“There was a word of truth in Serzh Sargsyan’s speech”

According to a rights activist Vardan Harutyunyan it is that “there are people in the opposition who understand what state is and will not put it into jeopardy for temporary political interests”

 –       The US Ambassador to Armenia Marie Yovanovitch lately made quite interesting statements in Yerevan State University, which were immediately responded by the authorities. How do you assess Mrs. Yovanovitch’s speech in general and the comments made on that by the government in particular?

–       Marie Yovanovatch’s speech can only be welcomed. She talked about the civil society in that speech, about the responsibility of a citizen for his country, about the necessity of the civil rights. She spoke about plain, understandable and necessary things. She mentioned in the speech that only a democratic country could be a partner of the US. I am glad that I heard that kind of ideas from the US Ambassador’s lips, because recently I was under the impression that the US had retreated from its principles as though supporting the illegitimate government in public. Their support for Serzh Sargsyan who is not supported by the people was obscure. Despite the fact that the US Department of State made an impartial and fair report on the presidential elections  and the following developments taken place in Armenia, they tried to support Sargsyan in order to solve through him such difficult issues as Armenian-Turkish not realizing that  only a president who has huge reserves of legitimacy can initiate the solution of such a difficult issue. In effect for the Armenian-Turkish doomed-to-fail-from-the-beginning contract, Serzh Sargsyan was legitimized outside the country. If there was not any support from the outside including the USA for the illegitimate government, it would be the whole different situation in our country. It is also the consequence of their support that the government feels solid and unpunished while persecuting, that the political prisoners are still in prisons and the political rights are still restricted in the country. I am not saying that Europe or the US or the US Ambassador should struggle in our stead for the establishment of the democracy in our country. I am saying that while solving their issues they shouldn’t sacrifice the democratic values for doubtful diplomatic interests, whether it is Armenian-Turkish relationship, Karabakh issue or an oil pipeline going through the region. I am saying that the human rights should not be traded for anything. The Ambassador is in fact restating the devotion of the United States to the democratic values in her speech mentioning the necessity of securing the political and civil rights and establishing a civil society in Armenia, which can only be welcomed.

–       Serzh Sargsyan showed reverence for the opposition in Tsakhkadzor; could this be interpreted as a presidential response to the ANC ultimatum consisting of 15 points?

–       This is no doubt a specific response to the demands heard at the ANC rally, but I do not think that this can be perceived too seriously. There was a word of truth in Serzh Sargsyan’s speech. He is right when he says that there are oppositionists who understand what a state is and will not put it into jeopardy for temporary political interests. But he is absolutely wrong when he attributes the same thing to the government primarily meaning his very person, of course. If he was the one who appreciated the state and the statehood, then in order to maintain his own power he wouldn’t lead the country to the shocks like this, he would get rid of March 1 investigating it, he would set free the political prisoners, he wouldn’t turn the police into an institution serving his own political and personal interests, he would not dread the freedom of speech, he would hold new elections willing to become a legitimate president. The life shows that the top priority for him is to prolong his own power and those gestures of reverence also serve the solution of this issue.  

To be continued…