Armenia and Russia

[Boghos]

I think that part of the reason why Armenia´s economy has improved in the past few months is that oil prices have been relatively high, leaving Russia with much more money that they have had in the previous years. Given the closennes of the two economies it is reasonable to assume that part of this money tricles down to Armenia. Be it because Armenians in Russia do a bit better and are able to send more money home or because Russian, and Russo-Armenian investments get an additional boost. Granted we are probaly talking about small amounts of money, but for Armenian any marginal increase can have substantial effects. Were it not the assassinations, and all the uncertainty that it caused, Armenian would probably be doing much better.

 

Any comments ? Berj, any insights ?

[Berj]

Boghos,

 

I don't think Armenia's economy has improved even for a iota. I judge the improvment of economy by making sure that the salleries in the budgetary organisations, pensions etc. have increased. Nothing of this kind has occurred yet. The only indice that increased was the figure of industial output. It is conditioned by the re-functioning of several big plants (p.e. the Kanaz aluminium plant), creation of some joint-ventures in software and tourism industry.

 

I don't believe in Armenias tourism industry as a major source of budgetary incomes (which was declared one last year), beacuse tourism developes only in safe regions. Armenia, or the Transcaucasia as a whole, can develop tourism only in 2 cases:

1. Russia collapses furthermore, totaly losing control over anything in Trascaucasia and the EU structures start functioning.

2. US moves out of the region leaving the control to Russia and the EU.

 

Russia's oil export in 2000, for the first time in the last decade, has reached the level of pre Soviet Union break up period and it's going to increase furthermore. It's crucial for Russia to invest all this oil money into industry and not to lose it on conflicts etc.

So, if nothing happens in the regions, where Russia has geopolitical interest (Balkans, Trascaucasia, Afganistan), it will manage to do so. Otherwise we will go through a decade

of regional conflicts in the noted above regions.

 

Armenia will depends on Russia and the former SU countries as potential markets of its heavy industry products IF WE DECIDE TO DEVELOP THESE SECTORS (currently our aluminium, rubber etc. are being exported to Russia, Ukrain, Belorus). The other partners are the EU (specifically Belguim) where we export the dimonds (note that for the export of diamonds you need a suitcase only) and the US (export of software, brandy, dry fruits, jams etc.).

 

If we decide that tourism and software are to become the main sectors of our economy we must wait for approx. 10-15 years for uncertain results.

 

I have read in the news that the US is discussing to open its Alaska oil fields and increase its sales in Latin America. This is an indicator that the Central Asia oil boom may be delayed.

[MJ]

Berj,

Just two comments:

1. Under proper administrative decisions, the software industry in Armenia may be elevated into a qualitatively much higher level in some 4-5 years, while producing significant results in the mean time;

2. The Central Asian Oil would be of interest to the US no matter what - if nothing else, at least so that to diversify the sources of supply, and not to be overly dependent on one source. But, in my view, it will depend on the progress in the political domain - primarily the improvement of American-Iranian relations, which would be very good for Armenia in a very big picture (It seems that improving the relations with Iran occupies a central role in the agenda of the current administration.)

[Berj]

MJ,

1.Let's assume that Armenia will become a new Silicon Valley in 4-5 years... (the answer to why I don't believe that is in point 2).

2.Not to be dependent on 1 source. But US already has the Middle East, Venezuela, Nigeria ect. From the discussion in "Energy resources and regional geopolitics" I can see that it needs more and more. Central Asia is the last big oil field. And lot of developing countries need that oil, including Iran. What consequences will bring the imrovement of US-Iran relations? Will the US do it as a silk-revolution (which they cannot), or by simply saying "We like you". How are they going to make Iran, Turkey, Syria and Isreal to leave peacefully under their umbrella? If their push on Central Asia becomes too strong, Russia and China will oppose that by any means. This, and the decission to open the Alaska oil fields brings to conclusion that the US policy in the region is more adventurist than peaceful.

[MJ]

2.Not to be dependent on 1 source. But US already has the Middle East, Venezuela, Nigeria ect. From the discussion in "Energy resources and regional geopolitics" I can see that it needs more and more. Central Asia is the last big oil field. And lot of developing countries need that oil, including Iran. What consequences will bring the imrovement of US-Iran relations? Will the US do it as a silk-revolution (which they cannot), or by simply saying "We like you". How are they going to make Iran, Turkey, Syria and Isreal to leave peacefully under their umbrella? If their push on Central Asia becomes too strong, Russia and China will oppose that by any means. This, and the decission to open the Alaska oil fields brings to conclusion that the US policy in the region is more adventurist than peaceful.

 

It is easy to have Syria, Israel and Turkey to coexist peacefully. The only major problem between Syria and Israel is the destiny of Golan Heights. I think there is solution to it, and it would be achieved in this decade – Israel returns the Golan Hights, and robust some guaranties are being given to Israel that it is going to be a demilitarized zone. The relations between Syria and Turkey are contingent upon two factors – the territorial claims that Syria has towards Turkey, and the water usage restrictions from Ephrata river imposed on Syria by Turkey, as far as I understand. This is a more difficult problem, however, I think it is solvable.

