168: Pashinyan’s next stop: Cholpon-Ata. What to expect from EAEU prime ministers?

On August 6-7, another session of the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council will be held in Cholpon-Ata, Kyrgyzstan.

The agenda includes a wide range of issues related to the development of Eurasian integration, industrial cooperation, technological and digital transformations, as well as customs regulation and economic stability.

Nikol Pashinyan will also take part in the session, who in a briefing with journalists the other day made very harsh and worrying assessments about the activity of the structure.

In particular, referring to the obstacles and restrictions on the export of Armenian products, Pashinyan stated:

“The EAEU is a platform where I will raise all the issues related to our agenda. I will say what I said in the briefing. I said in the briefing that the EAEU is paralyzed. If the EAEU contract is not valid, the EAEU is not valid. And the EAEU is de facto paralyzed, and the paralysis shows tendencies to deepen. If this issue is not resolved quickly, I am 100% sure that the Republic of Armenia will overcome this problem, EAEU will not.”

Pashinyan warned that if these issues are not resolved quickly, it could be “the beginning of the end of the EAEU”, while emphasizing that he is going to Cholpon-Ata to use the EAEU platform and raise all issues on the Armenian agenda.

This will be the third time that Pashinyan talks to his colleagues on this topic.   However, at the upcoming meeting in Cholpon-Ata, these approaches will once again face serious resistance due to several key factors. First, there is the incompatibility of the given format with the nature of the problem.

EAEU intergovernmental council is primarily a platform for economic, commercial and technical regulations. In the case of Armenia, restrictions and obstacles of an economic nature actually acquired a political context or became a lever to achieve geopolitical concessions, that is, they are a reaction to the foreign policy conducted by Armenia, because Russia does not separate economic and political relations. Therefore, it seems almost impossible to solve them at the intergovernmental level. However, it is certainly possible to raise the issue and hold discussions and, perhaps, it will be successful.

Another important circumstance is that for EAEU member states, the concerns expressed by the Armenian side remain secondary, as long as there are deep cracks of trust between Yerevan and Moscow.

According to the logic of at least most of EAEU partners, judging by the statements of the leaders, Armenia’s policy of using economic privileges on the one hand, and deepening integration processes in the western direction on the other hand, is considered as a systemic risk.

As a result, Pashinyan’s demands and complaints are not perceived by the partners of the union as partnership dialogue, but are accepted as mere grievances, especially when the demand put before RA at this moment is not acceptable for the Armenian side.

In the background of all this, Nikol Pashinyan’s participation in this session turns into another platform not for recording practical results, but exclusively for raising political noise and informational background.

In this situation, the fundamental question remains: what consequences can these deepening contradictions have for Armenia’s internal and external economy? If the obstacles and restrictions on the export of Armenian goods within the framework of EAEU continue to remain in the air, and the political demands take a practical course, the Armenian business may face a serious crisis.

At the same time, it should be taken into account that the diversification of the economy is an extremely complicated and long-term process, and finding new markets, especially in Europe with high competition and strict standards, faces serious obstacles for Armenian producers. As a result, in the absence of fast alternatives, attempts to redirect markets can lead to serious economic losses.

In the short term, this visit and the expected statements, if they are aimed at escalating the situation and hardening the rhetoric, will significantly complicate the atmosphere of Armenian-Russian and general Eurasian relations.

Moscow and other partners, being dissatisfied with Yerevan’s dual policy and harsh assessments, in their turn, can apply additional economic or administrative levers.

As a result, the Cholpon-Ata session will not smooth out the existing sharp corners, but may become a new starting point for the further breakdown of bilateral trust and another diplomatic confrontation.

—