is clearly defined, whose authority is not
challenged and will not be challenged by anyone. Such approach works
in the Balkans, however in the absence of a `persuading' party it
doesn't work in many other places, most notably ` in Palestine.
Anyway, in the nearest future I don't believe there will be
comprehensive political solutions in our region, while the enhancement
of the economic regional cooperation will by itself compel to
reconsider the status quo of closed borders and frozen relations and
will create the atmosphere of mutual trust conducive for the
resolution of the conflicts.
I would like to depart a little from the topic and speak about the
experience acquired as a result of the developments concerning our
initiative to normalize relations with Turkey. In asserting our
initiative to normalize relations with Turkey, we were also guided by
the concerns regarding the security of the region, which I expressed
today. It was a concern about the future of the region, concern about
the dividing lines, establishment of the atmosphere of trust,
enhancement of economic cooperation as a guarantee of setting a
favorable outline for the solution of political problems. Why didn't
our initiative succeed? Turkey backed out of its commitments and not
only failed to ratify the signed Protocols but also got back to its
pre-negotiation position, to the language of preconditions, dictates
and even threats. Even today, the last closed border in Europe, the
Armenian-Turkish border remains closed.
Undoubtedly, the obstruction of the normalization process by the
Turkish side can be explicated by the inability and unwillingness of
that country's political leadership, probably also by various
political calculations. The analysts will probably add the factor of
Azerbaijani pressure. Some Western analysts have been trying to
convince me that it is a temporary matter, for the internal,
pre-election consumption. Perhaps, the time will show. However, a
deeper analysis brings about one conclusion: in our region the
approach of solving one's problem at the other's expense is deeply
enrooted, the approach `I am strong, I will be setting the terms' is
still very much alive. Turkey's `zero problems with neighbors' policy
yields zero results. It will continue to as long as Turkey will be
searching for the benefits in the clash of interests in our region
rather than in their balanced correlation.
I am convinced that the time has come for the regional leaders to
transcend parochial political agendas and concepts and display the
qualities of true leaders aimed at shaping the future, not the revival
of the past. I hope that this generation of leaders will be able to
adopt such changes.
Armenia has appealed for many times to its Eastern neighbor,
Azerbaijan to employ the capacities of our countries for the benefit
of stability and development of the region. Arms race and belligerent
statements cannot promise a good future to our children. I am stating
it as a person, who had gone through the crucible of an imposed war,
enjoyed the raptures of victory but will never forget the bitterness
of war. Eventually, one day when the region will see the processes of
economic integration, we will be able to solve the Karabakh issue with
less difficulty and ensure a safe and secure, prosperous existence for
our nations other than today ` existence in the atmosphere of distrust
and suspicion. I am sure that our Georgian colleagues share our
approaches regarding regional integration.
We are entitled to expect similar approach from our partners engaged
in the region. We are talking constantly about facilitation of
integration and relations but what are we doing on that direction?
Even in the framework of the EU Eastern Partnership program we observe
impassively how some countries-participants of the program are trying
to restrict the opportunities of regional cooperation. For instance,
Azerbaijan, adhering once again to its longstanding policy of limiting
Armenia's participation in TRACEKA, is trying to extend the same
policy on the Eastern Partnership program.
Dear Friends,
In conclusion, I would like to underline that Armenia is devoted to
its goal of building a civil society based on democratic principles
and pledges to create in the region the environment of stability,
security, peace and economic development, sealed by mutual interests
and commitments.
According to Martin Luther, `Everything that is done in the world is
done by hope'. I hope that one day, gathered around one table we will
start a genuine and practical dialogue with our neighbors and friends
` it is required by the logic of `common horizon'. I am confident that
the day will come when the question `is it possible in our region?'
will be answered with a resolute `yes'.
Thank you.
From: A. Papazian
June 26 2010
President Sargsyan's speech at the Konrad Adenauer Foundation
Mr. Chairman,
Dear Friends,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am thankful for the opportunity to be here today, at this reputable
Foundation which is named after the first Chancellor of the Federal
Republic of Germany. I salute all the participants of today's meeting,
the leadership of the Foundation, and particularly Mr. Pottering with
whom I once had a chance to work. I am glad, Mr. Pottering, to see you
again and to know that you maintain continued interest toward our
region. Konrad Adenauer's vision, which defined the post-war Germany's
political development and made possible the implementation of the idea
of a United Europe, is a brilliant example of political wisdom, which
has not diminished even now, decades later.
Dear Friends,
Today, I will talk about the South Caucasus, about its role,
significance, about its past, and, what's even more important, about
its future. Our region has been defined in different terms ` a bridge
between Asia and Europe, a knot of energy security, a factor of
stability or instability, a transit zone for communication routes, a
stage where forces compete and interests are juxtaposed ` the list
goes on and on. All these definitions are impersonal, aloof and
unconcerned since they do not reveal but rather conceal differences
existing among the inhabitants the region, differences among the
peoples- bearers of collective national identity and culture,
differences among the vectors and trends of their development.
Moreover, perceptions shaped by such definitions are obstructive for
us too and create a situation when according to Adenauer `We all live
under the same sun, but don't have the same horizon.'
Certainly, there are not too many places in the world where one can
find such a diversity of nations, ethnic groups, cultures, religions
and civilizations. But all of it combined constitutes our real wealth.
We should be able to rise and move forward, working not against this
diversity or rejecting each other but rather complementing and
mutually enriching each other - just like other European states do.
International borders in the Caucasus run for 3000 kilometers, and I
note with regret that these borders divide us rather than unite. It is
also true, that there are not too many places in the world where the
inhabitants have similar historical problems, anguish and even
animosity towards each other. However, the example of Konrad Adenauer
is relevant in this context as well ` he saw Europe's future and
Germany's place in that Europe.
Is it possible to build a similar future for our region? Of course, it
is possible. It is possible if there is a political leadership able to
see far and deep, to set the goal, to show unified approach, proper
rationalization, strong will to accept it and move toward that goal
together. Does it sound like too difficult a task? Probably, it is.
But not here, in Europe. Achievements of those who passed that road
are obvious for everyone. These achievements are inspiring, the manner
in which the road was passed ` exemplary.
The end of Cold War brought peace stability to many places in the
world. But there are still places, including the South Caucasus, where
the end of Cold War heralded the era of fierce conflicts.
State-building of newly independent countries has been accompanied by
wars, coups, severe economic crises, militarization of societies,
xenophobia, intolerance and hatred. Almost two decades have passed.
Have we learned the lessons of our not so distant past? I think, no.
In a post-crisis society the easiest and the most tempting solution
for a politician is to employ chauvinism. For the society which is
emerging from wars, crises, economic recession it could be perceived
as a promise of salvation: `I will save you because we are the same
kind.' Even though it can in short-term mobilize the society's
internal forces, this is an erroneous solution, this is not a solution
aimed into future. It cannot be. To repair your own apartment in a
crumpling building, hoping that you are taking care of your personal
safety, is useless. Moreover, it is inadmissible to build your own
security at the expense of your neighbors. The neighbors will not
forget that. A couple of pipes running to the neighboring building can
provide neither security, nor prosperity, nor improve the image of the
residents in the eyes of the others.
The greatest economic project implemented in our region so far, was
the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. Some even called it a `world
project', the `project of the century', etc. During the August 2008
war in Georgia, when the pipeline ceased operations, the world oil
market didn't register any fluctuations. For me personally that was
the best indicator of the project's `world' caliber. What brought the
project to the region? Deepening dividing lines, arms race, sharp
increase in bellicose rhetoric¦Was it the anticipated `security and
prosperity'? God forbid the region to taste all the `benefits' of that
project.
With this regard, it is important that all the future projects and
scenarios maintain balance and do not instigate disagreements or heat
up temptations to resort to force for the resolution of the problems.
