0 8000 12 11

In an interview with Tert.am Chairman of the Helsinki Citizens Assembly Vanadzor office Artur Sakunts explained his decision to sue Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan for “autocratic” decision on Armenia’s membership to the Customs Union. He also addressed the inquiries regarding the EU sent by his organization and the disposition of the MPs as well as answered the question  what document Armenia may or may not finally sign with the European Union (EU).
-Mr. Sakunts, have you decided through which court instance you are going to appeal President Serzh Sargsyan’s the so-called “autocratic” decision over the membership to the Custom Union and whether the appeal will be of collective nature or it will be Artur Sakunts versus Serzh Sargsyan?

– The decisions and actions of administration implementing bodies are carried out in line with the Administrative Procedure Code. There is also a Civil Code provision, pursuant to which, “the actions of state and local self-governing bodies that have entailed the violation of human rights and citizens’ interests”. But the issue here is that when we word the appeal, we will then determine our strategy. It is unequivocal that the issue should be moved to legal field. The problem is as follows: President Serzh Sargsyan violated the rights of citizens of the Republic of Armenia: firstly, the right to have conscientious authorities that would be predictable and accountable to the people. As to whether the claim will be collective or individual, I must say joining the claim is open.

– Although your geopolitical sympathies and orientations are well-known, nonetheless, why didn’t you decide to sue the RA authorities, when it was announced that Armenia was going to initial the EU Association Agreement, if the issue was a principle for you?

– Because Armenia has been working at the Eastern Partnership Association Agreement for three years and a half. Thus, I was aware of the processes preceding the planned initialing of the Association Agreement (statements regarding this-Tert.am). As a citizen, the behavior of the authorities was predictable for me in terms of those processes of which I was informed.

What processes do you mean? Have they told a document was being negotiated and they would initial it?

Civil Society Forum is working within the framework of the Eastern Partnership, and a national platform was formed involving NGOs. So the logic of the Association Agreement is well known, and we were involved as a civil society institute.

-But didn’t even the Government representatives claim that only several people were aware of the core negotiated agreement text?

– The contents of the agreement as a document of association was available at the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum – human rights protection, efficient government, energy, nature protection, economy in the third section, visas and human contacts in the forth section. Thus the scope of issues to be resolved within the framework of the Association Agreement is clear-cut.  Moreover, the issues were made public and our proposals for accomplishment of the tasks in questions were regularly presented at the Eastern Partnership forums.

No format of public involvement in the processes related to the Customs Union has been proposed to civil society and we do not know any. So, we were involved in a process called drafting of the Eastern Partnership Association Agreement, where not only we directly participated but where our approaches, proposals and concerns were involved. This is a concept and conduct typical of a democratic state. Since this May, civil society has prepared a roadmap to submit to the summit in Kishinev, Moldova. And Armenian authorities assumed commitments to resolve certain problems before signing the agreement. The agreement is actually a document, but the civil society had been involved in the drafting process until September 3. That is, it can by no means be compared with the document on the Customs Union in that the statement on Armenia’s accession to the Customs Union was not preceded by any discussions, in case when, I will repeat myself, a process of 3,5 years preceded the EU Agreement, which cost recourses, means and time.

-Over 35 million AMD or 87.000 American dollars.
– Yes, and so you should not blame in being a man with no principle, since any EU program is a very transparent process.

– There were only few people at the independence procession, the aim of which was to say “No” to the Customs Union,. Besides, the process showed that there was no consolidation over saying “No” to the Customs Union.

– The society in the Republic of Armenia is very inert in terms of public perception, if we speak of its reasons. But it doesn’t mean that we must by it justify the future inactivity. And there is a political consensus regarding the Customs Union but not the European Integration.  With the exception of “Republic” and “Free Democrats” parties that officially stated their disagreement regarding the intention to become a member of the Customs Union. The majority of political forces represented in the National Assembly are for the RA’s membership to the Customs Union.  As you know, we sent inquiries and the preliminary image is as follows: the prevailing majority of the “Republican” party replied they were for the accession, although their reply was conditioned merely by the fact that Serzh Sargsyan had decided it so. “Prosperous Armenia” remains waiting, but doesn’t either have a concrete disposition regarding RA’s membership to the Customs Union. Whereas, the remaining parties including ANC, “Heritage” and Dashnaktsutyun keep silent.

So, it turns out that Serzh Sargsyan’s “autocratic” decision over the membership to the Custom Union is not a subject for discussion by political forces, who actually reconciled with the his “autocratic” decision. I do not even speak of its contents but even in term of the procedure it fails to become a subject for discussion.

And here the public indifference, I repeat again, is conditioned by the inertness of the political forces, which isn’t new by the way. This inertness was manifested in an interesting manner during the presidential elections, when the political forces, represented in the National Assembly, had greater representation or had overcome the entering point, didn’t even nominate their candidates to the public. Thus, the public’s passivism and indifference began when the primary political forces, in the face of Prosperous Armenia, Dashnaktsutyun and ANC didn’t nominate a single candidate.

–By the way, haven’t you received a reply from any Republican regarding being against the Customs Union?

– Nikoyan’s reply was curious, who wrote he was a European Integration apologist but “Serzh Sargsyan’s decision is important to me”. Margarit Yesayan also gave an interesting description that her wishes and the reality always differ. So, this can be explained that the EU was desired version, but the reality was different. This is in case when there was nothing said regarding the decision not sign the Association Agreement prior to September 3. Moreover, I can state when there were separate concerns regarding possible issue, there were assurances that no issues could come to the fore.

– The Republicans themselves explain that during his visit to Poland the RA President stated, there cannot be “either, or ” and hinted he would follow the way to the Customs Union.

– No, let them not relate it to that, since before that Štefan Füle and Catherine Ashton and EU other representatives had ruled out the possibility of dual membership. But I must say one thing, which should be publicly stated that the EU itself committed a methodological mistake. I mentioned the Eastern Partnership was a much more transparent process but when Mr. Sakunts raised the issue of Russia at the civil society forum in Brussels, unfortunately, the EU played down Russia’s role in the drafting of the Association Agreement. And now they have been convinced that they should have held bilateral discussions. Of course, Russia and the EU themselves have bilateral sides, but the Eastern Partnership issue was not a subject for bilateral discussions. Thus, it turned out that when they didn’t consider Russia’s factor; it became an actually dangerous one. And now they have begun thinking that nonetheless, some work should be done with Russia. I must state that today’s state of Putin’s Russia as a dictatorship state, which carried out apparent genocide in relation to Chechens and its own people through   persecutions and prosecutions, the same Russia, when it sees neighboring states seeking other sets of values, based on rule of law, democratic principles, it “feels bad.” And Armenia is one of such nations.

-By the way, you did not either receive a reply from former Minister of Foreign Affairs Vardan Oskanyan.

– We have not received yet, personally Oskanyan’s silence is strange to me. Although I understand that the faction’s general disposition has created grounds for that. It would be curious to receive the same reply from Vardan Oskanyan, who isn’t yet familiar with the CU document. But in this context I would like to point out one indicator that the voting results of the General Prosecutor, which showed a unique picture. Such voting results speak of the absence of political dispositions. Hence, unfortunately or luckily, this consensus exists in case of issues of fatal significance and is at a higher level.

-By the way, there are many rumors spread that the Ra authorities must sign a document before or after Vilnius, it is not important what document, even if it says Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Thus, impression is made that something was signed. 

-Let me put it like this: a nation that has a set of values cannot simultaneously be part of two systems. In this respect, Armenia’s domestic policy cannot be the same as its so-called complementary foreign policy. Domestic policy must meet the requirements of the Constitution. At this moment, “semi-membership” would be the poorest option. I would not want the objections to Armenia’s accession to the Customs Union to turn into a nation-wide struggle because panhuman values must underlie the struggle. There is a danger element here if nationalism prevails instead of panhuman values, although nationalists keep silent and not only fail to initiate patriotic actions, but also turn a blind eye to those challenges.