Opinion: Armenia achieves its foreign policy objectives in 2017, but ambition remains constrained by geo-political factors

Geopolitcs constraints Armenia's flexibility in the sphere of foreign policy. But the signing of an agreement with the EU was a positive step, says Benyamin Poghosyan in this op.ed

2017 was another dynamic year for Armenia's foreign policy. There was no progress in the Karabakh negotiation process, Azerbaijan and Turkey continued their "war of attrition" strategy against Armenia, and the strategic disagreements between Russia and the West put additional pressure on Armenia, restricting its flexibility. However, Armenia managed to end the year with a positive step - the signing of a Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement with the EU.

Karabakh conflict 

The 2016 "four-day" war in Karabakh was a wakeup call for Armenia. The escalation proved that large scale war was possible despite multiple analyses arguing that the international community or multinational oil/gas companies would not allow Azerbaijan to destabilize the situation in the region. The second myth broken by the "Four day" war was the unshakable security guarantees provided by Russia, and reinforced by Armenia's membership into Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). The vague Russian reaction, as well as its continued sales of modern arms to Azerbaijan after April 2016, was a clear sign that Russia perceived Armenia as a state totally under the Kremlin's control and with no foreign policy alternatives, and did not bother itrself to think much about Armenia's attitudes and reactions.

With regards to Karabakh, the main task for Armenia in 2017 was to keep the pressure on Azerbaijan to launch investigative mechanisms for ceasefire violations, as was preliminary agreed in the May 2016 Vienna and June 2016 Saint Petersburg summits, whilst simultaneously fortifying the Karabakh-Azerbaijan line of contact with modern devises for visual control. The October 2017 Geneva Presidential summit has shown that the sides are too far away to reach any breakthrough in negotiations, and the main objective of the mediators is the prevention of an outbreak of large-scale hostilities. Given the forthcoming transformation of Armenia into a fully parliamentary republic in April 2018, as well as the scheduled autumn's 2018 Presidential election in Azerbaijan, the negotiation process may be further stalled.

Relations with Turkey

Turkey continued its policy of isolation and blockade against Armenia, overtly connecting any improvements in relations with changes in the status quo in Karabakh. The 2009 Armenia - Turkey protocols are dead, and given the importance of the nationalist vote for Erdogan in the 2019 Presidential elections, it is likely that Ankara will harden its rhetoric on Armenia in 2018. Yerevan's position is clear: Armenia-Turkey relations should be normalized without any preconditions, and the 2009 Protocols  cannot  be stalled forever, they should be either ratified or nullified. Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan in his speech at the UN General Assembly in September 2017 stated that Armenia will declare the two Protocols null and void  before this Spring 

Relations with Russia

Despite the growth of a negative attitude towards Russia, due to the April 2016 escalation in Karabakh, Armenia continues to be fully anchored in Russian sphere of influence. The weight of history, as well as the necessity to counter Azerbaijani-Turkish joint pressure effectively prevents Yerevan from making substantial shifts in its relations with Russia. The 2.5 million strong Armenian community in Russia, generating annual remittances exceeding one billion USD, is another factor fomenting Russian influence. One of the key tasks for Armenia in its relations with Russia in 2017 was the necessity to expand cooperation in military sphere, to keep the balance of power with Azerbaijan which actively buys modern weaponry from Russia, as well as Israel, Belarus and other countries.

In the framework of Armenian-Russian military cooperation two important milestones were achieved in 2017. The agreement on the establishment of a joint Russia-Armenia military force has been ratified by both Armenian and Russian Parliaments. On December 6, 2017, the Armenian Parliament also ratified the Armenian-Russian 100 million USD state export loan which will allow Yerevan to purchase arms manufactured by Russia.   In 2015 Russia provided a 200 million USD military loan to Armenia which is now in the final stage of realization.

