Interview with Mikayel Hayrapetyan, Chairman of the Conservative Party of Armenia
Mr. Hayrapetyan, Armenia has chosen CSTO on the one hand and NATO on the other hand as its security guarantors. But NATO membership is not on the agenda. Which one of these structures is more reliable for Armenia?
If you mean security in terms of values, NATO is better for Armenia, of course. CSTO can’t be considered as such, since it doesn’t exist. Only the successor of the Soviet Union - Russia – which is making efforts to create the illusion of mockery of the Warsaw Pact. After all, if we exclude the circumstance of despotic Belarus, CSTO will be as a club of leaders of half independent and authoritarian Muslim tribes headed by Russia.
There is an opinion that Armenia should be neutral and should not join any military political alliance. Do you agree with it?
Neutrality or affiliation to any military political alliance should not be an end in itself. It should stem from the security interests of our state and our people. Neutrality is not an announcement but it is possibility and ability. At this moment, neutrality is impossible. The CSTO, i.e. Russia, will never let us leave without paying a very high price, while NATO does not have a roadmap with Russia even on Georgia, let alone Armenia’s membership. In general, the political thought of Armenia is exhausted.
What is the difference between these two structures? Do you agree that CSTO is an authoritarian structure while NATO is democratic?
There is no CSTO. It is the same as to say that the Marzpanian Armenia and other peripheries of Iran form a joint security system with the metropolitan area. A vassal can’t be on equal terms and form an alliance with the suzerain. Like the security system of the Persian empire 1500 years ago, to which the colonial Armenia had to pay without the right of appeal, now we have the Russian empire’s security system, to which Armenia again has to pay. So the CSTO, i.e. the Russian armed forces, cannot be authoritarian or democratic, they are just the armed forces of the empire.
NATO cannot be authoritarian or democratic either. These are the criteria for the armed forces and their infrastructures. If the point is the system of values of Russia or NATO member states, then yes, Russia and its Muslim colonies, as well as Belarus and Armenia, are authoritarian, while the larger part of NATO states are democratic though there is Turkey, an almost fascistic country, and Albania. There is also the other side of the problem: what values the CSTO is called to protect? Even the comparison is unjust. Sure, we need to strive to become part of the civilization, the vital and leading security – NATO – but only when it is more convenient for us to avoid being the one who will have to buy “drinks”.
Mr. Hayrapetyan, is Serzh Sargsyan’s trip to Chicago determined by the declaration on the Caucasian and Moldovan conflicts? May this declaration harm the process of settlement of the NKR issue?
Such declarations don’t harm the process of settlement of the NKR issue, especially because there was no strange or new point in it. If Serzh Sargsyan didn’t leave for Chicago and would alleviate Russia’s tough attitude towards Armenia, then we need to understand this. I hope the West also realizes this fact.