Tweet
MATEUSZ PISKORSKI: UNLIKE EUROPEAN OFFICIALS FOR ARMENIA IT IS EARLY TO SPEAK OF POLITICAL BENEFITS OF THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT SO FAR
ArmInfo's interview with Mateusz Piskorski, Director of the European
Center of Geopolitical Analysis, PhD in Political Science
by David Stepanyan
ARMIFO
Friday, August 16, 16:26
Armenia is preparing to sign the Association Agreement with the EU
already in November 2013. Nevertheless, one can hardly find any
details, at least in Armenia, on that 1,500-page document. Is it
legitimate initialing the Association Agreement with the EU amid
overwhelming public unawareness of the content of that document?
In 2004, when Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and other countries
joined the EU, our publics like the public in Armenia had no idea of
the content of relevant agreements. It appears to be a common problem
of legitimacy and democracy of procedures at such bureaucratic unions
as the European Union. It is a task for such structures as the EU
Information Center that was opened in Yerevan in January. It is a
surprising thing that there is no draft agreement on its website so
far. On the other hand, the Government of Armenia could translate
that document and make it available in the web for all concerned. Few
people will read those 1,500 pages, but there are quite experienced
political experts, international lawyers and economists that could tell
the public about that document after studying it thoroughly. In the
meanwhile, one can get an impression that Brussels teaches democracy
at the same time failing to observe the fundamental standards of
transparency.
What kind of prerequisites and obstacles do you see on the way to
initialing the Association Agreement with the EU at the Eastern
Partnership Summit in Vilnius? What kind of benefits and risks do
you see for Armenia and the EU?
Taken as a whole, for the EU there is no obvious political benefit
from the Association Agreement, while there is a big risk - Brussels
may deteriorate its relations with Moscow. For some objective reasons,
the EU will hardly become an independent player in the South Caucasus.
Personal factor has repeatedly influenced adoption of political
decisions in Europe. Elections to the European Parliament will be held
next year. Then new negotiations will be held for the staff of the
European Commission. European Commissioner Fule's fate is not clear.
He has made no significant achievements yet. Many experts say that
Czech diplomat sees his only chance in the success of the forthcoming
Summit in Vilnius. Catherine Ashton needs at least a symbolic success.
That is why European officials are in haste. For Armenia it is early
to speak of political benefits from the Agreement. Visa cancellation,
for instance, would be a political success for Armenia, but it is
not on agenda yet. Nevertheless, the format of the Agreement implies
establishment of an inter-state committee to operatively settle
all the problems between the parties, which, he thinks, will help
improving the communication links between Yerevan and Brussels.
Another, quite important moment: since 1995 all the treaties on
association have been containing clauses on respect for human rights,
in the way as the European Union interprets that. This may result
in the situation that Europe will start imposing its interpretation
of the word "tolerance" upon the Armenian society which is skeptical
about the "progressive" ideas of the West. As for the economic part
of the agreement, it will be presented in details in the DCFTA. I
should say that according to the data of the first months of the
current year, the EU is the main foreign trade partner of Armenia,
32,4% of commodity turnover is the share of Germany, although if we
watch separate countries, Russia is the first. For this reason, it
is very much hard to guess the economic results of the association,
in particular, DCFTA. However, experience of the countries which made
similar contracts is evidence of the fact that, as a rule, Association
resulted in expansion of foreign players in their markets, who used
to be more competitive than local producers. Certainly, free trade is
a mutual affair. But first of all, we have to study what part of the
Armenian production meets standards of the European Union which are
rather harsh. Here is the main risk, which may result in reduction
of job places in Armenia, just the same way as it happened in the
countries of Central Europe.
Will the Zurich Protocols with Turkey pop up again after forthcoming
initialing of the Association Agreement with the EU in Vilnius? Don't
you think that the Agreement to be initialed with the EU may face
the same fate as the Armenian-Turkish protocols?
It is important to remember that there is a fundamental principle
of official Ankara's stance i.e. the more confidently Turkey feels
itself in the region dreaming of a neo-Ottoman empire, the less it is
inclined to make concessions or negotiate, and the vice versa. Quite
recently, Turkish President Abdullah Gul has declared that Turkey
is still interested in rapprochement with the European Union. The
EU's reply was unambiguous i.e. after suppression of protests in
Istanbul, there is nothing to talk about yet, though it is a good
reason to put off the negotiations again. In the case of Turkey,
these negotiations last for already 50 years. Considering that Turkey
has gradually revised its foreign policy after failing in the Middle
East, particularly, in Syria, the EU could speed up normalization
of the Armenian-Turkish relations denoting the Zurich protocols as a
condition for further work with Ankara. Nevertheless, the Association
Agreement with the EU in the given case will be just symbolic. It is
much more important how the relations of the EU and Azerbaijan will
develop after the presidential elections in that country in October.
After all, it is Azerbaijan's position that impedes the Armenia-Turkey
normalization process.
Reportedly, Brussels has promised 3-4 billion EUR to Yerevan if it
signs the Association Agreement? What is Brussel's interest in it?
