Armenia’s integration in Euro-Atlantic Structures

As it is known Armeniais a member to the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the European Union (EU). Within the frames of the “Partnership for Peace” programArmeniais also in cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty – NATO, an associate member of the Parliamentary Assembly of NATO, and has a signed accord on cooperation with the European Union.

Since 1992 within OSCE frames the Minsk Group (MG) was created called to find mechanisms for the resolution of the Karabagh. The importance of this format for the resolution of Karabagh problem cannot be overestimated, since it has united the efforts of the international community to address the issue. It is specifically within the frames of the OSCE MG, that in 1994 during the OSCE Summit in Budapest Karabagh was given the status of a party to the conflict. Within the OSCE MG frames serious alternatives of regulation of Karabagh conflict have been worked out. OSCE is also charged to conduct serious monitoring of the elections in Armenia, both Presidential and Parliamentary. OSCE support in providing expert counseling in perfecting the legislation and matching it up with the democratic principles and norms, as well as with the OSCE and the EU standards election law, legislation on parties and public organizations, anti-trust law, etc.) is of exclusive importance.

The role of the OSCE is important also in terms of control over commitment to the Common Weapons non-proliferation treaty inEurope, where South Caucasian countries fall under flank restrictions. The positive role of the Treaty is unquestionable simply by the fact that it excludes uncontrolled militarization of the South-Caucasian region.Armenia’s membership in the Council of Europe, where it had the status of a “guest” since 1996 and became a full member since 2001 is exclusively beneficial. Assumed responsibilities before the Council of Europe undoubtedly will contribute to the development of democracy in Armenia. Thus, Armenian leadership has pledged to perfect the Criminal Law (particularly eliminate the capital punishment), respect the rights of political, religious, and sexual minorities, to amend the legislation on human rights (for instance to introduce the institute of an ombudsman), adopt a law on alternative army service, etc. Armenia’s cooperation within the frames of EU Parliamentary Assembly is very useful, for the mechanism allows Armenian parliamentarians through close cooperation bring to their European counterparts’ attention main difficulties facing our country. Armenia’s cooperation with NATO and the North Atlantic Assembly of NATO has boosted up. This cooperation is mainly implemented in the frames of the “Partnership for Peace” program. Armenian is also an associated member of the NATO NAA.

Regional problems in the light of the new geopolitical re-mapping

The world has undergone serious changes after September 11 events of 2001. These very events triggered the blast of new geopolitical redistribution in the world. It became absolutely clear, that the world has become a single-poled system with the domineering role of theUSA. The war inIraqwith such a swift conclusion, as they say, “put all the periods on “I”. For even the most ardent allies of theUScould not imagine that such a large in territory and in population country asIraq, with its secret service and militarized society, could be easily conquered in such a short period as two weeks. Even France, Germany and Russia having resisted for such a long time and after all, having refused to sanction an Anglo-American military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime at the UN Security Council, after such a convincing victory again, at a special session of the UN Security Council were compelled to grant US and Great Britain temporary rule over Iraq, the right to dispose with all financial and oil flows from Iraq, and agree to lift the oil embargo off the country. The Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, created to curb US appetites and to introduce a new balancing pole in the world, at no time evaporated into three parts, for it did not have any ideological, or military basis. No doubt, the members of that axis had no clear vision of the differences between potentials actually existing in the world. Here the due must be paid to Russian President Vladimir Puttin, who was the first to realize what must be done and in June of this year at the celebration of the 300th anniversary ofSt. Petersburg, openly supported theUSPresident. He did it with the hope that Russian interests will be taken into account by the US in the situation that had emerged in Iraq after the war (Let us remind that Saddam Hussein had a liability of eight million dollars to Russia, besides Russia had shares in large oil projects inIraq).

The development of processes in the world as a whole and in the regions immediately along South Caucasus shows, that the leading players in political games of the world (USA, European Union and NATO) will get to resolve the problems of our region in earnest. There are so many indications of that, both direct and indirect:

• The beginning of Baku-Jeyhan pipeline construction (let us remember that the US andTurkeywere the countries most concerned in the security of the pipeline.)
• Closing positions between theUSand The European Union in a number of radical issues related to theSouth Caucasus. This is related firstly, to the reconciliation of Armenian-Turkish relations, where theUSpressuresTurkeyfor opening the Armenian-Turkish border, and the European Union has facedTurkeywith the obligation to acknowledge the 1915 Genocide of Armenians. However, the European countries withdrew their demand at the last session of the Euro-Parliament and joined US demands fromTurkeyto open its borders withArmenia. There is a perceivable tendency of common opinions onIran. For instance the MAGATE experts, where French influence and role has traditionally been prevailing, have expressed their agreement with theUSposition demanding from the Iranian Government more transparency in its realized nuclear programs.
• Declarations of various countries represented in theMinskgroup of the OSCE, called to helpArmeniaandAzerbaijanin the resolution of the Karabagh problem that there is no need to acquaint the conflicting sides with new variation of regulation, prepared by the MG of the OSCE. It seems, having lost all hope that the sides will come to a common denominator the OSCE is striving to find a way out of the situation through the well-known international practice of “forcing peace” upon them. In essence the MG of the OSCE has refused to work out joint solutions with the conflicting parties.
• The rigid stance taken by the Council of Europe in relation of the past Presidential and Parliamentary elections of 2003 inArmenia. In fact, the elections inArmeniawere marked with mass violations: beating of trustees of the opposition, falsifications during vote count by the members of the election commissions, mass bribery of voters, and many other cases. But the last four years had proved, that everything was forgiven the Armenian leadership – starting from the closure of the independent channel “A1+,” ending with the adoption of laws directly contradicting the requirements of the Council of Europe. It seems the leadership ofArmeniahad the illusion that this time too, everything will pass along. But the PACE decision of June recommending not to register the Armenian delegations’ mandate (which factually means introduction of sanctions against the Armenian delegation) shows the credit allowed for the present Armenian leadership has run out. Moreover, immediately after the PACE’s negative assessment of the elections inArmenia(the resolution clearly states that the Presidential and Parliamentary elections of 2003 inArmeniaare not in congruity with the principles and norms of the CE), European Union and the State Department of theUSAendorsed the evaluation. This might have very grave consequences forArmeniaboth politically (isolation from international and regional processes) and economically (Remember that the European Union and theUSare the main donors ofArmenia).
• Harsh criticism of the Azerbaijani government by the CE and the US State Department in relation with its reluctance to release political prisoners – a list of seven people considered political prisoners according to the principles of the CE.
• Recently adoptedRussia’s decision to freeze attempts of integrating taxation and customs laws throughout the CIS countries (Only theByelorussia,Russia,Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz and Tajikistan EurAsES will be integrated, which in essence meansRussia’s refusal to keep the CIS as a united geopolitical zone. Moreover the resources ofRussiatoday are so scant that it couldn’t venture to refuse a NATO-Armenia military training held during June 16-26 within the frames of “Partnership for Peace” program (Over 400 soldiers from eight NATO countries and 11 partner countries participated). In essenceRussiahas agreed to military training operations on theterritoryofArmeniaconsidered to be its only military and strategic partner in the South Caucasus, a member of the Organization on Collective Security Treaty, and the only country, having voluntarily hosted the military basis of Russiaon its territory.

Armenia’s primary guidelines in foreign policy

I think the above arguments are quite enough of a proof that the culmination of the situation in our region is closing up. The South Caucasus is in the strategic plans of the European Union and theUSA. Therefore to transform it into a region of cooperation, establishment of democratic regimes here, provision of security for the Baku-Jeyhan pipeline they are ready for serious and drastic measures. Let us observe that theUSAis closing up to the region not only from the west but from the South, as well. There is no doubt, that after the resolution of the Afghani and Iraqi problems, the US will effectively resolve the Syrian and Iranian issues, too.

