|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||
|
March 31, 2005 National Citizens’ Initiative Points to Old Realities or New Imperatives Yerevan—The National Citizens’ Initiative (NCI) today convened a roundtable on "Armenia’s Foreign Policy: Old Realities or New Imperatives?" The meeting brought together public figures, policy makers, media representatives, academic circles and NGO members to address historical facts and modern developments in an open and genuine manner. Karapet Kalenchian, the administrative director of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS), welcomed the audience with opening remarks and wished the participants fruitful work. "At the beginning of our foreign political activity in 1991-1992 we managed to pursue an economic, political, and security policy based on our national interest. However later Armenia began to withdraw step by step with inadequate responses to foreign threats, and subsequently we lost the dividends gained during the Karabagh conflict," Kalenchian said.
"Where has Armenia Reached with its Foreign Policy?," was the topical focus of the presentation of Ashot Manucharian, Political Secretary of the Union of Socialist Forces. Mr. Manucharian detailed the weaknesses of the sphere which are particularly reflected on the Karabagh peace process in the international arena. In view of the process of Karabagh conflict resolution, the speaker attached importance to Armenian foreign policy’s Caucasian dimension which has been overlooked for the last decade. As a result Mountainous Karabagh case is less potent. In Manucharian’s opinion the issue should be resolved not only within the framework of OSCE Minsk Group but in a comprehensive and multidimensional policy which we lack. Armenia has not developed a systemized foreign policy in the following five important directions: European, American, Russian, Indochinese, and Islamic. ACNIS research coordinator Stepan Safarian discussed "The South Caucasus in the Dynamics of European Integration." "Armenia’s foreign policy of the recent years has been doomed to failure since it has no relations with regional and world realities. The lack of consideration of flexible and movable balance of the United States-European Union-Russian Federation triangle has diversely affected nearly all the possibilities of favorable solution for Armenia’s security challenges-Armenian-Turkish relations, the Karabagh issue, Armenia’s representation in regional programs. To solve the key issues of Armenia’s foreign policy we must promote the process of European integration. Our public has sufficient potential and capacity to realize this," he said.
Albert Baghdasarian, chairman of the National Progress Club, delivered a paper on "The Karabagh Issue in the Context of Armenia’s Foreign Policy." Mr. Baghdasarian pointed to the major dimensions-political, legal-historical, demographic, economic-integration and religious-cultural-which are the inalienable parts of the Karabagh agenda and should be developed in parallel. "We may succeed if we move not towards contrast but synergy of solutions and ideas," Baghdasarian maintained. The remainder of the session was devoted to exchanges of views and policy recommendations among the public figures and policy specialists in attendance. Noteworthy were interventions by Albert Bazeyan of Hanrapetutiun Party; former minister of state Hrach Hakobian; ACNIS analyst Alvard Barkhudarian; Edward Antinian of the Liberal Progressive Party; Edgar Hakobian of Heritage party; Noyan Tapan news agency political analyst Davit Petrosian; Tamar Gevorgian of the United Labor Party; Mihran Hakobian of Yerevan State University’s student council; and many others.
The majority of the speakers opine that Armenia’s foreign policy has considerably lagged behind over the last years, sometimes being unable to express the interests of its own country, to raise and evaluate vitally important public issues in light of new regional and world realities, and to voice Armenian interest in the international arena.
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
