Tweet
ARMENIA. THE SILENT VOICE IN VILNIUS
New Eastern Europe
Dec 9 2013
by Giacomo Manca
Amongst all others, there was one voice at the Vilnius Summit, and
in particular during the Civil Society Conference, which remained
mostly silent. That was the voice of the representatives of Armenia:
a country that, after announcing its decision to start its journey
towards the Customs Union and the Eurasian Union, no longer represented
a solid partner for the European Union.
In Vilnius, the EU and the Republic of Armenia adopted a joint
statement declaring that even having completed negotiations on
an Association Agreement, including the talks on the Deep and
Comprehensive Free Trade Area, it will no longer proceed with its
initialling due to "Armenia's new international commitments." They
also agree on the need to update the EU-Armenia Neighbourhood Action
Plan. Together with the Ukrainian announcement, Armenia represented
an addition thorn in the side of the Eastern Partnership's success.
When in September the Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan announced
the decision to join the Russian-led Customs Union, it implied the
rejection of any possible signature of the Association Agreement
with the EU. The two treaties, in facts, are totally incompatible:
in this way, Armenia's choice doesn't leave any hope or chance to
continue talks with the European Union on this level. According to
the former minister of foreign affairs, Vartan Oskanian, who defines
Armenian stance as a "northern choice", geopolitics and security
prevailed over economic interests or cultural belonging to one or
the other civilisation.
Oskanian stated that this decision, which breaks a long tradition
of equal distance between the powers, was mainly due to Armenia's
foreign relations with its neighbours; which are part of the Eastern
Partnership. The previous trend in Armenia's foreign policy was in
fact the policy of complementarity, which considered independence
the paramount priority for such a small republic. It is reasonably
understandable that security and survival are among the main concerns
of a country squashed between two almost historical enemies which
have already powerful alliances. While Georgia's rapprochement with
the EU is going to be enforced with the treaties, Azerbaijan has in
Turkey a mighty ally.
European values of democracy are firmly embedded in Armenia's citizens,
Oskanian affirmed, and was convinced that the agreement with the
Customs Union won't prevent the civil society or the opposition
from participating in modernising the country's infrastructures and
fighting corruption.
Representatives of the Armenian civil society expressed fear, however,
that the EU has lost its legal framework to push for reforms and
it will be much more difficult to modernise the private sector and
change the legal system. A hope that Europe will continue in exercising
conditionality by encouraging Armenia to undertake necessary reforms
is still bright and alive in the minds of many Armenians. However, the
country could soon find itself alone and is likely to be left behind.
Armenia's change in direction raises the possibility of dividing
the Eastern Partnership member countries into two different groups:
one that has the possibility of achieving stronger integration with
the EU; and those less interested. While it is still not clear which
group Ukraine will land, Armenia's position lies farther away from
Moldova and Georgia, who do not hide their final ambitions for full
membership in the EU.
The diplomatic history of Armenia explains the lack of divisions among
the civil society and the political scenario for its decision. Even
though there are divisions, the Customs Union is not perceived
as a consequence of Russian imperialism in the face of European
integration. Although in the civil society there are many against to
the Customs Union agreement, there is a strong difference among them
between their feelings towards Russia.
Armenia is a country which traditionally entertains good relations
with Russia and where subordination to such a regional geopolitical
power has always had a pragmatic purpose. In a country which lacks
any critics to Russia and whose citizens have a good perception of the
Russian Army, the Ukrainian situation is not entirely understood. Even
the civil society in Armenia has never been so anti-Russian and it
doesn't perceive it as a threat to its independence.
When it comes to the end of prospects for the Association Agreement,
however, many Armenians show their disappointment for not having
preserved at least a lighter profile, preventing such a drastic shift
towards Russia. In the civil society and the opposition, the prevailing
feeling remains a desire to restore the complementarity option, which
would ensure a bigger possibility to benefit from EU conditionality
for reforms and modernisation while maintaining close ties with Russia.
