European integration is one of the top priorities of Armenian foreign policy, along with the development of relations with the USA and Russia. The Armenian PM stated recently that there is no alternative to the process of "euro-integration". Stepan Safaryan, the leader of the ‘Heritage’ parliamentary group, comments on the prospects for Armenian integration into Europe.
- Stefan Fule, the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, stated that EU-Armenian relations are developing rapidly. Do you agree with this assessment?
- There is no doubt that there is a certain stirring in the field of politics, our leaders talk about following European standards… but there are no qualitative changes at all, as I see it. Serious reforms should be following the statements, but there are none. So Armenia is not experiencing any real EU influence.
The ‘Action Plan’ document was signed in 2005 by Armenia and the EU in the framework of the ‘New European Neighbourhood’ programme. This plan accentuated the economic sphere. The Armenian government was interested in credits and the EU market for Armenian goods. All other items of the programme, such as human rights and democratic development, were mostly neglected. I think that the government's priorities haven’t changed since then, and that means Armenian euro-integration has no heart, it is mechanical. On the other hand, I can’t afford not to admire the success that has been achieved in our relations with the EU.
- Did Europe accept this ‘mechanical’ integration?
- Yes, it gave its silent consent. EU officials realize that Armenian leaders are strongly dependent on Russia, so if the EU starts pressing them, Armenia can always turn to Russia instead. The example of Belarus, which turned away from Europe because of its strict position, is still too vivid.
- Does Armenia's pro-Russian orientation hamper its European progress?
- Russia tries to preserve its influence over post-Soviet republics, and that’s a serious obstacle in the way of Armenian euro-integration. Our present authorities are too dependent on Russia to cross the limit on relations with Europe posed by our northern neighbour.
- Is it possible to regard the ‘Eastern Partnership’ programme as one aimed against Russian interests?
- I don’t think so. However, Russia hopes to exercise its influence over the same countries this programme is aimed at. But Russia is not as negative towards the EU enlargement issue as it is towards NATO expansion. On the other hand, to enter the EU one has to enter NATO first, as NATO is still the organization guaranteeing European security, so Russia is not inclined to welcome EU membership for its former republics. So if Armenia enters the EU, Russia will lose its most important strategic partner in the South Caucasus.
- Is the EU an alternative to Russia or the US in the South Caucasus?
- The US is still the first one to ‘westernize’ the South Caucasus. Europe avoids penetrating a region it considers unstable, but it is the USA that manages to get Europe involved with them. The US and GB were the first to penetrate the South Caucasus economically by constructing the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. The USA makes Europe consider geopolitics. The ‘Russia-USA-EU triangle’ is a sort of paradox of our region: sometimes the EU joins forces with Russia against the USA, and sometimes the EU and US oppose Russia. But the USA and Europe are closer to each other than Russia and the EU, so EU-US efforts are much more efficient that Russian-EU ones.
- Does the EU play any considerable role in South Caucasian stabilization?
- Of course, and 2008 is a fine example of it. There are some politicians in Georgia who were probably disappointed by the scale of European support back then, but the EU chairman and French President, Sarkozy, played a great role in the settling of the armed conflict. Today, not one of the major players (I mean, Russia, the EU and the USA) can gain full control of the region, so the very state of current affairs is created by the balance between these powers. I think that the US-Russia-EU matrix is purely temporary for the South Caucasus, as not one of these powers intends to give up its own profits.
Interview by Susanna Petrosyan, Yerevan, exclusively to VK
