HISTORICAL ILLUSIONS

Diplomats and political scientists say that the foreign policy of different states can be described using a variety of epithets. It may be "pro-Western", "pro-Russian", "anti-Chinese" or "pro-Arab", "aggressive" or, on the contrary, "defeatist", "pragmatic", even "presumptuous". It is up to each country to decide on their own, depending on a concrete situation, whether to give priority to "hardness" or "softness", to accept tradeoffs or stand their ground at any cost and whether to rely on themselves or on their allies. Yet in any event there is one indisputable requirement to the policy of any state: it must be earnest, if you will. This means articulate and consistent. Especially if truly fundamental matters are at issue.

Yet it looks like Armenia has decided to go its own way, specifically, in such an important matter as choosing between the European Union's Eastern Partnership and the Customs Union being established by Russia. The course of events has repeatedly been recounted in the press but nonetheless let us recall the outcome of that wait-and-see policy: Yerevan was preparing to sign an association agreement with the EU during the summit in Vilnius… when suddenly Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan announced willingness to join the Customs Union.

Now a new stage has started: people in Yerevan are again discussing their "European prospects". According to updates from Armenia, when seeing Charles Tannock, coordinator of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group in the European Parliament, and Ryszard Czarniecki, deputy chairman of the Euronest Parliamentary Assembly, Serzh Sargsyan announced that European integration has been and remains an important element on Armenia's political agenda. That his country is committed to European values and is guided by European standards in the cause of building a modern competitive state. For their part, the European partners have made it clear that after Yerevan's statement on its intention to join the Customs Union, the signing of its already prepared agreement with the European Union is out of the question. Standards of diplomatic politeness do not allow them to make a downright statement that the European door is closed for Armenia, well and truly. This is why they are using evasive phrases like "we are looking for new ways and forms of cooperation".

Hardly are the people in Yerevan so na?ve as to seriously expect to slip into the "European door" slamming shut on it. The present demonstration of "European prospects" is rather addressed to… Moscow.

Immediately after the statements voiced in the Kremlin about Armenia's readiness to join the Customs Union, Yerevan's political establishment had no doubts that, out of gratitude for this decision, Moscow would just shower Armenia with boons. They were sure in Armenia that Russia being true to its commitments to the "historical ally" etc. would "push through" the best conditions for Armenia but that did not happen.

It looked much like the way in was recently in Brussels where a clear signal was sent to the partners from Yerevan that they should not reckon that the "European terms and conditions" would also apply to the occupied Azeri lands.

Thus Armenia has faced with a situation that could most honestly be described as "disillusionment on two fronts". Fist the Yerevan politicians' hopes were deceived by Europe. Now it looks like the same situation is developing with Russia. This disillusionment is being "superimposed" on social discontent growing in society. On 5 November, Yerevan was already properly supplying CIS states' TV channels with dramatic pictures of street clashes sweeping the Armenian capital. Note that their participants blamed all their troubles on Vladimir Putin rather than their local leadership.

Thus for instance Shant Arutyunyan, chairman of the Tsekhakron party, said in his talk with journalists that he "cannot bear the current authorities any more" and intended to overthrow the incumbent authorities "on the day of Putin's visit, 2 December". In particular, he said, it will be necessary to seize the presidential residence, the buildings of the government, the Constitutional Court, the Prosecutor General's Office, the Interior Ministry (meaning that of police because Armenia has had no Interior Ministry for more than 10 years now - editorial note), the "KGB" and the prisons in which "lots of innocent people are kept".  Shant Arutyunyan insisted that the Armenian authorities had not been elected by the people but "appointed by Putin", that Putin had issued the "order to kill 10 people in March 2008" while Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan is his "appointee" and "chief of local pawns who must be removed from here". Then the crowd moved towards the presidential residence where a police cordon blocked their way. Molotov cocktails and home-made explosive devices came into play. The result is known: eight policemen were sent to hospital and dozens of people were arrested.

In Armenia, where quite recently nobody could even fancy that there were any other sentiments but pro-Russian, the authorities are forced to demonstrate that the country also has some "European prospects". At the same time they continue the political haggle which is senseless, by and large, because there is nothing left to count on.

What is at issue is not just the failure of one individual political "combination" if it can be called this way. The problem of Armenia is much deeper. Yerevan was holding active negotiations both "openly", as far as this is possible in diplomacy altogether, and confidentially, "behind the scenes", both with Russia and Europe. In their course, as one would reasonably expect, efforts were being taken to agree on basic conceptual provisions and to settle a lot of small details. However both the Europeans and the Russians were holding those talks, if one could put it this way, "in the present", in the light of their interests as they were at the turn of the second decade of the 21st century. Neither the former, nor the latter had any special interest in Armenia, a small country rapidly falling into penury and "squeezed" in a disadvantageous geopolitical environment.

Yet the people in Yerevan not just thought differently - they were reasoning about "civilizational choice" and believed in such a thing as "historical duty" to Armenia allegedly lying on the shoulders of the Europeans and the Russians. They had no doubt that now the politicians in Moscow and Brussels would definitely come to thinking about delivering those promises that their predecessors used to dish out quite lavishly to Armenian leaders back on the eve of World War I.

They just would not take into account the fact that even then the politicians of the Entente member states were not really all that much concerned about the destiny of the "long-suffering Christian Armenian nation". The Armenian nationalists were cast in the role of a kind of "lock pick" to the gate of Istanbul. Nothing more than that. Still the Armenian circles just would not think about that on the eve of World War I. Neither would they think about the changeful fortune of war.

The media have described the results of World War I over and over again. Great Britain, France and the USA felt the victors. Germany felt keenly the bitterness of defeat. In Russia, the results of World War I were shaded by its own revolution and civil war. Meanwhile Turkey managed to reverse the seemingly hopeless situation and retain the most important things: its statehood and control over the Straits of Bosporus and the Dardanelles…   

For the Armenians, World War I ended in a real disaster. For those very Armenians who had received optimistic promises dished out to them so generously by their European and Russian friends on the eve of the war and instantly forgotten when the time came to haggle with the new republican Turkey for navigation conditions in the straits and the borders. The Armenians who had recently been their valuable allies, were just swept off the board: Russia, Europe and the USA were busy with other things.

Here is what Ovanes Kashazuni, a Dashnak leader of that period, said in this context: "We placed our own aspirations in the hive of others. We lost our sense of reality and indulged in our reverie". 

One would think that in Armenia, where the events of 1915 have been turned into a "historical icon", they should have learned a lesson from the bitter results of World War I. Yet the events of the past few days have shown that people in Armenia are lapsing with the same ecstasy into daydreams that its problems would be tackled by its "historical allies" guiding themselves exclusively by "moral categories". Thus they are repeating the errors that once led the Armenian people to a real catastrophe. It is very hard to fancy that an erroneous strategy multiplied by delusions of 100 years ago might bring about any positive result.