 

The relations between Iran and Israel are most difficult. But they are primarily of emotional character, rather than of economic or political. The development of their relationship depends on the domestic transformations in Iran, in my view. Both countries would benefit tremendously if they establish economic relationship.

The only way Russia may hamper the Western plans of access to the energy sources of Central Asia is through civil unrest, and threatening the security of the pipelines. This is possible, but it is also very possible that if they get a stake in the game, they may be more accommodating – I tend to believe in this scenario more than in anything else.

China can intervene in one way only – offering its markets to the Central Asian governments as an alternative to the Western Markets. But it would require very significant capital investments to develop the necessary pipeline, etc, infrastructure. Whether China has that capacity or not, I don’t know, and I suspect it doesn’t.

 

With all this, while the uncertainty at hands may have impact at other sectors of the Armenian Economy, I think the Software industry would be the least dependent.

[nairakev]

Berj, if Russia collapses furthermore, totaly losing control over anything in Trascaucasia, Armenia will find itself in the epicentre of more bitter conflicts. Russia is more important for Armenia geopoliticaly than any other world power (EU or US)

[Berj]

Why?

P.S. Hello, wecome.

[nairakev]

I think the importance of Russia (as a world power) for Armenia goes deep in the past. Armenia was backed often by Russia. Forgotten by Russia as well. But almost never abandonned. Russia is still playing the role of major armenian partner. The nuclear power station (though debts) was re-launched mostly by russian assistance. We know that French and US have taken a part in it as well. But Russia's role in relaunch of Nuclear Power station was one of those we name "vital".
Secondly, I don't know if you remember this incident in the summit of Artsax conflict, when armenians have advanced in taking of Shusha and some azerbaijani territories as well, in order to buffer Nagorno-Artsax from regularly organised offences by azeri army. Turkey pulled his army to frontier and started to provoke the situation on armenian-turkish border.
They have shot 2 rockets which exploded near Yerevan. Later on, Turkish military officials had brought their excuses, by justifying this so-called "incident" with the fact of military excersises near armenian border.

I don't remember the name of the top Russian Authority representative who had arrived to Yerevan, during this incident. He had warned Turkey, that incidents like this in a region involved in long-lasting conflict, would be seen mostly like provoke than an "accident". And Leter russia and armenia started to sign several agreements on military partnership and cooperation.

Lately, someone told me an anecdote about the confrence held by that russian government representative. To a question of a western journalist, on how will russia react to this incident, if it happens again, he responded: 'Russia organises military exercises around turkish border as well. So it can happen that some of our rockets will reach Ankara neighbourhood accidentely."
It is an anecdote. I won't affirm or deny that this was said. I didn't assist to that press-conference.
But this anecdote wasn't told by a hasard.
Russia is still Armenia sole military partner and protector in conflict (if there will be such) with Iran or Turkey.
Turkey is tied with western countries by NATO agreement. And I don't think that EU or USA will do anything to protect Armenia from Turkey's possible agression.
Besides you know that in 1974 Turkey has occupied the Northern Cyprus. USA and European countries have protested. Turkey warned USA that it will loose its contract for its millitary bases in Anatolia. At that time, USA-USSR were in deep confrontation called Cold War. So US gave up. I'm quiet confident that US and EU as well will rather give up Armenia, than Turkey.
Go figure why? :-)

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: naira ]

[MJ]

Dear Naira,

 

Let me first remind you the renowned statement of General-Governor Golitsin of Caucasus of the time: “We need Armenia without Armenians.”

 

As to never abandoning Armenia, the Genocide of Armenia in the Eastern provinces of Anatolia has resulted from the abandonment of the Armenians by the Russians. There are very telling eyewitness accounts about this.

 

It is true that Russia has been the primary party assisting Armenia in launching the Nuclear power station, contrary to the opposition of USA. However, primarily, that assistance has been manifested through providing Armenia with a line of credit to purchase nuclear fuel from Russia, i.e. the loans that are being given to Armenia for the purpose of functioning the nuclear plant are used to pay Russia to purchase fuel, and plus, Armenia makes (not very regularly though) interest payments on that loan.

 

What I want to say is it is hard to see the Russian military presence in Armenia as partnership. The partnership is possible only amongst the equal. As to the protectionism, I think it is incorrect to call the party who creates the need to be protected in the first place protectionist, if that party is who has cornered Armenia and deprived her from other alternatives. The logic of Russian protectionism of Armenia reminds me someone killing the parents of a kid, and than adopting the orphan and claiming credit for providing the orphan with living. Don’t forget that the implementation of the Sevres Treaty was sabotaged by Russia, only, and it was Russia who pulled Turkey out of the deep hole and inspired and financed its expedition towards Armenia, meanwhile attacking Armenia from two other fronts – the North and the South of Armenia.

 

Also remember that the problem of Karabagh, as well as the Azeri-Armenian problems by in large, have been created by Russia in the first place.

