Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Interview

OPINION: Mateusz Piskorski: Armenia will shortly start negotiations on joining Eurasian Union in 2014

25 April 2013

ArmInfo’s interview with Mateusz Piskorski, Director of the European Center of Geopolitical Analysis, PhD in Political Science

Earlier in February you declared that the OSCE Minsk Group has exhausted its potential in the Karabakh peace process. Is there any alternative to the negotiations within the given format? 

I just made an assessment of the real achievements of the Minsk Group.  That assessment was not very positive, but the fact of existence of the negotiation format probably helps easing tension.  Let's study the latest achievements of the Group. The Madrid Principles proved inadmissible, at least, to one of the parties to the conflict. Despite the efforts of the negotiators, the Azerbaijani party has again made provocative operations recently in the course of the presidential race in Armenia.  The first and the crucial moment impeding peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict is absence of one of the direct parties to the conflict in the format of negotiations. If everyone realizes the existence of a de-facto state, such as NKR, I think, it is worth recognizing Stepanakert's status as a party to the negotiations. The Karabakh conflict directly endangers the interests and security of some other countries. Turkey and Iran are neighboring Karabakh, and Ankara is able to seriously influence the political processes in Baku. As for Tehran, it may also participate in the negotiations being well aware of the sources of the conflict.

At the Roundtable discussions dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the Karabakh Movement you said that the only way to resolve the Karabakh conflict is to recognize independence of Nagorno Karabakh. Did you mean Armenia or the world community?

Since 2008, when the West recognized Kosovo and Russia recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia, we have been in a completely new situation. I think that President Serzh Sargsyan perfectly understands that at some moment Armenia will have no other way but to recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The situation is quite ocmplicate. The president is right when he says that Armenia is facing a dilemma: on the one hand, Armenia knows that if it recognizes Nagorno-Karabakh unilaterally, this may result in growing tensions and even armed clashes, on the other hand, if it is waiting for other countries to do it, this may never happen simply because the others are waiting for Armenia. I think Armenia must still be the first to recognize Nagorno- Karabakh's independence, but only if it is sure that Russia and maybe even Iran will follow its example.  Then, Armenia will have to use the potential of the Armenian Diaspora in the West for the similar purposes.

You were observing the Feb presidential election in Armenia as a member of ICES Observation Mission. Do you think that the demands of Raffi Hovanisian's movement are justified and grounded?

Let’s not pretending as if we do not know the rules of political fight.  After defeat, any runner-up candidate will blame the winner for election rigging, especially, when the winner is the incumbent president. In the meanwhile, I observed quite calm atmosphere on the voting day in the country, which is not typical for election rigging. In addition, observers registered no serious violations of the Election Code and President Sargsyan has got no serious opponents. At present, Raffi Hovannisian acts in line with PR-game rules. His headquarters is rather professional and they realized that to become an opposition leader a politician must work hard and stay in the focus of Mass Media attention. From the viewpoint of Mass Media, only extremely harsh statements are of utmost interest, as a matter of fact.

What foreign forces are, first of all, interested in formation of “Barevolution” (“Revolution of Greetings”) opposition movement in Armenia? What is their motivation?

All I can say is that there are no preconditions for internal turmoil and fierce political fight in Armenia.  Armenia is not on a paradise island, but in the center of one of the most instable regions in the world.  Technologies, even logotypes, resemble the Serbian 'Otpor', with the color reminding the Ukrainian 'orange' revolution. They probably use the civil resistance technology developed by Gene Sharp, and Washington took advantage of that.  However, Azerbaijan is also interested in destabilization of the situation in Armenia.

Experts say that the USA and EU have already made the first steps to expand their influence in the South Caucasus taking advantage of Russia’s inconsistent and uncoordinated policy…

For the United States the South Caucasus is part of the Greater Middle East or, as Zbigniew Brzezinski calls it, the Eurasian Balkans. And if so, this region must be in a state of constant chaos, on the verge of war. Armenia is part of this scenario, especially as it is one of Russia's few post-Soviet allies. No coincidence that here the United States has its biggest embassy in the region. The U.S. is one of the key geo- political players in this area. Turkey and Iran are also playing, but the key rival is certainly Russia. The EU has almost no levers of influence in the region. Of course, Armenia is closer to the EU than any of the other post-Soviet republics may be: the Armenians have centuries-old cultural ties with Europe and part of its identity. I think the Armenian Diaspora has more levers of influence on the EU than the EU has in Armenia. Of course, this is soft power, but the EU no power here at all. I do not think that the EU will be able to give more money to the dying Eastern Partnership program. Formerly it was just 600mln EUR for six countries for five years. Today only Germany can afford an ambitious foreign policy, but it does not seem to be very much interested in the South Caucasus.

After the presidential election in Armenia the problem of opposition between the Customs Union offered to Yerevan and the EU Association Agreement has become quite relevant. Serzh Sargsyan’s visit to Moscow and Brussels has greatly contributed to that. What possible scenarios do you anticipate in the given area?

From the economic point of view Armenia should consider the option that will strengthen its security. Given the fact that the European Union lacks the relevant instruments and potential, Armenia will shortly start negotiations on joining the Eurasian Union in 2014. I am surprised wit the fact that most of those coming out against the Armenian-Russian cooperation stress that integration is impossible due to the lack of a common border with Russia. In the meantime, they are dreaming of European integration, but forget that the nearest EU country is Cyprus.  If the project of opening of the Abkhazian railway succeeds and the Moscow-Tbilisi relations normalize, Yerevan will become quite close to Russia. At the same time Moscow wants to gain certain success on the path of integration of the post-Soviet space, however, it is still hard to hope for success in negotiations with Ukraine. Armenia may have a good moment to gain beneficial conditions for participation in the Eurasian integration project. The EU has exhausted its development potential and the European project for the post-Soviet countries is actually suspended. As for the Eurasian project, it has yet to get into full swing. Though it is not known yet what it can do, nevertheless, thanks to that project, Armenia has at least one extra option.

ArmInfo

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