Tweet
RUBEN SAFRASTYAN: A GEOPOLITICAL UNION OF RUSSIA, GEORGIA, ARMENIA AND IRAN IS UNLIKELY EVEN IN FUTURE
Interview with Ruben Safrastyan, Professor, Director of the Oriental
Studies Institute, National Academy of Science of Armenia
*
by Ashot Safaryan
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=15A2FF90-75F4-11E2-8EC1F6327207157C
* Wednesday, February 13, 18:38
[rub_safr.jpg]
On Feb 6 Valerie Boyer submitted to the French National Assembly one
more bill criminalizing the denial of the Armenian Genocide in
France. Are there more chances that the "leftist" parliament of
Hollande will adopt it unlike the "rightist" parliament of Sarkozy?
I think Hollande's government will oppose it. The bill is backed by
the rightwing forces, specifically by the Conservatives. IN fact,
both the right and the left actually supported it. The bill was
failed just by Sarkozy who did not use his right to give force to the
bill and submitted it to the Constitutional Court of France. Thus, I
think, in 2012 the situation was much more favorable than now. I
suppose the present parliament of France is less likely to pass the
bill. I say this basing on the recent trends towards Turkey in the
foreign policy of France during Hollande's presidency. It is obvious
that Paris changes its policy towards that country. The leftwing
forces unlike the rightwing ones both in France and in Europe are due
to see Turkey as a EU member-state.
Does this mean an end to France's policy of containment with respect
to Turkey?
I think the situation will finally clear up within a 1.5 year and we
will be able to speak on the given topic more substantially.
A few days ago an article in the National Interest said that the
United States should rely on Turkey in its policy on the South
Caucasus and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Is this possible?
Actually, we have noticed a tendency of warming of the Turkish-
American relations. And significance of Turkey in general strategy of
the USA will grow for the democratic administration of Obama's second
term. Certainly, this fact is first of all linked with Middle East,
Syria and Obama Administration's attitude towards the Islam world and
Turkey like its representative, which has got the allied relations
with the West within the frames of NATO. For this reason, one can
suppose that Obama's second tenure will be characterized by
aspiration of the USA not to be involved in the conflict situations,
first of all in the Middle East. The departure of the Americans from
Afghanistan next year will be the start of this policy. Unlike
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry does not have a relish for adventures,
and his appointment at the position of US secretary of state is also
an indirect evidence of that. And stemming from the points of general
strategy of the USA in the unstable Middle East, the role of Turkey
has sharply grown in this strategy. He also added that in this
context, one must not rule out the possibility that Washington will
start relying on Turkey more than earlier in its strategy in the
South Caucasus as well. Several articles on the topic in serious
American dailies are evidence of the fact that American analytical
circles have been seriously watching such a possibility. Earlier,
during a neo- conservative and republican government of George Bush
Jr. Turkey used to be watched like a rather reliable ally of
Washington in the Big Middle East, but at present the situation has
changed much. By the way, in this context I see certain succession in
the policy of Bill Clinton's and Obama's democratic administration.
In general, democrats more than republicans are inclined to watch
the Turks like reliable allies.
Turkey has failed to solve the Syrian problem the way the Americans
and the Europeans wanted it to be solved. Why then are they praising
the Turks?
Ankara is unable to settle that problem in the light of the growing
Islamic factor in the Middle East and Near East.
Do you mean Egypt?
Yes. That country was the corner stone of USA's policy in the Middle
East. Now, Cairo no longer fulfills such functions. Turkey has a
boundary with Syria, supports the Syrian opposition and opposes
Assad. All this makes it more important.
And are there guarantees that Assad will not be replaced by Islamic
fundamentalists?
At present the West has no single guarantee that after Assad's
overthrow radical Islamists will not come to power. This is what
explains the USA's unwillingness to provide serious military support
to the Syrian armed opposition. At the given stage both the US and
Israel are seriously concerned over developments in Syria after
Assad's overthrow. The situation in Egypt is quite serious as well.
The US can so far influence the situation there by means of the
Egyptian army, which is a serious actor in the military-political and
even economic life of Egypt. Egyptian army receives huge assistance
from the USA to come out against 'Muslim Brotherhood' and other
Islamic forces. It is due to such injections that Washington still
has an opportunity to influence the situation in Egypt. And the so-
called movement of liberal forces against Egyptian Islamists is
actually based on the positions of the army that does not want to
lose its traditional leading role in politics and economy of Egypt it
has had since 1952. The USA is behind the recent powerful protest
actions in Egypt against Mursi.
How far can the United State go in pushing Turkey into resolving the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
The USA will not try to drive Turkey to become a co-chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group. I don't think that today one can seriously speak about
cooperation between Ankara and Moscow in the Karabakh issue. Despite
deep trade and economic relations, Russia and Turkey still remain
geo-political opponents especially in the South Caucasus. As for the
Karabakh conflict, which is of the geo-political significance, this
is not the issue in which Moscow may come to terms not only with
Ankara but with anybody else.
You have mentioned the geo-political rivalry between Turkey and
Russia. Today, thanks to Ndzheh, brotherly Azerbaijan and Turkey are
successfully separated from each other by the Armenian Zangezur.
After the change of regime in Georgia, Russia, together with Iran,
may well break the East-West axis to build a North-South one...
The geo-political situation in the South Caucasus changed according
to the results of the war in 2008. And the new regional status-quo is
first of all characterized by enhancing of Russia's positions. As for
the political changes in Georgia, they strengthen more the positions
of Moscow like a regional center of force in the South Caucasus. And
this process is developing. He thinks that as a result, Turkey has
been losing its positions since the war 08.08.08. and an opportunity
to affect the situation in the region, and first of all in Georgia.
For its part, Azerbaijan is becoming a factor that affects Turkey's
position. Today Azerbaijani capital investments in Turkey occupy the
first place and Ankara is forced to take this into consideration. So,
Turkey goes on losing an opportunity to seriously affect the
situation in our region. And the USA which relies on Turkey regarding
several geo-political issues, also takes this factor into account. I
don't think that the USA is really interested in enhancing of
Turkey's role in the South Caucasus. Washington will simply use
Turkey during Obama's second term like a factor of keeping down
Russia's influence in the South Caucasus. The role, which the USA
delivered to Turkey in the South Caucasus, has exhausted thanks to
this factor.
As regards the possibility of a geopolitical union of Russia,
Georgia, Armenia and Iran, it think this is unlikely to happen even
in future. I would not study seriously the possibility of forming
North-South axis with participation of Russia, Georgia, Armenia and
Iran. Today there is no such union. Neither there are real
possibilities for its creation so far. Georgia's policy is far from
being pro-Russian and it, obviously, does not strive to become part
of Russia's already established military- political system or the
economic system that is being established. Georgia's policy vector
has not changed, just methods of Ivanishvili's policy have changed
becoming more realistic. Georgia's interests as realized by the
Georgian elite have not changed, with integration into Europe being
considered as a remote goal. With Bidzina Ivanishvili's coming to
power, Tbilisi's policy has become more realistic in order to avoid
the losses Georgia suffered due to political adventurism of
Saakashvili, but it goals have remained unchanged.
Do you mean that it is early to speak about the restart of the
Abkhazian railway?
This issue is part of the above logic. It is favorable for Georgia to
have normal economic relations with Russia and the railway via
Abkhazia maybe necessary to it for that purpose. In this light,
Tbilisi may strive to lift the blockade of communications, but there
are many obstacles to that. The process has started, but it is early
to speak of further developments. I am not sure that Iran is Russia's
ally in our region. Moscow and Tehran, of course, have some common
interests, but they have also contradictory interests. Therefore, a
geopolitical union Russian-Georgia-Armenia-Iran is unlikely even in
future. Actually, the only military-political ally of Russia in the
region is Armenia.
Interview with Ruben Safrastyan, Professor, Director of the Oriental
Studies Institute, National Academy of Science of Armenia
*
by Ashot Safaryan
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=15A2FF90-75F4-11E2-8EC1F6327207157C
* Wednesday, February 13, 18:38
[rub_safr.jpg]
On Feb 6 Valerie Boyer submitted to the French National Assembly one
more bill criminalizing the denial of the Armenian Genocide in
France. Are there more chances that the "leftist" parliament of
Hollande will adopt it unlike the "rightist" parliament of Sarkozy?
I think Hollande's government will oppose it. The bill is backed by
the rightwing forces, specifically by the Conservatives. IN fact,
both the right and the left actually supported it. The bill was
failed just by Sarkozy who did not use his right to give force to the
bill and submitted it to the Constitutional Court of France. Thus, I
think, in 2012 the situation was much more favorable than now. I
suppose the present parliament of France is less likely to pass the
bill. I say this basing on the recent trends towards Turkey in the
foreign policy of France during Hollande's presidency. It is obvious
that Paris changes its policy towards that country. The leftwing
forces unlike the rightwing ones both in France and in Europe are due
to see Turkey as a EU member-state.
Does this mean an end to France's policy of containment with respect
to Turkey?
I think the situation will finally clear up within a 1.5 year and we
will be able to speak on the given topic more substantially.
A few days ago an article in the National Interest said that the
United States should rely on Turkey in its policy on the South
Caucasus and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Is this possible?
Actually, we have noticed a tendency of warming of the Turkish-
American relations. And significance of Turkey in general strategy of
the USA will grow for the democratic administration of Obama's second
term. Certainly, this fact is first of all linked with Middle East,
Syria and Obama Administration's attitude towards the Islam world and
Turkey like its representative, which has got the allied relations
with the West within the frames of NATO. For this reason, one can
suppose that Obama's second tenure will be characterized by
aspiration of the USA not to be involved in the conflict situations,
first of all in the Middle East. The departure of the Americans from
Afghanistan next year will be the start of this policy. Unlike
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry does not have a relish for adventures,
and his appointment at the position of US secretary of state is also
an indirect evidence of that. And stemming from the points of general
strategy of the USA in the unstable Middle East, the role of Turkey
has sharply grown in this strategy. He also added that in this
context, one must not rule out the possibility that Washington will
start relying on Turkey more than earlier in its strategy in the
South Caucasus as well. Several articles on the topic in serious
American dailies are evidence of the fact that American analytical
circles have been seriously watching such a possibility. Earlier,
during a neo- conservative and republican government of George Bush
Jr. Turkey used to be watched like a rather reliable ally of
Washington in the Big Middle East, but at present the situation has
changed much. By the way, in this context I see certain succession in
the policy of Bill Clinton's and Obama's democratic administration.
In general, democrats more than republicans are inclined to watch
the Turks like reliable allies.
Turkey has failed to solve the Syrian problem the way the Americans
and the Europeans wanted it to be solved. Why then are they praising
the Turks?
Ankara is unable to settle that problem in the light of the growing
Islamic factor in the Middle East and Near East.
Do you mean Egypt?
Yes. That country was the corner stone of USA's policy in the Middle
East. Now, Cairo no longer fulfills such functions. Turkey has a
boundary with Syria, supports the Syrian opposition and opposes
Assad. All this makes it more important.
And are there guarantees that Assad will not be replaced by Islamic
fundamentalists?
At present the West has no single guarantee that after Assad's
overthrow radical Islamists will not come to power. This is what
explains the USA's unwillingness to provide serious military support
to the Syrian armed opposition. At the given stage both the US and
Israel are seriously concerned over developments in Syria after
Assad's overthrow. The situation in Egypt is quite serious as well.
