Haykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan, in Armenian
23 Sep 05, p 1
ARMENIA SHOULD SWAP OLD NUCLEAR POWER STATION FOR EU-FUNDED ONE –
PAPER
Headlined “The foreign policy issue”
A delegation headed by Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister Arman
Kirakosyan will take part in the 49th session of IAEA [the
International Atomic Energy Agency] on 26-30 September, Arka news
agency reports. Kirakosyan will deliver a report and announce that
Armenia is going to build a new nuclear station. Yesterday [21
September] we failed to get an official reaction to this information.
The Metsamor nuclear power station is the most important conundrum of
Armenian foreign policy. The position of the EU on this issue is
strict: they want the closure of our nuclear power station because
the station does not meet security standards, and for its closure,
the EU is ready to give 100m euros to Armenia for the search of
alternative power sources.
In this case, the EU supports the construction of another type of
power station. However, it is especially obvious in Armenia’s case
that our country imports energy sources mainly from abroad, a nuclear
power station may be the only alternative for the nuclear power
station.
Certainly, Armenia also imports nuclear fuel from abroad, but an
opportunity to produce cheap nuclear energy will become that “booby
prize” which Armenia will have for being out of the regional energy
projects.
A natural question arises: why should the world community be
interested in awarding Armenia the “booby prize”? The point is that
depriving Armenia of nuclear energy may hopelessly break the
correlation of forces in our region and this may cast doubt on the
prospect of establishing long-lasting stability in the South
Caucasus.
Thus Armenia should be able to persuade the EU that the closure of
the nuclear power station is not possible for 100m euros but for the
construction of a new nuclear power station, and that the fuel for
this nuclear power station should be purchased not from Russia but
Europe. This will create basis for getting rid of Russia, which is
also considered one of the important conditions of the regional
stability.
And if Arman Kirakosyan really speaks about this, we should say that
Armenia has adopted right direction in this issue. Armenia should not
declare about its decision to construct a new nuclear power station
but should start negotiations with the EU on this matter. Otherwise,
this may create serious confrontation with the West and Armenia may
find itself in the same situation as Iran or North Korea. It is
obvious that Armenia cannot carry out such a project all by itself
and only the EU or the USA may finance it.
This means that the problem of the new Armenian nuclear power station
should be turned into a mutually profitable topic of dialogue with
the West especially when the West considers Russia’s departure from
the region as a significant step, and the construction of the new
power station will be the shortest step in this direction.
Incidentally, Russia is also interested in this matter. It is
advantageous for Russia if the Armenian nuclear power station remains
in today’s situation because, given this, Russia is the only provider
of the nuclear fuel to the station. Even after the construction of
the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, Armenia will not be able to overcome
the status of Russia’s outpost. If Russia manages to inflame conflict
between Armenia and the West over the power station, Armenia may turn
from Russia’s outpost into its vassal.