It’s dangerous when they speak about pro-Russian or pro-Western approach when matters relate to sovereignty

A few days ago the NA ratified the declaration on deployment of military objects in the territory of the states of Collective Security Pact. In parliament the harshest opponent of this declaration was the former foreign affairs minister, member of the Heritage faction Alexander Arzumanyan. We asked Mr. Arzumanyan to explain to us his approaches in regard to this matter.

– The declarations have been ratified on part of Armenia. What are the threats of it for Armenia?

– These declarations limit Armenia’s sovereignty and that is the greatest threat. Before that all such matters have been regulated by the Collective Security Pact charter. The charter defined that if any of the member states wishes to deploy military objects of non-Collective Security Pact state in its territory it could negotiate this matter within the Collective Security Pact and reach an agreement in that regard. Of course, in this case, we are first speaking about reaching consent with Russia.

This declaration has a provision, which says that such an agreement can be reached only after the written consent of member states. This means that now Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan should give their consent about the deployment of a military object in the territory of Armenia. The second provision is the explanation of “military infrastructure object,” which is missing in the charter. This can mean anything – from the NATO library till information center or a hospital. For example, in the neighboring Georgia several military hospitals were built by the American army and now they belong to Georgia, similar to the Russian hospital in Gyumri, which serve our citizens.

– What do our oppositionists mostly oppose?

– The debate was originally marred when the discussion was moved to another field. They all claimed that we needed to stay in the Pact. What will happen to us if we refuse the Pact and NATO wouldn’t send us a membership invite?  But this has got nothing to do with the content of the declaration and such a discussion leads us to a full absurd. Today we are not raising the matter of deflecting from the Pact. We don’t have that on our political agenda. We have chosen to be a member of the Pact but this doesn’t mean that we should ignore and infringe our Constitution and sign any document compelled by them.

– Don’t the members of the RPA realize the threats that you mentioned?

– Among the RPA members there are people, who really fought for the independence and sovereignty of this country. There are also young members within the RPA, who clearly understand the threats and risks that this document contains. But as we know on what principles the factions of ruling parties are formed and in what conditions people enter those factions we all know how they vote. They vote based on what the “boss” instructs.

– What do you think about the fact that not only the ruling party representatives but also several oppositionists voted for the declaration?

–  have a very negative opinion about that but who do you mean by saying opposition?

– ANC members Gagik Jhangiryan and Lyudmila Sargsyan.

– Back in the day our main disagreements with the ANC stemmed from the fact that the Congress didn’t have a unanimous foreign policy course. There were highlighted pro-Russian politicians. It’s good that Nikol Pashinyan found the will in himself and voted with his conscience.

– You are saying that the declaration is anti-constitutional. Why don’t you apply to the Constitutional Court and appeal the declaration?

– Here there is one cause. The package that was presented to the parliament contains a document, which is the conclusion of the Constitutional Court about the declaration. There is one sentence there, according to which the document doesn’t conflict with the Constitution Article 9. This provision reads, “The foreign policy of Armenia is conducted in accordance with international law norms and principles for the purpose of establishing friendly relations with all the states.” This is an absurd. This is the same thing as to say the declaration doesn’t conflict with “Sari Smbul” song.

– But it contradicts the first provision of the Constitution, which reads that Armenia is a sovereign state.

– That’s it. It is a sovereign state; it’s an independent state but the CC has taught us that none of its verdicts contains any contradictions. It means that the decisions are from the genre of absurd. The executive tells the CC that this is necessary for us and they say that it doesn’t conflict with the Constitution.

– If you exclude applying to the CC do you see any other ways to neutralize the threats of declaration?

– First, the society should be informed about that. It’s dangerous that here they are trying to speak about pro-Russian or pro-Western approaches because this relates to the sovereignty of Armenia and the society should make the government to serve the national interests. In the future, there are indeed mechanisms on how to recall the declarations. The same applies to the mechanisms of deflecting from the Collective Security Pact. But this is the issue of future generations. I expect that whenever in Armenia the issue of deployment of any military object is raised Tajikistan and Kazakhstan will vote against that. In that case, we will start to more seriously consider the expediency of this declaration.

– In a number of CIS states there are not only military infrastructure objects but also Russian military bases, so should Armenia give its consent that these remain deployed?

– This matter won’t be solved in Armenia. If tomorrow raises this matter in Russia then it will demand its most loyal friend to vote against. So for me it remains unclear what relations the American base of Kazakhstan has got to do with the national interests of Armenia and why should be spoil our relations with our friends? In his speech even Shavarsh Kocharyan mentioned that the declaration doesn’t relate so much to Armenia. Russia has issues in Central Asia. Why would we deal with something that is not geographically linked to us – neither culturally nor by other aspects?

– Is it possible that Kyrgyzstan won’t ratify the protocol and that it might be cancelled?

– There is a very interesting moment in the declaration, which says that the declaration will become binding after he ratification of four states. I think, as usual we are among the first ones to ratify it. We can assume which the three other countries will be and what will happen to the ones that refuse to ratify it.

– Did the Free Democrats Party discuss the possibility of its participation in the upcoming presidential elections?

– Originally when it was decided that we would run the parliamentary race with the Heritage list we stated that we view this as a long-term cooperation, which will also include the presidential elections and the Yerevan elections succeeding them. We don’t have any decision to nominate a presidential candidate; we don’t have any preference either. And Raffi Hovhannisian stated that he might run and if he does so we should stay loyal to our word and endorse the joint candidate.

– Raffi Hovhannisian recently blamed the leader of Free Democrats of cheating them and breaking their promise. Can this affect the violation of further agreements?

– Soon Khachatur Kokobelyan will be in Armenia and these matters will be resolved because we have the wish to continue long-term cooperation.