Giacomo Manca is a contributing editor with New Eastern Europe
http://www.neweasterneurope.eu/node/1063
New Eastern Europe
Dec 9 2013
by Giacomo Manca
Amongst all others, there was one voice at the Vilnius Summit, and
in particular during the Civil Society Conference, which remained
mostly silent. That was the voice of the representatives of Armenia:
a country that, after announcing its decision to start its journey
towards the Customs Union and the Eurasian Union, no longer represented
a solid partner for the European Union.
In Vilnius, the EU and the Republic of Armenia adopted a joint
statement declaring that even having completed negotiations on
an Association Agreement, including the talks on the Deep and
Comprehensive Free Trade Area, it will no longer proceed with its
initialling due to "Armenia's new international commitments." They
also agree on the need to update the EU-Armenia Neighbourhood Action
Plan. Together with the Ukrainian announcement, Armenia represented
an addition thorn in the side of the Eastern Partnership's success.
When in September the Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan announced
the decision to join the Russian-led Customs Union, it implied the
rejection of any possible signature of the Association Agreement
with the EU. The two treaties, in facts, are totally incompatible:
in this way, Armenia's choice doesn't leave any hope or chance to
continue talks with the European Union on this level. According to
the former minister of foreign affairs, Vartan Oskanian, who defines
Armenian stance as a "northern choice", geopolitics and security
prevailed over economic interests or cultural belonging to one or
the other civilisation.
Oskanian stated that this decision, which breaks a long tradition
of equal distance between the powers, was mainly due to Armenia's
foreign relations with its neighbours; which are part of the Eastern
Partnership. The previous trend in Armenia's foreign policy was in
fact the policy of complementarity, which considered independence
the paramount priority for such a small republic. It is reasonably
understandable that security and survival are among the main concerns
of a country squashed between two almost historical enemies which
have already powerful alliances. While Georgia's rapprochement with
the EU is going to be enforced with the treaties, Azerbaijan has in
Turkey a mighty ally.
European values of democracy are firmly embedded in Armenia's citizens,
Oskanian affirmed, and was convinced that the agreement with the
Customs Union won't prevent the civil society or the opposition
from participating in modernising the country's infrastructures and
fighting corruption.
Representatives of the Armenian civil society expressed fear, however,
that the EU has lost its legal framework to push for reforms and
it will be much more difficult to modernise the private sector and
change the legal system. A hope that Europe will continue in exercising
conditionality by encouraging Armenia to undertake necessary reforms
is still bright and alive in the minds of many Armenians. However, the
country could soon find itself alone and is likely to be left behind.
Armenia's change in direction raises the possibility of dividing
the Eastern Partnership member countries into two different groups:
one that has the possibility of achieving stronger integration with
the EU; and those less interested. While it is still not clear which
group Ukraine will land, Armenia's position lies farther away from
Moldova and Georgia, who do not hide their final ambitions for full
membership in the EU.
The diplomatic history of Armenia explains the lack of divisions among
the civil society and the political scenario for its decision. Even
though there are divisions, the Customs Union is not perceived
as a consequence of Russian imperialism in the face of European
integration. Although in the civil society there are many against to
the Customs Union agreement, there is a strong difference among them
between their feelings towards Russia.
Armenia is a country which traditionally entertains good relations
with Russia and where subordination to such a regional geopolitical
power has always had a pragmatic purpose. In a country which lacks
any critics to Russia and whose citizens have a good perception of the
Russian Army, the Ukrainian situation is not entirely understood. Even
the civil society in Armenia has never been so anti-Russian and it
doesn't perceive it as a threat to its independence.
When it comes to the end of prospects for the Association Agreement,
however, many Armenians show their disappointment for not having
preserved at least a lighter profile, preventing such a drastic shift
towards Russia. In the civil society and the opposition, the prevailing
feeling remains a desire to restore the complementarity option, which
would ensure a bigger possibility to benefit from EU conditionality
for reforms and modernisation while maintaining close ties with Russia.
Giacomo Manca is a contributing editor with New Eastern Europe
http://www.neweasterneurope.eu/node/1063