The Secretary General Post rotation was a test for the internal structure and work of the organization. "CSTO did not pass the test, and this just shows the internal problems of the organization. On the other hand, this organization is consistent with the interests of only one state, which is Russia. The April war showed that when Armenia was on the verge of a large-scale war with Azerbaijan, it did not demonstrate as an alliance and did not support its ally. Collective security treaty organization is neither collective, nor guarantee of security anymore," Stepan Safaryan, Director of the Center for International and Security Affairs, political scientist, said.
Stepan Safaryan, Stepan Grigoryan, Director of the Center for Globalization and Regional Cooperation, and Alexander Krylov, Chairman of the Scholarly Society of Caucasus Studies, political analyst, participated in the discussion-press conference on “CSTO Security Council Session in Yerevan: Solved Problems or New Challenges?” on October 17 at Media Center.
As Stepan Grigoryan said, the CSTO summit was important, but not for its results, but the occurred environment. "I was surprised that the issue of the Secretary General was removed from the agenda. The rotation is conducted automatically, isn’t it? And in the case of Armenia, in fact, there was such an obstacle in the CSTO. If there was a disagreement, they should inform earlier. It turns out that because of our government errors and other reasons, we do not have a strong position, and Azerbaijan not being a CSTO member, has a stronger influence than the CSTO member Armenia," Stepan Grigoryan expressed conviction.
Russian political scientist Alexander Krylov believes that Armenia should have held serious discussions with the allies before the nomination of a candidate for the post of CSTO Secretary General. "If Yerevan wanted that during the session of the CSTO Security Council on October 14, a representative of Armenia replaced Nikolai Bordyuzha, CSTO Secretary General, it should have coordinated the issue with the other members in advance," he said, adding that anyone would hardly nominate its representative, in spite of the other members of CSTO Council. "So here to expect that Russia will take the path to force Kazakhstan or Belarus, was also unacceptable," Krylov explained.
Figuratively, according to Krylov, Armenia's position is as follows: "Here it is the candidate, admire and get married." Meanwhile, he said, a thorough preliminary work was required.
Krylov also countered Safaryan’s thesis on CSTO inaction with regard to the April war. "Now there is a new situation. A new system tracking enemy’s operations is installed and inserted on the front line, which will enable to identify exactly who is the initiator of hostilities. And after that, Azerbaijan will not be able to say that there are protective measures, of course, if Armenia does not initiate the actions," he said.
At the same time, he also spoke about Russia's shortcomings. "We witnessed the huge gaps at the time when Russia would start the supply of military equipment to Armenia, in which there is also the fault of the Russian side. I hope the Russian side will make corresponding conclusions. The fact that during the military parade dedicated to the 25th anniversary of Armenia's independence the appropriate systems and armaments delivered from Russia were also presented, evidences certain adjustments of approaches," Krylov said.
Arshaluys Mghdesyan, editor/events coordinator at “Media Center”
To contact the author please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.