– this
is how David Shahnazaryan assessed the outcome of presidential election in
IranThe United State of America and EU member countries, advocating democratic
values, were obviously stunned by the surprise victory of an ultra-conservative
and hard-line mayor of Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, in the Iranian presidential
run-off, a victory which analysts say is set to further cement conservative control
of clerics over nation’s political leadership. An exchange of several harsh statements
between the Iranian president-elect and the US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld
in the wake of the polls came as a fresh indication that the gab in Tehran’s relations
with the West is set to widen . In view of this circumstance we asked David Shahnazarian
to share his views about what repercussions the election of a new Iranian president
may have on Armenia in the context of its regional policy.Q. In view
of the position of the US and the EU on Iran, do you think the unexpected outcome
of presidential election there may have an impact on Armenia with construction
of Iran-Armenia gas pipeline underway and the prospect of further toughening of
the West’s attitude to Iran in mind?A. The problem you have mentioned
is more serious than the issue of communication routes with Armenia or the gas
pipeline. The outcome of presidential election in Iran, will, as a matter of fact,
escalate further Tehran’s confrontation with Washington and Brussels. The first
two statements of the newly elected president- about his intention to continue
and accomplish the uranium enrichment program, as well as no indication on Iran’s
political agenda that it is likely to seek to smooth away its confrontation with
the West are of great concern, which I think is fraught with heavy aftereffects,
in the first place, for Armenia. The foolish enthusiasm of some Armenian high-ranking
government officials about the results of Iranian presidential election is at
least surprising, especially that these results, to put it mildly, are very questionable
and far from being the true reflection of free and transparent polls. I would
like to remind that many other candidates were simply disqualified for nomination
by the un-elected clerics who have the final word on all key decisions. Many analysts
indicate today to large scale election fraud, but I am not inclined at this moment
to analyzing the results of this election, but would like to ask how it happened
that Ahmadinejad who had not been expected even to make the runoff, managed to
squeak ahead of his rivals into the number-two spot in the first-round vote? There
were accusations that Republic Guards and vigilantes intimidated voters to sway
the vote in his favor. Going into the first round, the 70-year-old Rafsanjani
had been considered by far the favorite. But he was battered, placing first with
only 20 percent in that round, just half a percentage point ahead of Ahmadinejad.
But the fact today is that Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, whose policy can be described
as "forward to the past" is Iran’s president. As regards to what kind
of domestic developments his election may trigger in Iran it is a subject of a
different analysis.Iran is Armenia’s immediate neighbor nation and when
it comes to the international community and Western civilization’s concerns over
new Iran they are set to affect directly us too. Having in mind the US plans to
deploy its air force at Azerbaijani airfields soon, I think Armenia is very likely
to find itself in a very gloomy situation, should Armenian authorities continue
their regional policy unchanged.Q. Do you mean Armenia should improve its
relations with its three other immediate neighbors to avoid this prospect?A.
In the first place I mean that the policy of the incumbent Armenian regime is
leading to an increasing polarization in the South Caucasus, especially in view
of the presence of Russian military bases here, re-deployment of Russian military
bases from Georgia to Armenia that will shatter the balance of forces and will
become an additional threat to Armenia’ security. This means that Armenia will
continue to remain Russia’s "outpost" in the region and the executor
of its policy in the South Caucasus, making thus the situation against this background
more alarming. Azerbaijan has clung to this pretext (redeployment of bases from
Georgia to Armenia) to radically increase its defense spending from $176 last
year to almost $300 in 2006. Neither we can rule out that Turkey may advance its
troops closer to Armenian border.Right after the emergence of the first
tendencies of dividing lines in the South Caucasus ( in 1999 Armenia’s neighbors-
Georgia and Azerbaijan- quit the Russian-dominated Collective Security Treaty
(CST) and announced clearly their intention to join other international security
systems, particularly, NATO) I came up with a formulation and shortly afterwards
I published it in the Russian mass media to say that the historical experience
shows that the South Caucasian security can work effectively only when Armenia,
Georgia and Azerbaijan are all within one security system. That formulation was
based on the following basic premises: If Armenia is left out of the process of
building regional security and economic systems, it would result in a confrontation
of interests of the region’s countries and the border between competing security
systems would pass along Armenia’s state border. To eliminate the prospect of
the South Caucasus becoming a point of clash of interests of super powers Armenia
should not ignore the existing international security systems and new emerging
unions of states which could in future assume very important functions. In that
sense Armenia’s presence in GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and
Moldova), at least with a preliminary observer status, was an urgent demand of
that time (fortunately GUUAM has reduced now to GUAM after Uzbekistan quit it).
