Whereas, according to the head of the Center for European Studies at the Yerevan State University Arthur Ghazinyan, Armenia has adopted a posture of waiting in its turn.
– Recently, the Republican Party Vice-President Armen Ashotyan announced that he sees a perspective for Armenia to build a European state within the Eurasia area. Could such a perspective be taken seriously?
– To determine whether it is possible to build a European state within the Eurasian area, we need to understand what is meant by saying a Eurasian area, and which state is considered to be European. Let’s start with the first one. I assume that the Eurasian area, by the speaker’s perception, is the area of the Eurasian Economic Union, which enrolled the Republic of Armenia as a full member of it. This area, in particular, the EaEU founding states, within the geopolitical and geo-economic dimension, are based on the principles of the Soviet regime subjected to certain modifications, which affects the daily life activities of social, political, socio-economic and legal systems. This regime is based on totalitarianism and one-person approved absolute power where the interests of the state, society and the individual (citizen) are subordinated to one person and a few of his surrounding families’ will, desires and aspirations, and the economic processes is adapted to their narrow mercantile interests.
Read also
In order to be considered a European state, in addition to geographic location, it should also comply with several other requirements. In particular, ensuring and guaranteeing effective and unrestricted activity of democratic institutions, guaranteeing free, transparent and competitive national and local elections, respecting and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, encouraging freedom of expression and free media, performing fair and effective governance, perceiving and supporting the civil society as its main partner, providing multiparty political system, which would be based on different political ideologies, as well as different models and visions for the development of the state. All the above-mentioned institutions and features are viewed by the top-defined neo-Soviet administration as instruments created by the opponent, the West. And any institution created by the “opponent”, in this case, the United States and the European Union, is subject to prosecution, isolation and conservation, which means that the characteristics typical to European country are not applicable to the area of the Eurasian Economic Union.
Now, let’s try to understand whether it is possible to build a European state within the EaEU area. In theory, yes, it is possible to build a European state in any situation and area, if the government of given state manages to get rid of this regime, adopt a new quality administration and create new grounds and provisions necessary for the above mentioned institutions and for the effective practice of the features. Please, do not confuse regime with administration, because even if the presence of the current administration, it is possible to achieve a regime change in the event of consistent with domestic reforms and availability of specific program.
– Recently, it is evident that the US and Europe are not going to “step back” from the region, particularly from Armenia. It was evidenced by the high US official Eric Rubin’s statement, Victoria Nuland’s visit and the statements by a number of other European officials. Considering the fact that Armenia is an EaEU member state, is there a concern that our country can become a hotbed of collision of geopolitical interests?
– The US and Europe will never cease pursuing their interests in our region, just depending on the geopolitical situation; these processes have either been slowed down or speeded up. Currently, we notice some activeness, both the US and the European Union. The EU-Armenia agenda and mutual trust crisis shows weak signals of normalization, which would be more visible after the Riga Summit. Already visible results of the sanctions applied by the US and Europe against Russia because of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict have become a stimulus for the activeness of relations with the US. In particular, we all witness day by day growing cracks in Russian economy, the sharp fluctuations in the ruble exchange rate, outflow of foreign investments and large capital, which significantly limits the possibilities of maneuvering in Russia’s current administration’s domestic and foreign policy and being consistent to strategic interests.
As far as I am aware of, the US has no specific plan for specific strategy and actions for Armenia, which is due to the fact of Armenia’s accession to the EaEU. It turns out that the US’s relations with Armenia is conditioned by its relations with Russia. And the fact that Russia-US relations are currently in the deepest crisis after the Cold War, no one can dispute. So far, I do not see a risk of Armenia’s becoming a hotbed for collision of geopolitical interests and I do not consider it realistic, as long as the Russian-Ukrainian crisis is not over yet. The matter is in a different realm. Specifically, after September 3, 2013, Armenia has to run a mono-vector foreign policy and is almost deprived of the opportunity for diversification. This contains the most serious threats that are hidden in the political, economic and military security spheres and can pop up in the event of further escalation of Russia-US relations. Russia has established its monopoly in all of the above three spheres, which means that Armenia has reduced the resource of its political decision-making flexibility under critical situations to minimum. I am deeply convinced that the situation would further be deteriorated if the Armenia’s authorities do not take urgent steps to eliminate the monopoly in the political and economic sphere and create a healthy competitive environment.
– Speaking of the Armenia-EU relations, the European officials give much importance to the upcoming EU summit in Riga in May. You also highlighted it. Official Yerevan is also talking about the development of relations with the EU, but does not introduce a clearly defined agenda. What should Armenia take with it to Riga? Are the RA authorities ready to improve relations with the EU?
– After publication of Armenia’s decision to join the EaEU, the Armenia-EU relations entered an agenda deadlock, a certain barrier of distrust arose between the parties, which so far has not been overcome. I have the impression that the EU is waiting for Armenia’s recommendations as to which are the areas and how deep Armenia is ready and is competent to cooperate with the EU. Whereas, Armenia, in its turn, had adopted a posture of waiting. The Riga Summit may become a unique starting point in the Armenia-EU relations, unless Armenia decides on its recommendations and is able to suggest a specific and clear plan, a partnership format to the EU. It is clear that we cannot pretend to have an effective and deeper cooperation that we have had since May 2009, but we have to admit it is extremely important for Armenia to restore its confidence with the Western partners, in particular, the EU. The spheres are too limited, consequently, the presented recommendations would be more superficial than we had before the independence of Armenia, including the membership in the EaEU.
– Is there a possibility that after the summit in Riga Armenia will sign the political component of the EU Association Agreement? Don’t you think that such a proposal would also be reasonable by the EU in consideration of the Ukrainian experience?
– The Association Agreement, as repeatedly mentioned by the EU officials, is one as a whole and cannot be divided by separate political and economic agreements, as the political association is not an end in itself process and should be coupled with the economic component too. In case of Ukraine, a political decision was made to use the political component of the Association Agreement, provided that the economic component would become operating since January 2015. As you can see, even in the case of Ukraine, the EU did not employ reservation. In other words, the whole agreement was signed and ratified, but the enforcement of its economic component was temporarily postponed. If Armenia is found in one security system, how can it be found in another economic system, and currently in another opposite political system? I have confidence that even if the EU agrees to sign the political component of the Association Agreement, then Armenia under the current geopolitical situation would not be able to sign and ratify it, because the geopolitical situation has been completely changed after September 4, 2013.
Interviewed by Nelly GRIGORYAN
