– Mr. Muradyan, the authorities say that the first and biggest change in the policy of the country is replacing the foreign affairs minister. Does this mean that the foreign policy will be significantly changed? Why did the new president replace Vardan Oskanyan?
– Vardan Oskanyan’s replacement is, certainly, an important but local issue. Edward Nalbandyan’s appointment in that position is natural because there was a need for a strong and professional diplomat. Those people who know about his activities in Lebanon and France as the Ambassador of Armenia know how well he worked there. Generally the diplomats of the Armenian foreign affairs ministry have not been so active and decisive, and I think that Vardan Oskanyan could stay in his position and work more. Anyway, there were no serious reasons to replace him.
– Maybe it was his decision and he wanted to resign.
– I don’t know, it is their business and their internal relations. Anyway Vardan Oskanyan failed to build a stabile foreign policy vision, but he could escape from sharp crisis and too dangerous situations. Even though there have been failures during his office, but we should take into consideration the fact that during five years the foreign affairs ministry received too limited financial support. Later the situation changed.
– There are rumors that Edward Nalbandyan has been appointed in that position as a result of agreements and arrangements with Russia. What do you think about it?
– Whoever the foreign affairs minister is, he will have to implement a multiple view policy. There are rumors that Edward Nalbandyan is a more favorable diplomat for Moscow. I don’t think that his appointment has been directly ordered from Moscow. However, I think that the Russians wanted to get rid of Oskanyan all the time because they thought that Oskanyan was not their person in this system. I think that such approach toward a close ally is a non-constructive policy. Whenever Armenia wants to have a separate and independent foreign policy, Russia doesn’t like it. They don’t understand that there may be a situation when they will have to solve our problems instead of us, and if they fail, we will appear in a very difficult situation. Neither of the new prime ministers can invent a new bicycle of foreign policy for Armenia. We have already established certain relations with the West, North, East and South, and now we need to develop them. However, during the recent years the conditions in the base of such relations have been changed.
– What do you mean specifically?
– During the past years neither the U.S. nor the Euro Union have suggested a geopolitical and economic alternative to the Russian policy. As a result of that fact Russia has become a dominant in Armenia and has more serious intentions to strengthen its positions here. Now Russia is discussing its production and financial activities in Armenia and comparing it with Armenia’s foreign policy vector. Anyway, it is clear that the U.S. has not given a final answer to its intention to build a new atomic station in Armenia. It seems that Russia has approved its intention and we are waiting to see the final decisions of the parties in the future. I have numerously said that the strategic ally of Armenia will be the country, which will undertake construction of a new atomic station in Armenia.
– What will be the main foreign policy vectors of Armenia in the near future?
– There are two important principles which I want to emphasize. The first one is the slight reaction of the West to the post-election processes in Armenia. In such cases usually the reaction is very harsh, which did not happen this time due to two reasons. The first reason is the result of global processes in East European countries and our country is viewed within that context. In East Europe countries have become stabile after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the elites of those countries have obtained good wealth and political experience so far. Accordingly, the level of their independence is higher now and the relations with strong Western countries cannot be manipulated so easily. Furthermore, the economic crisis in the world is getting deeper and none of the world power centers wants to take the responsibility and risk to help their Eastern European partners. This is the real picture and ultimately the Western community decided not to be involved in the post-election situation in Armenia.
– You said that there is another reason as well.
– The second reason is connected with specific problems in Armenia. The problem is that that the Euro Union and the biggest countries of Europe have made Turkey understand that it doesn’t have a place in the European family. Time is working against Ankara because the nationalistic tendencies in Europe are growing, and it is not excluded that this process may result in an inter-religion and inter-culture war. All these factors are working against Ankara and it needs to have a good image and find any format of cooperation with Europe as ultimately it cannot become a permanent member of Euro Union. In this policy Europe needs Armenia as a factor to use against its policy with Turkey. The situation of the relations with the U.S. is different. They are viewing Armenia as a factor to use in their relations with Turkey, but in fact also a potential future outpost.
– Ankara is the main ally of Washington. How can the U.S. make Armenia an outpost and exclude the Russian factor?
– The U.S. doesn’t need NATO any more, it is losing its potential as an institution. Americans are interested in developing good relations with some European countries to solve specific military and political problems. Now Washington is interested in the Black Sea region because it is very important not only from the point of view of controlling communications, but also can serve as a barrier in the relationships between Russia and Europe, Turkey and Europe, and Turkey and Russia. If the U.S. manages to become a new and strong influential power in that region, Armenia will become a very important factor for its policy.
Till now for Americans Armenia has been in the “verbal” reserve, now they need to activate their policy. Certainly Washington has not decided what the role of Armenia will be in that process, but it is clear that this policy will be targeted against Turkey. The Americans have also understood that in order to neutralize the Russian factor here they need to give some geo-military functions to Armenia. In this context it is clear that the U.S. is not interested in electing a person in the president’s position, who is ready to develop good relations with Turkey by all means.
– Do you mean Levon Ter-Petrosyan?
– Yes, and also it is clear that during the election period the U.S. was interested in shocking the governmental system of Armenia, but not ruining it. The problem is that if instead of the incumbent authorities other people with other psychological and physical characteristics had the power, there could be serious problems. The incumbent government is a pseudo-nationalistic political group, and from this point of view they are interested in this government. In contrast, they would not be interested in a government, which would be realistic nationalistic. I don’t exclude the possibility that in the framework of this logic there may be a dialog between the two political poles in Armenia and even they may find common interests. Everyone understands that all they are in the same ship, and this ship is not the Russian ship.
In such conditions if Moscow thinks that by appointing Edward Nalbandyan, who is certainly a good professional diplomat, in the foreign affairs minister’s position they will be able to control everything, they are mistaken. The problem is that besides the president and foreign affairs minister there are many other objective and subjective factors and conditions, which are influencing on the foreign policy of the country. Let’s take at least one of those factors which had their influence on our foreign policy of the past years – the Genocide issue. If we look at this issue from the mentioned point of view, everything will be clear. There are a lot of such factors which are influencing on our foreign policy.
– By the way, can the issue of potential recognition of Karabakh by Armenia become such factor in our foreign policy? This issue was discussed in our parliament recently, and there are rumors that even the government of Karabakh agreed with such possibility.
– I think that the authorities of Karabakh have been already shown where their place is. The strangest thing is that when the mentioned issue was proposed, no one said that on December 1, 1989, a decision was adopted on uniting Karabakh with Armenia again. Those people who came up with a proposal to recognize the independence of Karabakh would be better not to do anything at all than to do so. The problem is that the incumbent president of Karabakh is not able to do anything to strengthen his positions in Karabakh, which is the result why they are sending such suggestions to Yerevan. It was not by chance that after being appointed foreign affairs minister Edward Nalbandyan left for Karabakh first. I think that he went there to make them understand that he is a professional and is not going to deal with such fantasy.