A summary of the past year of Nikol Pashinyan’s term as Prime Minister, his achievements, omissions, the challenges of Armenia’s domestic and foreign policies and other topics were discussed during 168.am’s interview with Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Special Representative of the President of Armenia on Special Missions 1992-95 David Shahnazaryan.
168.am: How would you assess Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s domestic policy? Did he manage to fulfill all the promises that had brought people out to the streets last year?
David Shahnazaryan: It has already been a year since shift of power took place in Armenia, but these authorities haven’t achieved any positive outcome in any field over the past year. Moreover, there is regression in all sectors. Economic growth is merely nominal, but in reality, there is economic decline since there is less external trade and particularly export, meaning Armenia is losing external markets. Emigration is on the rise, operating businesses are shutting down, the external debt has grown, and there is tremendous capital outflow. The money transfers of natural persons from foreign countries to Armenia comprised $1,188,000,000 last year alone. This exclusively refers to the funds sent from Armenia through the banking system. This is a huge amount for the Armenian economy. This means the capital is flowing out. Direct investments have decreased by 11 times in the first quarter of this year compared to the same period of last year (prior to shift of power).
The tax burden has increased, and the fight against corruption is strictly selective and is of the nature of political persecutions. In particular, a significant part of oligarchs is under the control of the incumbent government, while there is racketeering for the other part.
It has been declared that there is no systemic corruption, but in reality, not only do all the mechanisms for this exist, but there are also new schemes. For instance, the wife of the Prime Minister has established two so-called charitable foundations that are compelling businessmen to transfer funds to those foundations. The activities of these foundations are not transparent, and the director of those foundations, that is, the wife of the Prime Minister, has publicly announced that “it would be better to transfer the funds stolen from the state budget to the foundations”.
During the reign of the incumbent authorities, in one year, Armenia has essentially regressed from the path to becoming a legal state. There is clearly a retreat from democracy. There is regression in the fields of human rights protection and freedom of press. The presses that aren’t submissive to the Prime Minister are persecuted and repressed. It is more than likely that there will be specific punitive actions against the disobedient media outlets following the “reforms” in the judiciary.
With total control over the executive and legislative powers, Prime Minister Pashinyan is now trying to make the judiciary completely subject to him, and the transformations of the judiciary that he has already started making, will only serve that goal.
I must state the fact that Armenia has never had a leader with such great personal (personal, not the power of a political party or a group of people) power as Pashinyan currently has. Both the executive and legislative authorities are under his absolute subordination, and now he is trying to do the same thing with the judiciary. Pashinyan himself declared the following twice: “There is not one judge in Armenia who can say ‘no’ to me”. Now he is trying to have courts that will be submissive and obedient.
The actions that the Prime Minister has already committed against the judiciary and the blockade of all the courts of Armenia by his order are crude violations of constitutional order and criminally punishable acts. The Ambassadors of EU member states to the Republic of Armenia, the U.S. Embassy, the President of the Venice Commission, the heads of the PACE Monitoring Committee and the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe issued statements and clearly stated that the whole process of judicial-legal reforms needs to be implemented within the scope of the Constitution.
There has been absolutely no real reform. The conglomeration of a couple of ministries has nothing to do with systemic reforms. Moreover, the National Assembly, which is completely subject to the Prime Minister, has not only failed to adopt a law targeted at systemic reforms, but is also considering laws that overtly serve corruption functions and specific interests. This particularly refers to the bill on making amendments to the law on the activities of bookmakers.
However, the world’s bank experts have warned that there can’t be any tangible outcome in the social and economic sectors, if systemic reforms are made slowly, and this may become a reason for more turbulence in Armenia.
Of course, all this is said under the veil of democracy. There are still circles in Europe that are not well aware of the domestic and foreign political processes unfolding in Armenia and believe the democracy that won in Armenia is the democracy that they picture.
Of course, all the points I mentioned, and not only those points, need to be presented thoroughly, but to fit them in an interview, to put it shortly, these are the outcomes of the activities that the Prime Minister has carried out in Armenia over the past year.
168.am: Are there also serious omissions in the foreign policy that the country is leading? Generally speaking, what kind of foreign policy should the Republic of Armenia adopt?
David Shahnazaryan: Armenia is Russia’s strategic ally, and it has to maintain and expand its relations with that country, but also aspire to minimize the asymmetry in those relations and at least maintain the level of confidence that the two countries had in each other in the past. At the same time, due to its tactical and strategic interests for national security, Armenia is simply obliged to lead a balanced, multi-vector and active foreign policy since Armenia’s relations with its neighboring countries (Georgia and Iran), the US, the European Union, EU member states, as well as China are extremely important. The former authorities managed to make tangible progress to a certain extent in this regard. The foreign policy of the past year is the most vulnerable spot of the incumbent authorities, and it is much more vulnerable than my aforementioned evaluations of the country’s domestic policy and the issues that I didn’t mention.
Currently, Armenia’s relations with Russia appear prima facie to be normal, but it is clear that there is no mutual trust, to say the least, and Moscow doesn’t perceive Pashinyan’s cabinet as a reliable partner. At the same time, the asymmetry of Armenia’s relations with Russia has essentially grown, but it is to the detriment of Armenia. Perhaps this is also one of the reasons why Moscow doesn’t view Armenia as a serious partner.
Armenia is a member state of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), but there has been an essential decline in the relations with other member states, particularly Belarus and Kazakhstan, and even the leaders of those countries have allowed themselves to have a not too respectful rhetoric on the Government of the Republic of Armenia.
In regard to the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the incumbent authorities have made serious conceptual errors. As a result, in particular, there is a higher risk of the start of new and large-scale offensive actions on the part of Azerbaijan, but this is an extensive topic and a subject for discussion.
