Honestly speaking, I did not see either sharp criticism, nor extraordinary statements and nor, moreover, aspirations towards the sovereignty of Armenia within the speech of the EU Ambassador to Armenia, Piotr Switalski. In this field it is good, in that field it is bad, here a progress is in place, there – it is not. Both Switalski and other Western diplomats have given similar speeches before as well.
I do not think that he has come out of his diplomatic functions. But if there is such thing, then we have the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which should strictly follow the behavior of the ambassadors and call the diplomat erred to the Ministry and indicate his mistake. If there is no such thing, then let me not believe in the announcements about “interfering in the domestic issues.”
Let us take a similar case. During the elections, the member of the electoral commission Arayik Gevorgyan screamed at journalist Hripsime Jebejyan from “Aravot” swearing on and threatening her, and the police refused to lodge a criminal case announcing that there is no corpus delicti in place. Suppose, a diplomat voices that fact during a seminar. Whether it will be considered as an aspiration towards the sovereignty of Armenia? I do not think so. That is simply an alert directed towards the electoral commission and the police. If they want, they will pay attention to that, if not – they will behave themselves as “sovereign” from law and morals.
Political figures and officials, in my opinion, should continue to cooperate particularly with the EU, it will not bring forth any other consequence but a benefit. For example, the essential decrease of serious violations in the polling stations is one of these benefits. What should be done to lower the administrative pressure and vote-buying? It is simply a matter of politics. Is Switalski right to have indicated that issue? I am sure he is, and there is nothing to get offended of.
Therefore, I would suggest the representatives of the government not to proceed with the announcements of “an offended” and, as they say, to shift the conversation into the field of restructuring. What does that field constitute? Assuredly, it implies a dialogue with the ambassadors not so much as with the own society. And the ambassadors… They express the value system of their countries and institutions. Ivan Volynkin, for example, advised to limit the activities of the NGOs back then.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
