| Watch the video |
Mr. Oskanian, the attention of Armenia’s political circles seems to be focused on the protocols’ ratification process. Yet, isn’t that interest already unnecessary and aren’t some things already pre-determined, so that focusing on them simply means not focusing on other more important matters?
Once these protocols were signed, the rest for me is already just a technical matter whose discussion is nearly pointless. For me, it’s still incomprehensible, unacceptable and unexplainable that the independent Republic of Armenia, which as a full subject of international law, is obliged to defend our own interests, signed, without thinking long, a document which unambiguously contradicts our national interests. As you say, this situation that’s been created is absurd: after this obvious capitulation, we are all, to a man, waiting and disussing what Turkey will do, whether they will open the border or not. The ball really is in Turkey’s court, but i don’t see that that’s anything to boast about. After all these Armenian concessions, the ball should have at least been in our court. We are wasting our resources and energy on a process that is no longer under our control and which will require untold amounts of time and energy to neutralize its consequences.
Mr. Oskanian, what is at the basis of a country’s foreign policy? Can it be cut off from a country’s many unresolved internal, economic, political, legal, cultural problems and under those circumstances qualitatively differ from the tense domestic situation those unresolved problems have created?
You know, I’m confident that if the authorities invested a fraction of the huge time and energy they put into Armenia-Turkey process into resolving domestic problems, even they would have been surprised by the results. Armenia is a small country and our people are a grateful people. Even a small effort directed at solving our internal problems would bring huge results and our people would be very appreciative.
Armenia’s suspended, inconclusive, incomprehensible situation is perhaps best expressed in the economy. Here, there’s nearly 20% decline, but more concerning is that there is no foreseeable predictability about what is still to come, what the economy will be like after the crisis.
That’s exactly the problem, that the attention of both the authorities and the public is focused on one thing. Worse, even the solution of our economic troubles is being sought in the context of Armenia-Turkey relations. By presenting the opening of the Armenia-Turkey border as a solution for social or economic problems, the effort is to at least assure the public’s neutral reaction to that process. But really, the public’s support, as well as the solution to our economic problems ought to be sought elsewhere. We’ve had an 18% economic decline for how many months now. These indicators can’t be explained away by the international crisis alone. The crisis is global, but it is Armenia that is experiencing the greatest decline. It’s in first place in rate of decline in the CIS, and in the worst ten in the world. And let no one try to convince us that even before the crisis set in, that Armenia’s starting position was the worst. In the case of any illness, the most important thing is to decide the right treatment at the right time. If the illness is ignored for months on end, or the wrong treatment is prescribed, we shouldn’t try to explain it away by saying that the patient’s resistance is low. So, the problem is not the crisis, but the government’s non-commensurate response. Almost nothing is being done either for long term health of the economy, or to appropriately respond to the crisis. There is talk, but no steps are being taken, regarding the diversification of the economy, removing monopolies, encouraging small and medium size enterpreises, or effective use of loans. Our limited resources are aimed not at increasing demand, but increasing supply. But under such circumstances, the only way to stimulate the economy is to not to support production but to push demand, that is, consumption.
Besides that, there is also the matter of political responsibility. It would be good if the government, before presenting a new budget, presented a written explanation as to why none of last year’s budget line items correspond with reality. Otherwise, it’s possible to present a budget every year, not at all corresponding to reality, and to bear no responsibility for that.
Nevertheless, returning to the issue of the Armenia-Turkey border: the government sees the solution for many fundamental problems, or at least says that it does, in the opening of that border and the regulation of Armenia-Turkey relations. For example, they say that it will help to remove the monopolies in Armenia’s economy. Do you think the miraculous effect of open Armenia-Turkey borders on Armenia’s economy is realistic?
I don’t understand such logic. The solution to the problem of monopolies is not in the length and quantity of borders. Otherwise it’s difficult to explain why a significant portion of the products imported through the open Georgian border belong to monopolies. Is Georgia guilty for that? Monopolies are formed within Armenia, as a result of customs arrangements and other systemic and legal arrangements, as well problems having to do with law and justice. Doing away with monopolies is linked to the political will of the authorities, it’s linked to doing away with the tight links between government and business, and the indiscriminate application of the law.
In your opinion, what is the key to resolving Armenia’s fundamental problems, such as the tight links between business and government, the existence of a set oligopolic and monopolistic system? What practical solutions are necessary to overcome them?
These are political problems and the solutions must be political. The first problem today is the absence of checks and balances. The government does what it wants – right or wrong, good or bad – but the public, the opposition, the rank and file citizenry have no mechanisms through which they can participate in or influence the process. The people are not the master of their land. A monopoly of power is not always a good thing, even for those in power. I’ve said this before: if the country’s leaders had the audacity to be enterprising and take the initiative in domestic matters, rather than foreign relations, even at the expense of their own power, the outcomes would have been more positive for the country, and even for those in power. I saw that in my years in office. Expending resources outside and ignoring internal problems gets us nowhere. During this year and a half it would have been possible to implement real reforms, in human rights, freedom of speech, and in liberalizing the economic environment. These are opportunities we let get away. Had we used them both the country and those in power would have enjoyed both political and economic dividends. Instead, those opportunities are not being utilized, even today. For example, I don’t understand why even after amnesty, opposition figures still remain behind bars. Why can’t broadcast space be opened up, what prevents the solution of countless other domestic problems, all of which require simple will and audacity, but which can produce great results?
In any case, in your opinion, which of Armenia’s problems have greater potential to mobilize the public – the foreign or national issues, or the problems with building a democratic, rule of law country? In that sense, is it right to divide issues between national and ‘non-national’ issues? Aren’t the problems associated with democratic and legal reforms a national priority, or shouldn’t they be?
You can’t separate them. There are only one set of national interests. If you try to see who is likely to mobilize more support – those who focus on domestic problems or those who focus on foreign problems – there simply won’t be mobilization. The two are so interlinked that trying to separate them means half-baked solutions for both. One can’t choose to mobilize around foreign policy, galvanize public opinion, then try to influence the government when that government is not prepared to support free speech, where the parliament is not representative, when the justice system doesn’t work.
What do you think is the average citizen’s single problem, single challenge which must be overcome and what role should each political actor take on in order to serve the citizen’s interests?
You know, it’s insulting when we say that the public is indifferent, and that they are concerned only with their daily bread. It is in every citizen’s interest, regardless of political leanings, to live in a free and open society, to have the opportunity to form a government thru fair elections, to live in a prosperous country whose government relies on the resources of its own country and its own people, and not on the charity of others. The people are not indifferent. How can they be when each decision effects their lives, the lives of their children? What the government has done is taken from them all the normal channels available to citizens to express interest, to participate, to influence those processes which effect their lives. As a result, they feel powerless. Our task today is to work, to the extent of our abilities, to struggle for each of those channels – whether that’s freedom of speech, justice, civil liberties and finally, free elections.