There is no substantial progress in the relations with Georgia, which are of exclusive significance for Armenia. Moreover, during a visit to Armenia, the President of Georgia expressed her discontent with a number of issues that have formed a part of the relations between Georgia and Armenia for many years and have always been discussed, but have never been made public.
The relations with Armenia’s neighboring Iran are uncertain, to say the least. Major projects were declared during Nikol Pashinyan’s visit to Iran, but no action has been taken. Those projects aren’t even mentioned. There are also some signs showing that Iran doesn’t view our government as a serious partner either.
China’s role in the region is growing, and there is recently positive dynamics in the relations between China and Armenia, but Beijing is interested in Armenia in the regional context, and when Armenia’s relations with Georgia and Iran aren’t developing, Armenia can lose the current perspective for relations with China.
The relations with the European Union, which are of major significance for Armenia, are, in essence, the only direction of Armenia’s foreign policy in which there is a clear-cut agenda, but this was the policy of the former authorities, that is, the EU-Armenia Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA) signed in 2017.
However, in spite of the optimistic assessments of the EU, in reality, this agenda is no longer a priority, and the incumbent authorities aren’t paying enough attention to it. In particular, Pashinyan’s cabinet refused to introduced provisions of the CEPA in the 2019 Program of the Government, the roadmap for implementation was adopted after a long delay, and it was adopted by the decision of the Prime Minister, not the National Assembly or government. Perhaps the reason for this is that Pashinyan is certain that his government is incapable of implementing the roadmap, and he can make a change with his signature and without causing uproar. The launch of negotiations over liberalization of the visa regime will come late, at least a year. There are also several other omissions.
Let us mention that Pashinyan launched relations with the EU with his first visit to Brussels, declaring that he made a “velvet revolution” and the EU must provide great financial assistance to Armenia for that, but in response, the EU representatives told him that the EU supports real reforms, not “revolutions”.
No progress has been made in the relations with the member states of the European Union. The incumbent government of Armenia isn’t able to form an agenda with the US or offer an agenda to Washington. Moreover, the relations between the US and Armenia have never been at such a low level since Armenia’s declaration of independence.
The relations with the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are not smooth either, and this is clear, particularly in regard to participation in the joint military exercises as well.
In closing, as an overall evaluation, I can say that these authorities are leading the country’s domestic and foreign policies with their “revolutionary” agenda. They are not only implementing this agenda in Armenia, but are also trying to implement it in Russia and Europe, but this is a major mistake.
Although Pashinyan has declared that he doesn’t believe in any ideology and the time of –isms is over, he is trying to turn Armenia into a state with the ideology of “revolution” because there is no more content in the “revolution”, and he is leading an ideologized foreign policy. This is condemnable. For instance, the former USSR was an ideologized country, but it would lead a clearly expressed and very pragmatic foreign policy. In their speeches and at international platforms, Armenia’s government officials fail to present their vision for the government’s foreign policy and security, but devote themselves to the “velvet revolution”, which has become an advertisement for them. It doesn’t interest international partners and it doesn’t serve as a ground for deepening relations. During the recent congress of the Civil Contract Party, the leaders of the Republic of Armenia said the following: “Armenia is the bastion of freedom and democracy in the world today, yes, not the US and not Europe, and the success of democracy in the world will depend greatly on the question whether Armenian democracy will be a success or not.” First, as I mentioned, in Armenia there is essential regression from freedoms and democracy, and many second countries can simply perceive this as an insult.
Foreign policy is the major component of the national security of the Republic of Armenia and is as important as the Armed Forces, and it requires great efforts, professionalism, consistency, more pragmatism and resources, but not turning the “velvet revolution” into an item on the foreign policy agenda.
168.am: It is known that, recently, after your speech entitled “Armenia’s Foreign Policy and the Nagorno-Karabakh Issue” as a guest lecturer at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), the presses released information in which it was particularly stated that you had called on having Russia go against Pashinyan’s government. In an interview with 168.am, you sharply denied the news and stated that this was slander was directly oriented by Prime Minister Pashinyan. Pro-Rector of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations Evgeny Kozhokin has also denied the new on the website. What do you have to say about this?
David Shahnazaryan: Yes, I did receive an invitation from the administration of the MGIMO, and I delivered a speech there on May 24. After that, the press supporting Pashinyan spread such slander that I had touched upon. Of course, nobody responded to my reflection, but they continue to act against me. The diplomatic missions of the Republic of Armenia in Brussels, the capitals of EU member states, as well as Ukraine and Georgia are ordered to spread slander.
Once again, I would like to repeat that the news spread by the authorities are rumors and absolute slander which, as you mentioned, Pro-Rector of the MGIMO Evgeny Kozhokin, who was moderating the discussion, also denied. Besides, this is a violation of the laws of Armenia since making such a call to any outside force is a criminally punishable act. The most important thing is that this is morally unacceptable for me, and throughout my political career, I have neither done this nor even thought of doing such a thing and have always condemned such attempts. This is simply slander against political opponents and is the working style of Pashinyan and his close ones. They are doing this because they have no counterargument to those same foreign policy issues, but I have also thoroughly presented facts about the conceptual errors and omissions that are being made in the process of negotiations over the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the long chain of losses, but I have not received any substantial response. Now Pashinyan and his close ones are trying to act in this manner.
As I already mentioned, there are circles in Europe that are poorly informed about Armenia’s domestic and foreign policies and wrongly believe that democratic processes are unfolding in Armenia. Once again, I would like to emphasize the fact that domestic political issues are exclusively the issues of Armenia, and no outside force should become entangled in our internal affairs and our domestic agenda.