Lukashenko Explained Why Serzh Sargsyan Hadn’t Been Invited
Haikazn Ghahriyan, Editor-in-Chief
Comments – 22 March 2015, 01:07
On these days the Armenian political circles and media are discussing
the meeting of the presidents of the Eurasian troika Russia, Belarus
and Kazakhstan during which economic issues and the common currency
were discussed.
Although Armenia is officially a member of the Eurasian Economic
Union, Serzh Sargsyan had not been invited. Moreover, in their
statements Putin, Nazarbayev and Lukashenko “forgot” about Armenia.
Vladimir Putin, for example, announced that it is time Russia, Belarus
and Kazakhstan set to negotiate the creation of a common currency.
This circumstance is now being widely discussed, and is interesting
indeed. In fact, the members of the EEU are discussing common issues
without Armenia and without mentioning Armenia. The opinions are
different, ranging from ignoring of Armenia to de facto Armenia is not
a member of the EEU.
By the way, Serzh Sargsyan has not been invited to the next meeting of
the troika in Moscow on May 8.
Of course, the best thing would be if they forgot about Armenia, and
our country had not been a member of this union either de factor, or
de jure. Armenia joined the EEU on January 2 but during these months
it has already experienced its negative, let alone disastrous
consequences in the financial, economic, security and other spheres.
However, the problem is more complicated and dangerous than the
amnesia of the Eurasian dictators. The problem is that de facto
Armenia is not an EEU member but is tied to this organization with
binding documents. In other words, Armenia has no right to vote but
has to fulfill its obligations. And this is more dangerous than the
membership itself.
At the beginning of the process of membership to the EEU many people
in Armenia warned about this situation. It was clear from the very
beginning that Armenia would not be allowed to be a founding, that is
an equal member. In both international organizations and the EEU,
Russia needs Armenia as an “extra vote” to promote its interests, to
which Minsk and Astana were resisting actively. Eventually they
reached their goal, and Armenia, despite the efforts of the
government, did not become a founding member.
However, Russia did not make any efforts in this direction. Russia did
not need Armenia as an equal member of the EEU, its goals relating to
Armenia are different, namely to cut Armenia from the world, isolate
it and prevent diversification of its foreign political, economic and
security spheres. The point is that Russia and Armenia have different,
contradictory interests, and the independent policy of Armenia would
lead to not only a clash of interests but also weakening of Russia’s
positions in the region.
The purpose of Moscow’s policy is to rule out this situation, and it
is possible only if Armenia stops being a subject. For this purpose,
all the Russian agents, political parties, political scientists and
experts were deployed in Armenia.
Besides, the interests of Russia are in line with the interests of
Turkey and Azerbaijan which also participated in the process of
eliminating Armenia as a subject through military escalation and
threats to Armenia and Artsakh.
Russia has hung Armenia in the air to be able to implement its plans.
In addition, Russia has “insurance” in case the EEU fails. Armenia
stopped being a subject after the Armenian-Russian agreements signed
in Yerevan on 2 December 2013.
This is the situation, and it is obviously dangerous for Armenia. As
to forgetting about Armenia, Lukashenko has explained the case and the
background more than clearly. He stated at the meeting in Astana that
the decisions of the founding members must be mandatory for the new
members. The new members must implement the decisions of the troika.
The situation is complicated but not fatal. Armenia has nothing to do
in the Eurasian concentration camp indeed. This union threatens the
security and sovereignty of Armenia. The Eurasian Union is one of the
havens of the Turkic geopolitics where Armenia has no prospects.
Now the public and political thought of Armenia must work towards the
technology of withdrawing Armenia from Russian-Eurasian projects. This
is a complicated issue not only in terms of technology but also
because there is no such though in Armenia. And those who are
considered such are mostly Russian agents.
Nevertheless, the situation is not hopeless, considering that the
logic of international developments favors this process.
Currently there are signs of change of the situation, and politics
rules out unilateral things. Hence, it is possible that Armenia does
not want to attend the Eurasian events. The problem is that Armenia
must realize its value and importance.