Globalaffairs

Issue 4/August-September 2007
by Armen Baibourtian, Vahe Gevorgyan, Mnatsakan Safaryan

In 1991 Barry Buzan, British political scientist, questioned the pure model of nation contemplating existence of state. His point was exemplified by the Armenians, a nation without state. Ironically, his sample did not last long, since the very same year Armenia became independent. However, the potential of the “Armenian case” to contradict pure models seems to be indefatigable. Yet to make things more clear, let us glance at Armenia in the mainstream of the political processes which occurred in the world at the last decade of the 20th century. Aside from the end of the Cold war, the disestablishment of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia manifested the conclusion of centuries long evolution of different forms of governances and polities to a single surviving model: the nation state.

In 1992, when Armenia and other former Soviet republics gained their seats in the United Nations, nearly the whole world was a family of various nation states. That is to say that the international system took its final shape towards which it was moving since the Treaty of Westphalia. Now - after fifteen years from those landmark changes of the early 1990s - we can assess how much exactly that shape was “final”. Not surprisingly, and as it is the case with many notions and processes, the end of one cycle in international relations brings to the start of another one. Charles Tilly nicely captured this phenomenon while stating that “…states may be following the old routine by which an institution falls into ruin just as it becomes complete”. Once gained long battled independence, Armenia had to build its state institutions without having an undisputed model of a nation state in the changing world.

The emergence of the United Europe encompassing the greatest portion of the continent, the transnational promotion of Western values by the US, Russia’s steady determination to maintain its traditional influence in international politics considerably undermined the conventional understanding of nation state in its most important dimension: absolute sovereignty. At the risk of some oversimplification, we can state that the erosion of the nation state sovereignty is so far being broadly explained by academicians and practitioners as a part of either globalization or clash of civilizations. The latter notion seemingly includes but is not simply reduced to perpetual clashes and confrontations among different civilizations. First of all, it refers to the ascendance of major regional power centers as main players in the world politics. Hence, simultaneous to the state building process - with all conventional complexities – Armenia found itself amid the tendencies of both globalization and regionalization.

From the very beginning of its independence Armenia has strongly advocated for neo-liberal economic globalization, and closely cooperated with its main international institutions and the U.S. In general, Armenia went considerably beyond the majority of former Soviet republic in carrying out IMF and WB prescribed economic and structural reforms. The land reform and massive privatization entailing other sectors of economy were implemented with certain neo-liberal zeal. As a result, even under hardships of closed land borders with two of its neighbors, Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia succeeded in creating a flexible and healthy economy. Yet sound foundation of economy alone could not guarantee its further development in terms of gaining access to external markets. For a country with limited domestic market and resources, such as Armenia, active presence in big regional markets is an imperative. Armenia’s economy had to deal with the issue of creating knowledge-based entrepreneurial capacities on its own. It is clear that without consistent expansion to the common markets of the EU and CIS, and emerging markets in the Asia and Middle East, Armenian economy will lose the momentum to acquire sustainability.

Likewise, political issues Armenia is facing have strong regional dimension. Strained relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan push Armenia to seek solutions in its regional policy. At the same time, international organizations such as OSCE, CIS and EU, helping to solve these problems have certain regional underpinning and vocation. Not surprisingly, Armenia’s foreign policy gravitates towards a balancing act between the global and regional tendencies. Consequently, the task that Armenia’s foreign policy is compelled to fulfill is a choice between practical short term gains and developing a solid conceptual framework for its orientation in the region and the world.

Here perceptions interact with realities and visa versa. These perceptions are shaped by historical record of being a borderland nation for many times during various historical periods with Armenia’s strategic location at the crossroads between East and West, North and South. At the same time, another reality of Armenia’s past and present is the existence of the worldwide Armenian communities, which acquired a global role since the 16-17th centuries. As a borderland, throughout the history the Armenian kingdoms were integrated into different regional systems, by assuming a peculiar role of a quasi independent “trustworthy alien”. Armenia’s role as “the sole Christian Kingdom of the Caliphate” and “the Oriental Kingdom of Latin Outremere” during the Crusades is good case in point.

The other organizational form of the Armenian people – the Diaspora – came into existence at the initial phase of global trade, when the Armenian merchants established worldwide trading network. The author of the perpetual peace theory Immanuel Kant was one of the first thinkers who paid close attention to the Armenian Diaspora’s phenomenon “Armenians wander on foot from the borders of China all the way to Cape Corso on the coast of Guinea to carry on commerce… in line from North-East to South-West, they travel through almost whole extent of the ancient continent and know how to secure a peaceful reception by all the peoples they encounter.”.

Why are these two generalizations important for the assessment of Armenia’s foreign policy making? First of all, both these realities are present nowadays and happen to form the constants of Armenia’s foreign policy. Our country is a member of various regional initiatives, such as CIS, CSTO, CoE, EU European Neighborhood Policy, and NATO Individual Partnership Programme, trying to develop mutually beneficial relationship with the EU, Russia, and the US.

On the other hand, there are more Armenians living abroad than in Armenia proper. The reasons for the existence of Armenian Diaspora are a mixture of political and economic factors. We have already touched upon the economic underpinning of the Armenian Diaspora. The prevailing political factor here is the 1915 Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey, which forced hundred thousands survivors to settle in the US, European countries, as well as in the Middle East and Latin America. Hence, the identity of the Armenian Diaspora was largely shaped by a single political event and centered around the demand for moral and political recognition of the Armenian Genocide. The Diaspora Armenian interest groups are well-organized in the leading countries of the world, particularly in the US. At the same time, these groups are active in introducing the American approaches in Armenia, both regarding Armenia itself and the region at large.

Apparently, Armenia’s foreign policy is bound to search for balancing formulas, keeping in mind the global trends of development and the traditional interests of regional powers. In seeking these solutions our country chooses an “act and see” behavior over “wait and see” precautious attitude. In essence, not to be scared of challenging controversies in international politics but bridging them in accordance with common sense towards positive cooperation.
Armen Baibourtian - PhD, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia
Vahe Gevorgyan - Head of EU Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia
Mnatsakan Safaryan - Head of East Asia and Pacific Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia

Global Affairs is not liable for author’s opinion

 Print Europe | Permalink | eva