Home / Analysis / Armenia’s Foreign Policy has Long been a Derivative of Something Else 

Armenia’s Foreign Policy has Long been a Derivative of Something Else 

Since the beginning of 2019, we have had 39 deaths in the army. Last year, we had 50. The negotiations are at a standstill, prone to the risk of resumption of war. The heads of Armenia and Azerbaijan have made analogous statements breaking the moderate sentiments made public earlier. Turkey, with no diplomatic relations with Armenia and a close ally of Azerbaijan, has unleashed broad military acts in the region. Armenia’s Foreign Ministry reacted with a tough statement to Turkey’s war acts calling them “an immediate threat to and a heavy and mass violation of human rights based on identity.” A number of Russia-based analysts condemned this statement of Armenia as Moscow had not made any statement.

On October 15, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Turkey and Azerbaijan met and discussed the Nagorno Karabakh issue. Those from the OSCE came to Armenia, held meetings with the top officials and as always did not make anything substantial public, only “expressed hopes”, made statements for “efforts”, “de-escalation”, the “region”… In general, there is a lack of analysis of foreign affairs in Armenia, those that exist are fragmented reactions. 

The situation in the region is complicated. Armenia has recently seen a revolution with no new approaches and a new ideological opposition formed yet. The key figure of the foreign policy is the Prime Minister at the moment. There is a political team around him who naturally express their support for all his foreign undertakings. What these people do in their internal platforms is not clear. There is an impression that they don’t do much, instead they retrospectively comment. 

Broader public circles are following the process and are living emotional moments. They were overwhelmed first by the clash between Pashinyan and Aliyev in Ashgabad, then by Erdogan’s statements. There are only crumbles of analysis, in fact we have pseudo-analysis the axis of which is pseudo-patriotism. From a foreign perspective, they look as if they are in defense of Armenia, but in reality they are void of realpolitik and logic, a Danaids’ emptiness.  

Ignorance is dangerous in general, even if its purpose is national interest. Armenia’s foreign policy has been a derivative for a long time and it is hard to call it a state policy in its own right. It is possible to correct the situation slowly, otherwise playing with one card only in this complicated period is very dangerous prone to errors which will be difficult and futile to correct with a pen.

Gayane Ayvazyan

Source: Ayvazyan’s FB profile