Efforts to develop relations with the West

Despite being incorporated into Russia's sphere of influence Armenia has made efforts to develop relations with the Euro-Atlantic community.   Western financial and technical assistance, as well as strong Armenian communities, particularly in the US and France, have played a significant role in fostering Armenian relations with the US, EU and NATO. Obviously, Armenia was obliged not to cross any red lines in its cooperation with the West which may jeopardize its relations with Russia. Thus, periods of Russia-West confrontation did not bode well for Armenia's efforts to deepen cooperation with the Euro-Atlantic community. In 2013 Armenia was one of the first victims of increasing Russia-West tensions when it was forced to enter the Customs Union, and later EAEU, despite the successful negotiations with the EU  of an Association Agreement which was on the point of being signed. However, in late 2015 Armenia managed to re-launch negotiations with the EU to sign an "Association Agreement light". The EU - Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement was initialed in March 2017, and was signed on November 24, 2017 during the Eastern Partnership Brussels summit. Definitely, both the EU and the Armenian leadership had a clear understanding that any new EU-Armenia agreement should not contradict EAEU regulations. Given the decline in interest and involvement of Euro-Atlantic institutions and actors in the South Caucasus, and growing Russian consolidation of its positions in the region, CEPA has little chance to bring about substantial changes for Armenia in geopolitical terms. However, the agreement will strengthen Armenia's positions in the region, will allow more EU funding for the struggling Armenian economy, and may accelerate the reforms process in the country.

Despite growing Russia-NATO-tensions Armenia has managed to maintain its current level of cooperation with the Alliance. The 2017-2019 Individual Partnership Action Plan is being implemented, and Armenian peacekeeping forces continue to participate in NATO missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo. There were no significant changes in Armenia - US relations, and given the US domestic political turmoil as well as tensions with Russia, Iran and North Korea, Armenia and the South Caucasus in general are not among the top US priorities.

Armenia has overall managed to achieve its main foreign policy goals in 2017 - to prevent the outbreak of large scale hostilities in Karabakh, to keep the establishment of ceasefire violations investigative mechanisms as a priority in Karabakh negotiation process, to receive additional military hardware from Russia, and to make a step forward in its relations with the West. 

source: Dr. Benyamin Poghosyan is the Executive Director of the Political Science Association of Armenia. He contributed this op-ed to commonspace.eu

Latest

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

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

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).
Editor's choice
News
Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine Peace Talks Set to Expand as Russia and Europe Clash Over Post-war Security

Ukraine and Russia could see European countries join the next round of peace negotiations, following talks between US special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow on Thursday (November 12). However, conflicting positions over European military involvement, Ukraine’s territorial future and the continent’s security arrangements highlight the difficulties facing the diplomatic process. Speaking after the meeting, Witkoff said European participation would be an important development, describing the countries concerned as key partners. Kushner also indicated that Washington had noticed a shift in European attitudes and believed their involvement would not obstruct progress. In a statement published on X, he said the expanded discussions would address broader European security arrangements alongside territorial disputes between Russia and Ukraine. The US envoys subsequently travelled to Dublin, where they met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a European summit. Zelenskyy welcomed the possibility of European participation and expressed hope that the negotiations would include measures to reduce tensions and establish ceasefires. He also reiterated the importance of European representation in decisions concerning the continent’s security. Moscow, however, has offered a more cautious interpretation of the proposed expansion. Putin's aide, Yuri Ushakov, suggested that European countries should first reconsider their military assistance to Kyiv, arguing that their current actions demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue peace. Putin similarly called on Washington to work with its European allies to establish whether they genuinely wanted peace or continued confrontation with Russia. The Russian president also rejected the prospect of European peacekeeping troops being deployed to Ukraine following a potential agreement, describing such a presence as a continuation of the war. His position reflects wider disagreements over the future European security architecture, with Moscow seeking discussions on the continent's broader security arrangements, while European leaders insist that such negotiations cannot replace a settlement of the war. Simultaneously, Zelenskyy raised concerns about disruptions to Starshield, the US-made satellite communications service used by Ukrainian forces. He described Washington’s discussions with Moscow about Europe's future security as unusual and warned against decisions that could undermine Ukraine's sovereignty. Despite the diplomatic activity, fighting continued. Russian drone attacks killed two people in Ukraine's Sumy region and injured five in Rivne, while a separate attack in Russia's Belgorod region killed one person and injured four. Ukrainian agricultural company Kernel Holding also suspended operations at all its oilseed extraction facilities following repeated Russian attacks.

Popular

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

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

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)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

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

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)