LASZLO KEMENY: IN RESOLVING LOCAL CONFLICTS GREAT POWERS PURSUE THEIR OWN INTERESTS
by David Stepanyan
arminfo
June 13, 20:29
ArmInfo’s interview with Hungarian scientist, professor of political
science Laszlo Kemeny
In one of your articles you point out that Russia’s neighbors are not
subject to annexation to Russia but are historically inter-connected
and objectively interested in integration with it. In this light, what
do you think about Vladimir Putin’s “Eurasian Union” project. Does
Armenia have a chance to take part in the integration processes in
the post-Soviet area considering the fact that it has no common border
with Russia?
The integration that is taking place around Russia is a response to
the changes that followed the Cold War – the global redistribution
of forces, relations and strategies. In the last two decades the
world has changed a lot: on the one hand, it enjoys new development
opportunities, but, on the other, it is faced with irreconcilable
contradictions and growing regional and global tensions. So, time
has come for us to consider how to organize the life of the world,
a nation and an individual.
This process was catalyzed by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The
fifteen republics that were formed as a result are now looking for
their roles in the world, for new forms, methods and contents of
their relations with new and old states.
With everything globalizing around, they need to find new cooperation
forms and integration models. The new world is facing a dilemma.
After the Cold War many believed that the United States had won, while
the Socialist camp had lost. But after the Sept 11 attacks they saw
that they were wrong, and the Cold War was followed by a joint combat
against terrorism and other new challenges. A globalizing world should
be based on a new quality – partnership. Here there can be no winners
and losers but only partners. And coming to replace the bipolar Cold
War world is in no way the United States as one global “governor,”
but a multi-polar network of integration systems, where integrating
nations are being leveled out economically.
The poles of this new world are not only Russia and the United States,
but also the other G8 nations as well as China, India, Brazil and
SAR. Each of them can be an “integrator” for other countries, but
the fight for this cannot be healthy. An integration system should
consider the democratic status and the interests of the integrator,
historical factors, as well as the geopolitical, economic and security
interests of the integrated. Interaction among integration systems
is a pledge of peaceful co-existence.
The “Eurasian Union” is an example of an integration system. As
the key successor of the Soviet Union, Russia was left responsible
for non-recurrence of the cold war, and its integration into global
control as one of the poles of a new world was a necessity.
Being near disintegration in the 1990s, as a result of the shocking
liberal reforms, Russia has still retained resources for economic
and social revival. Its rise in the 2000s has proved its intention
to be the pole of a new integration system – a system consolidating
the post-Soviet republics.
Presently, as the pole of an integration system – along with the
world’s leaders – Russia is modernizing its economy, society and
statehood, raising its industry to high-tech level, developing Eastern
Siberia and Far East economically so as to make them socially equal
to its European provinces, forming a global financial center in Moscow
and getting actively involved in European and global affairs.
However, those forming the “Eurasian Union” should keep in mind
the peculiarities of Russia’s relations with its new neighbors, the
former Soviet republics, and its former neighbors, the present-day
EU members. All of them – and Russia too – have their own visions of
their places and roles in the new world. And their wishes and abilities
may not always coincide. It is also necessary to consider how the
other great powers see Russia and its neighbors in the globalizing
world. With all interests and capacities in mind, we can say that
Russia’s neighbors are no longer its “appendages” but are independent
and sovereign states, which are not subject to annexation to Russia
but are historically inter-connected and objectively interested in
integration with it. This is not a reincarnation of the “Russian
empire,” nor is this a new “Soviet Union,” but some new quality –
free integration of sovereign states, with all of them integrating
on their own will and with due regard for their own interests.
Since their birth the new states were problematic and had yet to
decide what they though of the former Soviet Union and present-day
Russia. Today, all of them are acting as if they have never had
anything to do with the Soviet Union and this is only Russia’s
business, while Russia to them is an “example to follow,” the “enemy
N1” and a “big neighbor” in a house where all of them were “hosts” one
day. Not all of them have yet grasped the meaning of the “neighbor,”
so, I think that the concept Russia’s relations with first the colonies
of the Russian Empire, then the republics of the Soviet Union and now
sovereign states should be based on is that an “integrator” cannot be
an “emperor.” Integration implies mutual desire. Those countries need
integration as, for historical, geographical and some other reasons,
they can develop only by supporting each other. Integration also
implies mutual tolerance, the need to respect the interests of all
nations involved, especially as Russia and some of its neighbors are
in their turn multi-national and multi-confessional states.
