Tweet
Prospects of regional development
Alexander Iskandaryan
Director of Caucasus Media Institute
Dear readers,
Between June 14 and 21, 2005, you had an opportunity to address your
questions on the Yerkir's website to ALEXANDER ISKANDARYAN, Director
of Caucasus Media Institute.
Below are the answers to your questions. See the full version of the
interview in Armenian and Russian.
Thank you for your active participation: Spartak Seyranian, editor-in-chief
of "Yerkir" Weekly.
Armen - Dear Mr. Iskandarian, In present international situation every
nation sells something to buy security. Azerbaijan has its oil and
pipelines, Georgia its transport routes. As it has been noticed by many
Armenia's asset are its people. Currently we are losing this strategic
asset every day. We are losing it because Armenia is an unattractive
(economically, politically and even culturally) country. Don't you
think that we are not careful enough with our strategic asset?
Alexander Iskandarian - Azerbaijanis sell image of oil rather than oil.
Heydar Aliyev was a political genius. He conducted a great campaign,
he sold Americans oil which actually was not there. Recently the
Baku-Cheyhan pipeline was opened and now they have to think how
to fill it. They are going to try to engage Kazakhstan, maybe
successfully. What Aliyev did was trading images for strategic
security, and is often exercised in the world politics.
Georgia sells itself as a transit route when it actually is not, at
least now, until the pipeline is operative. I don't see what important
goods go from Azerbaijan to the West through Georgia. At least, the
flow is not big enough to make Georgia a transit region. Georgia is
not Panama with the Panama canal or Egypt with Suez canal or Turkey
with Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. Georgia portrays itself a
transit country and it may work with pipelines, railways, etc.
What are we selling? We say that first of all we have nothing to offer except
for our human resources, and then we say that we have less and less of it. We
are working against ourselves. Actually, both statements are not exactly
true. It is true that human asset is crucial. But Georgia, Azerbaijan and the
United States can say the same thing.
Besides, Armen is fighting against a problem that actually does not
exist: the mass exodus from Armenia is the problem of the past. The
peak of the emigration was in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Beginning 1996,
the emigration rate has significantly slowed, and in the past two
years, the migration balance is a positive one, Armenia's population
is growing, though the growth rate is insignificant. Some may say
the growth rate is faked. Maybe, but it is not important whether the
population has grown by 2,000 or 3,000 people, what is more important
is the trend. Currently the population has stabilized, and today's
task is to not allow the emigration to resume.
However, this is not only Armenia's problem, all the countries of
the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which had no energy
resources, had the same problem. With no energy resources, the industry
collapses, and people lose their jobs and begin to leave. Both Georgia
and Azerbaijan had the same problem.
Azerbaijan's migration rate was higher than that of Armenia. Let them
say their population is 8 million, but that is not true. The same is
true for Georgia. When the three South Caucasus countries were parts of
the USSR, they were funded. In Armenia, for example, there was a great
military production sector, but it died when the USSR collapsed. There
are similar to the Armenian factories in Russia that are deteriorating,
not speaking of communications and other problems. There was no way
those factories could survive, and once they are shut down, the loss
of that part of population is unavoidable. So the process was natural,
Armenia could not feed that many people, and those who left helped
to survive others in those years by sending money to their relatives.
The economic situation in Armenia is changing, so is the situation
with the emigration. What we should realize is that the emigration
is not a calamity but, unfortunately, something natural. Armen is
writing in English, he is obviously writing from the West. If he
lives in Britain, then he sees Bangladeshis and Indians in his city,
if he is writing from Germany, he sees Turks, if from France, he
sees Arabs, if from the U.S., he sees Mexicans and so on. As long as
Armenia remains a poor country compared to Britain, U.S. or France,
people will leave this country. Once we become a country richer than
our neighbors we will see other problems, those that Armen sees if
he lives in a developed country and not in Jamaica.
Then Bangladeshis, Turks, Persians and Arabs would start to arrive
in our country, and we would not be happy about it. This is how the
world lives and we should get used to it. People leave, people want
to live better, some return, some don't, and some who have never
lived in Armenia come to live here. Me, for an example.
Ahar - Mr. Iskandarian 1) I presume that by regional development the
media implies the parallel and interdependent development of the 3
south Caucasian states. Unfortunately and as everyone knows, this
expression takes an absurd meaning when we know the current level of
"cooperation" between Armenia and Azerbaijan. So as a first question,
I would like to know if any major prospects or breakthroughs for the
region are directly and entirely dependent on the normalization of
Azeri-Armenian relations, or if the latter is not a necessity and is
only preferable? 2) Second, in case the region develops asymmetrically
(i.e. Azerbaijan becomes much richer than Armenia or otherwise,
if Armenia becomes the economic and stable center of the Caucasus),
do you think that because of the geographic proximity of the 3 states
the overall effect will simply result in the development of the entire
region. In other words, no matter who gets where, don't you think that
the Caucasus countries are so dependent on each other that one way or
the other they will always move towards the same direction and at a
relatively similar pace? That major changes in one of them (whether
positive or negative) will result in almost equivalent changes in
the others?
Alexander Iskandarian - Preferable but not necessary. This does not
mean I am against good economic and other relations. Good, if we had
such relations but Armenia is able to develop without them. I am not
answering this question; the current situation is answering it. Armenia
is developing without relations with Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani
provinces are in a worse economic situation than the Armenian provinces
are. Armenia can develop in some aspects better than Azerbaijan can. In
Azerbaijan, the growth in industry other than the oil sector is much
smaller than in Armenia, which has no oil sector. Our oil sector is
the Diaspora with its remittances. It is the same "Dutch disease,"
these are the same injections made into the economy. They do not
depend on Azerbaijan, they depend on the completely other substance,
mainly on the West and our compatriots living in Russia. And they
will not end. If, God forbid, something happens somewhere, they
would remain somewhere else. If there is no America, there will be
Russia, and if there is no Russia, there still would be France and
so on. So, cooperation with Azerbaijan or normalization of relations
with Azerbaijan is preferable but not necessary.
The second part of the question: there are both versions in the world. A
fifty-sixty kilometer from Italy there is Albania. They influence each other .
Stolen cars are taken from Italy to Albania, miserable Albanians move
to Italy to make both ends meet and send home money. Some Albanian
bandits mug Italians and so on. But Italy remains a developed country,
and Albania lives in medieval ages. Another example: Saudi Arabia
and Yemen. Strikingly rich Saudi Arabia where people don't know how
to spend their extra money and strikingly poor Yemen. Again, there
are some interrelations, Yemenis go to work in Saudi Arabia and so on.
There are contrary examples, too, when countries influence their
neighbors' economies positively. Germany influences modern-day Czech
Republic and Poland; Italy and Austria influence Slovenia. A country's
readiness to comprehend what is next to it is crucial. I believe
there will be an effect if Armenia suddenly becomes a rich country
or the richest country of the region. If modern industries, such as
IT technologies, bank sector, tourism, and the present growth rates
of construction are maintained, some elements of the industry would
develop. This, of course, will have an overall effect on the neighbors.
Actually, we see it now. Significant amount of Armenian grapes went to
Georgia last year. So the fact that the Armenian agriculture is more
developed than that of Georgia has its effect on Georgia. Georgian
wine-makers produce Georgian wine using Armenian grapes. Sausage
production is more developed in Armenia than in Georgia. In Tbilisi, if
one wishes to buy quality sausages, you buy Armenian-made sausages. The
Western produce is of low quality and cheap.
Pomegranates in Azerbaijan are better than in Armenia. They are
imported into Armenia. Any pomegranates, grapes, electricity that
goes to Georgia is serious. And if Armenia suddenly becomes rich,
then Georgians and Azeris -- providing we have normal relations --
would work in our gas stations, and this is realistic too. So far, our
interdependence is too weak simply because we all are poor. America
and England have effect on us so far, and our boys and girls go to
these countries to works as waiters and gas station attendants.
Vahan Mikaelian - I would like to know you opinion on how the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline will influence the outcome of the Karabakh
peace process.
Specifically, have the Azeris dug themselves in a hole by building
the pipeline in such a strategically important area?
Alexander Iskandarian - What has happened so far is the opening of
the Azerbaijani sector of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and not
what the press writes. But sooner or later the whole pipeline will be
opened. It is possible even that some oil would be pumped via this
pipeline provided Kazakhstan is included in it. The region's oil
is not enough to fill the pipeline. It is not yet quite clear with
everything and there are big problems. However, if the oil is pumped
via the pipeline, it would have a stabilizing effect on the Karabakh
conflict settlement. Any such project has a stabilizing effect in the
region after all. I entirely oppose the idea that we need everything go
wrong in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Meaning, if it is bad there,
it is good here That's . not true. What we need is that it be no
good there. To be more politically cynical, it is important to us to
have stability there. Stability is a democratic method of governance,
normal economic development and international relations.
