Is Russia's Ambassador in Armenia acting like a Viceroy? Attempt of Russian diplomacy to silence Armenia's civil society causes huge upset.

This is a commentary prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu.

The extent to which Armenia has become dependent on Russia militarily and economically has been the subject of much comment and speculation in the past. This concern is sometimes expressed publicly, but is much more vocal amongst Armenians themselves when speaking in private. Apologists for President Serzh Sargsyan and his foreign policy often cite Armenia's historical experiences, its blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan, its geography as a land locked country, and its lack of natural resources, as reasons why Armenia's relations with Russia are what they are. The security of Armenia and of Nagorno-Karabakh are the paramount consideration, President Sargsyan often reminds his supporters and critics alike.

Thus, when Armenia signed a long term military agreement with Russia, many sighed but said that it was inevitable. When Russian politicians started referring to Armenia as an outpost of Russia, some dispaired but called it an outburst by unrepresentative politicians. When President Serzh Sargsyan dramatically reversed his own policy, abandoning plans to enter in an Association and Free trade agreements with the EU and instead opted to join the Russia led Customs Union, there was outrage even among some of his own supporters, but eventually they all put a brave face, and decided to go along despite the many misgivings.

However this trend seems to have no end. Earlier this week Russia's Ambassador to Armenia Ivan Volynkin, publicly advocated the silencing of the few NGOs that have dared question some of Armenia's "Russia Policy". In an interview with the Russian-Armenian newspaper "Noev Kovcheg," Volynkin said,

"I am convinced that Russia should be more active in asserting its presence in the information field here in Armenia," he replied. "But other methods are also apparently needed for neutralizing those NGOs in Armenia that want to drive a wedge into Russian-Armenian relations." "Incidentally, Russia has enacted a law that regulates the work of NGOs in a very concrete manner," he said, referring to a controversial law that forced foreign-funded NGOs to register as "foreign agents" in Russia. 

The Russian Embassy in Yerevan has been in some state of panic since the presidential elections in Armenia last year which saw an opposition candidate Raffi Hovhannisian registering a much higher percentage of the poll than was expected, even in the somewhat overmanaged political environment. The unexpected result took the Kremlin by surprise.

However this latest attempt to silence Armenia's civil society has caused a huge upset within the Armenian elite, including among those who normally are more ready to acquiesce.

The Armenian Foreign Ministry was obliged to take a public position, saying that all NGOs in Armenia operate within the law. The spokesperson for the Ministry, Tigran Balayan, said it was inconceivable that any NGO could drive a wedge intoRussian-Armenian relations, which are based on a century-long friendship and have withstood the test of time.

But the incident has raised questions about the prospect of direct Russian interference in Armenian political life - an interference that can draw on the full might of leverages - military, financial, economic and others, that Russia now holds on Armenia. If Ivan Volynkin is ready to interfere so publicly in an effort to silence a few NGOs that are critical of Armenia's relations with Russia one wonders to what extent he would interfere if the threat to these relations is more serious. By acting more like a viceroy than an Ambassador, Volynkin has given a taste of what Russian "soft power" looks like.

This commentary was prepared by the editorial team of commonspace.eu.

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Landmines present to the European Union both a contradiction and a dilemma

Finland’s decision to buy one million landmines creates a serious contradiction in the policy of the European Union, and is symbolic of a bigger dilemma facing European countries as they get used to the need to acquire “hard” power to face an increasing threat from Russia. Finland is seeking to acquire one million anti-personnel mines at a cost of 100 million euros. Finland, together with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia last year abandoned the Ottawa agreement, the international framework that bans the use of anti-personnel mines, which the EU had been instrumental in establishing and supporting. All five countries cite the threat from Moscow as the reason. Colonel Riku Mikkonen of the Army Command told Finland’s national news agency STT that officials are now gathering information from suppliers regarding the deal, the AFP news agency reports. Helsinki would like domestic manufacturers to supply the mines, with contracts signed by the end of 2027 and production up and running by 2028. “It would be useful in many ways if Finnish companies produced the anti-personnel mines in Finland,” Mikkonen said. About half a dozen Finnish firms qualify, he told STT. “However, at this stage, buying the mines from abroad is not totally ruled out,” he added. LANDMINES PROVIDE THE EU WITH BOTH A CONTRADICTION, AND A DILEMMA Eliminating landmine contamination worldwide is one of the EU’s main soft power postures, and it basks in its record as the biggest funder of anti-landmine action in the world. But the fact that 5 of its 27 member states  have now left the Ottawa Treaty dents the EU moral high ground. It is a contradiction that is too big and important to be ignored. It also presents the European Union with a deeper dilemma. The threat from Russia is changing what the EU has stood for decades, namely a force for good able to mobilise its considerable soft power for the greater good of humanity. How the Union will implement this change will define its future. In the meantime landmines have not become any less lethal, benign, or unimportant. They remain in many parts of the world a major threat to life, an impediment to prosperity, and a potential trigger to further conflict. The 22 EU members states that still adhere to the Ottawa treaty must regroup, and be more assertive in their quest against anti-personnel land mines. All the reasons why they supported the Ottawa treaty in the first place still exist. The message must be clear: NO TO LANDMINES!
Editor's choice
News
Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Pashinyan says that he wants peace treaty with Azerbaijan by 2031

Armenia should sign and ratify a peace treaty with Azerbaijan before 2031, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. He described the objective as the top priority for his administration. Earlier, the Armenian prime minister also spoke about a possible land-swap with Azerbaijan Armenia and Azerbaijan should agree to establish a clear, conventional border without enclaves or exclaves, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said. Armenia controls three Azeri enclaves inside its borders while Baku controls one Armenian enclave – those could be subject to a land swap, Pashinyan announced.

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)