Zeyno Baran joined Hudson Institute as Senior Fellow and Director of Hudson’s Center for Eurasian Policy in April 2006. From January 2003 until joining Hudson, Baran directed the International Security and Energy Programs at the Nixon Center. From 1999 until December 2002, Baran worked as Director of the Caucasus Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
– Commenting on the events of March 1-2 in Armenia, in an interview to Azerbaijani Trend Agency, you gave the following assessment to the situation “The way I see it, it is the Armenian people against the Armenian government”. What became a ground for such assessment, if we take into account the fact that the protestors were the supporters of Levon Ter-Petrosian, who gained a little over 20% of votes, and not the whole people, but at the most 20 thousand people were participating in the protest actions?
– That sentence was used out of context. I was asked if what is going on in Armenia is beginning of a color revolution, and who is responsible for what is going on. As I understood it, this meant whether I thought there were any outside actors influence events in Armenia. That’s why I stated that the protest was the result of the Armenian people (as opposed to the result of a foreign actor). Of course I did not mean that to imply that all Armenians were against the government-just those who were protesting.
– You also stated that “the majority of Armenian people seem to be fed up with Armenia being isolated; they want to join the community of democratic countries, have good relations with Russia, but also the West”. You think that Ter-Petrosian is capable of putting an end to that “isolation”?
– I am not suggesting one leader or another is better; that judgment is obviously best made by the Armenian voters. I do believe, however, that many Armenians would like their country to be included in what is called the "community of democratic countries", which requires more than
simply holding elections.
– Lately, in Armenia more spread becomes the opinion that Levon Ter-Petrosian enjoys the support of official Washington. What do you think of that?
– This is the first time I have heard this. I have seen no sign or heard no statement indicating that the US government officially supports Mr. Ter-Petrosian over Mr. Sarkisian. Washington is respecting the results of the elections, and as with other countries, will work with whoever the Armenian voters elect as their President.
– Many people believe that Levon Ter-Petrosian is the founder-father of all negative phenomena in Armenia: election fraud, corruption in the highest bodies of authority, absence of full freedom of speech, persecution of political opponents. Don’t you think that rendering him direct or indirect support, the West voluntarily or not discredits the idea of protection of democratic values?
– Again, I have not seen any such direct or indirect support for Mr. Ter-Petrosian. The West’s negative reaction has-rightfully-been against the use of violence, the media blackout, and other related activities carried out by the incumbent government. I am sure the Western reaction was intended to support Armenia’s peaceful democratic maturation, and by no means should be seen as "in favor of" or "against" any particular person.
– Don’t you consider strange the situation, when the U.S. and EU first congratulated the Armenian people with “successful and competitive” elections and did not cast a doubt on the results of elections, and then they toughen the pressure on Yerevan, although the prime cause of all the problems and the events of March 1-2 was the reluctance of the oppositional candidate to recognize the results of elections?
– Well, as you know, Western reaction arose as a direct result of the actions the government took against protestors-not because of the protestors themselves. After all, the opposition had been protesting the election results for several days; it was not until the government responded in a harsh a manner that the West issued statements critical of how the process was handled.
– Soon after the events of March 1-2, your colleague on the U.S expert community Cory Welt, Associate Director of the Eurasian Strategy Project at Georgetown University, stated: “The United States and the Europeans should certainly do one thing – stop pretending there is democratic progress where there is none. What makes the Armenian case so unusual is the willingness of the United States and Europe to move forward with business as usual when there is no business to be done – Armenia is neither a security nor an energy partner for the West”. Can we interpret this statement the following way: if your name is Mikhail Saakashvili, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzrum gas pipeline go through the territory of your country, and 2000 of your military men fulfill service in Iraq, you are allowed to conduct elections as you want, and you will face nothing for that. But if your name is Serzh Sarkisian, and you cannot trade on the fates of 140 thousand Armenians, living in Nagorno-Karabakh in exchange for the incomes from the transit of oil and gas, and only 50 of your military men serve in Iraq, you are allowed to conduct elections as you want, but we keep ourselves the right to punish you for that?
– I am glad you asked this question. As you may remember, the West issued a very critical statement after the November 5th developments in Georgia; President Saakashvili felt compelled to resign and run for reelection. There was a lot of pressure put on the Georgian government to allow the opposition Imedi TV station to reopen. I can give many other examples.
