0 8000 12 11

In an interview with Tert.am, by addressing the recent unrests in Ukraine, Chairman of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly’s Vanadzor Office Artur Sakunts states that the popular movement in Ukraine is an absolutely different process which must serve as a good lesson for both the civil initiatives and political forces and the RA authorities.

Mr Sakunts, Davit Shahnazaryan said in one of his interviews that the continuing campaign in Ukraine’s Maidan is the struggle of all of us, adding that it will find a reflection in Yerevan. Do you agree to that opinion, and to what extent do you think it is possible?

What has been going on in Ukraine for around two months is a struggle against Yanukovich’s decision. When Yanukovich announced that Ukraine is acceding to the Russian-led Customs Union, the Ukrainian citizens considered the decision an encroachment upon their dignity, choice and future.

The method which Putin employed to persuade or force Yanukovich to give up the idea of signing a European Union Association agreement and join the Custom Union caused an upsurge of protesting moods in the Ukrainian society. It was perceived by the society as an encroachment against Ukraine’s sovereignty, which is also a sensitive issue. The Ukrainians are sure Putin has an intention to restore Russia’s influence on the post-Soviet area. And that’s how Putin thinks that the Soviet Union is the same Russia and since neither the area of Soviet Union, nor the scope for that influence exists, therefore, Russia should reinstate its impact in those areas, deemed as Russian areas.

And the Ukrainian society developed a very acute perception of this. Obviously, there are bearers of different influences in the Ukrainian society; particularly, I highlight the business circles could have helped prevent such crowded or long-lasting protests if they agreed with Yanukovich’s decision of accession to the Custom’s Union.

That is to say, Yanukovich made the political decision about joining the Customs Union on behalf of himself. And he receives support only from members of his own party. Having a greater influence on Ukraine’s economy and not agreeing to Yanukovich’s decision, the business representatives in Ukraine seem neutral at first sight; but they actually support the civic rebellion and disobedience.

Oligarchs and tycoons in Ukraine are not in favor of the Customs Union. This is the real difference between Armenia and Ukraine.

The second essential difference is that there are political forces in Rada, on behalf of “Svaboda” faction leader Tyagniboki, Yatsenyuk and Klitschko, which are against the Customs Union membership. Hence, both business organizations and political forces support the civil society.

The civic campaign in Ukraine is also definitely our campaign against the Putin regime’s expansionist policies known as the Customs Union. Ukraine’s civic campaign against Yanukovich’s single-handed decision is also my campaign against a similar decision by Serzh Sargsyan in Armenia.

I cannot imagine how an activist of the movement against the Nazi occupation in France should not consider the anti-Nazi struggle in other countries as his/her own struggle.

Nonetheless, Ukraine’s struggle should not be compared with “March 1” events. The current unrests in the same Ukraine are not to be compared with orange revolution. Today Ukraine struggles for the country’s sovereignty and orientation of European civilization. Such clear dispositions failed to develop in Armenia after “March 1”.

Our parliament too, has political forces which are against the Customs Union …

– In our parliament, the ruling Republican Party expresses its silent consent to Serzh Sargsyan’s decision. The Prosperous Armenia party has not absolutely addressed the decision; neither have the Armenian National Congress and the Dashnaksutyun. The only parliamentary force which has expressed its stance on the Customs Union is Heritage; and also the representative of the Free Democrats party, which has only one mandate.

But it isn’t that the parliamentary forces have not been against Serzh Sargsyan’s decision on joining the Customs Union. In their interviews, the opposition political forces represented in the National Assembly have repeatedly expressed objections to the Customs Union.

What I mean is the political forces’ official stance. See how political forces in Ukraine have clearly expressed their position. We haven’t seen that in case of Armenia. The non-ruling forces in the National Assembly have not organized any public event against Serzh Sargsyan’s decision of joining the Customs Union since September 3. Furthermore, they did not support December 2 protest action, moreover, Shant Harutyunyan and his friends have not been yet recognized as political prisoners.

– In the form of political positions, Yanukovich suggested the opposition coming on terms, which was declined by its representatives. If we draw a comparison between the situation created in Armenia in 2013, when Raffi Hovhannisyan met with President Serzh Sargsyan… 

– It is quite difficult to draw a parallel. What was the essence of the political crisis in Armenia,  when Serzh Sargsyan met with Raffi Hovhannisyan and what is now happening in Ukraine. They are extremely different both by their contents and significance. Raffi Hovhannisyan was free to accept or decline Serzh Sargsyan’s proposal.

The political crisis existing in the Ukraine relates to the aforementioned circumstances that the citizens are the decisive role players. The political opposition in the Ukraine presents Euromaidan’s agenda and has no other power and cannot make moves without Maidna’s   consent. It is a crucially important circumstance.

-In a talk with Tert.am, by drawing a comparison between Armenia and the Ukraine, Pre-Parliament’s member Tigran Khzmalyan pointed out Ukraine’s advantage of not having a leader.  Similarly, an achievement over the CC’s decision is considered that the civic movement was not leaded by anyone specifically.

I have already mentioned about undertaking responsibility by the political opposition in relation to political agenda requirements by the civic movement in the Ukraine.  In our case, although they claim “I am against” movement is merely a political initiative, but we witnessed that the non-ruling forces in the National Assembly clearly expressed their stance against the law on mandatory funded scheme. Later, “I am against” initiative was formed which was joined and supported by political parties.

Ultimately, the issue of unconstitutionality of the law on compulsory pension scheme was taken into trial by the RA Constitutional Court based on the application of non-ruling forces’ MPs. But it is a quite different working style. Although unconstitutional laws were adopted in the Ukraine, the meeting with Yanukovich took place around the table of negotiations and not at the Constitutional Court.

The Ukraine’s Maidan was not started by the opposition but vice versa. Even the opposition attempted to enter Euromaidan with its flags, but it was banned. Later the opposition was allowed to access provided that the political decisions were reached by them.

Thus, the issues in the Ukraine are resolved through civic disobedience. This issue is not the in the leaders, but the fact how the political forces come up as a responsibility-taking structure. If we observe what the political opposition or the non-ruling forces have done in Armenia after 2008 in terms of political field formation, unfortunately, I definitely see one thing, it being criticism of European values.

Europe was devalued in the Republic of Armenia not only due to the authorities’ awkward and imitation policy, but also the opposition failed to prioritize the approaches of European civilization from the value standpoint.

A completely different process is occurring in the Ukraine, which must definitely serve a good lesson both for the political forces, civic initiatives and the RA authorities.

http://www.tert.am/am/news/2014/01/27/saqunts/