Agency looks at pros and cons of Armenia stay in Moscow’s orbit
Mediamax news agency
6 Dec 04
A news agency has said that Armenia should conduct a more flexible
foreign policy and decide whether to become a NATO member or remain
“a small vassal” of Russia India and China, which “pursue their
own interests and will easily sacrifice Armenia in any convenient
political moment”. Mediamax questioned the Armenian leadership’s
ability “to adapt its complementary foreign policy to the realities of
contemporary international policy”. It added that Armenia “swiftly”
yields the role of regional leader to western-leaning Georgia. The
following is an excerpt from report in English by Armenian news agency
Mediamax entitled “Armenia will have to make a choice in the light
of Ukrainian developments”; subheadings have been inserted editorially:
Today, when it became clear that the Ukraine would hold re-elections,
the decision of Armenian President Robert Kocharyan, who congratulated
Viktor Yanukovych on “victory”, acquires an especially alarming
character. If we trace the reaction of foreign leaders to the
appropriate decision of the Ukrainian Supreme Court, it becomes
obvious that Armenia remained in the company of countries (Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China), which can hardly be considered as
the bearers of European values, the adherence to which is so often
stated by the Armenian leaders.
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan calls on not to dramatize the
situation and says that official Yerevan’s decision to congratulate
Yanukovych was exclusively “juridical” and was made on the basis of
the appropriate decision of the Ukrainian Central Electoral Committee
(CEC). However, the matter does not concern the fact that the Armenian
leadership sympathized with one of the two presidential contenders. We
can say with confidence that after coming to power of one or another
presidential contender in Kiev, Armenian-Ukrainian relations will
not undergo serious changes.
The case in point is that during the Ukrainian election we witnessed
one of the recent biggest “clashes” between the West and Russia. This
is indirectly stated by Vardan Oskanyan as well, who says that the
leaders of the countries that did not congratulate any of the Ukrainian
candidates made a “political decision”. What prevented Armenia from
making this “political decision”? Especially as the matter concerned
the Ukraine, the authorities of which had many times undersigned
the anti-Armenian resolutions within the framework of different
international organizations, and President [Leonid] Kuchma had openly
accused Armenia of the occupation of the Azerbaijani territories.
We are not disposed at all to idealize the Euro-Atlantic community
on the whole and its behaviour during the Ukrainian elections
in particular. Nobody can give an answer to the question – who in
reality won at the second stage of elections in the Ukraine, as it is
obvious that Viktor Yushchenko’s supporters did their best to by hook
or by crook ensure his victory in the western part of the country,
and Yanukovich’s supporters in the eastern part.
Double standards
It is also obvious that in reality the West is abided by double
standards when its political interests demand it. For instance, from
time to time the West criticizes the very Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan
for violating the human rights and lack of democratic freedoms,
however the matter never comes up to real sanctions and threats as
in case with Lukashenka whose style of government does not greatly
differ from [Nursultan] Nazarbayev’s or [Askar] Akaev’s style.
Robert Kocharyan knows about these double standards not through
hearsay. Still in March 2003, we drew parallels between the final
reports of the OSCE missions, having observed the elections in Armenia
and Turkey. We would like to remind that both the missions were headed
by the same person – US diplomat Peter Eicher. The mission’s report,
released in Warsaw on 4 December 2002 reads that “led by Peter Eicher
(USA), a five-person ODIHR team was in Turkey for one week to carry
out a limited assessment of the legislative and organizational aspects
of the election process”.
The OSCE official report stated that “because of the short duration of
the mission and its small size, it was not in a position to assess all
aspects of the electoral process or to verify independently many of
the issues, comments and allegations brought to its attention”. “The
election assessment mission received a number of credible reports of
harassment of candidates and parties in various parts of the country,
particularly in the southeast, but it was not able to independently
verify the reports”. Despite this, the elections in Turkey were
recognized as corresponding to international standards.
About 200 observers monitored the elections in Armenia, this is 40
times more than in Turkey, and the assessments were rather harsh,
though it was noted in the preliminary report by Eicher’s mission that
“in general, technical procedures were correctly followed and the
OSCE and CoE representatives assessed the process positively in 87
per cent of the polling stations visited”. And the number of polling
stations visited by the OSCE observers in Turkey hardly made 1 per
cent of the overall number.
We think that it is not a secret for Robert Kocharyan any more that
there is no so-called “common standard” of election assessment, which
is stated by the OSCE representatives. Otherwise, the recent elections
in Afghanistan would not have been recognized as corresponding to
these standards.
Armenian president
However, being a pragmatic politician, the Armenian president
understands that all the above-mentioned is only the emotional part
of the issue even if it is rather insulting. In contemporary politics
the rigidity and hard-edged struggle for defending own interests come
to the fore, and the Armenian leader is abided by these factors in
the country’s domestic policy. It is natural that at heart Robert
Kocharyan was displeased with the harsh-worded criticism by the
United States, the European Union (EU), the Council of Europe (CoE)
and the OSCE after the presidential elections of 2003. Most likely,
this became the reason why Robert Kocharyan coldly approached the “rose
revolution” in Georgia, which inspired the Armenian opposition and made
the authorities apply force to disperse the demonstrators this April.
However, these are also emotions. The practical policy was the recent
statement by the British ambassador to Armenia, Thorda Abbot-Watt, that
the West did not doubt Robert Kocharyan’s legitimacy. The practical
steps are Armenia’s inclusion into the European Neighbourhood Policy
and the qualification for getting multimillion funds from the US
Millennium Challenge Account, the abrogation of Jackson-Vanick
amendment in relation to Armenia, etc. It seemed that following the
developments in the Ukraine, the Armenian leadership must have made a
choice in favour of the listed and other practical steps rather than
being guided by emotional remembrances. Moreover, if we take into
account the fact that Armenia does not have and will not have in the
next three and half years such opposition leaders as Saakashvili and
Yushenko, who could threaten Robert Kocharyan’s power.
[Passage omitted: recaps statement from the CIS leaders, which
contained criticism of the OSCE and the Armenian foreign minister’s
remarks at 1 December 2003 OSCE meeting in Maastricht]
Time to make a choice
The congratulation of Yanukovych on “victory”, which did not promise
any benefits to Yerevan, gave additional trump cards to the opponents
of Robert Kocharyan’s politics. [Passage omitted: an excerpt from
an article entitled “A new dividing line drawn by Moscow” published
in the Swiss Neue Zuercher Zeitung newspaper and President Putin
congratulates Yanukovych]
We do not agree with the point of view, that Yushenko should win in the
elections in the Ukraine as the West is not going to recognize anybody
else as a winner. However, one thing is to disagree, and quite another
thing – to build one’s own policy on this disagreement. Especially
for Armenia, which does not have the necessary political, territorial,
human and financial resources to openly express its disagreement with
the policy pursued by the West.
Last week, Armenian President Robert Kocharyan addressed an appeal to
the leaders of all EU member-states to discuss the fact of Armenia’s
blockade by Turkey at the EU forthcoming summit on 17 December. It
is not necessary to be a big strategist to draw a conclusion that
if Armenia urges the EU to force Turkey to observe the common rules,
it should do it itself, even if the matter concerns the “unwritten”
rules of the game.
We are not going to artificially heat up passions around
the congratulatory message sent to Victor Yanukovych by Robert
Kocharyan. But the matter is that this seemingly trifle event exposes
a much more serious problem – the Armenian leadership’s ability to
adapt its complementary foreign policy to the realities of contemporary
international policy.
We think that George Bush’s second term as the US president and
his administration’s conventional formula – “with us or against
us” may ruin the Armenian complementarism in the form it exists
today. On the other hand, Russia in the person of Vladimir Putin
calls on to give up the heritage of the “cold war” and puts forward
its own formula. Speaking in New Delhi on 3 December, the Russian
president said that the “attempts to rebuild the many-sided and
diverse modern civilization created by God by barracks principles of
unipolar world seem rather dangerous to me”. Vladimir Putin said that
“out-of-the-block cooperation of Russia, India and China” can hamper
the creation of “unipolar world”.
It is clear that Armenia and its leadership won’t like either of these
formulas. However, apparently, there comes a time to make a choice: to
be “with them” and to become a full NATO member in five to 10 years,
acquiring the right of veto in this powerful military-political
alliance, or to try “to prevent” the creation of unipolar world
as a small vassal of Russia, India and China, which pursue their
own interests and will easily sacrifice Armenia in any convenient
political moment.
Georgia replaces Armenia as regional leader
If we turn from global to local we can see another danger: being more
advanced economically and politically, Armenia swiftly yields the role
of regional leader to Georgia. Although Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev, whose election last year was far from being irreproachable,
makes no effective gestures like Mikheil Saakashvili, he also
slowly drifts towards the West. Armenia finds itself in an absurd
and insulting situation. [Passage omitted: quote from co-author of
Poland’s economic reforms Leszek Balcerowicz and Georgian background]
The Armenian leaders, who more often urge the EU “to explain the
essence” of the European Neighbourhood Policy, should themselves fill
this initiative with concrete content, operate quickly and bravely.
As to the problem of global choice, there are facts testifying that
the Armenian leadership was ready for this still several years ago.
Five years ago on 13 December 1999, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanyan declared:
“The contradictions between the United States and Russia today are
aggravated as never. In case of new escalation of relations between
the United States and Russia we will be forced, against our will,
to refuse the complementarity principle and sooner or later we will
have to make a choice between the States and Russia.”
The question is what Armenia’s choice will be if the Armenian
leadership faces the problem of choice?