Tweet
ARF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE VAHAN HOVANESSIAN DISCUSSES MILITARY, FOREIGN POLICY WITH MILITARY DIPLOMAT MAGAZINE
Horizon
2008-02-01
The Russian Military Diplomat Magazine recently interviewed Armenian
Presidential Candidate Vahan Hovannesian during which many issues were
explained and new ones were raised. Hovannesian is deputy Speaker
of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, a member of
the Parliamentary faction of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation,
and a member of the ARF Bureau.
Military Diplomat: Due to the kick-off of the Armenian presidential
election campaign and the opposition supported by foreign players
becoming more active, do you think a so-called "colored revolution"
is possible in Armenia? Why, if it is?
Vahan Hovanessian: Firstly, let us see how 'colored revolutions' brew
up, since they are not a mere mechanical implementation of political
projects brought from without. In the post-Soviet environment, they are
mostly grounded in the population's dissatisfaction with its social
standing and the lack of democratic rule in a particular country,
in the first place. I dare say the popular protests, owing to which
revolutions are carried out, are driven by the wish for justice and
wellbeing, rather than by a steadfast striving for NATO or the European
Union, of which the people certainly have a rather hazy idea. Leaders
of such revolutions, who use the popular disappointment to pursue
their own agendas and are supervised by foreign advisors, are quite
another kettle of fish. Democracy and improving the people's life
standards do not top their agendas. All 'colored revolutionaries'
in the former Soviet Union have showed this graphically.
I guess Armenia is not looking at a 'colored revolution' and here
is why Firstly, this is because the first Armenian President,
Levon Ter-Petrosyan - a figure very vulnerable in many respects -
is claiming the role of the 'colored revolution' principal driving
force. He will fail to lure the people with promises of a better
life nit because the population of Armenia is happy with its current
social status or because justice and democracy reign in the country,
not at all. The Armenian people crave for a radical change in their
life and in the country but they do not want the country led by the
president named Levon Ter-Petrosyan. People have rightfully associated
this name with the upheaval, political instability, crippling economic
and social crises, mass emigration, etc.
Secondly, an important fact is the Armenian people's historically
established attitude to Russia that is still regarded by most Armenians
as a true, reliable ally despite the seeds of dissatisfaction with
the current Russian policies, growing within the Armenian society
and encouraged by certain political forces. There are many reasons
for that, which are grounded in the people's memory of generation,
and the instinct of self-preservation of the nation, and the
spiritual kinship of the two peoples, and good judgment grounded in
consideration of a whole range of geopolitical, historic and regional
factors, national security issues and matters of the state's smooth
development. Therefore, 'colored revolutions' do not pose a threat
to Armenia at present, and time will tell what the sweeping change
stoked by onrushing global processes will bring about.
M.D.: The Dashnaktsutyun party, of which you are a member, has a
presidential nominee of its own. What are the party's domestic and
foreign policies to be proposed during the election?
V.H.: As is known, Dashnaktsutyun is not the party in power, but
it is loyal to it. Its loyalty is not due to Dashnaktsutyun being
pleased with all of the policies pursued by the authorities. It cannot
be pleased because it is a party of the socialist trend, while the
current Armenian authorities continue the course of the first Armenian
president for unchecked liberalism that has substituted civilized
market relations and sacrificed competition for wild monopolism in
all sectors of economy, which led to pauperization, the mass exodus of
people from the country and lack of a real eradication of corruption
and crime that engulfed the society.
Our party is determined, once it assumes power, to pursue policies in
accordance with the socialist principles and mechanism of the state
having a true market economy, healthy competition, determined struggle
against corruption and strengthening of social justice. Dashnaktsutyun
is loyal to the current authorities in the first place because the
current foreign policy is generally in accordance with the party's
policies. I mean the recognition of the genocide of the Armenians by
Ottoman Turkey - the issue vital to the Armenian nation, state and
our party, as well as a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem
and setting foreign policy and national security priorities.
What is most important, Dashnaktsutyun, unlike newly fledged greenhorn
parties, understands well the scope of responsibility for any political
decision that could be fraught with unpredictable consequences for the
country and the people. Given the current volatile situation in the
Caucasus, coupled with the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh problem, rocking
the boat in the political life in the country would be most careless.
M.D.: Russia is the principal strategic partner of Armenia. How do
you envision the evolution of the bilateral relations, and how can
it alter with a new person assuming the top post in Armenia?
V.H.: Armenia is integrated in the political, economic and especially
defense cooperation with Russia. An abrupt change of its foreign
policy might result in the collapse of the armed services and the
whole of defense efforts of the country.
I am certain that the populists, who are proactive in trying to cash
in on all things Western for the time being, realize this as well. A
good case in point is Levon Ter-Petrosyan himself who can hardly be
suspected of pro-Russian sentiments but who, when president of Armenia,
signed the Treaty of friendship and cooperation with Russia and made
Armenia an active member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO).
Therefore, I am certain that any Armenian president to assume
responsibility for the future of his country will have to consider
the realities and follow the way ensuring the independence of his
country and security of his people.
To date, such a way, no doubt, runs via the cooperation with our
tried ally, the Russian Federation.
M.D.: How do you see the ratio of proponents and opponents of Armenia's
accession to NATO in the Armenian society and in the parliament?
V.H.: First off, the Armenians see NATO's presence in the region
not in the shape of France, Belgium or Greece, but Turkey - the
country apparently hostile to Armenia and the Armenians. However,
the situation is not that simple. I think, the previous discourse have
already answered your question to a certain extent. According to polls,
the ratio between the NATO accession proponents and opponents among
the Armenians remains in favor of the opponents so far. However,
one cannot be dead sure that this will be the fact for along time,
because shrewd technologies to plant most unexpected intentions
into peoples' minds have been used repeatedly in many countries,
and Armenia is not an exception here.
In this connection I would like to note the hazy position of Russia
that seems to believe that its former Soviet satellites are a given
and it has not to keep on doing its best to preserve alliance with
them. However, the events in the former Soviet Union in the recent
years should have signaled that the situation has changed radically
and that Russia has to do its utmost to prove to its formers comrades
that they will benefit immeasurably from an alliance with it. Russia
should do it in any effective manner.
Does Russia do it in a sufficient fashion? I do not think so. At
least, it does not do it with respect to Armenia. It is possible
that this is due to unfavorable geopolitical factors enabling some
in Russia to believe that they can deal shortly with Armenia because
'it has nowhere to go'. There is, however, an old rule: he who decides
that his ally is in the bag himself serves a reason for the ally to
distrust him and motivates the ally to weaken the relations. The rule
is effective even if oil revenues are on the rise.
Therefore, I am reluctant to say that the current upper hand the NATO
opponents have among the people and in the parliament will remain
for a long time.
M.D.: There is a trend towards the emergence of the
Ankara-Baku-Tbilisi geopolitical axis. How feasible, you think, is
the Tehran-Yerevan-Moscow axis to offset it? What part could SCTO
play in this?
V.H.: You are right, there is such a trend, I would even say it is
not just a trend, rather a looming outline and prospect of Ankara,
Baku and Tbilisi's economic and political partnership.
Establishing the Tehran-Yerevan-Moscow axis is important not only as
a counterbalance: there is an obvious need for it, the need that is
vital to Armenia. Unless measures are taken to oppose the countries of
the former axis, the steps they make may well transform into cynical
efforts to put the lid on all those who is not with them.
I think the recent frequent meetings of and concrete steps by the
Russian, Armenian and Iranian heads of state, aimed at more close
economic cooperation among the countries will produce a positive
effect and will facilitate implementation of the projects conceived.
M.D.: On the one hand, Moscow strives for military-technical
cooperation with Armenia; on the other, its economic and especially
energy policies is too pragmatic with respect to its strategic ally,
i.e. an increase in the price of gas and assuming control of Armenian
industrial companies as an offset of the country's national debt. Does
this approach play into the hands of Russia's enemies? How can the
optimum combination of the national interests of the two countries
be achieved?
V.H.: I believe, such an attitude to Armenia is the reason to think
that Russia is its own enemy and that no other enemies can hurt it
more than it can hurt itself. Of course, it is not up to us to tell
our Russian colleagues what their interest and benefit lie in. it
seems that everybody has interests and benefit of his own.
I would like to reiterate that it looks like Russia is following the
way of countries, whose policies are derivatives of the goals of their
major trade and industrial corporations, and its economic interests
are beginning to prevail over political expediency. It seems that we
have to get used to the new character of Russia, in which Gazprom
or UES will determine its foreign policy, rather than the Kremlin,
and we have to draw a conclusion.
By the way, these issues have been touched upon in virtually all
sessions of the Interparliamentary Cooperation Commission set up by
the National Assembly of Armenia and the Federal Assembly of Russia, of
which I have the honour to be a cochairman. It is good that the Russian
members of parliament raise the same question and not always share
the position of their government with respect of their staunch allies.
Certainly, the optimum balance of economic and political interests
can be struck. I would rather not offer rush recipes, but a
mutually acceptable solution could be found by the politicians of
the two countries, if they really want to, but they have to want it
first. Maybe, they should learn, say, from the United States. In a
word, they have to be willing to roll up their sleeves.
M.D.: The Minsk Group on settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
has been taking a lot of flak lately. What prospects do you think it
is facing, and are there the alternative to it at present?
V.H.: Until recently, OSCE's Minsk Group has worked fruitfully and
given no rise to complaints on our part, until Azerbaijan started
behaving at the talks in an inadmissible aggressive manner. This is
explained by the fact that it is becoming ever more evident that
Azerbaijan is not acting on its own; rather, it is controlled by
a state that is not part of the Minsk Group de-jure but paralyzes
Azerbaijan's independent decision-making process de-facto. Turkey tells
Azerbaijan to set up absolutely unacceptable claims; particularly,
Azerbaijan has started guising maintenance of peace in the region
as a concession on its part. Thus, hostile Turkey influencing the
Minsk Group by proxy of Azerbaijan violates the original principle
of involving neutral states in the Minsk Group.
This is happening with international organizations turning the blind
eye to the fact. There is also the need of getting Nagorno-Karabakh
back at the bargaining table. I think, if the two issues are settled,
nobody will have to look for an alternative to the Minsk Group,
which does not exist though.
Biography of Vahan E. Hovannesian Born 16 August 1956 in Yerevan.
1978 - graduated from the Moscow Pedagogical University.
Historian, archaeologist, holder of an MA diploma.
1978-80 - serviceman of the Soviet Army.
1980-89 - researcher, Erebuni Museum section chief.
1989 - researcher of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of
the Armenian Academy of Sciences.
1990-92 - participant in the liberation fight in Nagorno-Karabakh.
1995-98 - imprisoned on charges that were proven groundless afterwards.
1998-99 - advisor to the president of the Republic of Armenia,
Chairman of the Local Government Commission.
1999-2003 - member of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia,
Chairman of the Standing Committee for Defense, National Security
and Internal Affairs.
2003 to date - member of the National Assembly of the Republic of
Armenia Since 12 June 2003 to date - deputy Chairman of the National
Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, member of ARF, member of the
Bureau of ARF.
Presidential nominee from ARF for the 2008 election.
Married, two children.
Horizon
2008-02-01
The Russian Military Diplomat Magazine recently interviewed Armenian
Presidential Candidate Vahan Hovannesian during which many issues were
explained and new ones were raised. Hovannesian is deputy Speaker
of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, a member of
the Parliamentary faction of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation,
and a member of the ARF Bureau.
Military Diplomat: Due to the kick-off of the Armenian presidential
election campaign and the opposition supported by foreign players
becoming more active, do you think a so-called "colored revolution"
is possible in Armenia? Why, if it is?
Vahan Hovanessian: Firstly, let us see how 'colored revolutions' brew
up, since they are not a mere mechanical implementation of political
projects brought from without. In the post-Soviet environment, they are
mostly grounded in the population's dissatisfaction with its social
standing and the lack of democratic rule in a particular country,
in the first place. I dare say the popular protests, owing to which
revolutions are carried out, are driven by the wish for justice and
wellbeing, rather than by a steadfast striving for NATO or the European
Union, of which the people certainly have a rather hazy idea. Leaders
of such revolutions, who use the popular disappointment to pursue
their own agendas and are supervised by foreign advisors, are quite
another kettle of fish. Democracy and improving the people's life
standards do not top their agendas. All 'colored revolutionaries'
in the former Soviet Union have showed this graphically.
I guess Armenia is not looking at a 'colored revolution' and here
is why Firstly, this is because the first Armenian President,
Levon Ter-Petrosyan - a figure very vulnerable in many respects -
is claiming the role of the 'colored revolution' principal driving
force. He will fail to lure the people with promises of a better
life nit because the population of Armenia is happy with its current
social status or because justice and democracy reign in the country,
not at all. The Armenian people crave for a radical change in their
life and in the country but they do not want the country led by the
president named Levon Ter-Petrosyan. People have rightfully associated
this name with the upheaval, political instability, crippling economic
and social crises, mass emigration, etc.
Secondly, an important fact is the Armenian people's historically
established attitude to Russia that is still regarded by most Armenians
as a true, reliable ally despite the seeds of dissatisfaction with
the current Russian policies, growing within the Armenian society
and encouraged by certain political forces. There are many reasons
for that, which are grounded in the people's memory of generation,
and the instinct of self-preservation of the nation, and the
spiritual kinship of the two peoples, and good judgment grounded in
consideration of a whole range of geopolitical, historic and regional
factors, national security issues and matters of the state's smooth
development. Therefore, 'colored revolutions' do not pose a threat
to Armenia at present, and time will tell what the sweeping change
stoked by onrushing global processes will bring about.
M.D.: The Dashnaktsutyun party, of which you are a member, has a
presidential nominee of its own. What are the party's domestic and
foreign policies to be proposed during the election?
V.H.: As is known, Dashnaktsutyun is not the party in power, but
it is loyal to it. Its loyalty is not due to Dashnaktsutyun being
pleased with all of the policies pursued by the authorities. It cannot
be pleased because it is a party of the socialist trend, while the
current Armenian authorities continue the course of the first Armenian
president for unchecked liberalism that has substituted civilized
market relations and sacrificed competition for wild monopolism in
all sectors of economy, which led to pauperization, the mass exodus of
people from the country and lack of a real eradication of corruption
and crime that engulfed the society.
Our party is determined, once it assumes power, to pursue policies in
accordance with the socialist principles and mechanism of the state
having a true market economy, healthy competition, determined struggle
against corruption and strengthening of social justice. Dashnaktsutyun
is loyal to the current authorities in the first place because the
current foreign policy is generally in accordance with the party's
policies. I mean the recognition of the genocide of the Armenians by
Ottoman Turkey - the issue vital to the Armenian nation, state and
our party, as well as a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem
and setting foreign policy and national security priorities.
What is most important, Dashnaktsutyun, unlike newly fledged greenhorn
parties, understands well the scope of responsibility for any political
decision that could be fraught with unpredictable consequences for the
country and the people. Given the current volatile situation in the
Caucasus, coupled with the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh problem, rocking
the boat in the political life in the country would be most careless.
M.D.: Russia is the principal strategic partner of Armenia. How do
you envision the evolution of the bilateral relations, and how can
it alter with a new person assuming the top post in Armenia?
V.H.: Armenia is integrated in the political, economic and especially
defense cooperation with Russia. An abrupt change of its foreign
policy might result in the collapse of the armed services and the
whole of defense efforts of the country.
I am certain that the populists, who are proactive in trying to cash
in on all things Western for the time being, realize this as well. A
good case in point is Levon Ter-Petrosyan himself who can hardly be
suspected of pro-Russian sentiments but who, when president of Armenia,
signed the Treaty of friendship and cooperation with Russia and made
Armenia an active member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO).
Therefore, I am certain that any Armenian president to assume
responsibility for the future of his country will have to consider
the realities and follow the way ensuring the independence of his
country and security of his people.
To date, such a way, no doubt, runs via the cooperation with our
tried ally, the Russian Federation.
M.D.: How do you see the ratio of proponents and opponents of Armenia's
accession to NATO in the Armenian society and in the parliament?
V.H.: First off, the Armenians see NATO's presence in the region
not in the shape of France, Belgium or Greece, but Turkey - the
country apparently hostile to Armenia and the Armenians. However,
the situation is not that simple. I think, the previous discourse have
already answered your question to a certain extent. According to polls,
the ratio between the NATO accession proponents and opponents among
the Armenians remains in favor of the opponents so far. However,
one cannot be dead sure that this will be the fact for along time,
because shrewd technologies to plant most unexpected intentions
into peoples' minds have been used repeatedly in many countries,
and Armenia is not an exception here.
In this connection I would like to note the hazy position of Russia
that seems to believe that its former Soviet satellites are a given
and it has not to keep on doing its best to preserve alliance with
them. However, the events in the former Soviet Union in the recent
years should have signaled that the situation has changed radically
and that Russia has to do its utmost to prove to its formers comrades
that they will benefit immeasurably from an alliance with it. Russia
should do it in any effective manner.
Does Russia do it in a sufficient fashion? I do not think so. At
least, it does not do it with respect to Armenia. It is possible
that this is due to unfavorable geopolitical factors enabling some
in Russia to believe that they can deal shortly with Armenia because
'it has nowhere to go'. There is, however, an old rule: he who decides
that his ally is in the bag himself serves a reason for the ally to
distrust him and motivates the ally to weaken the relations. The rule
is effective even if oil revenues are on the rise.
Therefore, I am reluctant to say that the current upper hand the NATO
opponents have among the people and in the parliament will remain
for a long time.
M.D.: There is a trend towards the emergence of the
Ankara-Baku-Tbilisi geopolitical axis. How feasible, you think, is
the Tehran-Yerevan-Moscow axis to offset it? What part could SCTO
play in this?
V.H.: You are right, there is such a trend, I would even say it is
not just a trend, rather a looming outline and prospect of Ankara,
Baku and Tbilisi's economic and political partnership.
Establishing the Tehran-Yerevan-Moscow axis is important not only as
a counterbalance: there is an obvious need for it, the need that is
vital to Armenia. Unless measures are taken to oppose the countries of
the former axis, the steps they make may well transform into cynical
efforts to put the lid on all those who is not with them.
I think the recent frequent meetings of and concrete steps by the
Russian, Armenian and Iranian heads of state, aimed at more close
economic cooperation among the countries will produce a positive
effect and will facilitate implementation of the projects conceived.
M.D.: On the one hand, Moscow strives for military-technical
cooperation with Armenia; on the other, its economic and especially
energy policies is too pragmatic with respect to its strategic ally,
i.e. an increase in the price of gas and assuming control of Armenian
industrial companies as an offset of the country's national debt. Does
this approach play into the hands of Russia's enemies? How can the
optimum combination of the national interests of the two countries
be achieved?
V.H.: I believe, such an attitude to Armenia is the reason to think
that Russia is its own enemy and that no other enemies can hurt it
more than it can hurt itself. Of course, it is not up to us to tell
our Russian colleagues what their interest and benefit lie in. it
seems that everybody has interests and benefit of his own.
I would like to reiterate that it looks like Russia is following the
way of countries, whose policies are derivatives of the goals of their
major trade and industrial corporations, and its economic interests
are beginning to prevail over political expediency. It seems that we
have to get used to the new character of Russia, in which Gazprom
or UES will determine its foreign policy, rather than the Kremlin,
and we have to draw a conclusion.
By the way, these issues have been touched upon in virtually all
sessions of the Interparliamentary Cooperation Commission set up by
the National Assembly of Armenia and the Federal Assembly of Russia, of
which I have the honour to be a cochairman. It is good that the Russian
members of parliament raise the same question and not always share
the position of their government with respect of their staunch allies.
Certainly, the optimum balance of economic and political interests
can be struck. I would rather not offer rush recipes, but a
mutually acceptable solution could be found by the politicians of
the two countries, if they really want to, but they have to want it
first. Maybe, they should learn, say, from the United States. In a
word, they have to be willing to roll up their sleeves.
M.D.: The Minsk Group on settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
has been taking a lot of flak lately. What prospects do you think it
is facing, and are there the alternative to it at present?
V.H.: Until recently, OSCE's Minsk Group has worked fruitfully and
given no rise to complaints on our part, until Azerbaijan started
behaving at the talks in an inadmissible aggressive manner. This is
explained by the fact that it is becoming ever more evident that
Azerbaijan is not acting on its own; rather, it is controlled by
a state that is not part of the Minsk Group de-jure but paralyzes
Azerbaijan's independent decision-making process de-facto. Turkey tells
Azerbaijan to set up absolutely unacceptable claims; particularly,
Azerbaijan has started guising maintenance of peace in the region
as a concession on its part. Thus, hostile Turkey influencing the
Minsk Group by proxy of Azerbaijan violates the original principle
of involving neutral states in the Minsk Group.
This is happening with international organizations turning the blind
eye to the fact. There is also the need of getting Nagorno-Karabakh
back at the bargaining table. I think, if the two issues are settled,
nobody will have to look for an alternative to the Minsk Group,
which does not exist though.
Biography of Vahan E. Hovannesian Born 16 August 1956 in Yerevan.
1978 - graduated from the Moscow Pedagogical University.
Historian, archaeologist, holder of an MA diploma.
1978-80 - serviceman of the Soviet Army.
1980-89 - researcher, Erebuni Museum section chief.
1989 - researcher of the Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of
the Armenian Academy of Sciences.
1990-92 - participant in the liberation fight in Nagorno-Karabakh.
1995-98 - imprisoned on charges that were proven groundless afterwards.
1998-99 - advisor to the president of the Republic of Armenia,
Chairman of the Local Government Commission.
1999-2003 - member of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia,
Chairman of the Standing Committee for Defense, National Security
and Internal Affairs.
2003 to date - member of the National Assembly of the Republic of
Armenia Since 12 June 2003 to date - deputy Chairman of the National
Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, member of ARF, member of the
Bureau of ARF.
Presidential nominee from ARF for the 2008 election.
Married, two children.