The same is true for Armenia. It needs to choose: to be absolutely
independent, to get closer to Russia and the integration developing
around it or to listen to the charming Siren voices of the new friends
in Europe and overseas.
The absence of a common border with Russia is not a big problem. You
should realize that you are not being annexed to Russia as to some
new empire, but, along with other countries, including Russia,
are integrating on your own will. You should consider all pros and
contras and keep in mind your common history and your deep roots of
co-existence. You should also know that in the future your interests
will be heard only if voiced at forums of different integrations.
So, Armenia’s chances to take part in integration processes in the
post-Soviet area depend on its own wish.
The last parliamentary elections in Armenia, just like all the
previous ones, have proved that in our country there is no chance to
freely elect a legitimate government. How strongly can the absence
of a legitimate government in Armenia weaken its foreign political
status in the eyes of Europe and the United States?
I don’t agree with how you formulate your question. The comments of
the leaders of the world’s leading powers have shown that they do
not doubt the legitimacy of the elected regime.
Shortly after the elections US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
visited Armenia for the second time. The fact that Clinton has visited
your country twice means a lot. And she obviously did not doubt the
legitimacy of your authorities when meeting with them. She did not say
a word about the country’s “weakened foreign political status.” On
the contrary, her visits to Georgia and Azerbaijan have proved that
the United States is showing an equal approach in the South Caucasus.
Meanwhile, Russian MP Konstantin Zatulin has said that Russian
President Vladimir Putin may visit Armenia on Sept 7 and may sign a
new cooperation agreement. This proves that Russia also regards the
Armenian authorities as legitimate.
I could give a few more proofs that your international partners do
not consider your authorities as illegitimate, but it is clear enough
that we are talking about distrust that comes from inside the country.
Foreign observers cannot criticize a people for not trusting its
government. As an analyst, I am based on the facts and assessments
provided by local observers. But I think that your statement that in
Armenia there is no chance to freely elect a legitimate government
is too unrealistic and politicized.
I observed the elections as part of the ICES mission. The mission
consisted of independent experts, MPs and European parliamentarians
from eight EU member states, the United States and Israel. We were
focused on the voting, the counting of the votes and the summing up
of the results. We visited Yerevan, Gyumri, Vanadzor, Echmiadzin,
Abovyan and Artashat and observed the voting at 117 polling stations
in 6 marzes. 95% of the observers were satisfied with what they had
seen, and only 0.1% were not.
Our conclusions were that the electoral code you adopted in 2011
contains basic elements that can help you to conduct democratic
elections of different levels. Theoretically, your mixed electoral
system is quite acceptable and fully meets the need to have in the
parliament not only party members but also strong personalities having
no party affiliation.
We did not notice any gross violations. The elections were peaceful,
transparent and fair and met the international requirements. Our
opinion was favorable, and our impression was that in the last years
Armenia has done much to ensure the political and electoral rights
of its people.
Personally, I also think that your regime is lawful.
With all integration and disintegration processes considered, what
are Armenia’s Euro-prospects today?
One of the main criteria for a country wishing to take part in global
processes is how consolidated, strong and sovereign it is in its
international relations. A disintegrated country is unable to freely,
independently and safely exercise its political, economic, cultural,
military and administrative will and can be limited its activities
from outside, that is, other international “actors” may wish to
impose their interests on it. This rule is especially true for newly
independent states, be they former colonies or splinters of an empire.
Present-day Armenia is a young country, but it has a multi-layer past
and a complicated present. The world community is highly attentive to
what is going on in Armenia and how it is developing mostly because
of your geo-political situation: what is happening to Armenia is not
only your own business. It concerns the security of those around you,
the South Caucasus and the whole world.
Armenia’s prospects for regional or global integration will be
very shaky until it unites and formulates its own geo-political
priorities. Armenia will inevitably integrate into some system, but
it will hardly be the European Union, but either the “Eurasian Union”
or the system that is currently taking shape in the region.
The European Union is full. One system cannot hold everybody. The
future belongs to a network of different inter-linked integration
systems. So, Armenia should consider joining a system that is close
to the European Union.
Armenia and the South Caucasus remain a focus of attention for
the world power and the global security systems. For quite obvious
reasons they in the West are highly interested in Azerbaijan as a
country having large energy resources and Georgia as a country they
need for transmitting those resources to Europe. What interests can
they out West have in Armenia, a blockaded nation with neither fuel
nor transit routes?
But why should Armenia be “interesting” to the West, especially in
terms of “global security system”? History shows that those who are
“a focus of attention” for great powers can get into trouble.
Armenia should first of all become “interesting” to its own
citizens. Once it becomes interesting to its own people, it will
certainly interest people in the West and in the East. So, what you
need is self-confidence and pride!
Resources can be not only material – like oil and gas – but
“immaterial,” like stable political and economic systems that can
attract lots of investments, an efficient education system that
can produce creative, highly qualified, innovative specialists for
international projects involving internet, mobile communication,
remote control systems and robotics. Armenia may become interesting
in a different way if it overcomes its ideological, political
and economic problems and mobilizes its resources for the sake of
development. You should also demonstrate your commitment to be part
of global integration.
One of these “resources” may also be your effort to solve the problem
of regional security and to independently improve your relations
with neighbors.
Many analysts blame Moscow for striving to preserve status-quo in the
Karabakh conflict by any means with a purpose to keep its influence
both at Baku and Yerevan. What are the interests of Europe and the
USA in the Karabakh settlement if we link the situation with the
whole region?
I meant just this problem saying about the independent settlement of
its relations with neighboring countries by Armenia. This conflict
creates an opportunity and causes the necessity for Russia, the USA
and NATO (and less for the EU) to interfere in the South Caucasus
affairs, as Armenia and Azerbaijan are unable to settle it with joints
efforts. Taking into consideration all the historical components, of
course, we may understand the reason of unsettlement of the conflict.
However, the experience of similar conflicts settlement with a help
of superpowers shows that finally interests of the parties to the
conflict are encroached and those of the superpowers are prior. The
analysts which blame only Moscow for its aspiration by any means to
preserve status-quo in the Karabakh conflict perhaps do not want to
notice this axiom truth.
Actually, what is taking place? As I’ve already said, US Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton arrived in the region, and instead of keeping
silence, certain political forces provoked regular mess. Both parties
to the conflict have a basis to blame each other for breaking of
the cease-fire regime agreement in the Karabakh conflict zone. The
president of the Association of Political Science of Armenia has
immediately published a statement to Hillary Clinton and the foreign
ministers of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair states. The statement drew
attention of the world community at the fact, that “a functionary
of the Azerbaijani president’s Administration implementing an order
of the head of state, coincided announcement of encroachment on the
territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan with the visit of the OSCE
MG co-chairmen to Baku”. Meanwhile, Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan
declared that “on Tuesday night Armenian raiders tries to intrude
in the territory of the country”. As they said, “five Azerbaijani
soldiers died during the armed collision”.
It means, there is a reason to play a part of a “wise judge” and say
that no party is right, and the conflict should be resolved from the
position of comprehensive interests of the world community. Here
comes forward balancing of the overbalance of forces of those
superpowers which are concerned about legalization of their influence
in the region, where the problems of Syria, Iran , oil and gas have
hardened in addition. There is no military way for the Karabakh
conflict settlement and can’t be , – US Secretary of State made such
a generally recognized statement at the joint press-conference with
foreign minister of Armenia and called on all the parties to the
conflict to abstain from force. She also added that she will repeat
the same in Baku. This is a very hard conflict. Too much blood was
shed. Nevertheless, you yourselves have to settle it, unless you
want to pay high price for patronage of foreign states. The process
of self-determination and articulation of the interests of nations
is hard, first of all, for those, which were infringed by the history.
Armenia is such a country as the Armenians suffer from historical
wounds. But they may lose much in the rate and quality of development,
if they do not find a balance of the national and historical insults
in the self-determination process with a necessity to join global
and integration modernization.
The world history is evidence of the fact that when nationalism
blinds reason, in that case religious fundamentalism arises and guilty
nations are found: the Armenians in Azerbaijan and the Azerbaijanis in
Armenia, etc. Then racism regenerates: anti-Semitism or Russophobia,
expulsion and pogroms of any nations living outside their historical
motherland or inside it. The self-determination of nations is an
impartial historical process. Playing at national feelings is opposed
to generally civilized tendencies. The sound patriotism is a way out
from this dilemma. Respect yourself, demonstrate and protect your own
interests but only if you respect others and know and recognize their
interests. The tolerance and empathy – here is the key for settlement
of these issues. I think that reconciliation is a historic task and
the responsibility of the elite of Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The Armenian-Turkish Protocols for normalizing of relations between
the two states, initiated by the USA and supported by Europe, have
remained ink on paper. Why does the West want to unlock the border
between Armenia and Turkey?
I think, this issue was one of the most important ones during Hillary
Clinton’s talks in Yerevan. Nobody but US Secretary of State may
give a strict and accurate answer to this question. Judging from
publications about the joint press-conference of Hillary Clinton and
Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, normalizing of relations
between Yerevan and Ankara is of a great significance for Washington,
as perhaps, absence of normal relations makes it difficult for the USA
to act in a more large-scale region, including Iran. The fact is that
Armenia is still landlocked by Turkey and the Armenian-Turkish talks
do not develop. Out of all the neighbors, Teheran has got the on paper
“normalized relations” only with Yerevan. This involves Armenia in
a circle of special interests of the USA. The South Caucasus region
in general and Armenia, in particular, still remain in the circle
of foreign political interests of the USA, especially in the context
of a hard dialogue between Washington and Ankara for the last period
of time. Serious disagreements were caused by worsening of relations
between Turkey and Israel over the last two years. In this context, the
fact of the frozen Armenian-Turkish Protocols, like a means of pressure
upon Turkey, may become an important trump card in the big game of
the USA in the Middle East. Certainly, other political interests and
prospective economic development of other states also play their part
here. One must not forget about the tension around Syria and Iran.
The tendencies of China and Russia regarding the whole situation are
becoming more and more obvious.
All this once again proves the fact that it is better for the parties
to the conflict themselves to settle it than to attract protectors.
As I mentioned above, if superpowers initiate or are attracted for
settlement of local bilateral conflicts, they first of all, try to
act in their own interests.
May one predict that after the unavoidable falling of Syria and
possible falling of Iran like the last backstops of anti-Americanism,
the Western strategists will concentrate on Russia?
The strategists which do not recognize the fact that the cold war ended
“score draw”, and twenty years later the Russians have a fundamental
word in the global policy, They have not stopped “watching” Russia
even for a minute. But “reboot” of relations with Russia has started
since President Obama’s coming to the power in the USA. Perhaps,
this will still remain in the near future.
However, actually we have innovation in the quality of the security
climate of global processes. Presidential and parliamentary elections
will be held in many leading countries of the world in 2012-13,
but strategic directions in the globally-integrated world have not
been drawn out yet in details, as in many cases they are a subject
of electoral campaigns. …The possible candidate for US president
Mitt Romney said that Russia is a number one geo-political enemy of
America. Nevertheless, we have to remember the talk between Medvedev
and Obama in Seoul when they forgot to switch off the microphone and
everybody in the world heard their reassuring dialogue. The incumbent
president of the USA said these were his last elections after which
he will be more flexible. And the leaving president of Russia replied:
“I see. I will convey this information to Vladimir”.
However, I hope that the Devil is not so black as it is painted.
Syria will undoubtedly change, and probably much will change in Iran
too, as elections will be held there. Besides the Western strategists,
the participants in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization also
expressed their viewpoints regarding these countries. They think
that ” unilateral interference of a third country in this region is
contra-productive”. They also specially emphasized that “one must
not give a legal basis for the military intrusion from outside for
toppling of Bashar Assad’s regime”.
The conditions which determine the strategy of development and
the world order are equal for everybody. This is a new epoch of
civilization, which is being created by the scientific and technical
revolution. Internet, mobile communication, other means of information
technologies, etc make people closer and give them an opportunity
to democratize society and political systems, re-equip production
and labor system and of course the military complex. The key factor
in the nature and quality of relations between the countries are
the disagreements of the post-cold war period and the aspiration
to live peacefully. The positive or negative direction of their
influence much depends on relevant events… There are disagreements
in the strategic interests of Europe, Russia and the USA as well as
Asian, South-African and African countries. The roles of the global
organizations have not been determined yet in the new world order.
I could list many similar events, but it is clear that the world is
not stable. Moreover, making of the new strategies is also affected
by the circumstances that the economic system of capitalism has
become the only one ruling in the whole world, that inter-dependence
and integration have become global. For this reason, regular cyclic
economic crises of capitalism affect the entire social and political
system of all the countries of the world as well.
Not disclosing the nature of all the facts which determine the world
order and its changing, I think that at present the most significant
is the responsibility of the parties to take such decisions which
will allow nobody to turn the course of events towards the risk of
the new world war.
From: Baghdasarian