Tweet
ARMENIA IS PAYING BECAUSE OF CONTRADICTION BETWEEN MOSCOW AND BRUSSELS
October 4 2013
According to Gaidz Minassian, expert at French Foundation for Strategic
Research, the problem is between Moscow and Brussels, and not between
Armenia and the EU. - Mr. Minassian, which processes resulted on
Serzh Sargsyan's statement on September 3 that Armenia intends to join
the Customs Union? - Serzh Sargsyan's statement was not a surprise,
it was noticed that he had changed his attitude towards the Customs
Union, when he criticized the EU stating that the Association process
is meaningless if the border with Turkey is closed. Three factors
served as a basis for the statement on September 3, there are three
reasons. First, Europe did not take into account of the fact that
Armenia's the most important issue is security. In August 2008,
during the Russian-Georgian war, we became witnesses that EU was
not able to save, protect the security and territorial integrity of
Georgia. Secondly, it is Armenia's fault. Why was it necessary to
negotiate with the EU so long, if the decision ultimately was to be
"no". The way to EU supposes protect of freedoms and situational
changes in democratic issues. But, the feudal, oligarchic system
in Armenia was against this direction, and they did everything to
hinder the European direction, in other words, they pursued the aim
that the post-Soviet rules and manners continue to survive. Third, the
tremendous pressures from Russia to Armenia. RF continues to dominate
the former Soviet republics, it treats them not as sovereign states,
but as vassals. This is an imperialistic approach, which seems does
not change and can not be changed. Russia provides Armenia's security,
but it does not respect the Republic of Armenia, the EU respects,
however, it does not provide security. I think it was meaningless to
come up with such a statement in Moscow, it would be better if Serzh
Sargsyan returned to Armenia, after which as a head of a sovereign
state, announced what he said in Moscow on September 3. I think it
would be better if it was announced from Armenia to be asserted that
Armenia has no problems with Moscow and Brussels, that the problem is
between Moscow and Brussels. In such a situation, the process could
take another direction. But, it did not happen, it was kept silent,
and it leaves the impression that Armenia now is paying because
of contradictions between Moscow and Brussels. In other words, the
process proceeded in the most undesirable direction. - What messages
did Serzh Sargsyan's speech contain in his recent speech in PACE, when
he announced that Armenia will participate in the summit of Vilnius?
Is it expected to make some amendments in the negotiated document, and
that Armenian is ready to sign the Association Agreement as a whole?
Do you think it is possible to sign a document of other status with
the EU before the Vilnius summit? - Armenia should try to convince the
EU countries, especially France and Germany, to sign a milder version
of the agreement in Vilnius between Armenia and EU, which will not
obstacle the relations between Yerevan and Moscow, that is, to conduct
a complementary policy in two directions. But, there are European
forces that have anti-Russian moods, and they were expecting that
Armenia will initialing the Association Agreement by giving a slap to
Moscow. I think if the right work is conducted by Armenian diplomats,
and try to convince France or Germany, as the EU negotiator, that there
are no contradictions between the CU and the Association Agreement,
we can assume that Armenia can become the country that will sign the
contract being a member of the CU. I think Serzh Sargsyan's statements
in Strasbourg should be considered on this very basis, after meeting
with the President of France. This means that there were guarantees
by France, that France will assist Armenia in this matter, that is,
they will support that the European Union will have a unique approach
to Armenia, without damaging the RF-Armenia relations. On the other
hand, this approach will contribute to positive co-operation between
RF and EU. But, if more anti-Russian countries hinder Armenia's
signing the document with the EU, it will create problems between
EU and RF. In other words, I repeat, the problem is between Moscow
and Brussels, and not between Armenia and the EU, or Armenia and
Russia. In addition, the EU Association Agreement is related to the
Iranian problem. - In what sense, will you explain? - In other words,
if Iran solves its problems with the international community in the
future, Armenia would appear in a leading position as a bridge, in
other word, a new way would be opened for Iran to the West, without
Turkey and the Middle East. Iran does not want Turkey to interfere in
these processes; it is much easier for Iran to cooperate with Georgia
and Armenia. Same for the U.S. and EU, it is much easier to cooperate
with small Armenia and Georgia rather than Turkey or the Arab world.
Perhaps, being aware of this danger, Moscow forced Armenia to make
a step to the Customs Union, so that the West is not approved in the
South Caucasus and get to Iran. - What can you say about the prospects
of the Customs Union? From time to time, information is received that
the RF is creating some serious commercial problems for Belarus and
Kazakhstan. - It is clear that Armenian society, Armenia as a country,
is closer to RF than EU countries, in consideration of history and
geographical factors. But, the problem is as follows: what is the
objective of Armenia? To develop the country? To make a country of
the rule of law? Or, it wants to stay as a post-Soviet republic and
maintain current status with weak economy, atmosphere of distrust,
unresolved Karabakh conflict... I think, generally it is not clear what
the Customs Union is by itself. No one knows what prospective it has.
For the EU Association Agreement, it is at least obvious what does
it mean, while for the CU ... - And now, the CU supporters claim for
the opposite, that no one knows what is the EU Association Agreement,
as if there were unfavorable formulations regarding the NK and so on
... - I do not think that there is nothing on NK, because since twenty
years, in the European documents that were signed with Armenia, the
emphasis was put on the right to self-determination, and a territorial
integrity with Azerbaijan, and consequently, I do not think that this
position has been changed in the new document. In this regard, I am
relaxed, and the statements that we do not know what is written in the
Association Agreement, it is a pro-Russian position, which aims at the
creation of an atmosphere of mistrust and fear in society, and it is
easy to intimidate Armenian society, because its experience is there.
But the problem, here, is more profound, the RF does not want Armenia
to proceed by another path, be developed, especially in the presence of
Syria and Iran problems. In other words, behave as Putin did against
Armenia, it was against the authority, not the state. Armenia is
important for Russia as a military-political territory, but not as a
power, in other words, a powerful military-political territory with
weak political power.
Emma GABRIELYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/10/04/161891/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
October 4 2013
According to Gaidz Minassian, expert at French Foundation for Strategic
Research, the problem is between Moscow and Brussels, and not between
Armenia and the EU. - Mr. Minassian, which processes resulted on
Serzh Sargsyan's statement on September 3 that Armenia intends to join
the Customs Union? - Serzh Sargsyan's statement was not a surprise,
it was noticed that he had changed his attitude towards the Customs
Union, when he criticized the EU stating that the Association process
is meaningless if the border with Turkey is closed. Three factors
served as a basis for the statement on September 3, there are three
reasons. First, Europe did not take into account of the fact that
Armenia's the most important issue is security. In August 2008,
during the Russian-Georgian war, we became witnesses that EU was
not able to save, protect the security and territorial integrity of
Georgia. Secondly, it is Armenia's fault. Why was it necessary to
negotiate with the EU so long, if the decision ultimately was to be
"no". The way to EU supposes protect of freedoms and situational
changes in democratic issues. But, the feudal, oligarchic system
in Armenia was against this direction, and they did everything to
hinder the European direction, in other words, they pursued the aim
that the post-Soviet rules and manners continue to survive. Third, the
tremendous pressures from Russia to Armenia. RF continues to dominate
the former Soviet republics, it treats them not as sovereign states,
but as vassals. This is an imperialistic approach, which seems does
not change and can not be changed. Russia provides Armenia's security,
but it does not respect the Republic of Armenia, the EU respects,
however, it does not provide security. I think it was meaningless to
come up with such a statement in Moscow, it would be better if Serzh
Sargsyan returned to Armenia, after which as a head of a sovereign
state, announced what he said in Moscow on September 3. I think it
would be better if it was announced from Armenia to be asserted that
Armenia has no problems with Moscow and Brussels, that the problem is
between Moscow and Brussels. In such a situation, the process could
take another direction. But, it did not happen, it was kept silent,
and it leaves the impression that Armenia now is paying because
of contradictions between Moscow and Brussels. In other words, the
process proceeded in the most undesirable direction. - What messages
did Serzh Sargsyan's speech contain in his recent speech in PACE, when
he announced that Armenia will participate in the summit of Vilnius?
Is it expected to make some amendments in the negotiated document, and
that Armenian is ready to sign the Association Agreement as a whole?
Do you think it is possible to sign a document of other status with
the EU before the Vilnius summit? - Armenia should try to convince the
EU countries, especially France and Germany, to sign a milder version
of the agreement in Vilnius between Armenia and EU, which will not
obstacle the relations between Yerevan and Moscow, that is, to conduct
a complementary policy in two directions. But, there are European
forces that have anti-Russian moods, and they were expecting that
Armenia will initialing the Association Agreement by giving a slap to
Moscow. I think if the right work is conducted by Armenian diplomats,
and try to convince France or Germany, as the EU negotiator, that there
are no contradictions between the CU and the Association Agreement,
we can assume that Armenia can become the country that will sign the
contract being a member of the CU. I think Serzh Sargsyan's statements
in Strasbourg should be considered on this very basis, after meeting
with the President of France. This means that there were guarantees
by France, that France will assist Armenia in this matter, that is,
they will support that the European Union will have a unique approach
to Armenia, without damaging the RF-Armenia relations. On the other
hand, this approach will contribute to positive co-operation between
RF and EU. But, if more anti-Russian countries hinder Armenia's
signing the document with the EU, it will create problems between
EU and RF. In other words, I repeat, the problem is between Moscow
and Brussels, and not between Armenia and the EU, or Armenia and
Russia. In addition, the EU Association Agreement is related to the
Iranian problem. - In what sense, will you explain? - In other words,
if Iran solves its problems with the international community in the
future, Armenia would appear in a leading position as a bridge, in
other word, a new way would be opened for Iran to the West, without
Turkey and the Middle East. Iran does not want Turkey to interfere in
these processes; it is much easier for Iran to cooperate with Georgia
and Armenia. Same for the U.S. and EU, it is much easier to cooperate
with small Armenia and Georgia rather than Turkey or the Arab world.
Perhaps, being aware of this danger, Moscow forced Armenia to make
a step to the Customs Union, so that the West is not approved in the
South Caucasus and get to Iran. - What can you say about the prospects
of the Customs Union? From time to time, information is received that
the RF is creating some serious commercial problems for Belarus and
Kazakhstan. - It is clear that Armenian society, Armenia as a country,
is closer to RF than EU countries, in consideration of history and
geographical factors. But, the problem is as follows: what is the
objective of Armenia? To develop the country? To make a country of
the rule of law? Or, it wants to stay as a post-Soviet republic and
maintain current status with weak economy, atmosphere of distrust,
unresolved Karabakh conflict... I think, generally it is not clear what
the Customs Union is by itself. No one knows what prospective it has.
For the EU Association Agreement, it is at least obvious what does
it mean, while for the CU ... - And now, the CU supporters claim for
the opposite, that no one knows what is the EU Association Agreement,
as if there were unfavorable formulations regarding the NK and so on
... - I do not think that there is nothing on NK, because since twenty
years, in the European documents that were signed with Armenia, the
emphasis was put on the right to self-determination, and a territorial
integrity with Azerbaijan, and consequently, I do not think that this
position has been changed in the new document. In this regard, I am
relaxed, and the statements that we do not know what is written in the
Association Agreement, it is a pro-Russian position, which aims at the
creation of an atmosphere of mistrust and fear in society, and it is
easy to intimidate Armenian society, because its experience is there.
But the problem, here, is more profound, the RF does not want Armenia
to proceed by another path, be developed, especially in the presence of
Syria and Iran problems. In other words, behave as Putin did against
Armenia, it was against the authority, not the state. Armenia is
important for Russia as a military-political territory, but not as a
power, in other words, a powerful military-political territory with
weak political power.
Emma GABRIELYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/10/04/161891/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress