Experts named factors that could influence the relationship between Moscow and Yerevan
By VK
During the video-link Moscow-Yerevan “The results of the parliamentary elections in Armenia. Russian-Armenian dialogue: a new stage?” Russian and Armenian experts discussed the prospects of the two countries’ relations.
Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the Institute of the Caucasus, political scientist
In my opinion, the elections were extremely interesting. The pre-electoral campaign, as well as elections themselves, was rather active. There was a rather high level of competition. There was fairly good access to media resources and there were good opportunities to present programs to the electorate. The struggle was lively, it was real and it was without doubt very interesting to observe. The elections have revealed certain tendencies which are rather uncommon for Armenian politics. Regarding the results of elections, in my opinion in any case there will be a coalition. Despite the fact that the ruling Republican Party received the majority of the votes – they have 50 % + 1, the tradition of coalition is very strong in Armenia and I believe that there will be a coalition in one format or another. In respect of domestic politics, the elections will seriously influence the distribution of power among political parties and the formation of the government. The Armenian parliament has a rather important function: the government is being formed with its serious participation. This would be a result of agreements within the coalition. Thus, it will influence domestic politics as well as the coming presidential elections in February. According to the system, parliamentary elections are usually primaries for presidential elections. The summer dead season will pass and from September-October the real but informal presidential pre-electoral campaign will start. Regarding the question which certainly interests people in the Moscow studio, I am afraid I have nothing to say. Relations with Moscow will not change. Relations will remain almost in the same framework as before. This was clear even before elections. There are no significant forces in Armenia calling for significant changes in the format of relations with foreign forces including Russia or primarily with Russia. Simply there is none. So there was no prospect of significant changes in relations with Russia and I think that regardless of the results of the elections and regardless of the actual result, we can hardly expect a new dynamic. The foreign policy of Armenia will remain complimentary. Armenia will continue not equating pro-Russian and anti-Western sentiments with anti-Russian and pro-Western ones, unlike some of its neighbors. Relations between Russia and Armenia, at least on the part of Armenia, although I am convinced that on the part of Russia there should be no significant changes either, will remain in the same framework. With the years there will be certain changes, but I would like to repeat once again that in general I do not see any changes that can be caused by the results of elections.
Alexander Makarov, director of the Armenian branch of the Institute of the CIS Countries
This campaign indeed was marked by an uncommon level of competition between various political forces, between the forces that had signed the coalition memorandum and the opposition, as well as within the opposition itself. The non-homogeneous opposition, including the parliamentary and non-parliamentary opposition, is in fact rather interesting material for analysis. Regarding the results of the elections, there were several intriguing scenarios. First, whether the Republican Party will gain a relative or absolute majority in the parliament. The answer is already known, the Republican Party has gained more than 50% of the seats in the National Assembly. The second intrigue was related to the insufficiently confident performance of the non-parliamentary opposition. Based on various estimates, the National Congress could hope for a somewhat larger representation in the parliament. However, the main intrigue in the morning after the elections was whether the National Congress would pass the necessary 7% barrier in order to be presented in the legislative body. The third intrigue which remains even nowadays is the question of the formation or non-formation of a coalition, of a scenario that the party which received the majority of seats in the parliament, almost 50% of the votes, is going to follow. It remains until nowadays: will a coalition be formed? What scenario will prevail? A majority scenario or a scenario of the formation of a larger, oversized or grand coalition which would include not only the Republican party but also the forces with which the Republican party is hoping to cooperate in the legislative field, as well as in the framework of the expected and apparently beginning in the autumn of this year pre-electoral campaign. This intrigue remains today. The assumption that a coalition will be formed is based most probably on the fact that on the eve of the presidential campaign and in the process of adopting political decisions, a larger field of consensus is needed in order to adopt political decisions. This could become a decisive factor in terms of creating a coalition. Regarding problems of foreign policy, if we take into account tendencies which have been present in this direction in Armenia in the last several years, we should not expect any changes in this regard in Armenia. Several key problems will remain in the field of foreign priorities, including provision of regional stability and security, finding a solution to the Nagorno- Karabakh problem and in the framework of integration projects - bilateral cooperation between Armenia and Russia, which maintains its high status, as well as cooperation in a number of other schemes within the CIS space. There is certainly a scenario of Russia-EU relations' model, which has a certain economic character.
Felix Stanevsky, head of the Department of Caucasus, Institute of the CIS Countries
In general, there are positive evaluations. I would even say – very positive evaluations of the elections that took place in Armenia. There is certainly some discontent on the part of the opposition forces, which is natural. First of all, a certain direction in Armenian public opinion continues to criticize the course of the elections, but this is very natural and is characteristic of almost all the countries in the world. An opposition is rarely satisfied with election results. Regarding Russian-Armenian relations, I would like to stress a certain curious fact. Starting from August 2011 a series of elections took place on the territory of the South Caucasus. In August the president of Abkhazia, Ankvab, was elected. Then in the course of the winter and spring of 2012, four rounds of elections took place in South Ossetia. Elections to the Russian State Duma took place, then presidential elections in Russia, elections in South Ossetia, then elections in Armenia took place. In July there will be presidential elections in Karabakh, in October – parliamentary elections in Georgia and in February – parliamentary elections in Armenia and Georgia. This situation should suggest us to conduct analysis of the future foreign policies of the countries of the South Caucasus, including Armenia, in relation to these changes. One has to say that although it seems that elections have so far been mostly only stabilizing the situations before the elections, there are changes. I am convinced that there are changes in Russia, they are obvious to me in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Regarding Armenia, in the opinion of our correspondents in Yerevan, there are not going to be big changes in relations between Russia and Armenia. But I would like to stress something else. Yes, there will be no big changes. I also cannot see any reason to construct overly-smart constructions, which will most probably not be realized in regard to the future of Russian-Armenian relations. But it seems to me that there will be new nuances in the position of Armenia, as well as Russia in regard to the predicted development of the situation in South Caucasus. Imagine, the South Caucasus will inevitably be dragged into the whirlpool of changes in the world related to the crisis in the Near and Middle East. This can be predicted with certainty. In connection to this, the position of Armenia and Russia in the future development of the crisis in Syria and very probable new intensification of the Iranian crisis… I am fully convinced that we should take into consideration not only the changes which took place among the top officials in Russia, but also among the top officials in France. The elections in France should also be taken into account, since France is a member and co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group which is settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Are there going to be new nuances? It seems to me that there could be. Are there going to be new nuances or not only nuances in the politics of the US in relation to the presidential elections in America to take place in the coming fall? There is a global situation which will, if not drastically change the situation in the world, in general could seriously influence it. We should have a clear vision of ways of developing Russian-Armenian cooperation in the field of foreign policy, contacts between foreign ministries of both countries and between foreign ministers in relation to new factors emerging on the wave of elections in the South Caucasus and in countries which significantly influence the development of the situation in the South Caucasus.
Grigory Trofimchuk, first vice-president of the Center for Modeling Strategic Development
At the moment Armenia is in its heyday in every regard. Armenia is stable, there is a stable situation on the borders of Armenia. Inside Armenia, as the former elections have shown, the situation is stable as well. At the moment, and I would like stress this, Armenia is among numerous countries on the territory of the CIS where there is one large main ruling party and other parties which insure it, also rather serious parties. There is the same situation in Russia and almost the same system in Azerbaijan. As I have already said, Armenia is part of this stable circle. I think that in such a situation there can be certain dangers. First of all, because stability cannot be permanent as we know. The foreign factor is also very important, but at the moment Armenia is in the heyday of stability with regard to foreign policy as well. It is clear that Armenia has certain issues with Azerbaijan, certain issues with Turkey, but nevertheless these are not military-political issues, meaning that there is peace on the borders of Armenia, a dialogue between Yerevan and Tbilisi, stable relations with Russia. These are also proof of the fact that there is a peak of stability. During the last meeting between the president of Armenia and the prime minister of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, he said in a direct manner that with Armenia, and by the way this phrase was later much commented upon in Armenia by representatives of the ruling party as well as the opposition, not knowing how to treat it and twisting it many times in one or another direction… Nevertheless, the prime minister said very directly that there are special inter-allied relations between Russia and Armenia. I would also like to stress the word "inter-allied". It is a higher level of mutual trust and cooperation. It is not even cooperation, since an ally is a higher status. The only area in which our relations can be tested, and we are not looking forward to this moment in any way but are trying to distance ourselves from it, is a direct war. An ally is tested directly in war. We would not like to test our alliance in such a format. That is why, it seems to me, we should strengthen our relations with Armenia not only in the framework of the CIS, but also in the framework of the CSTO. So far, in my opinion, our relations in this sphere are rather formal. I would like to highlight the fact that the Armenian opposition is always demanding revolution. Against the background of the syndrome of dissatisfaction that they are talking about, they are demanding revolution. I would like to provide only one argument in this regard, which in general takes the issue off the table of the Armenian opposition: revolution will lead to the immediate surrender, if one can use this word, of Karabakh. That is why I do not understand why the current authorities of Armenia in the information propaganda field of Armenia are not relating the opposition to this problem. If this happened, then perhaps the current authorities of Armenia would partially take some issues off the table concerning the opposition. In my opinion, perhaps a subjective opinion, the leadership of the Armenian National Congress is behaving strangely actively, despite the fact that it received a number of seats in the new parliament, especially the head of the congress, its status leader. If one can draw such example, in Russia there would be a similar situation if Yeltsin, if he was alive, would run again for the presidency and Gaidar would campaign for him. It would be very absurd. Perhaps our Armenian friends see it differently, but it is strange that the people of Armenia do not raise this question. In my opinion, the opposition has nothing to hold on to amidst the stability in Armenia. That is why the discourse was mostly centered upon, as we remember, or at least it seems so to us, Russian experts and observers, the explosion of balloons on the square in Yerevan. There is nothing to hold on to, only emptiness. There is a risk of projected war in Iran and Armenia has to occupy a very well-defined position as an ally in this regard, otherwise there will be an effort to utilize Armenia, especially due to its very complex geography and geo-political situation. It also has a very complex neighboring environment, which is so far stable. I am also worried about our Russian, and I would like to stress this issue, tranquility. I would like to touch upon a subject that was already discussed here – the commitment of the EU to Armenia. Processes of integration are ongoing and will continue, regardless of any parliamentary or presidential elections. In Armenia it is talked about today that the European Union will lead it to a deeper – and this is the word they use, "deeper" – zone of free trade with the EU. But I would like note one issue which is in my opinion extremely important for our Armenian colleagues: if Greece, which is almost in the center of the Mediterranean Sea and is surrounded by almost all the seas and trade routes, is currently in decline and stagnation, one can imagine what is going to happen to Armenia, which has no geographical or political access when it will be introduced in this format. So the question arises, and I am talking about the third risk in my opinion: why is it being dragged there?
Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the Institute of the Caucasus, political scientist
There are a lot of interesting developments around Armenia, and of course global developments like the US elections or the Syrian crisis influence the situation in Armenia and in the region in general. These developments, as well as the relationship with Azerbaijan and the tension in the Middle East, also influence Russia’s position in the region. It all happens around us. There’s some 400 km between Armenia and Iraq, less than 1000 between Armenia and Syria. We border on Iran. All the regional developments have their impact on Armenia and on our relationship with Russia. But for today, I don’t believe that the apocalyptic scenarios will come true. They say that tomorrow they’ll bomb Tehran. But I’ve been hearing things like that for more than a year. The Syrian situation is very tense, but there’s only a 50% chance, in my opinion, of total collapse there too. And probably the most important thing is that we’re used to living in such a world. Armenia is situated in a region where tension is an integral part of the region’s politics. Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Kurdistan are nearby, sometimes armed conflicts happen, different internal problems have different potentials to influence the big picture. These are the frameworks in which Armenia has to exist. The Russian-Armenian relationship is one of the pillars that helps Armenia survive in this environment, and that is why it is so strong. They often talk about the long history of our relations, the cultural ties and common Christian heritage both in Russia and Armenia. This is all true, but I don’t think that it is the most important aspect as far as professional politics is concerned. Georgians and Russians have all these above-mentioned ties too, as well as Russians and Ukrainians, Russians and Baltic peoples. Mutual interest works here. For Russia, Armenia presents an opportunity to remain a significant player in the South Caucasus and further to the south. And if Armenia disappears from Russia’s political map, this influence will vanish. And for Armenia, Russia is a sort of safety belt as we are not on the best of terms with Turkey and Azerbaijan now.
Felix Stanevsky, the head of the Caucasian studies department of the CIS Institute
Russia’s public attention towards the South Caucasus is insufficient. This was shown during the recent events in South Ossetia. They passed the Russian public by. It didn’t notice something that it should be most attentive about. I’m convinced that Russia hasn’t thought through its policy towards Azerbaijan and Armenia, and I believe there are some mistakes in the relations between Russia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We should analyze and correct these mistakes. But for that we need Russian journalists to pay more attention to these problems, as when there’s no public pressure on those in power, they won’t attribute more attention to this sphere.
Grigory Trofimchuk, first vice-president of the Center for Modeling Strategic Development
In my opinion Azerbaijan is seriously getting involved in the face-off with Iran, I mean, it’s being dragged into it. Azerbaijan arrests Iranian spies, Iran takes some actions against Azeri citizens in return. I don’t think that Azerbaijan has already taken a side in the future possible war between the West and Iran, but in this case no one can help the country take this decision, even Russia. Azerbaijan has to decide on its own using its instinct of self-preservation. If a war in Iran starts, Azerbaijan will be the first one to get hurt. And of course Azerbaijan doesn’t want Iranian missiles to hit its territory. And I think that the future strategic position of Azerbaijan will be defined by common sense. And common sense dictates that Azerbaijan and Armenia make this surprising and untraditional step and re-open the negotiations on the eve of this future war and finally take some decisions.
