“After Brexit reconceptualization and expansion of Armenia-Great Britain military-political relations is possible”
Interview with Eduard Abrahamyan, expert on NATO strategy, intelligence, security and strategy researcher at the Leicester University (United Kingdom), fellow at Policy Forum Armenia, based in Washington, DC.
Mr. Abrahamyan results of the referendum in Great Britain shocked the international community. In your opinion, what happened and what may its implication be?
Firstly, we need to understand, that Great Britain, perhaps, is the state with most restricted integration with the European Union, membership of which to the Union has been problematic for years. It has always strived to highlighted independent policy in different regions and almost always separated its state interests and priorities from the EU interests. Noticeable strengthening of Germany in the Union, failure of France-Britain political interstate rapprochement greatly activated the opinion throughout recent decade, that politically Britain will gain more, if not a Union member. I consider it’s early making long-term anticipations, as it’s not clear yet how Great Britain will suffer as a result of Brexit in a long-term perspective.
Withdrawal from the EU isn’t an issue of a week or a month. As PM Cameron stated, it’s a rather time-consuming process, from which EU-Britain negotiations will last for months, probably, even for years. It’s noteworthy, that an order is enshrined in the EU Constitution, which reflects point 50, pursuant which: An EU country wishing to withdraw must notify the European Council of its intention to do so. Thus, Cameron seems not to hurry in implementing it, probably leaving that burden to the next PM.
Brexit will cause economic issues, and fame of London as the world’s financial leading center will definitely suffer. It isn’t clear either how in a long-term perspective after-effects of Brexit will change Britain both regarding its domestic and foreign policies. Besides, as already mentioned, the process of withdrawal may last for years, I don’t exclude that during it, under certain circumstances, the dynamics may yet change in favor of the European Union. Position and strategy of the USA has still to play a big role towards Brexit implications. It’s beyond suspicion that in Britain-EU negotiations representatives of other subjects of the Kingdom will bring their participation, in particular—Ireland and Scotland.
Despite the lasting process of withdrawal from the EU, Great Britain will have deep and comprehensive integration with the EU, including transparency of borders. As the PM stated together with the process of withdrawal from the EU Great Britain should provide “possibly strong economic ties with the EU.” Mechanisms and instances of it are the level of relations and integration of Norway-EU or Iceland-EU. However, I don’t consider probable, that at least in the forthcoming period the EU will show open interest towards comprehensive, more inclusive economic agreements with Great Britain.
There is a threat that other states may repeat Britain’s example, which is more probable, if Brussels expresses willingness to welcome London’s proposals to build relations upon Norway’s example. Thus, lasting and tense negotiations are ahead. Finally, crisis linked to Britain’s withdrawal will bring self-refreshment and recovery of the EU. Brexit already made adopt a more self-critical approach inside the EU. Forthcoming reforms inside the Union are already under discussion, pursuing the purpose to make it sounder to contemporary challenges, relieve bureaucracy, settle economic and loan field, eliminate the bureaucratic office, re-depict the Union as a more political actor. Finally, adopt clear replies and position regarding the issue of migrants, which, it should be confessed, had its role regarding withdrawal of the British from the EU.
In your opinion, what implications will Brexit results have on Great Britain-NATO relations?
I don’t consider by that Britain will launch its self-isolation policy, just the contrary, probably, it’ll start to act and participate in European policy as a NATO active player. Not being a EU founder, Great Britain initially was considered main advocate for NATO establishment, and after the cold war—one of the supporters of the Treaty expansion.
I think London will attempt to compensate the gap of withdrawal from the EU, by more activating is participation in NATO programs. Thus, as an instance it’s noteworthy to mention the idea expressed among the British expert community and officials, that British 20th brigade and three separate battalions, withdrawal of which from Germany was planned until 2020, to all probabilities, will stay in Europe and will get new importance and task. Withdrawal of the troops was conditioned by the logic of avoiding big expenditures of keeping them in Europe.
In this context withdrawal of Britain will provide certain free financial and military-technical possibilities. And Britain won’t be obliged to participate in the EU pirate programs in East Africa or EU program of the Balkans, centralizing its power mainly in the context of NATO missions. Thus, during the forthcoming NATO summit to be held in about a week in Warsaw, to all probabilities, we’ll see Great Britain as a state more ready to bear responsibility for European security. London is an active supporter of Enhanced Forward Presence package discussed on February 10 at the meeting of Defense Ministers of NATO member countries (it plans to provide more multi-nation military presence in Baltic countries and Poland) and to be approved in Warsaw summit, is an active supporter and will attempt to manifest great engagement.
Mr. Abrahamyan, how will changes in Britain be reflected in its interests in the South Caucasus, in particular, Armenia-Britain relations?
Britain has had a clear and developed policy and interests in the South Caucasus since the collapse of the Soviet Union. First and foremost, it had energy interest in the region and is one of the first countries, oil corporations of which expressed interest towards energy-communication programs of the South Caucasus.
As for Armenia, Britain, despite scarcity of possibilities, tended to develop active relations with the three countries of the region together. Besides this, I’d single out the developing dynamics of Britain-Armenia military cooperation. As a result of Brexit, if the United Kingdom is more actively engaged with NATO programs, then reconceptualization and expansion of Armenia-Great Britain military-political relations is possible.
There is an accepted mechanism in the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization, pursuant which, candidate-partner state inside the organization has, the so-called supervisor, represented by any influential and solid NATO member country. Member countries of old NATO often introduce interests of candidate-partner within the alliance, or take the burden of implementation of different programs, reforms and requalification assumed by the alliance and the candidate-partner state.
Such a function was assumed, for instance, by the USA and Poland regarding Georgia, Lithuania regarding Ukraine, Turkey and Romania regarding Azerbaijan. In this context Armenia could deepen its ties with Great Britain, up to the field of military industry. Britain could introduce Armenia’s interests and priorities within NATO.
By Araks Martirosyan
