An alternative to Armenia’s entry into the Eurasian Union is war
The Istanbul Annual Twenty-Second Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly ended. The Istanbul Declaration and Resolution on topical issues of security and co-operation in the OSCE region have been adopted. Reading into these documents, you do not leave the feeling of some kind of uncertainty, a twofold perception of the world around us. After all, quite recently, 18 June this year. G8 leaders (the G-8) in the UK have adopted an unprecedented Lough Erne Communique. It differs from all previous depth analysis of global problems of our time, imbued with a sense of the highest responsibility of the leaders of G-8 for the fate of the world. It contains a comprehensive reflection of the global economy, international politics and security.It seemed that the Istanbul session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, held under the “Helsinki plus 40” motto, was to analyze in detail the tasks of the OSCE member states and in the spirit of the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement on Security and Co-operation in Europe to come up with concrete solutions to global problems of concern OSCE area. An - no. My worst fears expressed in the article “Artashes Geghamyan: The False Agenda of the OSCE PA and the Ignored Communion of Leaders of G-8” published by 26.06.2013 of the REGNUM news Agency, alas, were fully justified. Moreover, throughout the session, it was necessary to fix several times that the spirit and content of the draft resolutions submitted for discussion were contrary not only to the conclusions and recommendations of the Lough Erne Communiqué, but also to the key provisions of the Helsinki Final Act.
It is deeply disturbing that such ignoring of the above documents was not due to the political illiteracy of the heads of the individual committees of the OSCE PA, but because of their bias. Not to be unfounded, I will give a few specific examples. Thus, when discussing the issue of developing peaceful and viable solutions to unresolved conflicts, for some reason only the need to respect the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity was emphasized (the question of Georgia).
In my statement, I had to remind delegates that the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe explicitly stated its determination to respect and apply to each of the participating States, regardless of their political, economic and social systems, as well as their size, geographical position and level of economic development, ten principles, which are all of paramount importance and which they will be guided in mutual relations. So, the majority of OSCE PA delegates, blatantly violating the provision that all 10 principles of the Final Act are of paramount importance, for some reason focused on three principles: sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of internationally recognized borders of the participating States. Apparently, such fundamental principles as "non-use of force or threat of force", or "peaceful settlement of disputes", or "non-interference in internal affairs", or "equality of rights and the right of peoples to decide their own fate", etc. were not so relevant for the head of the General Committee on Political Affairs and Security (hereinafter the First Committee) Ms. Lindestam. And this is despite the fact that the Istanbul Declaration is entitled "Helsinki plus 40".
The resolution “The Humanitarian Crisis in Syria”, presented by the head of the Turkish delegation to the OSCE PA, Emmin Onen, also brought sad thoughts. In fact, if the submitted resolution were adopted, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly would nullify, canceling out the approaches of the G-8 leaders set out in the Lough-Ern Communique, which gave a clear assessment of the events in Syria.
Recall that in paragraph 7 of the communique it is written: "We strongly support the proposal to convene a conference in order to reach a political solution to the dramatic conflict in Syria through the full implementation of the 2012 Geneva communique of the year. We strongly condemn any use of chemical weapons and any human rights violations in Syria. We are ready to take a leading role in matters of international support for ensuring the security of Syria, its transition to democracy, and to work energetically in the interests of a lasting peace in the Middle East. "
This deeply balanced OSCE PA document in the draft resolution put forward unilateral accusations against the president and the armed forces of Syria. It might have seemed that in the ranks of the armed opposition only angels who are fighting against demons. And the fact that government terrorists are also opposed by excellent terrorists and cannibals is not counted for parliamentarians in a number of countries. Only the tough, principled, but at the same time constructive position of the head of the Russian delegation to the OSCE PA, Nikolai Kovalev, as well as the tough performance of your humble servant Artashes Geghamyan, had their effect.
