Foreign policy has little to do with the domestic political system
The principal thesis of the supporters of the current government is that Pashinyan and his team are fighting for Armenia’s sovereignty, but the “dark forces” want to take that sovereignty away from us. By “dark forces,” they naturally mean Russia and its agents here (the sinister “5th column”).
Some people in our country may “work” for the West. It is normal. If, with this, they can support a family, then one can only wish these people good luck. But, of course, there are RA citizens who sincerely believe in Ostap Bender, who said: “Be strong; the West will help us.”
According to this belief, there is a democratic, technologically and economically developed West and an authoritarian and financially backward Russia. I fully agree with that statement. I can only add that an authoritarian but technologically advanced China also exists. But admirers of the West are mistaken when they extend that record to foreign policy, thinking that the progressive West and backward Russia pursue fundamentally different foreign policies. In other words, they believe that the West’s foreign policy is determined by democracy and that of Russia by authoritarianism.
Read also
I have written on this topic many times; for example, in the article about the struggle between “two predators,” two empires. But here I would like to quote the opinion of a professional. I advise everyone to read the article of political scientist Arman Grigoryan, in which he mainly defends the position of his colleague Artur Khachikyan.
A quote from that article: “There is not at least one case when the West has supported democracy, human rights, and this or that norm of international law if it has contradicted its material and strategic interests (…). Instead, there are many cases where the West discards those principles, like yesterday’s newspaper, when those principles conflict with the interests mentioned above.” Naturally, this does not mean Russia is correct or better than the West. Nor, I think, does it mean that democracy or human rights should be rejected. It just means that in the foreign policy arena, all those categories, all that talk, have no meaning. And only bare interests are principal, which can be changed over the years and decades.
Another quote from the same article: “The foreign policy preferences and behavior of the countries do not differ much from each other in general, (…) the internal political system and ideologies are not of great importance in this matter.”
It’s hard to accept, and frankly, I wish it weren’t, but the events of recent years, particularly the 44-day war, should have freed us from dangerous illusions. Unfortunately, the illusions have not only not disappeared but are actively being spread and propagated. And political realism meets stiff resistance.
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
“Aravot” daily, 21.03.2023
