Monday, August 17 2015 11:55

 

Recently, the Iranian Ambassador in Armenia Mohammad Reisi stated in Yerevan that Armenia has all the chances to become a corridor between the Persian Gulf and the Black Sea. I would appreciate your comments on such perspectives.

 

I always abstain from believing everything the Iranian Officials would state. They often make loud statements on Iran's influence in order their country looks less isolated. Iran may become a trade corridor leading to the Persian Gulf, and we are still at the initial stage of the deal that is yet to be ratified by the U.S. Congress. Moreover, the capability of the agreement on implementation of the integration and growth is at some point depending on the extent of its implementation. If Iran fails to implement its commitments, the sanctions will be resumed soon after, which will prevent Iran from becoming a trading corridor between the Gulf and the Black Sea and perspectives of Armenia. I honestly believe that this will not happen.

 

The next meeting between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan is expected to take place in fall. Do you expect any serious progress in Karabakh settlement from its outcomes?

 

No, I have no expectations. I have observed such meetings of the presidents for over ten years already. I think the parties will discuss bilateral problems, security issues, while the Karabakh conflict will be just part of those talks. I see no opportunities for Russia to make any serious progress in the peace process because it is Armenia and Azerbaijan that must arrive at a solution. Russia can either help them do it or interfere.  After all, it is the conflict of Armenia and Azerbaijan over Karabakh and much depends on the leaderships and public of the two countries. The progress also depends on the readiness of Armenia and Azerbaijan to compromises. Considering the recent rhetoric in the region and the clashes along the Line of Contact and on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, unfortunately I see no sign of concessions from the parties.

 

During the recent two years, Moscow started to gradually apply the “soft force” at the post-Soviet area, which was vivid on the Georgian example. What is your vision of such policy?

 

Russia is trying to increase the level of use of the “soft force”, but I do not believe that it would be successful as some would presume in my country. Knowledge of Russian language is mummified in many parts of the former USSR, especially in the Central Asian countries. This weakens the capabilities of Russia to use the “soft force” in its traditional meaning (mass-media, education etc.). Russia is spending millions worldwide for its propaganda, but according to the recent survey conducted by PEW research center the global attitude to Russia is rather negative, the ratings of favorable attitude to Russia is over 50% are only in Vietnam, Ghana and China. The favourableness indicators to Russia is even worse than on the US in any region of the world. I think that it at some point is conditioned by the Russian aggression in Ukraine. This aggression rose a wave of concern in the entire region emphasizing that Russia is not always a predictable or reliable partner. The corps d'elite such as Belarus and Kazakhstan are concerned by Russia and Russian intervention. I believe that the same is seen in Armenia. If this is happening in some of the closest Russian allies, then the Russian policy towards Ukraine is not supporting its positive image in the region. This makes Russia to rely less on the traditional “soft force” and more on enforcement, threats or direct aggression against its neighbors. Some of the Russian politicians are counter-productive. There were few statements that the Russia’s image is improving among the Georgians in the recent couple of years. I see no problem in such improvement of the Russian and Georgian relations, which would greatly promote stability in the region. But the last month Russian decision on demarcation of the South Osetia border, which resulted in a control over the part of the backbone oil pipeline, was an act of aggression. And probably it will again damage the image of Russia in Georgia. This is an example of how the Russian actions in the region are not always improving its image or fulfillment of its agenda.

 

Do you share the opinion of several colleagues and experts attributing the escalation of tensions at the Armenia and Azerbaijan Line of Contact to Russia, given Moscow interests in retention of the status – quo on Karabakh?   

 

Russia try to play on the both sides of Karabakh conflict. It is the main warranty of security for Armenia and the major supplier of weaponry for Azerbaijan. There are certain reasons, why Russia may not want any change of the status – quo, I do not believe that we have to attribute the recent escalation of violence on the line of contact to Russia. At the end of the day, this is the conflict between the Armenians and Azerbaijanese and the two countries together with Nagorni Karabakh are responsible for everything what is happening along the line of contact. In any case, the war between Russia and Ukraine is distracting the general attention from other conflicts in the post-Soviet area. Therefore, I am afraid that the fact that the International community is deploying its efforts for conflict settlement in other countries like Ukraine and Syria may significantly increase the potential of violence on the line of contact.

 

Do you consider the current US policy in Caucasus and, particularly in Armenia, practical? Do you anticipate any adjustment in this policy due to fact of Armenia joining the EEU?

Yes I do. . Armenia is a Russia’s ally, but the US keeps its efforts on attracting Armenia in the matters of security and economy. Both of our countries have recently signed the Trade and Investment Financial Agreement (TIFA) and the US Contour Global Hydro Cascade became the major American Investor in Armenia. This is a positive step given the fact that they happened after Armenia became a member of EEU and it demonstrates that the US is still willing to have practical and fruitful relations with Armenia. I also think that the European Union is eager for the same. This is witnessed by the policy of Brussels to Armenia in the period following Armenia's joining to EEU and war in Ukraine. The EU is currently trying to find an alternative to the Association Agreement, which was realistic two years ago.