Aram G. Sarksyan
Leader of Armenian Democratic Party (ADP)
Background Information
1. Armenian Democratic Party (ADP)
2. The party was registered in October, 1991. It counts 5000 people. There are subdivisions almost in
all the marzes of the country and in all the communities in Yerevan.
3. It has one seat in the Parliament. It is not represented in the other branches of power.
Answers
1. We definitely should be integrated into the European structures and receive a status as high as possible.
At the same time, taking into account the situation in the region, Armenia cannot help interacting with
the neighbors who are not involved in the European structures. I concretely mean Iran and the whole Near
East. This can be explained by the factor of the existence of the Armenian Diaspora in these countries.
The question with NATO is debatable. The thing is that the attitude to the expansion is not unambiguous.
If NATO is transformed into a regional organization of security and does not choose elements of expansion,
then we should approach it, taking part in the programs directed towards the reinforcement of peace in
the region. NATO membership is hardly acceptable for Armenia now, at least for the reason that Armenia’s
obligations in respect to the Treaty on Collective Security Organization (TOSC) are quite serious, and
revision of such an approach requires a serious analysis.
2. To my mind, the policy for European integration is a means to settle the geopolitical problems as
well as a stimulus for development of social relations and economy of the country.
From the geopolitical viewpoint, at this point we can certainly state that the tectonic layers of geopolitics
are developing and moving, and that they have not been established yet. Therefore, it is still unknown
what the mosaic will look like. In this situation not taking into consideration the role of the united
Europe in formation of this geopolitical mosaic, would be, mildly speaking, naive. If Armenia wants to
be integrated into the European structures, it should take into account geopolitical interests. Europe,
satiated with two devastating World Wars has acquired immunity and will not let similar situations to
repeat. And the unification tendency of Europe explicitly speaks of Europe’s striving to secure all its
area and, by involving new territories, to create an even more secure line of contact with the instable
geopolitical dimensions. That is why from the geopolitical viewpoint it is very beneficial for Armenia
to appear in European integration. The development of social relations, especially in the sphere of human
rights, is the main achievement of Europe which should be taken into account. As to economy, Armenia
may become part of Europe also because it can connect Europe with the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean
or the East. We have a unique opportunity to connect any location in Europe with the countries of the
Persian Gulf by land: by railroad and by car roads. If this program is realized, then firstly, we and
all the participating countries will receive very considerable economic dividends. This can be part of
the TRASECA program. Secondly, in that way we will create stable peace in the region, as all the member
states of the program will be interested in stability of the situation.
3. The matter should be viewed in two aspects. On the one hand, it is good that we are trying to unify
the legislation of all countries. Against a background of the global situation especially with environmental
issues this becomes even more important. The unification of human rights, the state’s attitude to human
rights, social institutes and institutes of democracy are also positive phenomena. I want to point out
the only disadvantage – the local specific features should be taken into account, the specifics of the
given nation and the given state, because as soon as we start rushing through the unification process
of the legislation, serious problem arise. What has been established and enrooted in Europe for 300 –
500 years cannot be transferred onto another territory all of a rush. There should be a special code
of specific features so that the transition occurs as painless as possible. Sexual minorities and gay
marriages in particular are alien to RA. These are not a kind of human rights which should obligatorily
be taken into account. Besides, the level of mass culture present in the USA and European countries should
not necessarily be replanted in the new soil.
4. I would not put NATO and EU on the same plain. To us, who are just starting to move towards Europe
and are far from accession into EU, NATO and EU they are not at the same level. The obstacle for the
accession into NATO is the Treaty on Collective Security Organization which Armenia is involved in. Serious
arguments are needed in order to review the TCSO membership. Besides, the question of our relations with
Turkey is not definite yet so far and we are not aware of Turkey’s true geopolitical aspirations. Even
though they say that they will review their position when joining EU, this is not happening yet. NATO
does not guarantee that Armenia will appear in the system of common security, especially with the existence
of the Karabakh conflict.
A hindrance to integration into EU is that the level of social and industrial relations in our country
does not comply with the required level. Other impediments are presence of post Soviet space, the unregulated
character of all relations, including with Europe. At this point we are at the junction and it is still
unclear when all this will become definite. So far Europe itself does not want to accept such new members
as Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia based on the fact that in these countries the level of all relations
does not comply with the European requirements.
5. The European standards cannot be ideal in all aspects. However they are much higher than for example
those in the Eastern countries. Hence, European standards to us are a value, a definite achievement,
which should be respected and which should be strived for, but again not blindly. We want to maintain
our originality and traditions. We think we have things that other can learn from us. Let this not sound
pretentious, but that is true, because we are the representative of a nation that has existed for millennia.
And it could not survive by mere principles only. This should be considered by the Europeans who often
do not have enough information on the history and culture of the given nation.
The position of our party, surely, differs from the official one which does not critically analyze things
offered. We should treat the Europeans’ appeals with understanding but at the same time we cannot refuse,
by someone’s dictates, things that are dear to us. The authorities of the country proceed from the position
of maintaining their own posts fearing to lose the goodwill of Europe. The opposition is not worried
about this factor.
6. Unfortunately, not at this point, because public opinion is practically worthless in our country.
Formation of public opinion, especially on foreign policy matters, is not considered by the government
of the country. According to the current Constitution, the president of the country determines the foreign
policy himself and consideration of public opinion is not noticed in his actions. Moreover, many questions
are veiled by mystery and secrecy. In other words, the society does not possess the information and cannot
react to specific actions. Here is our difference with the European countries and the European society.
If the European society actively influences the policy of the country, in our country it is just the
opposite.
7. Our party is for the participation in the NATO program Partnership for Peace. As for EU, we are
more involved in the programs of OSCE and the Council of Europe, than those of EU. I do not think that
participation in the CIS programs excludes participation in the NATO and EU programs. This can be a parallel
trend, taking into account that many countries of CIS also aim at integration into the European structures.
That is why I do not see anything mutually exclusive here. However, there is the aspect, dealing with
the obligations within the framework of TCSO.
The relations with Russia are a special case, too. Armenia was part of the Russian Empire for 150 years,
was part of the USSR, and at the same time had serious intertwining processes in the cultural and spiritual
aspects. One should not go off half-cocked – if we are with Europe then not with Russia, or vice versa.
Furthermore, strong tendencies of cooperation with Europe can be noticed in Russia too, taking into account
the relations of Russia with France, Germany and England. That is why I cannot see any antagonism. However,
strategic cooperation with Russia should be defined also from the view of the extent to which the Russian
market is acceptable for economy of Armenia. The military relations are an important factor, too. Besides,
there is another very important factor – almost 2.5 million Armenians live in Russia. These aspects cannot
be disregarded in addressing foreign policy issues. I am not an adherent of the white and black approach,
and the hues should certainly be taken into account. The Europeans should take into consideration that
the countries, which want integration, are not in rush. There is a need for attention to common interests;
otherwise there will be no equal partnership.
Iran is our neighbor which establishes good relations with us, and does not put any conditions. This
is extremely important, taking into account the relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan. Thus, if Europe
or any other country has its specific attitude to that country, it does not yet mean that Armenia should
completely obey and accept their position. If geopolitical interests of our country become so serious
that it will be necessary to reconsider the relations with Iran, it should be deeply analyzed. I am a
supporter of a gradual involvement of Iran in the integration schemes with Europe. Economic projects
can contribute to it.
As to other countries, there is always a possibility of establishing relations with other countries as
far as they do not interfere with the general policy. In this aspect we can be more flexible.
8. This is a serious issue which Europeans themselves should answer. Everything depends on their position
and what is meant by national security. There are no such systems available in the world yet. If NATO
thinks itself a self-sufficient power in order to establish and secure peace, then it is debatable as
the events in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan speak of the opposite. There is no universal system of security
and every state will take into account its own interests and specifics in order to, first of all, provide
its national security. But the more the European integration focuses on economic relations and involvement
of the countries into big and serious regional programs, the more it will contribute to strengthening
every individual country’s security. Europe pays less attention to that aspect, because it is busy with
its internal matters as it is in the process of formation in terms of economic and fundamental relations.
Europe has no time for such programs yet, but, on the whole, our involvement and integration will strengthen
our security.
9. Today the unification of all systems takes place in the world: an attempt is being made to unify
political, economic and social ways of life to ensure easier management. But I have a special point to
make here. In the modern world one should have a manifest that will include all mandatory conditions
to be fulfilled, especially on environmental issues, and in this aspect the unification of the legislation.
And in order to achieve this we should arrive at a global consensus on fundamental questions. But on
the other hand, the standardization and unification of the same way of life is not completely acceptable
as often it is done didactically and compulsorily. People cannot immediately change their lifestyle,
they are not completely ready, and they are not willing either. Thus we will lose the possibility of
global development: if there is no need to develop national specific features, then, in fact, there is
a mere technocratic approach. Nevertheless, on the whole, our party and the country treat the aspiration
for the European integration very consciously. It is based on a serious analysis but the above-mentioned
specifics are important, too.
February 19, 2005
