NATIONAL PECULIARITIES OF SECURITY
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Dec 19 2006
Although Robert Kocharyan’s interview on TV cannot be considered as
a masterpiece of this genre, ideas were expressed which can make the
process move. In addition, this process can be rather dangerous for
the society. Robert Kocharyan stated openly that the seminars held
in Armenia on Western grants threaten the national security. This
approach could be expected, it was even belated, considering that
several months ago Vladimir Vladimirovich Brezhnev, like most Russian
media already refer to Putin, who has become the model of an "ideal"
leader for Robert Kocharyan, declared the NGOs financed with Western
money "persona non grata". Hence, Robert Kocharyan was even late.
This delay has a reason, however. First, Armenia is a small country
and cannot afford to declare that the Western grants are a threat,
especially when these grants sustain the government as well. Besides,
if they immediately did in Armenia what they did in Russia, it would be
evident that Robert Kocharyan is imitating Putin. Now it is the best
time for such a statement. Even Putin has forgotten that he rejected
the NGOs, and now these NGOs are operating in Russia, though sometimes
they face problems. And the most important thing that makes the moment
convenient is the National Security Strategy that is being worked
out and will soon appear on the desk of the president. The taskforce
on the strategy led by the pillar of the security of Armenia Serge
Sargsyan, adopted the final draft unanimously in the morning of the
same day when Robert Kocharyan answered the so-called questions of
news reporters. The threat followed the strategy.
What threat is it? Where does it come from? It is amazing but
the threat comes from the place where Robert Kocharyan, Vardan
Oskanyan and Serge Sargsyan were and will be often and with smiles
on their faces. These "threatening" grants are the money of the EU,
the governments of the United States, the U.K., Germany and other
countries of Europe, which comes to Armenia via the NGOs. This money
or the announced purpose does not differ from the Japanese, Chinese,
Indian, American grants the government gets to develop agriculture,
or the Norwegian grants for building houses for refugees. In both
cases the grants are intended to sustain development in Armenia.
Simply in one case the focus is on the spheres of economy, in the
other case the development of the non-governmental sector. In addition,
it is highly disputable which one is more important for the country,
a developed economy or a developed non-governmental sector, which is
an alternative to the system of governance and, in fact, it acts as
a restraint on the arbitrariness of the government. In this respect,
the threat is evident. And when the president of Armenia, the foreign
minister or the pillar of the national security go abroad and meet
the governments and organizations threatening our security with happy
and satisfied faces, ostensibly they carry out an intelligence mission.
However, we must be grateful that the president of Armenia did not
ban the NGOs. He even said they cannot ban them but it is necessary
to explain to the public to help them detect the lure. They will ban
when the public will not understand the explanation, and the strategy
will have been adopted. Besides, if they start banning everything now,
what are they going to ban in the pre-election period?