Is Armenian ready for such threats and challenges? What assets do we have to meet the new realities unraveling in the world? And are we ready to meet the changes planned by the powerful of this world for our South Caucasian region and around it with dignity? Which foreign policy doctrine could have been most beneficial for the Armenian nation at the present historic momentum? Which should be the key foreign policy guidelines forArmenia?

The following sequence of steps seems to be most reasonable. 
Armenia needs to:

1. Declare its eagerness to join Azerbaijanand Georgiain a collective security system. 
2. Seriously activate its cooperation with the NATO Block and declare about its intentions to become a member of the organization. 
3. Continue integration into the Euro-Atlantic structures and give up the practice of simply declarative participation in the operations of those organizations. I.e. if we are a member of the Council of Europe, and have undertaken the responsibility to bring our legislation in congruence with the requirements of that organization, then we must stringently follow the rules of the game. If we have pledged to secure fair elections in conformity with democratic norms, then we have to realize it in earnest in practice. 
4. Declare about our willingness to establish friendly relations with all our neighboring countries in the region, including turkey and Azerbaijan, without preconditions. 
5. Declare about its unequivocal loyalty for Western system of values, with an emphasis on political and military cooperation with US. 
6. Declare about our readiness to resume the negotiations on the resolution of Karabagh issue within the frames of the MG of the OSCE. The latter has to declare about Armenia’s readiness for mutual concessions in the Karabagh problem, and the need for the resolution of the issue based on internationally acknowledged principles of “the right of a nation for self-determination”. 
7. Declare about its active participation in the anti-terrorist coalition led by the USA. Proclaim intolerance with the action of countries listed as ostracized, and unequivocally condemn efforts of those countries in obtaining weapons of mass destruction. 
8. Refrain from the futile practice of dislocating old military equipment on theterritory ofArmenia, which apart from adding nothing to the military component of state security causes serious political damage to the country among the neighboring countries and leading democracies around the world.

Unfortunately, after the Presidential and Parliamentary election inArmeniain the political spectrum of the country we do not have forces capable of coming up with the above program. And this means that theUSand the European Union will not considerArmeniaas their ally and partner. In this case many of the problems in our region, both political and economic will be resolved with no consideration for the positions of the leadership and political forces of Armenia (which have low credibility in the eyes of the world community and promote values which are incongruent with the democratic values and the principles of development of the modern world.) Moreover, the fact that in essence there is no political opposition on foreign policy presented at the RA National Assembly, limits the scope of flexibility for the Armenian side to maneuver. For instance, when the US turned to the Turkish government with a request to allow using American military bases on Turkish territory to launch its attack on Iraq, the Turkish government realized that it could have refused its strategic partner left all responsibility for the decision on the Parliament, which came up with the decision to refuse the US, for it considered the step would secure the Turkish population from Iraqi retaliation and complications in its relations with the Arab countries. UnfortunatelyArmeniais devoid of such flexibility of maneuver, for the elections in May of this year left no chances for the liberal-democratic forces to enter Parliament. The vast majority of deputies in the Armenian Parliament does not have their own vision on the foreign policy issues and are practically followers of the foreign policy carried out by the executives ofArmenia. I.E Armenia is deprived of an opportunity for maneuvering, for the world is well aware of the political layout in the present Armenian Parliament.

At present the following are the main directions of foreign policy ofArmenia:

1. Freezing negotiations on Karabagh resolution.
2. Formal integration in international community, i.e. becoming a member of this or that international organization and assuming serious responsibilities, Armenia in fact, often fails to show commitment to those responsibilities. 
3. Lack of persistence in establishing friendly relations with neighboring countries.
4. Orientation towards a non-effective system of security – CSTO – introducing division lines in the region. Thus, of the three South Caucasian countries only Armenian has joined the CSTO. 
5. Active cooperation with undesirable (ostracized) countries.

Lack of flexibility of the present leadership of Armenia can bring to undesirable consequences for the country, for serious reorganization in the South Caucasus and around it is imminent (here we mean both the resolution of the Karabagh and Abkhazian issues, the problem of Iran and the provision of security for the Baku-Jeyhan pipeline.)

Stephan Grigorian

http://www.caucasusjournalists.net