Tweet
Alexander Zinker: Israel has never before been so close to recognition
of Armenian Genocide
ArmInfo's Interview with Alexander Zinker, Director of the Institute
of Eastern European and CIS countries (Israel), President of the
International Center for Electoral Systems (ICES)
by David Stepanyan
Sunday, March 22, 12:58
The Armenian foreign minister's recent visit to Israel has officially
been qualified as a working visit. However, experts say that
Nalbandian visited Israel to enlist its support to the Armenian
Genocide centennial events. At what level may an Israeli delegation be
present at these events in Yerevan on April 24?
I think Israel has never before been so close to official recognition
of the Armenian Genocide. The thing is not the deterioration of
relation between Israel and Turkey, which has turned from the Jewish
state's ally into one of its most furious critics and rivals. Nor is
it the forthcoming change of the political leadership of the Israeli
Foreign Ministry, which actively resists such recognition and is
afraid that the recognition will spoil our country's relationship with
Azerbaijan. Israeli people have just started to understand the need to
make that step and the public has come to a broad consensus on that
matter. During his term in the Knesset Speaker's office, Israeli
President Reuven Rivlin had repeatedly advocated official recognition
of the Armenian Genocide. The prominent figures of the right wing
Likud Party - Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, Coalition Chairman Ze'ev
Elkin, and left wing Meretz Party leader Zahava Gal-On also come out
for recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In addition, a civil
movement calling for the Genocide recognition is gaining momentum "in
the streets" and in the social communities of the Israeli internet
sector. Public opinion matters much in Israel. The Armenian foreign
minister's recent visit to Israel has not essentially changed the
trends in development of the Armenian-Israeli relations, which are all
the same positive. In the meantime, his meeting with President Rivlin
has given a fresh impetus to those trends.
Israel will no doubt attend the Armenian Genocide centennial events in
Yerevan, but it is not clear yet whom the Israeli delegation will
include. One thing is clear: unfortunately, the delegation will not
include the top public officials. This does not mean that Israel pays
no proper attention to that event. The reasons are just technical. The
thing is that this year Israel's Independence Day is marked on April
22-23, Wednesday-Thursday. The President's participation in those
festive events is compulsory, so he cannot simply leave the country.
Then Friday comes and the Friday evening is the beginning of Saturday
(Shabbat), which is a holy day of rest and the Jewish tradition bans
any official foreign trips on that day. In addition, one should not
forget that Israel held parliamentary elections on March 17. This
means that the completion of the coalition talks will be in full swing
in late April and this will also keep the incumbent Speaker of the
Knesset Yuli Edelstein from leaving the country. Nevertheless, the
Israeli delegation will certainly include several politicians,
prominent scientists, historians and public figures.
How would you assess Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington? How
realistic do you think the Iranian threat is for Israel today?
The right and the left camps, the coalition and the opposition of
Israel have no discrepancies in the matter of the Iranian threat. The
politicians, force structures and experts are unanimous about the fact
that Israel cannot let Iran acquire nuclear weapons, because in that
case the country's existence will be set on stake. Today Iran is the
only country to say that Israel must be destroyed. One cannot even
imagine what will happen if Iran turns into a nuclear power. It is no
secret that the Israeli premier's recent visit to Washington and his
speech at the Congress have harshly been criticized by his opponents
and the media outlets supporting them. They think that the premier's
speech, which was not coordinated with Barack Obama, will spoil the
Tel Aviv-Washington relations and that the only goal of the speech was
to enhance Netanyahu's popularity among the voters. I do not share
that opinion. Netanyahu's visit could only indirectly be connected
with the election campaign in Israel, because the public opinion polls
demonstrate that it had absolutely no impact on the landscape before
the election. In the meantime, the visit was of much significance in
terms of state interests. It could not seriously damage the personal
relations of Netanyahu and Obama at least because it was impossible to
spoil them even more. At the same time, Netanyahu's speech at the
Congress saw a wide public response and vividly made the White House
Administration to think about it. Obama's team understood that they
could, of course, sign an agreement with Iran but this does not at all
mean that they would be able to receive from the Congress the needed
funding for the agreement. The rhetoric of President Obama and
Secretary of State Kerry has considerably changed after Netanyahu's
speech. Earlier they said that the agreement would be one of the best
possible agreements, but now they claim that the agreement has some
problems and even say that there may be no agreement at all. So, one
can say that during his visit Netanyahu achieved the intended
purposes. The Israel-US relations are based on strategic and
geopolitical interests, and such interests always prevail over the
personal ones. Therefore, the military and diplomatic partnership
between our countries will be continued as long as we have common
interests no matter who exactly heads the country.
Iran's new relations with Europe and the US are gradually extending
the geopolitical functions of Iran in the Greater Middle East. Can you
expect Iran to expand its role in the South Caucasus?
Iran no doubt contends for a status of a regional superpower. However,
I think it is early to speak of Iran's new relations with Europe and
the United States. Let's wait and see the further developments. Too
many experts are convinced that instead of recording a breakthrough
the talks in Geneva may come to a dead end again. Iran has always had
interests in the South Caucasus and it will seek to extend its role in
that region. However, now Iran has enough problems in Iraq, Lebanon
and Syria, and the international sanctions have delivered an immense
blow on its economy. Teheran obviously needs no new confrontation,
because any attempt to extend its role in the South Caucasus may lead
to clashes with both Russia and the United States, which consider the
region a zone of their own interests. Therefore, Iran is unlikely to
intensify its steps in the South Caucasus. Iran will continue the
"energy expansion" in that region as Teheran considers it to be its
foreign political goal. Without trying to oust Russia from the energy
market, Iran will seek to prevent the United States, NATO and the EU
from penetrating into the South Caucasus. Iran's leaders are fanatics
but they are rather prudent fanatics. In the meantime, Iran is also on
the threshold of changes in its leadership and this may also cause
unexpected turns in the politics.
The West's response to the Moscow-Baku strengthening relations (the
matter concerns not only military hardware deals but also energy
projects) is the list of the Azeri officials, who are denied entry to
Western countries. On the other hand, the United States has expressed
willingness to develop relations with Armenia not only in economy but
also in defense despite the presence of the 102nd military base in
Gyumri. Can one speak of new trends in the geopolitics of the West and
Russia in the South Caucasus?
I think it is more correct to speak of the old geopolitical trends
than the new ones. The United States and West have never concealed
their interests in the three South Caucasus countries. Neither are
they going to cede their interests now. I was not surprised at
Washington's readiness to develop the military and economic
cooperation with Yerevan despite being in Russia's 'zone of
influence,' since the U.S. policy is based on the principle "losing a
battle does not mean losing the war." The U.S. seeks to maintain and
increase its influence everywhere it can reach, to try to influence
through legal methods, and even through illegitimate ones, if
necessary. In such situation, Yerevan, Baku and Tbilisi have nothing
to do but maneuver between the USA and Russia trying to protect their
national interests and not to turn into a marionette. "Relatively
recently, we have already witnessed the West's attempts, also
successful ones, to intervene with the internal affairs of Georgia and
Azerbaijan. There were such attempts in Armenia too. I think, they
will repeat in future, and maybe, in the nearest future. In the light
of the current situation in the region, the political figures in
Armenia, both the pro- governmental and the opposition ones, need to
show political wisdom and put the national interests above the
personal benefits. I'd like to add also the ability to make
well-thought decisions independently, and stop listening to the advice
or accepting the proposals of 'well-wishers' from abroad. Armenian
politicians have recently displayed such features and I hope they will
do it also in future.
Has the crisis around Ukraine strengthened or weakened the
superpowers' positions in the South Caucasus? Has Ukraine adjusted the
positions of the USA, Russia and the EU in the region?
