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.
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.