Mr. President,
Members of the Parliamentary Assembly,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is an honor and pleasure to address you. Last time I have addressed the Assembly on a very significant day for Armenia – the day of accession to the Council of Europe.
These were three demanding years of reforms that have touched upon all the domains of life in our country and necessitated full-time employment of all our efforts. Today I am here to announce that Armenia has fulfilled the vast majority of its accession commitments. For the few outstanding ones, there is a timetable agreed with a deadline fixed at the end of this year. Still, if asked of the single most vital achievement I would definitely answer: change in the perceptions in the Armenian society about own future. The people of Armenia is now more involved in the everyday life of the country. Formation of the Civil Society is on the move.

Does this mean Armenia has achieved the desirable level of democratic freedoms? The obvious answer is NO. Democracy has a long way to go in any country with high poverty indicators. To assure fully inclusive participation by the people in the democratic process, it is essential to achieve at least minimal level of social guarantees. That is precisely why we have strived to synchronize reforms in economy, political system, judiciary and the social field. In essence, Armenia has completed the process of dismantling the former centralized system of power and economy, which allowed for a total control over the society.

Armenian economy has undergone radical transformation both in terms of activity fields and of property forms. The scope and depth of the reforms allowed for a full-scale enactment of market economy. At present over 85% of Armenia’s GDP is produced in private sector, over 38% of it in small and medium enterprises. Annual GDP growth has averaged at 12% for last three consecutive years, regardless of the blockade implemented by two fellow-members of this very organization.

That dynamic economic growth has allowed us to develop a long-term Poverty Elimination Strategy. The first time in Armenia this governmental program was developed in close cooperation with international financial institutions and also with wide involvement of the society. That Strategy now guides us in the political decision-making and in choosing our budget priorities.

Fighting corruption is yet another important step towards effective democracy. The Government of Armenia watches corruption as a systemic evil, which cannot be eradicated merely through rhetoric or a couple of sampler prosecutions. We concentrate on the systemic change aimed at ruling out the sources of corruption. That is exactly why we have joined the GRECO group where we can learn from the experience of other states on combating corruption. Through a wide discussion including the OSCE, we have developed a comprehensive Anti-corruption strategy. A few weeks ago I have established an Anti-Corruption Council.

As an urgent measure directed at eradication of corruption in Armenia I shall prioritize the necessity of deepening the judicial reforms, improvement in tax and customs administration, and formation of an effective system of Civil Service. All these are key tools for implementation of anti-corruption policies.

In terms of a broader effort aimed at reducing corruption risks, I would like to particularly mention the importance of establishing competitive climate, predictability of governmental action, simplification of procedures, transparency thereof and public control. Those are our current priorities aimed at achieving the sustainability of the reforms and irreversibility of the democratization process in Armenia.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I know many of you wonder: what was happening in Armenia last spring? What fostered the activity of the opposition that surrogated the parliamentary work by revolutionary rallies? You are right to wonder, since you have been all informed by the monitoring group Rapporteurs who had visited Armenia only very recently, in January, that there are significant advancements in fulfilling the commitments accepted at the accession. And you know that most of those deal with advancing democracy. Expert evaluations of Armenia by international financial institutes are more than optimistic. Two-digit figures of economic growth and budgetary proficit, by default cannot fuel the revolutionary atmosphere. Moreover, there are three full years before the next parliamentary elections. Therefore, there were no internal prerequisites for increase in political activity. Accordingly, what has happened?

The answer is easy. The opposition, encouraged by the results of the “rose revolution” in neighboring Georgia, decided to duplicate it in the Armenian reality, which, however, had nothing in common with the Georgian one. They disregarded the fact that Armenia’s economy, as opposite to Georgian, undergoes dynamic advancement, the government is efficient, and the democratic achievements are safeguarded by institutional structures, including the law enforcement system capable of protecting the public order.

The history has many times demonstrated that inspiration by foreign revolutions never results in positive outcomes. Unfortunately, learning often comes only from own experience. That also happened in our case. The opposition left the parliament and unfolded street activity. They openly declared the goal: to destabilize the situation in the country, cumulate the maximum possible number of participants in a street action, surround the building of the Presidency and force me to resign.

Once the opposition witnessed lack of public interest towards their action plan, they decided to increase the tension, most probably to attract attention. They blocked the most loaded avenue of the city of Yerevan. That resulted in disruption of the traffic, prevented normal functioning of the National Assembly, of the Administration of the President and of the Constitutional Court. Four embassies and one of the biggest schools are located at the same avenue. The organizers called on the public for demonstrative disobedience. The police was left with no choice; the public order was restored quickly, without any significant damage to the health of the participants.
Necessity of implementation of similar police operations is always regrettable. Still, authorities have to protect the society from political extremists. It is particularly important in young democracies, which still lack the advanced traditions of the political and legal culture. Even more so when part of the population lives in poverty and can be easily manipulated by populist rhetoric.

