Yesterday, the National Assembly ratified the gas agreement that is humiliating, contrary to our national interests and sovereignty, which essentially restrains the activities of the RA Presidents, the National Assembly and the government for 30 years. I know that my opinion will not sound populist, but I must say: failure to ratify would mean to refuse the Russian gas because “Gazprom” (the Kremlin) would not agree to negotiate with us regarding other reservations or a new agreement; it would punish “firmly”.
In principle, it is also possible to go in that way, but, in that case, there should be people in the government who will be able to explain to people for the sake of what they should suffer more. There are no such people among the authorities; they do not have enough authority to propose such a thing to people. So, yesterday, the majority at the National Assembly session could vote against this humiliating agreement, in which the government is responsible with its unprofessional and perhaps corrupt mode of practice. Accordingly, we should protest against this practice, and not against voting of the MPs.
There is also the issue of accountability of the government and the authorities, in general. Naturally, there might be secret talks on the gas price, if they occur between two business entities. But, if the matter is about the state, in other word, the interests of the citizens that new debts are imposed around our “neck”, and certain commitments around the “neck” of the authorities for the next 30 years, then it seems extremely doubtful of ‘keeping it secret’ for three years.
The government, in general, seems to be reluctant to “explain” to its citizens. The most recent example. The sinister agreement is being discussed, speeches are made by representatives of factions. On behalf of RPA, the floor is given to Galust Sahakyan, and, according to the logic, it is here that the majority should have explained by points, brought arguments why they vote for these agreements (and, I repeat, they were available). But Mr. Sahakyan makes a speech on at least unclear topic for me, moreover, some of the phrases were left “uninterpreted.”
Read also
…Please, do not take indecent, but I would like to remind you, when in 1992-94, Ruben Shugaryan, and afterwards, I, were taking the position of the presidential press secretary, at least once a week, and, usually, more often, we were giving a briefing and were answering all questions of the media. At the time, it was so accepted.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
