Armenia is not consulting with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) on preparations for joining the European Union (EU), RIA Novosti was told by Mikael Agasandyan, Director of the First Department for CIS Countries at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). In an interview with the agency, Agasandyan said whether Armenia was properly paying its EAEU membership fees, and whether it was managing to reorient its exports to the West.

Has the situation with restrictions on the export of products from Armenia had an impact on the EAEU?

First of all, it should be clarified that the measures applied to certain products from Armenia are aimed at ensuring the import of safe products into Russia in accordance with the sanitary and phytosanitary requirements established in the Eurasian Economic Union. Such oversight by state oversight bodies at checkpoints of the state borders of the Union member states is provided for by the treaty on the EAEU. There is the first official conclusion of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) on the legality of the actions of Russian bodies in relation to individual batches of mineral water, which the EEC prepared after the relevant application of Armenia. The discussion of this topic is the competence of sectoral departments. I know that such a dialogue is underway. In particular, the issue was raised within the framework of the 7th session of the EAEU Agro-Industrial Policy Council held on August 13.

In general, we have been observing a reduction in trade between Armenia and Russia, as well as the EAEU, for more than a year now; such a trend had formed long before the introduction of restrictions. This does not lead to any sharp shocks, since Armenia’s share in Russia’s foreign trade is not so large, and Yerevan’s trade with [other EAEU members] Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan is insignificant.

Are there concerns that due to such measures Yerevan will only accelerate its reorientation towards the West?

There is certainly an attempt to reorient the flow of Armenian exports to other markets, in particular to the West. At the same time, this does not, in fact, eliminate the need to organize effective and systematic work to ensure product safety in the [Armenian] republic. The European Union also has sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, albeit in some respects different from our requirements, but the amount of supplies from Armenia to the EU, despite optimistic statements, is still minimal.

However, we see much more significant risks in connection with the legislatively enshrined preparation of Armenia for accession to the European Union, which, by the way, the Armenian authorities are conducting without any consultations with their EAEU partners. This raises legitimate concerns on the part of the Russian side and other member states of our union, which were reflected in the joint statement of the presidents of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, adopted at the session of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council (SEEC) in Astana on May 29.

Armenia has not paid its membership fees to the CSTO [i.e. the Collective Security Treaty Organization] budget for two years now. What is the situation in the EAEU? Does Yerevan pay its share of the contributions to the union’s budget without delay?

As of today, there have been no signals of delays in payments to the EAEU budget by member states.

Armenia’s share in all revenues from the “five” countries, which are used to support the activities of the union’s bodies, is slightly more than one percent. At the same time, the [Armenian] republic is represented on an equal footing with other member states in the governing body of the Eurasian Economic Commission and in the EAEU Court; this is the fundamental principle of our integration association.

Given the “freezing” of Armenia’s participation in the CSTO, do preferential conditions apply to it in terms of military-technical supplies?

At the moment, there is no cooperation with Armenia in the military, military-technical, and other sectors within the CSTO. Sectoral cooperation with Yerevan is maintained on a bilateral basis. There is a necessary legal framework, which also provides for the supply of military products on preferential terms.