Tweet
HOW SARGSYAN AND KOCHARYAN CHOOSE
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26632.html
Published: 18:04:03 - 21/06/2012
Chatham House has published a report on Russian weakening influence
in the South Caucasus, and states about Armenia that Robert Kocharyan
sold Armenia to Russia, thus jeopardizing the country's sovereignty,
while Serzh Sargsyan appears to be less pro-Russian.
This statement sounds primitive. When the period of presidency
of Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan is discussed, it would be
superficial to view the problem in terms of someone Russian or the
other's Western sentiment. It would be better to say that they both
are pro-government, that is both have one aim - to hold on to power and
their foreign policy or the so-called sentiment is built up on this.
In fact, it would be wrong to say that they did not care for the
national interests of Armenia. They could not ignore it for the simple
reason that any serious state failure would immediately affect their
stay in government.
Hence, for both Kocharyan and Sargsyan it is important in terms of
foreign sentiments which foreign partner will ensure more reliable and
effective guarantees of their stay in government. In fact, they do
have their personal likes and dislikes for one city or another. But
their likes or dislikes would hardly have a crucial role otherwise
these persons would be unable to remain in government despite strong
public dissatisfaction and pass it to each other, despite internal
disagreement and clash of interests.
Recently Lragir.am has published articles on why the West chose Serzh
Sargsyan. Perhaps it is equally interesting to know why Serzh Sargsyan
chose the West, thus gaining the image of a less pro-Russian figure,
and this opinion is spread not only among the Western but also the
Russian experts.
A general answer it given above. Serzh Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan
make their foreign political choice according to the requirements
of duration of their rule. Hence, Serzh Sargsyan thinks that the
interests and requirements of his administration will be better
supported if he faces the West. For its part, it is based on the
national interest because as I said above the ruling system and its
leaders may prioritize their personal interests but the national
interest has to be linked with this, at least because their rule and
the weight of problems during their rule are essentially determined
by the stability and effectiveness of the state.
Perhaps Serzh Sargsyan thinks that this process will be more stable
and effective if he faces West, and the West can be a more efficient
and useful partner.
For its part, Russia is in a new stage of global weakening. Unlike
the first stage of the 1990's, this weakening has fewer external
expressions but is more serious in terms of profoundness.
Weakening Russia is not only an ineffective economic partner but
also a generator of destructive public mentality because for weak
Russia the only resource for ensuring its own interests in the
key region of the South Caucasus remains the permanent-local or
general destabilization. If we add the context of wider geopolitical
developments, it is becoming clear that it would be thoughtless not to
consider the West as an economic, political and civilization priority
and Armenia would go against the stream, suffering state losses and
leading to loss of power of the ruling elite.
Does this mean that during Robert Kocharyan's presidency the choice
of Russia was made with the same principle? There are some essential
nuances which need to be taken into consideration, considering Robert
Kocharyan's presidential choice.
The first and crucial was the factor of October 27. Robert Kocharyan's
choice was made after the 27th. Besides, during the eight years of
his presidency another process was underway in Russia, and after the
so-called first stage of weakening in the 90s Russia had entered
into a stage of reconstruction and set forth serious ambitions in
both domestic and foreign policies. It is notable that the West
abstained from serious competition or resistance. In this situation,
Robert Kocharyan made his choice.
In fact, this is not a matter of someone's correct or wrong choice
but is on one of the possible motives.
The point is that in the correct or wrong option the key thing is
the choice inside the country on what state and social coexistence
rules are chosen as the axis of the independent state of Armenia,
constitutional and legal order, clan and quota-based economic and
political style of life. It is known what so far the ruling elites
have chosen in Armenia.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
HAKOB BADALYAN
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/comments26632.html
Published: 18:04:03 - 21/06/2012
Chatham House has published a report on Russian weakening influence
in the South Caucasus, and states about Armenia that Robert Kocharyan
sold Armenia to Russia, thus jeopardizing the country's sovereignty,
while Serzh Sargsyan appears to be less pro-Russian.
This statement sounds primitive. When the period of presidency
of Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan is discussed, it would be
superficial to view the problem in terms of someone Russian or the
other's Western sentiment. It would be better to say that they both
are pro-government, that is both have one aim - to hold on to power and
their foreign policy or the so-called sentiment is built up on this.
In fact, it would be wrong to say that they did not care for the
national interests of Armenia. They could not ignore it for the simple
reason that any serious state failure would immediately affect their
stay in government.
Hence, for both Kocharyan and Sargsyan it is important in terms of
foreign sentiments which foreign partner will ensure more reliable and
effective guarantees of their stay in government. In fact, they do
have their personal likes and dislikes for one city or another. But
their likes or dislikes would hardly have a crucial role otherwise
these persons would be unable to remain in government despite strong
public dissatisfaction and pass it to each other, despite internal
disagreement and clash of interests.
Recently Lragir.am has published articles on why the West chose Serzh
Sargsyan. Perhaps it is equally interesting to know why Serzh Sargsyan
chose the West, thus gaining the image of a less pro-Russian figure,
and this opinion is spread not only among the Western but also the
Russian experts.
A general answer it given above. Serzh Sargsyan and Robert Kocharyan
make their foreign political choice according to the requirements
of duration of their rule. Hence, Serzh Sargsyan thinks that the
interests and requirements of his administration will be better
supported if he faces the West. For its part, it is based on the
national interest because as I said above the ruling system and its
leaders may prioritize their personal interests but the national
interest has to be linked with this, at least because their rule and
the weight of problems during their rule are essentially determined
by the stability and effectiveness of the state.
Perhaps Serzh Sargsyan thinks that this process will be more stable
and effective if he faces West, and the West can be a more efficient
and useful partner.
For its part, Russia is in a new stage of global weakening. Unlike
the first stage of the 1990's, this weakening has fewer external
expressions but is more serious in terms of profoundness.
Weakening Russia is not only an ineffective economic partner but
also a generator of destructive public mentality because for weak
Russia the only resource for ensuring its own interests in the
key region of the South Caucasus remains the permanent-local or
general destabilization. If we add the context of wider geopolitical
developments, it is becoming clear that it would be thoughtless not to
consider the West as an economic, political and civilization priority
and Armenia would go against the stream, suffering state losses and
leading to loss of power of the ruling elite.
Does this mean that during Robert Kocharyan's presidency the choice
of Russia was made with the same principle? There are some essential
nuances which need to be taken into consideration, considering Robert
Kocharyan's presidential choice.
The first and crucial was the factor of October 27. Robert Kocharyan's
choice was made after the 27th. Besides, during the eight years of
his presidency another process was underway in Russia, and after the
so-called first stage of weakening in the 90s Russia had entered
into a stage of reconstruction and set forth serious ambitions in
both domestic and foreign policies. It is notable that the West
abstained from serious competition or resistance. In this situation,
Robert Kocharyan made his choice.
In fact, this is not a matter of someone's correct or wrong choice
but is on one of the possible motives.
The point is that in the correct or wrong option the key thing is
the choice inside the country on what state and social coexistence
rules are chosen as the axis of the independent state of Armenia,
constitutional and legal order, clan and quota-based economic and
political style of life. It is known what so far the ruling elites
have chosen in Armenia.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress