Tweet
ARMENIAN AGENCY CRITICIZES "PSEUDO-PRO-WESTERN" POLITICIANS
Mediamax news agency, Yerevan
12 Mar 07
An Armenian news agency has sharply criticized lack of new ideas of
the politicians who present themselves as pro-Western. There is no
difference between statements of the "pro-Russian" authorities and
opposition politicians who are calling for closer cooperation with
the West, it said. The following is text of report by Armenian news
agency Mediamax headlined "Lack of new ideas is compensated by a
`pro-Western' course"; subheadings have been inserted editorially:
12 March: In May 2006, we published the article entitled "Why there
are no real pro-Western politicians in Armenia?" in our weekly
analytical review.
Today, when it is two months left for the upcoming parliamentary
election of 12 May to take place, it becomes obvious that the given
topic is still urgent. Moreover, the already disputable notion of a
"pro-Western politician" in Armenia devalued to such a degree that
the classification of the politicians, using the traditional formulas,
became almost impossible.
What does "pro-Western" mean in Armenia?
To begin with, it is necessary to define, what they really mean saying
"West" in Armenia and, correspondingly, who should be considered a
"pro-Western" politician?
If the definition for the "West" covers the European Union, the Council
of Europe, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and others,
it is obvious that all the political forces of Armenia (with the
exception of the marginal left-wings) are pro-Western. All the large
political forces of the country keep to the opinion that "the policy
of European integration of Armenia does not have an alternative".
Both the opposition forces and the pro-authority ones agree with
this. If we take the economic issues as a starting point, the World
Bank has been already for a few years describing Armenia an exemplary
partner, which demonstrates impressive speeds of growth and reforms,
Armenia is a member of the WTO and occupies traditionally high
positions in the annual Index of Economic Freedom issued by the
Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.
If saying "West" we mean the USA, then, once again, with the exception
of marginal forces, you will not be able to find any party on Armenia,
which would openly be for the reduction of the volume of the relations
between the USA and Armenia. The aid, rendered to Armenia, starting
from the point when it gained independence, exceeded 1bn dollars, there
is the Millennium Challenge program, costing over 250m dollars, being
implemented in Armenia, the political dialogue is at a high level.
The only reason for the Armenian peacekeepers fulfilling service
in Iraq at present are the relations with the USA, and the defence
minister recently openly admitted that the decision on prolongation
of their mandate for one more year is reasoned by the striving not
to spoil the relations with the USA "for no reason".
If, when saying "West" we mean the NATO, everything is fine here
as well.
Armenia has been implementing its Individual Partnership Action Plan
with the NATO for already a year. Moreover, this very Plan became
the driving force for the adoption of the National Security Strategy
in Armenia. And, it is a basis for the implementation of large-scale
defence reforms, which aim at the implementation of a civil element
and the increase of public control.
There is no need to explain that the decrease of direct influence of
the military on the political processes is one of the most important
preconditions for strengthening democracy.
So, what do we have? The main political forces of Armenia do not have
conceptual discords as to the issues of Armenia's integration into
the EU and its participation of the European Neighbourhood Policy,
do not protest against the growth of cooperation with the USA, and
are not against the modernization of the Armenian army, following
the Western model. What is the problem then?
There is a problem. And more than one. If we talk about the perception
of being "pro-Western" in the very Armenia, the strategic mistake of
the local politicians is that the Western or the Euro-Atlantic values,
for the protection of which such unions as the EU and the NATO are
established, are not abstract, but quite concrete notions. Can the
politicians, who live at the expense of incomes, which tens and
hundreds of times exceed their official salaries, talk about being
adherent to Western values?
Minor party leader calls for NATO membership
The leader of the very small Liberal Progressive Party of Armenia
(LPPA), Hovhannes Hovhannisyan, has not been losing a single
opportunity to state about how necessary it is for Armenia to enter
NATO. We will focus on the validity of these statements later, and
now let us open the pre-election list of the LPPA and make sure that
in the "workplace" column of the three leaders of the list, headed
by Hovhannisyan, it is written "does not work".
Can a politician, who is adherent to the stance of Western values,
convince his allies of the fact that he and the other leaders of
the party manage to live, working nowhere? Even if we leave out the
particularly financial part [of the issue], there arises a question:
can a party really represent strength, if the three leaders of the
given party do not work, and, to all appearances, are not even upset
by the fact?
If we talk about the perception of the "pro-Western notion" in Armenia
from the part of the very Western circles, here also everything
goes not very smoothly. One gets the impression that in the West,
"pro-Western" are considered the people who, for instance, are for
Armenia's membership in NATO. The problem, however, is that today
there are no politicians in Armenia, who would be able to reason the
benefits of the republic's membership in NATO.
The abovementioned Hovhannes Hovhannisyan only declares that Armenia
should enter NATO. He does not talk about exactly what new guarantees
of security Armenia will gain after the entry. He does not talk about
how he is going to convince Turkey of the necessity of Armenia's
entering NATO. And, finally, he does not talk about how Armenia is
going to resist the obviously harsh reaction of Moscow.
Let us leave aside the political issues and turn to the technical
ones. What prevents Hovhannisyan and his allies from holding public
debates on the topic of implementation of the Individual Partnership
Action Plan with NATO or on the National Security Strategy, which
was recently adopted? Do they believe that such complex issues can
be decided upon without public debates and dialogues?
No difference between statements by ex-speaker and officials
The absurdity of the situation also lies in the fact that the Armenian
politicians, who pretend to be pro-Western, in reality do not say
anything that would fundamentally differ from the stance of the
Armenian authorities, which are considered pro-Russian. A proof for
that can be the article of the Orinats Yerkir Party's leader, Artur
Baghdasaryan, ex-speaker of the Armenian parliament. The article was
published on 28 February in The Washington Times.
Baghdasaryan is the one who positions himself as "the main pro-Western
politician" of Armenia.
In the article, he says that "Armenia's future is tied to European
integration and on deepening of our relations with NATO". As it has
already been mentioned above, there is a consensus as to these issues
among the political forces of Armenia.
"The relations with the West, though, should not be contrasted with
our relations with Russia. We need a balanced foreign policy. We also
need a positive relationship with Iran. The Iranian nuclear issue
is an element of concern, but I believe the international community
needs dialogue with Iran," the leader of Orinats Yerkir stated. The
Armenian Foreign Ministry adheres to the same opinion.
"I support resolving the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict based on mutual
compromises, and I support normalizing relations with Azerbaijan,"
Artur Baghdasaryan stated in his article. He also noted that the
proposals on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict were being
rejected "not because they were unjust or impractical, but because
the political processes in our region are too weak".
However, the ex-speaker does not offer any recipes for the settlement
of the Karabakh issue. It would be much more valuable if he held
an analysis of the existing proposals on the settlement, pointed
out their strengths and weaknesses, proposed new ideas. And here
the readers of The Washington Times (here we talk not only about
the ordinary readers, but also many experts) may get the impression
that the political field of Armenia is full of harsh nationalists and
only Artur Baghdasaryan is for the settlement and the normalization
of the relations with Azerbaijan.
The same concerns Artur Baghdasaryan's statements regarding the
prospect of the normalization of the relations with Turkey.
"Border opening and establishing economic cooperation with Turkey is
important for Armenia and necessary for diversifying our communication
routes. History between Armenia and Turkey has sometimes been tragic,
such as the 1915 Armenian genocide, but we must look to the future
as our citizens want better lives tomorrow.
And I think we could build our relations based on a broader approach,
without preconditions, and simultaneously not rejecting and honestly
looking at the past", the leader of the Orinats Yerkir writes in
his article.
Where are the concrete proposals? Everything Artur Baghdasaryan
mentioned about, the official authorities of Armenia have been voicing
tens of times, and each time faced the blank wall of silence or the
denial from the part of Turkey. How is he going to overcome that wall?
The lack of new ideas and the absence of political bravery for their
generation here is the main problem of the Armenian political forces.
When there are no new ideas, they use other, much shallower and
dubious tools. The very fact of publication of articles in The Wall
Street Journal or The Washington Times is presented as a proof of
being "selected ones" for these or those politicians, and each their
visit to Berlin, Paris, Washington, or Moscow is presented in their
homeland as evidence of their "great political authority".
Of course, one can also reproach the West as to some points. The West
continues perceiving Armenia through the prism of old stereotypes and
preconceived attitude. However, the most part of the blame rests on the
authorities and the public sector of Armenia. They did not manage to
take advantage of the products of good interstate relations of Armenia
with the USA and a number of European states to establish relations
with think tanks, research institutes, individual experts and the
media to provide adequate information on the processes in Armenia.
The very absence of such partnership becomes one of the reasons for the
appearance of pseudo-pro-Western politicians, who write articles, the
contents of which do not differ from the speeches of the officials,
but who, at the same time, represent themselves in the role of
"fighters against the regime".
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Mediamax news agency, Yerevan
12 Mar 07
An Armenian news agency has sharply criticized lack of new ideas of
the politicians who present themselves as pro-Western. There is no
difference between statements of the "pro-Russian" authorities and
opposition politicians who are calling for closer cooperation with
the West, it said. The following is text of report by Armenian news
agency Mediamax headlined "Lack of new ideas is compensated by a
`pro-Western' course"; subheadings have been inserted editorially:
12 March: In May 2006, we published the article entitled "Why there
are no real pro-Western politicians in Armenia?" in our weekly
analytical review.
Today, when it is two months left for the upcoming parliamentary
election of 12 May to take place, it becomes obvious that the given
topic is still urgent. Moreover, the already disputable notion of a
"pro-Western politician" in Armenia devalued to such a degree that
the classification of the politicians, using the traditional formulas,
became almost impossible.
What does "pro-Western" mean in Armenia?
To begin with, it is necessary to define, what they really mean saying
"West" in Armenia and, correspondingly, who should be considered a
"pro-Western" politician?
If the definition for the "West" covers the European Union, the Council
of Europe, the World Bank, the World Trade Organization and others,
it is obvious that all the political forces of Armenia (with the
exception of the marginal left-wings) are pro-Western. All the large
political forces of the country keep to the opinion that "the policy
of European integration of Armenia does not have an alternative".
Both the opposition forces and the pro-authority ones agree with
this. If we take the economic issues as a starting point, the World
Bank has been already for a few years describing Armenia an exemplary
partner, which demonstrates impressive speeds of growth and reforms,
Armenia is a member of the WTO and occupies traditionally high
positions in the annual Index of Economic Freedom issued by the
Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal.
If saying "West" we mean the USA, then, once again, with the exception
of marginal forces, you will not be able to find any party on Armenia,
which would openly be for the reduction of the volume of the relations
between the USA and Armenia. The aid, rendered to Armenia, starting
from the point when it gained independence, exceeded 1bn dollars, there
is the Millennium Challenge program, costing over 250m dollars, being
implemented in Armenia, the political dialogue is at a high level.
The only reason for the Armenian peacekeepers fulfilling service
in Iraq at present are the relations with the USA, and the defence
minister recently openly admitted that the decision on prolongation
of their mandate for one more year is reasoned by the striving not
to spoil the relations with the USA "for no reason".
If, when saying "West" we mean the NATO, everything is fine here
as well.
Armenia has been implementing its Individual Partnership Action Plan
with the NATO for already a year. Moreover, this very Plan became
the driving force for the adoption of the National Security Strategy
in Armenia. And, it is a basis for the implementation of large-scale
defence reforms, which aim at the implementation of a civil element
and the increase of public control.
There is no need to explain that the decrease of direct influence of
the military on the political processes is one of the most important
preconditions for strengthening democracy.
So, what do we have? The main political forces of Armenia do not have
conceptual discords as to the issues of Armenia's integration into
the EU and its participation of the European Neighbourhood Policy,
do not protest against the growth of cooperation with the USA, and
are not against the modernization of the Armenian army, following
the Western model. What is the problem then?
There is a problem. And more than one. If we talk about the perception
of being "pro-Western" in the very Armenia, the strategic mistake of
the local politicians is that the Western or the Euro-Atlantic values,
for the protection of which such unions as the EU and the NATO are
established, are not abstract, but quite concrete notions. Can the
politicians, who live at the expense of incomes, which tens and
hundreds of times exceed their official salaries, talk about being
adherent to Western values?
Minor party leader calls for NATO membership
The leader of the very small Liberal Progressive Party of Armenia
(LPPA), Hovhannes Hovhannisyan, has not been losing a single
opportunity to state about how necessary it is for Armenia to enter
NATO. We will focus on the validity of these statements later, and
now let us open the pre-election list of the LPPA and make sure that
in the "workplace" column of the three leaders of the list, headed
by Hovhannisyan, it is written "does not work".
Can a politician, who is adherent to the stance of Western values,
convince his allies of the fact that he and the other leaders of
the party manage to live, working nowhere? Even if we leave out the
particularly financial part [of the issue], there arises a question:
can a party really represent strength, if the three leaders of the
given party do not work, and, to all appearances, are not even upset
by the fact?
