Interview with Dr Igor Mouradian

[Unregistered - V]

AZTAG: Interview with Igor Mouradian

Interview by Khatchig Mouradian

http://www.aztagdaily.com/interviews/interviews.htm

Eighth of May 2004

Igor Mouradian has played a key role in the early stages of the struggle for

self-determination in Karabagh. A member of The International Institute for

Strategic Studies (IISS), Dr. Mouradian is also the author of a number of

books, in Russian, about geo-politics and geo-economics

( http://news.artsakhworld.com/igor_muradian.../eng/index.html ).

I spoke to him in Beirut.

Aztag- What is your take on the current ruling elite in Georgia?

Igor Mouradian- It was clear from a long time that the culinary change in

Georgian politics will be connected to the right forces not to the leftist

ones. The right in Georgia would become the most popular and the most active

in the political arena. This has something to do with the connection with

the United States. Georgia was always keen to demonstrate its orientation

towards the west. However, this was only declaration; the orientation was

only towards the U.S. However, the U.S. is maintaining a very rigid

framework in its international politics in general and regional politics in

particular. Some people think that the U.S. politics is very wide, but it's

an illusion. The interest of Georgia and other countries in the region

cannot really fit into the framework of U.S. interest, and the situation is

dramatic for this very reason.

Armenia has chosen a different path. Some analysts accuse Armenia of being

isolated. This is rubbish. Either these people do not understand the

realities on the ground, or they're simply lying. In fact, Armenia has a

well-balanced international policy. Because of their policies, Georgia and

Azerbaijan are much more isolated than Armenia. The main problem of Georgia

is that the regime is not adequate. The ruling elite is more than a

marionette, it is extremely dependant on foreign signals. It is not capable

of creating long-term international policies, because the U.S. is demanding

that they quickly solve very important issues. The new Georgian president

does not really understand the problems of the Georgian foreign policies-

Aztag- What are these problems?

Igor Mouradian- This country has chosen its main political and economic

profile, which is based on the development of transit and services. If they

want to succeed as a transit country, they should be keen on establishing

good relations with their neighbors. Georgia cannot really develop the model

it had chosen when it is in conflict or confrontation with Russia. Of

course, one can understand why the Georgian elite is behaving in this way:

Russia has been carrying forward inconsistent policies in the area, and it

has done little to improve its relations with Georgia.

The main problem that the Georgian politics is facing at the moment is not

Adjaria or Abkhazia and not even the economical issues, but creating an

effective and a centralized administration. Most members of the new

administration have already had the experience of administrative work, but

with no positive results. In my opinion, the present Georgian administration

is illegitimate, inadequate, and it is clear that it's not permanent.

Aztag- How can it be illegitimate? After all, it is the people that brought

this administration to power.

Igor Mouradian- No revolution can create legitimate governments; it can

create efficient regimes, but never legitimate governments. Georgia has

neither. The leaders are very ambitious, and they will refuse to be

consistent in setting up a well-balanced regime. The current regime is

doomed to catastrophe. The foreign influences are too strong. The situation

is very dangerous for Yerevan not because this experience could also be

applied to Armenia, but because the current situation in Georgia is very

inconvenient for our interests and us.

Aztag- And what are, in your opinion, the factors that make an unstable

Georgia a problem for Armenia?

Igor Mouradian- One and only one factor: Communication. Even the situation

of Armenians in Georgia is not that much of a problem. The politicians in

the U.S., Europe and the Middle East are interested in the following

question: could the Georgian scenario happen in Armenia as well? That's

rubbish. We have a completely different social and economical system, our

country is developing very fast, the shortcomings of the ruling regime in

Armenia are being compensated by the presence and the activities of very

stable political structures within the country, the parliamentary process,

and other factors. We have created a powerful army, and at the same time, a

very efficient security system.

Armenia is approaching a time when the opposition will be represented by

nationalistic forces. The political parties oriented towards Russia, Europe,

or the U.S. will refuse to maintain policies that have anything to do with

external factors. Armenia will become a patriotic nationalist state. In this

respect, we can become an example to the other independent states. And of

course, our main problem will be the problem of the elite, but our

administration is much more adequate. The problem of elite is a problem that

runs for decades, and therefore, it is not worthwhile to speed up any

process; a revolution is not something that is necessary. Revolution would

make sense in only one instance: if the ruling regime ignores the national

interests.

Aztag- The western media refers to the current Georgian elite as

?nationalists¦ and ?pro-western¦. You are saying that Sahakashvili-s

government is extremely dependent on the U.S. How can this dilemma of

nationalism-dependence be explained?

Igor Mouradian- Every nation has its own notion of nationalism. Nationalists

cannot be ?anti¦. If nationalism is directed against a political pole or a

major political force then it is defective. Nationalism is not only about

maintaining the uniqueness of your own nation but also that of other people.

