29.10.2018ARMENIA CAN BECOME A PLATFORM FOR DIALOGUE, NOT CONTRADICTIONS: KAREN VERANYAN
Gohar Isakhanyan
The interlocutor of HAY DZAYN is orientalist, head of the Center for political studies Noravank Foundation Karen Veranyan.
- In the recent period, the situation in the Middle East and the South Caucasus has heated to the limit: the situation in Syria, the US sanctions against Iran and the revitalization of this country in the region, the frequent visits of US officials to Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, statements by US presidential adviser John Bolton on state security issues, in which, to put it mildly, there was a call, if not forcing Armenia, to refuse Russian weapons in exchange for American ones and join the sanctions against Iran. In your opinion, does this entire mean that in the near future we may witness global redistribution of zones of influence among the largest superpowers? Are there any concerns that under US pressure, Armenia will try to radically change its foreign policy towards the West?
- What happened in the Middle East and Syria, in particular, in the last 7-8 years, I would characterize not only and not so much as a military-political crisis, but, most likely, we are dealing with a crisis of a civilizational nature. On the other hand, those military-political processes that are taking place in the Middle East, unfortunately, show that in international relations, security and stability mechanisms between the main players of the world order have not been in place for a long time.
As for the South Caucasus and the republics of our region, the Middle Eastern, or generally, global military and political trends directly or indirectly influence and will influence the South Caucasus region. It is necessary to take into account the fact that in the near future, as you noted, certain processes will develop in the South Caucasus in the context of US economic sanctions against Russia and Iran. Moreover, it is obvious that the importance of the South Caucasus for the world and regional main players has recently increased.
I would especially like to note frequent visits and meetings at the highest level, for example, the regional visit of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Armenia, Aliyev’s meeting with Erdogan and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Israeli Defense Minister’s visit to Baku recently, and, of course, the visit of US Security Adviser John Bolton to the South Caucasus are very important.
I must say Bolton’s visit initially has a regional character that is a visit of such a high level indicates the special importance and attention of Washington in relation to the republics of the region. I note that Bolton’s visit should be viewed not only as a visit to the South Caucasus, but rather to a region that borders with such important players as Russia, Iran and Turkey. It is in this context that the statements by Bolton, which he made during his visit, should be considered. Bolton's statements show the South Caucasus region has become more important for US foreign policy, and, of course, from this point of view, Washington hopes for some support from the South Caucasian countries regarding US sanctions on Iran or relations between the US and Russia.
But I do not believe that the Armenian side will go for it or will be able to radically change its foreign policy course. I think the Armenian leadership will be able to balance the interests of world and regional players. Moreover, by pursuing a flexible foreign policy, Armenia will be able to increase the effectiveness of foreign policy in key areas and receive political dividends from the situation when our region has become even more important in international relations. In this context, Armenia can become a platform for dialogue rather than contradictions. In turn, this will increase the regional weight of Armenia.
- In his interview with Radio Azatutyun, John Bolton offered US support in getting rid of the “influence of Russia”, also stating that if the Karabakh issue is resolved, the Armenian-Azerbaijani and Armenian-Turkish borders will be opened. In fact, he offered Armenia a “friendship” with Azerbaijan and Turkey instead of Russia and Iran. What do you think about this?
- Not the news that Washington has long wished to open the border between Armenia and Turkey. And the Armenian authorities have repeatedly stated their readiness to go on a dialogue with Ankara without conditions. On this issue, the positions of Washington and Yerevan do not contradict at all, , they even coincide. But the question is that the Turkish side does not agree to this. Armenia has never closed the border with Turkey. Moreover, it is not Turkey, but Armenia is in the economic and political blockade by Ankara. In this context, the issue of opening the border between Armenia and Turkey can be resolved if Washington puts pressure on the Turkish leadership.
The United States, as one of the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group, along with Russia and France, always supported peace initiatives on the settlement of the Artsakh conflict. Yes, Washington has its own interests in our region, and implements its own foreign policy, proceeding from its national interests, like any other country in the region, and this is logical and natural. I do not agree with the fact that Washington proposed “friendship” with Azerbaijan or Turkey. The United States is well aware that the opening of the border with Turkey, or the complete resolution of the Artsakh conflict, is an issue that depends not only on the position of Armenia, but the interests of Azerbaijan and Turkey. This means if we are talking about concessions, they should not be one-sided.
- After the recent events, is a drastic change in the relations between Armenia and Iran or Armenia and Russia possible? If so, in which case, and what steps should be taken by these countries so that the current explosive situation does not further deteriorate? Will Armenia be able to continue to maneuver as successfully between the West and Russia, or will it still have to make a choice?
- I don’t believe the Armenian leadership, in general, will go for a sharp or cardinal change in the country's foreign policy. Obviously, this is a matter of Armenia’s security and fundamental changes in foreign policy are fraught with real risks and threats. It seems to me that the Armenian side does not build its political relations to the detriment of the third partner country of Armenia. As I have already noted, the leadership of Armenia can become a platform for dialogue, not disagreement.
In any case, there is a real basis for this, and we need to take advantage of it. On the other hand, we cannot say the dialogue between the US and Iran is no longer possible. The parties are still looking for points where they can negotiate and coordinate their positions. I can say with confidence that Armenia has opportunities for a scenario for maneuver, based on its national interests. By the way, Armenia already has a similar experience: recall the signing of an agreement with the EU.
Translation: Lusine Melkonyan
Return
Another materials of author
- NAKHIJEVAN: TURKISH-AZERBAIJANI DISCREPANCIES [25.06.2009]