British parliamentarian Lord Alf Dubs made compromise proposals with which the author of the draft resolution, the head of the Turkish delegation to the OSCE PA, Emin Onen, basically agreed. At the same time, the remarks by the head of the Russian delegation, Nikolai Kovalev, played a decisive role in the final wording of the draft resolution on Syria, from which unilateral assessments were made to the Syrian government forces. I would like to note that during the discussion of the issue “The Humanitarian Crisis in Syria”, I was not disappointed. It was due to the realization of the indisputable fact that in the Istanbul Congress Hall I once again witnessed not a desire for equal and mutually beneficial cooperation in such an authoritative organization as the OSCE PA, but was personally convinced of the continuous use of double standards. Thus, the head of the Turkish delegation in his speech manipulated the slogans about the need to respect human rights in Syria, sticking out the exclusive role of Turkey in saving Syrian refugees, told sentimental stories about providing them with food and shelter. But at the same time, he completely bypassed the fact that the opposition’s weapons, to a large extent falling into the hands of terrorist groups, enter Syria through Turkey. In my speech on this issue, I had to inform the delegates of the OSCE PA that over 10 thousand Armenians from Syria had found their salvation in Armenia at the present time. According to the order of the President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan, the issues of their arrangement are being resolved, conditions are created for the children of Syrian Armenian refugees to continue their studies. And all this is being done at the expense of the state budget of Armenia, which, alas, due to the fact that the Republic of Armenia has been under blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan for more than 20 years, is not so great. It was also necessary to note that this work is carried out without unnecessary advertising and protrusion of the huge expenses produced, that is, in the spirit of the Christian commandment, the virtue spoken about aloud ceases to be.
The fact that the OSCE PA, one of the main functions of which is to develop democratic institutions and monitor elections in OSCE member states, directly at the meeting of the First Committee with the direct participation and conduction of its chairman (fortunately the now former ), the deputy of the Swedish Riksdag Asa Lindestam revealed to the honest world a classic example of complete disregard for elementary democratic norms in the election of the leadership of the OSCE PA First Committee, if not to say about the feeling uncovering the obvious engagement of her actions. Thus, two candidates were proposed for election to the vacant position as vice-chairman of this committee - member of the Azerbaijani delegation Azay Guliyev and representative of the Russian delegation Vladimir Kulakov. So, in violation of the Rules of Procedure of the OSCE PA, the chairperson of this meeting, Asa Lindestam, rudely interrupted my speech, in which I urged my colleagues to refrain not only from voting on the candidature of the Azerbaijani parliamentarian, but to completely remove this candidature from consideration for the post of Vice-Chairman of the First Committee, referring to the fact that the said parliamentarian was the most active PR man in charge of Ramil Safarov, the murderer, who in 2005 was sentenced to life by a Hungarian court to life imprisonment for the brutal murder of an Armenian officer in the armed forces Gurgen Margaryan, with whom he was trained under the NATO Partnership for Peace program in Budapest. 31 August 2012, he was transferred to Azerbaijan for further punishment, however, on the same day he was pardoned by the decree of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, while receiving an apartment as a gift and was promoted to the rank of major officer for eight years held in custody. Further, a cynical and vile campaign to glorify the killer began in Azerbaijan. It should be noted that Azai Guliyev was one of the most zealous participants in this heinous farce. What was the reason for such a zealous, rabid screening of the killer’s propagandist by the Swedish deputy? Maybe Ms. Lindestam was in the dark about these facts? Far from it. Already during the recess, when I presented photos and video footage of the iPad, indicating, to put it mildly, unworthy behavior of the Azerbaijani deputy, to my bewilderment, Mrs. Riksdag’s deputy calmly replied that she was aware of this. Involuntarily, the well-known saying of 32 US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt about the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Samos Sr. came: “This is a son of a bitch, but this is our son of a bitch.”
Here two circumstances are alarming. The first is the striking desire at all costs to prevent representatives of the Russian delegation from going to the leadership of the OSCE PA, while the representatives of individual delegations do not stop at any unworthy means, even to a frank violation of the OSCE PA Rules of Procedure. The second observation boils down to what seems to be a good tone for the OSCE PA to take actions that discredit the statements of the leaders of the United States, Russia, the EU, and reputable international organizations. Thus, the US administration condemned the Azerbaijani authorities and expressed disappointment over the decision to pardon Safarov, saying that "this action runs counter to ongoing efforts to reduce regional tensions and promote reconciliation." Moreover, 21 September 2012, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon, said that the United States was shocked by the glorification of Safarov and was not satisfied with the explanations of Hungary and Azerbaijan.
September 3 of the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement on the extradition of Hungary Safarov: "In Russia, the co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement, with great concern took the message of Baku’s pardon of Azerbaijani soldier R. Safarov convicted by a Hungarian court for life imprisonment for In Hungary, in the 2004, the murder with particular cruelty of an Armenian officer, as well as on the decision of the Hungarian authorities preceding this decision to extradite him to Azerbaijan. The fact is that these actions of the Azerbaijani, as well as the Hungarian authorities, are contrary to the efforts agreed at the international level, primarily through the OSCE Minsk Group, and aimed at reducing tensions in the region. "
A spokeswoman for the European Union’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, Maya Koçijancic, said the same day that the European Union is concerned about the decision of the President of Azerbaijan to pardon Safarov. She also expressed the opinion that Azerbaijan had deceived Hungary and demanded explanations from the Azerbaijani authorities in connection with the release of Safarov. The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs expressed deep concern and regret for the damage that clemency and any attempts to exalt the crime could inflict on the peace process and trust between the parties to the conflict. The Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Thorbjørn Jagland, said that the glorification of the crime committed by Safarov is unacceptable. Also, the decision on the release and glorification of Safarov, the permanent EU chairman Herman Van Rompuy and the president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Jean-Claude Mignon, were condemned. 7 September, speaking at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen expressed concern about Azerbaijan’s decision to pardon Ramil Safarov and said that praising the crime undermines confidence. CSTO Secretary General Nikolai Bordyuzha said that "this step, obviously made for the sake of opportunistic political goals, cannot be justified by anything. Moreover, the heroization of the criminal will only contribute to the growth of already high regional tensions."
It was no coincidence that I gave such a detailed account of the reaction of representatives of the centers of power of world politics to the fact of early release and the glorification of the killer. Against the background of their statements, the scornful attitude, and even direct encouragement by a majority of the OSCE PA delegates of one of the main killers' PR men, eloquently testifies to the moral principles prevailing in some European parliamentarians, about double standards that are increasingly becoming the norm when making decisions.
And against the background of these reflections, having arrived in Yerevan, I involuntarily plunged into the turbulent whirlpool of political debates and disputes over the European or Eurasian choice of Armenia. It is noteworthy that rather authoritative Russian experts considered it their duty to express themselves: Fedor Lukyanov, Vigen Akopyan, Alexander Krylov, Konstantin Zatulin, Alexander Tarasov and others, who, unlike Alexander Dugin (who is a close friend and associate the famous Armenian phobia-Islamist Heydar Jemal), it is difficult to suspect engagement and Armenian phobia, rather the opposite.
The first thing I would like to say is to express gratitude for the honest presentation of their own vision of the Armenian-Russian relations and the situation in the South Caucasus region, in the light of possible initialling in November of this year. Armenia Association Agreement and the Treaty on a deep and comprehensive free trade zone between Armenia and the EU. The thoughts they expressed, I think, allow us to catch new shades and nuances in the final choice of the geopolitical vector of development of Armenia. At the same time, it is regrettable that a respected expert community, expressing its opinion on the essence of the problem, draws its far-reaching conclusions without a deep analysis of the situation in which Armenia has been in 20 years now. In the conditions of blockade by Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia resolves not only national security issues, the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, but also economic survival.
