According to Gaidz Minassian, expert at French Foundation for Strategic Research, the problem is between Moscow and Brussels, and not between Armenia and the EU.
– Mr. Minassian, which processes resulted on Serzh Sargsyan’s statement on September 3 that Armenia intends to join the Customs Union?
– Serzh Sargsyan’s statement was not a surprise, it was noticed that he had changed his attitude towards the Customs Union, when he criticized the EU stating that the Association process is meaningless if the border with Turkey is closed. Three factors served as a basis for the statement on September 3, there are three reasons. First, Europe did not take into account of the fact that Armenia’s the most important issue is security. In August 2008, during the Russian-Georgian war, we became witnesses that EU was not able to save, protect the security and territorial integrity of Georgia. Secondly, it is Armenia’s fault. Why was it necessary to negotiate with the EU so long, if the decision ultimately was to be “no”. The way to EU supposes protect of freedoms and situational changes in democratic issues. But, the feudal, oligarchic system in Armenia was against this direction, and they did everything to hinder the European direction, in other words, they pursued the aim that the post-Soviet rules and manners continue to survive. Third, the tremendous pressures from Russia to Armenia. RF continues to dominate the former Soviet republics, it treats them not as sovereign states, but as vassals. This is an imperialistic approach, which seems does not change and can not be changed. Russia provides Armenia’s security, but it does not respect the Republic of Armenia, the EU respects, however, it does not provide security. I think it was meaningless to come up with such a statement in Moscow, it would be better if Serzh Sargsyan returned to Armenia, after which as a head of a sovereign state, announced what he said in Moscow on September 3. I think it would be better if it was announced from Armenia to be asserted that Armenia has no problems with Moscow and Brussels, that the problem is between Moscow and Brussels. In such a situation, the process could take another direction. But, it did not happen, it was kept silent, and it leaves the impression that Armenia now is paying because of contradictions between Moscow and Brussels. In other words, the process proceeded in the most undesirable direction.
– What messages did Serzh Sargsyan’s speech contain in his recent speech in PACE, when he announced that Armenia will participate in the summit of Vilnius? Is it expected to make some amendments in the negotiated document, and that Armenian is ready to sign the Association Agreement as a whole? Do you think it is possible to sign a document of other status with the EU before the Vilnius summit?
Read also
– Armenia should try to convince the EU countries, especially France and Germany, to sign a milder version of the agreement in Vilnius between Armenia and EU, which will not obstacle the relations between Yerevan and Moscow, that is, to conduct a complementary policy in two directions. But, there are European forces that have anti-Russian moods, and they were expecting that Armenia will initialing the Association Agreement by giving a slap to Moscow. I think if the right work is conducted by Armenian diplomats, and try to convince France or Germany, as the EU negotiator, that there are no contradictions between the CU and the Association Agreement, we can assume that Armenia can become the country that will sign the contract being a member of the CU. I think Serzh Sargsyan’s statements in Strasbourg should be considered on this very basis, after meeting with the President of France. This means that there were guarantees by France, that France will assist Armenia in this matter, that is, they will support that the European Union will have a unique approach to Armenia, without damaging the RF-Armenia relations. On the other hand, this approach will contribute to positive co-operation between RF and EU. But, if more anti-Russian countries hinder Armenia’s signing the document with the EU, it will create problems between EU and RF. In other words, I repeat, the problem is between Moscow and Brussels, and not between Armenia and the EU, or Armenia and Russia. In addition, the EU Association Agreement is related to the Iranian problem.
– In what sense, will you explain?
– In other words, if Iran solves its problems with the international community in the future, Armenia would appear in a leading position as a bridge, in other word, a new way would be opened for Iran to the West, without Turkey and the Middle East. Iran does not want Turkey to interfere in these processes; it is much easier for Iran to cooperate with Georgia and Armenia. Same for the U.S. and EU, it is much easier to cooperate with small Armenia and Georgia rather than Turkey or the Arab world. Perhaps, being aware of this danger, Moscow forced Armenia to make a step to the Customs Union, so that the West is not approved in the South Caucasus and get to Iran.
– What can you say about the prospects of the Customs Union? From time to time, information is received that the RF is creating some serious commercial problems for Belarus and Kazakhstan.
– It is clear that Armenian society, Armenia as a country, is closer to RF than EU countries, in consideration of history and geographical factors. But, the problem is as follows: what is the objective of Armenia? To develop the country? To make a country of the rule of law? Or, it wants to stay as a post-Soviet republic and maintain current status with weak economy, atmosphere of distrust, unresolved Karabakh conflict… I think, generally it is not clear what the Customs Union is by itself. No one knows what prospective it has. For the EU Association Agreement, it is at least obvious what does it mean, while for the CU …
– And now, the CU supporters claim for the opposite, that no one knows what is the EU Association Agreement, as if there were unfavorable formulations regarding the NK and so on …
– I do not think that there is nothing on NK, because since twenty years, in the European documents that were signed with Armenia, the emphasis was put on the right to self-determination, and a territorial integrity with Azerbaijan, and consequently, I do not think that this position has been changed in the new document. In this regard, I am relaxed, and the statements that we do not know what is written in the Association Agreement, it is a pro-Russian position, which aims at the creation of an atmosphere of mistrust and fear in society, and it is easy to intimidate Armenian society, because its experience is there. But the problem, here, is more profound, the RF does not want Armenia to proceed by another path, be developed, especially in the presence of Syria and Iran problems. In other words, behave as Putin did against Armenia, it was against the authority, not the state. Armenia is important for Russia as a military-political territory, but not as a power, in other words, a powerful military-political territory with weak political power.
Emma GABRIELYAN