Liberalism and cosmopolitism, especially imperialistic liberalism and

communism, do not respect the notion of nation. But nationalism is fighting

for the uniqueness of all nations. Perhaps the ruling elite in Georgia is

not really nationalist. Or it might be a pseudo-nationalist regime, or a

racist regime. Any idea could be perverted. The thing is that Georgia has

established a European political system; the leftists and the rightists are

very obvious. Armenia doesn-t have that; Armenia has a different scheme: the

conservatives and the liberals. I don't think that any of those as better or

worse than the other. Georgian nationalism has not become a uniting force;

it has not created national ideas. Moreover, the policies of the regime have

divided the society. Of course, the situation in Armenia is not ideal;

there, the clash between fake liberalism and conservatism will become

fiercer with time. One has to be reminded that in Armenia, nationalism has

very deep roots. One can even speak of national fundamentalism.

Unfortunately, our social situation does not allow this national ideology to

become a real thing. One has to be reminded that Pan-Armenian National

Movement and the satellites of this movement are not incidental. The basic

aim of this movement was ideological modernization, a desire to modernize

Armenian politics...it would have had positive results, of course, but their

aims were very low-

Aztag- Currently, Ankara is bringing up the issue of opening the borders

with Armenia more frequently. Some analysts say that the Armenian side might

gain from such a move on the economic level, but it has things to lose on

the political front. What are the factors at work here?

Igor Mouradian- The economic interests and the national interests are not

necessarily conflicting. Now we do have trade relations with turkey.

According to different estimates, we buy goods from Turkey worth something

between 100 and 160 million U.S. dollars. Our export to Turkey is about 20

million U.S. dollars. Politically, all this doesn't change much.

There are two major problems for the U.S. in the region: The Russo-Georgian

relations and the Turkish-Armenian relations. Both problems are connected

with the idea of getting rid of Russian influences. Despite the fact that

the relationship between the U.S. and Turkey have deteriorated recently and

it continues to deteriorate because the Americans are not insisting on

solving the Cyprus problem, the U.S. continues to insist on improving the

Armenian-Turkish relation. The American idea is very simple: once they

improve the relations, this will create a security; Armenia will become so

much more secure. It-s a lie or failure to appreciate the situation. The

relations can be improved, the border may get opened at some point and

investments might start flowing to Turkey and Armenia, but the threat will

still be there. Turkey appreciates only strong position. We must be strong

in order to become partners with Turkey. Now we have a strong army, an

efficient security system, and developed international relations. We are

more prepared to start relations with Turkey. However, one has to separate

two things that have little to do with each other: our economic development

and our relations with Turkey, which include the issue of Genocide

recognition.

Aztag- but couldn't the economic factor be used to pressure Armenia to get

other concessions on the political front?

Igor Mouradian- We speak of Armenia as some other country that has nothing

to do with us. Armenia is us. It all depends on us. We should sort our own

problems and not the problems of Turkey. We should do everything we can to

make sure that we have a government that has a nationalistic agenda and is

not a marionette. Refusal to push for the recognition of the Armenian

genocide, concessions in the Karabagh issue will not improve our relations

with Turkey. Turkey is not interested in Karabagh at all and they are not

interested in the opinions of Azerbaijan. This is an illusion that has been

created. Turkey has its own tasks, its own problems. Turkey is more

interested in the question of genocide than in the question of Karabagh. It

wants to show the western community that apart from the genocide problem

there's also the Karabagh problem that Turkey is interested in.

Aztag- What are the strategic aims of Turkey in the region?

Igor Mouradian- They want to achieve firsthand political and economic

dominance in the region. Apart from pan Turkism, there's also the doctrine

of neo-Ottomanism. When it became clear that Turkey is not capable

maintaining its important presence in central Asia, and that the U.S. is

doing nothing to help Turkey become a Eurasian power, Turkey has become more

interested in neo-Ottomanism. I couldn't find a better term to describe this

doctrine, according to which Turkey must suck non-Turkish people (Albanians,

Bosnians, Georgians, Chechens, and Uzbekistanis) into Turkish politics.

Turkey is now interested in closer regions like the Caucasus, the Balkans,

Ukraine, and Iraq. It's very important that the Armenian communities in the

U.S. and the Middle East appreciate one thing: the U.S. is now carrying out

anti-Turkish policies in the Caucasus. They are doing everything they can

to make sure that Turkey loses its influence on Azerbaijan, they are doing

everything they can to pressure Turkey by creating alternative air bases in

Georgia and they are also using the Armenian factor as a tool for pressure.

It seems that the U.S. likes to create a little Israel in Armenia, simply

because Armenia is the most stable, the most organized country in the

region.

Aztag- What do you mean by ?a small Israel¦?

Igor Mouradian- Israel means an isolated country serving as an aircraft

carrier for the U.S. It-s a very dangerous perspective for us, we shouldn-t

allow this to happen, we should maintain very good relations with the Arab

countries, Iran, and central Asian countries. This is extremely important

for us. Armenia has demonstrated that under conditions that are far from

perfect, it can make breakthroughs in many areas. Georgia and Azerbaijan

cannot be genuine partners of the U.S. They are very unreliable partners not

only for the U.S. but also for Russia, Iran, and Europe. There are only two

countries in the south Caucasus capable of maintaining the role of strategic

partners: the republic of Armenia, and the N.K.R.