Well, 3-4 billion is not a big sum, as Armenia's needs more to develop
its infrastructure and social policy. At least three parties are
interested in speeding up the association process. These are European
officials together with Commissioners Stefan Fule and Catherine
Ashton, certain European business circles that seek to expand into
new sales markets, and the pro- American lobby in the EU, for which
the association is a step against Russia in the region.
Washington has been supporting the Eastern Partnership Project from
the very beginning, as it was introduced at the initiative of one of
US representatives in Europe, Minister Sikorski.
Is Europe's desire to sign the above Agreements just part of the
global plan to prevent the Kremlin's long-cherished idea of Eurasian
Integration Area or there are more pragmatic, economic goals?
Both factors matter. Search for new markets, amid ongoing crisis,
is of great importance, indeed. In the meanwhile, logic of the market
expansion denies any partnerships. In this light, Armenia is not as
important as Ukraine, for instance, but Europe is also interested in
having an area of economic influence in the region. The global plan
to prevent the Kremlin's long-cherished idea of Eurasian Integration
Area is the US's strategy rather than EU's plan. In this light,
Brussels is turning into Washington's instrument. Yet last year Hillary
Clinton said that the White House takes all the integration projects
involving Russia as a global threat. In this context, it depends
of European politicians how effectively they would persuade their
Russian colleagues that European integration does not contradict to
Eurasian integration, and that the two projects can replenish each
other. So far, they are failing to do that, unfortunately.
There is opinion that both the Eurasian and European integration
projects are nothing but soap bubbles that are made to maintain
influence in the countries of the post-Soviet area...
Integration has always been concentrated around certain center of
geopolitical and geo-economic force. In Europe it is Germany, while
in the Eurasian Union - it is Russia. No matter how much we talk
about partnerships and equal relations, strategic decisions always
rest on these centers. Armenia still has an opportunity to choose
between various ways and vectors of foreign policy, but that choice
is limited due to the country's geopolitical location - something
that must be remembered. In 2006, two countries having Association
Agreements with the EU entered an armed conflict - Israel's troops
launched an attack on Lebanon. EU did not interfere. The answer to
the question 'How many tank divisions does EU have?' is extremely
obvious - not at all. In the meanwhile, Armenia has a neighbor that
constantly threatens it with a military attack. We regularly hear of
soldiers killed by Azerbaijani snipers. Consequently, all this must
be considered before making a strategic choice.
It would be good if the Eurasian and European integration processes
have led to creation of a common space. The Armenian people can
compare the offers of Brussels and Moscow and make a choice meeting the
interests of Armenia only after it realizes who is the only guarantor
of security in the region.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
ArmInfo's interview with Mateusz Piskorski, Director of the European
Center of Geopolitical Analysis, PhD in Political Science
by David Stepanyan
ARMIFO
Friday, August 16, 16:26
Armenia is preparing to sign the Association Agreement with the EU
already in November 2013. Nevertheless, one can hardly find any
details, at least in Armenia, on that 1,500-page document. Is it
legitimate initialing the Association Agreement with the EU amid
overwhelming public unawareness of the content of that document?
In 2004, when Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and other countries
joined the EU, our publics like the public in Armenia had no idea of
the content of relevant agreements. It appears to be a common problem
of legitimacy and democracy of procedures at such bureaucratic unions
as the European Union. It is a task for such structures as the EU
Information Center that was opened in Yerevan in January. It is a
surprising thing that there is no draft agreement on its website so
far. On the other hand, the Government of Armenia could translate
that document and make it available in the web for all concerned. Few
people will read those 1,500 pages, but there are quite experienced
political experts, international lawyers and economists that could tell
the public about that document after studying it thoroughly. In the
meanwhile, one can get an impression that Brussels teaches democracy
at the same time failing to observe the fundamental standards of
transparency.
What kind of prerequisites and obstacles do you see on the way to
initialing the Association Agreement with the EU at the Eastern
Partnership Summit in Vilnius? What kind of benefits and risks do
you see for Armenia and the EU?
Taken as a whole, for the EU there is no obvious political benefit
from the Association Agreement, while there is a big risk - Brussels
may deteriorate its relations with Moscow. For some objective reasons,
the EU will hardly become an independent player in the South Caucasus.
Personal factor has repeatedly influenced adoption of political
decisions in Europe. Elections to the European Parliament will be held
next year. Then new negotiations will be held for the staff of the
European Commission. European Commissioner Fule's fate is not clear.
He has made no significant achievements yet. Many experts say that
Czech diplomat sees his only chance in the success of the forthcoming
Summit in Vilnius. Catherine Ashton needs at least a symbolic success.
That is why European officials are in haste. For Armenia it is early
to speak of political benefits from the Agreement. Visa cancellation,
for instance, would be a political success for Armenia, but it is
not on agenda yet. Nevertheless, the format of the Agreement implies
establishment of an inter-state committee to operatively settle
all the problems between the parties, which, he thinks, will help
improving the communication links between Yerevan and Brussels.
Another, quite important moment: since 1995 all the treaties on
association have been containing clauses on respect for human rights,
in the way as the European Union interprets that. This may result
in the situation that Europe will start imposing its interpretation
of the word "tolerance" upon the Armenian society which is skeptical
about the "progressive" ideas of the West. As for the economic part
of the agreement, it will be presented in details in the DCFTA. I
should say that according to the data of the first months of the
current year, the EU is the main foreign trade partner of Armenia,
32,4% of commodity turnover is the share of Germany, although if we
watch separate countries, Russia is the first. For this reason, it
is very much hard to guess the economic results of the association,
in particular, DCFTA. However, experience of the countries which made
similar contracts is evidence of the fact that, as a rule, Association
resulted in expansion of foreign players in their markets, who used
to be more competitive than local producers. Certainly, free trade is
a mutual affair. But first of all, we have to study what part of the
Armenian production meets standards of the European Union which are
rather harsh. Here is the main risk, which may result in reduction
of job places in Armenia, just the same way as it happened in the
countries of Central Europe.
Will the Zurich Protocols with Turkey pop up again after forthcoming
initialing of the Association Agreement with the EU in Vilnius? Don't
you think that the Agreement to be initialed with the EU may face
the same fate as the Armenian-Turkish protocols?
It is important to remember that there is a fundamental principle
of official Ankara's stance i.e. the more confidently Turkey feels
itself in the region dreaming of a neo-Ottoman empire, the less it is
inclined to make concessions or negotiate, and the vice versa. Quite
recently, Turkish President Abdullah Gul has declared that Turkey
is still interested in rapprochement with the European Union. The
EU's reply was unambiguous i.e. after suppression of protests in
Istanbul, there is nothing to talk about yet, though it is a good
reason to put off the negotiations again. In the case of Turkey,
these negotiations last for already 50 years. Considering that Turkey
has gradually revised its foreign policy after failing in the Middle
East, particularly, in Syria, the EU could speed up normalization
of the Armenian-Turkish relations denoting the Zurich protocols as a
condition for further work with Ankara. Nevertheless, the Association
Agreement with the EU in the given case will be just symbolic. It is
much more important how the relations of the EU and Azerbaijan will
develop after the presidential elections in that country in October.
After all, it is Azerbaijan's position that impedes the Armenia-Turkey
normalization process.
Reportedly, Brussels has promised 3-4 billion EUR to Yerevan if it
signs the Association Agreement? What is Brussel's interest in it?
Well, 3-4 billion is not a big sum, as Armenia's needs more to develop
its infrastructure and social policy. At least three parties are
interested in speeding up the association process. These are European
officials together with Commissioners Stefan Fule and Catherine
Ashton, certain European business circles that seek to expand into
new sales markets, and the pro- American lobby in the EU, for which
the association is a step against Russia in the region.
Washington has been supporting the Eastern Partnership Project from
the very beginning, as it was introduced at the initiative of one of
US representatives in Europe, Minister Sikorski.
Is Europe's desire to sign the above Agreements just part of the
global plan to prevent the Kremlin's long-cherished idea of Eurasian
Integration Area or there are more pragmatic, economic goals?
Both factors matter. Search for new markets, amid ongoing crisis,
is of great importance, indeed. In the meanwhile, logic of the market
expansion denies any partnerships. In this light, Armenia is not as
important as Ukraine, for instance, but Europe is also interested in
having an area of economic influence in the region. The global plan
to prevent the Kremlin's long-cherished idea of Eurasian Integration
Area is the US's strategy rather than EU's plan. In this light,
Brussels is turning into Washington's instrument. Yet last year Hillary
Clinton said that the White House takes all the integration projects
involving Russia as a global threat. In this context, it depends
of European politicians how effectively they would persuade their
Russian colleagues that European integration does not contradict to
Eurasian integration, and that the two projects can replenish each
other. So far, they are failing to do that, unfortunately.
There is opinion that both the Eurasian and European integration
projects are nothing but soap bubbles that are made to maintain
influence in the countries of the post-Soviet area...
Integration has always been concentrated around certain center of
geopolitical and geo-economic force. In Europe it is Germany, while
in the Eurasian Union - it is Russia. No matter how much we talk
about partnerships and equal relations, strategic decisions always
rest on these centers. Armenia still has an opportunity to choose
between various ways and vectors of foreign policy, but that choice
is limited due to the country's geopolitical location - something
that must be remembered. In 2006, two countries having Association
Agreements with the EU entered an armed conflict - Israel's troops
launched an attack on Lebanon. EU did not interfere. The answer to
the question 'How many tank divisions does EU have?' is extremely
obvious - not at all. In the meanwhile, Armenia has a neighbor that
constantly threatens it with a military attack. We regularly hear of
soldiers killed by Azerbaijani snipers. Consequently, all this must
be considered before making a strategic choice.
It would be good if the Eurasian and European integration processes
have led to creation of a common space. The Armenian people can
compare the offers of Brussels and Moscow and make a choice meeting the
interests of Armenia only after it realizes who is the only guarantor
of security in the region.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress