Armenia's Isolation

[joseph parikian]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/internat.../26armenia.html

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2004/12/26/international/26armenia_184.jpg

Melik Bagdasarian/Agence France-Presse-Getty Images

Dependent on costly imports and aid, Armenians face a harsh winter with many relying on wood for fuel.

Armenia's Isolation Grows Only Deeper

By SUSAN SACHS

 

Published: December 26, 2004

 

 

EREVAN, Armenia - Landlocked and stuck in a cold war with two of its four neighbors, Armenia has rarely seemed so alone as in the past few months.

 

Citing terrorism concerns, Russia abruptly sealed its border with Georgia in September and kept it closed for nearly two months, effectively cutting off the road that was the main route for Armenian trade with Russia.

 

Advertisement

 

 

At the same time, Armenians had to watch from the sidelines as Azerbaijan and Georgia celebrated the completion of a large section of the pipeline to carry Caspian Sea oil to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. The $5 billion regional energy project bypasses Armenia and excludes it from the hefty fees the participating countries will get.

 

Another bitter pill came in October, when the European Union's executive commission recommended that Turkey start negotiations for full membership without first having to end its rail and land blockade of Armenia. [On Dec. 17, the European Union invited Turkey to begin those talks without mentioning Armenia's demands in its decision. European Union leaders said Turkey could join within 10 years.

 

For many people in this impoverished country, the events added up to a reminder of their deepening isolation.

 

"If nothing changes, Armenia will be left as an island," said Levon Barseghyan, who is active in politics in Gyumri, a rundown town on a railway line that was closed by Turkey in 1992. "Everyone will forget about Armenia."

 

As winter closes in, bringing the risk of new hardships in a country heavily dependent on imports and foreign aid, the prospects appear grim without outside intervention.

 

Despite infusions of cash from Armenians living abroad that account for more than 20 percent of the country's income, and strong economic growth for the last decade, nearly half of the country's three million people live in poverty, on less than $2 a day. The limited opportunities have contributed to an exodus of working-age Armenians since independence 13 years ago, with some estimates putting the population loss at nearly 30 percent.

 

Armenia's long-running conflict with Azerbaijan, its oil-rich neighbor to the east, remains one of the more intractable problems left from the breakup of the Soviet Union.

 

Both countries claim Nagorno-Artsax, a mountainous slice of land that is geographically inside the borders of Azerbaijan but is controlled by ethnic Armenian separatists. Their six-year war over the region ended with a cease-fire in 1994, after 35,000 people had been killed and an estimated one million, most of them Azeri, had become refugees.

 

Turkey, Armenia's big neighbor to the west, has backed its Turkic ally, Azerbaijan, and closed its land border with Armenia. Turkish leaders have said they will not reopen the border until Armenia starts withdrawing its troops from in and around Artsax. Peace negotiations have ground to a standstill despite mediation efforts by Russia, France and the United States.

 

"On neither side is there a public mood that is conducive to compromise," said a Western diplomat in Yerevan.

 

The stalemate has left Armenia boxed in from the east and the west. Turkish and Russian goods make their way to Armenia, but with the added cost of air transportation or road transit through third countries like Georgia.

 

Georgia's roads, however, have sometimes been closed because of political instability or, as was the case this fall, because of action by Russia. Armenia's only other direct outlet is through Iran to the south, where trade has been hampered by a poor road network and lack of railway lines. The cost of building two needed new lines to Iran has been estimated at more than $1.5 billion.

 

Armenian officials have been eager to revive peace talks with Azerbaijan but have also refused to make unilateral concessions on Artsax, which they consider liberated Armenian territory, in exchange for Turkey's reopening of rail and road traffic.

 

"We won't trade off Artsax for a railroad," said the foreign minister, Vardan Oskanyan, adding that Armenians have learned to cope with their isolation. "Things are evolving around us," he said. "Let it be."

 

Many Armenians, foreign donors and economists are not nearly as sanguine.

While the economy has recovered from the near-total blockade on Armenia in the early 1990's, its growth rate could increase by as much as 50 percent if the eastern and western borders reopened, according to international studies.

 

Such dire circumstances might be expected to provoke political unrest. But President Robert Kocharian, a Artsax native and former commander of the separatist forces who was re-elected to a second term last year, has wide public support for his Artsax policy.

 

"Every day the government tells us our economy can flourish without opening the Turkish border and without solving the Artsax problem," said Aram Abrahamyan, editor of the daily Aravot. "And the government propaganda succeeds with the common people."

 

But a continuation of the status quo could be costly. Armenia 2020, a privately financed research group in Yerevan, has commissioned studies of the country's future, based on a range of possible developments including no easing of the blockade on Armenia. The studies concluded that "if there are no changes, there is no prosperity," said Artashes Kazakhetsyan, the director of the group.

 

Armenia has focused much of its effort on a two-pronged approach to Turkey. It has appealed directly to Turkish leaders to normalize relations. At the same time, it has tried to increase diplomatic pressure, openly questioning Turkey's fitness to start European Union entry talks before addressing Armenian grievances.

 

In an interview, Mr. Oskanyan said he did not understand why European leaders ignored what he called Turkey's "faults and shortcomings" with regard to Armenia. "What is regrettable," he said, "is that Europe is closing its eyes on Turkey's petulance."

 

While Turkey has changed many of its policies over the last two years to win European Union acceptance, there has been no indication of a shift in its official line toward Armenia.

 

Private contacts between Turks and Armenians will continue to be encouraged, said a senior Turkish diplomat in Ankara, who asked that his name not be used, in accordance with Foreign Ministry rules. Trade will continue. But the diplomat said the political impasse must be broken by Armenia.

 

"We can't change our policy on the Azeris," he said. "So the first move has to come from Armenia. We would like to see an opening, even a small opening, on Nagorno-Artsax."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/26/internat.../26armenia.html

[kakachik77]

We have discussed Susan Sachs and her anti-Armenian sentiments in another thread here. Don't take this article close to your heart. Do a search and read what people had to say about the writer.

 

Merry X-Mas

[joseph parikian]

Merry Christmas to you too

 

Can you tell me where it was discussed

I missed it

[Anonymouse]

What a load of hogwash. If this were bile I'd forcefully spoon feed it to Susan Sacks and the Turkish Parliament altogether.

[Siamanto]

We have discussed Susan Sachs and her anti-Armenian sentiments in another thread here. Don't take this article close to your heart. Do a search and read what people had to say about the writer.

 

Merry X-Mas

style_images/master/snapback.png

Why waste time searching? It's obviously crap and pro-Jurkish propaganda!

 

What a load of hogwash. If this were bile I'd forcefully spoon feed it to Susan Sacks and the Turkish Parliament altogether.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Correction: Jurkish Parliament! Otherwise, I agree!

[gamavor]

A masterpiece of American CNN type propaganda and I love it! On the surface everything is correct, but the "author" is hesitant to explain why it is so?

 

And the CNN style pictures ... I just love them! It makes me drive down to Houston close to downtown area and take some pictures of the "American Dream"!

[Armen]

I don't know what is the plan of this Susan but she sure became popular among Armenians overnight

[Armat]

I found omissions like Iranian commerce which is significant otherwise she mostly is right and also she is wrong on Armenia’s population number 3million.It is probably 2 million now due to immigration.

[kakachik77]

I found omissions like Iranian commerce which is significant otherwise she mostly is right and also she is wrong on Armenia’s population number 3million.It is probably 2 million now due to immigration.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

The point of this article is to "prove" in what a miserable condition Armenia is. But why? Well, firstly because of Jurkish propaganda. It's so dumb though. Basically because the country is in a such a dire condition Armenians should just give up Karabagh and make sure that their borders are open. Do you really think that if Armenia gives up Karabagh, Turks are going to turn around, open the borders and treat Armenians as if nothing bad has ever happened?

