EU’s interest for Armenia is “natural and geostrategic,” says MEP Petras Auštrevičius

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 2, ARMENPRESS. The European Union’s interest towards Armenia is natural and geostrategic and can lead to many positive developments, according to Member of the European Parliament (Lithuania) Petras Auštrevičius.

In an interview with Armenpress Brussels correspondent Lilit Gasparyan, the MEP spoke about the prospects of the Armenia-EU relations, the possible role of the EU in the Armenia-Azerbaijan normalization process, as well as the European Parliament’s possible political posture ahead of the COP29.

Against the backdrop of the developments surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh and the tension in Armenia-Russia relations, the EU is trying to be a more active player in the South Caucasus. How do you interpret this decision? 

Firstly, I see the EU playing a bit bigger, not just regional, but a global role. It was a high ambition, even by Mr. Borrell, to be a global player and this is a part of the scenario. Secondly, self-focus is not far away. Black Sea basin is our neighborhood. We have some history of cooperation, not necessarily great achievements, but still big attempts by some Member States to develop closer relationships. And I think by description, Europe is promising to our neighbors as long as they comply with the criteria they might come into the membership. So, it's the ultimate, let's say state of relations. But in between there are many, many other stages and other ways how to develop cooperation. So that's why I think interest is natural, is geostrategic, and now especially after 2022, when we see a growing destructive role of Russia in the neighbourhood. It's something which we have to understand and react. 

Charles Michel has tried to be an intermediary as well. But from a realistic point of view what is needed and what can the EU do for stability and peace in the South Caucasus? Because when exactly one year ago the ethnic cleansing of Nagorno Karabakh Armenians took place, the EU was sort of a spectator.

We were not ready for that scenario. Let's be frank. It was a military operation, which was, you know, exceeding any —at that time— EU capacity, I mean, on the ground, I mean the situation we've been thrown into rather than we've been preparing ourselves. 

The EU’s position might be to change Armenia’s and Azerbaijan's relations for good. I think we should keep a very strong line that no military solutions, just peace negotiations and then implementation of agreed terms for both sides. I believe we have to proclaim and follow our line: no military intervention, no military power, no threats. We have means for both sides, even for Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan depends much on supplies to Europe. Azerbaijan can lose a lot if we're unfavorable for their decisions taken. I would use this bargaining chip to the end to bring this peace situation to South Caucasus because enough is enough. You know this principle - two are fighting, third is winning. From two fighting the EU is never winning. If two are fighting, Russia is winning. Do we need more Russia in the South Caucasus? I think we lived through these 30 years and we never saw Russia as a real peacekeeper. 

They've been trying to so-called bring peace, but they never, never brought peace. They brought divisions and the next escalation. And it was just a matter of time when it was coming and then Russians were playing on one side or another, bringing to push against each other. So that's why if two are fighting the EU is not winning. I think we have to be very, very serious, and to use every instrument we have to impose that principle. 

You touched on the issue of supplying gas. Exactly. The Ukrainian war resulted in an energy crisis and deficit for the EU. Rejecting Russian gas, Europe found an alternative in Azerbaijan. A country known for its undemocratic attitude, where there is no rule of law. To what extent do you consider an alternative like this acceptable, considering that Belarus and Russia are criticized in the context of the same issues? Moreover, many specialists have revealed that the gas coming to the EU from Baku belongs to Russian companies anyway.

It was the alternative, but it’s not now. It's gone in two years. We went from 40-45% of supplies and then of course Gazprom had a bargaining chip to 7 or 8%, which is still too high to my mind. It must be 0. If we are serious, and if we are not to pay money for the Russian military budget, but some Member States are still, you know, having some exceptional political thinking in this regard, how they combine it with the peace-loving policies? I don't know. I mean, I'm very critical about those governments of the Member States, but I mean it was and it is a great failure of the Russian Federation and look, Gazprom is close to bankruptcy. And there are new suits and court cases from even commercial companies of the European Union. They will not survive. That's for sure, where I'm sure the EU is not coming back to dependency on Russian gas, either oil, no. It was, sorry to say, a very grave lesson. We learned a very expensive one. But this is something that we've been telling Brussels, for a decade or two, it's just a matter of time before energy will be used as a tool of pressuring or bringing some negotiations or creating some unfavorable situations. Not many followed because it was just business as usual. 

Another issue, or more precisely concern that many politicians and human rights organizations have is the upcoming COP 29, which will be held in Baku in November. Human rights organizations draw attention to the fact that more than twenty Armenian prisoners of war and hostages, as well as around three hundred Azerbaijani political prisoners, are being held illegally in the same Baku. To what extent is the European Parliament concerned about this issue and what steps is it taking to draw the attention of the EU executive as well?

