Tweet
THE USA INTERVENED IN IRAQ TO CREATE A CESSPOOL OF RADICALS FROM ACROSS THE WORLD THAT SHOOT AND BLOW UP EACH OTHER
ArmInfo
2010-02-23 15:47:00
Interview of David Hovhannisyan, Director of the Center of
Civilization and Culture Research at the Yerevan State University,
expert orientalist, ex-Ambassador of Armenia to Syria, with ArmInfo
news agency
Mr.Hovhannisyan, on February 4, over a meeting with Turkish ambassadors
to Eurasian countries, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
suggested creating a Eurasian Union as an alternative to the European
Union. How much real are these suggestions and maneuvers of Turkey
under conditions of Ankara's dependence on the West?
The maneuvers of the Turkish diplomacy are quite clear, especially
in a situation when strong pressure is exerted on Turkey by the USA,
and not only because of the Armenian-Turkish process. There is also
pressure by the European Union in view of noncompliance of Turkey with
the European criteria and legislation. In this connection, Turkey quite
naturally advances its alternative plan in form of the Eurasian Union,
saying the European Union is not the only pebble on the beach, and the
strategic relations with the USA may fully be disputed by Ankara. I
do not think all these impulses serious, since the membership in
NATO keeps on being paramount for Turkey. In addition, I think that
over the election period, when the ruling Turkish AKP is losing its
popularity, this party strives to appeal to the two main feelings
of the Turkish electorate: patriotism and its Islamic identity,
that is, belonging to the Islamic world. I think these appeals
complied with the Turkish voters' attitude in early 1990s, however,
today the Turkish society seriously has advanced from the viewpoint
of feeling like part of such a system of values which allows it to
feel part of the world leaders. That is, Turkey has settled down to
the course of full adaptation with the modern civilized system with
all the consequences that come with it. Against this background, all
the attempts to appeal to the ideas and values, available in part
of the Turkish society, which consider itself Muslims, are not so
much successful. In this context, the initiative of Turkish Foreign
Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on creation of a Eurasian Union seems not
very serious, since Turkey's relations with both Iran and a number of
Arab and Islamic countries have always been of dubious nature, first
of all, for Turkey, i.e. the relations lacked confidence, stability
and opportunities for creation of mutually beneficial partnership.
However, it is not unimportant that Turkey has been considered one
of the most anti-American disposed countries over the last 15 years,
and this is reflected on the latest impulses in the region. Along with
it, it is very important for modern Turks to feel like part of Europe.
Against this background, the Eurasian project of Davutoglu is doomed
to failure and more likely refers to the sphere of romanticism.
Does it mean that the way of Turkey's European integration and
membership in EU has no alternatives?
It is quite difficult to speak about Turkey's membership in EU, since
this way is very difficult for Turkey and not all the countries of the
European Union welcome it. Nevertheless, Turkey has chances to join the
EU as the European community is seriously changing at present. The huge
Muslim, in particular, Turkish communities in the big European cities
have already their impact on the European policy, while the European
community, which existed in early 1950s and founded the European Union,
and the present European community quite differ by their structure,
composition, standards and viewpoints. Therefore, I think that Turkey,
in prospect, has all the chances to become EU member.
The Armenian president has recently paid a visit to London. Over his
visit Serzh Sargsyan met the Queen Elizabeth II and delivered a speech
at the Chatem House presenting Armenia's stance on the Armenian-Turkish
normalization and the Karabakh peace process. For what reasons has the
traditional Anglo-Saxon indifference given place to such an interest?
I believe that the British policy has always been active in the
Caucasus. After Armenia gained independence, Britain has been actively
involved in Armenia and in the region. The British Embassy and many
serious documents that were signed in the 90s between the diplomatic
departments of Armenia and the UK have a serious part in this process
as well. Moreover, it is a far cry from the days when the transnational
corporation British Petroleum determined the policy vectors of the
British Empire.
Nevertheless, BP still has a significant part in these processes,
which partially explains the open interest of the Great Britain in the
South Caucasus. However, Britain is concerned about extension of its
presence in the Black Sea and Caspian regions rather than in the oil
and gas reserves of Azerbaijan. This fully explains the Great Britain's
interest in Armenia, as well as the visit of the Armenian president
to London, though I am not informed of the other details of the visit.
What is the so-called consensus of the USA, Russia and EU about
unblocking the Armenian-Turkish border conditioned by in fact?
The superpowers have certainly no full consensus in this issue. I
think opening of the Armenian-Turkish border is quite attractive for
Russia, which has a serious political presence and infrastructures in
Armenia. However, taking into account the same interests, Russia also
attaches much significance to opening of the border between Georgia
and Abkhazia as in this case Moscow will have a direct access to
Near East, Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea, etc. Before the collapse
of the Soviet Union, the railway connecting Armenia with Turkey,
actually, the North with the South, transported at least 6 thsd tons
of cargo daily, this is a huge quantity. That is to say, this is a
very important through-passage, first of all, for Russia.
After the war in August 2008 Russia had to forget about the Abkhaz
section of the North-South railway for long...
I do not think so because roads have their own internal logic striving
to be always open. Moreover, Georgia's loss of its attractiveness
as a transit country in case of unblocking of the Armenian-Turkish
border may lead to opening of the railway with Abkhazia to compensate
for the damage to this country partially at least. That is to say,
these processes are connected indirectly, and their logic runs in
this direction.
How much does construction of the Iran-Armenia railway meet this logic,
taking into account that Asian Development Bank has already allocated
funds for its elaboration?
The Iran-Armenia railway project and all the alternative projects on
including Iran in the regional cooperation are very much important,
since the American system of blocking Iran will not last long as it
is necessary and advantageous for nobody.
Even for the United States?
First of all, this concerns the USA, since it will have a very
serious partner in quite interesting spheres and projects in case of
normalization of the American-Iranian relations. That is, Iran is an
alternative to Turkey for the USA in both the Persian Gulf, as well
as in the Black Sea and Caspian regions in general. Tehran also plays
an important part in the context of events in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Moreover, Iran is quite interesting for the USA in terms of its
continuously growing role as a source of energy resources. Therefore,
almost all the serious American analysts are calculating the
probability of the American-Iranian warming.
What about the point of the US Foreign Policy Strategy saying that
Iran is to cast in lot with Iraq by 2012-13?
The US Foreign Policy is based on serious analytical surveys that
aim to develop specific scenarios for every turn of events in one or
another region of the world. However, these scenarios are transferred
to the basis of possible solutions and not included in the foreign
political concept of Washington. I do not think the existing scenario
is applicable in practice.
Why?
The reason is that America has become seriously bogged down in Iraq
and Afghanistan. It is not clear what will happen there after Barack
Obama fulfills his promise to withdraw the troops. I have always
thought the key task of the USA in Iraq was not to get control over
the oil and gas resources, which is important indeed, but to create
a cesspool of radicals from across the world that would shoot and
blow up each other. As regards Iran, some forces have actually become
active in this area, but the results are still unpredictable.
How much is the success of Nagornyy Karabakh and Armenian-Turkish
processes conditioned by the degree of legitimacy of the Armenian
authorities?
Unfortunately, the situation in both processes is very much conditioned
just by this problem. There are several reasons and one of them is
obvious. First of all, the deficit of legitimacy allows superpowers
and not only them to impose serious pressure upon Armenia in these
issues. Moreover, Armenian authorities want to prove to the world
community that they occupy their strict place. I am sorry for the
fact that in this context Armenian authorities do not want to prove
the same to their people and society. The third reason is the desire
of the authorities to enhance and complete the deficit of legitimacy
via casting doubt on legitimacy of other players of the region.
Interviewed by David Stepanyan, 17 February 2010, ArmInfo
ArmInfo
2010-02-23 15:47:00
Interview of David Hovhannisyan, Director of the Center of
Civilization and Culture Research at the Yerevan State University,
expert orientalist, ex-Ambassador of Armenia to Syria, with ArmInfo
news agency
Mr.Hovhannisyan, on February 4, over a meeting with Turkish ambassadors
to Eurasian countries, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
suggested creating a Eurasian Union as an alternative to the European
Union. How much real are these suggestions and maneuvers of Turkey
under conditions of Ankara's dependence on the West?
The maneuvers of the Turkish diplomacy are quite clear, especially
in a situation when strong pressure is exerted on Turkey by the USA,
and not only because of the Armenian-Turkish process. There is also
pressure by the European Union in view of noncompliance of Turkey with
the European criteria and legislation. In this connection, Turkey quite
naturally advances its alternative plan in form of the Eurasian Union,
saying the European Union is not the only pebble on the beach, and the
strategic relations with the USA may fully be disputed by Ankara. I
do not think all these impulses serious, since the membership in
NATO keeps on being paramount for Turkey. In addition, I think that
over the election period, when the ruling Turkish AKP is losing its
popularity, this party strives to appeal to the two main feelings
of the Turkish electorate: patriotism and its Islamic identity,
that is, belonging to the Islamic world. I think these appeals
complied with the Turkish voters' attitude in early 1990s, however,
today the Turkish society seriously has advanced from the viewpoint
of feeling like part of such a system of values which allows it to
feel part of the world leaders. That is, Turkey has settled down to
the course of full adaptation with the modern civilized system with
all the consequences that come with it. Against this background, all
the attempts to appeal to the ideas and values, available in part
of the Turkish society, which consider itself Muslims, are not so
much successful. In this context, the initiative of Turkish Foreign
Minister Ahmet Davutoglu on creation of a Eurasian Union seems not
very serious, since Turkey's relations with both Iran and a number of
Arab and Islamic countries have always been of dubious nature, first
of all, for Turkey, i.e. the relations lacked confidence, stability
and opportunities for creation of mutually beneficial partnership.
However, it is not unimportant that Turkey has been considered one
of the most anti-American disposed countries over the last 15 years,
and this is reflected on the latest impulses in the region. Along with
it, it is very important for modern Turks to feel like part of Europe.
Against this background, the Eurasian project of Davutoglu is doomed
to failure and more likely refers to the sphere of romanticism.
Does it mean that the way of Turkey's European integration and
membership in EU has no alternatives?
It is quite difficult to speak about Turkey's membership in EU, since
this way is very difficult for Turkey and not all the countries of the
European Union welcome it. Nevertheless, Turkey has chances to join the
EU as the European community is seriously changing at present. The huge
Muslim, in particular, Turkish communities in the big European cities
have already their impact on the European policy, while the European
community, which existed in early 1950s and founded the European Union,
and the present European community quite differ by their structure,
composition, standards and viewpoints. Therefore, I think that Turkey,
in prospect, has all the chances to become EU member.
The Armenian president has recently paid a visit to London. Over his
visit Serzh Sargsyan met the Queen Elizabeth II and delivered a speech
at the Chatem House presenting Armenia's stance on the Armenian-Turkish
normalization and the Karabakh peace process. For what reasons has the
traditional Anglo-Saxon indifference given place to such an interest?
I believe that the British policy has always been active in the
Caucasus. After Armenia gained independence, Britain has been actively
involved in Armenia and in the region. The British Embassy and many
serious documents that were signed in the 90s between the diplomatic
departments of Armenia and the UK have a serious part in this process
as well. Moreover, it is a far cry from the days when the transnational
corporation British Petroleum determined the policy vectors of the
British Empire.
Nevertheless, BP still has a significant part in these processes,
which partially explains the open interest of the Great Britain in the
South Caucasus. However, Britain is concerned about extension of its
presence in the Black Sea and Caspian regions rather than in the oil
and gas reserves of Azerbaijan. This fully explains the Great Britain's
interest in Armenia, as well as the visit of the Armenian president
to London, though I am not informed of the other details of the visit.
What is the so-called consensus of the USA, Russia and EU about
unblocking the Armenian-Turkish border conditioned by in fact?
The superpowers have certainly no full consensus in this issue. I
think opening of the Armenian-Turkish border is quite attractive for
Russia, which has a serious political presence and infrastructures in
Armenia. However, taking into account the same interests, Russia also
attaches much significance to opening of the border between Georgia
and Abkhazia as in this case Moscow will have a direct access to
Near East, Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea, etc. Before the collapse
of the Soviet Union, the railway connecting Armenia with Turkey,
actually, the North with the South, transported at least 6 thsd tons
of cargo daily, this is a huge quantity. That is to say, this is a
very important through-passage, first of all, for Russia.
After the war in August 2008 Russia had to forget about the Abkhaz
section of the North-South railway for long...
I do not think so because roads have their own internal logic striving
to be always open. Moreover, Georgia's loss of its attractiveness
as a transit country in case of unblocking of the Armenian-Turkish
border may lead to opening of the railway with Abkhazia to compensate
for the damage to this country partially at least. That is to say,
these processes are connected indirectly, and their logic runs in
this direction.
How much does construction of the Iran-Armenia railway meet this logic,
taking into account that Asian Development Bank has already allocated
funds for its elaboration?
The Iran-Armenia railway project and all the alternative projects on
including Iran in the regional cooperation are very much important,
since the American system of blocking Iran will not last long as it
is necessary and advantageous for nobody.
Even for the United States?
First of all, this concerns the USA, since it will have a very
serious partner in quite interesting spheres and projects in case of
normalization of the American-Iranian relations. That is, Iran is an
alternative to Turkey for the USA in both the Persian Gulf, as well
as in the Black Sea and Caspian regions in general. Tehran also plays
an important part in the context of events in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Moreover, Iran is quite interesting for the USA in terms of its
continuously growing role as a source of energy resources. Therefore,
almost all the serious American analysts are calculating the
probability of the American-Iranian warming.
What about the point of the US Foreign Policy Strategy saying that
Iran is to cast in lot with Iraq by 2012-13?
The US Foreign Policy is based on serious analytical surveys that
aim to develop specific scenarios for every turn of events in one or
another region of the world. However, these scenarios are transferred
to the basis of possible solutions and not included in the foreign
political concept of Washington. I do not think the existing scenario
is applicable in practice.
Why?
The reason is that America has become seriously bogged down in Iraq
and Afghanistan. It is not clear what will happen there after Barack
Obama fulfills his promise to withdraw the troops. I have always
thought the key task of the USA in Iraq was not to get control over
the oil and gas resources, which is important indeed, but to create
a cesspool of radicals from across the world that would shoot and
blow up each other. As regards Iran, some forces have actually become
active in this area, but the results are still unpredictable.
How much is the success of Nagornyy Karabakh and Armenian-Turkish
processes conditioned by the degree of legitimacy of the Armenian
authorities?
Unfortunately, the situation in both processes is very much conditioned
just by this problem. There are several reasons and one of them is
obvious. First of all, the deficit of legitimacy allows superpowers
and not only them to impose serious pressure upon Armenia in these
issues. Moreover, Armenian authorities want to prove to the world
community that they occupy their strict place. I am sorry for the
fact that in this context Armenian authorities do not want to prove
the same to their people and society. The third reason is the desire
of the authorities to enhance and complete the deficit of legitimacy
via casting doubt on legitimacy of other players of the region.
Interviewed by David Stepanyan, 17 February 2010, ArmInfo