Tweet
ARTHUR BAGHDASARIAN HAD INFRINGED THE CONVENTION
Aravot.am
12 May 06
The NDU leader, deputy of `Justice' bloc Vazgen Manoukian considers OEP
collapse as the fight of lieutenant Schmidt's sons.
In your opinion whose revenge was the `OEP'collapse, Robert
Kocharian's, whose foreign political positions Arthur Baghdasarian
opposed or the RPA and Government's whose speculations Arthur
Baghdasarian detected?
The authorities don't get so angry with the expression of different
opinions about the policy. Simply as the convention of lieutenant
Schmidt's sons coalition powers also have internal arrangements, rules
of the game by which they have come to the authority. And if anybody
infringes those arrangements he must be punished. They have found the
way of punishment for other not to do the same. On the other hand
there is `Bolivar won't take both of them» factor.
So taking businessmen from the OEP, was it decided who became the
winner for the post of the succeedent in Serge Sargsian-Arthur
Baghdasarian contest? I think Arthur Baghdasarian hasn't touched the
problem on this occasion.
Now he has a unique opportunity to produce to the West as the Armenian
Sahakashvili or Yushchenko who fought inside the authority for his
pro-western views and suffered of it. In your opinion if he uses that
opportunity maybe the West will be for his candidacy in the
presidential elections?
And who isn't pro-western in his declarations. All authority groups
declare that our aim is to become the EU member etc. And it isn't so,
that others aren't so pro-western but Arthur Baghdasarian
is. Everybody wants to take on that «cloth». Every
country has its heroes. Our country has been specific up to the
present day and will remain so.
My question can be considered naive, but maybe those businessmen
haven't been coordinated, they all deny that pressure has been used on
them. Maybe those businessmen who had found a political support for
securing their property, left the OEP because of the change of
weather?
But why didn't they enter in `Orinats Erkir' at the beginning and not
to the NDU. They had read the projects and considered that the OEP
project was more profitable for Armenia. No. They had entered into OEP
because it was the part of the authority; the ruling clique proves
it. But when OEP looses the authority, those people must leave it. If
they can't take advantages from the authority why should they stay
there? Perhaps it is coordinated or they have decided themselves but
it is very natural process.
A week was enough to destroy the party. In your opinion how many time
will be enough for destroying next authority parties, RPA and ARF?
Dashnaktsutiun is less possible as it has a strong caste structure
inside it. And if the ARF is Robert Kocharian's political ground the
base of this authority is the RPA. It can cause a feeling of danger at
Robert Kocharian and Serge Sargsian. And in that case the ARF won't be
destroyed but will make its power weaken, divide into some parties. So
it isn't accidental that Gagik Tsarukian's and public prosecutor's
parties will act in the same field.
Do you also think that the NA chairman must call for a vote of
confidence and send in his resignation?
I don't agree with it. It is adopted in such cases that the NA
chairman doesn 't send in his resignation, doesn't leave the
parliamentary system but leaves the system of governing that is the
coalition.
Do you think that Arthur Baghdasarian will remain the NA chairman
leaving the coalition?
Yes I do, if he isn't dismissed. There is no contradiction
here. Especially when the NA chairman can have an opinion which
doesn't correspond with the Presiden't opinion on the foreign policy,
it isn't a reason for the NA chairman's resignation. The government is
another thing. It is a unified body of adopting decisions and the
members of the government doesn't have right to express discrepant
positions.
Let's summarize, should we meet with sympathy the OEP, which intended
to be a reformer in the authority, or they have already adopted the
rules of the game by which they were revenged?
There is no point of sympathy. They have indeed adopted the rules of
this game. There is some sort of thievish rules and those who infringe
it are punished.
Anna Israelian
Aravot.am
12 May 06
The NDU leader, deputy of `Justice' bloc Vazgen Manoukian considers OEP
collapse as the fight of lieutenant Schmidt's sons.
In your opinion whose revenge was the `OEP'collapse, Robert
Kocharian's, whose foreign political positions Arthur Baghdasarian
opposed or the RPA and Government's whose speculations Arthur
Baghdasarian detected?
The authorities don't get so angry with the expression of different
opinions about the policy. Simply as the convention of lieutenant
Schmidt's sons coalition powers also have internal arrangements, rules
of the game by which they have come to the authority. And if anybody
infringes those arrangements he must be punished. They have found the
way of punishment for other not to do the same. On the other hand
there is `Bolivar won't take both of them» factor.
So taking businessmen from the OEP, was it decided who became the
winner for the post of the succeedent in Serge Sargsian-Arthur
Baghdasarian contest? I think Arthur Baghdasarian hasn't touched the
problem on this occasion.
Now he has a unique opportunity to produce to the West as the Armenian
Sahakashvili or Yushchenko who fought inside the authority for his
pro-western views and suffered of it. In your opinion if he uses that
opportunity maybe the West will be for his candidacy in the
presidential elections?
And who isn't pro-western in his declarations. All authority groups
declare that our aim is to become the EU member etc. And it isn't so,
that others aren't so pro-western but Arthur Baghdasarian
is. Everybody wants to take on that «cloth». Every
country has its heroes. Our country has been specific up to the
present day and will remain so.
My question can be considered naive, but maybe those businessmen
haven't been coordinated, they all deny that pressure has been used on
them. Maybe those businessmen who had found a political support for
securing their property, left the OEP because of the change of
weather?
But why didn't they enter in `Orinats Erkir' at the beginning and not
to the NDU. They had read the projects and considered that the OEP
project was more profitable for Armenia. No. They had entered into OEP
because it was the part of the authority; the ruling clique proves
it. But when OEP looses the authority, those people must leave it. If
they can't take advantages from the authority why should they stay
there? Perhaps it is coordinated or they have decided themselves but
it is very natural process.
A week was enough to destroy the party. In your opinion how many time
will be enough for destroying next authority parties, RPA and ARF?
Dashnaktsutiun is less possible as it has a strong caste structure
inside it. And if the ARF is Robert Kocharian's political ground the
base of this authority is the RPA. It can cause a feeling of danger at
Robert Kocharian and Serge Sargsian. And in that case the ARF won't be
destroyed but will make its power weaken, divide into some parties. So
it isn't accidental that Gagik Tsarukian's and public prosecutor's
parties will act in the same field.
Do you also think that the NA chairman must call for a vote of
confidence and send in his resignation?
I don't agree with it. It is adopted in such cases that the NA
chairman doesn 't send in his resignation, doesn't leave the
parliamentary system but leaves the system of governing that is the
coalition.
Do you think that Arthur Baghdasarian will remain the NA chairman
leaving the coalition?
Yes I do, if he isn't dismissed. There is no contradiction
here. Especially when the NA chairman can have an opinion which
doesn't correspond with the Presiden't opinion on the foreign policy,
it isn't a reason for the NA chairman's resignation. The government is
another thing. It is a unified body of adopting decisions and the
members of the government doesn't have right to express discrepant
positions.
Let's summarize, should we meet with sympathy the OEP, which intended
to be a reformer in the authority, or they have already adopted the
rules of the game by which they were revenged?
There is no point of sympathy. They have indeed adopted the rules of
this game. There is some sort of thievish rules and those who infringe
it are punished.
Anna Israelian