Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
Interview

OPINION: Arthur Ghazinyan "Eurasian Union may become a serious threat to rehabilitation of the political and economic system in Armenia"

7 September 2012

ArmInfo’s interview with Arthur Ghazinyan, Head of the Center for European Studies, Yerevan State Univeristy

Mr. Ghazinyan, what is you assessment of the European integration policy of Armenia? Are there any rapprochement trends, considering the current negotiations for the Association Agreement and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement?

Rapprochement with the EU may lead to development of the domestic reform models. We must chose a model: the closed political economic system characteristic to Russia, Belarus or Kazakhstan, the monopoly system or the open system with competitive economy and without domination in the market i.e. all the elements of liberal economy in the EU member-states. It would be perfect if Armenia could preserve the current peculiar 'status-quo' simultaneously developing cooperation with both Moscow and Brussels.  But, such scenario is impossible. Armenia has got an opportunity to apply the western model of development by joining the EU Eastern Partnership Project in May 2009. It would be a serious mistake for Armenia to deviate from the launched pro-Western course.  As for the DCFTA, is provides for facilitation of trade process, transboundary cooperation, customs clearance on preferential terms etc. All these reforms require internal reforms, first of all.

May Moscow’s idea of Eurasian Union become an obstacle to that liberation?

Surely, the Eurasian Union is a serious threat to rehabilitation of the political and economic system of Armenia. Russian President Vladimir Putin's idea of the Eurasian Union is aimed at regional integration.  Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan have already achieved certain success in the given dimension by creating the Customs Union. For Armenia, if it is offered to join the project that is widely discussed by experts and politicians, the Eurasian Union implies specific isolation in the South Caucasus. I doubt very much that Azerbaijan will support the idea of the Eurasian Union. I rule out Tbilisi's joining it. In such situation, they use Armenia's economic blockade by Azerbaijan and Turkey and make it seek 'shelter' in Moscow, in the systems of military and economic security offered by the Kremlin.
 
Should Armenia learn the experience of Georgia that has achieved economic and political successes due to rapprochement with the West, but has lost Abkhazia and South Ossetia after the August War of 2008? 

Georgia actually lost control of those two countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the August War 2008 just confirmed that loss de-jure. At the same time, Georgia has got rid of a sore, which made it possible for the entire organism to live and develop. Russia annexed those territories, which is not favorable to it. It would be more reasonable for Moscow to leave the conflict unresolved in order to come out as an arbiter at any moment and use the conflict for its purposes. Occupying and recognizing the two countries Moscow lost its levers of influence on Georgia.

Bringing the example of Georgia many experts, sure, hint at a danger of losing Karabakh in case of pro- Western orientation. However, I think that Azerbaijan is not ready and will hardly ever dare to launch military actions against pro-western Armenia and Karabvakh, as it has huge western oil and gas economic capital and is not sure in its success in that war.

Any attempt to withdraw from the peace talks and unleash war will create real grounds for the USA and EU to recognize independence of Nagorno Karabakh on the basis of incompatibility of two nations forced to co-exist within one state. Such scenario has already been observed in Kosovo when Serbia decided to response to military force against the Kosovo Albans. Azerbaijan must realize and, I think, they have already understood that the West will now allow a new war and violence in the South Caucasus. 

Do you think that Armenia could preserve the current peculiar 'status-quo' simultaneously developing cooperation with both Moscow and Brussels?

I would be ideal, but such scenario is impossible.  We have been trying to wage the notorious complementary policy for over 20 years. Now, the terms are being toughened and we are reluctant to make a choice. And these terms are toughened by Moscow, first of all. Brussels went on specific constructive cooperation offering funds, assistance in protection of the intellectual property rights, adoption of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, standardization procedures, certification, metrology, accreditation.  In the case of the Eurasian Union, I expect no such assistance, for instance, in upgrade of food security.

What do you think of the future of the big enterprises operating on the Russian capital in Armenia in case if the above negotiations with the EU are successfully completed?

If Russian companies in Armenia can work in the conditions of the western management and in full line with legislation, if they have such a management system that meets new requirements, there will be no problem of their further activity in case of successful ending of talks with EU and serious economic reforms.

Russian capital has been also presented at the European market and has no problem there. In case of successful ending of talks with the EU, using of new standards and effective reforms in Armenia, the situation will radically change. I mean reduction of corruption risks and, as a result, improvement of administration. One must not be scared that Russia will start sabotage against Armenia, as here it owns strategic facilities. Armenia has got enough levers and means not to let it.