If we talk about the perception of the "pro-Western notion" in Armenia
from the part of the very Western circles, here also everything
goes not very smoothly. One gets the impression that in the West,
"pro-Western" are considered the people who, for instance, are for
Armenia's membership in NATO. The problem, however, is that today
there are no politicians in Armenia, who would be able to reason the
benefits of the republic's membership in NATO.
The abovementioned Hovhannes Hovhannisyan only declares that Armenia
should enter NATO. He does not talk about exactly what new guarantees
of security Armenia will gain after the entry. He does not talk about
how he is going to convince Turkey of the necessity of Armenia's
entering NATO. And, finally, he does not talk about how Armenia is
going to resist the obviously harsh reaction of Moscow.
Let us leave aside the political issues and turn to the technical
ones. What prevents Hovhannisyan and his allies from holding public
debates on the topic of implementation of the Individual Partnership
Action Plan with NATO or on the National Security Strategy, which
was recently adopted? Do they believe that such complex issues can
be decided upon without public debates and dialogues?
No difference between statements by ex-speaker and officials
The absurdity of the situation also lies in the fact that the Armenian
politicians, who pretend to be pro-Western, in reality do not say
anything that would fundamentally differ from the stance of the
Armenian authorities, which are considered pro-Russian. A proof for
that can be the article of the Orinats Yerkir Party's leader, Artur
Baghdasaryan, ex-speaker of the Armenian parliament. The article was
published on 28 February in The Washington Times.
Baghdasaryan is the one who positions himself as "the main pro-Western
politician" of Armenia.
In the article, he says that "Armenia's future is tied to European
integration and on deepening of our relations with NATO". As it has
already been mentioned above, there is a consensus as to these issues
among the political forces of Armenia.
"The relations with the West, though, should not be contrasted with
our relations with Russia. We need a balanced foreign policy. We also
need a positive relationship with Iran. The Iranian nuclear issue
is an element of concern, but I believe the international community
needs dialogue with Iran," the leader of Orinats Yerkir stated. The
Armenian Foreign Ministry adheres to the same opinion.
"I support resolving the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict based on mutual
compromises, and I support normalizing relations with Azerbaijan,"
Artur Baghdasaryan stated in his article. He also noted that the
proposals on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict were being
rejected "not because they were unjust or impractical, but because
the political processes in our region are too weak".
However, the ex-speaker does not offer any recipes for the settlement
of the Karabakh issue. It would be much more valuable if he held
an analysis of the existing proposals on the settlement, pointed
out their strengths and weaknesses, proposed new ideas. And here
the readers of The Washington Times (here we talk not only about
the ordinary readers, but also many experts) may get the impression
that the political field of Armenia is full of harsh nationalists and
only Artur Baghdasaryan is for the settlement and the normalization
of the relations with Azerbaijan.
The same concerns Artur Baghdasaryan's statements regarding the
prospect of the normalization of the relations with Turkey.
"Border opening and establishing economic cooperation with Turkey is
important for Armenia and necessary for diversifying our communication
routes. History between Armenia and Turkey has sometimes been tragic,
such as the 1915 Armenian genocide, but we must look to the future
as our citizens want better lives tomorrow.
And I think we could build our relations based on a broader approach,
without preconditions, and simultaneously not rejecting and honestly
looking at the past", the leader of the Orinats Yerkir writes in
his article.
Where are the concrete proposals? Everything Artur Baghdasaryan
mentioned about, the official authorities of Armenia have been voicing
tens of times, and each time faced the blank wall of silence or the
denial from the part of Turkey. How is he going to overcome that wall?
The lack of new ideas and the absence of political bravery for their
generation here is the main problem of the Armenian political forces.
When there are no new ideas, they use other, much shallower and
dubious tools. The very fact of publication of articles in The Wall
Street Journal or The Washington Times is presented as a proof of
being "selected ones" for these or those politicians, and each their
visit to Berlin, Paris, Washington, or Moscow is presented in their
homeland as evidence of their "great political authority".
Of course, one can also reproach the West as to some points. The West
continues perceiving Armenia through the prism of old stereotypes and
preconceived attitude. However, the most part of the blame rests on the
authorities and the public sector of Armenia. They did not manage to
take advantage of the products of good interstate relations of Armenia
with the USA and a number of European states to establish relations
with think tanks, research institutes, individual experts and the
media to provide adequate information on the processes in Armenia.
The very absence of such partnership becomes one of the reasons for the
appearance of pseudo-pro-Western politicians, who write articles, the
contents of which do not differ from the speeches of the officials,
but who, at the same time, represent themselves in the role of
"fighters against the regime".
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress