NA Deputy Speaker Hermine Naghdalyan about Armenia’s vote in UN, PAP barricades and 24-hour rallies initiated by the great four. – The popular vote on Ukraine resolution in UN arose heated discussion and criticism in Armenia with regard to the position of Armenia. Wasn’t the noise to the point? – First, let’s state what the vote in the UN showed in a broader sense. Most importantly and sadly, once again it was proved that the world, yes, is guided by double, triple, and four-fold standards. These standards are everywhere. And the cruel pragmatic idea that the states are governed by interests, in the modern world has reached an apparent point that often democratic principles and European and Western ideals and values are forgotten, and in such decisive moments, this pragmatic and interests figure of the world slips out and disappoint really progressive-minded people who have expectations and believe in the values and ideals. This, I think, was the most important, because there are countries which, for instances, had accepted the Kosovo independence, but not the Karabakh and Crimean independence. Why? It’s not clear. Again with referendum, and processes conducted in compliance with the same international laws (or still something more). What is the explanation? Just because it should be so? That it stems out from your interests? Is the history of nations, desire for freedom, and the right to expression of free will secondary? And should all step back in front of interests? It is sad or very politic. As for Armenia’s vote, we should state that no matter of who was expecting what, and who was thinking that Armenia should speak based on the interests of Russia or some other country, our vote was dictated only based on our own interests. With this vote, Armenia showed a very dignified posture, a very predictable behavior typical to an established state, a stance in compliance to our 26-year fight, our principles and ideals, although I’m sure that even in case of the opposite, all this column of critics would choose another target of criticism because they are not interested in the essence of the problem, its good or bad sides, rather than merely the criticism. However, I must say that it really was an absolutely flawless posture and a perfect foreign policy, and once again I would like to note that it was the result of our long-lasting struggle, and also the blood shed by our heroes for the independence of our people and the right to self-determination, which has reasserted today that we did one more step ahead in this “front”, because the world is accepting more and more and/or is unable to reject and deny the right of peoples to self-determination, and the 21st century gives these examples to us one after the other. We only needs to be decisive, principled and consistent, which we demonstrated with our vote. – Mrs. Naghdalyan, the Crimea and Karabakh similarities are also the bases of speculations, the equality sign is put on the base of comparison between these two situations. Is there such a basis by your observation? – The problem is not with similarity of the situations, it is more deep because each nation has its own history, the developments and specifics of its own biography, and you cannot identify them. However, you can ask this question with regard to rights, since everybody is exercising its right to self-determination. This is the similarity of Crimea, Karabakh, Kosovo, Scotland, and tomorrow’s the Basque voting. The commonality of all of these is that the people are endowed with this right and should have the opportunity to exercise it. I also see another similarity: the situation, in which Karabakh appeared is the same as in case of Crimea, in the sense that in the result of arbitrary decision inherited from the Soviet Union, people appeared among strangers. – However, in the estimates voiced about the Crimean referendum, the prevailing view was that it occurred as a result of the use of force, and presence of oppression by Russian troops. – You know, you can find hundreds of reasons, including the time given to us was not enough, you had not informed us well enough, and so on, but there is one principle circumstance that people had expressed their free will, and there is no doubt in it. No matter what kind of procedural, routine and other type of criticism are voiced, the fact of expression of free will was made. As for the troops, if they were not there, we would have witnessed unleashing of such a war as in the case of Karabakh by Azerbaijan. – The partnership of four forces, in the format of consultations, the Government’s resignation, torrent of criticism, nowadays also calls to come out to the streets, setting up barricades and so on. Isn’t it sharp? – And what is surprising here? Criticism is opposition’s sacred affair, and at all times and in all countries, opposition should be dealing with it, and so is in our country. Our peculiarity, though basically it is not a peculiarity, is within the same logic and behavior: to change the tone and demand the government’s resignation by being expanded in the field of quiet criticism and followed by the necessity to create tensions from time to time. Today, the opposition had to pass from a quiet criticism mode into more acute regime. Why? We had touched upon this issue many times, and we should note once again that the opposition field has a problem with establishment. Look, a year after the presidential elections showed that even consolidation of the electorate that was carried out during the presidential elections and conducted exclusively independent from the will and actions of our oppositions, they were unable to maintain, reinforce and multiply it, making it an essential support or a bridgehead for them to act during the next elections, first and foremost, the local governments, and onwards. And this is obvious to the naked eye. Consequently, today the opposition has the need for aggravating the situation artificially, which they are doing. As for specifically the 4 forces, they are absolutely different by ideas and their passed path, financial sources and clients, so different that it is hard to imagine and generate the political will that can, even for a short period of time, keep their ranks complete and solid. We see it happen every day. Even the views on Armenia’s voting in the UN were different. While some, fascinated by the interests of Ukraine, not even remembering that Ukraine has never been cared about Armenia’s interests (and often the contrary), were unanimously stating that allegedly it was a defeat on the world level, an isolation dissipating “outcast” and other qualities to our behavior (in fact, as a rule, it is done when we appear with more precise, solid and serious foreign policy), but even on that background, let’s say for example, the ARF failed to sin against the truth and honesty, and did not voice its positive estimates. – With regard to PAP, what will you say given the recent statements of building barricades? – In the opposition field, PAP by its origin and nature of operation is the lowest-base force, which until now is in search of fictitious names “for evading”: “non-government”, “alternative”, and so on to be refrained from announcing itself clearly an opposition. And this force, now, clearly realizing that the moment of making clarity in its stance has come, is trying to supplement the lack of its “being opposition” with stronger criticism, and conduct more active actions. Their behavior of the last four days proves this when at the moment of the statements PAP contributed all its energy on being introduced as a “champion” of the opposition to deepen the image of a more active opposition, and bringing the second and the third echelons of its ranks out to fight, thus showing that not only Naira Zohrabyan and Vardan Oskanyan are in the role of “passionate” opposition, moreover, vast ranks of the party are also in this state of mind. The statements that they are consolidating the youth organizations, and so on and so forth were in the same context, as well as the subsequent Q&A staging when under the leadership of a sensitive conductor, prosperous young people had come out to fight. So, the arrogances about the barricades, etc. are just a smokescreen or a means of throwing a duct in the eyes.
Nelly GRIGORYAN
Aravot Daily