And if we look at Azerbaijan, which is the source of the oil and gas, you’ll see that the West has been very tough on the government. So I really don’t see the connection.
It is certainly important that Georgia has deployed a large number of soldiers to Iraq, but more important is the overwhelming desire of both government and opposition to be part of the Euro-Atlantic alliance. The West strongly supports this goal, and because of that the West is actually more critical of Georgian domestic developments-because Georgia will only have a chance to join NATO if its democracy is robust. The November 5th events and the period leading up to the presidential elections may have hurt Georgia’s chances for MAP in Bucharest.
I understand your frustration. As I am sure you know, many in Georgia and Azerbaijan complain about a double standard too. They complain that the West is being unfairly harsh on their elections compared to those of other countries. Each country is a case unto itself and each will follow its own path of democratic evolution. Western policy makers understand this and try to assist in the process as much as they can, but, of course, messages and policies that seem right in Washington may not always translate well.
– Don’t you think that driving the newly-elected Armenian President to a corner, the West takes the risk to once and for all “lose” Armenia and strengthen Armenia’s dependence on Russia? Don’t you think that this will mark the end of complementary foreign policy doctrine of Armenia, the main principles of which is: “in this region we do not play on contradictions of great powers, but we try to smooth them”?
– I honestly don’t see the West "driving the newly-elected Armenian President to a corner". The West is doing what it always does: expressing concern when there is a reason for it and extending a hand of friendship where it is due. Mr. Sarkisian is a well-known leader in the West, especially in Washington; he is known as someone who truly believes in the complementary foreign policy doctrine and has been implementing it. I see no reason why he would change that. And such a policy is ultimately in Armenia’s national interest.
I would argue that Western muted reaction to the presidential elections in Russia is more problematic. And here one can certainly make the argument that the West wanted to get off to a positive start with the new Russian president so did not criticize the elections.
– The newly-elected President will head the Armenian delegation at NATO Summit in Bucharest on April 2-4. According to you, what will the basic accents of his communication with the western leaders be?
– I believe that Western leaders are looking forward to meeting him-and for those who already know him, to meet him in his new capacity-and continuing to work with Armenia on key issues, particularly the resolution of the Karabakh situation. With Georgia and Ukraine strongly pushing for NATO MAP, and Azerbaijan having expressed its clear interest in eventual membership, the NATO alliance will be interested in hearing from Mr. Sarkisian about Armenia’s long-term intentions.
– After the approval of the Resolution on Nagorno-Karabakh by the UN General Assembly, it became obvious that Azerbaijan is toughening its stance concerning not only Armenia, but the mediators as well. Harsh criticism is heard from Baku every day against the USA, Russia and France, which voted against the approval of the resolution. What is your opinion? Does Baku really intend to try to get the format of OSCE Minsk Group shifted, to reach the shift of the mediator’s mandate, or are those tactical steps?
– I believe the resolution, and the timing of its proposal, was a response to Kosovo’s declaration of independence. More specifically, it was a response to the broad support this declaration enjoyed in the West. Baku seems to worry that Kosovo will be used as a precedent-a concern that is shared by Georgia. The resolution could therefore be viewed as an attempt to "preempt" such use. Moreover, given that the issue of Kosovo precedence is something Russia has raised, especially in the context of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, I believe Baku (and Tbilisi) wanted to receive reassurance that Kosovo would indeed be considered a unique case, as well as to see how the Russians would vote.
Baku’s sharp criticism of the Minsk Group co-chairs-the United States in particular-probably represents a tactical step to shore up support for the Azerbaijani position. There is also concern growing in Azerbaijan that the country is being treated unfairly by the West because it is Muslim. Azerbaijanis have seen how strongly the US has supported Georgia’s territorial integrity, yet has been more ambivalent on Azerbaijan’s. Of course, given that the US is a co-chair of the Minsk Group and must therefore remain an honest broker, the US government could not really take a different position on Karabakh. Unfortunately for the ordinary Azeri this is a distinction that is difficult to understand or accept. Many Azerbaijanis feel that they have been an important ally of the US on energy security, the war on terror and many other areas, yet they do not receive much in return. With that said, I think Azerbaijani leadership and most of the public recognize the importance of the US-Azerbaijani partnership and will not allow this resolution to damage Baku’s relations with Washington.