Ruben Shugaryan has been a deputy foreign minister of Armenia since 1999, supervising Armenia’s relations with the US, Canada, South America, the Middle East and Europe. From 1993 to 1999 he served as Armenia’s ambassador to the United States.

A. Grigoryan (Armenia) - Good afternoon, Mr. Shugaryan. I would like to ask a question about the possible impact of the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border on the region as a whole, and how real such an opening is.

The opening of the border can be considered both within the framework of bilateral relations and within the context of the region as a whole. The improvement of bilateral relations is profitable for both the Turkish and the Armenian sides. But no one should expect miracles from such an action, as the graphic example of Turkish-Georgian relations and the existence of open borders between the two countries shows that no incredible leap forward in the rate of economic growth has taken place. It is another matter that the diversification of trade and economic relations is mutually beneficial. Within the regional framework, the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border is important not only from the economic point of view, but also politically and in terms of security. With the opening of the border a totally new security situation in the region will emerge. First, Azerbaijan will not be able to continue its policy of isolating Armenia anymore. Turkey-- which although it has warm relations with Azerbaijan and good relations with Georgia, cannot positively consolidate itself in the region because of its policy vis-?-vis Armenia-- will cease to be seen as an alien element in the region. The possibility of opening the border exists, but political will and rejection of preconditions are needed for to do so.

Sh. Utiashvili (Georgia) - Good afternoon, Mr. Shugaryan. My name is Shota Utiashvili; I work for the newspaper 24 Hours. Thank you for taking part in this interview. Today many people think that the US influence on the Caucasus is rapidly diminishing and the Russian influence is growing at the same pace. The evidence is the transfer of the Georgian energy sector to Russia. Do you agree with that assessment and what is the Armenian government’s attitude toward it?

I do not agree with that assessment, since it is incorrect to talk today about the influence of one country on the South Caucasus in contrast to another country. Such contrapositions were justified in the mid-1990s. Since September 11, 2001 serious changes have occurred in US-Russian relations. This doesn’t mean that competition and contest have entirely vanished. But the previous uncompromising struggle over zones of influence including the near abroad (a Russian term) doesn’t exist anymore. What has happened in the energy system of Georgia is evidence of just the opposite-- namely, an example of settling the political and economic interests of two influential states in our region.

Sh. Utiashvili (Georgia) - What are the prospects of opening a railway link through Abkhazia, and how important is that for Armenia?

It would be better to address this question to my Georgian colleagues. I can only assume that today this is more real than it has been in recent years. Again I explain this by the coincidence of the interests of Russia and the US as well as the European Union. The EU has even appointed a special representative to the South Caucasus, whose mandate includes facilitating the settlement of conflicts in our region. Many things will become clear after the parliamentary elections in Georgia. For Armenia, the prospect of the opening of the Abkhazian railway is very attractive-- it will be another step toward the diversification of transport and economic relations for our landlocked country.

E. Krishtalev (Azerbaijan) - To what degree can the level of Russian businesses entering Armenia affect the economic sustainability of Armenia?

Businesses from any country coming into Armenia have a positive impact on our economic situation. Everything depends not on what country is investing in Armenia but on how efficient these investments are. Along with Russian businesses, there are investments from the US, Canada, China and Europe. We are open for investments and we welcome Russia’s active participation in our country’s economic field. The “Property for Debts” deal is not just a chance for Armenia to pay off its current foreign debt, but also a means to reanimate enterprises that for a variety of reasons have been shut down since Armenia became independent.

Sh. Utiashvili (Georgia) - Recently, cooperation between Armenia and NATO has noticeably improved. Do you think-- taking into consideration the rapprochement between Russia and the US you have mentioned-this might lead to a point where Armenia too will declare its desire to join the alliance?

Indeed, Armenia is actively cooperating with NATO within the framework of the Partnership for Peace program, we are taking part in a great number of projects of the Partnership and we have good bilateral military-political relations with individual NATO member-states as well. The main priority of Armenia’s foreign policy is integration into European structures. As far as NATO is concerned, we don’t take the route of declaring our plans but continue to cooperate with the organization calmly. One should not forget that as of today the closed border with Turkey automatically makes our border with NATO closed.

E. Krishtalev (Azerbaijan) - The most recent meeting of the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group demonstrated that the ambassadors of the three countries are more inclined to a step-by-step resolution of the conflict. Armenian experts have already made comments that such an approach will hardly satisfy Armenia. What do you think about this?

First, the information coming from Vienna has not been analyzed yet. Here we are most probably dealing with a colored analysis (if we can call it an analysis) by various experts. As far as I know, no serious changes have occurred in the co-chairmen’s position, but methodological amendments are always possible.

L. Amirova (Azerbaijan) - How does the Armenian establishment consider Armenia’s possible accession to NATO? To what degree does it correspond to the foreign policy objectives of Armenia?

I believe I have already answered that question.

E. Krishtalev (Azerbaijan) - What changes in the world could lead Armenian politicians to the understanding that Azerbaijan is better as a friend and good neighbor than as an adversary across the front?

This is the last question. No changes in the world-view of Armenian politicians are needed to understand that Azerbaijan could be a good neighbor. Such an understanding exists. One would wish for such an understanding in Azerbaijan as well. Throughout our entire history we lived in peace and harmony for much longer periods of time than at enmity with each other. Azerbaijan could be the most natural economic partner for Armenia. Even the existing conflict situation in Nagorno Karabakh is unique because no international peacekeeping forces have been needed to maintain the cease-fire regime that has lasted for nine-and-a-half years now. This indicates that in the process of political settlement we will not need much time to establish good-neighborly relations.