Aravot website, Armenia

December 18 2017

 

 

 

by Ruben Mehrabyan

 

It has been clear since the very beginning that the so-called "both … and" policy ["both Russia and the EU"] Armenia has announced would be confined to exceptionally hollow rhetoric and that sooner or later, it would become obvious that it is impossible, as it has been clear that despite the legal "purity" of the Armenia-EU agreement, Moscow will simply not tolerate the existence of this agreement.

 

Armenia-EU agreement unacceptable to Moscow's 'imperial spirit'

 

You can explain a thousand times, even in hand-waving terms, swear an oath of loyalty, show references, dab with you finger on a relevant line in the text, "set an example", but that is going to be senseless, as the very fact of this kind of agreement is unacceptable to Moscow's imperial spirit.

 

The problem lies not in who various circles in Armenia sympathising with or who represents Armenia's interests in terms of tactic or strategy and how. The problem is much simpler: Is Armenia able to use opportunities on its own territory to serve its own interests? And the question is far from being rhetorical. It is not even a question of the agreement with the EU.

 

With one stroke of the pen, Armenia presented last week the gas distribution system in Meghri and Agarak restored at the expense of funds allocated by Iran to the Russian monopolist Gazprom. Before that, the system was on the balance sheet of the Ministry of Energy Infrastructure and Natural Resources and was regarded as state-owned. There was an opportunity to diversify gas distribution and to finally start importing gas not only from remote Siberia, but also from neighbouring Iran. However, Gazprom would not be Gazprom if it could tolerate something like that. And the government approved this, trying to "explain" to us later, why this was in the state interests of Armenia.

 

That means that the vicious policy adopted at the beginning of the 2000s is continuing and there is no end to it despite numerous statements about the importance of our relations with Europe, the USA, and Iran, our aspiration to develop our relations not only with the Russian Federation, our policy being based on "various vectors" and on the "both … and" approach, and our acting thus and otherwise… [ellipsis as published] Life has shown that all this is nothing other than declarations that are very quickly forgotten, when they encounter Gazprom's interests, Rosneft's pocket, or whims of the Russian military and when an Armenian company may very simply be prohibited from repairing roads on the territory of a border post. You cannot imagine, but it was with this shameful wording that the problem was put on the agenda of the government meeting held last Thursday [14 December] and approved.

 

Armenia needs no assistance from Russia in relations with Iran

 

Of course, they can object, pointing to the opening of the Meghri free economic zone [in an area adjacent to Iran], which is still just an office and saying that Iranians will open a trade office in Kapan and a bus route will be opened between Kapan [in Armenia] and Jolfa [in Iran], but it should be clear that if all this happens to be of more than local importance, Russians will not allow it. If Yerevan does not finally make some other decision, there will be no highway, no railway, and no large-scale cargo transportation and goods turnover.

 

And it is clear why: This will contradict the philosophy, logic, and content of our current normal relations with Russia and this will undermine Russia's abnormal presence in Armenia. Yerevan does not even dare to ask the following question: Who and what is Russia "defending" us from in Meghri? Are any threats emanating from Iran? And are they so great that we are unable to cope with them? They will respond: Terrorism, narcotics, illegal migration, and so forth. But who said that it is Russians, who are to protect us from all this on the Araks river [dividing Armenia from Iran]?

 

It is a fact that Armenia's and Iran's approaches to these problems are identical, which has been set forth in intergovernmental documents on many occasions and the intergovernmental format is quite sufficient to need no "assistance" from Russian border guards. After all, if the aforementioned arguments are insufficient, they should also be invited to the border with Georgia to put things through.

 

Armenia using 'both … and' policy as 'camouflage'

 

And this is called a bridge! This is a bridge hanging in the air with its one end slightly resting on land. This simply catches your eye at least in matters linked to Iran. Answering journalists' questions at the opening ceremony of the Meghri free economic zone, the governor of [Armenia's] Syunik [Region] said that businessmen and companies from Georgia, Ukraine, and Belarus had expressed interest in it. It is quite noteworthy that he did not even mention Russia and this is not surprising, as Moscow does not need this. The maritime Astrakhan-Anzali route [connecting Russia and Iran] is open and Armenia has nothing to do with it. Moreover, "our strategic ally" is intensively pushing through the idea of the Tehran-Baku-Moscow route that is to bypass Armenia and Georgia and to provide Iran with access to the Black Sea and Europe by its own grace, i.e. Moscow's intention contradicts the interests of everyone except Baku.

 

A simple question arises here: On whose side is the Armenian government playing in all this? And also: Where has the "both … and" [policy] disappeared?

 

Yerevan explains that we are ready to develop relations with others if "this is not contrary to our commitments" to the [Russian-led] EEU [Eurasian Economic Union], CSTO [Collective Security Treaty Organisation], and other organisations that Russia has lumbered us with. However, we have never heard up to now at least one proposal from Russia rejected with the wording saying that this is contrary to our commitments to, say, the EU, Iran, or the United States. The impression is that we "feel relieved" of any commitments and when they point to the rare commitments that we have really assumed, we start accusing, say, [EU Ambassador to Armenia] Mr [Piotr] Switalski of "interfering" in our "domestic affairs", [saying that] "we are a sovereign [country]" and things like that.

 

There is no sense in preaching sermons or saying for a thousandth time that the inability of the government to serve state and public interests has turned into threat number one to the statehood. In addition to this, the government has turned into a threat to themselves, as they will not be able to say anything to Tehran, Brussels, or Washington, when it becomes clear that Armenia's policy is the main obstacle for the communications connecting the Persian Gulf with the Black Sea, to be more precise, the lack of policy, when "insiders" serving the interests of Gazprom are ready to undermine anything, using the "both … and" rhetoric as camouflage.

 

It must be clear for the future that if there is anyone the Armenia-Iran border needs to be protected from, it is its current "defenders" and this road should first be cleaned of garbage with bulldozers in the broad sense [of the _expression_].