JOHN HEFFERN: PRESIDENT SARGSIAN TO BE VERY COURAGEOUS
Panorama.am
25/01/2012
“20 minutes” analytical program aired by ArmRadio-FM107 hosted on
Tuesday Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of USA to Armenia
John Heffern. Read the interview with US Ambassador below.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, first of all I want to wish you a very fruitful
and ambitious stay in Armenia during your diplomatic mission here,
and I also want to thank you for accepting this invitation.
A: I am delighted to be here. My wife and I are just delighted with
the warm welcome we received in the three months. We’ve only been
here for three months so far in Armenia.
Q: So, let me ask you… why did you accept your nomination to Armenia?
Why Armenia? Why not another country?
A: Well, we compete for the Ambassadorship. Obviously, every Foreign
Service Officer wants to be an Ambassador. So we compete based on
vacancies. I bid on Armenia, I am very interested in Euro-Atlantic
security and Eurasia, and from my time at NATO I worked closely with
the Armenian delegation to NATO. You have great diplomats in Brussels
at NATO. And I thought it would be interesting to tackle some of the
difficult regional issues here, and Embassy Yerevan was good place
to do it.
Q: What are the main priorities for the United Stated vis-a-vis the
region of the South Caucasus, in general and Armenia, in particular?
A: Well, I would say the three priorities that we have in Armenia, and
it’s the same for the Caucasus as well, the first one is the regional
piece. What we very much want to do is we want to help Armenia break
out of this regional semi-isolation that it’s in, with the two closed
borders. We strongly support the protocols, President Sargsian very
courageous to sign the protocols with Turkey. We very much want the
protocols to be implemented and Turkey to honor its commitment to
implement the protocols. So, the regional peace is first, resolving
Nagorno-Karabakh peacefully is equally important obviously. The
second piece though is economics. We very much want to work with
Armenia, trade and investment, which will require some work here on
the business climate to make Armenia a little bit more attractive to
foreign investors. So, the second piece is to improve our economic
relationship. And the third piece is obviously the elections, and
the democracy, and the human rights. Very important elections here
this year and next year, and we’d like to be helpful to make these
the best elections ever.
Q: Do you think that in 2012 the US should be more active in pushing
again Turkey or may be both Turkey and Armenia in normalizing their
relations as agreed in Zurich in 2009?
A: Well, Secretary of State has said very clearly – the shoe is on
Ankara’s foot. So we are pushing Turkey to honor, to implement the
protocols that President Gul signed in Zurich with President Sargsian
and Secretary Clinton, as she said, without conditions. There are no
preconditions for the protocols, and we believe that Turkey should
implement the protocols as signed. And that’s our priority – is to
encourage and cajole and push Turkey to do what it promised to do
in Zurich.
Q: What about the OSCE Minsk Group? Some experts think that the US
is not that active as Russia for example. Do you think that in 2012
the US will be more active in this issue?
A: Well, I don’t accept the premise that we haven’t been active enough
because we are a key part of the Minsk Group, the three countries
– Russia, France and the United States are equal partners in the
Minsk Group. President Obama has met on a number of occasions with
President Sarkozy and President Medvedev, Deauville, most recently,
where they issued statements on the process, encouraging the two
parties, Armenia and Azerbaijan, to endorse the basic principles,
peaceful resolution, based on the Madrid principles. And so, I would
say that we have it about right, and we are going to continue to
push, we will be present at the upcoming meetings in Sochi, and we
are very hopeful that this time the two leaders will be able to reach
agreement on the basic principles.
Q: Is the American foreign policy on Armenia changing over years due to
geopolitical shifts after the Georgian-Russian conflict in 2008, the
rapprochement process between Armenia and Turkey, the Iranian issue,
recent “Arabic spring”, and other developments? If so, in what ways?
A: I don’t know that it’s changing; I don’t know that our foreign
policy toward Armenia is changing. Our goals here have been, again,
to break the isolation as the first piece, relative isolation,
not total isolation; you have two neighbors with whom you trade –
Georgia, especially. So that’s our first piece – the Turkey piece and
the Azerbaijan piece. But also, you mentioned Russia and Georgia. Our
only goal here, vis-a-vis Armenia and Russia, is to help Armenia have
options. Armenia, any country needs to have options. You can’t be
totally dependent on any one partner. So, we are trying to promote our
partnership with Armenia so Armenia continues to look toward Europe
and the United States as partners. That’s our second goal. Help break
the regional isolation and keep Armenia focused on its partners in
the West.
Q: So, mainly what you mean is that Armenia needs alternatives
A: Alternatives. Any country needs options. No country can be totally
dependent on one partner or one border, and that’s why countries need
options, and we hope that through partnership with the Unites States,
through partnership with the European Union, Armenia will see that
it has options and take advantage of those options.
Q: Do you share the view that American and Russian interests are
opposed to one another in this region, in particular in Armenia? If
so, in what ways?
A: You say opposed to each other? No, I don’t think they are opposed
to each other. Most specifically in the Minsk Group. Russia is a
key part of the Minsk Group. The three countries, the three Minsk
Group countries, Russia, U.S. and France, are working hand in hand
to bring a peaceful resolution, promote a peaceful resolution to
Nagorno-Karabakh. And so I think our interests in that regard are
very close, identical. Obviously we have differences of opinion over
Georgia, and we were strongly critical of the invasion of Georgia
and occupation of the territories in Georgia, and we want Russia to
honor its Geneva commitments on Georgia. But in terms of Armenia, the
major intersection that we have with Russia is on Nagorno-Karabakh,
and we are a close partner with Russia on Nagorno-Karabakh.
Q: The United States has a profound interest in stability and peace in
many conflict zones, including the South Caucasus. For instance, in
Taiwan’s case the US officially recognizes the concept of One China,
but maintains relations with Taiwan, mainly based on what is called
‘people-to-people’ relations. Despite China’s protests, the US names
those contacts as contributing to the regional peace and stability.
I realize and completely accept that each conflicting situation
has its own peculiarities. Still my question is what obstacles are
objectively present to prevent the same-type ‘people to people’
relations between the United States and Nagorno-Karabakh; relations,
which wouldn’t imply any political recognition, but could, for example,
deepen the democratic development in Karabakh. Why there are still
restrictions for the U.S. officials to visit Nagorno-Karabakh?
A: We very much take the lead from the Minsk Group on this. My boss
on Nagorno-Karabakh is Ambassador Bob Bradtke, who is our Minsk Group
negotiator, and we do what will help him promote a peaceful resolution
on Nagorno-Karabakh. And if that means go to Nagorno-Karabakh – we
would go to Nagorno-Karabakh; if that means don’t go- we don’t go. And
we have a modest aid program, assistance program; humanitarian program
for Nagorno-Karabakh, about two million dollars a year, and we’ll
continue that program, and that’s a useful one. I hope the people
of Nagorno-Karabakh appreciate it and have benefitted from it. And
I think that’s about right. Whenever Ambassador Bradtke changes my
instructions, then I’ll be happy to go.
Q: Until you nomination as US Ambassador to Armenia, you served as
Deputy Permanent Representative at the U.S. Mission to NATO. You know
very closely this institution and I want to know what is your opinion
about Armenia-NATO relations or how they should be?
A: Armenia is an important partner for NATO, and I think Armenia
has benefitted, and NATO has benefitted, from the relationship in
three main areas. The first area is operational. NATO right now is
very deeply involved in operations. The ISAF operation, Afghanistan
is ongoing, a major commitment. NATO just completed an operation on
Libya. So I think NATO is focused more on operations right now that
anything else. And Armenia is an important contributor to the ISAF
operation in Afghanistan. It has just recently tripled the number of
troops that it sends to help the alliance and help the Government of
Afghanistan against the Taliban there. So we deeply appreciate that,
and I think Armenia is getting some benefits in terms of training
and experience from that operation. So first, operationally, the
partnership is strong. The second is in the area of defense reform.
What NATO has been best at, NATO’s greatest success, I think, has been
to help the countries of Eastern Europe, former Warsaw Pact countries,
and now some of the former Soviet Union countries, to adapt their
militaries toward Western values: civilian control of the military,
appropriate treatment of civilians in wartime – those international law
kind of principles and values have been brought into the relationship
between all the partners at NATO. And Armenia has really done a very,
very good job in that regard, in terms of reforming the military
establishment here. So, I said the operational piece is first, the
second piece would be the defense reform, and the third piece is the
whole stability piece, what we were just talking with Nagorno-Karabakh
and support for peaceful resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh. That’s not
a NATO issue per se, but NATO needs to have stability and security
on its periphery, and resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh would be an
important contribution in that area.
Q: Do you see Armenia in NATO in the near future?
A: I don’t think Armenia has ever expressed an interest in the
membership action plan or pursuing membership. Any European democracy
is welcome to apply. I don’t see it in a foreseeable future, but if
Armenia is interested, obviously we’ll see that NATO would work with
them toward that goal.
Q: Several times the US made it clear that it is not happy with close
relations between Armenia and Iran. However the reality is that due
the blockade by Azerbaijan and Turkey, the most part of Armenia’s
foreign trade is done through Iran. So, to what extent US sanctions
against Iran can seriously affect Armenia’s political, social, and
mainly economic areas?
A: This is one of the main topics of my discussions at the foreign
ministry and in our bilateral discussions on foreign policy issues – is
how to deepen our cooperation on Iran, to work more closely together on
Iran, and I say there is two pieces of it. The first piece is the piece
you mentioned – the sanctions piece, and Armenia is a member of the
United Nations and is subject to UN Security Council resolutions and
is honoring those commitments. Armenia is honoring its international
commitments, honoring sanctions against Iran, international sanctions
against Iran, and so we deeply appreciate Armenia’s support and
commitment in that important area. And there is a cost to them, an
economic cost issue, as you just mentioned. So, that’s important,
and we’re working with them on that. On the other side of the house,
some of the political resolutions, the UNGA resolutions, we’ve been
disappointed with some of Armenia’s votes so when they voted with
Iran on some of the political resolutions and so we continued just to
discuss that with them. But we do very much appreciate their support
on the sanctions issue and we continue to work with them on that.
Q: What is the likelihood of military actions or use of force by the
international community against Iran?
A: Well the tension of course has recently increased due to the
Iranian threats to the Strait of Hormuz, and President Obama and
Secretary Clinton have made it very clear that we consider the Strait
of Hormuz an international Strait, an international waterway, and
we are committed to keep those open. As an international waterway
it’s open to international shipping –both military and civilian –
obviously a huge percentage of the world’s oil goes through there,
so we need to keep that open and we are committed to keeping that open.
We hope for a peaceful resolution there, and there hasn’t been any
military action, and so we certainly hope there won’t be any military
action. In terms of any other kind of military action, obviously I’m
not privy to anything, we’re not planning anything, and I don’t have
any particular comments on what any third countries might do.
Q: A recent report from the IAEA suggested that Iran is still
suspected of secretly attempting to obtain the capacity to develop
an atomic bomb. On the other hand, nuclear peace theorists and some
experts argue that under some circumstances nuclear weapons can induce
stability and decrease the chances of crisis escalation. For example,
the United States and the Soviet Union managed to live with nuclear
weapons during the Cold War. Now, it’s so between the US and Russia.
Or another example is Pakistan and India. May be the best option would
be to reach a global nuclear zero situation as supported by president
Obama. However, the nuclear proliferation is still a highly debated
issue, especially in the context of the Iranian nuclear program. So,
why the U.S. and Israel are so upset by Iran’s apparent pursuit of
such weapons? What if Iran gets a nuclear weapon?
A: Well, Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
and therefore is subject to international requirements of the
International Atomic Energy Agency – the IAEA- and the UN Security
Council resolutions, and it is openly flouting those commitments. It’s
a member of the NPT and needs to abide by the NPT as a non-weapon
state. That’s what it’s committed to do. The IAEA, many resolutions,
strong majorities in favor of the resolutions against Iran, urging
Iran, pushing Iran, pressuring Iran not to develop nuclear weapons and
the UN Security Council has had many resolutions along the same way.
So we want Iran to honor its international commitments. It is allowed
certainly under the NPT to have peaceful nuclear power. The peaceful
use of nuclear power is open to Iran as it is to any country,
and we support that, we don’t have any problem with Iran having
nuclear reactors that are subject to IAEA inspection and following
its international commitments. It’s only the clear determination
to develop the weapons, which has raised our deep concern and which
the Obama Administration and our allies, including the P5 plus one,
are determined to stop.
Q: Some US officials recently stated that the Obama administration sees
economic sanctions against Iran as building public unrest that will
create hate and discontent at the street level so that the Iranian
leaders realize they need to change their ways. Do you agree or
not? And… can all this finally lead to a sort of an “Iranian Spring”?
A: The speculation about the motives, I can’t really comment on that
speculation. What I’d say is that in our view time is not on the
side of the Iranian regime, the “Arab spring” has changed a lot of
countries in the region, in the very recent past Iran has also had
demonstrations that in some ways resembled a bit what’s happened in
Egypt, Tunisia and some of the other countries. So we hope that one
day the people of Iran will have a government that represents them,
a legitimate government that is determined to find, to advance their
welfare. And that’s what we are going to continue to promote.
Q: Since its independence in 1991 Armenia has signed three agreements
with the U.S. affecting trade between these two countries. Since then,
a number of U.S.-owned companies currently do business in Armenia.
Unfortunately, there are less Armenian companies doing business in
the US. So, how do you see dynamics in Armenia-US economic relations
for 2012?
A: I think we need to do better. I really do. I think we can do better,
and I think we need to do better. I think our trade, our bilateral
trade is a pittance really. It’s under two hundred million dollars
a year, total bilateral trade, two-way trade, and that’s really
a pittance and I think we can do better, and I am committed to do
better when I’ve spoken with your President, your Foreign Minister,
your Trade Minister, your Economy Minister, your Prime Minister, I’ve
committed to try to do better, to develop the economic relationship
between the US and Armenia. On the investment side, and my message to
your leaders is clear on this as well, I think the business climate
here needs some improvement. I am having some luck in getting American
companies interested in investing here, but we would be much more
effective developing the relationship on the investment side if we
could improve the investment climate here, if Armenia would do some
more, would make some more progress on governance, on rule of law,
contract sanctity. I think it would help me get more US investment
here. If Armenian companies wanted to invest in the United States,
obviously I’d welcome that as well. I haven’t really worked too much on
that side, but I worked more to deepen our partnership here in Armenia.
Q: When the preferential trade agreement with Armenia shall be
finalized and enforced to produce results?
A: Preferential Trade Agreement means different things. I mean we
have the GSP, the Generalized System of Preferences, Armenia benefits
from that, as do many countries, so it’s an international program
that we have, Armenia benefits from the GSP, the Generalized System
of Preferences, we haven’t to my knowledge had any discussions with
the Government of Armenia on any kind of a free trade agreement or
any kind of a really deep Preferential Trade Agreement like that. I
think it will be a long time before we get to that stage.
Q: Do you think that the Millennium Challenge Program will continue
in 2012?
A: I don’t think it will continue this year. We just concluded a very
successful five-year program. We are very proud of what we were able
to do with our Armenian partners in the rural development part of
the MCC. It was a very sizable program where we did a lot of water
projects, irrigation projects all around Armenia. I’m going to be
visiting a couple of them very soon, and I’ll see firsthand some of
the benefits of this and we are very proud of that. Right now, Armenia
doesn’t meet the indicators on the governance and rule of law side,
so at some point, so we will continue to work with them to improve
this performance in those indicators so that in some future year,
hopefully not too far away, Armenia could be eligible for a second
compact, but I don’t expect it in 2012.
Q: A big number of Armenian citizens have real difficulties to obtain
a US visa even though they seem to provide all required documents
and evidences of financial situation. You know… it’s also kind of
humiliating for many of them to be rejected by the US Embassy when
applying for a visa. Do you think that now the timing is good for
Armenia and the US to be involved in visa facilitation process as we
can see between Armenia and the EU?
A: Yeah, I have heard a lot about the negotiations between Armenia
and the EU on the visa facilitation, and that would be great if that
could happen. For us it’s a little bit different, it’s not a matter of
documents, it’s a matter of people’s intentions. What the law requires
us to do is to judge somebody’s intentions. It’s very hard to judge
somebody else’s intentions. And so the more we see Armenian students,
Armenian business people, Armenian tourists going to the United States,
doing their business, doing their studies, having their vacations
and then coming back to Armenia, the more we see that, the better it
will be and the higher the percentage of visas that we would be able
to issue.
From: A. Papazian