The pipeline is not a great achievement, nothing striking, but it is a kind of
a contribution to the stability. People, countries and companies whose oil is
to go through this pipeline would be the guarantors of the stability in the
region, though it is quite stable even now.
Vartan - Do you consider that Armenia is in fact in a better off
social and economic condition than Azerbaijan and Georgia? Is this
the actual reality?
Relations with Georgia are not the most best that they can be. If
we worked together, we can surely accomplish a lot. Why are these
Georgians kissing the Turks' ass? Where do you think is the future
of Armenian-Georgian relations?
Recently I heard news that there is a railway being built through
Abkhiazia which Armenia will participate. I mean if Georgia agrees
with this, perhaps the future of cooperation b/w us is good? what
is the state of Iranian-Armenian relations? I know Iran is the most
important neighbor, but is there any friction caused by the Americas
so called "war on terror" and the issue of supposed nuclear weapons
program in Iran. Will this hurt Iran-Armenia relations, or even
U.S.-Armenia relations?
Alexander Iskandarian - Than Georgia, definitely yes; than
Azerbaijan... hard to say because Azerbaijan is much more polarized
than Armenia. There is no middle in Azerbaijan. There is oil there and
everything that is linked to it influences the development of Baku. The
development of Baku cannot be compared to that of Yerevan. There is
more money fluxing to the city, more construction is carried out, and
the city is becoming more beautiful than Yerevan. Yerevan is gaining on
it but the process has just started. As for the Azerbaijani villages,
they are poorer than Armenian villages. Azerbaijani provincial towns
are poorer and the living conditions there are worse than in Armenian
provincial towns. In Baku, they are better off, and since half of the
country's population is concentrated in Baku, then maybe... It is hard
to answer where the overall social conditions are better. Azerbaijan
and Armenia have very different social structures.
Georgians have a common border with Russia, but the relations are
strained.
So, they do not have this border after all. In case of Abkhazia, they
don't, in case of South Osetia, this border is problematic. The only
country that Georgia has normal border and no political problems
is Turkey. So they try to develop normal relations and it is
understandable.
The humiliation element: why do they kiss Turks' ass and not the
other way around? I don't think it is exactly the case, but if there
is a disbalance in relations, it is because they need Turkey and
Turkey does not need them because Turkey is a huge country with a
70-million population. Georgia is a small country with a 4-million
population. And also Georgia is less developed and Turkey is a way
to Europe for Georgia and not the other way around and so on.
Where is the future of the Armenian-Georgian
relations? Armenian-Georgian relations will remain tense but they
will not get too bad. Armenia and Georgia cannot afford to have
bad relations. These countries will have tense but good-neighborly
relations. On the surface there will always be beautiful statements
but there will always be real problems due to the configuration and
national interests of the two countries. This is normal and both we
and Georgians should take this into account.
The railway through Georgia and Abkhazia to Russia. Is it good or
bad? It is not important whether it is good or bad. I don't think
this railway will open in the visible future.
Armenian-Iranian relations. I know that Iran is the most important
of our neighbors. There are no alternatives to the relations between
Armenia and Iran.
These relations will remain good. U.S.-Iran relations are more an
issue of political and physiological problem existing in the U.S. since
the hostage crisis.
In reality, Iran is not much different than the other countries of the
region -- and it is different positively. Iran is a more democratic
country than Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Iran is more
economically developed than Pakistan on Turkey. Democratic development
in Iran is more dynamic than in Afghanistan or Uzbekistan with whom
the U.S. have good relations. Iran has no nuclear bomb unlike Pakistan
or Israel.
But there is a problem that goes deep in the minds of the Americans
toward Iran. We have to take it into account, and it creates extra
complications in the relations of Armenia with the U.S. This problem
will be there until the Americans change their attitude to Iran. I
don't believe it would change soon.
Armenians, however, have not much to choose from. Armenians would
continue to explain to the Americans that they have no other way. By
the way, we succeed in explaining -- not on the level of journalism
in terms of terrible phrases like "war on terror" -- but on the level
politicians who understand it very well and take it into account.
Which is more important, America or Iran? They are both important in
different ways. Iran is our major neighbor, America is a global power,
and so it is a "neighbor" to everyone, so it is important, too. When
economic, political, military projects are implemented opinions of
both countries are taken into consideration.
See the full version of the interview in Armenian and Russian.
Alexander Iskandaryan
Director of Caucasus Media Institute
Dear readers,
Between June 14 and 21, 2005, you had an opportunity to address your
questions on the Yerkir's website to ALEXANDER ISKANDARYAN, Director
of Caucasus Media Institute.
Below are the answers to your questions. See the full version of the
interview in Armenian and Russian.
Thank you for your active participation: Spartak Seyranian, editor-in-chief
of "Yerkir" Weekly.
Armen - Dear Mr. Iskandarian, In present international situation every
nation sells something to buy security. Azerbaijan has its oil and
pipelines, Georgia its transport routes. As it has been noticed by many
Armenia's asset are its people. Currently we are losing this strategic
asset every day. We are losing it because Armenia is an unattractive
(economically, politically and even culturally) country. Don't you
think that we are not careful enough with our strategic asset?
Alexander Iskandarian - Azerbaijanis sell image of oil rather than oil.
Heydar Aliyev was a political genius. He conducted a great campaign,
he sold Americans oil which actually was not there. Recently the
Baku-Cheyhan pipeline was opened and now they have to think how
to fill it. They are going to try to engage Kazakhstan, maybe
successfully. What Aliyev did was trading images for strategic
security, and is often exercised in the world politics.
Georgia sells itself as a transit route when it actually is not, at
least now, until the pipeline is operative. I don't see what important
goods go from Azerbaijan to the West through Georgia. At least, the
flow is not big enough to make Georgia a transit region. Georgia is
not Panama with the Panama canal or Egypt with Suez canal or Turkey
with Bosporus and Dardanelles straits. Georgia portrays itself a
transit country and it may work with pipelines, railways, etc.
What are we selling? We say that first of all we have nothing to offer except
for our human resources, and then we say that we have less and less of it. We
are working against ourselves. Actually, both statements are not exactly
true. It is true that human asset is crucial. But Georgia, Azerbaijan and the
United States can say the same thing.
Besides, Armen is fighting against a problem that actually does not
exist: the mass exodus from Armenia is the problem of the past. The
peak of the emigration was in 1993, 1994 and 1995. Beginning 1996,
the emigration rate has significantly slowed, and in the past two
years, the migration balance is a positive one, Armenia's population
is growing, though the growth rate is insignificant. Some may say
the growth rate is faked. Maybe, but it is not important whether the
population has grown by 2,000 or 3,000 people, what is more important
is the trend. Currently the population has stabilized, and today's
task is to not allow the emigration to resume.
However, this is not only Armenia's problem, all the countries of
the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which had no energy
resources, had the same problem. With no energy resources, the industry
collapses, and people lose their jobs and begin to leave. Both Georgia
and Azerbaijan had the same problem.
Azerbaijan's migration rate was higher than that of Armenia. Let them
say their population is 8 million, but that is not true. The same is
true for Georgia. When the three South Caucasus countries were parts of
the USSR, they were funded. In Armenia, for example, there was a great
military production sector, but it died when the USSR collapsed. There
are similar to the Armenian factories in Russia that are deteriorating,
not speaking of communications and other problems. There was no way
those factories could survive, and once they are shut down, the loss
of that part of population is unavoidable. So the process was natural,
Armenia could not feed that many people, and those who left helped
to survive others in those years by sending money to their relatives.
The economic situation in Armenia is changing, so is the situation
with the emigration. What we should realize is that the emigration
is not a calamity but, unfortunately, something natural. Armen is
writing in English, he is obviously writing from the West. If he
lives in Britain, then he sees Bangladeshis and Indians in his city,
if he is writing from Germany, he sees Turks, if from France, he
sees Arabs, if from the U.S., he sees Mexicans and so on. As long as
Armenia remains a poor country compared to Britain, U.S. or France,
people will leave this country. Once we become a country richer than
our neighbors we will see other problems, those that Armen sees if
he lives in a developed country and not in Jamaica.
Then Bangladeshis, Turks, Persians and Arabs would start to arrive
in our country, and we would not be happy about it. This is how the
world lives and we should get used to it. People leave, people want
to live better, some return, some don't, and some who have never
lived in Armenia come to live here. Me, for an example.
