The
head of "Republic" party Aram Sargsian also explains in this way why
the Ukraine after Georgia managed to do what the Armenian opposition didn’t.-
Is the main reason of the Armenian opposition’s failure the rivalry that is more
pro Russian?- I won’t say I’m a pro Russian. Just the opposite. But I won’t
also say I’m an anti Russian. There is another problem here. Both in the Ukraine
and Georgia the opposition and the society were for democracy and just elections.
But Russia during the last 100 years assists those people who aren’t accepted
by the people and thus looses. Meanwhile Europe and the West in general are for
democracy so they win the sympathy of the society. Yushchenko has never mentioned
he is a Western representative. It was more obvious in Russia. – The West
also assists in other way; the CNN and Euronews paid much attention on the Georgian
then the Ukraine events. While the same demonstrations of Armenia was ignored.
Is the reason that our country was no importance for the West or they didn’t see
in our opposition an evident ideological alternative to the present authority?-
I wouldn’t like to exclude any version. But if you bring any example that such
kind of intervention has been occurred in any other country before the Armenian
events, I’ll agree with you. The policy is a living organism and it always develops.
In this case the Armenian events set an example to the world community to express
their attitudes stronger and more mobile. And now if any events occur in Armenia
the same assistance will be realized. I don’t think the West supports the democracy
only when we assure we are with them. I mark the West always supports the democracy.-
And the fighters. If the struggle is stopped after the second stage of the elections
it means the West also recognize its results. But if the struggle continuos the
third stage is quite possible as it is in the Ukraine?- Yes, yes, yes. The
West supports the fighters indeed. But I exclude the West will support only those
who are in a close collaboration with it up to the special services according
to the Russian press. There isn’t such kind of problem in case of Sahakashvily
and Yushchenko. I’m myself for Yushchenko and I’d like to have the Ukrainian activities
an end deserving for its people without losses and blood.- Can we conclude
from the experience of these three countries that the foreign assistance has become
a decisive factor for changes the authorities?- Unambiguously! I have always
had that standpoint. Four resources are necessary for having the authority: popularity,
administrative levers, foreign political assistance and eventually financial resources.
Every country isn’t completely free and out of influences. And the opinion of
near and far neighbors has a serious significance.- That means in case of
Armenia weren’t those four resources enough?- Our authorities by their intellectual
faculties and policy are quite different from the authorities of Georgia and the
Ukraine. We work by the principles of the previous century. In this case the Armenian
opposition hasn’t got any opportunity of financial resources. And if the Americans
want to close all financial resources of "Al-Kaida" it will be better
to send Kocharian there: he knows that work and will do it skillfully. Our
conditions are too different. The representatives of Georgian opposition were
almost the authority besides they had a serious business and were financially
free. The opposition of the Ukraine wasn’t also poor; the quality of meetings,
hang TV screens, lighting, the orange ribbons distributed by tons. The "Republic"
for example was free in financial case but the policy asks for more serious sums.
Sometimes the internal capital isn’t sufficient and sums are imported.- So,
are the foreign assistance and financial resources interrelated?- Certainly,
those resources were both in the Ukraine and Georgia.Interview
by Anna Israelian