Interview with expert of the Armenian Center for Democracy, Security and Development Marta Ayvazyan
– Riga is going to host the EU summit in May. The European officials mention that we need to have realistic expectations of the Riga Summit. How do you explain the Europeans’ recent activeness and increased interest towards our country?
– First and foremost, the Europeans and generally, the Western countries’ concern and attention to the developments in our region have been increased. And this has taken place in the implication of the Islamic extremism and currently ongoing developments in the relations of the West-Russia, the West-Iran, Russia-Turkey and the South Caucasus countries, particularly the spread out of activities of the “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” and many other factors. The EU, based on its political, economic, energy and military security interests, is continually seeking to peace and security in the South Caucasus and ensuring the possibility for sustainable and integrated economic development in the region. From this point of view, Armenia’s interests unambiguously coincide with the interests of the EU. Russia, whose position in the international platform has considerably weakened in the last year, naturally, is also guided by its own interests, but, unfortunately, without having any other way to preserve and strengthen its presence and influence in our region, it operates based on the principle of instability, corrupt, and therefore, manageable government support, the existing conflicts, and in our case, preservation of NK conflict and escalation of tension and incitement of hostilities, as appropriate. To achieve its goals in our region, Russia uses Armenia, which serving Russia’s geopolitical interests has turned into a source of instability and also possible military threat in the South Caucasus. In my opinion, the growth of tension on the borders with Armenia, in the Nagorno-Karabakh frontline, the sharp increase in the number of incidents in recent years should be considered in this implication. All of this, as well as Russia’s aggressive intervention and role in the Ukrainian crisis, Crimea’s annexation to Russia are causes for Europeans’ concern and some activation in our region and, in particular, in Armenia. The EU, whom Armenia in fact deceived by making a sharp turn to the EaEU, and whose policy is based on long-term policy planning, however, has never turned its back to Armenia. In the current situation and led guided by the principle of its involvement policy, the EU considers it necessary and possible to continue the political as well as economic cooperation and signing of an appropriate document with Armenia. At the same time, formulation of “realistic expectations” is remarkable, which perhaps is a reference to the Russian factor and from this perspective contains certain restrictions and expressed lack of confidence in RA government authorities and other political forces current operating in Armenia.
– Armenia would prefer that Russia does not sell weapons to Azerbaijan, mentioned Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandian recently in his interview to Slovenian «Dnevnik» daily newspaper. What will be the consequences for the expression of this level of attitude by official Yerevan? How can Armenia achieve results on this issue? What kind of work is necessary to conduct in this direction?
Read also
– I do not think that such expression of the attitude may have consequences, moreover, the mentioned interview as a whole excludes any practical continuation and even to some extent it shows dominance of Russia’s interests over Armenia’s interests. Moreover, interpreting the content of ally’s notion in a very unique way, it once again confirms that Armenia or better to say, Armenia’s current government authorities will no way dispute Russia’s actions under the present conditions, regardless of their nature, motives and possible consequences for Armenia. Generally, selling weapons to Azerbaijan is only one episode of Russia’s attitude to Armenia and the entire picture of the policy led. Even the most recent examples are many and refer to a variety of fields, ranging from the sale of weapons and contrary to our national interest, the membership to the EaEU up to shooting of the Avetisyan family members carried out by a soldier or soldiers of the Russian military base in Gyumri, and in particular, the flagrant violation of its international treaty obligations by Russia with regard to the investigation of the case.
And the main problem is first and foremost among us, our inability to protect our interests. While, Armenia has a range of leverages and opportunities to influence Russia in different dimensions, bilateral and international partnership frameworks and to protect its interests. These levers are available in political, economic and military cooperation spheres with favorable conditions for Armenia, ranging from import of gas from Iran, review of financial terms for the military base deployment in Gyumri, and intensifying the international cooperation with other states for ensuring military, particularly, border security, raising the issue of international obligations commitment by Russia towards Armenia at the international instances up to withdrawal from the EaEU membership. No matter what, I consider the change of the format of our southern border, in particular, the protection of the international airport a necessary step. How can one totally trust the borders and generally the security provision to someone, who has never been a reliable partner and for whom, the source of the threat to your security is historically more important and valuable than you? However, all of this will be possible only through repeatedly voiced systemic changes, in the case of formation of a government and equivalent opposition not intertwined by corruption schemes and private interests with Russia’s power and oligarchic system legitimate in Armenia. It is also a necessary condition to ultimately realize Armenia’s value and importance for Russia, not to overestimate Russia’s importance for Armenia and to instill this awareness in our society.
– Former Foreign Minister of Armenia Vartan Oskanian recently had left a post on his Facebook, telling that he had received an invitation to speak at the event organized in one of the Diaspora Armenian communities marking the centennial of the Armenian Genocide, but the Embassy to Armenia had objected to his participation. “I must say that this is absolutely incomprehensible and unacceptable. I am sorry for this kind of fainthearted behavior,” said he. You and your colleagues were deprived of the employment at MFA for the statement about lawful holding of presidential elections in 2008 during the tenure of Oskanian as a Minister of Foreign Affairs. How do you feel about this and other statements by “democratic” Oskanian in recent years?
– For me, there is no fundamental difference between Vartan Oskanian and, let’s say, the same Gagik Tsarukyan, both of them, each in his own realm and within the scope of his abilities, are a mean or a tool serving the interests of other players or forces. Suffice it to recall the enthusiasm that Oskanian was displaying to support the actions of the authorities who had organized the March 1, 2008 slaughter, instead expecting to take over the post of the prime minister of Armenia, which, however, did not become a reality so forth. Hence, I no way treat the statements made by Oskanian in recent years, nor his actions. And what comes to others’ fainthearted behavior,” then Oskanian’s this kind of assessment is worthy of only irony.
– What do you think, what happened in the political arena on February 12 after Serzh Sargsyan’s famous speech? Can the events following this speech, the PAP dissolution, be considered a surprise?
– PAP dissolution, more precisely, Gagik Tsarukyan’s overthrow was not a surprise, as well as the pending reduction of the PAP membership, which is the logical continuation of Tsarukyan’s fall. What happened to Armenia’s political arena was that the plan for implementing a bourgeois-democratic revolution through this “Armenia-origin force”, which on the one hand is practically aimed at nullifying the strong and true opposition movements formed in Armenia in 2008, which in its turn was obviously dictated by Moscow, and on the other hand, basically, was mainly due to Serzh Sargsyan-Robert Kocharyan competition to gain the trust and support of Moscow, ended, or, rather to say, served for its purpose and exhausted itself. What agreements the key role-players achieved in the meantime under what influence will become apparent over the time. However, as a result, a quite strong ruling pyramid headed by Serge Sargsyan is left in nowadays Armenia’s political arena, which is based on personal economic interests, is dependent on the Russia’s government authorities, is totally unbalanced by adequate opposition force, thereby is vulnerable and contains numerous risks for Armenia.
Emma GABRIELYAN
