It is a rule that nothing serious happens in Armenia. Even if something not that serious happens, it is either dictated from someone abroad or the person makes it happen by himself. This was the case with Arthur Baghdasaryan. During in interview with a German newspaper, Baghdasaryan said that he sees the future of Armenia with the European Union and NATO. He also said that all elections in Armenia until now have been based on fraud.
The honest ones
It seemed as though he was one of our scared political figures with their callous decisions and, if you will, a man of “Balzac age” who dared to publicly announce that he is against having Armenia be Russia’s vassal in the line of power without the consent of Robert Kocharyan. Before his return to Armenia, there were already some foresights for Baghdasaryan’s participation in the upcoming presidential elections. However, at the National Assembly, Arthur Baghdasaryan tried to justify what he had said. First, he said that his announcement about Armenia becoming a member of NATO was simply an outlook; then he made some compliments to the president and his two coalition colleagues and mentioned:
“We have come a long way with the Republicans, the ARF and the president of Armenia-we have always been honest with each other the whole time.”
In regard to the threat that if the “Rule of Law” party is a disgrace to the republic, then it will leave the coalition, Arthur Baghdasaryan considers that as preferable but not a possible solution-the coalition won’t throw them out just like that. We can assume that from the speech by Prime Minister Andranik Markaryan after Baghdasaryan’s announcement about the fraud elections.
“I doubt that Arthur Baghdasaryan meant the 2003 presidential elections because during the 2003 elections, “Rule of Law” was the main party backing Robert Kocharyan. During the 2003 NA elections, as a result of a political agreement, Arthur Baghdasaryan was elected chairman of the National Assembly. The “Rule of Law” has played a major role in all that has happened in the National Assembly and the government and, eventually, must take some responsibility.” So, without taking responsibility, with all possible effects, the coalition will not let the “Rule of Law” party leave and slam the door behind it. The other members of the coalition would love to be the ones kicking Arthur Baghdasaryan out of the coalition and accusing him of being a hypocrite.
Relaxed when making the announcement
After the “Rule of Law” made clarifications about his announcements at the National Assembly, which left him surprised and confused, MP Hmayak Hovhannisyan stood at the podium and compared Baghdasaryan’s opinions with those of Georgian president Mikhail Sahakashvili. But I have to say that there are some limits on the age and expression of opinions when it comes to comparing Baghdasaryan and Sahakashvili. Arthur Baghdasaryan doesn’t have the strength to express his opinions honestly and without any complications. His fear of losing more than he has by being daring until the end and the simple fear of losing the president’s trust are what force him to periodically proof-read his opinions before expressing him. Only his great intentions make him daring to announce things, which he can’t defend until the end. Before making such theoretical judgments, I tried finding out Arthur Baghdasaryan’s answers to, in my opinion, some interesting questions. The main issue is that there are already some serious conflicts between the “Rule of Law” and the other coalitional parties and an openly shown hatred. After all this, does Mr. Baghdasaryan actually think it’s possible that they can come to terms and not leave the coalition? After leaving the coalition, the “Rule of Law” will automatically find itself part of the opposition. If that happens, what outlook does the leader of the party have? The questions that followed were the same. As is ordered to do, I sent the questions to the press correspondent of the National Assembly Anahit Adamyan via e-mail. After a short while, Adamyan informed me that “the president (of the National Assembly -L.A.) answered some of those questions in an interview with the “Aravot” newspaper.” I don’t think there’s a need to mention the fact that I couldn’t find Baghdasaryan’s answers to the questions even if I really wanted to. After I told Adamyan that I couldn’t find the answers to my questions, she told me to look on the bottom part of the page. There was no need to look there because Arthur Baghdasaryan was once again justifying himself in the abovementioned interview:
“It’s quite possible that there have been some disagreements (in the interview with the German newspaper -L.A.), after all, it was a one hour free interview with a journalist. The Armenian Constitution states that foreign politics are up to the president of the country to handle and he is the correspondent of that field and the one making the decisions. As chairman of the National Assembly, I know that that issue (Armenia’s NATO membership-L.A.) is not an issue on the parliament’s political agenda. But when a journalist asks many questions and talks a long time about that, do you think it’s appropriate for me to tell him or her to go and ask the president?”
Depression killed Isagulyan
Since neither the president nor the presidential administration have said anything about Baghdasaryan’s clarifications, I tried to get ahead of Condoleza Rice and asked adviser to the president of Armenia Garnik Isagulyan about Baghdasaryan’s clarifications and the possible effects. But Mr. Isagulyan gave me a laconic answer: how could I have bothered him with the internal and foreign politics of Armenia in days of mourning?
“After May 6th,” said the adviser.
I don’t doubt for a second that Mr. Isagulyan is not going to shave, present himself in front of the president with teary eyes and without having anything to eat for days. Unfortunately, in Armenia, nothing serious happens…besides disasters.