 

But mainly Armenia is not in such a dire condition. If the current leaders would give up their corrupt practices that 50% poverty rate could be easily eliminated. I mean it is in no more dire condition as Azerbaijan or Georgia.

Edited December 28, 2004 by kakachik77

[kakachik77]

Merry Christmas to you too

 

Can you tell me where it was discussed

I missed it

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Hi Joseph,

 

this is the link http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=10429

 

in case the link does not work, it's under Republic of Armenia, it's called "Young Armenians Puzzle..."

[Armat]

I thought this was perfect

[Siamanto]

The point of this article is to "prove" in what a miserable condition Armenia is. But why? Well, firstly because of Jurkish propaganda. It's so dumb though. Basically because the country is in a such a dire condition Armenians should just give up Karabagh and make sure that their borders are open. Do you really think that if Armenia gives up Karabagh, Turks are going to turn around, open the borders and treat Armenians as if nothing bad has ever happened?

style_images/master/snapback.png

Agree!

 

 

 

But mainly Armenia is not in such a dire condition. If the current leaders would give up their corrupt practices that 50% poverty rate could be easily eliminated. I mean it is in no more dire condition as Azerbaijan or Georgia.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

In fact, according to some indicators, Armenia is in a better shape than Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey!

 

2004 Human Development Index (Better than Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia!)

2004 Index of Economic Freedom (Comparable to France and South Korea!)

 

Of course, we still have a lot to do! Ter shad hats abour gouzenk!

[Armen]

Agree!

In fact, according to some indicators, Armenia is in a better shape than Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey!

 

2004 Human Development Index (Better than Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia!)

2004 Index of Economic Freedom (Comparable to France and South Korea!)

 

Of course, we still have a lot to do! Ter shad hats abour gouzenk!

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Siamanto, your data tells that Armenia has a higher ranking as far as the education and initial child birth rate is concerned (meaning: minus long term infant mortality). However, if you look at GDP and GDP per capita Armenia is the last. They get their final rankings by taking the GDP per capita purchasing power parity ranking and deducting the human development (education etc.) ranking. This is why Armenia is ahead in final rankings. But that does not mean we are in better condition. That just means that Armenia exports good human capital, which is very bad.

[Siamanto]

Siamanto, your data tells that Armenia has a higher ranking as far as the education and initial child birth rate is concerned (meaning: minus long term infant mortality). However, if you look at GDP and GDP per capita Armenia is the last. They get their final rankings by taking the GDP per capita purchasing power parity ranking and deducting the human development (education etc.) ranking. This is why Armenia is ahead in final rankings.

style_images/master/snapback.png

It seems to me that you have missed the point: it's not ONLY about the GDP!

A country's well being - or anything of importance - is not - and should not be - solely based on a SINGLE criterion whatever that is. Basing an assessment on multiple criteria is similar to hedging in risk management!

In a similar manner, the well being of an individual - or a company - cannot be based on the present income or "cash flow:" it is evaluated using multiple criteria that suggest/indicate FUTURE prospects. That is BASIC Equity Analysis!

Yes, according to the "Human Development Index" - a basket of indicators - Armenia ranks BETTER than Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan!

Of course, you're entitled to define your own index or set of indicators, that is your choice! Personally, I will base my decision on the "Human Development Index!"

In any case, please, make sure that you clearly define your indicators and their relative weights in the index; otherwise, it would be meaningless to comment or debate and it would be called blah-blah-bah. Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

But that does not mean we are in better condition.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Reality is not simple enough that an index necessarily "means" or implies this or that!

Yes, according to "Human Development Index" - a basket of indicators - Armenia ranks BETTER than Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan!

 

In any case, it does NOT mean that we are in a WORSE condition, as the article above is trying to make believe! Please, let's stay focused!

 

 

 

 

 

That just means that Armenia exports good human capital, which is very bad.

style_images/master/snapback.png

No! It does not mean that "Armenia exports good human capital!!!!"

Just curious, how did you come to that conclusion?

Edited December 29, 2004 by Siamanto

[Siamanto]

For the record:

2004 GDP per capita (Armenia ranks BETTER than Azerbaijan and Georgia!)

Edited December 29, 2004 by Siamanto

[Azat]

I thought this was perfect

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

what does it say?

[Sasun]

what does it say?

style_images/master/snapback.png

It says "Don't talk too much" (my poor translation, I am sure there is a better translation).

 

And with small letters it says something like "Be careful, these days the walls can hear. Not far from talk and gossip you could be betrayed".

Edited December 29, 2004 by Sasun

[Sasun]

Siamanto, I can see your point about differences in using various indexes. It really depens what one means by "better" or "worse" in terms of a country's well being. However, by most standards (and that could be subjective too) Armenia is not ranked higher than its neighbors in terms of the overall state of the country. The indexes that you are pointing out present the potentialities of Armenia - not a future guaranteed state of well being. And it takes a lot of effort to use the potentialities wisely and get there. The factors behind the "Human development index" are important indeed, but have not yet produced a tangible result in Armenia. What Armen is saying is true - our best human resources leave the country, so we don't benefit much from our human development factors, although we do to a small degree. What Armen is pointing out is the present state which is hardly better than our neighbor's, and in some indexes it is worse.

I remember from our past discussions you comparing countries with firms, which is a valid way of reasoning I believe. But in my opinion there is one significant difference between the firm model and the coutnry model. A firm that has human resources and other potential resources, even if it may be producing no profit or negative profit, on a plain of normal, fair market conditions can be rightly valued highly as these potentialities have a large likelihood of turning into cash flow. And another firm that currently is profitable but has negative outlook for the future due to lack of management and poor human resources development maybe valued cheaper than the first type of a firm.

Now if you think about countries, or nation states, they don't operate on a free, fair competitive conditions. It is not a free market, it is more like a jungle where there is no rule of law, no fair competition, and right is with might and countries are treated differently and do not have equal rights. In other words, potentialities do not readily turn into cash. So therefore I think that even Armenia objectively has better human development it will not be valued highly by international entities until and unless the human development factors translate into more tangible factors.

[gamavor]

what does it say?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

More liberal translation would be: "Don't talk B/S!"

[Armen]

It seems to me that you have missed the point: it's not ONLY about the GDP!

A country's well being - or anything of importance - is not - and should not be - solely based on a SINGLE criterion whatever  that is. Basing an assessment on multiple criteria is similar to hedging in risk management!

In a similar manner, the well being of an individual - or a company - cannot be based  on the present income or "cash flow:" it is evaluated using multiple criteria that suggest/indicate FUTURE prospects. That is BASIC Equity Analysis!

Yes, according to the "Human Development Index" - a basket of indicators - Armenia ranks BETTER than Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan!

Of course, you're entitled to define your own index or set of  indicators, that is your choice! Personally, I will base my decision on the "Human Development Index!"

In any case, please, make sure that you clearly define your indicators and their relative weights in the index; otherwise, it would be meaningless to comment or debate and it would be called blah-blah-bah. Thanks!

Reality is not simple enough that an index necessarily "means" or implies this or that!

You keep saying well-being. That means to be well off. Cash flow is crucial here and GDP per capita is one of the the primary criterions. I would give priority to GDP over the education index if I had to define the "well-being". "Development" is different however. When finding the development index GDP and education could be viewed as equal.

Yes, according to "Human Development Index" - a basket of indicators - Armenia ranks BETTER than Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan!

That just means that humans in Armenia are more developed than in Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, with education being the primary contributor to Armenia's lead in HDI.

In any case, it does NOT mean that we are in a WORSE condition, as the article above is trying to make believe! Please, let's stay focused!

No! It does not mean that "Armenia exports good human capital!!!!"

Just curious, how did you come to that conclusion?

style_images/master/snapback.png

It is simple. If your people are well educated and have high Human Development Index they leave the country if you don't create enough jobs (increase the GDP). And the article is correct in that sense.

