The exlclusive interview of U.S. Ambassador to NATO Nicholas Burns to Armenian Mediamax news agency, October 2004
- For the last 2-3 years Armenia-NATO relations have entered a qualitatively new level. Which factors, do you think, played the main role in Armenia's decision to activate its relations with the Alliance?
- I remember listening to your president's speech at the summit meeting of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in Prague, in November 2002. He announced that Armenia would hold its first Partnership for Peace (PFP) exercise and contribute to NATO-led peacekeeping operations. Since then, Armenia successfully hosted exercise Cooperative Best Effort 2003, joined the KFOR operation in Kosovo, announced its intention to launch an Individual Partnership Action Plan with NATO, and nominated its first Ambassador to be accredited solely to the Alliance. So you are certainly right that, as your president pledged, Armenia has been increasingly active with NATO.
As to why, of course, only your government can provide an authoritative answer. I will say, however, that, given NATO's role as the primary guarantor of peace and stability in Europe, cooperation with the Alliance offers a range of benefits to Armenia. Moreover, the September 2001 terrorist attacks stimulated a closer relationship between NATO and all members of the Partnership for Peace, as it brought home the recognition that we face new, immediate, and common threats.
Participating in NATO's Partnership for Peace can also help to reduce regional tensions. It is therefore natural that Armenia would want to be an active part of Partnership for Peace, which embraces all nations in the Caucasus.
- Many people in Armenia think that sooner or later Armenia will have to choose between the maintenance of close military-political relations with Russia and the striving for further integration into NATO. There is another opinion as well: Armenia can become a kind of a link between Russia and NATO in the South Caucasus. Which of these two positions is closer to you?
- Foreign Minister Oskanian speaks of the principle of "complementarity" between closer relations with the Euro-Atlantic community and Armenia's historical relationship with Russia. The fact that other CIS members also participate in the Partnership for Peace, that Russia itself enjoys a unique and constructive relationship with NATO, and that we cooperate with Russia on security issues from the Mediterranean to the Arctic support your Minister's view.
At the same time, there are indeed substantial differences in the ways NATO and Russia organize their military forces and defense organizations. If Armenia wants to significantly improve its interoperability with NATO, it will have to revise some of those structures. So there are practical issues that may convince your government to take a hard look at the future structure of Armenia's armed forces.
- It is very often noted in the western press that despite the activation of relations with NATO the pro-Russian Armenia yields to Georgia and Azerbaijan, which are allegedly "more sincere" in their desire to enhance cooperation with the Alliance. That's why the authors of such statements say that NATO should "forget" about Armenia and pay special attention to Georgia and Azerbaijan. What do you think about this?
- At the Istanbul Summit in June, NATO decided to put a special focus on the Caucasus and Central Asia, assigning liaison officers and appointing a special representative for the two regions. The amount of time and effort devoted to individual nations within those regions will be largely demand-driven, depending on the level of interaction that each nation chooses to have with NATO.
The Partnership for Peace is a "26+1" arrangement - meaning that Partners individually choose which joint activities in which they want to participate. These can range from training and seminars to participation in full-fledged peacekeeping operations. None of these activities is required of any Partner. So it is really up to you how much attention Armenia gets from NATO.
Georgia and Azerbaijan have been active in Partnership for Peace and the EAPC, as has Armenia. I would mention especially Armenia's contribution to peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and successful hosting of the "Cooperative Best Effort 2003" exercise last year. Armenia recently announced its intention to prepare an Individual Partnership Action Plan - IPAP - a demanding and ambitious program for restructuring defense institutions along more transparent and efficient lines. That is a strong commitment to continuing cooperation with the Alliance, and NATO recognizes this.
- Do you agree with the point of view that NATO is ready to go as far in its relations with Armenia as Armenia itself is ready for it?
- Through IPAP, the Partnership Action Plan Against Terrorism and for Defense Institution Building, joint peacekeeping operations, and Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council consultations, NATO and Armenia can go a long ways together indeed.
- This April, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said: "if it happens so that Georgia and Azerbaijan become NATO members at last and Armenia not, this will obviously bring about the appearance of new separation lines in the Caucasus". He noted that "these issues give concern not only to us but also to NATO, the United States and Russia, and that's why they will be very careful and will try to avoid such a scenario." Are you really trying to avoid such a scenario?
- At Istanbul, NATO reaffirmed its "open door" policy and stated that its seven new members would not be the last - but it is premature to consider eventual membership for any nation in the Caucasus.
NATO's goal is to increase security cooperation in regions and we are ready to work closely with the Caucasus countries for peace and stability
- After the recent NATO Summit in Istanbul it became obvious that the South Caucasus has become one of the top priority regions for the Alliance. Won't this arouse a new wave of concern on the part of Russia?
- Compared to the broad range of interests that Russia shares with NATO - promoting peace, stability, and growth, and combating terrorism, proliferation, and illegal trafficking - areas of difference are relatively few.
NATO's special focus on the Caucasus should not raise that kind of concern in Moscow. Via the NATO-Russia Council, NATO Allies and Russia are addressing our shared interests and seeking to combat common threats. The reason for NATO's shift of focus is the recognition that we face common security threats with the nations in those regions, and many of those threats arise from the periphery, beyond Europe. These are threats Russia faces as well, and Russia can only benefit from NATO's work in this area.
- At present, Armenia is working on the Individual Partnership Actions Plan with NATO, which must be presented to the Alliance by the end of the year. Which issues and directions would you advise the Armenian side to lay special emphasis on while preparing this document?
- The Individual Partnership Actions Plan (IPAP) is a voluntary step for Partners that are not engaged in Membership Action Plans. And it is a major undertaking -- one that addresses all aspects of a nation's security policy. It is intended as a roadmap developed by a Partner nation, in cooperation with NATO's International Staff and in consultation with Allies - to improve the effectiveness, transparency, and efficiency of all defense-related institutions.
Armenia is the fourth Partner to announce its intention to prepare an IPAP, and only one (Georgia) has completed an IPAP document. Implementing it is another challenge, and one that can be expected to take many years. Actual implementation of the IPAP will be an additional challenge for partner countries.
In light of all that, it is difficult to comment on what direction Armenia's IPAP should take. The process will require creative and sustained inter-ministerial consideration in Yerevan, consultations with NATO, and a real long-term commitment by your government to come to fruition.
- This April, Deputy EUCOM Commander, General Charles Wald said in Yerevan that you are personally engaged in solving the issue of Armenian servicemen's participation in Cooperative Best Effort-2004 exercises to be held on the territory of Azerbaijan. How difficult was this process for you?
- We were impressed with Yerevan's hosting of CBE-2003, not least because it included Turkish officers and invited Azerbaijan's participation despite tensions with those nations. .
We support the decision by NATO authorities to cancel the CBE-2004 and deeply regret Baku's decision not to issue visas to the Armenian participants. We do not believe the decision is consistent with Azerbaijan's repeated desire to cooperate with NATO and work towards a closer partnership with NATO.
It is important that all members of NATO's partnership for peace be able to participate fully in all partnership for peace activities.
- Addressing the Summit of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in Istanbul, Armenian Foreign Minister stated our country's readiness to host PfP Cooperative Associate exercise on its territory in 2005. How do you approach this initiative?
- We will give all interested Partners full consideration. Based on Armenia's hosting of CBE-2003, it could certainly be a candidate, but there will probably be others, as well.
- Armenian officials have repeatedly stated that the unsettled Armenian-Turkish relations negatively affect Armenia-NATO cooperation as the public opinion in Armenia often associates NATO with Turkey. Do you accept the existence of such a problem?
- The history of Armenia's relations with Turkey cannot be mended in a day - or a decade. There were of course negative repercussions from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as well. But don't forget that some traditional enemies, such as Germany and France and Greece and Turkey now work side-by-side within the Alliance.
NATO is more than just one country. It is important to look beyond the relations with one particular Ally and look instead to the added benefit of participating in an alliance of 26 - of 46 Partners if you include the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. NATO has not just survived, but thrived and expanded, by overcoming past differences.
- Representatives of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) member-states often speak about the desirability of cooperation with NATO. How real do you find the perspective for NATO-CSTO cooperation?
-In September, a CSTO representative briefed the EAPC on the various aspects of the organization. But since every member of the CSTO is also a member of the EAPC, it is difficult to see what value is added by creating new links to that organization.