Ahar - Mr. Iskandarian 1) I presume that by regional development the
media implies the parallel and interdependent development of the 3
south Caucasian states. Unfortunately and as everyone knows, this
expression takes an absurd meaning when we know the current level of
"cooperation" between Armenia and Azerbaijan. So as a first question,
I would like to know if any major prospects or breakthroughs for the
region are directly and entirely dependent on the normalization of
Azeri-Armenian relations, or if the latter is not a necessity and is
only preferable? 2) Second, in case the region develops asymmetrically
(i.e. Azerbaijan becomes much richer than Armenia or otherwise,
if Armenia becomes the economic and stable center of the Caucasus),
do you think that because of the geographic proximity of the 3 states
the overall effect will simply result in the development of the entire
region. In other words, no matter who gets where, don't you think that
the Caucasus countries are so dependent on each other that one way or
the other they will always move towards the same direction and at a
relatively similar pace? That major changes in one of them (whether
positive or negative) will result in almost equivalent changes in
the others?
Alexander Iskandarian - Preferable but not necessary. This does not
mean I am against good economic and other relations. Good, if we had
such relations but Armenia is able to develop without them. I am not
answering this question; the current situation is answering it. Armenia
is developing without relations with Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani
provinces are in a worse economic situation than the Armenian provinces
are. Armenia can develop in some aspects better than Azerbaijan can. In
Azerbaijan, the growth in industry other than the oil sector is much
smaller than in Armenia, which has no oil sector. Our oil sector is
the Diaspora with its remittances. It is the same "Dutch disease,"
these are the same injections made into the economy. They do not
depend on Azerbaijan, they depend on the completely other substance,
mainly on the West and our compatriots living in Russia. And they
will not end. If, God forbid, something happens somewhere, they
would remain somewhere else. If there is no America, there will be
Russia, and if there is no Russia, there still would be France and
so on. So, cooperation with Azerbaijan or normalization of relations
with Azerbaijan is preferable but not necessary.
The second part of the question: there are both versions in the world. A
fifty-sixty kilometer from Italy there is Albania. They influence each other .
Stolen cars are taken from Italy to Albania, miserable Albanians move
to Italy to make both ends meet and send home money. Some Albanian
bandits mug Italians and so on. But Italy remains a developed country,
and Albania lives in medieval ages. Another example: Saudi Arabia
and Yemen. Strikingly rich Saudi Arabia where people don't know how
to spend their extra money and strikingly poor Yemen. Again, there
are some interrelations, Yemenis go to work in Saudi Arabia and so on.
There are contrary examples, too, when countries influence their
neighbors' economies positively. Germany influences modern-day Czech
Republic and Poland; Italy and Austria influence Slovenia. A country's
readiness to comprehend what is next to it is crucial. I believe
there will be an effect if Armenia suddenly becomes a rich country
or the richest country of the region. If modern industries, such as
IT technologies, bank sector, tourism, and the present growth rates
of construction are maintained, some elements of the industry would
develop. This, of course, will have an overall effect on the neighbors.
Actually, we see it now. Significant amount of Armenian grapes went to
Georgia last year. So the fact that the Armenian agriculture is more
developed than that of Georgia has its effect on Georgia. Georgian
wine-makers produce Georgian wine using Armenian grapes. Sausage
production is more developed in Armenia than in Georgia. In Tbilisi, if
one wishes to buy quality sausages, you buy Armenian-made sausages. The
Western produce is of low quality and cheap.
Pomegranates in Azerbaijan are better than in Armenia. They are
imported into Armenia. Any pomegranates, grapes, electricity that
goes to Georgia is serious. And if Armenia suddenly becomes rich,
then Georgians and Azeris -- providing we have normal relations --
would work in our gas stations, and this is realistic too. So far, our
interdependence is too weak simply because we all are poor. America
and England have effect on us so far, and our boys and girls go to
these countries to works as waiters and gas station attendants.
Vahan Mikaelian - I would like to know you opinion on how the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline will influence the outcome of the Karabakh
peace process.
Specifically, have the Azeris dug themselves in a hole by building
the pipeline in such a strategically important area?
Alexander Iskandarian - What has happened so far is the opening of
the Azerbaijani sector of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and not
what the press writes. But sooner or later the whole pipeline will be
opened. It is possible even that some oil would be pumped via this
pipeline provided Kazakhstan is included in it. The region's oil
is not enough to fill the pipeline. It is not yet quite clear with
everything and there are big problems. However, if the oil is pumped
via the pipeline, it would have a stabilizing effect on the Karabakh
conflict settlement. Any such project has a stabilizing effect in the
region after all. I entirely oppose the idea that we need everything go
wrong in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Meaning, if it is bad there,
it is good here That's . not true. What we need is that it be no
good there. To be more politically cynical, it is important to us to
have stability there. Stability is a democratic method of governance,
normal economic development and international relations.
