Interview with analyst Hrach Galstyan
– Serzh Sargsyan’s speech, substantially, was the first following the decision to join the Customs Union. Everyone was searching responses in this statement. In your opinion, were the responses available, especially with regard to concern that Armenia can thus make a step back in democracy and human rights defend?
– First, I would like to consider this speech on another plane. In 22-year history of Armenia, this was the first speech of the person introducing our country, when the issues were viewed not from the prospect of exclusively Armenia’s issues, but any other matter, including urgent for us, were viewed in the context of global policy and international issues. This is the importance of the speech.
Armenia presides in the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers. The Foreign Affairs Minister had suggested an agenda in spring. Now I do not remember all the details, but I clearly remember the main impression, the agenda seemed to be abstracted a lot from the problems of Armenia. And in the President’s speech they appeared in parallel, Armenia as an entity presiding the European Ministerial Committee, an initiator and responsible in international relations, and Armenia with its problems.
– Was this really the first speech as such?
– In my archives, there are, of course, all the speeches of leaders of Armenia on international planes, and the aforesaid emphasis was more apparent. Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Robert Kocharyan have made very serious and solid speeches, but, anyway, Armenianism perspective was dominant, perhaps, the time was such. Now, two positions are presented in parallel, Armenia as an international responsible entity, and Armenia with its problems. In a nutshell, Armenia issues were presented in a discourse that is in line with European political, value perceptions. Look, it is fixed in the beginning of the speech that Armenia is a part of the European culture and civilization, by dividing it from institutional solutions of the situation. Then, the problem of Syria is presented not only from the position of our interests, but also as an international responsible entity. It is talking about extremism, particularly in virtual platforms and information system. We know that extremism is also a major issue in Europe, and, from time to time, it is expressed in the most unexpected forms in the most prosperous countries of Europe. It expresses readiness to be proactive on this issue, and a parallel is drawn with campaign of extremism held in Azerbaijan.
There was also a very important moment. He is speaking as the current President of Armenia, but is always emphasizing the principle of Armenia’s political succession; it is very characteristic that in the beginning of the speech it is fixed “All Armenia’s authorities…” have conducted similar policy, there is succession. That is to say, that Armenia is an established, responsible and predictable partner.
– And what about the “uncertainty” with the Customs Union?
– As regards the Customs Union, more correctly, the Customs Union and EU Association Agreement, it is more a matter of diplomatic, economic and market solutions rather than political. This idea, like a red line, goes through the President’s speech. He says that we have interests, not only interests, but also responsibilities and interdependency in the field where we were for more than 200 years. It was the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and the CIS. The Customs Union was also an expression of interdependency. But the President highlights that we need priority cooperation and mutual support from Europe. These are institutional problems related to democracy, reforms of different public systems, be the justice, judicial system, administrative system, internal structural issues, and so on. The field that is a priority for us at this moment is emphasized.
We do not know the content of the talks and negotiations of the presidents of Armenia and France, but there is no doubt that they referred right to your question. And it should never be separated from the President’s speech made from PACE tribune. These two are correlated. That’s why I repeat that the issue enter into a diplomatic dimension.
– And, actually, is it within the diplomatic dimension, or Armenia views it like that?
– The issue, in reality, is within the diplomatic dimension. At the moment, when negotiations began within the “Eastern Partnership” to undergo a new phase, the implementation was more diplomatic and bureaucratic process. There is not problem in political dimension, and there is a desire from the EU to see Armenia within the European framework as much integrated as possible, as much as Europe can provide resources. From Armenia’s side there is no doubt about the trend that we must be integrated into the European system as much as possible at this moment.
The scandal that happened after the statement on September 3, first, it is amazing, given that nothing new had been said, and the available noise was more expression of frustration of this bureaucratic process, people have worked on it, for which they are accountable.
– You mentioned that there was an approach in the President’s speech to present the problems of Armenia in the context of issues concerning the world. Was this approach also available in the reference to Artsakh problem and the Genocide?
– You know what? The problem is not the Kharabakh conflict and the Genocide, but the discourse in which these problems are presented. Not a word was mentioned about ethnic, regional specifications. They spoke about democracy. The President succeeded to present a recognizable language for an average European, and European policy subjects.
– And how would you interpret the questions and feedback following the speech?
– The questions were in cliché, it seems to me that there is no need to refer to them in details, including regarding Zaruhi Postanjyan. I can only say that the issue was a shame. But, it was a shame not in the dimension that it was a “betrayal”, or that she had no right to ‘wash Armenia’s dirty linen outside’. There is a right to everything. We can talk about anything, but in political language and political formulations and not, for example, on the level of “under the wall” talks. It was a shame that a member with many years of experience in RA NA and representing Armenia in PACE does not master a political language.
Mariam GHAZARYAN