Tweet
ARMENIA'S "POLITICAL SQUINT" WILL STILL CONTINUE
May 4 2013
Arman Melikyan, a Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic, talks about Armenia's complementarianism, choice between
the Eurasian Union and the EU * On April 19, (still acting) Prime
Minister Tigran Sargsyan and Viktor Khristenko, the Chairman of
the Eurasian Economic Commission's Board, signed a memorandum of
understanding in Yerevan. And on May 2, Tigran Sargsyan's Cabinet
decided to establish the Russian Lyceum Foundation. A year ago,
Tigran Sargsyan rather vehemently claimed that the issue of Armenia's
membership in the Eurasian Union was not on the agenda. How should
one understand this difference between words and deeds? * Firstly, one
should certainly take into account the fact that Mr. Sargsyan is not
entitled to make final decisions on the external political orientation
or take independent actions presupposing that orientation. Therefore,
the issue of not joining that union, which is still imaginary, will
not be solved by symbolic actions. On the other hand, the argument
of not having a common border with Russia is not convincing for a
set of reasons. At the end of the day, we still don't have a common
border with the members of the European Union either. This kind of
arguments are dangerous in the sense that they reveal ideological
inconsistency of our policy: on the one hand we say that we choose the
European system of values, on the other hand, we state that an obstacle
that prevents us from joining the Eurasian Union is not the system
of values existing in Russia, but lack of a common border. Does it
mean that if tomorrow we have a common border with the Eurasian Union
through Azerbaijan's membership in it, we will also join, and won't
losing Artsakh be the price we will have to pay for that? However, all
this is an abstraction, whereas I think that geopolitical processes
progress at such a quick pace these days that options that seem
preferable today will become undoable, and there will be no choice
for us given the logic of such developments. * It is interesting that
the negotiations with the EU on the Association Agreement are yielding
results in parallel with it, and it is not ruled out that among other
countries, Armenia will sign that agreement by the end of the year.
How long can Armenia pursue its complementarianism? * I think
that the situation will crystallize within the next three-four
years. Armenia will remain in the region that poses the most serious
political-military threats, but depending on the policy that is
pursued, it can be both an island of peace and a target. * The report
of the US Department of State was published recently and was preceded
by speculations that the Carrefour supermarket chain's entry into
our market might be delayed. One year ago, the US made much more
restrained statements about elections in Armenia. Is this related to
the fact that we have switched to the Russian orientation? * I think
that actually we have never turned away from the Russian orientation.
It is just that given the situation, we suffer from political squint;
we look to the north with one eye and look to the West with the other
eye. Let us just remember that the United States and the European
Union jointly endorsed Serzh Sargsyan's reassumption of the office,
and they know the price of it better than anyone. It is important here
that their attitude was the same as, in harmony with that of Russia. I
am under the impression that the Euro-American ambassadorial community
and observers did in Armenia everything that was possible to free the
Russians from the unavoidable difficulties of having that election's
legitimacy recognized. * There were rather strong statements about
Karabakh in the report of the US Department of State. Do you think it
is possible that these strong statements will cause violations of the
ceasefire on the front line to turn into hostilities? * I have already
talked about Armenia's becoming a possible military target, and with
regard to this question, I can only say that our Western partners
will prefer not to be involved in some military confrontation and to
load Russia with military resolution of disputes in a vast region,
including our region. NELLY GRIGORYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/05/04/154118/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia
May 4 2013
Arman Melikyan, a Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic, talks about Armenia's complementarianism, choice between
the Eurasian Union and the EU * On April 19, (still acting) Prime
Minister Tigran Sargsyan and Viktor Khristenko, the Chairman of
the Eurasian Economic Commission's Board, signed a memorandum of
understanding in Yerevan. And on May 2, Tigran Sargsyan's Cabinet
decided to establish the Russian Lyceum Foundation. A year ago,
Tigran Sargsyan rather vehemently claimed that the issue of Armenia's
membership in the Eurasian Union was not on the agenda. How should
one understand this difference between words and deeds? * Firstly, one
should certainly take into account the fact that Mr. Sargsyan is not
entitled to make final decisions on the external political orientation
or take independent actions presupposing that orientation. Therefore,
the issue of not joining that union, which is still imaginary, will
not be solved by symbolic actions. On the other hand, the argument
of not having a common border with Russia is not convincing for a
set of reasons. At the end of the day, we still don't have a common
border with the members of the European Union either. This kind of
arguments are dangerous in the sense that they reveal ideological
inconsistency of our policy: on the one hand we say that we choose the
European system of values, on the other hand, we state that an obstacle
that prevents us from joining the Eurasian Union is not the system
of values existing in Russia, but lack of a common border. Does it
mean that if tomorrow we have a common border with the Eurasian Union
through Azerbaijan's membership in it, we will also join, and won't
losing Artsakh be the price we will have to pay for that? However, all
this is an abstraction, whereas I think that geopolitical processes
progress at such a quick pace these days that options that seem
preferable today will become undoable, and there will be no choice
for us given the logic of such developments. * It is interesting that
the negotiations with the EU on the Association Agreement are yielding
results in parallel with it, and it is not ruled out that among other
countries, Armenia will sign that agreement by the end of the year.
How long can Armenia pursue its complementarianism? * I think
that the situation will crystallize within the next three-four
years. Armenia will remain in the region that poses the most serious
political-military threats, but depending on the policy that is
pursued, it can be both an island of peace and a target. * The report
of the US Department of State was published recently and was preceded
by speculations that the Carrefour supermarket chain's entry into
our market might be delayed. One year ago, the US made much more
restrained statements about elections in Armenia. Is this related to
the fact that we have switched to the Russian orientation? * I think
that actually we have never turned away from the Russian orientation.
It is just that given the situation, we suffer from political squint;
we look to the north with one eye and look to the West with the other
eye. Let us just remember that the United States and the European
Union jointly endorsed Serzh Sargsyan's reassumption of the office,
and they know the price of it better than anyone. It is important here
that their attitude was the same as, in harmony with that of Russia. I
am under the impression that the Euro-American ambassadorial community
and observers did in Armenia everything that was possible to free the
Russians from the unavoidable difficulties of having that election's
legitimacy recognized. * There were rather strong statements about
Karabakh in the report of the US Department of State. Do you think it
is possible that these strong statements will cause violations of the
ceasefire on the front line to turn into hostilities? * I have already
talked about Armenia's becoming a possible military target, and with
regard to this question, I can only say that our Western partners
will prefer not to be involved in some military confrontation and to
load Russia with military resolution of disputes in a vast region,
including our region. NELLY GRIGORYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/05/04/154118/
© 1998 - 2013 Aravot - News from Armenia