It appears to me that after the Ukraine crisis Russia will more than
ever seek rapprochement with the South Caucasus countries and try to
increase its role in the region. The U.S. and Europe will not cede
their positions either. Here is where we can face quite interesting
turnarounds, including an attempt to repeat the 'Ukrainian scenario'
in the South Caucasus with some adjustments depending on the local
situation. Ukraine's crisis must become a lesson to learn for many
countries and peoples. Undoubtedly, the U.S., Russia and the EU have
their interests in the crisis, but what is the interest of Ukraine and
the Ukrainian people? I welcome the neutral stand of the South
Caucasus countries and Israel on Ukraine as "the most competent and
right decision." To avoid the Ukrainian scenario in the post-Soviet
area, the political forces, even the confronting ones, need to display
special wisdom and high sense of responsibility.
The establishment of an actual customs point on the border between
Russia and Belarus has once again revealed the flaws of the Eurasian
Economic Union and the gap between realpolitik and Moscow's
integration projects. Can one say that Eurasian integration is still
relevant and that it explains Russia's striving for a bipolar world?
I think that following continuous geopolitical perturbations the
mankind will come to a multipolar world, where everything will be
determined by the relations of the regional superpowers and each of
the superpowers will have its own zone of influence. The EEU
demonstrates further possible emergence of such a multipolar world. In
the global politics, we cannot disregard such a superpower as China. I
can also point out the Arab world, India, Iran, as well as the project
on creation of a single Europe-Asia space from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
The decisive role in that complicated political game will belong to
the common interests of a group of regional superpowers, which will
inevitably clash with another group's interests. The creation of the
Eurasian Economic Union is undoubtedly a positive step, because it
implies integration, rapprochement and cooperation. The recent tension
among the EEU members is a quite normal phenomenon. The creation of
the European Union required decades and we have repeatedly witnessed
conflicts and clashes among its members. The EEU is a young
organization and, actually, it is still being formed. Therefore, one
should pay no attention to the customs problems between Russia and
Belarus. We will witness many such conflicts but it does not mean that
the idea of Eurasian integration was dead-born. Quite the opposite, it
means that the idea is alive and it is developing. The most important
thing is that economic interests should prevail over military and
political ones and that the EEU should meet the interests of all its
member states and their people.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid÷CC9E80-D079-11E4-BC790EB7C0D21663
of Armenian Genocide
ArmInfo's Interview with Alexander Zinker, Director of the Institute
of Eastern European and CIS countries (Israel), President of the
International Center for Electoral Systems (ICES)
by David Stepanyan
Sunday, March 22, 12:58
The Armenian foreign minister's recent visit to Israel has officially
been qualified as a working visit. However, experts say that
Nalbandian visited Israel to enlist its support to the Armenian
Genocide centennial events. At what level may an Israeli delegation be
present at these events in Yerevan on April 24?
I think Israel has never before been so close to official recognition
of the Armenian Genocide. The thing is not the deterioration of
relation between Israel and Turkey, which has turned from the Jewish
state's ally into one of its most furious critics and rivals. Nor is
it the forthcoming change of the political leadership of the Israeli
Foreign Ministry, which actively resists such recognition and is
afraid that the recognition will spoil our country's relationship with
Azerbaijan. Israeli people have just started to understand the need to
make that step and the public has come to a broad consensus on that
matter. During his term in the Knesset Speaker's office, Israeli
President Reuven Rivlin had repeatedly advocated official recognition
of the Armenian Genocide. The prominent figures of the right wing
Likud Party - Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein, Coalition Chairman Ze'ev
Elkin, and left wing Meretz Party leader Zahava Gal-On also come out
for recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In addition, a civil
movement calling for the Genocide recognition is gaining momentum "in
the streets" and in the social communities of the Israeli internet
sector. Public opinion matters much in Israel. The Armenian foreign
minister's recent visit to Israel has not essentially changed the
trends in development of the Armenian-Israeli relations, which are all
the same positive. In the meantime, his meeting with President Rivlin
has given a fresh impetus to those trends.
Israel will no doubt attend the Armenian Genocide centennial events in
Yerevan, but it is not clear yet whom the Israeli delegation will
include. One thing is clear: unfortunately, the delegation will not
include the top public officials. This does not mean that Israel pays
no proper attention to that event. The reasons are just technical. The
thing is that this year Israel's Independence Day is marked on April
22-23, Wednesday-Thursday. The President's participation in those
festive events is compulsory, so he cannot simply leave the country.
Then Friday comes and the Friday evening is the beginning of Saturday
(Shabbat), which is a holy day of rest and the Jewish tradition bans
any official foreign trips on that day. In addition, one should not
forget that Israel held parliamentary elections on March 17. This
means that the completion of the coalition talks will be in full swing
in late April and this will also keep the incumbent Speaker of the
Knesset Yuli Edelstein from leaving the country. Nevertheless, the
Israeli delegation will certainly include several politicians,
prominent scientists, historians and public figures.
How would you assess Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington? How
realistic do you think the Iranian threat is for Israel today?
The right and the left camps, the coalition and the opposition of
Israel have no discrepancies in the matter of the Iranian threat. The
politicians, force structures and experts are unanimous about the fact
that Israel cannot let Iran acquire nuclear weapons, because in that
case the country's existence will be set on stake. Today Iran is the
only country to say that Israel must be destroyed. One cannot even
imagine what will happen if Iran turns into a nuclear power. It is no
secret that the Israeli premier's recent visit to Washington and his
speech at the Congress have harshly been criticized by his opponents
and the media outlets supporting them. They think that the premier's
speech, which was not coordinated with Barack Obama, will spoil the
Tel Aviv-Washington relations and that the only goal of the speech was
to enhance Netanyahu's popularity among the voters. I do not share
that opinion. Netanyahu's visit could only indirectly be connected
with the election campaign in Israel, because the public opinion polls
demonstrate that it had absolutely no impact on the landscape before
the election. In the meantime, the visit was of much significance in
terms of state interests. It could not seriously damage the personal
relations of Netanyahu and Obama at least because it was impossible to
spoil them even more. At the same time, Netanyahu's speech at the
Congress saw a wide public response and vividly made the White House
Administration to think about it. Obama's team understood that they
could, of course, sign an agreement with Iran but this does not at all
mean that they would be able to receive from the Congress the needed
funding for the agreement. The rhetoric of President Obama and
Secretary of State Kerry has considerably changed after Netanyahu's
speech. Earlier they said that the agreement would be one of the best
possible agreements, but now they claim that the agreement has some
problems and even say that there may be no agreement at all. So, one
can say that during his visit Netanyahu achieved the intended
purposes. The Israel-US relations are based on strategic and
geopolitical interests, and such interests always prevail over the
personal ones. Therefore, the military and diplomatic partnership
between our countries will be continued as long as we have common
interests no matter who exactly heads the country.
Iran's new relations with Europe and the US are gradually extending
the geopolitical functions of Iran in the Greater Middle East. Can you
expect Iran to expand its role in the South Caucasus?
Iran no doubt contends for a status of a regional superpower. However,
I think it is early to speak of Iran's new relations with Europe and
the United States. Let's wait and see the further developments. Too
many experts are convinced that instead of recording a breakthrough
the talks in Geneva may come to a dead end again. Iran has always had
interests in the South Caucasus and it will seek to extend its role in
that region. However, now Iran has enough problems in Iraq, Lebanon
and Syria, and the international sanctions have delivered an immense
blow on its economy. Teheran obviously needs no new confrontation,
because any attempt to extend its role in the South Caucasus may lead
to clashes with both Russia and the United States, which consider the
region a zone of their own interests. Therefore, Iran is unlikely to
intensify its steps in the South Caucasus. Iran will continue the
"energy expansion" in that region as Teheran considers it to be its
foreign political goal. Without trying to oust Russia from the energy
market, Iran will seek to prevent the United States, NATO and the EU
from penetrating into the South Caucasus. Iran's leaders are fanatics
but they are rather prudent fanatics. In the meantime, Iran is also on
the threshold of changes in its leadership and this may also cause
unexpected turns in the politics.
The West's response to the Moscow-Baku strengthening relations (the
matter concerns not only military hardware deals but also energy
projects) is the list of the Azeri officials, who are denied entry to
Western countries. On the other hand, the United States has expressed
willingness to develop relations with Armenia not only in economy but
also in defense despite the presence of the 102nd military base in
Gyumri. Can one speak of new trends in the geopolitics of the West and
Russia in the South Caucasus?
I think it is more correct to speak of the old geopolitical trends
than the new ones. The United States and West have never concealed
their interests in the three South Caucasus countries. Neither are
they going to cede their interests now. I was not surprised at
Washington's readiness to develop the military and economic
cooperation with Yerevan despite being in Russia's 'zone of
influence,' since the U.S. policy is based on the principle "losing a
battle does not mean losing the war." The U.S. seeks to maintain and
increase its influence everywhere it can reach, to try to influence
through legal methods, and even through illegitimate ones, if
necessary. In such situation, Yerevan, Baku and Tbilisi have nothing
to do but maneuver between the USA and Russia trying to protect their
national interests and not to turn into a marionette. "Relatively
recently, we have already witnessed the West's attempts, also
successful ones, to intervene with the internal affairs of Georgia and
Azerbaijan. There were such attempts in Armenia too. I think, they
will repeat in future, and maybe, in the nearest future. In the light
of the current situation in the region, the political figures in
Armenia, both the pro- governmental and the opposition ones, need to
show political wisdom and put the national interests above the
personal benefits. I'd like to add also the ability to make
well-thought decisions independently, and stop listening to the advice
or accepting the proposals of 'well-wishers' from abroad. Armenian
politicians have recently displayed such features and I hope they will
do it also in future.
Has the crisis around Ukraine strengthened or weakened the
superpowers' positions in the South Caucasus? Has Ukraine adjusted the
positions of the USA, Russia and the EU in the region?
It appears to me that after the Ukraine crisis Russia will more than
ever seek rapprochement with the South Caucasus countries and try to
increase its role in the region. The U.S. and Europe will not cede
their positions either. Here is where we can face quite interesting
turnarounds, including an attempt to repeat the 'Ukrainian scenario'
in the South Caucasus with some adjustments depending on the local
situation. Ukraine's crisis must become a lesson to learn for many
countries and peoples. Undoubtedly, the U.S., Russia and the EU have
their interests in the crisis, but what is the interest of Ukraine and
the Ukrainian people? I welcome the neutral stand of the South
Caucasus countries and Israel on Ukraine as "the most competent and
right decision." To avoid the Ukrainian scenario in the post-Soviet
area, the political forces, even the confronting ones, need to display
special wisdom and high sense of responsibility.
The establishment of an actual customs point on the border between
Russia and Belarus has once again revealed the flaws of the Eurasian
Economic Union and the gap between realpolitik and Moscow's
integration projects. Can one say that Eurasian integration is still
relevant and that it explains Russia's striving for a bipolar world?
I think that following continuous geopolitical perturbations the
mankind will come to a multipolar world, where everything will be
determined by the relations of the regional superpowers and each of
the superpowers will have its own zone of influence. The EEU
demonstrates further possible emergence of such a multipolar world. In
the global politics, we cannot disregard such a superpower as China. I
can also point out the Arab world, India, Iran, as well as the project
on creation of a single Europe-Asia space from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
The decisive role in that complicated political game will belong to
the common interests of a group of regional superpowers, which will
inevitably clash with another group's interests. The creation of the
Eurasian Economic Union is undoubtedly a positive step, because it
implies integration, rapprochement and cooperation. The recent tension
among the EEU members is a quite normal phenomenon. The creation of
the European Union required decades and we have repeatedly witnessed
conflicts and clashes among its members. The EEU is a young
organization and, actually, it is still being formed. Therefore, one
should pay no attention to the customs problems between Russia and
Belarus. We will witness many such conflicts but it does not mean that
the idea of Eurasian integration was dead-born. Quite the opposite, it
means that the idea is alive and it is developing. The most important
thing is that economic interests should prevail over military and
political ones and that the EEU should meet the interests of all its
member states and their people.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid÷CC9E80-D079-11E4-BC790EB7C0D21663