Home / Armenia

Armenia’s choices: Russia or NATO

Yerevan is able to maintain good relations with Moscow, Washington, and Brussels

by Tatul Hakobyan

Published: Saturday October 04, 2008

Yerevan -

One of the architects of Armenia's foreign policy of complementarity, Vartan Oskanian, used to insist that it was possible for Yerevan to maintain good and equal relations with Russia and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) on the one hand and the European Union and NATO on the other. Mr. Oskanian also noted that the principle of complementarity is completely justified as long as relations with Russia and the West remain normal. When Georgia's attack on South Ossetia on August 8 turned into Russian aggression against Georgia, the fragile balance of Moscow/Washington/Brussels was breached. Some specialists even began talking about a return of the Cold War.

Official Yerevan was able to maintain good relations with Moscow and the West. Concerns that Russia could place its strategic partners, including Armenia, before a difficult choice by asking them to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia were not justified. President Serge Sargsian explained to Moscow, in a language that they could understand, that Armenia could not recognize those two entities - in the same way that it did not recognize Kosovo months earlier. Armenian authorities made it clear that they would not recognize them henceforth because they had not yet recognized Nagorno-Karabakh.

Official Yerevan has stated on many occasions that it is realizing a foreign policy of complementarity, and deepening its relations with Russia and CSTO on the one hand, and the West and NATO on the other is not contradictory. Will Armenia be able to continue with its adopted foreign policy of complementarity of the past decade? In other words, will it be able to continue to deepen relations with the European Union and NATO without causing discomfort for Russia, a country which Armenia depends upon strategically, politically, and economically.

Arkady Dubnov, an analyst with the Russian daily Vremya Novostey told the Armenian Reporter that following the five-day war, a new agenda was formed which will refer initially to the Caucasus. Mr. Dubnov referred to Kazakhstan as an example (Kazakhstan is one of the seven members of CSTO, and one of Russia's closest allies), who after the war in August began to consider the expediency of transporting Kazakh gas through the Baku-Tiblis-Ceyhan pipeline, and has also refused to build a gas refinery and a grain terminal in Georgia. According to the Russian analyst, the Kazakhs are taking steps that will not irritate Russia.

"I don't think that Moscow has similar expectations from Yerevan because Armenia doesn't participate in any regional project which is unacceptable to Russia. From a geopolitical perspective, Russia will continue to be Armenia's principal security guarantor as long as Armenia remains surrounded by enemies, at least on behalf of one of its neighbors," Mr. Dubnov said.

In his opinion, the five-day war in August demonstrated that Russia is prepared to use force to protect its interests, while the United States is not prepared to confront Russia, trying to avoid being pulled into an extensive war. According to Mr. Dubnov, Armenia cannot ignore Russia's position in the Caucasus nor the existence of a Russian military base in Gyumri.

"However all of this does not mean that Yerevan is obligated to become a vassal of Moscow and under this pressure relinquish its relations with the West and NATO or slow down cooperation, with a clear stipulation that Armenia does not intend to become a member of NATO in the future. I hope that in the Kremlin they realize that pressure against Armenia in the end will have a boomerang effect and can create anti-Russian sentiments," concluded Mr. Dubnov.

Aghavni Karakhanian, director of the Yerevan-based Institute for Civil Society and Regional Development (ICSRD), believes that Armenia must not change its foreign policy. Ms. Karakhanian believes that Armenia must not only maintain its foreign policy of complementarity but it must further develop and supplement it.

"Today, our foreign policy of complementarity has justified itself like never before. It is possible to say that it is the only reasonable choice, and as a foreign policy principle its accurateness has been proven. The August crisis demonstrated that to ‘hang on by a single branch,' no matter how strong it is, is not justified," Ms. Karakhanian told the Armenian Reporter.

Asbed Kotchikian, a lecturer at  Bentley College told the Armenian Reporter that the idea of complementary foreign policy was appreciated by pro-Russian circles as a euphemism for lip service to the West and a full-spectrum relationship with Russia. Other circles, on the other hand, regarded it as a positive sign where Armenian diplomacy had finally come up with an elegant, flexible, non­controversial formula to get things moving toward greater diversification of the country's policy choices, while at the same time providing conservatives some room to engage and own stakes in the debate.

"While the concept of complementary foreign policy was welcomed in Armenian circles, the international and regional community could not make sense of it and sometimes even criticized what they perceived as Armenia's attempts to play various international powers against each other. To say that Armenia's complementary foreign policy was successful is wrong; perhaps a better word would be it was tolerated by both sides," said Mr. Kotchikian.