I would like to particularly mention that the parties comprising the ruling coalition have many times offered cooperation to the opposition. Unfortunately, those offers were rejected. The opposition probably thinks that cooperation would undermine the revolutionary temper of their supporters.

Our country is in the important stage of its advancement, and I am confident that there are many directions that require non-partisan effort. We have offered the opposition to work together on the most important issues – the Constitutional reform and the new Electoral Code. The offer is still valid, however the discussions shall be held in the parliament, not in the street.

I would never talk about all this if not the recent resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly on Armenia. I regret that some of our MPs drew the PACE into that discussion. I am confident that the Council of Europe is not the best choice for the place to practice the opposition-authority contention. For that purpose there is national parliament: the main political mise en scene of Armenia.

Mr. Chairman:

I would now like to turn to one of the priority interest issues for Armenia. At the time of accession Armenia undertook to make steps towards peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. We have done so because we highly appreciate the necessity of friendly relations among neighboring states. However, to be able to effectively secure a long-lasting solution, one needs to deeply understand the essence of the conflict. I would like to outline two important factors characteristic of the Karabagh conflict.

First of all: Karabagh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan. At the time of collapse of the Soviet Union two states were formed: the Azerbaijani Republic on the territory of Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic and Republic of Nagorno Karabagh on the territory of the Nagorno-Karabagh Autonomous Region. Establishment of both these states has similar legal grounds. The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, henceforth, has nothing to do with the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh. We are ready to discuss the issue of settling that conflict in the legal domain.

Second: the war of 1992-94 was launched by the aggression of the Azeri authorities, which attempted to implement ethnic cleansing of the territory of Nagorno Karabagh with the purpose of its annexation. The situation in place today is the result of a selfless fight of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabagh for survival on their own land. It is a classical example of both the implementation of the right for self-determination and of misusing the “territorial integrity” concept as a justification for ethnic cleansings.

The people of Karabagh has prevailed in it’s strive for independent life in an egalitarian society. Independence of Karabagh today has 16 years of history. An entire generation grew up there that can think of no other status for the country. Nagorno Karabagh Republic today is an established state, in essence meeting all of the Council of Europe’s membership criteria. It is the reality which cannot be ignored. That is exactly why we insist on direct participation of Nagorno Karabagh in the negotiations, in which Armenia actively participates.

The solution shall emerge from the substance of the conflict and not from the perception of the possible strengthening of Azerbaijan through future “oil money”. “Oil money” approach is the formula of confrontation and not of compromise. Armenia is ready to continue and advance the cease-fire regime. We are ready for serious negotiations on a full-scale solution for the conflict. That is exactly why we have accepted two last formulas of solution offered by the international mediators, which, unfortunately, were denied by Azerbaijan.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of advancement of the regional cooperation in the Southern Caucasus. There is a wide spectrum for potential cooperation: from synchronization of legislation to restoring the interconnected transportation systems and to joint projects in the energy sector. We are confident that regional cooperation is the right route to the settlement of conflicts.

We have no doubt that South Caucasus as a region of inclusive economic cooperation will be able to achieve much more than three states of the region can dream of doing on their own. We believe in peace and cooperation.

Southern Caucasus has always been sensitive of external influences. Located at the crossroads of civilizations with vast potential in resources and numerous transit roots, it has always been a zone of increased interest. These considerations guided us in forming our foreign policy of “complimentarity.” That policy is based on the concept of seeking advantages in softening the contradictions of the global and regional powers, and not in deepening the gaps. We are responsible for the regional stability and our actions shall help to solve problems, instead of creating new ones. That approach allowed us to develop trustworthy relations with the United States, the European Union and Iran, and to strengthen the traditional kinship with Russia.

In this context I would also like to concentrate on the Armenian-Turkish relations, or rather on their absence. Those relations are shaded by the memories of the past: the Genocide, its consequences and lack of repentance. Nowadays the situation is worsened by the blockade of Armenia by Turkey. I would like to outline two principals which in my view are crucial to finding the way out from this impasse.

First of all: Developing practical ties and deliberations over the inherited problems shall take place in different dimensions and shall not influence one the other.
Second: Armenian-Turkish relations shall not be conditioned by our relations with a third country (Azerbaijan). Any precondition terminates all positive expectations.
Dear Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen:

Concluding, I would like to assure you that Armenia perceives its future in full-scale integration with the European family. A few days ago the European Union has decided to include Armenia in its “new neighborhood” initiative. This will further advance our resolve to satisfy the European criteria, to be able to contribute and fully benefit from the cooperation between our states and nations. We walk this road with deep belief and confidence and we appreciate your efforts to help us in that uneasy but crucial effort.
Thank you for your attention.