• A collection of political anlyses

Foreign Policy Journal

Whither CSTO: Russian Power, Armenian Sovereignty, and a

Region at Risk
by Raffi K. Hovannisian
August 13, 2010

Yerevan — The second anniversary of blitzkrieg between Russia and
Georgia underscores the unresolved geopolitical undercurrents in this
region among the seas. Landlocked by the forces of history from the
Caspian, the Black and the Mediterranean, Armenia’s pivotal position
remains encircled by a neighborhood in strategic turmoil.

The inherent jeopardy flowing from Turkey’s now obviously disingenuous
engagement of Armenia, the challenges posed by Azerbaijan’s graduation
from its threatening language of war to its launch of a deadly attack
in June, and the general escalation of tension across the Caucasus
have combined to define the greater region as one at immediate risk of
deepening instability.

Against this backdrop of system-wide insecurity, Armenia is now facing
a dangerous alignment of outside interests and internal shortcomings.

While Yerevan’s “strategic” relationship with Moscow continues to
serve as the bedrock for regional peace and security, the nature of
the Armenian-Russian embrace is unduly lopsided.

The asymmetry of the Russian-Armenian relationship is most manifest in
the fundamental lack of equal and mutually respectful cooperation.

After all, Armenia’s hosting of the only Russian military base in the
area is no simple act of kindness, and must be anchored in a shared
regard for each other’s interests.

What is more, the Russian base is the only such facility outside of
the Russian Federation where the host country receives neither rent
nor reimbursement. Armenia pays for the totality of its costs and
expenses. Such a mortgaging of Armenian national security is
unacceptable and demands immediate redress.

In the new era, Armenian-Russian partnership, in order to be strategic
without quotation marks, must be sincere, really reciprocal and based
on horizontal respect, despite the differences in size and experience
between the two nations.

A case in point is the information recently leaked by the Russian
media and reactively confirmed by official Yerevan that the two
states, either bilaterally or under the auspices of the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), intend to extend up to 49 years
the treaty arrangement for the Russian base and the deployment of
forces there. Matters of dignity aside, this flies in the face of
Armenian sovereignty, foreign policy independence, and vital national
interests. It also flouts the unlimited future potential of an
actually strategic partnership between us.

This holds especially true in view of the fact that the existing base
agreement does not expire until 2020 and can, if necessary, be
extended upon expiration for five or even ten years. Of further
consternation is the Kremlin’s military rapport with and sales to
Ankara, which stands in occupation of the historic Armenian patrimony,
has imposed a modern-day blockade of the Republic of Armenia
tantamount to an act of war, and continues to deny and shirk
responsibility for the Genocide and Great Armenian Dispossession of
1915.

A more contemporary source of outrage is Moscow’s military support for
Azerbaijan, which having launched a failed war of aggression against
Mountainous Karabagh and Armenia is today threatening renewed
hostilities, completing its occupation of the Armenian heartlands of
Shahumian, Getashen, Artsvashen, and Nakhichevan, and continuing with
impunity to destroy and desecrate the Armenian cultural heritage at
Jugha and elsewhere.

In this connection, in the event that Russia indeed carries through
with the reported sale of its S-300 weapon systems or other equivalent
armaments to the aggressive, belligerent, and revisionist regime of
Azerbaijan, Armenia should withdraw forthwith from the CSTO, of which
it is the sole member from the region, or at the very least require
full fair-market rent for the Russian base together with reimbursement
for water, electricity and other relevant expenses.

And finally, the ultimate achievement of Partnership between Russia
and Armenia, and between Russia and the West, will necessarily entail
an actual application of the Rule of Law—not only domestic but also
international—and hence the recognition of the Republic of Mountainous
Karabagh within its constitutional frontiers, as well as of Kosovo and
Abkhazia.

Anything else is partisan politics, petty political gain and sui
generis dissimulation, all of which might make sense for some and for
the moment but at bottom run counter to the aims of peace, security,
justice and democratic values for the critical landmass amid the seas.

Raffi Hovannisian, independent Armenia’s first minister of foreign
affairs, currently chairs the Heritage Party and represents it in
Parliament.

Wall Street Journal: Russia's Pledge To Defend Armenia Puts

Azerbaijan In An Untenable Situation
ArmInfo
2010-08-11 14:49:00

ArmInfo. Later this month, during President Dmitry Medvedev's visit
to Yerevan, Moscow will provide military guarantees to Armenia,
assuming a "joint" responsibility to protect the country's borders
against Azerbaijan and Turkey, Ariel Cohen, senior research fellow
in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy at
the Heritage Foundation, writes in his item Reset the Russian Reset
Policy in the Wall Street Journal.

"Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has prepared a draft protocol for
President Medvedev's signature that would commit Russia's troops at
its military base near the Armenian city of Gyumri to the country's
defense and sell advanced weapons to Yerevan. Baku and Ankara must
be livid," he writes.

While the previous contract called for the Gyumri base to be dismantled
in 2015, the new protocol will allow Russia to stay there until
2049. The arrangement is similar to the renegotiated lease for the
Sevastopol naval base in Ukraine, which is extended to 2042 as it,
too, prevents the country's future membership in NATO.

Russia's pledge to defend Armenia puts Azerbaijan in an untenable
situation. It's a clear warning against any Azeri attempt to regain
the secessionist Nagorno-Karabakh region or its seven Armenian-occupied
districts. The subtext is clear as well: Azerbaijan should scale back
cooperation with the West or face the consequences.

The Russian-Armenian protocol makes Russia the dominant power in South
Caucasus, as the U.S. and NATO are unwilling to commit to long-term
military presence there.

Baku's efforts to reach out to Russia by selling gas and buying
sophisticated weaponry so far have not borne fruit. At the same time,
Russia is skillfully playing both sides and may have found a way
to sweeten the Armenian defense pact for Baku. Russia's Vedomosti
newspaper reported last month that Moscow has sold Azerbaijan the
state-of-the-art S- 300 anti-aircraft missile system. While Russia's
Defense Ministry denied the report, the Azeri Defense Ministry did
not. If the S-300 sale went through, it probably contributed much to
Baku's surprising silence on the Russian-Armenian defense protocol.

While extending its military reach, Moscow is simultaneously trying
to assume the role of primary mediator in the territorial dispute
over Nagorno-Karabakh. Moscow hopes to retain its historic ally,
Armenia, while wooing a new partner, Azerbaijan. That's not to say
Moscow is intent on resolving the conflict. Rather, it pursues greater
cooperation with Yerevan and Baku-including military cooperation-as
a means of increasing its leverage and arms sales to both sides.

The growing tension over Iran's nuclear program may have also played a
role in Russia's extension of its lease in Gyumri. In case of a "hot"
conflict, Russia would be able to stop the deployment of U.S. military
and allied forces in the Caucasus, including the use of air bases.

Russian control of South Caucasus airspace from bases in Armenia,
Abkhazia and South Ossetia could deny U.S. air operations there without
Moscow's consent. Meanwhile, Washington seems content with preaching
the importance of "soft power." Its pseudo-Realpolitik approach of
"seeing no evil" only encourages Moscow to expand its hegemony.

While the Obama administration praises soft power, Russia still
speaks the language of arms. The Obama Administration, in short,
needs to reset its Russian reset policy to protect America's interests
in Eurasia.

Tert.am

Turkey has already gained 80% of what it wanted from normalization:
Kiro Manoyan
16:07 • 13.08.10

The opening of the Armenia-Turkey border for a day makes no sense in
terms of inter-state relations. Head of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation Bureau's Hay Dat and Political Affairs Office Kiro Manoyan
told a press conference today as he spoke about recently-circulated
news that the Turkish troops might come to Armenia via Georgia to
participate in a disasters relief exercise organized by NATO.

“I think the opening of the border for a day makes no sense for
inter-state relations regardless the reason of the opening.”

Earlier Turkish press reported that Ankara might temporarily open the
border with Armenia for that purpose. But later Turkey confirmed at
the highest level that it will not do that anyway.

Referring to the ratification of the Armenia-Turkey Protocols Mr
Manoyan said that by not ratifying them Turkey has already gained 80
per cent of what it would in case of the ratification.

“And it gained 80 per cent by not giving anything [in return] as it
would have to open the border, lift the blockade in case of the
ratification,” said he.

Mr Manoyan said he was sure that Armenia’s authorities should change
their policy of suspending the ratification process as “our patience
cannot be limitless.” In his words Armenia “must put an end [to the
process] and withdraw its signatures from the Protocols and proceed
with the process only as soon as there are political powers in Turkey
willing to normalize relations without pre-conditions.”

Further he went on clarifying that by saying “80 per cent” of what
Turkey gained first of all he meant that result of the
non-ratification of those documents was that US, Britain and Sweden
declined from adopting a resolution that would recognize the Armenian
Genocide, saying that the parties have decided to decide on their
disputes at a commission to be created after the ratification of the
Protocols.

Secondly, the international community started to interpret the border
issue as if Armenia didn’t have claims towards Turkey.
Thirdly, according o Mr Manoyan, Turkey in that way had a chance to
express its opinion over the Karabakh issue at the international
level.

Ara Papian: mass at Sourp Khatch - illusory event organized by

Turkish special services with sole view of positive image projection
August 16, 2010 - 14:13 AMT 09:13 GMT
PanARMENIAN.Net -

The head of the Modus Vivendi Centre, Ara Papian published an article
questioning Turkey’s motivation behind the planned mass to be
celebrated at the Sourp Khatch (Holy Cross) Church on Akhtamar.

“In order to understand any act correctly, it is necessary to bear in
mind a series of factors. One of the most important factors would be
the motivation behind the given act, in other words, what prompted it.
When we view the planned mass to be celebrated at the Sourp Khatch
(Holy Cross) Church on Akhtamar and all the noise it is inciting, the
inappropriate inducement, to put it mildly, becomes abundantly clear.
It is absolutely evident that the mass and the entire enterprise has
nothing to do with the glorification of God. It is an illusory event
organised by Turkish special services, the only end of which being, as
the subtle term goes in political science, positive image projection.

The Turks are doing well to yet again fool the world. That is their
nature, and their prerogative. I do not understand, however, the point
of the exultant participation of the Armenians in this game. So the
world will know that Akhtamar has an Armenian church! Firstly, those
who need to know this fact are well aware of it already. And then,
those who do not wish to know it, don’t. I can assure you in any case
that this will not be the main message of the world’s media that day.
The thrust of the news stories are going to be plaudits for the
tolerance of the Turks. Do not let the Turks humiliate us yet again.
The abasement of the protocols signed in Zurich is sufficient for us
for a few decades. Why do you all wish to rub salt on our wounds once
more?

The opinion is completely unacceptable that, “We don’t have many
people there, what are we to do with the churches? A single mass once
a year is enough”. Let them first answer the question: what happened
to the Armenians who made those churches? Further, the issue is not
the celebration of mass itself, but the right, the very right to
celebrate mass. Perhaps the Armenians would celebrate mass in those
churches once every five years, or perhaps ten; regardless, they have
to have the right to celebrate mass in any of those churches, as
deemed by the Church. The Turks are bestowing our own rights upon us
as a gift, and we are acting quite pleased. We are like a little
child, whose family has been killed, whose entire legacy has been
stolen and then, with a shiny toy thrown before him, he goes wild with
joy over it. In 1912, by official Turkish data, there were more than
two thousand functioning – let me stress that, functioning – churches
and monasteries within the Ottoman Empire. They have been illegally
occupied by the Republic of Turkey. Let them first return or provide
compensation for the property to its rightful owner, the Church, that
is, the community, which is to say that it belongs to all of us.

And then, let them faithfully carry out the international obligations
they themselves have borne. The basis of relations with the Kemalist
movement overseeing Turkey were founded on certain preconditions,
which were codified by the Treaty of Lausanne (of the 24th of July,
1923). By the second clause of Article 38 of the Treaty of Lausanne,
“All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether
in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief”. And Article
40 provides for them to establish, manage and control religious
institutions.

What is more, by the third clause of Article 42, “The Turkish
Government undertakes to grant full protection to the churches,
synagogues, cemeteries, and other religious establishments of the
above-mentioned minorities”. Naturally, “full protection” involves not
just not actively destroying and not razing churches to the ground,
but also their preservation and renovation.

Consequently, the partial renovation of the Sourp Khatch (Holy Cross)
Church and the right to celebrate mass there once a year is not “an
expression of goodwill”, but the very improper and late fulfillment by
Turkey of an international obligation rendered a fundamental law, with
the prospects of certain political exploitation. And so, it does not
fall within our interests in the least to give any leeway to such
exploitation,” the article concludes