ARTSVIK MINASYAN: BUDGET FOR 2013 WILL NEITHER CONTRIBUTE TO ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING NOR INCREASE LIVING STANDARDS
by Ashot Safaryan
arminfo
Tuesday, November 13, 10:02
ArmInfo’s Interview with Artsvik Minasyan, MP from ARF Dashnaktsutyun,
member of the Standing Parliamentary Commission for Financial and
Budgetary Affairs
Mr.Minasyan, do you think Armenia’s draft budget for 2013 meets the
urgent problems and goals faced by the leadership of the country?
The approaches laid in the basis of the draft state budget of Armenia
for 2013 cannot help settle the country’s serious domestic and foreign
problems. We deal with colossal unemployment, and relevant budget
allocations would be one of the most important instruments to overcome
it. However, the draft budget envisages no relevant allocations. The
budget was not drafted on the given logic. It contains no item of
financing of a specific project aimed at development of the real sector
of economy, and creation of jobs. The second important factor is the
improvement of the living standards. If we fail to direct even the
public funds to improvement of the living standards in the country,
it means that those funds are not used for the people who generate
them. It is an absolutely inadmissible approach to the expenditure
policy. As for the revenue policy, the government has failed to
diversify revenues in order to ensure sustainable development of
economy and economic restructuring.
In his speech in Parliament, the Armenian Prime Minister pointed
out that given the economic troubles in the EU and possible risks
in the Russian economy, the Government of Armenia should display
some prudence in its actions. Do you think such prudence may damage
important projects and endeavors?
Well, I am not quite sure what the Prime Minister meant. But it is
clear that the country should apply a multi-vector approach in its
economic policy. Though Russia is our strategic partner, we should not
forget about Iran we have close economic ties with. It is necessary
to deepen these relations to reduce the possible risks and to expand
our possibilities. Within the frames of cooperation with the EU,
we have also assumed quite serious obligations. However, they are
sometimes so controversial and mutually exclusive that we simply have
to choose between them.
But, unfortunately, the government is not independent, which is
necessary for the independent economic policy. There is certain
dualism. In particular, the Prime Minister says it is necessary to
sign an agreement on deep and comprehensive free trade zone with the
EU. At the same time, he says about continuation of cooperation within
EurAsEC. I agree that, indeed, we must be able to conduct a competent
and balanced policy meeting Armenia’s interests. Nevertheless, we
must not take actions that limit our choice.
In what specific steps of the Government do you see the danger of
limiting out choice?
Some international organizations instruct the Armenian Government
during adoption of decisions. Actually, the IMF and the WB should
promote development of the economy of Armenia, but today thanks
to their advice the country has found itself in an extremely hard
situation. We are in such a circulation that we are forced to run into
debt, but these resources do not absorb and make the life of citizens
better. $4 bln foreign debt of Armenia did not promote development
of the economy of Armenia, as credit providers allow themselves to
point at how to spend these funds, and their recommendations promote
only development of the service sphere but not the real sector of
the economy or industry.
What would you say about the recent media reports on possible sale of
20% of ArmRusgazprom’s shares to Russia? Is such a scenario possible
and how will it affect the further situation in the energy field?
No matter whether such a deal was made or not, the situation
in the field is unacceptable. It is commonly known that 80% of
ArmRusgazprom’s shares belong to Gazprom (Russia) and the latter
actually has a subsidiary in Armenia. Consequently, Gazprom should
conduct in Armenia the policy it conducts in the Russian domestic
market. In other words, the price formation in the Armenian market
should meet the same scheme and logic as inside Russia, otherwise,
it is not clear why the Russian company owns 80% of ArmRusgazprom’s
shares. One should not give such an important field as energy to a
foreign company, even if Moscow itself demands selling the other 20%.
Moreover, it is necessary to make Moscow revise its price policy.
Otherwise, the impression is that we are unable to conduct an
independent policy meeting our own interests. All the spheres of
life experience a mess: 90% of the economy is monopolized, 80% of
the consumer markets are monopolized, and so on and so forth.
What destiny will the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant (ANPP) have given
the memorandum on mutual understanding recently signed between
the Governments of Armenia and the United States? According to
the memorandum, the lifespan of the ANPP is to be prolonged for 10
more years.
Signing a contract with some country in order to prolong the
lifespan of such a strategic facility as the Nuclear Power Plant
is unacceptable. It is also a matter of sovereignty. If the matter
concerns the energy security of the country and the welfare of
the country’s population, it is for the authorities, not other
countries, to take the relevant decisions in this direction, unless the
authorities need these countries’ help to carry out their tasks. On the
whole, we should realize that the existence of the ANPP is important
for the independent energy system and for the status of a player in
the international arena.