Aztag- Armenia boasts excellent relations with Iran, despite the religious

and cultural differences between the two countries. What are the foundations

of this alliance?

Igor Mouradian- The region is coming up with new alliance and with new

blocks that have nothing to do with religious affiliation. These blocks they

are called geo-civilizations, which are not formed within a

cultural-religious framework.

Aztag- So you don't believe in Huntington-s ?Clash of Civilizations¦ theory.

Igor Mouradian- I do believe in the clash of civilizations, but I think

alliances based merely on historical and cultural factors do not work. The

geo-civilizations which are based on geopolitical interests are the ones

that work. The Slavic countries are acting against Russia and there's lots

of conflict between Christian countries, and between Muslim countries. And

the major conflict of them all is not the conflict between the Islam and

Christianity, but between U.S. and Europe. Islam civilization does not have

a common policy. The Islamic world is being used by many, even by Israel.

The Islamic world is not capable of creating a common policy; even the Arab

world isn't capable of doing that. Accordingly, however well the relations

with Turkey and Azerbaijan develop, Iran will never refuse to maintain good

relations with Armenia. This is because of fundamental geopolitical

interests.

Aztag- What does the future hold for the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict? The

status quo cannot be maintained forever, can it?

Igor Mouradian- The conflict is not going anywhere. One should understand a

few things: Russia is not interested in any changes. Russia is now

maintaining its relations with Azerbaijan in a completely different

dimension. There are the other issues where Russia and Azerbaijan understand

each other well. Russia is supportive of the political regime in Azerbaijan;

there are also the issues of Caspian oil, the Russian gas imports, the

question of the Azeri economic migrants in Russia, and some security

questions connected with Russian interests in northern Caucasus. The Azeri

leadership has no illusions about Russian intentions in the Karabagh

problem.

On the other hand, Europe has no operational abilities in Caucasus at all

and has no goals or aims in the region. The only European task is to make

sure that Americans feel uncomfortable; this is the only thing that they are

interested in.

Turkey has no time at all for Karabagh. The Turks are terrified of this

topic, because if they are accused of supporting one side, the Azeri side,

it will create for them another problem in terms of joining the EU.

Iran is also very happy with the status quo.

In turn, the U.S. has only three aims: oil, oil and oil. Sometimes people

confuse priorities and goals; the priority is stability, and the status quo

perfectly corresponds to the U.S. interests. The U.S. administration has had

the chance to see for itself in Key West that there's no political solution

to the Karabagh problem, which can only be solved militarily. The U.S. will

not accept a military solution, they're afraid of military solution, and

they are supportive of the current administration on one condition: Ilham

Aliev should not try to solve the Karabagh problem by resorting to the

option of war. For the U.S., if there is no political way, there is no other

way.

If you had asked me three years ago "what is the future of Karabagh?" I

would have told you that it will stay like this for decades and it will be

capable of developing successfully in its current state. But now, seeing the

current movements and tendencies, I've come to understand that the western

community will have to decide the status of uncontrolled territories

(Kosovo, Bosnia, Taiwan, Sumatra, Palestine, Karabagh, Adjaria, Abkhazia,

the Iraqi Kurdistan and Northern Cyprus and possibly another 10 more

territories including Kashmir and some territories in Afghanistan).

Sometimes they ask the question "how many U.S. congressmen know the surname

of the Nigerian president?" I don't think that many do. It's a country with

100 million people. However, Ghougasian, the president of Karabagh, is known

to many congressmen and so is Denktash. They're playing an extremely

important role in the external balance of power. And this problem will

persist and it should be solved. Moreover, there's another question of task

or problem: not all the territories will receive its formal status, and the

Americans have discussed this publicly. Nevertheless, Karabagh has more

chances than anyone else does to become internationally recognized. Of

course, there is a danger when discussing the recognition of the N.K. state;

the question of territories will arise, but there is probably a way out.

Perhaps Karabagh will play an exceptional role in political history by

demonstrating how a tiny country coming out of the fierce and bloody war can

create a fascinating democratic society.

Edited June 7, 2004 by Viraboff

[Unregistered - V]

Да - все огрехи перевода - мои собственные. Заранее прошу прощения.

Edited June 7, 2004 by Viraboff

[Shenyаtsi]

Да - все огрехи перевода - мои собственные. Заранее прошу прощения.

Прочитал.... Немного сконфюжен тем, что Игорь сначало говорит о том, что Армения в сравнении с Грузией более свободна, т.к. не имеет "инфлуинс" запада, а позже пишет, что мы все зависим от запада. Да и с Арцахским вопросом не оставил оптимизма, ответив на вопрос, что эта проблема никуда не денется, т.к. такой статус выгоден всем сильным мира сего (США, Европа, Россия и Арабские страны). Пытался прочесть между строк, но все равно остался конфюзд. Или я чего то не понял, Вирабов? Как ты сам прокоментируешь это интервью?