 

The shocking thing about the article is not that it doesn't have truth in it. It is the level of hostility of the author (her BS-ed sources, general ignorance) that makes me personally question her motives. Also, not being a specialist on Caucasus she tried to portray her material as if it was a result of a deep analysis and not just random selective interviews.

[Armen]

For the record:

2004 GDP per capita (Armenia ranks BETTER than Azerbaijan and Georgia!)

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

That's just an estimate (notice est. in the end).

[Siamanto]

Siamanto, I can see your point about differences in using various indexes. It really depens what one means by "better" or "worse" in terms of a country's well being. However, by most standards (and that could be subjective too) Armenia is not ranked higher than its neighbors in terms of the overall state of the country.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Sasun,

What are those "standards???"

I will tell you whatever I've told Armen:

1- Define your indicators

2- Define your index and the relative weight of each indicator

3- Collect your data

4- Generate your report

 

ONLY LATER, you can make assertions! For now, I can't comment or debate about "standards" that are NOT defined, NOR EXIST!

 

Last but not least, there are two important indexes and one indicator that show that Armenian is ranked BETTER than its neighbors! I can only discuss existing data! Sorry!

 

2004 Human Development Index (Better than Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia!)

2004 Index of Economic Freedom (Comparable to France and South Korea!)

2004 GDP per capita (Armenia ranks BETTER than Azerbaijan and Georgia!)

 

Of course, we can discuss the value of the indexes, but not the RANKING!

That is the BOTTOM LINE!

Investors, market analysts and decision makers will go with well defined and understood indexes. They work for me!

 

 

 

 

The indexes that you are pointing out present the potentialities of Armenia - not a future guaranteed state of well being.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Are you saying that the GDP per capita is an estimate of future performance? Guys, what are you trying to prove? Let's discuss actual data!

2004 GDP per capita (Armenia ranks BETTER than Azerbaijan and Georgia!)

 

 

 

 

 

The factors behind the "Human development index" are important indeed, but have not yet produced a tangible result in Armenia.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Let's see: according to the 2002 data Armenia's GDP per capita was much lower than its neighbors and in 2004 higher!!! I don't know about you, but I consider the change as a "tangible" result!

It's working for me!

 

 

 

 

What Armen is saying is true - our best human resources leave the country, so we don't benefit much from our human development factors, although we do to a small degree.

style_images/master/snapback.png

If I remember correctly, we have discussed this subject at least 3,245,653 times during the last 6-10 years! We all are aware, nobody denies it. The FACTS are that DESPITE those unfortunate losses Armenia is NOT doing WORSE than it's neighbors AS THE ARTICLE ABOVE IS TRYING TO MAKE BELIEVE!

I will base my decision on respected indexes/indicators and state that:

ARMENIA IS DOING BETTER THAN ITS NEIGHBORS!

There is data that explains it!

Of course, as I have already said before, WE STILL HAVE A LOT TO DO!

 

 

 

 

 

What Armen is pointing out is the present state which is hardly better than our neighbor's, and in some indexes it is worse..

style_images/master/snapback.png

I keep on hearing about "indexes" and "standards" with no name, definition and data! What indexes?

 

 

 

 

 

I remember from our past discussions you comparing countries with firms, which is a valid way of reasoning I believe. But in my opinion there is one significant difference between the firm model and the coutnry model. A firm that has human resources and other potential resources, even if it may be producing no profit or negative profit, on a plain of normal, fair market conditions can be rightly valued highly as these potentialities have a large likelihood of turning into cash flow. And another firm that currently is profitable but has negative outlook for the future due to lack of management and poor human resources development maybe valued cheaper than the first type of a firm.

Now if you think about countries, or nation states, they don't operate on a free, fair competitive conditions. It is not a free market, it is more like a jungle where there is no rule of law, no fair competition, and right is with might and countries are treated differently and do not have equal rights. In other words, potentialities do not readily turn into cash. So therefore I think that even Armenia objectively has better human development it will not be valued highly by international entities until and unless the human development factors translate into more tangible factors.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Let's come back to this another time!

(Short answer!)

There may be some differences between macro level and micro level phenomena, but Equity Analysis, Risk Management and other principles and methods apply to both. Furthermore, it is fractal in nature!

Edited December 29, 2004 by Siamanto

[Sasun]

Siamanto, fair arguement on your part. OK, current GDP is not what I meant for potentialities. But the GDP difference between Armenia and Azerbaijan is really small. On the other hand, Azeris have oil that they only need to sell without any hard work. Of course, there is the pipeline issue hampering the sale of oin on their terms, but even then that is a potentiality that can be cashed today (or is it called selling short? I am not sure if this term is correct).

That aside, what I mean by other standards is unemployment rate, social inequality (I am not sure if there is an appropriate index for this), outmigration rate, percentage of people living under the poverty line, overall economy outlook which is negatively affected by lack of substantical natural resources and dual blockades, telecom monopoly, etc..

I will try to find indicators or other numbers as much as I can. I would appreciate if Armen could do that as I am too lazy But once I have the data I could analyze and report

[kakachik77]

That aside, what I mean by other standards is unemployment rate, social inequality (I am not sure if there is an appropriate index for this), outmigration rate, percentage of people living under the poverty line, overall economy outlook which is negatively affected by lack of substantical natural resources and dual blockades, telecom monopoly, etc..

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

At least we have gotten to a point to itemize the existing problems in Armenia after which hopefully some of these can be addressed and solved. What makes me upset though is the seeing things as "glass half-empty" phenomenon amongst many Armenians both in and outside of Armenia (is this is sign of national depression?). Some of the issues such as the 50% poverty, outmigration etc are easily solved specially with a small population such as in Armenia with such a small reproduction rate. I am not going to enlist how - most of you know, job creation, investment etc.

 

The lack of substantical natural resources never stopped the Japanese becoming the second economy in the world, perhaps it was their positive outlook on the future and innovative developmental solutions, I don't know. And in the mean time, countries like Iran, Nigeria which have oil have not necessarily gotten anywhere (please don't bring up "blaming everything on US" position either with Iran).

 

And finally, the blockade. Again, Turks are never going to let Armenia prosper if it was up to them with or without that blockade.

 

Good thread though, thanks for all the good comments, guys, this is just my outlook on things, one positive thinking Armenian here

 

Shnorhavor Nor Tari!

[Armen]

Stratfor.com

 

Armenia: The Crush of Global Pressures

December 28, 2004 1815 GMT

 

Summary

 

The former Soviet republic of Armenia, located at the crushing center

of a series of geopolitical tectonic plates, is on the cusp of a

massive change. But unlike many of the other former Soviet republics

that are choosing between Russia and the West, Armenia's choice is not

nearly as clear-cut -- and its future will be free of the decisive

paths that may be available to other states.

 

Analysis

 

Armenia is a former Soviet republic in trouble. Its economy holds

little prospect, its people are leaving in droves and its geopolitical

space is under siege. The one factor that has helped it keep its head

above water to date is Russian sponsorship. But, as Russia racks up

geopolitical defeats, that too could soon give way.

 

The South Caucasus that Armenians call home is where the Russian,

Turkish and Iranian geopolitical plates converge, putting the small

states there under enormous -- and continuous -- pressure. Georgia and

Azerbaijan have opted to look not just to Turkey next door, but also

to Europe and the United States. Such connections make Iran --

clerical regime or not -- hostile to both states, a factor that is

only enflamed when one considers that nearly a quarter of Iran's

population is actually of Azerbaijani ethnicity.

 

Armenia, for reasons of war, history, and the 1915 Armenian Genocide

by the Turks, naturally looks to Iran, and especially similarly

Orthodox Christian Russia to counterbalance itself against its hostile

eastern and western neighbors.

