According to political scientist Armen Grigoryan, when the time for signing a new agreement with the EU comes, “the Kremlin may again impose what it wants.”
– Mr. Grigoryan, what findings did the “Eastern Partnership” summit in Riga showed? Did it prove the expectations that were available?
– Some of the expectations were fulfilled. It was long ago clear that the EU’s future cooperation with the EaP countries will develop by different formats, depending on the degree of willingness of individual countries to implement the reforms. The perception of danger for the insufficient course of reforms and weakening of the state institutions in the EaP countries, especially those who have signed association agreements was made further clear. The corruption, lack of economic progress and other unfavorable factors do not just contribute to any country’s instability taken separately, but to the increase of Russian influence, which is a threat to the European security. Accordingly, the governments of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine are to be offered more specific demands to ensure the effectiveness of the reforms, however, without generous promises – the prospective EU membership and so on. In this context, it is noteworthy, for instance, the new loan to Ukraine, along with the improvement of control mechanisms with the use of the resources.
At the same time, it is no more possible to pretend that there exists a region made up of six countries. There are countries ready to move forward towards the European integration and to be in compliance with the key standards of democracy, and there are countries that have sole governance, numerous political prisoners and flagrantly violating the elementary human rights, in general (one of which, however, belongs to the European civilization, and the other is signified in terms of the energy security), and eventually, there is a country that is guided almost exclusively by the interests of Russia. The EU cannot implement a common policy with these so different from each other six countries, and although the “Eastern Partnership” name will still remain, in fact, it will not work as an overall plan. The EU bipartite relations with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine will present a greater importance, it is also possible to set up a narrower format inside the Eastern Partnership, in participation with the EU and the three mentioned countries.
Read also
– The government authorities of Armenia have repeatedly stated that Armenia is ready to deepen its relations with the EU, up to signing a new agreement, but Armenia’s commitments to the EaEU membership must also be taken into account. It seems like the EU officials already consider this “compatibility” quite possible. Can Armenia, in fact, benefit in this situation? What do you think, will the government authorities of Armenia go to the end to pass a new document? Would Russia tolerate it? The European officials continue repeating that the “Eastern Partnership” is not directed against Russia. Does it mean that the situation turns to be favorable?
– What can Armenia benefit? To implement a limited partnership with the EU with the permission of Moscow? I will bring a reasonable example for the people who are a bit abstract but aware of the reality. Suppose we have a business, a government official demands having half of it just for nothing, then he agrees taking “just” 40%. Does this mean that we benefited by 10%? No, we lost 40%, don’t we? With the EaEU membership and strengthening dependence on Russia, Armenia is just losing time and resources, and the gap directly with neighboring Georgia is increasingly growing. While, the But the Russian expansion has no tendency to stop. It has reached the point that a school building is delivered to a Russian company, by suspicious substantiations.
And the fact that a few days ago, the European Commission actually approved the offer to elaborate a new agreement with Armenia does not yet mean that this process would be an effective one. The Russian blackmail factor has not vanished at all. Yes, Moscow was not against holding preliminary consultations with the EU for working on the new agreement and attending the conference in Riga. To some extent, it could also be advantageous to Russia (eventually, even some of the optimistic Armenian analysts emphasize that the adoption of tougher resolutions on the annexation of Crimea was prevented with S. Sargsyan’s attendance to the Riga Summit), but this is not a guarantee in terms of successfully completing the future works. When the time for signing a new agreement comes, the Kremlin may again impose what it wants.
– When in Riga, Serzh Sargsyan met with Prime Minister of Kingdom of Sweden, Stephen Löfvén. Noting that Armenia is one of the strategic partners of the European Union in the region, Sweden Prime Minister hailed the policy of Armenia aimed at becoming a bridge between the Eurasian Union and the EU, which, in his opinion, could become an important platform for cooperation. Does Armenia nowadays have such a chance to become a serious “player” in this key matter?
– The absurd idea of becoming a “bridge” between the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union is drawn by the Armenian officials to demonstrate their “flexibility”. Perhaps, Sweden Prime Minister positively reacted to the similar subsequent statement because of courtesy. The EU does not consider the EaEU an equivalent partner, but rightly, a Russian project, with which, as an independent structure, no partnership goal is laid down, also because of Russia’s aggressive policy. In addition, the very fundamental principles of the two Unions are incompatible.
– Azerbaijani delegation withstood the adoption of the final declaration on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in the Riga summit, however, eventually, they signed it. Later on, Deputy Head of Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan, Novruz Mammadov, announced that Azerbaijan has made concessions to the EU by signing the Declaration in the “Eastern Partnership” summit in Riga. Today, the discussion of Azerbaijan-West escalation is pending, and there are opinions that there is absolutely no need to rejoice with unpredictable Azerbaijan. Do you see any danger in the escalation of the West-Azerbaijan relations, or, in general, is it an unpredictability, or a subsequent “blackmail” policy?
– Azerbaijan has a lot in common with Russia, and blackmail is one of their political instruments. Once, they had event intimidated their Turkish “bros” with a sharp rise in gas price in case of the attempts to normalize relations with Armenia. However, Azerbaijan is perceived by the West as a key partner in terms of energy security to lessen the dependence on Russia. In addition, Azerbaijan, unlike Russia, does not constitute a threat in terms of global security. As for the Riga Summit Declaration, Azerbaijan once again showed its negative attitude towards the OSCE Minsk Group format and will continue the provocations aimed at eliminating the process from this format.
Emma GABRIELYAN, “Aravot” daily
