Tweet
Interview with Hranush Kharatyan, ethnographer
The Country Has Lost
Mrs. Kharatyan, Serzh Sargsyan's statement on joining the Customs
Union caused apathy in some people, the pro-European ones say it was
aimed at preventing the signing of the Association Agreement with the
EU and resulted from pressure by Russia. Does this mean that prospects
of change are vague?
I think you should also list those people who claim that this is the
best way for us and we have chosen the most correct way enabling us to
resolve our political issues. In my opinion, Armenia and Russia will
be left alone in the Customs Union if Armenia eventually joins it. The
Customs Union is full of suspicious prospects where controversies had
occurred before it was established. Since the idea came from
Kazakhstan but Russia assumed its implementation and, including
Belarus, it initially established the hierarchy, so forget about a
horizontal union. I think Kazakhstan will find a way to leave the
Customs Union. If Armenia joins the Customs Union, the result will be
an incomprehensible organization including Russia, almost Russia
(Belarus) and Armenia which does not have a shared border with the
first two. The phrase `Customs Union' will soon be replaced with the
indefinite `Union'. Apart from all, Russia needed the fact of the
union.
As to the word `pro-European', I treat it with suspicion. The
pro-European people are different in Armenia. There are cultural ones
or anti-Russian ones for who the past way with Russia is a rich ground
for concerns. In addition to this, the Association Agreement was just
the prelude to the EU membership, it was not a guarantee. This prelude
could last, considering the reluctance of the Armenian authorities to
comply with European norms. Greece's example was a warning for both
Europe and Armenia. The EU does not want to get another Greece,
Armenia does not want to get under the European control.
Nevertheless, the authorities kept trumpeting that it was our choice,
and we want to ensure rule of law, and nobody has forced us to choose
this way, and eventually rapid denial is evidence to either our
unserious attitude to the society while imposing some orientation or
our fear. What if we get rule of law? In brief, between loyalty to
European values and inner beliefs part of the Armenian society got
serious expectations, and today there is apathy towards I'd rather say
worrying prospects, not uncertainty.
Nevertheless, was there pressure, and did we lose the Association
Agreement due to pressure?
I think Russian pressure was obvious and obviously continues but I am
not sure that the government, at least part of it, particularly the
president was dissatisfied with that pressure. Several strange things
have happened recently. Recently it has become known that a commission
was set up in December 2012 to discuss Armenia's possible membership
to the Customs Union. In fact, it was being done secretly because none
of our officials has ever announced that both options, the Customs
Union and the Association Agreement, were being discussed. Ostensibly,
the problem of Russian pressure came up last autumn. And even if some
people in our government disagreed with the Customs Union, they
nevertheless created a commission to study the package, and they
probably know everything about the prospects but vis-à-vis such harsh
criticism none of them has brought the obvious argument for our
membership to the Customs Union. They are muttering something about
military security which was equally used while establishing the CIS
and the CSTO. Meanwhile, Armenia is being betrayed by the CSTO
countries. And while Azerbaijan is buying weapon from Russia, and
neither the CIS, nor the CSTO reacts, none of them indicate that the
sides have any mutual commitments of value so far. This argument was
there during the years of negotiations on the Association Agreement
but it was not an obstacle then. Today it is. What has changed?
Simplym it was confirmed that this is not a union with horizontal
mutual commitments but of vertical pressure. Meanwhile, the president
of Armenia does not mind pressure. In other words, I think there was
pressure but there was no resistance to pressure. The country has lost
but the head of state has not lost.
Mrs. Kharatyan, we don't have a politician who can make independent
decisions and express a clear position without pressure. Why? Is it
again due to Russia's dictate?
Of course, there is always Russia's participation vis-à-vis the
behavior of our political leader but I believe that if we had a
political leader with clear beliefs shared by people, we would know
about it. Of the former ones both Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Kocharyan
were strong, they were good at making decisions but both eventually
lost public confidence. The egocentric instincts probably prevail over
social and political needs in a landlocked country with limited
resources.
On the other hand, a leader is necessary but not enough. Our society
should not look for leaders but offer its own vision of state. This
vision must be enough to produce leaders. What do we want? To be
realistic, we want to live better. We want welfare. This is not a
vision of a country, a state. This is a vision of an individual, a
state. In case our society states that we want a country with good
education that produces values, we will have leaders leading towards
that goal. We will have less supermarkets but two or three brilliant
universities and good schools. Meanwhile, we want a car, a detached
house. The whole society does. This is our dream. And our leaders
match our dream. There are bright, devoted young people in today's
civil movements but problems are so many that they are somewhat
divided.
Today's activists remind me of the youth of France in the 1960s. Then
there was an interesting thing about Europe. The philosophy of social
protest was born in post-war, apathetic Germany but expressed in
France. In general, the German people are very slow in social and
political activities. They are more constructive in specific actions.
As a result, the philosophy of protest was practiced in youth
movements in France. While the German writers were writing about the
crisis of mind, isolation, deadlock, while the German people were
starting to appraise destruction caused by Nazis and were looking for
ways of constructive guideline to psychological responsibility of the
new generation with complexes for the evil caused by fathers, young
people of France stood up and voiced a demand for social justice. In
the long run, they put forth the issue of human rights: the rights of
family members, layers of the society, the role and importance of
women and men. Not of the French people alone. The French youth
movements attached a lot of importance to the issue of freedom of
Kurds that burst then. The French youth demanded freedom, equality,
free education, welfare, dignity, respect for others, not for
themselves.
The successful system of social security in France is the result of
the youth movements of that period. A lot of books were written then
to protect Kurds. And the demand was addressed to everyone, first of
all to themselves. And if a big group of people believe that they
share values, they will succeed.
In our society free thinking and conservatism, patriarchic views still
deny each other. Our boys are mostly ashamed of equality of men and
women in family, most girls are not ready for such equality either.
So, they still disagree over the solution of the problem of general
dignity. All kinds of examples come to prove that our social movement
does not have shared beliefs, we offer different solutions for similar
problems. Or we apply them to our own lives differently. Perhaps
because we are still looking for leaders, someone who will offer the
solution to us. Meanwhile, we need to look for what we want. As soon
as we understand, there will be no lack of leaders.
Siranuysh Papyan
17:09 05/10/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/interview/view/31036
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
The Country Has Lost
Mrs. Kharatyan, Serzh Sargsyan's statement on joining the Customs
Union caused apathy in some people, the pro-European ones say it was
aimed at preventing the signing of the Association Agreement with the
EU and resulted from pressure by Russia. Does this mean that prospects
of change are vague?
I think you should also list those people who claim that this is the
best way for us and we have chosen the most correct way enabling us to
resolve our political issues. In my opinion, Armenia and Russia will
be left alone in the Customs Union if Armenia eventually joins it. The
Customs Union is full of suspicious prospects where controversies had
occurred before it was established. Since the idea came from
Kazakhstan but Russia assumed its implementation and, including
Belarus, it initially established the hierarchy, so forget about a
horizontal union. I think Kazakhstan will find a way to leave the
Customs Union. If Armenia joins the Customs Union, the result will be
an incomprehensible organization including Russia, almost Russia
(Belarus) and Armenia which does not have a shared border with the
first two. The phrase `Customs Union' will soon be replaced with the
indefinite `Union'. Apart from all, Russia needed the fact of the
union.
As to the word `pro-European', I treat it with suspicion. The
pro-European people are different in Armenia. There are cultural ones
or anti-Russian ones for who the past way with Russia is a rich ground
for concerns. In addition to this, the Association Agreement was just
the prelude to the EU membership, it was not a guarantee. This prelude
could last, considering the reluctance of the Armenian authorities to
comply with European norms. Greece's example was a warning for both
Europe and Armenia. The EU does not want to get another Greece,
Armenia does not want to get under the European control.
Nevertheless, the authorities kept trumpeting that it was our choice,
and we want to ensure rule of law, and nobody has forced us to choose
this way, and eventually rapid denial is evidence to either our
unserious attitude to the society while imposing some orientation or
our fear. What if we get rule of law? In brief, between loyalty to
European values and inner beliefs part of the Armenian society got
serious expectations, and today there is apathy towards I'd rather say
worrying prospects, not uncertainty.
Nevertheless, was there pressure, and did we lose the Association
Agreement due to pressure?
I think Russian pressure was obvious and obviously continues but I am
not sure that the government, at least part of it, particularly the
president was dissatisfied with that pressure. Several strange things
have happened recently. Recently it has become known that a commission
was set up in December 2012 to discuss Armenia's possible membership
to the Customs Union. In fact, it was being done secretly because none
of our officials has ever announced that both options, the Customs
Union and the Association Agreement, were being discussed. Ostensibly,
the problem of Russian pressure came up last autumn. And even if some
people in our government disagreed with the Customs Union, they
nevertheless created a commission to study the package, and they
probably know everything about the prospects but vis-à-vis such harsh
criticism none of them has brought the obvious argument for our
membership to the Customs Union. They are muttering something about
military security which was equally used while establishing the CIS
and the CSTO. Meanwhile, Armenia is being betrayed by the CSTO
countries. And while Azerbaijan is buying weapon from Russia, and
neither the CIS, nor the CSTO reacts, none of them indicate that the
sides have any mutual commitments of value so far. This argument was
there during the years of negotiations on the Association Agreement
but it was not an obstacle then. Today it is. What has changed?
Simplym it was confirmed that this is not a union with horizontal
mutual commitments but of vertical pressure. Meanwhile, the president
of Armenia does not mind pressure. In other words, I think there was
pressure but there was no resistance to pressure. The country has lost
but the head of state has not lost.
Mrs. Kharatyan, we don't have a politician who can make independent
decisions and express a clear position without pressure. Why? Is it
again due to Russia's dictate?
Of course, there is always Russia's participation vis-à-vis the
behavior of our political leader but I believe that if we had a
political leader with clear beliefs shared by people, we would know
about it. Of the former ones both Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Kocharyan
were strong, they were good at making decisions but both eventually
lost public confidence. The egocentric instincts probably prevail over
social and political needs in a landlocked country with limited
resources.
On the other hand, a leader is necessary but not enough. Our society
should not look for leaders but offer its own vision of state. This
vision must be enough to produce leaders. What do we want? To be
realistic, we want to live better. We want welfare. This is not a
vision of a country, a state. This is a vision of an individual, a
state. In case our society states that we want a country with good
education that produces values, we will have leaders leading towards
that goal. We will have less supermarkets but two or three brilliant
universities and good schools. Meanwhile, we want a car, a detached
house. The whole society does. This is our dream. And our leaders
match our dream. There are bright, devoted young people in today's
civil movements but problems are so many that they are somewhat
divided.
Today's activists remind me of the youth of France in the 1960s. Then
there was an interesting thing about Europe. The philosophy of social
protest was born in post-war, apathetic Germany but expressed in
France. In general, the German people are very slow in social and
political activities. They are more constructive in specific actions.
As a result, the philosophy of protest was practiced in youth
movements in France. While the German writers were writing about the
crisis of mind, isolation, deadlock, while the German people were
starting to appraise destruction caused by Nazis and were looking for
ways of constructive guideline to psychological responsibility of the
new generation with complexes for the evil caused by fathers, young
people of France stood up and voiced a demand for social justice. In
the long run, they put forth the issue of human rights: the rights of
family members, layers of the society, the role and importance of
women and men. Not of the French people alone. The French youth
movements attached a lot of importance to the issue of freedom of
Kurds that burst then. The French youth demanded freedom, equality,
free education, welfare, dignity, respect for others, not for
themselves.
The successful system of social security in France is the result of
the youth movements of that period. A lot of books were written then
to protect Kurds. And the demand was addressed to everyone, first of
all to themselves. And if a big group of people believe that they
share values, they will succeed.
In our society free thinking and conservatism, patriarchic views still
deny each other. Our boys are mostly ashamed of equality of men and
women in family, most girls are not ready for such equality either.
So, they still disagree over the solution of the problem of general
dignity. All kinds of examples come to prove that our social movement
does not have shared beliefs, we offer different solutions for similar
problems. Or we apply them to our own lives differently. Perhaps
because we are still looking for leaders, someone who will offer the
solution to us. Meanwhile, we need to look for what we want. As soon
as we understand, there will be no lack of leaders.
Siranuysh Papyan
17:09 05/10/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/interview/view/31036
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress