Tweet
BETWEEN TWO COASTS
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1256:-between-two-coasts&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Thursday, 31 October 2013 09:54
Artsakh remains Artsakh
Armenia's decision to join the Customs Union, which President Serzh
Sargsyan stated on September 3 during a visit to Moscow, continues
to be a subject of discussions both in the Armenian society and among
experts. Diametrically opposite opinions are expressed - from direct
support and approval to outright condemnation and censure.
It is clear, because in a certain sense the direction of Armenia's
development - Eurasian or European - depends on this. It should
be noted that the Armenian leadership initially tried to develop
its relations within its stated policy of complementarity supposing
establishment of constructive relations with both the Eurasian Economic
Cooperation and the European Union.
However, the "and-and" version proposed by Armenia did not work,
when both structures, actually, offered Armenia to finally decide
on the issue of choice and answer what it prefered - the Eurasian or
European vector. As a result, the September 3 statement was issued,
which, as already noted, continues to cause heated debates in the
Armenian society.
I must admit that the arguments of both the "Eurasians" and "Europeans"
have the right to life. The opponents of Armenia's joining the
Customs Union ground their position with the inevitable loss of part
of its sovereignty and further increase of dependence on Russia,
which plays the leading role in the noted union. The supporters
parry the arguments of their opponents mainly with the necessity of
ensuring the security of Armenia, which, according to them, can be
guaranteed only by Russia. Although the Customs Union is, in essence,
an economic structure, the problem is primarily political, or more
precisely - geopolitical. It should be, surely, considered in the
context of geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West for the
influence in the South Caucasus region.
It is obvious that the change in the foreign policy orientation on the
eve of Armenia's expected signing of the Association Agreement with
the EU in Vilnius was not accidental at all. To a certain extent we
can talk about indirect pressure on Yerevan by Russia, although the
Russian leadership tries to disguise it with a fair warning of Armenia
about the economic (as well as political) consequences of such a step.
In other words, we can say that the formula "who is not with us is
against us" was launched.
Moscow's reaction to the decision of Kyiv to take the path of European
integration and to sign the abovementioned Association Agreement
shows that the consequences are inevitable. Warnings for Ukraine
sounded earlier as well, and on October 29, Russia, represented by
Prime Minister Medvedev, reminded it of the debts for the Russian
gas supplies. He explicitly stated that no pardon for the gas debts
would take place in the future and offered to take strict measures
against the defaulters. Although Russia states that there is no
political subtext here, it is hard to believe this. We must say
fairly that Armenia, with its limited economic and communications
capabilities, is far from Ukraine, which has a more powerful economy
and is directly bordering the EU. Anyway, Armenia as a sovereign state,
basing on its own interests, has made its choice, thus reserving the
right to develop and deepen cooperative relations with the European
Union as well. However, it is important to note that despite the harsh
rhetoric, which was sometimes expressed even as sharp condemnation of
Yerevan, the EU does not intend to abandon Armenia and slam the doors
in front of it. Subsequently, the rhetoric changed, and, judging by
the statements of the European officials, now they are searching an
acceptable form of cooperation that would not alienate Armenia from
the European Union.
However, for a clear reason, we are interested in the prospects of
the NKR, which, by the way, approved Armenia's decision. I must say
that almost as soon as the issue of Armenia's choosing between the
European and Customs Union appeared on the agenda, the issue of the
fate of Nagorno Karabakh in the new political architecture arose. There
were grounded concerns that customs stations may appear on the border
between Armenia and the NKR, which would extremely complicate the
development of the Republic. However, the subsequent events showed
that the fears were ungrounded. And it is curious that the positions
of the Customs Union and the EU coincided in this issue. They both do
not see any problem in the lack of customs stations between Armenia
and the NKR. As Director of the Institute of EurAsEC Vladimir Lepekhin
noted, when joining the Customs Union, Armenia should independently
resolve the issue of the customs regime with Nagorno Karabakh.
We believe that common sense and pragmatism, as well as understanding
of the existing realities prevailed here. And the realities are that
the economies of the RA and the NKR are quite deeply integrated into
a common economic space with a common monetary policy. In addition,
Armenia has stated at the highest level that it does not intend to
give the NKR as a sacrifice for the integration processes, whether it
is with the Customs Union or with the EU. In other words, we can state
that in any case the RA and the NKR will maintain their economic unity
as a single body composed of two entities, and none of them is going
to break these ties. Most experts tend to believe that the Customs
Union states will close eyes on the situation with Nagorno Karabakh
and that the issue of establishing customs stations between Armenia
and Artsakh is not, in fact, on the agenda. Yerevan will not take a
decision to the detriment of the actual independence and security of
Nagorno Karabakh. So, the NKR, as an independent state, can continue
to develop, building its political future.
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
http://artsakhtert.com/eng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1256:-between-two-coasts&catid=3:all&Itemid=4
Thursday, 31 October 2013 09:54
Artsakh remains Artsakh
Armenia's decision to join the Customs Union, which President Serzh
Sargsyan stated on September 3 during a visit to Moscow, continues
to be a subject of discussions both in the Armenian society and among
experts. Diametrically opposite opinions are expressed - from direct
support and approval to outright condemnation and censure.
It is clear, because in a certain sense the direction of Armenia's
development - Eurasian or European - depends on this. It should
be noted that the Armenian leadership initially tried to develop
its relations within its stated policy of complementarity supposing
establishment of constructive relations with both the Eurasian Economic
Cooperation and the European Union.
However, the "and-and" version proposed by Armenia did not work,
when both structures, actually, offered Armenia to finally decide
on the issue of choice and answer what it prefered - the Eurasian or
European vector. As a result, the September 3 statement was issued,
which, as already noted, continues to cause heated debates in the
Armenian society.
I must admit that the arguments of both the "Eurasians" and "Europeans"
have the right to life. The opponents of Armenia's joining the
Customs Union ground their position with the inevitable loss of part
of its sovereignty and further increase of dependence on Russia,
which plays the leading role in the noted union. The supporters
parry the arguments of their opponents mainly with the necessity of
ensuring the security of Armenia, which, according to them, can be
guaranteed only by Russia. Although the Customs Union is, in essence,
an economic structure, the problem is primarily political, or more
precisely - geopolitical. It should be, surely, considered in the
context of geopolitical rivalry between Russia and the West for the
influence in the South Caucasus region.
It is obvious that the change in the foreign policy orientation on the
eve of Armenia's expected signing of the Association Agreement with
the EU in Vilnius was not accidental at all. To a certain extent we
can talk about indirect pressure on Yerevan by Russia, although the
Russian leadership tries to disguise it with a fair warning of Armenia
about the economic (as well as political) consequences of such a step.
In other words, we can say that the formula "who is not with us is
against us" was launched.
Moscow's reaction to the decision of Kyiv to take the path of European
integration and to sign the abovementioned Association Agreement
shows that the consequences are inevitable. Warnings for Ukraine
sounded earlier as well, and on October 29, Russia, represented by
Prime Minister Medvedev, reminded it of the debts for the Russian
gas supplies. He explicitly stated that no pardon for the gas debts
would take place in the future and offered to take strict measures
against the defaulters. Although Russia states that there is no
political subtext here, it is hard to believe this. We must say
fairly that Armenia, with its limited economic and communications
capabilities, is far from Ukraine, which has a more powerful economy
and is directly bordering the EU. Anyway, Armenia as a sovereign state,
basing on its own interests, has made its choice, thus reserving the
right to develop and deepen cooperative relations with the European
Union as well. However, it is important to note that despite the harsh
rhetoric, which was sometimes expressed even as sharp condemnation of
Yerevan, the EU does not intend to abandon Armenia and slam the doors
in front of it. Subsequently, the rhetoric changed, and, judging by
the statements of the European officials, now they are searching an
acceptable form of cooperation that would not alienate Armenia from
the European Union.
However, for a clear reason, we are interested in the prospects of
the NKR, which, by the way, approved Armenia's decision. I must say
that almost as soon as the issue of Armenia's choosing between the
European and Customs Union appeared on the agenda, the issue of the
fate of Nagorno Karabakh in the new political architecture arose. There
were grounded concerns that customs stations may appear on the border
between Armenia and the NKR, which would extremely complicate the
development of the Republic. However, the subsequent events showed
that the fears were ungrounded. And it is curious that the positions
of the Customs Union and the EU coincided in this issue. They both do
not see any problem in the lack of customs stations between Armenia
and the NKR. As Director of the Institute of EurAsEC Vladimir Lepekhin
noted, when joining the Customs Union, Armenia should independently
resolve the issue of the customs regime with Nagorno Karabakh.
We believe that common sense and pragmatism, as well as understanding
of the existing realities prevailed here. And the realities are that
the economies of the RA and the NKR are quite deeply integrated into
a common economic space with a common monetary policy. In addition,
Armenia has stated at the highest level that it does not intend to
give the NKR as a sacrifice for the integration processes, whether it
is with the Customs Union or with the EU. In other words, we can state
that in any case the RA and the NKR will maintain their economic unity
as a single body composed of two entities, and none of them is going
to break these ties. Most experts tend to believe that the Customs
Union states will close eyes on the situation with Nagorno Karabakh
and that the issue of establishing customs stations between Armenia
and Artsakh is not, in fact, on the agenda. Yerevan will not take a
decision to the detriment of the actual independence and security of
Nagorno Karabakh. So, the NKR, as an independent state, can continue
to develop, building its political future.
Leonid MARTIROSSIAN
Editor-in-Chief of Azat Artsakh newspaper
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress