ARMENIA MUST HAVE THE FUTURE OF CROSSROADS

Support A1+!

The President of NATO Parliamentary Assembly Mr. Jose Lello paid an official visit to Armenia on September 17-18. Still several months ago the Spokesman of Armenian Parliament Mr. Tigran Torosyan had invited NATO PA President to make this tour. On quest’s arrival Mr. Torosyan was already resigning from office, so the Deputy Spokesman of Parliament as well as several ministers and the President of Republic met with Mr. Lello.

Taking into account that relations with Euro-Atlantic structures under the light of recent events in South Caucasus had become an important discussion topic not only for authorities but also for Armenian people, Mr. Lello found a short while to give this interview to our newspaper before his departure.

-Dear PA President, as the time is short I’d like not to touch the Russian-Georgia conflict and the EU-NATO involvement in it’s settlement but rightly to turn to this conflict’s impact on South Caucasus region, and on Armenia in particular.

- Well, the recent events in Georgia in some aspect created new perspectives. In certain way I think it came with facilitating some processes of stabilization in South Caucasus.

For example the case of Armenia - during of Georgian crisis the Armenia's economy sensibly suffered because of blockade. This has stressed the geopolitical constraints to Armenia. But on the other way identifying the fragility of situation on Georgia it for example I think facilitated the visit of President Gul to Armenia.

Armenia that was really very fragile in its geopolitical posture became in certain way potentially rather important in geostrategical aspect. Armenia gained a real potential to be an alternative as a crossroad between let's say…

-Caspian Sea and Europe. - Exactly. I'd say not only Caspian Sea, even Central Asia and Europe, because the pipelines now are coming from Azerbaijan, but in future they'll come from Kazakhstan.

So in certain way the situation unfolded in region during recent events clarified some great possibilities for Armenia. And the paradox is that this move creates, in my point of view, also a possibility for another accommodation - let's say to process of real negotiating and regulating the relations with its neighbors. This, if happens in future, can create a new security system for South Caucasus.

I think this system, if it's possible, must be created on a base of rational approach. The partners must have a rational attitude. There are certain examples from the past how former enemies committed themselves to rational approach to pursue common interest. Foreign relations are not based on passion; they are not based, in most of times, also on historical heritage or emotions. They are based on interest - e.g. the Cyprus problem. Both parties the Greeks and the Turks didn't became partners with a great aim or great passion. They realized that for their both interest it will be better to have a settlement of problem and open the borders. Looking to Armenia - forming relations and opening the boards is utmost important here. When you see the cost of, for example oil barrel arriving to Armenia or cost of exporting products from Armenia to foreign markets, surely the high cost undermines their competitively. So I think the Armenian people and Armenia authorities must look on perspectives emerging from open borders with great pragmatism.

In this regard I think the football has been not only a game, but became a catalyst for a new approach. I’m looking to the future with optimism. A kind of regulation, a settlement of relations between Armenia and Turkey I think will have an immediate impact on solution of Nagorno-Karabakh problem. It’s important to create a base of confidence measures, to reach a kind of official solution for the entity of Nagorno-Karabakh and then both parties will have to look to the future, to growth and prosperity. It is the best way. And the history will go on to accommodate the rest during the history itself.

So briefly I think there is a possibility for stabilizing the situation in South Caucasus and achieving a comprehensive cooperation and progress here not on the base of “three minus one” approach but on the base of “three equal to three” formula. None of three South Caucasus nations must be excluded from regional projects leading to 3-1 situation, but the “3 must be equal to 3” and all the nations must get involved into regional processes.

-In recent days so many configurations are being made with these figures 3+2, 3+3. Turkey displayed an initiative, then Russia told something, then Iran decided to get involved. Still I think the core transformation that brought all these local “super-powers” into move is the fact that EU and NATO entered South Caucasus, isn’t it?

- It’s sure. And here I’d like to specify that most of people identify NATO with a military organization. Still nowadays NATO is essentially a political organization. Of course the military branch is very important. There is no capacity for negotiations without military component, it's a base for good starting for negotiations. But the organization is profoundly a political one and its presence in South Caucasus must not cause alarm to Russia or other neighbors.

In the case of Russia - we are living in partnership with Russia. Russia has a lot of interest in Euro-Atlantic area and in relation with this area. I may tell honestly, I can't understand very well this new approach of Russia to old fashion systems of behavior. Their blitzkrieg on Georgian territory was totally disproportioning to the situation aroused in South Ossetia. I'm not going into detail about who started, who didn't start, who made the motivation? Russia was disproportionate.

Moreover I can't understand why Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In fact they say that the Kosovo was a precedent. Then while being against the Kosovo independence why to create more strong precedents pretty close to their own borders, especially beside those unrest sections inside their own territory that may similarly get involved into the process. Is Russia going to recognize Ingushetia? Are they recognizing Chechnya? So I think they created a situation that doesn’t accord even to their own interests, it looks more as if playing with fire. Russia is playing with fire. Honestly I don't understand Russians. And even now they made a military agreement with Abkhazia and Ossetia. This is really not a quite understandable jest or decision.

But anyway Russia in global world, as far as we are living in today, has a lot of interests in EU. It had received a lot of investments from European Union; the EU is a great customer of its energy supplies. There are firm economic ties and interests in fact. Nevertheless Russia has to understand that life is not only energy, oil and gas.

- And weapon. - Well, in weapons I have my doubts.

- They equally use energy or weapon depending on advisability.

- Well, but concerning to effectiveness of weapon, even recently in Georgia they had some setbacks. It's not quite understandable how many aircrafts there were been shut down during that period, you see.

