REFUSING RUSSIA’S SECURITY GUARANTEES WOULD BE DISASTROUS FOR ARMENIA
David Stepanyan
arminfo
Thursday, November 3, 16:50
ArmInfo’s interview with Alexander Krylov, senior research fellow at
the World Economy and International Relations of the Russian Academy
of Sciences, Doctor of Sciences, History
Possible change of Russia’s foreign political course with regard to
our region is actively discussed in Armenia in connection with the
expected Medvedev-Putin rotation. They say that Putin favors Baku.
Probability of Vladimir Putin’s election to the post of the president
is rather big. Our opposition is much weaker than the Armenian
one. It is still split and has no popular leaders able to consolidate
a significant number of voters. The “protest” voting will hardly be
significant either in spite of social-economic and domestic problems
in the county. In such situation, the ruling party has real chances to
win without active use of the administrative resource. Russia will keep
playing an active part in the Karabakh peace process and its policy
in the given issue will remain stable and predictable also if Putin
is elected president. The basic principles of that policy were laid in
the middle of 1990s and there is no ground to say that there can be any
fundamental changes. At the same time, the Russian leadership
will continue developing relations with Azerbaijan in the economy
sector mainly. Normalizations of relations with Azerbaijan in the
post-Elchibey period have become an achievement of the Russian
diplomacy. It would be quite undesirable for Russia to border with
another problematic country as Georgia. Vitality of and mutual
advantage from our allied relations is the result of common state
interests in the sphere of security, first of all. But Armenia and
Russia are independent states and their foreign policy cannot be
identical even in case of very close relations. Many in Moscow would
like to see more support from Armenia in many issues. The same can
be said about Yerevan. The two countries have different views of many
problems, but their positions on the fundamental issues of peace and
security in the region coincide. In such state of affairs continues
also in future, Russia will, undoubtedly, remain a reliable guarantor
of peaceful and safe development of Armenia.
The latest resignations in Armenia have become a reason for certain
opinions in the analytical society in Armenia saying that President
Serzh Sargsyan’s team is gradually getting rid of the pro-Russian
politicians in the person of ex-mayor Karen Karapetyan and his
namesake heading the President’s Administration. Some analysts see
in this certain pro-western orientation of Sargsyan…
It is very popular regarding politicians as pro-Russian or not
pro-Russian. I think it is wrong. Pro-Russian must be the politicians
of Russia, while the politicians of Armenia, Georgia and other
post-Soviet states must advocate the interests of their states and
build relations with other states on the basis of those interests.
Historical and geographic factors show that it is within interests of
Russia’s neighbors to keep friendly or at least normal relations with
it. Some of its neighbors have made different choice, however. Once
Cuba chose the USA and the world imperialism. Now, Georgia plays the
role of “Caucasian” Cuba. One can display various attitude towards
that choice, but it is necessary to understand also the historical
responsibility that the political leadership of various countries
will have to their peoples in that case. Studying the possibility of
radical re-orientation of Armenia’s policy, such scenario is very far
from real life so far. The point is the national interests of Armenia
and not its leaders that will inevitably change sooner or later. So
far, only Russia can be the real security guarantor of Armenia. It is
doubtful that super powers outside the region, military and political
alliances or international organizations may play that role in the
nearest future. Therefore, Armenian politicians will make various
maneuvers in the domestic or external arena. But refusing Russia’s
security guarantees would be evidently disastrous for Armenia .
Neither the incumbent authorities nor the opposition seriously studies
such possibility, I think.
Do you think that the mutual anti-propaganda is harmful for the
current peace process?
Information and propaganda war is one of the key obstacles to peaceful
resolution of the Karabakh conflict. I am sure that both the publics
should refuse confrontation and go on concessions. So far, there is
only readiness for capitalization of the confronting party. In fact,
we can see a deadlock in the negotiations and constant tension in
the delimitation zone. If nothing changes, the conflict will remain
frozen for many decades or may be unfrozen.
With an art worthy of a better cause Baku demands the mediators,
influential states and international organization to exert pressure
on Armenia to make it adopt the version of the Madrid Principles
favorable for Azerbaijan. Is it possible?
So far, all the mediators of the Minsk Group, influential states and
international organizations have advocated peaceful resolution of the
conflict on the basis of a mutually acceptable compromise. There is a
classical example when pressure on the conflicting parties made them
adopt terms inadmissible for them. I mean the agreement between the
Israelis and Palestinians that was forced by U.S. Administration and
led to nothing good. Such scenario in the Karabakh process will just
make the situation tenser. Destabilization in the region conflicts
with the interests of the mediator-states, therefore one should not
expect them to make any pressure on Armenia or Azerbaijan.
Will Azerbaijan gain any dividends from its non-permanent membership of
the UN Security Council given that all the three mediator-states are
represented there? On October 26 Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar
Mammadyarov said Azerbaijan is going to discuss the issue of submitting
the Karabakh problem to consideration of the UN with the five permanent
members of the UN Security Council. Will that initiative be a success?
Azerbaijan’s leadership has really got an opportunity to use the UN
tribune and the status of the UN Security Council’s non-permanent
member to strengthen its positions on the international arena in
2012-2013. Baku is very likely to use these new opportunities in its
diplomatic and information war against Armenia. This war has been
waged for years and is now bringing its fruits. In Europe there is no
deficit of the Azerbaijani literature translated into many languages.
This allows Azerbaijan introducing its own interpretation of the
Karabakh conflict and discrediting Armenia and presenting it as an
“aggressor” and “occupant”. However, this has not yet led to one-sided
concessions or capitulation of Armenia in the Karabakh process. The
status of the UN SC’s non-permanent member will hardly allow Azerbaijan
to settle this issue.
UNESCO has recently admitted Palestine. Will that step or other similar
steps of international organizations increase Nagorno-Karabakh’s
chances for international recognition?
Palestine’s membership in UNESCO will not affect Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict settlement in any way. Unfortunately, the analogy principle
does not function at the world arena. So, the recent recognition of
independence of South Sudan by the world community has not changed the
positions regarding other conflicts. Not the historical precedents on
recognition of independent states will play a significant part, but
other factors: correlation of the forces of the conflicting parties,
their rating on the world arena, the attitude of other states, their
interests in the region and other factors.