On Tuesday Armenia officially stated that it refuses to take part in the military trainings of NATO launched yesterday in Georgia. According to the Interfax the RA Ministry of Defense only said the following in this regard, “we refuse to participate based on the existing circumstances.” That’s all. They don’t simplify what is meant by circumstances.
Indeed in the case of Armenia the first “circumstance” is Russia’s mildly said rough attitude toward the military trainings in Georgia. Even several days ago when Armenia was saying that it was going to participate in the training it was very hard to believe this. Another “circumstance” was the statement of NATO general secretary Yaap de Hoop Scheffer, which was made on April 29 in Brussels during the joint press conference with Ilham Aliyev. Scheffer once again made a statement, advocating the territorial integrity of Armenia. Despite the fact that the member of the ARF parliamentary faction Artur Aghabekyan quit his position of chairing the Armenian delegation in the NATO parliamentary assembly we asked him toe comment on the sudden decision of Armenia. However, prior to presenting his standpoint we find it expedient to mention the name of the Prosperous Armenia faction member Armen Melikyan, who may be replacing Aghabekyan in the mentioned delegation. Yesterday during the conversation with us Melikyan said, “There are talks that I may be in the delegation but not chair it.” To the question how will the refusal of participating in the NATO training affect the reputation of Armenia Melikyan said, “To be honest, it’s hard for me to answer the question because you know that Georgia is our friend neighbor and Russia is our strategic partner. At any rate, I think that our foreign affairs ministry will give a more accurate answer in this regard.” He had a hard time answering all our other questions relating to this theme. For example we asked him, “Do you think it’s the right or wrong decision not to participate in the NATO training?” He said, “I can’t say. I am having a hard to time answer that.” To our statement that there are rumors that this decision is connected with the recent statement of the general secretary of the NATO he said, “I don’t think so, don’t think so.” All our efforts to find out what Melikyan thinks about this decision went in vain. To the question on whether the decision is accidental or not he said, “It’s not accidental. Don’t you know that it’s not especially from the last steps?” By saying steps he meant the road map. A little later, however, he started to doubt that the road map may be the reason of this decision. By the way, Melikyan said that the Prosperous Armenia party may meet next week and discuss this issue. “We will celebrate the liberation of Shushi and then we’ll gather on Monday to discuss this,” said Melikyan. According to the former chair of the Armenian delegation in the NATO parliamentary assembly Artur Aghabekyan indeed the fact of not participating in the NATO is not good but it is equivalent to the statement of the NATO general secretary. “In fact it is sad that we are not participating but on the other hand we have all the grounds not to participate. One of the grounds is the statement of the NATO general secretary, according to which he sees the NKR conflict resolution only in the framework of territorial integrity. This doesn’t come from our interest. In Armenia the NATO implements the IPAP (Individual Partnership Action Plan), where conflict resolution has its clear place and IPAP has a separate paragraph about the NKR conflict resolution. We have agreed with the IPAP requirements and those are acceptable for us. If not we wouldn’t joint the IPAP. On the other hand, I am sorry that because the grounds should have been clear and the executive should have clearly stated why it’s not participating and brought up concrete reasons. It is also sad because the NATO training has not only tactical importance. The training also has political grounds. This training has a tactical scenario and strategic importance for the region. And as I am clearly aware of the scenario of this training I can’t say whether it was right or wrong not to participate,” said Aghabekyan. Statements about territorial integrity are no news and many officials have spoke bout its importance and so quite frequently does the US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Mathew Bryza. In this case, shall Armenia refuse all types of cooperation with partner countries? Aghabekyan said, “I think that every statement and opinion should be adequately responded. Another thing is to speak about this as a product for internal consumption. No matter who makes the statement – Mathew Bryza or Barack Obama. If they make statements, which contradict the Armenian policy and interest, they should be responded. And this case, the power and reputation of the country of the person, who makes the statement, is not important. No matter who makes the statement Medvedev or president of some other country, they should be responded. We should tell them – look, my friend, my partner, my ally or my enemy, the statesman of your country made a statement. If you are for that statement and support it please repeat it so that I get convinced that this is the approach of your country. Scheffer should be accountable for his statement.” To the question whether Armenia is changing its tactics as in past it has never made any rough attitude to any country Aghabekyan said, “It would be very good if Armenia reasoned its non-participation with Scheffer’s statement. Thus Armenia could have said that we are not participating as NATO general secretary made a contradicting statement, which opposes the interest of our nation.”
P.S. In an official interview when asked to comment on Armenia’s decision to participate in the NATO military trainings the NATO representative James Apaturay stated, “I won’t be speaking about those countries. It is up to them to decide. We all understand the context of the refusal. I think that the tension created around this issue is groundless and complicates the overall situation.”