 

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[nairakev]

Berj,
I thought the question was : "Why Russia is more important for Armenia than other world powers?" May be I didn't succeed to explain my position. But I'll be short this time on this issue.
Russia is more important for Armenia because of economic, social and political ties which date from the time of Turkmenchai Treaty, if not before that. For the time being Russia is the only Armenia's partner (I'd insist on the word partner, than anything else), who is engaged to protect it military in case of war or agression.

Turkey along with Azerbaijan are viewed actually as the No.1 possible agressors for Armenia's military commandment and government. I won't go on explaining the reasons, I think they should be evident.

Turkey is a member of NATO alliance, where US and most of EU countries are present.

After taking this two facts if you'll try to make a prelimianry analysis, putting aside personal preferences, what will be your objective counclusion on this issue?

Who is more important Armenia's partner among major world powers?
------------------

Besides, it is absurd to blame Russia in the outcome of Armenian Genocide. Russia was engaged in war with Turkey during massacres. Do not forget that Russia lived many interior cataclismes during the WWI (Revolution, hunger, civil war till 1924). Before making statements and accusing Russia in favouring Armenian Genocide take a serious look on turnarround of events of that time. One thing is for sure that bolsheviks were never fond of Independent and strong Armenia. In part Artsax, Genocide could be part of responsibility of Lenin and many other bolshevik leaders.

---------------
As the matter of fact, Russia was pulled into a long-lasting bloody civil war, where Russians suffered as well under Bolshevik totalitarism. Do not mix Bolsheviks with Russians, that's will be my advice, while looking on your fast conclusions.

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: naira ]

[MJ]

Naira,

 

I assume you meant to address your reply to me (Martin), not to Berj. Nice try, I should say, but let me disagree with you, please.

 

From the times of Turkemenchai treaty and on, the Armenian experience with Russia has been one of a disappointment. True, it was Armenians’ initiative to bring Russians to the region, however, for the purpose of liberating Armenia, not for the purpose of replacing one yoke with another. How smart of politicians our ancestors have been is a different story, but the fact remains that Armenia didn’t obtain the promised or expected sovereignty with the help of the Russians. As to the importance of the economic ties, given that the economy of Armenia has collapsed, I guess one can downplay that issue, too, in our days.

As far as protecting Armenia from aggression is concerned, I am inclined to take that comment with a little bit of humor. In fact, much of the hostility towards Armenia is motivated by it political proximity to Russia.

 

It is hard for me to see Azerbaijan as an aggressor against Armenia for the time being, at least. This was a common mentality/psychology in the past, but the subsequent events have come to show that this type of mentality is taken way out of proportions. I think this assertion is evident, and can be supported by the current status quo.

 

As to Turkey, it is a more complicated issue – one that requires a lot of new thinking, in my view. And Turkey’s alliance with NATO is very beneficial for Armenia, I think.

 

After taking these two facts (as well as some others) into consideration and making a preliminary analysis, putting aside my personal preferences, my objective conclusion on this issue is that Armenia has to conduct policy of complimentarity and balance in the region. Not being a major power, it has to have a very flexible foreign policy, it should not repeat the mistakes of the past, and has to tend to become facilitator of regional collaboration, peace and stability.

 

Who is Armenia's more important partner among major world powers? My answer is no one and everyone. Anyone with whom Armenia may share common interests in one or another area. In the cultural domain it may be one country, in the economic domain it may be another one.

 

I don’t think it is absurd to blame Russia for its share of the Armenia Genocide. It is just a simple fact that they have abandoned Armenians helplessly in the eastern provinces of Anatolia. They could’ve done better then that. They could’ve at least helped the local population to defend itself what was to be obvious from the subsequent repercussions of the Ottomans. But their answers to the Armenian please were “We don’t have time.” They have clearly understood the destiny of these Armenians. Not much of partnership, is it?

 

And I agree that Russia was in the middle of major cataclysms during the WWI, as you mention. But with the same token, Turkey was in the middle if such cataclysms, too. It is also incorrect, i think, to claim that Bolsheviks have never been for strong and independent Armenia. In fact, in 1919 they have been for it, under a certain scenario. But the Armenian government has not been able to play its cards. But let me ask you: Was the Russian Empire for strong and Independent Armenia?

 

As far as Karabagh is concerned, Lenin and other Bolsheviks have not done anything different than what the Russian Empire has done – as a matter of fact, the Karabagh problem has been created by the Russian Empire, among others. The Bolsheviks have just continued the policy of the Russian Empire in Caucasus.

 

You say “As the matter of fact, Russia was pulled into a long-lasting bloody civil war, where Russians suffered as well under Bolshevik totalitarianism.” This sounds very much unison with the Turkish dismissals of the Armenian Genocide, according to which there was a civil was, and Muslims like Christians have suffered in it. In fact, the numbers of suffered Muslims is greater than those of Christians...