Not being silent is the first step. There is quite a consensus among political groups in the European Parliament that even if COP 29 takes place in Baku it can't be just those questions related to climate. There will be a lot of international presence, there will be journalists who will be experts and so on. It will be a great case to raise those issues. And I think it's natural that we are raising those issues because look, so many, so many prominent Azerbaijan NGOs and human rights activists, are simply begging, begging “Don't stop race, Keep it on the agenda, don't abandon us, otherwise it will be even worse than it is”. So that's why I don't know how much of those concerns will be in the text of the final documents. I believe not much, but nevertheless, on the sidelines, there will probably be a lot of formal and informal discussions, and the Azerbaijani leadership will have to listen to this because I don't see if Baku might predict what can be asked from our side. No. Sometimes we raise very uncomfortable political questions, which must be replied to. Otherwise, how can you be a trustworthy partner? 

You have mentioned the consensus in the political groups in the EP. Would this consensus be translated to something concrete, a statement or a resolution? 

Maybe, I don't reject that we might have a debate in the European Parliament about this. There have been some talks and initiatives taken. I don't reject. Maybe the time will come and we will have it. Unfortunately, in the last legislature we had, I would say, quite many resolutions about the political situation in Azerbaijan and those resolutions were not really kind of very, very positive. Many, many critical points, we had many names of the imprisoned, threatened by bad health conditions. 

If I were the leadership of Azerbaijan, I would really be more concerned about this. I mean, because every time you hear something negative from the European Parliament it not only brings a political kind of reasoning and message, it might be translated to something else. 

These days one of Europe’s concerns is the political situation in Georgia. While upcoming elections in Georgia should be decisive for the future of EU-Georgia relations, parallel to this there are positive developments with Armenia. A few days ago, the vice president of the European Commission was in Yerevan. The visa liberalization dialogue has officially launched. How far will the EU go in terms of deepening relations with Armenia? 

You know our policy line towards Georgia was absolutely sincere and strategic as we understood, the country wants to take the European integration path, which was appreciated because we see very, very good and very many positive examples of how countries have changed politically, economically, security-wise. I can tell you as a former chief negotiator and having 20 years of experience in the European Union of my country, Lithuania, it's a miracle. It's a transformative miracle. It's something like you follow agreed rules and you take best practices of the European Union and you take political and economic instruments existing in the European Union and you see every year something better and better. And after all, you are never alone. I think that principle is so important for South Caucasus countries, never alone, I mean solidarity, which is among EU Member States, is fundamentally important for any European country, it doesn't matter what region we're speaking about. So, Georgia was extended a lot. Georgia was expected to deliver a lot. Now we understand that the current government has a bit different view. They adopted a couple of legislative acts, like the Foreign Agents Act as well as this so-called LGBTQ propaganda law which does not follow the EU practice, which is built on tolerance, pluralism and democratic principles, democratic competition. So, it's something new that is not European. If the Georgian government believes it's good for their country, well, they have to choose between EU integration or going somewhere else, or even suspending their application for EU membership. 

And here we come to Armenia, which might be a natural partner for our cooperation. Indeed, we can give a lot to Armenia and those promises from the European Union are not based on any kind of expectation that Armenia will give something back, as a military base like in the case of Russia, will be friendly, will be buying weapons and so forth. No, our expectation of Armenia is kind of a European model of development because as I mentioned before, stability in itself is in the interest of the European Union; look at Central-Eastern Europe which is already a good example of our development. So, we are looking forward to closer relations with Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia hopefully remains to be seen after the election which will be a very testing case for Georgia's commitment towards the EU path. To see more cooperation with Armenia, I think it's a natural way. It might take some time, but I see a lot of very positive commitments from Prime Minister Pashinyan, I think he understands very well the new possibilities for Armenia and I believe he is completely right. You know, there are not so many people with vision, especially among politicians. If that kind of visionary leadership of Armenia is insistent enough, if that leadership has public support, which is again so important, and if together we will be able to refrain from this foreign interference by disinformation and fake news, it could be a road to success, so that's why I wish the Armenian people really to be wise and prudent and determined, first of all, to change the course, —30 years after regaining independence was—,  of a policy which I don't know to what extent delivered much to Armenian people. But there is a chance, a new chance. So why not take it? Why not try? The EU is a very serious partner and we have many developed tools on how to transform countries into something which is —I believe— a bright future. 

Lilit Gasparyan