Tweet
STRATEGY OF NATIONAL SECURITY OF ARMENIA AND METHODS OF ITS DEVELOPMENT: INTERVIEW WITH ARMENIAN DM ADVISOR
Regnum, Russia
Nov 9 2006
The press releases of the Inter-Department Commission on the
Development of the Strategy of National Security of the Republic of
Armenia report that the draft strategy has been approved by the leading
professional centers of Washington, Moscow and Brussels. The press
attache of the Armenian Defense Minister, Colonel Seyran Shakhsuvaryan
has asked the Secretary of the Commission, Maj. Gen. Hayk Kotanjyan
to give some explanations concerning the development process.
The director of this project Hayk Kotanjyan is the advisor of
the Armenian Defense Minister. He has acquired his knowledge and
experience in leading scientific centers of Russia, the US, and
Western Europe. He got the highest qualification in national security
at the Russian Academy of Public Administration, the Center for the
Methodology of International Relations Studies of the Russian FM
Diplomatic Academy and the Department of Military-Political Sciences
of the Military Academy of the Russian AF General Staff. Kotanjyan
is doctor of political sciences. He studied counter-terrorism at the
National Security School of the US National Defense University. He
is graduate of the Marshall European Center for Security Studies and
the Defense and Security Analysis Program of the Graduate School of
the RAND corporation (US).
Dr. Kotanjyan, could you give your explanations concerning the methods
of development of the Strategy of National Security of Armenia...
The Armenian Defense Ministry has been working in this sphere since
1992, since the very birth of the Armed Forces of independent Armenia,
in close cooperation with progressive experts analyzing the strategy
of transitional political processes in post-perestroika democratic
Russia. We received great assistance from our Russian colleagues from
the Center for the Methodology of International Relations Studies of
the Russian FM Diplomatic Academy and the Russian Academy of Public
Administration, who closely cooperated with experts on transitional
processes from Harvard and Yale. We also had fruitful contacts with
the experts of the Russian National and International Security Fund
and the Russian Academy of Military Sciences. The updating of the
"Basic Principles of the Military Policy of the Republic of Armenia:
The Military-Political Aspect of National Security" was started in
2000 when Serzh Sargsyan became Defense Minister.
Well aware of the Russian methods of national security concept
development, Sargsyan providently decided to enlarge the scope of
theoretical-methodological national security knowledge of our ministry
due to the leading research centers of the US and Europe.
Through fellowship programs our DM specialists studied the programs
of the US National Defense University, the RAND and the Marshall
Center. In order to keep pace with the constantly transforming
external security environment, we also studied the NATO strategy of
transformation in the international security system.
Does this mean that our strategy has been copied from the American
or Russia original?
This is an important question. The military-political leadership of
Armenia knows well what problems one Central European country faced
after just making a copy of the American document. We also know that in
some post-Soviet countries national security strategies were written
by foreign experts. The documents were later translated into national
languages, while local departments just feigned they worked on them.
The chairman of the Inter-Department Commission was indisputably right
when he said that each country has a unique security environment,
national interests and goals and peculiar ways and priorities of their
use for ensuring national security. That's why, based on the most
advanced methodological achievements and the advice of the leading
professional schools of Russia and the West, our Commission chose the
only right way - namely, to work out the national security concept
on its own.
They in the press call the document differently: "concept" or
"strategy" of national security. Can you explain the difference?
The European tradition says that national security documents should
be worked out in two stages. They in Europe stipulate that one should,
first, develop the "concept" - to answer the question "What?"
- and then, on its basis, the "strategy" - to answer the question
"How?"
The modern methodology of national strategy development is based on
a system approach to both question: "What?" and "How?". Armenia has
chosen this dynamic model because it not only systematizes views and
theorizes on threats and counter-measures but also clearly says that
democratic reforms are the primary way to ensure the secure development
of the Armenian society.
What is the peculiarity of the Commission's product?
In terms of the content, the strategy is peculiar for its attempt
to ensure a multi-vector balance of security orientations and to
transform the society by means of democratic reforms and integration
into the world community. One more important peculiarity is that the
Commission is simultaneously developing two interrelated products:
the Strategy of National Security and the portfolio of department
programs for ensuring its implementation in all spheres.
What is the basis of your work?
At the preparatory stage, we systematized the results of our many-year
cooperation with Russian experts. We also used our monographic research
"The Development of the National Security Concept of the Republic
of Armenia in the Context of the Regional Security Architecture of
the South Caucasus" - the work we defended at the National Security
School of the US National Defense University. The basis of our work
was the Armenian Defense Minister's report "The Key Directions of
the Strategy of National Security of the Republic of Armenia."
Experts from Moscow, Washington and Brussels said that the DM's
report was a well-grounded professional document and recommended it
as a basis for our project.
As the secretary of the Inter-Department Commission, how would you
characterize its work?
It is quite effective. During the first meeting the Chairman of the
Commission said that we should work professionally and transparently.
Special attention was given to the problem of methodological
compatibility of representatives of 18 different departments and MPs.
The experts of the Russian Academy of Public Administration consulted
us on the matter. US experts also helped: highly-qualified specialists
of the US National Defense University held a methodological seminar
for the deputy ministers and equivalent officials involved in the
Commission.
The on-line schedule of the Commission's meetings says that the
Commission has considered the content of the draft twice: first,
when there was a mosaic of proposals based on the text of the DM's
report and, then, when the edited draft was consolidated. All the
work was carried out with the use of modern computer technologies
and traditional methods of documentation.
615 proposals were made during 7 meetings and were analyzed and
included in the text through collective expert consultations with
the commissioners.
I would like to point out that most of the commissioners showed
high professionalism and responsibility for the quality of personal
contribution in the collective product. I would also like to stress
the tolerant and consolidating approach of the chairman towards the
controversial and sometimes conflicting opinions of representatives
of different departments.
The information about the Commission's agenda said that the draft was
to be approved by leading foreign centers. Could you tell about them?
The Chairman of the Commission preferred the modern standard of
open professional discussions in the most authoritative expert
centers. In fact, the configuration of the draft approval reflects the
multi-vector character of Armenia's security policy: Moscow, Washington
and Brussels. All our partners had been notified that the process of
approval would be nontrivial and complex. I am pleased to note that US
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Russian Security Council Secretary
Igor Ivanov and NATO officials readily responded to Serzh Sargsyan's
official request for organizing external approval of the document.
In short, the diagnosis was as follows: the Academic Committee of
the US National Defense University - "the inter-department process
for developing the Strategy of National Security of the Republic
of Armenia and its product comply with the modern methodological
standards"; the Modern Expert Group of the national security and
international relations departments of the Russian Academy of Public
Administration - "The draft Strategy of National Security of the
Republic of Armenia is the mature product of systematized efforts of
the Inter-Department Commission"; the International Advisor Group for
Security of the NATO European members - "The draft is comprehensive
and scientifically substantiated." The recommendations of professional
schools are especially valuable. It should be noted that the experts
just recommended as they clearly understood that it is for the Armenian
authorities to develop a document of national importance.
As the director of the Institute of Strategic Studies of the Defense
Ministry, what can you say about the Institute's role in this process?
The recently founded Institute named after General Drastamat Kanayan is
the analytical, coordinating and editorial link of the Inter-Department
Commission. Here we are analyzing and summarizing both internal and
external recommendations and are working out own proposals for the
Commission. At the same time, the development of the national security
strategy is a good instrument for calibrating the Institute's future
activities in the sphere of national strategic studies.
What are your next steps for promoting the document?
In Nov we are planning to discuss it with the Yerevan State University
Council, the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences and experts
from scientific centers and NGOs. The Chairman of the Commission
Serzh Sargsyan has asked the rector of YSU, professor Aram Simonyan
and the president of the NAS, academic Radik Martirossyan to organize
the discussion.
By Dec we are planning to organize an open parliamentary hearing of
the document. After that, the Commission will submit the document
for the Government's approval.
Regnum, Russia
Nov 9 2006
The press releases of the Inter-Department Commission on the
Development of the Strategy of National Security of the Republic of
Armenia report that the draft strategy has been approved by the leading
professional centers of Washington, Moscow and Brussels. The press
attache of the Armenian Defense Minister, Colonel Seyran Shakhsuvaryan
has asked the Secretary of the Commission, Maj. Gen. Hayk Kotanjyan
to give some explanations concerning the development process.
The director of this project Hayk Kotanjyan is the advisor of
the Armenian Defense Minister. He has acquired his knowledge and
experience in leading scientific centers of Russia, the US, and
Western Europe. He got the highest qualification in national security
at the Russian Academy of Public Administration, the Center for the
Methodology of International Relations Studies of the Russian FM
Diplomatic Academy and the Department of Military-Political Sciences
of the Military Academy of the Russian AF General Staff. Kotanjyan
is doctor of political sciences. He studied counter-terrorism at the
National Security School of the US National Defense University. He
is graduate of the Marshall European Center for Security Studies and
the Defense and Security Analysis Program of the Graduate School of
the RAND corporation (US).
Dr. Kotanjyan, could you give your explanations concerning the methods
of development of the Strategy of National Security of Armenia...
The Armenian Defense Ministry has been working in this sphere since
1992, since the very birth of the Armed Forces of independent Armenia,
in close cooperation with progressive experts analyzing the strategy
of transitional political processes in post-perestroika democratic
Russia. We received great assistance from our Russian colleagues from
the Center for the Methodology of International Relations Studies of
the Russian FM Diplomatic Academy and the Russian Academy of Public
Administration, who closely cooperated with experts on transitional
processes from Harvard and Yale. We also had fruitful contacts with
the experts of the Russian National and International Security Fund
and the Russian Academy of Military Sciences. The updating of the
"Basic Principles of the Military Policy of the Republic of Armenia:
The Military-Political Aspect of National Security" was started in
2000 when Serzh Sargsyan became Defense Minister.
Well aware of the Russian methods of national security concept
development, Sargsyan providently decided to enlarge the scope of
theoretical-methodological national security knowledge of our ministry
due to the leading research centers of the US and Europe.
Through fellowship programs our DM specialists studied the programs
of the US National Defense University, the RAND and the Marshall
Center. In order to keep pace with the constantly transforming
external security environment, we also studied the NATO strategy of
transformation in the international security system.
Does this mean that our strategy has been copied from the American
or Russia original?
This is an important question. The military-political leadership of
Armenia knows well what problems one Central European country faced
after just making a copy of the American document. We also know that in
some post-Soviet countries national security strategies were written
by foreign experts. The documents were later translated into national
languages, while local departments just feigned they worked on them.
The chairman of the Inter-Department Commission was indisputably right
when he said that each country has a unique security environment,
national interests and goals and peculiar ways and priorities of their
use for ensuring national security. That's why, based on the most
advanced methodological achievements and the advice of the leading
professional schools of Russia and the West, our Commission chose the
only right way - namely, to work out the national security concept
on its own.
They in the press call the document differently: "concept" or
"strategy" of national security. Can you explain the difference?
The European tradition says that national security documents should
be worked out in two stages. They in Europe stipulate that one should,
first, develop the "concept" - to answer the question "What?"
- and then, on its basis, the "strategy" - to answer the question
"How?"
The modern methodology of national strategy development is based on
a system approach to both question: "What?" and "How?". Armenia has
chosen this dynamic model because it not only systematizes views and
theorizes on threats and counter-measures but also clearly says that
democratic reforms are the primary way to ensure the secure development
of the Armenian society.
What is the peculiarity of the Commission's product?
In terms of the content, the strategy is peculiar for its attempt
to ensure a multi-vector balance of security orientations and to
transform the society by means of democratic reforms and integration
into the world community. One more important peculiarity is that the
Commission is simultaneously developing two interrelated products:
the Strategy of National Security and the portfolio of department
programs for ensuring its implementation in all spheres.
What is the basis of your work?
At the preparatory stage, we systematized the results of our many-year
cooperation with Russian experts. We also used our monographic research
"The Development of the National Security Concept of the Republic
of Armenia in the Context of the Regional Security Architecture of
the South Caucasus" - the work we defended at the National Security
School of the US National Defense University. The basis of our work
was the Armenian Defense Minister's report "The Key Directions of
the Strategy of National Security of the Republic of Armenia."
Experts from Moscow, Washington and Brussels said that the DM's
report was a well-grounded professional document and recommended it
as a basis for our project.
As the secretary of the Inter-Department Commission, how would you
characterize its work?
It is quite effective. During the first meeting the Chairman of the
Commission said that we should work professionally and transparently.
Special attention was given to the problem of methodological
compatibility of representatives of 18 different departments and MPs.
The experts of the Russian Academy of Public Administration consulted
us on the matter. US experts also helped: highly-qualified specialists
of the US National Defense University held a methodological seminar
for the deputy ministers and equivalent officials involved in the
Commission.
The on-line schedule of the Commission's meetings says that the
Commission has considered the content of the draft twice: first,
when there was a mosaic of proposals based on the text of the DM's
report and, then, when the edited draft was consolidated. All the
work was carried out with the use of modern computer technologies
and traditional methods of documentation.
615 proposals were made during 7 meetings and were analyzed and
included in the text through collective expert consultations with
the commissioners.
I would like to point out that most of the commissioners showed
high professionalism and responsibility for the quality of personal
contribution in the collective product. I would also like to stress
the tolerant and consolidating approach of the chairman towards the
controversial and sometimes conflicting opinions of representatives
of different departments.
The information about the Commission's agenda said that the draft was
to be approved by leading foreign centers. Could you tell about them?
The Chairman of the Commission preferred the modern standard of
open professional discussions in the most authoritative expert
centers. In fact, the configuration of the draft approval reflects the
multi-vector character of Armenia's security policy: Moscow, Washington
and Brussels. All our partners had been notified that the process of
approval would be nontrivial and complex. I am pleased to note that US
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Russian Security Council Secretary
Igor Ivanov and NATO officials readily responded to Serzh Sargsyan's
official request for organizing external approval of the document.
In short, the diagnosis was as follows: the Academic Committee of
the US National Defense University - "the inter-department process
for developing the Strategy of National Security of the Republic
of Armenia and its product comply with the modern methodological
standards"; the Modern Expert Group of the national security and
international relations departments of the Russian Academy of Public
Administration - "The draft Strategy of National Security of the
Republic of Armenia is the mature product of systematized efforts of
the Inter-Department Commission"; the International Advisor Group for
Security of the NATO European members - "The draft is comprehensive
and scientifically substantiated." The recommendations of professional
schools are especially valuable. It should be noted that the experts
just recommended as they clearly understood that it is for the Armenian
authorities to develop a document of national importance.
As the director of the Institute of Strategic Studies of the Defense
Ministry, what can you say about the Institute's role in this process?
The recently founded Institute named after General Drastamat Kanayan is
the analytical, coordinating and editorial link of the Inter-Department
Commission. Here we are analyzing and summarizing both internal and
external recommendations and are working out own proposals for the
Commission. At the same time, the development of the national security
strategy is a good instrument for calibrating the Institute's future
activities in the sphere of national strategic studies.
What are your next steps for promoting the document?
In Nov we are planning to discuss it with the Yerevan State University
Council, the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences and experts
from scientific centers and NGOs. The Chairman of the Commission
Serzh Sargsyan has asked the rector of YSU, professor Aram Simonyan
and the president of the NAS, academic Radik Martirossyan to organize
the discussion.
By Dec we are planning to organize an open parliamentary hearing of
the document. After that, the Commission will submit the document
for the Government's approval.