 

It is hard not to mix Bolsheviks with the Russians, as much as some may want to prevent it, and as much as I understand, perhaps, the pretext of your advice. Socialism/communism and the revolutionary movements were characteristic to the entire Europe at the time. In fact, these movements have started in Germany and France. For quite some time, it has been believed that these movements may be materialized first in Germany – something that even the books of the History of CPSS have taught us. However, subsequently it has been recognized that it has much greater chances in the most backward country of Europe, where the nationalism has been rampant, and its territorial-imperialistic structure has been most vulnerable to such revolutions due to the compact residence of national minorities on the terrain of their ancestral homeland.

 

While socialism and communism were indeed not Russian phenomena, its Bolshevistic form of manifestation was purely Russian phenomenon, and what came to rule for decades was a purely Russian form of totalitarianism. As a matter of fact, the Bolshevism has been the remedy of the Russian Empire to preserve its dominance on the same traditional domain. The history of the victory of the Bolsheviks, under the circumstances when they were in reality an absolute minority in Russia, and the embracing of the Bolshevik rule by the old Czarist Guard of the Russian Empire has one explanation only – the Russian nationalists came to understand that the Bolshevism was the only way to preserve, moreover, to strengthen their empire.

 

Be gentle with me, please.

 

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[nairakev]

wow, MJ!

I liked your point of view on Modern Armenia. It doesn't have to make preferences among world powers. I love this point. That's for I am. But that also my fault to think that Armenia will be allowed to act easily without special preferences. Sincerely, I like the policy of Kocharyan regarding international affairs. Actually he is trying to do what are you were saying. But it is not that easy. We know why. Since there has been a rivality between major powers (US, EU, Russia, China and Japan), Armenia won't be able to handle a "Bonjour Tout le Monde!" policy, it should definetely make some outlined preferences when it comes to military cooperation and economic cooperation. If Armenia won't make its choices, there would be two options: international isolation, or rather major powers will ask to make a choice.

The wold diplomatic traditions is based on treaties and agreements. Armenia's international affairs line is seen by its signed treaties and agreements. Armenia doesn't have that "chic voisinage" as Switzerland.

 

It can't be neutral or friendly with the whole world. No state will allow that. At least nowdays. To think that Armenia will be able to handle the game with all at the same time is a utopia. Armenia's ambitions are too delicate to stay untied and friendly in with all in the region. We want realise it or we don't, the fact is that we have actually two countries (neighbouring countries) who are our let's say "unofficial" enemies. Armenia cannont "conduct policy of complimentarity and balance in the region" while two states have serious reclamations regarding Armenia.

 

Excluding Azerbaijan as a potential agressor is a huge mistake. Azerbaijan will seek its revanche. We do not have to forget about it. We should continue to negotiate but never exclude the fact of possible agression from Azerbaijan or Turkey.

 

This is a very good point made by you "Who is Armenia's more important partner among major world powers? My answer is no one and everyone. Anyone with whom Armenia may share common interests in one or another area. In the cultural domain it may be one country, in the economic domain it may be another one. " I loved this the most. Again this is the ideal situation. But who will allow Armenia to follow this line. There are many underground springs that we do not see, because we are not told about the whole game that Armenian government does play with major powers.

 

"It is hard not to mix Bolsheviks with the Russians..." may be its hard also not to mix Bolsheviks and Armenians. Armenians were bolsheviks as well. And the red revolution in Armenia was organised mostly by red Armenians... Is this a typo, or you objective position?

[MJ]

Yes, Naira, it is not easy, but, nevertheless, that’s our best strategy. Nothing is easy for us, therefore we should give up on the desire of finding easy solutions, I think.

 

I am not quite sure about the military preferences you hint on. It would be better not to have any military preferences, or if we have to have, than to allow military bases of NATO-Russia-Iran on the Armenian terrain, which would provide the region with a new mechanism of implementation of collective regional security. As to the economy, in economy “money talks.” In this sense, what does Russia have to offer to Armenia?

 

Contrary to your statements, I think the superpowers do indeed want tranquility in our region. It is the dominance of one or another power that introduces irritations and concerns in the other side, and as a result, “Shepki letiat, kogda les rubiat.” Therefore, some new models of regional security may be possible, and very beneficial for all.

 

What are Armenia’s ambitions? May be that’s where some adjustments have to be made? And maybe than, the complimentarity may become a very real possibility? BTW, who has reclamations against Armenia?

 

Azerbaijan has other problems on its plate, before it may think of aggression. If anything, it is absurd for them to talk “aggression,” since a significant chunk of its territory is under Armenian control. Additionally, aggressions have context. What would the context of the Turkish aggression against Armenia be, you think?

 

Dear Naira, let me turn the table around, and ask: who will not allow Armenia to follow the line of diversification of its preferences? Russia?

 

To the contrary what you claim about the underground springs and the games the Armenian government plays, I think that game is very transparent.

 

And yes, there were Armenian Bolsheviks. Armenians are frequently more Catholic than the Pope. That has been one of our major problems throughout history. But there has never been a “red revolution” in Armenia. There has been only “red demoralization” of Armenia, and a “red invasion” of Armenia under very complicated circumstances.

