Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Interview

OPINION: Marat Terterov "Oligarchic system of Armenian economy is the first obstacle in the way of signing of Association Agreement with EU"

27 November 2012

ArmInfo’s Interview with Director of European Geopolitical Forum (Brussels) Marat Terterov.

There is an opinion that Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan has initiated “European-style remodeling” of Armenia. The ruling Republican Party of Armenia has repeatedly made pro-European statements. What is Brussels’ attitude towards these statements?    

Armenia is Russia's strategic partner in the Caucasus and a CSTO member. For this reason, we have got an impression that Armenia is under the Russian strategic umbrella in this region. At the same time, some people in NATO think that Armenia has got brilliant relations with NATO: several partnership programmes as well as different types of mellow cooperation with NATO. The same people think that unlike Georgia, which wishes to join NATO, Armenia is a good sample of a state, which can cooperate both with Russia and the western strong military force. As for the problem of European integration of Armenia at political and economic levels, the example of Armenia's communication with NATO is very interesting, as it is rather difficult for Armenia, as a post-Soviet country, to push the "delete" button regarding Russia.

Do you think the power elite of Armenia really has such a wish?

I don't think so, because the major part of Armenia's population permanently lives in Russia, not in Armenia. The Armenian Diaspora in the West consists of quite another type of people united by the Armenian idea, language, etc. And these people do not quite understand the local Armenians’ approach to a number of fundamental issues. Armenia is not Europe, North America or Australia. I understand that this may sound contradictory, but I assure you that in Europe, for instance in Brussels, it is very much easy to sell the idea that Armenia is Europe. I took part in many scientific and political discussions during which the Western Armenians were easily driving the idea that Armenia is a part of Europe and the EU and it should be within the European family. Even Russia is not a part of that family. Such a position of Diaspora even distances Armenia from Europe. Armenia is just a post-Soviet republic. It is neither France nor Western Europe.

Nor even Serbia…

Nor even Serbia, as by their organization, orders and standards the countries of the former Yugoslavia are much closer to Europe than the post-Soviet countries. For instance, the Serbian elite and youth easier integrate in Europe than the Armenian elite and youth.

In other words, the Armenian society itself is not ready for European integration…

The Armenian society is a very long way from it. Yerevan's statements about its wish to integrate in Europe are not enough. One should not forget that Armenia’s leadership itself needs to voice its wish from time to time. As for the Baltic countries, today they feel safe in the European Union, as they trust in the "mellow" military force of Europeans more than Russians. Armenia and the rest of the post-Soviet countries should strive for political alliances, as it is vitally necessary for them. Only the countries that have an energy sector are an exception: Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. In this context, the statements by the leadership of Armenia about Armenia's intention to integrate in Europe are an absolutely normal phenomenon. The system of the European Union is first of all based on law-obedience. For this reason, when voicing an intention to integrate in this system, the Armenian authorities make us understand that one can invest big funds in the stable and law-obedient country. This shows that Armenia is not a cowboy territory or a "wild east". In this context, the government of Armenia is simply obliged to voice similar statements from time to time.

Let’s talk about the prospects of conclusion of the Association Agreement between the EU and Armenia.

I think that via signing of such an agreement Europe is trying to bring more stability, legality to the south of the Caucasus and to promote discussion among the South Caucasus states. In other words, the Association Agreement is a part of a general process on normalization of the situation in your region. This agreement will deepen the link between the region and Europe even more, taking into account the economic orientation of the agreement. The prospects for implementation of this agreement are not clear yet, as there are some obstacles in that way. The European parliament is not only a platform of pluralism but also a platform of lobbyism in Brussels.  This means that for approval of any project drawn out by the European Commission, the project should pass through the European Parliament, which has a rather harsh attitude to many sensitive issues in the post-Soviet territory. First of all, the matter concerns the human rights violation in the former USSR countries. Therefore, the European Parliament, certainly, raises problems linked with elections in Armenia and the fact that many of your laws do not meet European standards. It is these factors that affect the prospects of signing the Association Agreement. Such is the reality, which hinders such countries like Armenia to come closer to Europe in a certain sense. For this reason, the process will be long enough.  Moscow and Brussels have been trying to sign an agreement on strategic partnership for more than 5 years.

Will you name the first obstacle for Armenia? 

The oligarchic system of the Armenian economy is the first obstacle. Joining any international organization supposes destruction of such a system. However, the availability of oligarchs is peculiar not only to Armenia but practically to any post-Soviet state.

Armenia is intensively invited to join the Customs Union in order to further join the quite vague Eurasian Union. What may such a project give Armenia?  

I’d like to see the intensive development of that project, as I support the idea of creation of a certain Soviet Union light. Actually, such kind of a formation may provide very many positive factors for development of the post-Soviet area. In this area a lot of inter-ethnic, confessional, territorial, social problems arose after the collapse of the USSR. I think that creation of such a formation will contribute to removal of some of these problems. For instance, some experts think that Belgium is on the brink of disintegration now. Certainly, there will be no bloodshed, but it will still be very hard to decide who will be the owner of Brussels. However, even if Belgium becomes detached from the European Union, both of them will all the same remain in the European area. Scotland and Catalonia are also such examples. Europe itself would benefit from the creation of the Eurasian Union, as it would be much easier for the European Union to cooperate with the countries of the post-Soviet space.  However, I do not see a specific legal framework yet, which would allow implementing the project on creation of the Eurasian area. For the time being we only see the political statements from Moscow, Minsk and Almaty. Consequently, it is a bit early now to expect Yerevan to outline its foreign political priorities under these conditions.


ArmInfo,

David Stepanyan

Friday, November 23

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut