Member of the ARF Bureau, Member of Parliament Vahan Hovhannisyan
published an article entitled "Friends Or Brothers" in which he raises
the issue of relations between Europe and Armenia and Russia's stance
on that, arguing that Russia's concerns about betrayal of Armenia
are not grounded.

Recently Vahan Hovhannisyan has published articles on different topics,
which is a commendable practice for politicians. In Armenia politicians
are usually distinguished for interviews and press conferences in which
rational arguments are essentially replaced with insipid cliches or
false revolutionary.

This article has a different format which puts forth another type of
responsibility before a politician, establishes another type of public
and political culture, new public perceptions of politics. In this
regard, it is commendable that economic and political personalities
present to the public articles on their ideas about one issue or

As to the article, Vahan Hovhannisyan touches upon ideas which have
been rare in the Armenian environment, were expressed by one or two
authors only. I mean the practice of analysis of Russia's attitude the
policy of European integration. The most frequent interpretation is
that Armenia betrays Russia, lets it down and thereby enables Russia
to punish Armenia.

Those interested in this approach are people who use everything
for internal political purposes guided by "the worse, the better"
principle, and people on whom Russia relied, destroying the influence
of Moscow in Armenia. Of course, official Moscow is responsible
because these people act according to standards approved by Moscow.

However, it is already a matter of relations between people and
official Moscow.

Armenia's task is to explain to Moscow that if the state tries to
meet its economic, political and security needs, it is at least
a superficial approach or manipulation to present this attempt as
anti-Russian sentiment. How come a country's need is presented as
anti-Russian sentiment? Especially if Russia would not agree that
its sale of offensive weapon to Azerbaijan is an anti-Armenian step
and refers to is as common business.

>From this point of view, Vahan Hovhannisyan's approaches are
commendable both in terms of format and content. There is only one
exception. Concluding that the wording "either ... or" is unacceptable,
the member of parliament says that the Europeans have put the issue
this way. Vahan Hovhannisyan's attitude is negative.

In the long run, it is bad and wrong to speak about European
integration in the either ... or wording. However, the Europeans'
"either ... or" is strictly limited to the legal aspect. The Europeans
have stated clearly that Armenia cannot enter into association
with the EU and join the Customs Union simultaneously. In this case,
either ... or refers to precise legal categories for the simple reason
that a member state of the Customs Union is not independent in its
customs procedures while the association status of the EU requires
such independence.

Hence it is clear that Armenia is facing "either ... or" in this
specific case, and not noticing it will further complicate and tangle
Armenia's task. On the contrary, the EU has stated bluntly that in no
way does it oppose to integration of Armenia with Russia and the CIS
members. Problems may occur only in case they contradict the havens
of the process of relationship with the EU.

It is necessary to present this issue to the Armenian society precisely
because in the long run not Europe shapes the task but the people
engaged in manipulations.

Hakob Badalyan 19:15 31/07/2013 Story from News:

From: Baghdasarian