 

It was not a typo. It was my objective position resulted from my assessment of our history, and the dismissal of the made-up clichés.

 

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[nairakev]

a significant chunk of its territory is under Armenian control
Isn't this a reason for a reclamation or agression?
Turkey demands Armenia as well to drop down Genocide recognition question. Isn't it a reclamation.

I would love so easily, as you imagine, Armenian authorities to handle their international affairs.

Military agreements we need as never! Instead of building a Church for commemoration 1700 years of Chritianity it could be a good deal to buy some more tanks and arms.

I would sound like a pro-militarist. I'm not afraid of that. One thing is essential for me. The way Armenia is protected. I don't think that Armenia is military capable to stand serious agression.

I underline again, the possibility of agression will always for Armenia. This region is very unstable. We don't know either what can happen to Iran, if once it will get shaked by political changes.

Armenia is ituated in a very shaky environment. It should pay lots of attention to its protection.

I think the superpowers do indeed want tranquility in our region.
That's logic. They can't say we want the war continue. At the same time they have closed eyes on terrestrial blockus of Armenia.

[MJ]

a significant chunk of its territory is under Armenian control

Isn't this a reason for a reclamation or aggression?

But from their perspective it is not called aggression, is it?

 

Turkey demands Armenia as well to drop down Genocide recognition question. Isn't it a reclamation.

No, in fact it is more of a defensive act from their side.

Military agreements we need as never! Instead of building a Church for commemoration 1700 years of Christianity it could be a good deal to buy some more tanks and arms.

Good girl!

I would sound like a pro-militarist. I'm not afraid of that. One thing is essential for me. The way Armenia is protected. I don't think that Armenia is military capable to stand serious aggression.

Therefore, we need new (collective) security structures, don’t we?

I underline again, the possibility of aggression will always for Armenia. This region is very unstable. We don't know either what can happen to Iran, if once it will get shaken by political changes.

Therefore, we have to do whatever possible to stabilize the region, and not to depend on Iran’s or somebody else’s domestic makeup.

Armenia is situated in a very shaky environment. It should pay lots of attention to its protection.

Sure, but how? By militarizing itself or trying to demilitarizing the region?

I think the superpowers do indeed want tranquility in our region.

That's logic. They can't say we want the war continue. At the same time they have closed eyes on terrestrial blockades of Armenia.

 

Let’s find extra-terrestrial openings, then.

[nairakev]

quote

Let’s find extra-terrestrial openings, then.

LOL

you are as crazy as I am. Sorry! I went too far.

[nairakev]

(I thought)a significant chunk of its territory is under Armenian control

Isn't this a reason for a reclamation or aggression?

(you thought)

But from their perspective it is not called aggression, is it?

Exacttly. This is how it is consumed by azeri politicians. An agression by Armenia. That's why they will look for revange. I don't doubt a minute, if Baku will feel itself a bit in the right 'plate' it will organise a huge offensive.

 

 

Therefore, we need new (collective) security structures, don’t we?

Armenia is already a part of collective secirity structures (with Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan)

If you mean collective security structures with Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran (closest neighbours). It's impossible! At least for now. See below.

 

(i thought)

Turkey demands Armenia as well to drop down Genocide recognition question. Isn't it a reclamation.

(you thought)

No, in fact it is more of a defensive act from their side.

Let me, put it another way.

It is not a defensive act from Turkey it is a condition imposed by Turkey for peaceful cohabitation.

 

(my thought)Armenia is situated in a very shaky environment. It should pay lots of attention to its protection.

(your thought)

Sure, but how? By militarizing itself or trying to demilitarizing the region?

Good point. As most of neighbours do not go a lot arround phylosophical reflection on "demilitarisation". Armenia is obliged to get militarised. Do you imagine, Turkey or Iran demilitarising. Even if it will be Russia, asked by Armenia, to make these proposals. Do you really believe in it? I don't think Armenia should rop the idea of demilitarisation, but, at least, it should not forget in any case, that such illussions can turn out fatal. Militarisation? Yes. For self-defense purposes. As claims Turkey all the time round. ;-) Yeah. For self-defense purposes, tell me! The second largest army in NATO.

[MJ]

I don't doubt a minute, if Baku will feel itself a bit in the right 'plate' it will organize a huge offensive.

 

I also don’t doubt it. But I am confident that, if need to be, we can deal with it without any external assistance. We have done it a couple of times in history, at least.

 

If you mean collective security structures with Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran (closest neighbors). It's impossible! At least for now. See below.

 

In fact, I meant broader collective security pact. The one that you mentioned is not a security, at all, in my view. I also think that we should not confine ourselves in the parameters of what seems a possibility right now. So that things become possible in the future, we may need to plant the seeds today.

 

It is not a defensive act from Turkey it is a condition imposed by Turkey for peaceful cohabitation.

 

But not for staging aggression against us, but what in their view, however erroneous it may be, to protect their territorial integrity from whatever threats.

 

Do you imagine, Turkey or Iran demilitarizing. Even if it will be Russia, asked by Armenia, to make these proposals. Do you really believe in it?

 

No, I don’t believe in it. But no militarization can benefit Armenia, anyway. In fact the militarization of Armenia would mean Armenia without Armenians. But I believe that a more profound and balanced multilateral parity may be established in the region based on the principle of complimentarity and serving everybody’s interests. And I believe that, under proper circumstances, Armenia may be the base and the model-state of new collective security and stability in the region-in-large.

[MJ]

The dreamer I am …, Naira.

 

But you have misunderstood me. I believe neither in the “coolness” of our neighbors nor in Russia’s role on the capacity of Armenia’s Guardian Angel. But I do believe in achieving stability through parity. The danger always exists when one of the sides achieves disproportionate influence in a particular region, which is of interest to others, too. And guess what – that is the road of Armenia to misery, and it always has been.

 

Additionally, a dialog between Armenian and Turkish authorities exist. Sure, there are no tangible results, and it is very slow. In my view, that pace depends on the progress of the dialog between America and Iran. This is the axis around which the geopolitical transformation of our region will take place, if any.

 

Additionally, it is not Armenia who might pronounce the realization of what I have been hinting on. Armenia may just “host” the structure of parity, and promote it through its political activism. It is up to the regional and International powers to realize it.

 

As to the vitality of the issue of security – sure, it is vital for all countries of the region.

 

As to USA-Mexico, I am sure that you know that USA has kicked out a lot of territories from Mexico, however they have civilized relationship, and in some ways, Mexico is taking back these territories.

 

And, ss a matter of fact, the Turkish-Armenian issue is not fragile, contrary to Greek-Turkish issue, and the other issues you have mentioned. It is rather darn dead. The fragility assumes delicate balance. There is no balance, whatsoever, in Armenian-Turkish relations. In fact there is nothing other than irrational and artificial tension for internal reasons. I don’t exclude a possibility of Turkish aggression, however you have not provided me (I have asked for it) with a context for that potential aggression.

 

However, what I am suggesting is not so much about thinking what do we do when that aggression takes place, but how to eliminate the pretext and the possibility of the aggression, in the first place. Let this be my illusion, but I don’t see anything that Armenia has to gain from becoming a supermilitarized base of other states, whose interests don’t necessarily coincide (at least not to a substantial degree) with our own, and who would as always, create tension, and dump us in the middle of it anytime their interests may dictate it.

And I would prefer having illusions myself than feeding the nation with illusions, according to which some big uncle-foreign-state is going to serve as Armenia’s Guardian Angle. That illusion has resulted in millions of innocent Armenian lives throughout the last four centuries. Maybe it is enough?

[nairakev]

I don’t exclude a possibility of Turkish aggression, however you have not provided me (I have asked for it) with a context for that potential aggression.
The context for me resides in Turkey military machine, which did make a proof of its efficiency during the envasion of Cyprus.
The Cyprus invasion pretext was the protection of unprotected civilians of turkish origin.
That could be a reasonable pretext. But in noway, we can accept Turkey take self-determined decesions. This was one. The existence of international organisations was just ignored. No measure taken to solve this conflict without intervention.
So. If Armenia and Azerbaijan will have any new escalation of war arround Artsax. Turkey won't think a long way to cross the border and advance to Artsax.
This is not a fairy tale. This is what was going to happen once. And the only reason why Turkey didn't go further, was the threat of Russian presence.

I don't want you to beleive, that I'm somehow protecting Russia's patronising Armenia.
I hate the idea of military presence of russians in Armenia as well.
But that's smth real, that's smth that Armenia has today. And for its and its partners interests as well.

If Armenian government didn't desire the settlement of Russian millitary bases in Armenia, it could fairly negotiate this issue with Russians. Why do you think Russians are in Armenia? It is not only because they wanted, but also because Armenian government wanted them as well. US never intervened in this issue. I'm sure that Armenia wouldn't have mind any possible negotiations on this issue with US either. But there are some zones of interest. Outlined during the Cold War. And I'm afraid this zones will keep staying drawn for a while.

[MJ]

Don’t forget that the context of Turkish invasion of Cyprus was provided by the Greeks, themselves. It was quite real – not made out by the Turks.

 

And so that there are no unilateral decisions in our region, we do need collective security structures.

 

What international organizations were you referring to in your posting? The UN? If yes, it is not a security structure, but rather a moral court or place to chat.

 

Do you think Turkey is really interested in the Karabagh issue? And if the security structures I recommend were in place, first, Armenia and Azerbaijan would not go to war over Karabagh, and second, Turkey would not unilaterally intervene.

 

I don’t see when was the Turkish invasion of Armenia going to happen. Do you have any serious evidence for it?

 

Don’t be defensive about your position. I enjoy talking to you.

 

But I don’t particularly mind the presence of Russian Army in Armenia. Under a proper model, I see no problem with it. I just don’t want Armenia to build its foreign policy paradigm based on that assumption.

I do agree with you about the zones of interest. But things are changing fundamentally in our region for few reasons:

 

1. Russia is not what it used to be;

2. Iran is changing (very slowly, though);

3. The transportations of oil, and more importantly of natural gas, is having profound impact on revisiting the issue of the importance of our region in the eyes of West.

 

I doubt that he old mentality of “zones of influence” may serve the region, and those (not) interested in the region for long time. Things would be sooner or later redrawn (I don't mean necessarily geographically).

 

[ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[nairakev]

(I asked)Do you imagine, Turkey or Iran demilitarizing. Even if it will be Russia, asked by Armenia, to make these proposals. Do you really believe in it?

 

(you thought)

No, I don’t believe in it. But no militarization can benefit Armenia, anyway. In fact the militarization of Armenia would mean Armenia without Armenians. But I believe that a more profound and balanced multilateral parity may be established in the region based on the principle of complimentarity and serving everybody’s interests. And I believe that, under proper circumstances, Armenia may be the base and the model-state of new collective security and stability in the region-in-large.

 

MJ, this sounds like "baba-cool" dream! Peace, marijuana and friendship!

Why the hell we should think about militarisation, we got some cool naighbours, that will understand any of our peaceful propositions.

 

We do not appear to establish any dialogue with turks. I mean Armenian and Turkish authorities. How do you imagine the realisation of what you did pronounce, without any existing dialogue. This is a very nice idea, what you have said. But Armenia and Turkey, it is not like USA-Mexico, USA-Canda, it's neither Turkey-Greece.

It's something fragile, that can burst into a new bloodshed. The security question is vital, it's like a question of energy and transport.

Do not allow yourself to be taken by illusions. I do not say that Armenia is under the danger of Turkish agression. But I do not exclude that possibility.

[MJ]

I thought you lived in Armenia, when the Karabagh war has started and the USSR lived his break-down.

 

I did.

 

There were years of chaos in Armenia, but also in every soviet republic. Russian governments were changing as far as physician's change their gloves. Azeris in Nakhichevan destroyed kilometers of Turkish and Iranian border.

 

I remember all that. In fact, I think the destruction of the Soviet borders in Nakhichevan played very well into our hands. Good that they did it.

 

Turkey had many times concentrated its army around the border.

 

That’s what the borders are for.

 

There were incidents of Turkish rockets come close to Yerevan. Of course, Turkish government explained this by "military exercises", "protection of border". In some cases that was true. But that's the official line.

 

I remember the incident. These things should not be taken out of their proportions. They happen everywhere and all the time. They are called ‘border incidents.”

 

I'm not going into the details to bring the day by day chronique between 1989-1991.

 

No need to. I can do it myself.

 

But these were the hard years. USSR was breaking into pieces, and the situation was disastrous. When I'm talking about Turkey's aggression in Cyprus. I meant NATO and UN, of course. Turkey ignored its NATO partners and UN resolutions as well.

 

Tell me about it. And who doesn’t neglect the UN resolutions?

 

I won't define UN as only "a moral court". UN has security structures as well. Not efficient but it has.

 

Yes, last time I checked their structures, indeed there seemed to be security structure in it, too, other than the structures providing its employees with free car parking in the center of New York.

 

After all, I don't see why Greece should be blamed in provoking Turkey. Secondly, I don't see why Turkey got caught by provokes. It is not an excuse. By the way it's Turkey occupying the North of Cyprus, not Greece.

 

I didn’t say Greece, right. I think I said the Greeks. Though, if politically accurate, I should’ve said the Government of Cyprus. But those were not innocent provocation right? Those were actions of the type that Azeris had committed in Baku against Armenians. Do you feel that if Armenia was in position of Turkey, it would’ve necessarily behaved differently?

 

On your question "Do you think Turkey is really interested in the Karabagh issue?" I'd say, why not. Turkey's ambitions go further than Karabagh.

 

Somehow, I don’t see that.

 

I liked when recently Georgians and Azeri accused Armenian diplomacy in paranoia. Because Georgia and Turkey were holding military negotiations.

 

What did you like about it?

 

I'd prefer honestly to be accused in paranoia and prevent any military syndicalism, than seating around and watching "world events".

 

I think I should also stop watching the “world events.”

 

Though you seem kinda dude, calm relaxed about Armenia. Like if Armenia was 300 miles from the US border.

 

What should I do? Panic? But I am not relaxed. Unfortunately, I am much disturbed – as if I live in Armenia. I also think that dealing with the everyday troubles of Armenia requires more than “kazhdodnevnaia mishinaia voznia.” These troubles have to be dealt on a large-scale basis, and the solutions should be searched outside the traditional mentality, since our traditional mentality is a recipe for more troubles.

 

America was left already once to hold dialogues with Iran. And one of such dilogues ended-up by "Irangate scandale".

How about the Russian scandals? Should one also be concerned about not leaving Russia alone with Armenia? What should we expect from Russia? Do you have any good expectations?

 

I won't be as positive as you are about US position in the region. With the arrival of Bush, one can say there won't be any position at all. I'm not surprised that this idiot got the power in this country, with the level of education that dominates in the US. There will be some more Bushes I guess.

 

For whatever reasons, I see the US position in the region being more positive than it has ever been. Why is it that you think that Bush is an idiot, and I don’t see it? Is it his lack of arrogance, and his simple speech that make him such an easy target? I proudly can report that I have voted for that ‘idiot’ and have been satisfied with his level of education – Bachelors degree from Yale, and MBA from Harvard. I am also very satisfied with his conduct in the office, and his performance so far, and am hopeful for more of his accomplishments.

I also think very highly of the education level of Americans, if by that we don’t mean erudition. America is the cutting edge country as far as the technological revolution is concerned, or as far as the advances of the medical, biological and other sciences are concerned. America sets the tone of renovations and rationalism in the world. America is the country, which pushes forward the frontiers of human knowledge and drags along the rest of the world. It is a strong, prosperous and capable country ahead of every other country, pretty much in every significant aspect of life, business and economy. It is the leading economy of the world. All this has become possible with the “uneducated” people that it has, and its “idiot” presidents throughout history. It is the only, perhaps, leading country in the world, that has not practiced colonialism and imperialism, and has not plundered some other nation’s wealth. It is the locomotive that pulls the rest of the world. No wonder that others dislike it… But we could make a comparative analysis, if we need to…

 

BTW, your education level doesn't seem to be 'american'. I feel some foreign influences in it.

 

You are right. In fact, it is an alien influence, shaped by an extra-terrestrial civilization.

 

P.S. Naira, sorry about the format of my answers. Given my time restrictions, today, this was the best I could come with.

 

[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[alpha]

An interesting article in the Opinion Section of LA Times about the education of our beloved idiot president.

 

The Forrest Gump of Presidents

 

By DREW LIMSKY

 

I teach English and writing at various colleges in New York City. Many of my students overcome serious hardships to attend. Some work full-time jobs or care for young children; others have parents who are absent or ill, drug-addicted or in prison. The vast majority of my students complete their work and graduate. Just about all of them make better grades than George W. Bush made at Yale, but I doubt that any of them will go on to be president. They don't have the luck.

You don't have to be an educator to be sickened by Bush's irreverent remarks at the Yale University commencement last week. "President Bush has explained his uncomfortable relationship with his alma mater as a distaste for Ivy League elitism," wrote one reader of the New York Times, "but what could be more elitist than bragging about how you napped through four years of college?" A writer to the Los Angeles Times, incensed at Bush's flip tribute to the " 'C' students,"--"You, too can be president of the United States"--observed, "I'm sure the Yalies who worked hard for their academic success were delighted to be reminded that Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney's microscopic collective in no way prevented them from riding into the White House on the shoulders of others."

Trying to be modest, Bush instead came off as smug and spoiled in his commencement address. With tuitions skyrocketing, contempt for one's own college education is a luxury few can afford. When my students are dissatisfied with a grade, they beg, plead, complain and cajole. I don't think many of them smirk, because they know that, for many of them, the difference between academic success and academic failure is not, as it was for our president, the difference between a JD and an MBA, but the difference between a white collar and a job at Burger King.

Bush could always afford to smirk in the face of his scholarly failings, because such a trifle as grades was never going to affect, much less determine, his future. His story was written by his name, his money, his family. He alluded to as much in his speech. Though his self-deprecating jokes about poor marks, snoozing in the library and booze-induced blackouts have gotten most of the press, perhaps even more troubling was his stated belief that "Life ....writes its own story. And along the way, we start to realize we are not the author."

That's a breathtaking statement for the president of the United States to make. So many of the essays I assign my freshmen deal with overcoming adversity, and encourage them to rise to life's challenges and control their own destinies. "Circumstances don't create character," I tell my students, "they reveal character." In her famous essay "On Self-Respect," Joan Didion wrote that "the willingness to take responsibility for one's own life ... is the source from which self-respect springs." I think this message speaks to my students, but I'm not sure if Bush would appreciate it.

He has not been the author of his own life. Circumstances allowed him to "fail upward" and retain his unshakable optimism. Circumstances led him to Yale, to wealth, to the presidency. Bush is a good-natured man because good things happen to him; like Forrest Gump, he is pulled along by good fortune, rather than by convictions or determination.

Can you imagine an Al Gore or a Bill Clinton claiming that he is not the author of his life? Gore, like Bush, was a child of privilege, but he made a conscious decision not to rest upon or rely on that privilege; seeking to live up to his name, Gore has led a life of accomplishment because he elevated his self-expectations. Clinton grew up disadvantaged but managed to write his story with hard work and ambition, with his own choices, for good or ill. In light of the failed attempt to remove the former president from office, Didion called Clinton the luckiest man in America. She didn't know that President Gump was on the way.

 

 

Drew Limsky Teaches at City University of New York. he Has Written for the Washington Post and San Francisco Chronicle and Is the Book Editor at Metrosource

[MJ]

Yeah.. So much on the topic of the thread, and so full of merits, Alpha.