Foreign policy in the South Caucasus

David Stepanyan, Yerevan. Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza

Director of the Oriental Studies Institute of the Armenian Academy of Sciences, Prof. Ruben Safrastyan, analyzes the situation in the South Caucasus in an interview to Vestnik Kavkaza.

- Many connect Armenian foreign policy vector with the participation in the Russian project of Eurasian integration. What is your opinion?

- We need to construct our foreign policy on the basis of Armenian identity, taking into account the fact that Armenia is also a part of the Middle East. As for a choice between the Eurasian Union and the European Union, I believe the policy should be broader that would allow our country's importance on the international arena to be raised, which will allow us to make a serious choice out of our own national interests. So far this choice is severely narrowed by the issues of Armenian security. Taking into account the fact that at the moment Armenia has no alternative to Russia and the Collective Security Treaty, there is no alternative to the Customs and the Eurasian Union in the economic sphere. At the moment only Russia secures our safety. Therefore, Armenia has to intensify the cooperation with the Collective Security Treaty because it is our only guarantee against an external threat. The USA cannot guarantee us this security because Washington has military obligations towards Turkey.

- There is an opinion in American analytical circles according to which the US in their policy in the South Caucasus and in the Karabakh conflict should count on Turkey. How possible is this in reality?

- I don't think that the US will try to push Turkey into the Minsk Group. This does not have any chances of success. The Minsk Group of the OSCE ensures some, good or bad, negotiating process, and there are no geopolitical reasons to change it. I dont think that we can talk about any serious cooperation between Ankara and Moscow in the question of Karabakh. Despite cooperation in the economic sphere, Russia and Turkey remain geopolitical rivals, especially in the South Caucasus. The Karabakh question is not a question where Russian can yield to Ankara or to anyone else. But this does not concern American-Turkish relations, that are becoming much warmer. For the democrat administration the role of Turkey in the general strategy of the US will only grow. First of all, because of the situation in the Middle East, Syria, relations with the Islamic world and Turkey as its representative, but an ally to the NATO and the West. Therefore we can assume that the second term of Obama will be characterized by a US desire to avoid conflicts in the Middle East. In this context it cannot be ruled out that Washington will rely on Turkey even more in its strategy in the South Caucasus. By the way, here I see a certain continuity between the democrat administrations of Bill Clinton and Obama. In general, the democrats, unlike the republicans, are more likely to see the Turks as  reliable allies. As far as I can see from recent American, Israeli and Western publications, Turkey is regarded as a factor limiting Islamism. This is its main purpose.

- Can we conclude that the policy of restraining Turkey, initiated by France, is over?

- I believe that there are signs of it. We can see that the socialists ruling in France want to improve their relations with Turkey and to remove the obstacles that hinder its accession to the EU. The new policy of Paris towards Ankara is becoming clearer. The left forces, unlike the right ones, are liable to see Turkey as a member of the EU.

- Are there any reasons to expect a change of the regional status quo?

- The geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus changed after the war of 2008, which increased Russia positions. Therefore Turkey lost its influence in the region, in Georgia first of all. Armenia remained Russia's ally. Azerbaijan, in my view, becomes a factor that influences the Turkish position. But the influence of Turkey is decreasing.  The US, counting on Turkey, also takes this into consideration. I do not think that the US is really interested in the strengthening of Turkey in the South Caucasus. Washington will simply use Turkey during the second term of Obama to limit Russian influence in the South Caucasus.

- What role does the change of power in Georgia have in this disposition?

- The political changes in Georgia strenghthen the positions of Moscow as the regional center in the South Caucasus. The scale of this process only increases. The change of power proved that the unidirectional policy of Georgia aimed at getting closer to the West was wrong. Political power that doesn't develop its policy on the basis of the real situation, cannot last for long. But Georgian policy is still far from being pro-Russian, it definitely is not striving to become a part of the existing military and the developing economic system. The vector of the foreign policy of Tbilisi has not changed, only the methods of Ivanishvili became more realistic. The interests of the Georgian elite also remained intact. Just integration with Europe started to be considered as a remote goal. The policy of Tbilisi became more realistic, to avoid losses from the political adventurism of Saakashvili, but the goals remained the same.