Wednesday, March 12 2014

Mr.
Ambassador, how do you see the new reality in the South Caucasus now when some
observers began speaking of civilizational divide in the region following
Armenia’s refusal to sign the Association Agreement with Europe and its
decision to access the Customs Union?

 

 I’d not
give such tough assessment of the situation. Here is why. As you know, the
Eastern Partnership project was introduced in May 2009 in Prague to help the
eastern neighbors of the EU to improve their living standards, improve the
democratic development of public life, make it more open, as well as make
economic reforms. This project meets the interests of the EU, as it seeks good
and wealthy neighborhood to cooperate and trade with.

 

The point
is that after the three Baltic states of the former USSR and some eastern
countries joined the EU, many residents of the former Soviet republics, now
independent states, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova and the three South Caucasus
countries, began perceiving the United Europe as a model of their future
development. We offered them the Eastern Partnership project. The project did
not pursue automatic admission to the EU. The countries are free to make a
choice. Actually, many countries, including Lithuania, implemented program reforms
being absolutely sure in their European perspective. For us, for Lithuania,
this perspective helped find power to change rapidly, reform our public and
institutions.

 However,
Lithuania and the other countries you have mentioned have always been part of
Europe, European history and civilization. Some 60 years are between you and
your European cradle. As for the Eastern Partnership countries, it’s not all
that simple there. 

 By the way,
I have been in Moldova quite recently and had a speech on the local television.
A question was raised about Moldova’s aspirations for Europe, though the
population remains at odds over that issue. Yes, it is true. In late 80s and
early 90s all the layers of the population united in their aspiration for
Europe, except, maybe, some marginal groups. Everyone sought a family. We saw
no other goal.

  It
was not just genetic memory. Many yearned to return the pre-Soviet life in
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Many sought to get rid of Russia’s patronage.

 

Well, we are where we are. The Eastern Partnership
project is built in such a way for its member-states to be able to feel
significant changes in all fields of life for the next 5 years. But I am
confident that these measures and capabilities offered to partners opened the
"Russian can" of worms, as Russia felt threat to its interests.

All these democratization processes of public life may
put stresses at the area, which Russia considers to be its vital interests -
legitimate or non-legitimate ones. Russia scares that these countries may
choose another way. However, not only as a diplomat but also as a man I cannot
understand the core of this threat and where it is coming from. Many
high-ranking officials in Europe, heads of states and governments said that the
partnership is not directed against anybody, it is simply for the open
opportunities. Even the countries that are not members of this project, but are
neighbors to EaP member-states, may gain profit from it. Eastern Partnership
implies not only development of public and economy, but also, which is not less
important, creates a basis for peaceful coexistence of the countries in the
region in both short-term and long-term outlook. 

 Actually,
there is divide between the countries that chose the European vector of development
and the ones that can be conditionally included in a peculiar union of
authoritarian countries. Many experts see Russia’s influence on the second
group of states. However, let’s be objective, Russia has grounds to worry about
its interests and possible further expansion of NATO to the East.

 

 

The EaP does not threaten the interests of Russia. The
EaP member countries choose their own development vector, the project imposes
nothing on them, it just makes them a little better. The project opens new
opportunities for free trade. The free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok is
quite realistic and everyone will benefit from it. Therefore, the EU is
modifying its relations not only with the EaP member countries, but also with
Russia. However, different countries with different social systems and
structures have different goals and the well-being of the society is not the
primary target in those countries.

 When
Armenia faced a situation when it was to choose between the Association and the
Customs Union, unlike the CU, in the EU they began speaking with “either-or”
ultimatums. What do you think of that?

I have heard about that ‘either-or.’  Specifically, when the DCFTA was offered as
part of the AA, one of the European officials said in a private talk that if a
country chooses one path, it couldn’t walk along the other path simultaneously.
The point is that DCFTA implies mechanisms that open markets for goods and
services, and implies certain standards and regulations, a full set of
instruments for legislative changes. Meanwhile, the Customs Union implies
general foreign trade policy and the countries that join the Union are no
longer sovereign in their foreign trade policy. They delegate a big part of
their powers to the CU. This is what they spoke about. However, all this was
flavored with special political sauce and it turned out that the EU allegedly
offers an exclusive choice “either-or.” Later it has turned out that it was
misinterpretation of what was said and meant. 
EU has never offered Armenia to make a choice between the European and
Eurasian integrations. Later the EU representatives said for hundreds of times
that DCFTA does not make Armenia choose. It is the country that makes its own
choice with due regard for certain moments. In particular, part of sovereignty
is lost in international trade within the Customs Union, and DCFTA becomes
technically inexecutable, because it is the Customs Union, not Armenia or any
other Customs Union country, that agrees with the third countries on the trade regime.
To be honest, Armenia's decision to join the Customs Union has confused
everyone. The negotiations on AA/DCFTA had been held for 3.5 years. Very hard
and efficient work had been done, but the country made a different choice in a
wink. Not everyone understands the reason of such a U-turn.

 

 

Do
you mean that the reason of such turn was the country’s security?

  Yes, but I
am not so sure about it.

 Some
analysts say that security was not the only reason of Armenia’s choice. They
think that neither our authorities nor the public, at least the biggest part of
it, was ready for the Association…

  The
advantages of the AA are not only the free choice of a country to strive for
the EU or not. Unlike the CU, here no country delegates its powers. The EU on
the one side and the country on the other side sign an agreement.  In these documents the two sovereign subjects
have absolutely equal relations from the first to the last page. I’d like to
reiterate that these agreements pursued no political or any other final goal.
They just create good conditions for political, social and economic development
of a partner-country. An Association Agenda is currently being development for
the countries that ratified the AA in Vilnius. It is a roadmap or agenda of how
the sides will be implementing these agreements and commitments for 2014-2020.
Furthermore, significant funds will be provided for that purpose. No country is
pushed to anywhere. The countries will be developing and the programs can be
corrected depending on the complicacy of reforms. These are very fair
agreements. They had been drafted for a long period of time. The agreements
took over 3 years, and not some 15 minutes. Governments have replaced each
others, but processes continued. Therefore, from the European point of view, I
think these processes are not only fair, but even naïve and generous. 

 What
do you mean speaking of generosity?

  Look at
Lithuania, for instance. Before joining the EU, the country passed a long path,
developing, signing and implementing relevant agreements. It is incomparable by
comprehensiveness and generosity. I think Europe approached these issues very
frankly and today Armenia remains a member of EaP, although it is joining the
CU. For some reasons Armenia has chosen its own way of integration, but it is
still in the orbit of our cooperation. We seek to find more fields of further
cooperation with Armenia.

 What
do you think of the new shape of relations with Armenia? Have you already
discussed that new vision of relation with officials in Armenia?

 It is
necessary to correlate our and your partnerships, commitments and opportunities
in the new conditions in order they do not run contrary to your commitments to
the CU and the future Eurasian Economic Union. We have no “finished product” so
far. I have met with officials from several Armenian
ministries and spoken with people involved in the talks with the EU to know
what they feel and how they see their further ties with Europe. Now Europe is
preparing to elect a new parliament and to change the leaders of the European
Commission, so, they may come up with new fresh ideas. In any case, we are
sorry to leave all we have done to the generations to come, especially as
Armenia was very efficient in the talks and we had very good documents.

 Is it
possible to show an individual approach to Armenia? Look at Azerbaijan. It is a
specific country that enjoys different logic of modern international relations
and specific attitude to it as country- source of the world hydrocarbon resources.
The approach to Belarus is also specific. On the other hand, the approach to
Georgia, Moldova and now also to Ukraine will become definite irrespective of
the developments in Crimea. What about Armenia? It has already made serious
political reforms. If our cooperation within DCFTA is restricted with our
commitments to the CU, can we expect that the political component of the EaP
will be prioritized?

It is the
most realistic scenario. After the Vilnius Summit, many issues have taken
shape. Some five years ago all Eastern partners enjoyed more
or less equal starting conditions but today each of them needs an individual
approach. For some
objective and subjective reasons, the positions have changed. An individual
model must be developed for each country. I think it is the right way. Every
country has its own approach to development.

Some
observers think if Europe pays less attention to domestic political problems of
Armenia, for instance to the problem of the public democratization, the country
will turn to the path of authoritarism.

 I think the EU and Armenia will continue and will even
deepen their cooperation on human rights and freedoms protection,
democracy-building and social reforms.

 Will
the situation in Ukraine affect the EaP?

First of all, one should not forget that the Ukrainian people went to
the streets when the president refused to sign the agreement for which the
country has been negotiating for long years. Second, the AA and DCFTA promote
democratic public development and offer mechanisms of significant financial
assistance. Along with this, the AA is one of the instruments that are able to
provide targeted assistance to further building of democratic society. I think
it is a necessity today.

Thank
you for interview