Tweet
Realistic Cooperation with NATO
ARMAN GALOYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview25389.html
Published: 17:38:24 - 09/03/2012
The deputy minister of defense Davit Tonoyan has held different
positions in the NATO Allied Command Operations staff. In 2004 he was
appointed representative of the RA Armed Forces to NATO. Lragir.am
held an interview with Davit Tonoyan on NATO-Armenia relations
You were the representative of the RA Armed Forces to NATO for many
years. Now Armenia merely implements different programs with NATO,
without being a member of this alliance. In your opinion, is the
membership of Armenia to NATO expedient for Armenia?
Before dwelling on the main question, I would like to note that
Armenia is not merely implementing different programs with NATO as you
say but participates in the International Security Assistance led by
NATO, sometimes outnumbering the troops of some NATO member states,
provides structured advice on political, security and defense issues,
organizes military exercise, and recently the first North-Atlantic
Council + Armenia meeting has been held in which the president of
Armenia participated. We have high-level relations with NATO, and the
implemented programs are systemic and are related to the defense
reforms in Armenia. In more general terms, I can state that we
participate in cooperative security with NATO. As to collective
security, the results of evaluation of the security climate and
threats now and in the foreseeable future show that it is possible to
fulfill this through membership to the CSTO on the basis of the
Armenian-Russian strategic alliance. There are several circumstances
which make collective security within NATO unrealistic.
Georgia indents to join NATO, Turkey is a member of NATO. So is it
expedient to join the CSTO instead of NATO?
In terms of its capacity and abilities NATO is an effective security
organization in the world but in terms of national interests Armenia
conducts a realistic and multi-vector policy. An important
circumstance is often ignored. The membership of Armenia and other
countries to the alliance does not depend only on the wish of that
country, it must be agreed by all the member states. As you mentioned
Georgia, the example of Georgia shows that the will of one country or
even several countries is not enough to join NATO. All the suggested
political preconditions of all the member states must be met.
Certainly, if Georgia joins NATO in future, it will bring about
certain new geopolitical realities to the region, and as a state we
need to take this factor into account.
For the sake of the full regional security pattern, we should not
forget to note that we have two other bordering states which are not
NATO members. We do not have diplomatic relations with them, and on
top of all, we hear daily threats from them. NATO neighborhood does
not necessarily suppose membership. Over 40 non-members cooperate with
NATO, 5 are in Western Europe, another 7 do not have common borders
with NATO members however Cooperative Security satisfies their
national interests. Among them are Switzerland and Austria.
What hinders Armenia's membership to NATO? For instance, one of the
representatives of the political forces stated that we cannot walk
towards NATO unless Turkey, a NATO member, carries on the blockade of
Armenia.
As I said, in the process of membership the preconditions are set by
the accepting side, not the applicant. Since there is no wish for
membership and subsequently a process, I think it is unnecessary to
talk about the obstacles.
In regard to Turkey, I would like to note that this country does not
bring about serious obstacles for NATO-Armenia practical cooperation
though the complicated relations with the latter have a negative
impact on the social rating of Armenia. At the same time, the issue of
membership has not been raised by Armenia, therefore no obstacles on
behalf of Turkey cannot be concerned.
Is Russia an obstacle to NATO membership?
Since there is no way to it, I leave it up to theoreticians to discuss
the obstacles. But I would like to advise theoreticians to view the
security of Armenia from the point of view of our common interests and
political priorities with the CSTO and NATO rather than a
confrontation between them. We can see them in the practical plane.
In your opinion, is the CSTO a more effective security system than NATO?
If we are in the CSTO, it means that the CSTO is an effective system
of ensuring security. Moreover, we do everything to make it more
dynamic. This year the military training of the CSTO fast reaction
forces will be held, and we will have the possibility to check the
effectiveness of activities of the past few years.
By the way, the issue of NATO membership is not discussed at a state
level or at the level of political forces, nor is it in public
discussions. Why is it so? We do not understand its importance or
value?
Today the absence of the prospect of NATO membership in the agenda of
the main political and social forces of Armenia is evidence to the
realistic understanding of the political realities by the political
forces and the society. There are no premises for even theoretical
discussions.
We appreciate NATO. Moreover, we can see its importance in
implementing large-scale reforms, development and capacity building in
the armed forces, cooperation with NATO is realistic, predictable and
effective.
ARMAN GALOYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/interview25389.html
Published: 17:38:24 - 09/03/2012
The deputy minister of defense Davit Tonoyan has held different
positions in the NATO Allied Command Operations staff. In 2004 he was
appointed representative of the RA Armed Forces to NATO. Lragir.am
held an interview with Davit Tonoyan on NATO-Armenia relations
You were the representative of the RA Armed Forces to NATO for many
years. Now Armenia merely implements different programs with NATO,
without being a member of this alliance. In your opinion, is the
membership of Armenia to NATO expedient for Armenia?
Before dwelling on the main question, I would like to note that
Armenia is not merely implementing different programs with NATO as you
say but participates in the International Security Assistance led by
NATO, sometimes outnumbering the troops of some NATO member states,
provides structured advice on political, security and defense issues,
organizes military exercise, and recently the first North-Atlantic
Council + Armenia meeting has been held in which the president of
Armenia participated. We have high-level relations with NATO, and the
implemented programs are systemic and are related to the defense
reforms in Armenia. In more general terms, I can state that we
participate in cooperative security with NATO. As to collective
security, the results of evaluation of the security climate and
threats now and in the foreseeable future show that it is possible to
fulfill this through membership to the CSTO on the basis of the
Armenian-Russian strategic alliance. There are several circumstances
which make collective security within NATO unrealistic.
Georgia indents to join NATO, Turkey is a member of NATO. So is it
expedient to join the CSTO instead of NATO?
In terms of its capacity and abilities NATO is an effective security
organization in the world but in terms of national interests Armenia
conducts a realistic and multi-vector policy. An important
circumstance is often ignored. The membership of Armenia and other
countries to the alliance does not depend only on the wish of that
country, it must be agreed by all the member states. As you mentioned
Georgia, the example of Georgia shows that the will of one country or
even several countries is not enough to join NATO. All the suggested
political preconditions of all the member states must be met.
Certainly, if Georgia joins NATO in future, it will bring about
certain new geopolitical realities to the region, and as a state we
need to take this factor into account.
For the sake of the full regional security pattern, we should not
forget to note that we have two other bordering states which are not
NATO members. We do not have diplomatic relations with them, and on
top of all, we hear daily threats from them. NATO neighborhood does
not necessarily suppose membership. Over 40 non-members cooperate with
NATO, 5 are in Western Europe, another 7 do not have common borders
with NATO members however Cooperative Security satisfies their
national interests. Among them are Switzerland and Austria.
What hinders Armenia's membership to NATO? For instance, one of the
representatives of the political forces stated that we cannot walk
towards NATO unless Turkey, a NATO member, carries on the blockade of
Armenia.
As I said, in the process of membership the preconditions are set by
the accepting side, not the applicant. Since there is no wish for
membership and subsequently a process, I think it is unnecessary to
talk about the obstacles.
In regard to Turkey, I would like to note that this country does not
bring about serious obstacles for NATO-Armenia practical cooperation
though the complicated relations with the latter have a negative
impact on the social rating of Armenia. At the same time, the issue of
membership has not been raised by Armenia, therefore no obstacles on
behalf of Turkey cannot be concerned.
Is Russia an obstacle to NATO membership?
Since there is no way to it, I leave it up to theoreticians to discuss
the obstacles. But I would like to advise theoreticians to view the
security of Armenia from the point of view of our common interests and
political priorities with the CSTO and NATO rather than a
confrontation between them. We can see them in the practical plane.
In your opinion, is the CSTO a more effective security system than NATO?
If we are in the CSTO, it means that the CSTO is an effective system
of ensuring security. Moreover, we do everything to make it more
dynamic. This year the military training of the CSTO fast reaction
forces will be held, and we will have the possibility to check the
effectiveness of activities of the past few years.
By the way, the issue of NATO membership is not discussed at a state
level or at the level of political forces, nor is it in public
discussions. Why is it so? We do not understand its importance or
value?
Today the absence of the prospect of NATO membership in the agenda of
the main political and social forces of Armenia is evidence to the
realistic understanding of the political realities by the political
forces and the society. There are no premises for even theoretical
discussions.
We appreciate NATO. Moreover, we can see its importance in
implementing large-scale reforms, development and capacity building in
the armed forces, cooperation with NATO is realistic, predictable and
effective.