The pipeline is not a great achievement, nothing striking, but it is a kind of
a contribution to the stability. People, countries and companies whose oil is
to go through this pipeline would be the guarantors of the stability in the
region, though it is quite stable even now.
Vartan - Do you consider that Armenia is in fact in a better off
social and economic condition than Azerbaijan and Georgia? Is this
the actual reality?
Relations with Georgia are not the most best that they can be. If
we worked together, we can surely accomplish a lot. Why are these
Georgians kissing the Turks' ass? Where do you think is the future
of Armenian-Georgian relations?
Recently I heard news that there is a railway being built through
Abkhiazia which Armenia will participate. I mean if Georgia agrees
with this, perhaps the future of cooperation b/w us is good? what
is the state of Iranian-Armenian relations? I know Iran is the most
important neighbor, but is there any friction caused by the Americas
so called "war on terror" and the issue of supposed nuclear weapons
program in Iran. Will this hurt Iran-Armenia relations, or even
U.S.-Armenia relations?
Alexander Iskandarian - Than Georgia, definitely yes; than
Azerbaijan... hard to say because Azerbaijan is much more polarized
than Armenia. There is no middle in Azerbaijan. There is oil there and
everything that is linked to it influences the development of Baku. The
development of Baku cannot be compared to that of Yerevan. There is
more money fluxing to the city, more construction is carried out, and
the city is becoming more beautiful than Yerevan. Yerevan is gaining on
it but the process has just started. As for the Azerbaijani villages,
they are poorer than Armenian villages. Azerbaijani provincial towns
are poorer and the living conditions there are worse than in Armenian
provincial towns. In Baku, they are better off, and since half of the
country's population is concentrated in Baku, then maybe... It is hard
to answer where the overall social conditions are better. Azerbaijan
and Armenia have very different social structures.
Georgians have a common border with Russia, but the relations are
strained.
So, they do not have this border after all. In case of Abkhazia, they
don't, in case of South Osetia, this border is problematic. The only
country that Georgia has normal border and no political problems
is Turkey. So they try to develop normal relations and it is
understandable.
The humiliation element: why do they kiss Turks' ass and not the
other way around? I don't think it is exactly the case, but if there
is a disbalance in relations, it is because they need Turkey and
Turkey does not need them because Turkey is a huge country with a
70-million population. Georgia is a small country with a 4-million
population. And also Georgia is less developed and Turkey is a way
to Europe for Georgia and not the other way around and so on.
Where is the future of the Armenian-Georgian
relations? Armenian-Georgian relations will remain tense but they
will not get too bad. Armenia and Georgia cannot afford to have
bad relations. These countries will have tense but good-neighborly
relations. On the surface there will always be beautiful statements
but there will always be real problems due to the configuration and
national interests of the two countries. This is normal and both we
and Georgians should take this into account.
The railway through Georgia and Abkhazia to Russia. Is it good or
bad? It is not important whether it is good or bad. I don't think
this railway will open in the visible future.
Armenian-Iranian relations. I know that Iran is the most important
of our neighbors. There are no alternatives to the relations between
Armenia and Iran.
These relations will remain good. U.S.-Iran relations are more an
issue of political and physiological problem existing in the U.S. since
the hostage crisis.
In reality, Iran is not much different than the other countries of the
region -- and it is different positively. Iran is a more democratic
country than Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Iran is more
economically developed than Pakistan on Turkey. Democratic development
in Iran is more dynamic than in Afghanistan or Uzbekistan with whom
the U.S. have good relations. Iran has no nuclear bomb unlike Pakistan
or Israel.
But there is a problem that goes deep in the minds of the Americans
toward Iran. We have to take it into account, and it creates extra
complications in the relations of Armenia with the U.S. This problem
will be there until the Americans change their attitude to Iran. I
don't believe it would change soon.
Armenians, however, have not much to choose from. Armenians would
continue to explain to the Americans that they have no other way. By
the way, we succeed in explaining -- not on the level of journalism
in terms of terrible phrases like "war on terror" -- but on the level
politicians who understand it very well and take it into account.
Which is more important, America or Iran? They are both important in
different ways. Iran is our major neighbor, America is a global power,
and so it is a "neighbor" to everyone, so it is important, too. When
economic, political, military projects are implemented opinions of
both countries are taken into consideration.
See the full version of the interview in Armenian and Russian.