Thus, in spring 2012 Armenian Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan gave a well-publicized interview to Russian daily ‘Kommersant’, in which he stated unequivocally that Armenia is not interested in the Customs Union since it does not have a common border with the members of the block, though he conceded that Armenia might be interested in some kind of a
However, all these statements seem to have been forgotten as after Sargsyan’s return from Moscow as senior government figures started to praise Armenia’s potential benefits from joining the Customs Union. To make matters worse, some Armenian government figures attempted to spin Sargsyan’s announcement by saying that Armenia will continue to aim for the Association agreement, thus prompting unequivocal denial from the EU side. After a series of statements of varying degrees of clarity from several EU sources, came unusually direct statements, which left little room for doubt. Thus, in apparent response to Armenian officials’ statements, Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said on September 9th that European Union has no plans to finalize an Association Agreement with Armenia at an upcoming EU summit in Lithuania, adding that
EU officials also talked of the Russian pressure on Armenian authorities. Many commentators tend to believe that the security argument was used by Russia, who is Armenia’s main security partner and the leading force in the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), of which Armenia is a member. Armenia is locked in a conflict with neighboring Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, so it is particularly vulnerable to such pressures. However, given the internal political situation in Armenia, there might have been other leverages, which could have been used by Russia to influence Armenian government. The current government is still struggling with the lack of democratic legitimacy, which came as a result of the long history of disputed elections and heavy-handed treatment of protesters. Particularly, the events of March 1st2008, when 10 people were killed as the government cracked down on post-election protests in Yerevan, are still haunting Armenia’s internal politics. The latest presidential election in 2013 did not help to mitigate the lack of legitimacy, and probably even made the matters worse: though Serzh Sargsyan was announced the winner, opposition leader Raffi Hovannisian refused to accept the official results, and started a campaign of protests, which however were smaller in scale than those in 2008 and gradually died out after Sargsyan’s inauguration.
Sargsyan’s announcement probably also came as a surprise for Armenian civil society. Numerous Armenian NGOs have been involved in various projects connected with the European integration and the reforms that were expected within its framework. The announcement made in Moscow became a cause for worry since Armenian government commitment to the Association Agreement was perceived as a certain guarantee that the authoritarian tendencies, which already exist in the country would be kept in check. Now, some NGO figures argue, the Armenian government will be judged against the standards that exist in the countries of the Customs Union (Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan) which can be described as anything but democratic. In the days preceding the announcement and immediately after it several attacks took place, aimed at civic activists, who had participated in anti-government protests.
Against this background, fears that by joining the Customs Union may mean creation of “a new USSR” and will lead to ceding a part of Armenia’s sovereignty became quite visible in Armenia. Some even feared that Armenia, which had acquired independence from Russia only around 22 years ago, might be reduced to a status of a client-state of Russia. Over a hundred activists protested Sargsyan’s announcement September 4th in front of the President’s residence and on September 5th outside of the ruling party headquarters. The scale of the protests however remains relatively small, mostly confined to politically active youth and civil society representatives. As for the main political forces, they seem to be reluctant to spoil relations with Russian authorities by opposing the union too harshly. Thus the opposition Armenian National Congress (ANC/HAK) criticized the government for squandering Armenia’s international credibility as a result of its U-turn, but refrained from commenting on whether Customs Union membership would beneficial for Armenia or not. Moreover, ANC leader Ter-Petrosyan warned his party members against ‘resorting to anti-Russianism’ in the criticism of the government. This careful stance is shared by most other political forces represented in the parliament. As for the larger public, the ‘Russian’ option still remains quite popular among many Armenians, especially among the middle aged and older citizens, who tend to have a nostalgia for the Soviet times, and who do not seem to understand the intricacies of European integration.
Mikayel Zolyan is historian and political analyst from Yerevan (Armenia). Currently, he teaches at several universities in Yerevan and works at Yerevan Press Club NGO in Yerevan.