Remarks by Dr. Arman Kirakossian, Armenian Ambassador to the United States
Iraq and the Caucasus Forum
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, DC

May 27, 2003

 

As part of the Greater Near East region surrounding Iraq, Armenia was and remains concerned about the situation in Iraq. The Government of Armenia has always supported the disarmament of the Saddam regime, in view of our commitment to the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as a signatory of all relevant international documents and geographic proximity of Armenia to Iraq: the distance from Iraq’s northern frontier to the Yerevan metropolitan area is only 300 kilometers. We fully endorsed and supported the UN Security Council Resolution 1441. The Government of Armenia does not view the Operation Iraqi Freedom as detrimental to Armenia’s national interests, and we hope that post-conflict rehabilitation and democratization efforts will promote stability in the region and help Iraq emerge as a modern, well-governed, and democratic state that addressed concerns of all of Iraq’s social and ethnic groups. We support the territorial integrity of Iraq.

The primary factor guiding Armenia’s policy on Iraq in the run-up to and during implementation of Operation Iraqi Freedom was the presence of a sizable ethnic Armenian community in Iraq. In 2000, Armenia established an Embassy in Iraq, headed by a chargé d’affairés, primarily to provide liaison with the Armenian community and promote the Armenian companies working within the framework of the U.N.-administered food-for-oil program. Iraq is home to approximately 30,000 Armenians, who belong to the Armenian Apostolic and Armenian Catholic Churches. This population is well-established and highly urbanized; it is primarily engaged in commercial activities. While some Armenians migrated to Iraq as early as sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the majority of the Armenian population in Iraq are the descendants of the survivors of the Armenian Genocide of 1915 who were either deported or fled to this part of the then Ottoman Empire.

As other citizens of Iraq, these Armenians have lived and suffered much under the Saddam regime. The self-governing authority of the Iraqi Armenians, Central National Authority, saw its role reduced to merely cultural and educational activities. The communal property of the Armenian Church was confiscated in 1973 – soon after the Baath party came to power – and teaching of the Armenian language and history was prohibited in the Armenian parish Sunday schools (although they continued to secretly teach in Armenian). The most active and successful members of the community have emigrated in the last 35 years.

The Government of Armenia is of course concerned about ethnic Armenians living in foreign countries. Therefore, we have always had to calibrate our public position vis-à-vis international effort against the Saddam regime. Overt support by Armenia for the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq could have had tragic repercussions on our ethnic kinsmen in Iraq; Saddam’s ability and eagerness to punish his own citizens is well known and amply documented. Another important factor in this regard is, as I mentioned, the geographic proximity of the Yerevan metropolitan area (where a third of Armenia’s population lives) to Iraq, which put it well within reach of some of the missiles known to be in possession of the Saddam regime.

We value and appreciate all the elements of our strong relations with the United States, including the military and security component. As it is, U.S.-Armenian military and security cooperation since the 9/11 attacks continued to intensify. Since 9/11, U.S. requested and received unconditional airflight clearance and other tangible assistance to the U.S.-led campaign against the international terrorism. The substance of our cooperation and weight of our partnership in this and other areas is appreciated by both sides. Public awareness of the purposes and content of this partnership is not a goal for the Government of Armenia.

Just as other governments in the region, Armenia was regularly briefed by appropriate U.S. civilian and military authorities through established channels on the Operation Iraqi Freedom. We are relieved that the military operation was conducted within such a short span of time, which kept the number of casualties low. We hope that U.S.-led authority in Iraq will be able to address the problems that arose as a result of removal of Saddam’s regime. Armenia has offered to provide support, to the degree possible, for the post-conflict rehabilitation and stabilization in Iraq, and we are optimistic that the economic relations between Armenia and Iraq will continue unabated. We hope that the form of government that will eventually be chosen by the people of Iraq will be inclusive of all the ethnic and religious minorities of Iraq, including the Armenian community. Once again, we support the territorial integrity and democratic form of government in Iraq.

Obviously, the war in Iraq and the post-conflict rehabilitation alter the geopolitics of the region by reducing the risk of WMD proliferation in Iraq and introducing U.S. military presence in the heart of Middle East. In a way, however, this reality reflects the developments outlined in the immediate aftermath of 9/11: U.S. military continues to cooperate with its traditional partners in the region while working closely with South Caucasus countries. We are aware of the content and direction of U.S. military cooperation with Georgia and Azerbaijan, and have nothing to be concerned with. In case of Azerbaijan, both U.S. legislation (the Congressional action authorizing temporary waiver of Section 907) and the assurances of the U.S. administration provide guarantees that the U.S. military assistance to Azerbaijan will not be used against Armenia. The United States has legitimate strategic and economic interests in our region. The U.S. is actively and closely involved in peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, as a Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group. U.S.-Armenian relations are strong across the board, and we look forward to further positive U.S. engagement in our region. Armenia’s relations with the United States are solid and based on shared values and interests; their strength and durability are not a function of relations between the United States and a third country.

While there strategic implications of change of regime in Iraq for South Caucasus have been discussed, the economic and commercial consequences will be less predictable. In general, normal conduct of economic relations between the South Caucasus countries and the Near East is obstructed by the continued Turkish blockade of Armenia. This disrupts railroad traffic from Near East to Central Asia, and prevents emergence of regional cooperation in Eastern Anatolia – South Caucasus – Central Asia. For the last decade, Armenia stood ready to normalize its bilateral relations with Turkey, while successive Turkish governments proved unable to make a step that would really change the geopolitics in South Caucasus. With Turkish-Armenian border closed, I doubt that the eventual stabilization in Iraq will seriously affect the South Caucasus.

Nevertheless, I remain optimistic about the future of our region. The stabilization and democratization of Iraq, progress in the Middle East peace process, peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and Turkey’s positive engagement in South Caucasus are all plausible, not merely theoretical constructs, and they can unlock the potential of greater cooperation between the countries of South Caucasus and the Middle East.