Controversies between the Armenian and the Russian governments have arisen recently regarding the migration program Countrymen. Tigran Sargsyan, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, even made a statement in the National Assembly on October 3. He stated that this program implemented by the Russian Migration Service was not acceptable for Armenia. Going into detail, the Prime Minister stated, “The form and format, in which that program is implemented in other republics, is not acceptable for us. And we haven’t given our consent to our Russian partners that this service can pursue activities in the Republic of Armenia.”
This statement was followed by the Russian Ambassador’s response, according to which Russia didn’t force Armenian citizens to leave for Russia.
Read also
The sentiment against this program is so big in the Republic of Armenia that the issue of stopping the program is on the agenda. In the record of the Armenia-Russia Intergovernmental Economic Commission meeting, the Armenian side asserted on October 12 that it was absolutely against the implementation of the Countrymen program by the Migration Service of the Russian Federation in Armenia. Shavarsh Kocharyan, a Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, informed journalists, “The positions of the sides were clearly reflected in the record. The Russian side claimed that it was written in the statement that it was interested in continuing work in that direction and the Armenian side asserted that it was absolutely against that. Armenia decides about actions on the territory of Armenia. Since we said that we were against that program, naturally, it cannot be implemented.” www.aravot.am inquired during a conversation with ethnographer Hranush Kharatyan whether stopping the program was appropriate and whether one should fight against emigration in this manner. Ms. Kharatyan replied, “Certainly, stopping the program is not appropriate, I think it is like closing the borders. The people’s exit is restricted in that manner, using the administrative leverage. Thus, only the routes of emigration are closed by that, but at the same time, the reasons for emigration are expanded.”
Ms. Kharatyan notes that under the circumstances of the project’s implementation, the people felt more or less safe in that country and goes into detail, “At least the minimum conditions were guaranteed. Russians say the right thing that Armenians ask, the number of applicants is so large that the Russian side even made a selection. It is stated that Russians as a strategic partner should not implement such a program, but Italy or Germany might do the same thing.”
H. Kharatyan thinks that in order to solve the issue of emigration, one should not close the routes of emigration, but think of eliminating the reasons.
As for the statement made by the Prime Minister in the National Assembly, the ethnographer thinks, “The Prime Minister had nothing to say about eliminating the very causes of emigration, therefore, it was an opportunity to show how concerned they were about the issue. This is just a mockery. Or take the latest revelations regarding disabled people that the Prime Minister states what 65 thousand people will think about them. Do 65 thousand people start to think about them only now? Haven’t they known about the violations? Have they just found out? It is a mockery, a mockery; they could at least shut up.”
Tatev HARUTYUNYAN