One should not forget that about 80% of capital in Armenia is the Russian capital, which is politically motivated and seriously limits attraction of the Western capital to the Armenian economy. Because of the way of its formation the Russian capital is not ready to work at the legal field within the frames of the law. It has serious management problems. All this supposes growth of corruption risks. It is no secret that the present economic system of Russia is fully corrupted and the Russian capital has been working in Armenia using the same vicious traditions. The availability of the western capital, that passed a rather serious way of formation and development for 150-200 years, will bring the western judicial companies which prefer to protect economic interests only in court basing on legislation...There is a problem of business environment improvement and diversification of the general system in Armenia. We remember what was happening at the Internet services market of Armenia before the Orange company coming. The presence of one European company in our country radically changed the entire telecommunications market. The same may and should happen in all the rest spheres of the Armenian economy.

Western politicians often said that they would like to cooperate with the South Caucasus region like an integrated whole.  However, many experts criticize the West for drifting away from its own positions from time to time in the context of the energy projects, in particular, Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline…

The above mentioned energy project is an American but not a European one. The EU said earlier it does not want to take part in this project because of its discriminating nature, as in fact Armenia was forced out of it.

What about Nabucco, which will not involve Armenia either?

It is naive to speak about fulfillment of the project that costs 15 bln EUR, in the conditions when the Karabakh conflict has not been settled and when there is no stability in the region. Nabucco has no problem linked with financing or gas supply. The only problem is a threat of the new war in the region. The pipeline cannot go around Nagornyy Karabakh and Armenia, as the route through these two Armenian republics is very much beneficial. Moreover, the Europeans do not want to force Armenia out of the regional programmes. The more isolated Armenia because of the Karabakh conflict, the less possible its participation in big programmes. In such conditions Yerevan has nothing else to do than to run into Moscow's arms. As for the Russians, they want just this, encouraging and stimulating the regional isolation of our country and offering an idea of the EurAsian Union. Moreover, unsettlement of the Karabakh conflict is a result of the fixed balance in our region. Any changing of the balance of forces towards this or that geo-political pole will lead to settlement of conflicts in the region. This will create favorable conditions for fulfillment of geo-political and economic programmes, which will involve all the countries of the South Caucasus. 

The CSTO CRRF exercises scheduled for early September were postponed simultaneously with the mass media reports on NATO Secretary General’s visit to Armenia. Are there any links between those two events? 

I think that Rasmussen’s visit to Armenia in the period of the exercises speaks volumes. The West has no intention to stay aside the processes in the South Caucasus, including in the security sphere. Given today’s situation in the Middle East, the political crisis in Syria, the Iranian problem, the northern border with Iran is very important for the West and NATO, particularly. I thin that NATO Secretary General’s visit to Armenia aims to verify all these issues.

by Ashot Safaryan
05.09.12. 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
Editor's choice
News
UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities
Trending

UN Security Council Presidential Statement on the Role of Diplomacy during Active Hostilities

5 November 2026
The United Nations Security Council is today expected to adopt a presidential statement on the role of diplomacy during active hostilities. The draft text, which was authored by Pakistan, underscores the importance of maintaining diplomatic engagement even after the outbreak of armed conflict, with a view to containing escalation, facilitating cessations of hostilities and ceasefires, and creating conditions conducive to peaceful political settlements. Resolution 2788 of 22 July 2025, which was initiated by Pakistan, reaffirmed the Council’s commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes under Chapter VI of the UN Charter. A year later, on 23 July, the Council convened an open debate to review the resolution’s implementation and examine ways of making more effective use of the peaceful dispute settlement tools available under Chapter VI.   The draft presidential statement builds on previous Council products, such as resolution 2788, but it is the first to focus specifically on the role of diplomacy in containing and de-escalating active hostilities. Since the open debate in July, Council members have continued to call for intensified efforts towards de-escalation and dialogue, although differences persist over how proactively the Council should promote mediation and other peaceful means of dispute settlement, particularly in situations where the consent of the parties is contested. In his statement opening the general debate of the 81st session of the General Assembly on 22 September, Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted the devastating consequences of ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, and the Middle East, warning that these and other crises illustrate what happens when “force outpaces diplomacy” and stressing the urgency of sustained diplomatic engagement. The negotiations on the draft presidential statement do not appear to have been particularly contentious, although Council members expressed differing views on some elements of the text. Pakistan circulated the initial draft to Council members on 14 October. Following informal consultations with Council members to address comments on the initial draft, Pakistan circulated a first revised draft on 23 October, incorporating several proposed amendments. On 29 October, Pakistan circulated a second revised draft, which it placed under silence procedure until the following day (30 October). After the US broke silence, a third revised draft was circulated on 3 November and placed under silence procedure until this morning (4 November). The draft subsequently passed silence. The agreed presidential statement emphasises the importance of maintaining direct and indirect channels of communication between parties to armed conflict to reduce the risk of miscalculation and create opportunities for sustained political engagement. (click image to read more)

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