“If you are a dust rag yourself, what does it matter who you are with?”

“Russia politically eliminated a political figure devoted to it—the president of a state—and the reason was Russian ambition,” our compatriot, Moscow-based human rights defender Arbak Khachatryan told Aravot, discussing Presidents Putin and Sargsyan’s meeting in Moscow and the statement made and signed afterward that Armenia would join the Customs Union. In his opinion, Russia’s display of superpower ambition politically eliminated “its little partner and its president,” something our interviewee considers one of Russia’s most dangerous steps.

Arbak Khachatryan finds understandable all the “arguments” that Russia did “very good” things for Armenia for 75 years and, as Russia’s president says, fed and educated 6 million Armenians: “But it resembles a father and mother feeding a child and then beating it. Imagine what kind of child will grow up.” Referring to the well-known film The Godfather, Khachatryan observes that Russia framed the question so Serzh Sargsyan would have no alternative. Had there been an announcement that a working group was being formed to study the positive and negative aspects of joining the Customs Union, our interviewee would have considered it normal.

But taking such a step in this way, without consulting other representatives of the state, is at least bewildering to him. According to Khachatryan, the main question was this: is Armenia in the position of a state or of a slave? He has another question: why did Russia allow Armenia to “play” with Europe for several years? Referring to protests over Customs Union membership outside the Armenian president’s residence, our interviewee sadly observes that men who fought for their land and liberated it are now met with chants of “Natasha, go away.”

In an Aravot interview just a month earlier, Arbak Khachatryan did not rule out the Armenian president going “to the Russian tsar’s feet” before 29 November, the Vilnius summit, to show Armenians and the world that Russia was with him. “I thought it would happen that way, but crossing that line cannot be accepted by a citizen, let alone a political figure. So it shocked the pro-Russian, pro-European and pro-American camps,” our interviewee says, adding that it was probably done to gain time. But, in Khachatryan’s opinion, Russia above all should not have allowed the step Serzh Sargsyan took.

He does not understand the political logic behind it. He considers it “ordinary thinking” and Russia’s “grossest mistake”: he believes that Russia, bearing socioeconomic burdens for various reasons, will not be able to protect its “strategic partner” later after so crudely destroying it. “It is unacceptable in this case to exploit the fact that so many millions of Armenians live legally or illegally in Russia,” the human rights defender says, expressing great bewilderment that this became a reason for pressure.

For four years, all Armenian institutions had done enormous work with European structures; the system had begun to function, and society had reached the necessary economic and political level, with debate over whether to orient toward the West or the East. Why did Armenia’s president take the path of trampling all this? Our interviewee says there is much to ponder: “Why did Serzh Sargsyan strike such a heavy blow against himself, putting everyone at an impasse? Including exposing the country to a blow from the West over mistakes committed under previous presidents.

If the problem concerned migrants in Russia or was personal, and Serzh Sargsyan refused to sign the agreement, he would become a hero. Some ‘political’ figures justify Sargsyan’s step as enabling him to continue in office. It would have been better not to remain president than to inflict such a blow on himself in his own country. Political pickpocketing is not a way of thinking; it is the lowest level. These are the swindlers who destroyed the country. That view is unacceptable. In my understanding, however, Sargsyan’s step was prompted by the security of either the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic or the Republic of Armenia—borders, the nuclear power plant… Perhaps by Aliyev–Putin agreements or threats to Armenia following an attack on Syria.

Naturally, Sargsyan could not withstand a problem like that, because no reasoning political figure would eliminate himself in such a way under other circumstances.” In this case, Arbak Khachatryan does not consider discussion of the pros and cons of joining the Customs Union or the EU especially significant. What matters most to him is that Armenia’s president and the Armenian state lost their credibility: a state that had a position on the international stage, struggled and won the Karabakh war.

“If you are a dust rag, what does it matter whom you are with?” Nevertheless, Khachatryan sees the cause of this situation in Armenia having been governed until now by autocratic presidents, and believes that if our state had strong democratic institutions, Russia’s president would not have dared put such questions to Armenia’s president. According to Khachatryan, the foundations of this kind of rule were laid in 1995 through falsification of the constitutional referendum.

NELLY GRIGORYAN

Aravot daily