– Cooperative Longbow/Lancer 08 exercise was recently held in Armenia and it became the biggest one in the history of NATO’s relations with the South Caucasus states. First NATO exercise in the territory of Armenia was held 5 years ago and some local and foreign experts believe that the Armenia-NATO relations underwent tremendous changes during that period of time. What is your assessment of these five years’ cooperation?
– We have seen a steady strengthening of Armenia’s relationship with NATO under the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program over these past five years. The Armenian government has shown an admirable commitment to building Armenia’s NATO relationship in recent years and it has been rather successful. President Serzh Sargsian, starting from his tenure as Minister of Defense, personally has played a key role in providing the vision and the political will that has made this strengthened partnership possible. The Armenian government has often made the point — and I believe it is absolutely correct — that Armenia can have good, cooperative relations with NATO at the same time that it also maintains good relations with Russia.
Armenia’s NATO partnership has helped in developing Armenia’s international peacekeeping capabilities, which have made Armenia a contributor to global peace and security. Armenia’s direct participation in the multi-national peacekeeping operations in Iraq and Kosovo were tangible and valued contributions, and were also, I think, useful to Armenia’s professional soldiers for giving them valuable experience in operating with multi-national forces and gaining experience in different models of tactics and operations with leading NATO Ally and Partner nations.
So, I would say that the cooperation between Armenia and NATO has been effective, has been of real value to both sides, and is a net enhancement to Armenia’s national security. I look forward to further deepening and strengthening of the Partnership relationship.
– What pleases you in implementation of Armenia’s Individual Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with NATO, and what requires additional efforts from the Armenian side?
– The Armenian government has repeatedly set ambitious goals for itself in rapidly achieving its IPAP objectives, and it has done a very good job, overall, in meeting these goals. The feedback that I get from the experts in the NATO International Staff here in Brussels who work most directly with Armenia on these issues suggests that Armenia’s commitment and determination to advance its IPAP agenda remain strong, and so good progress is being made.
Of course, this is a challenging process. The kinds of institutional reforms that the Armenian Defense Ministry has embarked upon as part of its IPAP agenda require structural changes to the way the Ministry organizes and manages itself as an institution and call for structural reforms in other government institutions that have responsibilities for certain aspects of defense and security issues. We’re trying, with our U.S. military assistance programs, to support Armenia’s work in this area, by providing expert technical assistance to advise on this structural reform process. We have also advised Armenia during the drafting of its landmark documents, the National Security Strategy and the National Military Doctrine.
One of the difficult things the Armenian MOD is working on through the IPAP process is civilianization of the MOD leadership structure, which is aimed at dividing the roles and functions of the civilian Defense Ministry leadership and the military general staff into clear and distinct areas of authority and management. This continues to be a somewhat challenging process, but one which experience shows us is well worth doing and an important attribute of democratic governance and civilian management of military forces.
– In November, 2004, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated in an interview to our Agency: “Armenia is a proof that a country can maintain a close relationship with Russia and at the same time be a very active Partner of NATO”. Is this still valid today, when the relations between Russia and the West are aggravated and the work of Russia-NATO Council is in fact frozen?
– I believe it is still a valid sentiment. On this issue, it’s important to take a longer view, and I think that’s what Armenia’s leadership is doing as well. Given Russia’s backtracking on democracy at home and pressure on many of its neighbors, it is natural that NATO-Russia relations would suffer. NATO’s objective, however, is a constructive partnership with a Russia that shares our democratic values and lives by 21st century norms of behavior, and works with NATO as a true partner.
– After the August events in Georgia Armenia signed under a document, approved at the summit of Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which contained quite tough wordings concerning NATO. Aren’t you confused by the fact that, on the one hand, Armenia deepens relations with NATO, on the other; it is present in a military-political organization, which does not hide its irritation concerning the Alliance’s policy?
– Of course, we found the CSTO statement very disappointing. Fundamentally, we disagree with the CSTO’s interpretation of events in Georgia. That’s unfortunate, and a challenge that we as an Alliance need to work through with Russia.
Would I wish that Armenia had not joined in that unhelpful CSTO message? Yes. Are there some within the NATO Alliance who take exception to this, and who may see Armenia less favorably as a result? Probably yes. But I also took note that Armenia has itself been clear about its continued commitment to good NATO relations, even after the Georgia crisis. I also took note that Armenia has refused to follow Moscow’s lead in recognizing the independence of these two separatist areas. President Sargsian appointed his National Security Council Secretary to oversee and to deepen NATO (and also European Union) relations. I think this is a sign of that longer view I mentioned earlier, and Armenia’s mature understanding that, notwithstanding the problems of the current moment, there’s a deeper need for Armenia to maintain strong partnership relations with the West. The United States supports Armenia in that goal.
– Do you agree with the point of view that NATO is ready to go as far in its relations with Armenia as Armenia itself is ready for it? Armenian officials say that the country does not pursue NATO membership as they want to refrain from creating new dividing lines in the South Caucasus.
– NATO has a good understanding with Armenia about our mutual goals for the Partnership program, and both sides are content with that. I don’t agree, as a principle, with the idea that if Caucasus states were to become full members of NATO that implies new dividing lines in the Caucasus. That’s the kind of zero-sum thinking that creates unnecessary conflict and anxiety in the region, and a mindset we are trying to overcome. However, we fully respect Armenia’s own vision of what it wants its NATO relationship to be, going forward, and the Partnership for Peace program offers both sides a robust set of opportunities for good cooperation. NATO doesn’t go about “recruiting” members. Rather, it considers applications if European democracies seek to join. Armenia has not expressed interest in NATO membership, and even if it did, would have a lot of work to do on internal reforms.
– In early September, Turkish President Abdullah Gul made a visit to Yerevan, following the results of which the sides agreed to continue the dialogue. Can the cooperation between Armenia and Turkey within the framework of NATO and EAPC assist productive development of the given dialogue? What is your impression – how favorable is the attitude of Turkey towards deepening the Alliance’s relations with Armenia?
– I was deeply gratified by President Sargsian’s invitation to President Gul, and by President Gul’s visit. I took this as a very promising sign of goodwill by both presidents to begin the work of healing their bilateral relationship and I am pleased to see that this process is continuing. We are encouraged that a dialogue has continued and very much hope both Turkey and Armenia will seize this opportunity to normalize ties and begin the process of putting their bilateral relationship back on a constructive, forward-looking path.
Turkey has not created any obstacles for Armenia in the NATO structures, and in fact, I know there have been instances when Turkey invited representatives from Armenia to participate in Partnership for Peace activities in Turkey. Turkey has from time to time voiced constructive criticisms of specific elements of Armenia’s IPAP process, as Allies do routinely as part of the normal process of NATO dialogue with Partner countries. Turkey has not in any way interfered with Armenia’s NATO engagement, which is significant and a positive signal. Of course, the best means of advancing relations in the region as a whole is to make progress to peacefully and diplomatically resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict under the auspices of the existing OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs process.