According to the expert for the French Military Research Foundation Gaidz Minasyan, Serzh Sargsyan is ready to sign the political component of partnership with the EU.
– Recently, French Secretary of State for European Affairs, Harlem Désir, stated that French President Francois Hollande will discuss the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts during his visit to Yerevan and Baku on April 24 and 25, accordingly. It turns out that Hollande will visit Armenia not only for attending the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, but also for the Karabakh issue. Will the recent activeness by France be successful? Is it possible to hold Sargsyan-Aliyev meeting in the near future?
Gaidz Minasyan
– Firstly, it is necessary to lessen the escalation of tension on the contact line and only then to think about organizing a new meeting. The United States, France, and Russia seek to save the negotiation process to show that there is no other way but a political solution. The Azerbaijani side is thinking about holding these talks. They consider that it is necessary to negotiate on the new agreement, thereby seeking to come out of the discussion of the Madrid principles, as they are against these principles for the past three years, if not more. Today, the Azeris are primarily highlighting the economic impulse. As you know, the oil prices fell, and the investments are less than expected, hence, these two reasons make them act in dual form over the negotiations.
– It is obvious that Azerbaijan runs a line of maintaining the contact line in tension, a policy of subversives and provocations. In recent months, this desire of maintaining the tension does not receive an adequate response from the West. What do you think, what kind of work is necessary to carry out on the diplomatic front to restrain the activities of the Azerbaijani authorities? Why has Azerbaijan adopted such a tactic? What does it seek?
Read also
– If the Azerbaijani side does not exert this terrible pressure on the Armenian side, does not use this lever by diversions and provocations, then it means that it has reconciled to the loss of Nagorno-Karabakh. Simply, they do not have any other choice. Since they are strongly against the Madrid principles but cannot say it openly, it remains using the other option – constant diversions and tension on the border to show to the international community that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is not resolved, and since it is not resolved, they will go on with provocations and subversive activities. The Armenian government authorities and diplomacy (firstly, where was the Armenian diplomacy some three, if not eight years ago?), if the opponent exerts such pressures, should be more active in voicing that unless the international community guarantees the security of the people of Armenia and Karabakh, we would not only refuse negotiations, but will demonstrate a kind of passivity, because we have done so much in the diplomatic front that after it nothing is any longer possible. Three options exist, either Armenia retreats and the Karabakh authorities should return to the negotiating table, or a war, which no one wants, or the third option – a start of the Karabakh recognition process by Armenia. Azerbaijan raises only the principle of territorial integrity, while in the talks, they negotiation on the principle of self-determination and adopt papers with the RA government authorities and co-chairing countries, anyway, only one principle is publicly voiced from Aliyev’s lips and a reference to the four resolutions of the UN Security Council.
Each time Armenia’s diplomacy should announce after the Azerbaijani diversions that it is adherent to the negotiation and the OSCE Minsk Group format, but also should voice the above-mentioned three options. It is clear that if Armenia recognizes Karabakh, automatically it will assume an outbreak of war. But, there is an internal problem here in terms of domestic political and state institutions. Should we have two chambers of the parliament, we could demonstrate more flexibility. We would have entered the resolution on recognition of the Karabakh independence into the agenda, would respond to every provocations by the Azerbaijani side and would have voiced the resolution for the Karabakh recognition at the Foreign Relations Committee of the National Assembly, we would have voted for the issue to enter into an extensive agenda.
Surely, Azerbaijan would begin complaining, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs would also say, what are you doing? While, we could answer that our government branches are separate: there is a legislative and executive power, and this issue is under the examination by the legislature rather than the executive, we are unable to influence. The American and French sides respond to the Armenian and Turkish sides by using the Armenian Genocide resolutions in their parliaments. Since the Parliament of Armenia does not have two chambers, this option can be used to enter the issue of recognizing the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh into the Constitutional Court, as it happened in the case of the Armenian-Turkish protocols. But what does our diplomacy do? Foreign Minister Nalbandyan is right when he announces that Armenia’s posture is consistent with the posture of the international community, but this is not enough, practically, it is necessary to display flexibility.
– Recently, Serzh Sargsyan addressed the subject of arms sale to Azerbaijan by Russia, noting that the Armenian-Russian relations are concerned about the fact that the Armenian young man standing on our borders realizes that he is tried to be destroyed by the Russian arm. Is it possible for the Russian side to be limited to arms sales to Azerbaijan in the context of this statement, and the balance of the arms sale between Armenia and Azerbaijan is broken?
– First of all, Serzh Sargsyan voices the arms sale to Azerbaijan by Russia for the second time. Last time, he spoke on this in his interview with Argentinian newspaper. Unfortunately, this was talked about quite late, however, let’s leave this issue aside now, better late than never. I think Serzh Sargsyan runs a special tactics here. Armenia joined the Eurasian Economic Union so that Russia would not prevent the stability of Armenia, as well as for security reasons. To some extent, a balance is maintained. Armenia is both a CSTO member and cooperates with NATO. Currently, Armenia is willing to maintain a balance, on the one hand, with EaEU, and, on the other hand, with the EU relations. Perhaps, Armenia would reach an agreement with the EU in the political sphere.
The next important factor is that the Russians offered Azerbaijan to join the EaEU, instead, perhaps, promising to return the liberated territories or simply the Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan refused to join the EaEU. Serzh Sargsyan then played another game, realizing that the relations between Russia and Azerbaijan are not so good. If Armenia had not joined the EaEU, Russia would prevent the stability of Armenia, now, they have no reason for doing so. Russians are not for fiery situations in everywhere, there is a Ukrainian crisis, as well as socio-economic problems inside Russia. In this situation, Serzh Sargsyan employed his diplomatic tactics. Using certain problems between Russia and Azerbaijan, he spoke on the subject of arms sale to Azerbaijan by Russia.
Serzh Sargsyan is ready to sign the political component of the partnership with the EU because he knows that Russia seeks settling down the problems with the EU. Thirdly, the President of Armenia visited China, this is another important step politically and economically. China is interested in relations with Armenia. China is seeking to open new routes to the West, a more convenient and secure route through our region, as they would not have to get to the Suez and South Africa. Both Russians, Europeans, and Americans know about this new road projects. But a question arises of who will be controlling this road. Armenia is within the important crossroad, and Armenia’s role is extremely important today. Two years ago, Russia acted against Ukraine and Armenia to adopt the EU Association Agreement because it was against this road project.
– A few days ago, French Ambassador to Armenia Jean-François Charpentier mentioned that prior to the upcoming Riga summit in May, the technical component of the EU-Armenia talks, perhaps, will be completed. The Ambassador informed that the EU-Armenia relations will be discussed during the upcoming visit of the President of France to Yerevan on April 24. Should we expect any surprise at the EU summit in Riga? Is it possible to adopt a specific paper between Armenian and the EU?
– In principle, it is possible, but the important question is where we have reached in the negotiations with the EU, and whether the signing of a document is possible. It is positive that the French are negotiating. The role of Germany is also important here, and this issue should be clarified with Germany too. If we want to understand to what extent the talks on this-or-that issue are serious, we should determine the posture of France and Germany. If statements are made by these two countries, then signing a document is expected, and if not, then no document will be signed between Armenia and the EU. The positions of France and Germany are also important for Russia. Moscow trusts these two European countries. After the Russian-Georgian war in August 2008, Russia was negotiating with France, Russia approved the EU Election Observation Mission activities as France and Germany were involved. Today, Hollande and Merkel, again France and Germany, are negotiating with Russia on the issue of Ukraine.
Emma GABRIELYAN
