Tweet
I DON'T EXCLUDE THAT DEPUTIES CAN LEAVE THE RPA, TOO
Anna Israelian
Aravot.am
17 May 06
The RPA and NA deputy chairman Tigran Torosian says.
Last year when there were a lot of affirmations that the coalition
would stop its existence in the pre-electoral year Robert Kocharian
ordered the coalition to work till May of 2007 as a matter of
honor. "The coalition is so called political agreement among 4
subjects; 3 parties and the President. And it is an agreement for four
years. We have obligation and responsibility towards people till May
2007". In your opinion who is guilty for stopping the obligations of
the agreement?
There is no need to find guilty persons here, as we don't deal with
criminals. There was a political situation and a solution has been
found. I think all parts of the coalition are sincere in marking that
situation. And all parties would like to continue those relations
till next elections. But a civil and honorable solution was found in
that situation.
The NA deputy chairman Vahan Hovhannisian described the behavior of
the OEP businessmen by this parallel that the political building of
that structure is based on sands. Is it a right description? Besides
don't you think that the overwhelming majority is on that same "sand"
and this situation can be repeated in your party, too?
Artistic and figurative formulations are attractive. But I think
it will be better to give political remarks. Everybody has a right
to give remarks on different demonstrations. But I'm sure that this
period when the OEP declared about its leave will be a 20-30 day trial
period for all parties of the coalition. It is interesting for me
who and how will behave himself. It is also a trial. And it will be
better for us to go out from this situation with dignity. As regards
the presence of businessmen deputies in the parliament I think all
of them shouldn't be marked in the same way. A businessman can be a
party member and become ac deputy during his party activities. So I
can't exclude that some people can leave the RPA, too. Everybody must
be marked according to his behavior, irrespective of the circumstance
whether he is a businessman or not.
The pro-authority mass media produce such interpretations as if Arthur
Baghdasarian's bright future turned into sad past in a day.
I don't admit situational approaches. And I want to repeat that this
is a trial for all of us. The life isn't over today. We worked with
the OEP 3 years having successes and omissions.
Why did the NA speaker's position about becoming the EU member get
such negative replies when all our leaders admit the necessity of
close integration to such structures in their declaration?
Undoubtedly. Discrepancies on this occasion aren't principal, as
integration into the EU has been declared as the aim and a superior
direction in foreign policy of our country. Discrepancies referred
to the appraisals how it must be done and how. The main discrepancy
appeared on the occasion of the declaration about NATO membership. We
must admit that the NATO membership hasn't been declared as the
aim. It isn't fair when some people try to find discrepancies here
because there are EU member countries, which aren't the NATO members.
But all these don't exclude that a party can declare NATO membership
as an aim for it, for the future of Armenia.
Anna Israelian
Aravot.am
17 May 06
The RPA and NA deputy chairman Tigran Torosian says.
Last year when there were a lot of affirmations that the coalition
would stop its existence in the pre-electoral year Robert Kocharian
ordered the coalition to work till May of 2007 as a matter of
honor. "The coalition is so called political agreement among 4
subjects; 3 parties and the President. And it is an agreement for four
years. We have obligation and responsibility towards people till May
2007". In your opinion who is guilty for stopping the obligations of
the agreement?
There is no need to find guilty persons here, as we don't deal with
criminals. There was a political situation and a solution has been
found. I think all parts of the coalition are sincere in marking that
situation. And all parties would like to continue those relations
till next elections. But a civil and honorable solution was found in
that situation.
The NA deputy chairman Vahan Hovhannisian described the behavior of
the OEP businessmen by this parallel that the political building of
that structure is based on sands. Is it a right description? Besides
don't you think that the overwhelming majority is on that same "sand"
and this situation can be repeated in your party, too?
Artistic and figurative formulations are attractive. But I think
it will be better to give political remarks. Everybody has a right
to give remarks on different demonstrations. But I'm sure that this
period when the OEP declared about its leave will be a 20-30 day trial
period for all parties of the coalition. It is interesting for me
who and how will behave himself. It is also a trial. And it will be
better for us to go out from this situation with dignity. As regards
the presence of businessmen deputies in the parliament I think all
of them shouldn't be marked in the same way. A businessman can be a
party member and become ac deputy during his party activities. So I
can't exclude that some people can leave the RPA, too. Everybody must
be marked according to his behavior, irrespective of the circumstance
whether he is a businessman or not.
The pro-authority mass media produce such interpretations as if Arthur
Baghdasarian's bright future turned into sad past in a day.
I don't admit situational approaches. And I want to repeat that this
is a trial for all of us. The life isn't over today. We worked with
the OEP 3 years having successes and omissions.
Why did the NA speaker's position about becoming the EU member get
such negative replies when all our leaders admit the necessity of
close integration to such structures in their declaration?
Undoubtedly. Discrepancies on this occasion aren't principal, as
integration into the EU has been declared as the aim and a superior
direction in foreign policy of our country. Discrepancies referred
to the appraisals how it must be done and how. The main discrepancy
appeared on the occasion of the declaration about NATO membership. We
must admit that the NATO membership hasn't been declared as the
aim. It isn't fair when some people try to find discrepancies here
because there are EU member countries, which aren't the NATO members.
But all these don't exclude that a party can declare NATO membership
as an aim for it, for the future of Armenia.