It should be noted that Armenia is an import-dependent country, not having access to the sea. At the same time, we note that 70% of goods necessary for the sustenance of the republic are imported to Armenia through Georgia and 30% through the Islamic Republic of Iran. These are peculiar ways of life. We in Armenia felt the exceptional vital importance of these routes in August 2008 during the Georgian-South Ossetian war. Let us remind readers that 17 August 2008 of the year, as reported by news agencies, referring to evidence of local residents, people in camouflage came to the bridge near Kaspi town (45 kilometers from Tbilisi and 40 kilometers from Gori), laid an explosive under the bridge and blew it up . As a result of the explosion, part of the bridge collapsed into the river, and traffic along the highway connecting the east and west of Georgia was interrupted, and communication between Georgia and Armenia was also interrupted. By the time of the explosion, 72 wagons of goods imported to Armenia remained on the damaged section. Georgia accused Russian troops of undermining the bridge. The General Staff of the Russian army categorically rejected information about the involvement of the military in the explosion.
Even before the explosion of the bridge, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a plan for a peaceful settlement in the zone of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict. I remember that on the same days, the press passed information that the explosion of a vital bridge was aimed at making it clear to the strategic ally of Russia - Armenia, so that at this time of troubles the separatist sentiments in Armenian-populated Javakhetia would not suddenly come to life. After all, 10 days after the explosion of the railway bridge, stocks of essential goods in Armenia came to a critical level. Here, of course, we have the right to see the competent actions of the Turkish and Azerbaijani special services and not to forget about it. It is in this vein that perhaps respected experts should consider the fact of awarding the President of Georgia Mikhail Saakashvili with the Order of Honor of Armenia. In the decree of 24 June 2009, President Serzh Sargsyan of Armenia noted that the award of the Georgian President was for strengthening centuries-old friendship, as well as for activities aimed at strengthening cooperation between Armenia and Georgia. The decree of the President of Armenia was a kind of message both for the politicians of Armenia concerned about the difficult socio-economic and humanitarian conditions of our compatriots living in Javakheti and for all kinds of instigators. In particular, this decree knocked the ground out from under the feet of those political forces who, in favor of advancing Turkish-Azerbaijani interests, did their best to drive a wedge into Armenian-Georgian relations.
As for the Armenian-Iranian relations, to the credit of the centers of power of world politics, it should be noted that they understand with understanding that in the current extremely difficult situation for Armenia caused by the blockade, the establishment of good-neighborly and friendly relations between Armenia and Iran is extremely important.
Now about the relations between Armenia and the USA, Armenia and the European Union, Armenia and the Russian Federation. In modern Armenia, it can be said without exaggeration that the national conviction has emerged that the existence of a sovereign Republic of Armenia is possible only in conjunction with the independent Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. An unshakable national consensus has been established on this issue. Therefore, without going into dozens of weighty arguments in favor of establishing the closest relations of Armenia with the United States, Russia and the countries of the European Union, we note that today the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs are entrusted with the mission of facilitating a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. This imposes on the political leadership of the country a special responsibility in establishing the most benevolent relations both with the United States and with France (the European Union), and in fully strengthening economic, humanitarian and political ties with them. It seems that in this case it will not be very easy for our American and European partners to explain to their people why, in resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, they prefer the non-sovereign and democratic Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which with the Republic of Armenia fully brought its legal framework into line with requirements of the Association Agreement with the EU. Moreover, 20 has been living for years in a democratic society, democratically elected authorities, and are leaning towards Azerbaijan, whose state organization is increasingly acquiring the features of a classical sultanate.
It is under these conditions that the further strengthening of the allied relations between Armenia and Russia acquires special significance and fatefulness. It is important to consider the relations of the two states against the background of the global geopolitical processes that will dominate the world in the coming decades. It is also necessary to avoid clichés that have already started to grind, the goal of which is to minimize in every way the possibilities of a sovereign Armenian state to make its own geopolitical development choice. This is initially counterproductive, at least in terms of the future of Armenian-Russian relations. We should not forget that Armenia has always lived in the world with its own faith and civilizational choice. And apparently there is a divine destiny from above, which has become a test for our people, that in 301, my country was the first in the world to adopt Christianity as the state religion. As for the geopolitical choice, the Armenian people made it from the time of Israel Ori (one of the most prominent organizers of the liberation movement of the Armenian people against the Turkish and Persian yoke), who traveled throughout Europe in the late seventeenth century and appealed to their royal courts assistance in the struggle for the liberation of the Armenian people from the alien yoke, convinced that the real ally of Armenia can only be Russia gaining power. The history of political relations between Armenia and Russia essentially begins in the summer of 1701, when Israel Ori arrived in Russia and presented to Tsar Peter I a project for the liberation of Armenia with the participation of Russia. Peter the Great assured Israel Ori that he would deal with the issue of the liberation of Armenia after the end of the Northern War, which was waged between Russia and Sweden. To study the situation in Iran and the Transcaucasus, Peter I decided to send an embassy to Iran, headed by Israel Ori, who received the rank of colonel of the Russian Army. It is noteworthy that Israel Ori, in order to avoid suspicion regarding the embassy, went to Europe, where he received a letter from the Pope of Rome addressed to the Shah of Iran, asking not to persecute Christians of Iran. In the 1711 year, following an important mission to Armenia from St. Petersburg, Israel Ori made a stop in Astrakhan, where he died suddenly. The case begun by Israel Ori and his associates was crowned with success in February 1828, when the Turkmenchay peace treaty was concluded, by which the territories of Eastern Armenia — the Erivan and Nakhchivan Khanates — were withdrawn to Russia. Over the past 185 years, Russia and Armenia, our people have been subjected to severe tests, but it always seemed to come out of hopeless situations prepared for us by fate: the Russian-Turkish wars, the first and second world wars strengthened the bonds of the brotherhood of the peoples of Russia and Armenia .
For example, in February at the forty-ninth Munich Security Conference, Vice President of the United States of America Joe Biden, in his speech, proposed the creation of a transatlantic free trade zone, which would include the United States and the European Union. This idea was immediately picked up by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and expressed hope for an early start of negotiations. In the future, this idea was developed 2013 June this year. at the G-18 summit in Lough Erne. US President Barack Obama at a joint press conference with European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and British Prime Minister David Cameron said that negotiations on the creation of a free trade zone will begin in July. The authors of this project believe that it will open a new era in the global economy. David Cameron called the project "the largest bilateral agreement in history," which will bring participants (and not only) countries to tens of billions of pounds, and also help create millions of new jobs and lower prices for many products. In this regard, it is difficult to disagree with the conclusion of authoritative Russian experts who believe that after the collapse of the USSR a motive arose for the consolidation of the West - not against a specific threat, but to restore its own domination in the world, somewhat shaken after the global financial and economic crisis of 8-2008. .
EU approval of the idea of creating a transatlantic free trade zone essentially means that Europe abandoned plans to become an independent center of power, objectively agreeing with the primacy of the United States. In the case of plans, this zone will account for approximately 50% of world GDP (in addition to the USA and EU countries, Canada and Mexico, which are now members of the North American free trade zone) will also be included in it. Naturally, under these conditions, the trade and economic consolidation of the Golden Billion will occur, which will inevitably complicate the possibilities of economic development, and first of all the BRICS countries. At the same time, we recall that the European "friends" politely refused the proposal of Russia to create a "single economic space" from Lisbon to Vladivostok. At first glance, the creation of a transatlantic free trade zone, opening up prospects for the EU, may have a positive impact on the economies of the Eastern Partnership countries, which, by initialing the Association Agreement with the EU and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area Agreement, will receive additional incentives for the development of their economies and new markets. However, it is only at first glance.
It is no secret that the current US policy is aimed at reviving its own industry. And, as experts rightly point out, the issues of production care and job creation in Asia are among the most pressing political topics in the United States. There is no doubt that with the creation of a single Euro-Atlantic trade and economic space, the internal competition between the US and the EU will escalate and the United States will ultimately benefit. In turn, the EU will not go down the path of winding up its production capacity and will look for new markets. The adoption by the Eastern Partnership countries of the Associative Agreement and the Agreement on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area with the EU will open for the European Union new markets for its products in countries with a population of more than 75 million people. And this is not an exaggeration. Indeed, in essence, the Eastern Partnership program is based on a political formula put forward by the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi. So, in 2003, Romano Prodi, when he was the chairman of the European Commission, formed the principle of relations between the expanding European Union and countries that “are almost in Europe,” but are not considered as candidate countries. The essence of the doctrine of Romano Prodi "the unification of everything except institutions" means the economic, political and legal rapprochement of the neighboring countries with the European Union, the mutual opening of markets and their perception of EU legal norms. With the exception, however, of participation in common institutions of a united Europe (European Commission, Council of the European Union, Court of Justice, European Parliament and working bodies), which makes it possible to influence the process of elaboration and content of these norms. Since 10 years have passed, but the essence of the EU’s approaches to the neighboring countries has remained the same and it seems that no one can have doubts about what decisions the European Commission will take, being well aware of the problems within the EU itself. It is enough to note that in the first quarter of 2013, the external debt of 5 of the EU countries (Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Italy, Belgium) exceeded 100% of the GDP of these countries. And this is in conditions when unemployment in some European countries exceeds 25%. And youth unemployment in Italy and Portugal - over 40%, in Spain - 56%, in Greece - more than 60%.
Under these conditions, it would be risky to talk about the prospects for economic development for countries that have signed the Association Agreement with the EU in the framework of the Eastern Partnership. Not to be unsubstantiated, I will cite a specific example. So, Armenia and the European Union 24 July this year. successfully completed the negotiations on the Agreement on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, which, as is known, is part of the Association Agreement with the EU. As reported by the press service of the European Commission, during the seventh round of talks, which was held in Yerevan, the parties reached agreement on key issues, which will open a new stage in trade relations between Armenia and the EU. "The agreement will contribute to economic integration with the European Union, creating a more accessible market for Armenian and European goods and services. It will also allow Armenia to modernize its trade and economic relations and develop the economy based on the harmonization of laws and regulations in various areas of trade. Key sectors of the economy countries will be aligned with European standards. "
I deliberately, without cuts, cited this excerpt from the statement of the press service of the European Commission. So, the result of these innovations, according to the press service, will be that, thanks to this agreement, the incomes of the Armenian economy will grow by 146 million euros per year, which is 2,3% of the country's GDP. The agreement on a deep and comprehensive free trade zone will increase the country's exports by 15,2% and imports by 8,2%, which will improve the trade balance in the future. It is appropriate to say that the mountain gave birth to a mouse. And all this universal noise around the Associative Agreement is expressed by the estimated growth in GDP by an amount comparable to the amount of the proposed Russian grant to subsidize part of the cost of gas supplied to Armenia from Russia. Here it is not at all necessary to speak about an incorrect conclusion of specialists regarding the improvement of indicators of the trade balance. So, given that in 2012, the volume of imports to Armenia in 3,1 times exceeded the volume of exports, an increase in exports by 15,2%, and imports by 8,2% while maintaining the import / export ratio will lead to a further increase in the trade deficit, i.e. its deterioration. It seems that an unbiased analysis of the foregoing will not leave any doubt that artificially forcing information in the media about the allegedly increasing tension in relations between Russia and Armenia pursues quite specific goals. After all, it is no secret that the successful completion of negotiations between the Russian company Rosneft and the Armenian government on the purchase of the Nairit Plant Joint Stock Company and the further modernization of this enterprise, as well as related industries, may increase GDP growth in comparison with 146 million euros. factor of. At the same time thousands of new jobs will be created.
It will not be difficult to make sure that the anti-Russian hysteria unfolding in Armenia, accompanied by harsh criticism of the Armenian leadership, which is supposedly responsible for the deterioration of Russian-Armenian relations, is guided from one center. It is indicative that precisely those Armenian border writers who literally six months ago were noticed more than once by their Russophobic articles were dressed up in earnest of zealous supporters of strengthening the Russian-Armenian strategic partnership. At the same time, in their publications they refer to not always accurate expressions and assessments of Russian political scientists and experts, who criticize the authorities of Armenia, at the same time admit expressions that offend the sense of national dignity. This Jesuit policy is clearly calculated: in the minds of the inexperienced reader of this political mora, there remains no criticism at all of the Armenian authorities, but unseemly assessments of our country and our people. Apparently the re-election of Serzh Sargsyan to the second presidential term, his first visit to Russia, the warm welcome extended to him by Russian President Vladimir Putin, has painfully upset the plans of overseas strategists who set themselves the task: to tear Armenia away from Russia at any price. The whole hope of this biased company is based on the fact that you can drown sign statements by the President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, that give unequivocal answers about the true priorities of the foreign policy of the Republic of Armenia.
So, 25 June this year. Serzh Sargsyan, answering journalists ’questions during a press conference with Polish President Brosislav Komarovski, said how Armenia is related to integration processes:“ The strategic nature of relations between Armenia and Russia is no secret for anyone. We have lived for many years next door, for a long time in a common state. And over the centuries, good, friendly relations based on mutual respect have been formed. We are friendly nations, we have a common history and we are proud of this story. Armenia and Russia are member states of the CSTO, we have very extensive military technical and deep economic relations with Russia. The largest Armenian community lives in Russia and members of this community are very respected people. And we have never taken steps that would be directed against Russia, and we do not have any complex that can push us to such a step.We are peoples who are carriers of European values, and our goal is to develop our society on the basis of these values. Armenia is one of those countries that has achieved the greatest progress in the framework of the Eastern Partnership of the European Union. We do not build our partnership on the principle of "or-or", but on the principle of "and-and." And here I see no contradiction. "
Such is the clear position of the President of Armenia, which among professional diplomats, especially among statesmen, cannot leave any doubts about how the leadership of our country sees the main foreign policy priority of the Republic of Armenia. Serzh Sargsyan’s words are that: “And we have never taken steps that would be directed against Russia, and we don’t have any complex that can push us to take such a step,” you see, they are expensive. And if we add to this the excerpt from the speech of Serzh Sargsyan at the summit of the leaders of the Eastern Partnership of the European People's Party, which was held on 10-11 in July this year. in Kishenev: “In our view, the Eastern Partnership is by its nature an initiative aimed at creating cooperation, not contradictions, it is not directed against any state or group of states. This partnership is aimed at finally overcoming the dividing lines. Within” Eastern Partnership "is extremely important for Armenia to put an end to the practice of closed borders. The agreement on a deep and comprehensive free trade zone, which is currently being negotiated with After the entry into force, the Union cannot fully act if the Armenia-Turkey border remains closed, as it is now. We think that the European Union should seriously address the issue of closed borders, since, in the conditions of their existence, trade with the EU Customs Union ( of which Turkey is also AG -) "cannot be spectacular. It seems that for people who are well-versed in diplomacy and in politics, the words of the President of Armenia do not give grounds for discrepancies, especially considering the current realities with the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
The entire political fuss, due to the possible initiation by Armenia of the Associative Agreement and the Agreement on a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, has one single goal: to drive a wedge into strategic, allied relations between Russia and Armenia at any price, to impose a sense of mutual distrust on our peoples. The speeches and statements of the official representatives of Turkey and Azerbaijan are aimed at this. So, 18 July this year. The President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, speaking at the cabinet meeting on the results of socio-economic development in the first half of 2013 and the upcoming tasks, said: "Along with all political and diplomatic efforts, our military power will play a key role in solving the the Karabakh issue ... As you know, with the acquisition of this technology (talking about modern weapons acquired by Azerbaijan from Israel and Russia - AG) there are no problems. We buy equipment from various countries At the same time, we are producing it in Azerbaijan. There are a growing number of countries willing to cooperate with us in the military sphere. The press reports that Azerbaijan bought weapons from 1 billion dollars from some countries and 1,6 billion dollars from others. that these figures do not reflect reality. In fact, our military-technical cooperation is measured by figures that are many times larger than the figures given. We just do not disclose these figures. We only comment on information that appears from time to time in the foreign press. But we can disclose all the information, since our state budget is transparent, and all our expenses are open. "
The words of President Aliyev about the purchase of weapons from Russia in the amount of 1 billion dollars, of course, addressed to the citizens of Armenia and unquestionably all sorts of Russophobes, dug in our country, generously funded from abroad. And by and large, the words of the President of Azerbaijan are nothing but psychological preparation of the population of Azerbaijan and the international community for the possibility of a military resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. We have the right to make such a conclusion by analyzing also the statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, Ahmed Davutoglu. So, 17 July 2013 in Baku, he said: "Azerbaijan and Turkey closely cooperate in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. If the OSCE Minsk Group could not do anything for 20 years, the international community should ask itself why 20% Are Azerbaijani lands still under occupation? " According to him, the OSCE Minsk Group member states should take an active part in this process: "As you know, Turkey is also a member of the OSCE Minsk Group and is ready to support the Minsk process. The main thing is that the conflict should be resolved soon within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan ".
Otherwise, than a provocation, this statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey is impossible to perceive. He is certainly aware of the content of the Joint Statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, President of the United States of America Barack Obama and President of the French Republic François Hollande of 18 June 2013 of the Year, which, in particular, says: "We strongly call leaders all countries reaffirm their commitment to the Helsinki principles, in particular, the principles of non-use of force or threat of use, territorial integrity, equality and the right of peoples to "Definition. We also urge them to refrain from actions or statements that may increase tension in the region and lead to an escalation of the conflict. Leaders must prepare the nations for peace, not war."
What are the goals pursued by the Azerbaijani leader and his Turkish patrons, defiantly ignoring the appeals of the leaders of the centers of power of world politics, clearly stated in the Joint Statement. The course of their thoughts is quite predictable: to create an atmosphere of distrust around the OSCE Minsk Group, to indicate its inability to peacefully resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, and later to provoke a resumption of hostilities by Azerbaijan. The Absheron hawks, seeing the inaction on the part of the centers of power of world politics towards their belligerent statements, hope to use the multi-billion weapons acquired from Israel, Russia and Turkey, with the aim of implementing a blitzkrieg, a fleeting war. Apparently, according to the calculations of the Turkish-Azerbaijani strategists, a military victory will be achieved in a matter of days.
Awareness of the possibility of such a development of events highlights the need for a deep awareness of contemporary political realities, in accordance with which a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is possible only with the simultaneous entry of Armenia and Azerbaijan into the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus with further unification in the Common Economic Space and the Eurasian Union. An alternative to Armenia’s entry into the Eurasian Union is ultimately the unleashing of war by Azerbaijan with all the disastrous consequences for our countries and peoples. For the implementation of such a plan, the Azerbaijani-Turkish strategists are extremely important in any way to neutralize the work of the OSCE Minsk Group. And the first step towards this should be the re-introduction of the agenda to be held in Budva in October of this year. Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly of the next call of parliamentarians of the OSCE PA to the co-chairs of the Minsk Group: "Urgently convene a meeting of the Minsk Group in full and at the highest level to assess the negotiations within the Minsk process and continue the way to achieve tangible results." And in order to actualize the need to convene this meeting, there is no doubt that Azerbaijan will provoke military clashes in the zone of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Artashes Geghamian - Member of Parliament of the Republican Party of Armenia, Head of the Armenian Parliamentary Delegation to the OSCE PA, Chairman of the National Unity Party and the Northern Perspective public organization
Information