Unfortunately, these arguments did not find their reflection in Armenia’s foreign
policy agenda, as the current authoritarian regime moved quickly, after coming
to power, to subordinate all political processes to its desire to keep power as
long as possible.In 2003 after CST was reorganized into the Collective
Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), the South Caucasian region was split already
de jure. Armenia remains a member of the CSTO, while Georgia and Azerbaijan have
declared their drive to join NATO. By the way, I would like to add that it is
strange that Armenia does not present those demands which it presents to USA and
EU members-the recognition of the Armenian genocide, to Russia and other CSTO
member countries. Armenia demands that the US president use the word ‘genocide’
in his annual addresses to American Armenians on April 24, but does not demand
this from Russia’s Putin.Q. By the way, do not you think that it was very
characteristic that Russian and Armenian presidents were the first to send congratulatory
messages to the newly elected president of Iran, especially that Armenia and Russia
are the two countries cooperating actively with Iran, Russia also within the frameworks
of Tehran’s uranium enrichment program?A. Yes, it was very characteristic
and natural, because Putin’s Russia is trying today to confront with the civilized
world, while Armenia continues to remain Russia’s regional vassal. Furthermore,
now there is a greater probability that in the nearest future Iran may face punishment
measures and even military force from the West and in this situation the symptomatic
indifference of Armenian authorities to such developments is very typical of them.
No matter how strong the economic interests of the EU in Iran are, ultimately
it cannot tolerate a cleric Iranian regime possessing nuclear weapon. It is simply
unacceptable to Europe and in this sense comparison with Iraq is not appropriate,
since in case of Iraq they needed evidence of chemical weapons, while in case
of Iran they do not need evidence at all, because it has openly declared its intention
to carry out the uranium enrichment program.Once again Armenia is facing
serious challenges, but unfortunately I am confident that its authorities do not
take them seriously and continue to execute instructions of the Kremlin. I would
like to remind that back in 1999 when I alarmed that Georgia and Turkey started
consideration of plans to construct a new railway from Turkish Kars to Tbilisi,
the Armenian authorities reaction was a complete indifference. What we see now
is Turkey’s and Georgia’s decisiveness to accomplish this project. If you remember,
in 2001 I warned that Armenia was going to face not only economic but also a serious
political isolation. The authorities responded with gabber saying there was nothing
of that kind, but today they accept it too. Now they are saying again that the
created situation is very serious as Armenia has appeared in the dangerous Iran-Russia
axis. It is clear that Armenian authorities are unable to solve these problems,
not because they are not independent, but because they simply do not want it,
therefore, we have to get rid of them as soon as possible in order to take Armenia
back on the track of natural and evolutionary development.Q. One may suppose
that you are suggesting that Armenia should revise its relations not only with
Iran, but also with its three other immediate neighbor nations.A. What
I would like to point out is that in this situation Armenia should further economic
cooperation with Iran, but at the same time it should be very cautious while building
its political relations with Tehran. Armenia must avoid any move that may create
extra problems for it in this region and further deepen the already existing polarization.
The consequences of it would be very heavy. I believe that Armenia’s Individual
Partnership Action Plan (IPAP) with NATO is not sufficient and that Armenia must
declare clearly its intention to join NATO.Interview by Naira Manukian