The US can so far influence the situation there by means of the
Egyptian army, which is a serious actor in the military-political and
even economic life of Egypt. Egyptian army receives huge assistance
from the USA to come out against 'Muslim Brotherhood' and other
Islamic forces. It is due to such injections that Washington still
has an opportunity to influence the situation in Egypt. And the so-
called movement of liberal forces against Egyptian Islamists is
actually based on the positions of the army that does not want to
lose its traditional leading role in politics and economy of Egypt it
has had since 1952. The USA is behind the recent powerful protest
actions in Egypt against Mursi.
How far can the United State go in pushing Turkey into resolving the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
The USA will not try to drive Turkey to become a co-chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group. I don't think that today one can seriously speak about
cooperation between Ankara and Moscow in the Karabakh issue. Despite
deep trade and economic relations, Russia and Turkey still remain
geo-political opponents especially in the South Caucasus. As for the
Karabakh conflict, which is of the geo-political significance, this
is not the issue in which Moscow may come to terms not only with
Ankara but with anybody else.
You have mentioned the geo-political rivalry between Turkey and
Russia. Today, thanks to Ndzheh, brotherly Azerbaijan and Turkey are
successfully separated from each other by the Armenian Zangezur.
After the change of regime in Georgia, Russia, together with Iran,
may well break the East-West axis to build a North-South one...
The geo-political situation in the South Caucasus changed according
to the results of the war in 2008. And the new regional status-quo is
first of all characterized by enhancing of Russia's positions. As for
the political changes in Georgia, they strengthen more the positions
of Moscow like a regional center of force in the South Caucasus. And
this process is developing. He thinks that as a result, Turkey has
been losing its positions since the war 08.08.08. and an opportunity
to affect the situation in the region, and first of all in Georgia.
For its part, Azerbaijan is becoming a factor that affects Turkey's
position. Today Azerbaijani capital investments in Turkey occupy the
first place and Ankara is forced to take this into consideration. So,
Turkey goes on losing an opportunity to seriously affect the
situation in our region. And the USA which relies on Turkey regarding
several geo-political issues, also takes this factor into account. I
don't think that the USA is really interested in enhancing of
Turkey's role in the South Caucasus. Washington will simply use
Turkey during Obama's second term like a factor of keeping down
Russia's influence in the South Caucasus. The role, which the USA
delivered to Turkey in the South Caucasus, has exhausted thanks to
this factor.
As regards the possibility of a geopolitical union of Russia,
Georgia, Armenia and Iran, it think this is unlikely to happen even
in future. I would not study seriously the possibility of forming
North-South axis with participation of Russia, Georgia, Armenia and
Iran. Today there is no such union. Neither there are real
possibilities for its creation so far. Georgia's policy is far from
being pro-Russian and it, obviously, does not strive to become part
of Russia's already established military- political system or the
economic system that is being established. Georgia's policy vector
has not changed, just methods of Ivanishvili's policy have changed
becoming more realistic. Georgia's interests as realized by the
Georgian elite have not changed, with integration into Europe being
considered as a remote goal. With Bidzina Ivanishvili's coming to
power, Tbilisi's policy has become more realistic in order to avoid
the losses Georgia suffered due to political adventurism of
Saakashvili, but it goals have remained unchanged.
Do you mean that it is early to speak about the restart of the
Abkhazian railway?
This issue is part of the above logic. It is favorable for Georgia to
have normal economic relations with Russia and the railway via
Abkhazia maybe necessary to it for that purpose. In this light,
Tbilisi may strive to lift the blockade of communications, but there
are many obstacles to that. The process has started, but it is early
to speak of further developments. I am not sure that Iran is Russia's
ally in our region. Moscow and Tehran, of course, have some common
interests, but they have also contradictory interests. Therefore, a
geopolitical union Russian-Georgia-Armenia-Iran is unlikely even in
future. Actually, the only military-political ally of Russia in the
region is Armenia.