Still anyhow looking to the future for a new security system in South Caucasus the dialogue with neighbors is surely essential - with Russia, with Turkey and with Iran. The policy of good neighboring is essential, it’s fundamental. We can choice the friends; we can’t make any choice on neighbors.

- Yes. Mr. Lello, I’d like to turn to theme of NATO and EU presence in South Caucasus once more. Our authorities talk about integration with EU but even opposition tries to escape from talks about joining the NATO. Yet for many people in region it’s important to be sure that EU and NATO will be here and stand with us until we become part of it.

- When we talk about integration with Europe and Euro-Atlantic structures, namely the EU, NATO etc, we must always remember, that more than physical and structure integration, joining to Europe means joining to a model. Europe is a model of civilization, model of democracy, model of tolerance, model of respect of human rights, model of ideology. And this European model had spread all over the world as a model of real democracy and a system of better co-existence of nations. It's a good example where countries with lots of differences and bitter history like France and Germany or even Poland and Germany came to peaceful coexistence and started to cooperate in interest of their states and peoples.

So more than a structure, Europe is a model, an ideological model and countries like Armenia follow this model. The countries choose European model as a goal and hope for better future of growth and development on a sustainable base, but also on a base where people have capacity to decide for themselves about their future with terms of tolerance and peaceful co-existence. So this is the model

NATO itself is already in Armenia, due to IPP (Individual Partnership Plan) developed with your authorities. NATO supports Armenia in modernization of your military system creating a better interoperability, creating a better military doctrine, creating a legislative system where the military are controlled by the parliament, by political forces. So this is NATO not only as a system that is changing with great reforms your defense and security environment, but also as an ideological tool.

It's a new way and tool. It's a better insurance for peace. With NATO adventures are not possible. With NATO any military action depends on agreement of other allies, it depends on political parliamentary control over the military decisions. This is the core of ideological model. You can't forget that Europe has been through history a stage for battles, wars and disasters. And in the last more than sixty years Europe is enjoying peace thanks to created ideological model of co-existence and peace.

In this respect and considering the positive experience in peaceful conflict settlements that Europe already possesses, I think NATO is a framework, a basis, a common ground that may also contribute to developing a dialogue between Armenia and it’s neighbors to solve the problems. With different cards or different entrance capacities but all the parties are members of same club. Therefore I’m looking to situation with great optimism.

- I think many people would like to share your optimism, but until Azerbaijan accuses Armenia for occupying it’s territories, something that actually isn’t true (if intending to occupy Azerbaijan territories why would the Armenians occupy Karabakh instead of Kazakh region that would allow to control oil and gas pipelines or Nakhijevan – establishing full communication with Middle East?), so until Azerbaijan doesn’t stop to falsify and present the self-defense of Nagorno-Karabakh as an occupation by Armenia, how the essence of problem may be identified for further solution?

- Well, but let’s look to facts. In fact Armenia is occupying Azerbaijan territory. Why? In order to create a connection between Karabakh and your territory some lands outside Nagorno Karabakh were occupied. So in case of full settlement there must be a withdrawal from these territories, surely on the base that there will not be any blockade from Armenia to Karabakh as well as from Azerbaijan to Nakhijevan..

On the base of co-existence of course they will allow you to cross their territories, you will allow them to cross your territory, the trains will lead to Yerevan, Baku, Nakhijevan, etc. And there will be totally different environment.

In Europe nowadays we don’t have any blockades; you can’t even recognize the borders because everyone passes. Yet we are not loosing our sovereignty or control over our territory, but we do this on base of cooperation between powers, between police. We have even agreement that police if pursuing some criminals they can go even inside the other country. So this is a part of ideological system that has to be exported to this part of world. So I think further steps must be taken.

-Still I can’t agree that Armenia and not the Nagorno Karabakh had occupied any territories, but your belief into European type post-conflict settlement truly inspires. And let’s in the end go to another blocked frontier – between Armenia and Turkey. Surely I must ask has NATO ever appreciated the Turkish policy of blockading Armenia and why does NATO tolerates it?

- For us, we hope this situation is going to have a positive evolution. We’d like to be more and more involved in this process. As far as we have a good relationship with Armenia and good relationship with Turkey - this is a faithful ally for long time - our aim is to assist a certain settlement between the two countries in order to overcome these constraints. I hope in near future we can assist opening the frontiers to permit the flow of your goods through Turkish highroads system because it’s more developed than the Iranian. The Iranian system doesn’t have good infrastructure.

-Turkey is preferable simply because of exit to Mediterranean. For millenniums there was Armenia Major. Today rightly or wrongly partly it’s called Turkey, O.K. But when this Turkey blocks the reach of Armenians to Mediterranean…

- I’ll tell you. The day when the frontiers will be opened you’ll get the reach to wider world through Turkey. Those who criticize this policy of improving the relations between two countries they must think about the change. There will be a great revolution in your economy. The day you have open borders your goods can flow without high cost…

-Perhaps, but there is a more profound problem - the Armenians to stop perceiving Turks as enemy. I suppose the Turks know what they have committed through history and still they keep on their hostile policy – they close our borders, they damage our economy...

- Both sides are sleeping and living with history too long. We can’t forget history. History is always a good example to avoid new dangers in future. But anyway as I told in the beginning what is needed is rational approach. Don’t forget the history. But look not only into history of past but also into history of future.

And of course the opening of borders between Armenia and Turkey is an issue that either NATO, either European Union are pursuing now. Armenia can be a crossroad. And Armenia being a crossroad will have prosperous future.

- Let the assumptions become true. And surely thanks for interview.

Lusine Petrosyan

The Armenian version is printed in "Hraparak" daily.