>From time to time I hear a representative of a country to boast that
his or her nation is situated on the `crossroads of civilizations'. To
be frank, I have used the same definition myself on a number of
occasions. I am indeed a representative of the nation which through
the millennia of its existence has always been positioned on such a
crossroads. And not only geographically. We were at the crossroads of
religions, imperial ambitions, languages, world outlooks, and in the
20th century ` also on the crossroads of ideologies. That reality
advanced the spiritual and cultural development of our nation. But it
had also become a source of horrendous tragedies for my people. Small
nations living on the crossroads will understand us.
We are swiftly entering a historic phase which assumes a multipolar
world. I think that apprehensions that even the slightest
manifestations of North-South-East-West confrontation may `dissect'
our `crossroads'-region are justified, while the stability can be
maintained only until the first shot is fired. In 2008 the spread of
the military confrontation was averted only because of great efforts
and restrain. It may not be possible to do it for the second time.
After all, hundred years ago nobody would imagine that the
assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the
Austro-Hungarian throne, would result in the death of 16 million
people and would impair another 31 million.
If we are to choose among the depictions of our region mentioned
above, the people of South Caucasus have only one way to avoid a
disastrous scenario such as that one ` to see and recognize the
future, our `common horizon'.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Condensed human experience proves that nothing stimulates nations to
reach agreement more than the anticipated economic profit. There are
multiple examples which prove that integration through economic
cooperation and political solutions guarantee long-term stability.
The South Caucasus is a place where interests of all parties ` partner
states, regional leaders, and interests of investors, can connect. In
a situation where all players ` superpowers, regional leaders and
other interested parties have the opportunity to complement each other
and efficiently serve their interests, anyone who's trying to stir up
things must be kept at bay.
I realize that against the backdrop of the sanctions against Iran,
some skeptics will doubt my approach, but I am confident that with
regard to regional solutions Iran cannot be overlooked or neglected.
It is very important for the region to dissipate the feeling that Iran
is in danger. Otherwise, there will be no solution - neither for the
issues of tomorrow nor for today's nuclear problems.
Will the South Caucasian `economic pie' satisfy everyone's appetite?
Probably, partition of a small pie will not satisfy everyone's
craving, however the decision to hand the pie to one or two players is
not right either, since it will only instigate new problems. It is
simply necessary to bake a larger pie.
If we speak about energy, it means that the region instead of being a
source of energy should become an energy knot. If we speak about
dead-ends and closed borders, it means that the region should become a
transportation knot, connecting North and South, East and West. It is
necessary to diversify the programs. Pipelines and communications
running from East to West cannot ensure security, stability and
prosperity of the region.
In recent year, we have initiated a number of major programs.
We have tangible developments in the energy area. We have concluded
the construction of a new thermo-energy station and continue to
operate the old one. We have also undertaken the construction of a
new, more powerful bloc of the Armenian Nuclear Power Station. As a
result, our country can become an important supplier of electric power
in the region.
We are also commencing works on the construction of a highway which
will connect the Georgian sea ports via Armenia with the Iranian
border. We are also planning to start the project development of the
Armenia-Iran railroad. These infrastructure development projects may
hold revolutionary significance for transport communication connecting
the Black Sea to Persian Gulf and the Indian ocean, running through
Iran to Central Asia and beyond - to Pakistan and India.
Searching for sponsors and supporters of these projects we have been
looking at a wide range: from Washington to Moscow, from Brussels to
Beijing and Tokyo. We are not limiting the problem by merely finding
investors. In our perception the issue is larger than that: To create
a wide network encompassing interested parties and consequently to
balance as many interests as possible. We would love to see the
European leaders ` Germany and France ` to have a more pronounced
participation in that area. After all, it's not about whether you're
ready or not to invest in this or that area. The question is larger
than that ` are you ready to invest into the future of the region.
Approaching the issue from the viewpoint of economic benefit only, we
are overlooking its most important component ` considerable increase
of security and proportionate development level. Eventually, the maxim
that internal region's problems are no more than region's internal
problems and if necessary they can be frozen on the regional level,
still want some validation.