 

Under the Soviet system, Armenia received its oil from Azerbaijan and

traded (as part of the Soviet Union) with Turkey. As the Soviet era

ended, however, Armenia became embroiled in a war with Azerbaijan over

the fate of Nogorno-Artsax, a majority Armenian enclave within

Azerbaijani territory. Armenia -- or if you believe Yerevan's public

relations, Armenian volunteers supporting the Artsax Armenians --

won the war and continues to control a large western slice of

Azerbaijani territory contingent to it. But Turks, who consider

Azerbaijanis their ethnic kin based on historical, ethnic and

linguistic grounds, slapped on a near-total embargo, limiting

Armenia's trade options to only Georgia to the north and Iran to the

south.

 

Armenia has refused to negotiate down from this untenable geopolitical

position. After winning the Nogorno-Artsax war, Armenian leaders --

backed by a fiery nationalism that is quite popular among Armenians

within both the country and the diaspora -- have refused to seriously

negotiate a peace agreement with Azerbaijan that might end the

military standoff.

 

To be fair, the Azerbaijanis have not exactly been extending olive

branches either, but Baku believes that ultimately its oil and natural

gas revenues will allow it to build up a military force capable of

recapturing its lost territory. It likely is correct. Armenia, on the

other hand, is an economic basket case dependent upon diaspora support

for one-fifth of its gross domestic product. Nearly one-third of

Armenians have emigrated abroad to look for better opportunities since

independence in 1991, the sharpest population decline anywhere in the

world. Only three million remain. There are eight million Azerbaijanis

and 69 million Turks.

 

To sustain its political and military positions, Armenia largely is

dependent upon Russia, as the source of nearly all of its energy and

its de facto security guarantor. Russia's commitment to the Armenian

relationship will soon begin to falter, and with it, quite possibly

Armenia's chances for survival.

 

The dawning problem is one that Armenian President Robert Kocharian

has foreseen. In October 1999 there was a paramilitary attack against

the Armenian Parliament that resulted in the deaths of several members

of the country's mostly pro-Russian political faction; Russia took

advantage of the situation to send special forces troops in and cement

its political influence in the small country. The attack and Moscow's

reaction to it shook Kocharian's view of the Russians as a dependable

ally. After all, if the Russians could not prevent its most ardent

supporters from harm, and would take advantage of Armenian instability

to strengthen its grip, was Russian protection really worth it?

 

Kocharian, always a moderate on the issue of Russia, began quietly

reaching out to other potential power centers in an attempt to balance

foreign interests in Yerevan.

 

But the coming crisis has little to do with Armenian desires of

balance, and everything to do with a new world being forced upon the

small country. In 2005 the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline will

activate, and within two years its sister project, the Shah Deniz

natural gas pipeline, will most likely also enter operation. The two

parallel lines will transport Azerbaijani energy west through Georgia

and Turkey and then on to global markets. Azerbaijan and Georgia will

then be getting all of their energy needs from the two projects and

will no longer need to import any energy from Russia's Caucasian

network.

 

Once that happens, Armenia will no longer be able to depend upon

Russian deliveries. On one hand, the economics of maintaining the

network of supplying Armenia -- which does not even border Russia --

are questionable unless Russia can also ship petroleum to Azerbaijan

and Georgia. Economies of scale and all that.

 

More importantly, the Georgians are not particularly fond of Russians.

Once they have a reliable alternative to the purchase of Russian

natural gas, they are very likely -- just as the Moldovans,

Ukrainians, Belarusians and Transdnesiterians have done before them --

to siphon supplies bound for elsewhere (i.e. Armenia) from the Russian

supply line that crosses their territory. That will put Russia in the

awkward position of either subsidizing a geopolitical foe, or cutting

off supplies to Armenia to spite Georgia.

 

Even worse than the energy issue, Georgia may soon be causing problems

for Russia's military deployment in Armenia. Already Georgian

authorities -- with full Western support -- are blocking Russia from

resupplying and rotating new troops into its Georgian military base in

Akhalkalaki near the Armenian border. Once the Russians are forced out

of Akhalkalaki, as seems likely, it will become an open question

whether Tbilisi will impinge upon Russia's ability to keep its

Armenian forces supplied.

 

Either way Russia's most significant contributions to Armenian

security are about to fall into jeopardy, and, fate in the Caucasus

being a fickle thing, the Armenians must plan accordingly.

 

Armenia is preparing for a possible future without Russian sponsorship

in two ways. First, it is looking to its other traditional backer,

Iran, to fill the gap. The Armenians and the Iranians already are

putting together an alternative natural gas supply line to keep the

lights on in Yerevan. Unlike Russia, Iran actually borders Armenia, so

maintaining a new network is not an overburdening expense. Unlike the

massive trans-Caucasus network that connects Armenia to Russia, the

Iranian-Armenian project only requires a mere $30 million, 26-mile

pipe linking the countries' networks together.

 

But Iran can never be Russia: their cultures are too dissimilar and,

unlike Russia, Iran lacks the ability to project power in a way that

might dissuade Azerbaijan or Turkey from working against Armenia. Iran

favors Armenia over its Shiite compatriots in Azerbaijan because it is

concerned about maintaining supremacy over the Turkic minority within

its own country and as a lever to keep Azerbaijan and Turkey

physically separated. It is a relationship based upon mutual interest,

but unlike Azerbaijan and its Turkish sponsor, the two are not willing

to sacrifice anything -- certainly not blood -- for each other. Even

if they wanted to, their military projection capabilities are

questionable to say the least.

 

Military intimidation in the Caspian is something that has already

backfired horrendously on the Iranians. In 2001, Iran fired warning

shots at Baku-based ships prospecting near the Iranian-Azerbaijani sea

border. Turkey responded by helping Azerbaijan host military

exercises. When it was over, several advanced fighter jets, complete

with Turkish pilots, remained behind.

 

Undercutting the commitment of the gas line, Iran is even working to

pipe some Turkmen gas to the Armenian market so that should Armenia

default on its energy debts -- as it has in the past -- Iran will be

left holding the transit fees, but Turkmenistan the energy bill.

 

Second, Armenia is extending Washington a tentative hand, and what

better way to do it than to support the current administration's

primary international project? On Dec. 4, the Armenian Parliament

voted to empower Kocharian to send a small team -- 46 support

personnel -- to participate in the Iraqi occupation coalition. The

contingent will not be seeing any combat, and the entire affair has

been carefully orchestrated (with the United States paying for the

whole thing).

 

This puts Armenia on the long list of former Soviet republics and

clients which have sought to trade the Kremlin for the West: Estonia,

Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia,

Serbia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and most recently -- and loudly --

Ukraine.

 

Unlike all of these states, however, Armenia cannot fully choose the

Western path.

 

Armenia, unlike the states aforementioned states, is not

geographically proximate to the Western states. And unlike Azerbaijan

and Georgia (who share this characteristic), Armenia has no oil

(unlike Azerbaijan) and has missed out on its chance to be a transit

route that could ship petroleum westward (unlike Georgia).

 

Moreover, for Armenia to truly make a go at Westernizing, it would

have to bury the hatchet with Turkey and Azerbaijan, which would mean,

at a minimum, withdrawing the bulk of its forces -- volunteers -- from

internationally-recognized Azerbaijani territory. In addition to that

being a non-starter at home, it would enrage the Armenian diaspora,

endangering the one international advantage that Armenia enjoys; the

diaspora's economic support is the only thing that keeps the Armenian

economy in its pseudo-functional shape.

 

This commits Armenia to strategic ambiguity out of circumstance rather

than design. Russia is being cut off, the West is for all practical

purposes out of reach, and Iran is so fundamentally different that

though Armenia can be a good neighbor it could never really be a

client. Winds of change are blowing in Armenia. Russia is more

strategically distant than ever, and the West's strategy of triggering

soft revolutions a la Georgia and Ukraine has proven reliable.

Armenia's next presidential elections are in 2006.

 

Winds of change are blowing in Armenia; it is not clear whether

Armenia will survive them.