Eurasian integration of Yerevan

David Stepanyan, Yerevan, exclusively to Vestnik Kavkaza

Recently, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, commenting on Moscow's idea of the Eurasian Union, directly called the plan "a new attempt at Sovietization of the region", saying that the United States "are trying to develop effective ways to slow or prevent this process." Washington fears that successful implementation of the project of the Eurasian Union will create a new center of power in the global geopolitical configuration.

This can support the calls aspiring to expand cooperation with the European Union by the leaders of post-Soviet states. But Brussels is not planning further expansion of the united Europe. There are a number of objective reasons for this, but first and foremost is the economic crisis that swept Europe and put a number of European countries on the brink of default. The example of the decades taken for the accession of Turkey to the EU does not look very encouraging for the former Soviet Union. The EU continues to pursue policy which has been successfully applied in relation to Turkey since 1963 with respect to countries that want to integrate into the "European family". To this day, the Turks are forced to carry out various reforms, and the EU systematically declares reaching "some progress" in the relationship in the way of European integration. This game can go on into infinity. The EU takes a similar position in relation to the former Soviet republics, offering a variety of programs of cooperation in all spheres. In this case, the major European powers have consistently pursued the line of the United States, considering the state of the South Caucasus as a tool to implement their own geopolitical ambitions in the region.

The idea of the creation of the Customs Union, which is already under implementation, and the planned creation of a Eurasian Union promise to the former Soviet Union and the South Caucasus torn by political controversy is of far more benefit than the vague prospect of European integration, which was shown by the example of Turkey. In the systemic crisis of the EU, Eurasian integration will provide real opportunities for post-Soviet states in terms of sustainable economic and social development. Besides, the real situation in the European economy, as well as the phantom effectiveness of the European strategy of"exhortation", actually makes the countries of the former Soviet Union more inclined toward the project initiated by the President of the Russian Federation.

For Yerevan it is extremely important not to stop the constructive relationship with Moscow. It is no secret that these relationships contribute to the persistence of social and economic stability in the country, providing a relatively stable position for the current leadership of the country. The need for the development of Armenian-Russian relations is particularly evident to Yerevan amid the recession of the Armenian economy and the growth of foreign debt, which amounts to $5 billion. This is also dictated by security issues along with the existence of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Armenian-Russian cooperation in the military-political sphere makes a significant contribution to maintaining the balance of power in the region and is a factor in the stabilization of the situation in the South Caucasus.

Obstacles to the integration of Yerevan in the projects of Moscow are understood by the authorities, but not by the people of Armenia. In a fair poll in the republic with a single question: "Would like you to see Armenia as part of the West or of the integration project following the example of the former USSR?" the vast majority would give their sympathies to the second option. But such a poll for obvious reasons is not carried out in Armenia; instead, press conferences are held with enviable frequency at which particular politicians or intellectuals speak "about the threats and obstacles to Armenia's independence caused by the Eurasian Union.”

There are no political obstacles to Armenia joining the Customs Union and the Eurasian Union today. The current difficulties are merely technical in nature, like, for example, the lack of a common border with the member countries of the Customs Union. However, Armenia has no common border with the EU, and, nevertheless, in Yerevan, many still support the idea of the European integration. The situation was very clearly outlined by the chairman of the board of the Eurasian Economic Commission, Viktor Khristenko, comparing the Republic with the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. "Certainly, Armenia has very sensitive infrastructure constraints: it has a single transport corridor to the Customs Union, and it goes through Georgia. But the strategic interest of Armenia is articulated, and it comes down to the fact that this is a Eurasian country,” Khristenko said.

Being aware of the fact that the European integration concept for Armenia is elusive, we should recognize that the historic, geographic, economic, political and legal guidelines indicate the Eurasian direction to Yerevan. But the anti-Eurasian campaign that is actively growing in a number of Armenian media suggests that the West is not sleeping, because the possibility of Armenia entering the Eurasian Union threatens the implementation of far-reaching geopolitical projects of the backstage centers of world politics.