I must also disagree with the viewpoint or approach which maintains
that first it is necessary to achieve some kind of political solution,
which later will be `sugar-coated' with generous economic assistance.
I have serious doubts that such approach will be viable in our region.
Approaches such as this one work in the situations when the
`persuading' party is clearly defined, whose authority is not
challenged and will not be challenged by anyone. Such approach works
in the Balkans, however in the absence of a `persuading' party it
doesn't work in many other places, most notably ` in Palestine.
Anyway, in the nearest future I don't believe there will be
comprehensive political solutions in our region, while the enhancement
of the economic regional cooperation will by itself compel to
reconsider the status quo of closed borders and frozen relations and
will create the atmosphere of mutual trust conducive for the
resolution of the conflicts.
I would like to depart a little from the topic and speak about the
experience acquired as a result of the developments concerning our
initiative to normalize relations with Turkey. In asserting our
initiative to normalize relations with Turkey, we were also guided by
the concerns regarding the security of the region, which I expressed
today. It was a concern about the future of the region, concern about
the dividing lines, establishment of the atmosphere of trust,
enhancement of economic cooperation as a guarantee of setting a
favorable outline for the solution of political problems. Why didn't
our initiative succeed? Turkey backed out of its commitments and not
only failed to ratify the signed Protocols but also got back to its
pre-negotiation position, to the language of preconditions, dictates
and even threats. Even today, the last closed border in Europe, the
Armenian-Turkish border remains closed.
Undoubtedly, the obstruction of the normalization process by the
Turkish side can be explicated by the inability and unwillingness of
that country's political leadership, probably also by various
political calculations. The analysts will probably add the factor of
Azerbaijani pressure. Some Western analysts have been trying to
convince me that it is a temporary matter, for the internal,
pre-election consumption. Perhaps, the time will show. However, a
deeper analysis brings about one conclusion: in our region the
approach of solving one's problem at the other's expense is deeply
enrooted, the approach `I am strong, I will be setting the terms' is
still very much alive. Turkey's `zero problems with neighbors' policy
yields zero results. It will continue to as long as Turkey will be
searching for the benefits in the clash of interests in our region
rather than in their balanced correlation.
I am convinced that the time has come for the regional leaders to
transcend parochial political agendas and concepts and display the
qualities of true leaders aimed at shaping the future, not the revival
of the past. I hope that this generation of leaders will be able to
adopt such changes.
Armenia has appealed for many times to its Eastern neighbor,
Azerbaijan to employ the capacities of our countries for the benefit
of stability and development of the region. Arms race and belligerent
statements cannot promise a good future to our children. I am stating
it as a person, who had gone through the crucible of an imposed war,
enjoyed the raptures of victory but will never forget the bitterness
of war. Eventually, one day when the region will see the processes of
economic integration, we will be able to solve the Karabakh issue with
less difficulty and ensure a safe and secure, prosperous existence for
our nations other than today ` existence in the atmosphere of distrust
and suspicion. I am sure that our Georgian colleagues share our
approaches regarding regional integration.
We are entitled to expect similar approach from our partners engaged
in the region. We are talking constantly about facilitation of
integration and relations but what are we doing on that direction?
Even in the framework of the EU Eastern Partnership program we observe
impassively how some countries-participants of the program are trying
to restrict the opportunities of regional cooperation. For instance,
Azerbaijan, adhering once again to its longstanding policy of limiting
Armenia's participation in TRACEKA, is trying to extend the same
policy on the Eastern Partnership program.
Dear Friends,
In conclusion, I would like to underline that Armenia is devoted to
its goal of building a civil society based on democratic principles
and pledges to create in the region the environment of stability,
security, peace and economic development, sealed by mutual interests
and commitments.
According to Martin Luther, `Everything that is done in the world is
done by hope'. I hope that one day, gathered around one table we will
start a genuine and practical dialogue with our neighbors and friends
` it is required by the logic of `common horizon'. I am confident that
the day will come when the question `is it possible in our region?'
will be answered with a resolute `yes'.
Thank you.
From: A. Papazian