Pashinyan assures: complementarity  is catastrophic mistake for  Armenia

ArmInfo. I  think that complementarity is a catastrophic mistake for Armenia. And that is  not a new mistake, it's not even thirty years old, it isn't even a 100-year old mistake. That mistake is much older. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan stated in an interview with Agence  France-Presse to the commentary that the long paradigm of Armenia's  foreign policy was complementarity between the West and Russia, but  after the Ukrainian war, the situation has changed greatly.  Now the  countries are unlikely to be able to maintain good relations with  both the West and Russia and how does this affect Armenia's foreign  policy.

"I am not criticizing the past governments and I am not criticizing  anyone, because look, your question is about how Armenia is going to  live between Russia and the West. But in reality we are not between  Russia and the West, we are actually between Georgia, Turkey, Iran  and Azerbaijan. And in reality, the countries of the region are among  one another," - the RA Prime Minister noted.

In this vein, he recalled: "In our 2020 election program, the program  of our government there is a clause which is called regionalization.  I say again, experience and our history shows that this is not about  10, 20, 30 or even 40 years, this is about centuries. We are living  here, we are not living between Russia and the US, it's Europe that  lives between Russia and the US. We live between Georgia, Iran,  Turkey and Azerbaijan. And the question is the following - should we  manage our relations with our neighbors, I am sorry to use that word,  through Moscow, Washington and Brussels. In terms of the paradigm -  no, but in practical terms we lack that political tradition.

Deep down, that's the cause of our whole problem, because what we  should me also concerns me, because there are many historical,  social-psychological layers here, and this issue cannot be resolved  on the level of an individual having power and mandate. It's not so  that I have ridded me of this problem. Any person sitting here in  this position in the last few hundred years, possible even longer,  would have this problem, I am speaking about Armenian statehood.

If we have a problem or an issue with our environment, our first  reaction is to check what Moscow, Brussels or Washington can do. Of  course, during this period the capitals, their names might have  changed over this long historical run. And we comprehend this. But  nothing has changed in our life, because we also lack that culture,  they also lacked it. And we lack that because of a certain historical  tradition, and they lacked it because of a certain historical  tradition.

When the time comes , and there is a chance, an opportunity, or maybe  a realization that another paradigm should be applied for solving the  issues, a different logic emerges in our environment - well, you have  come to resolve issues with us, wasn't that you that brough  Washington, Moscow or Brussels on us for a long time? Ok, come over  here now. You asked me about the paradigm, our paradigm is not  between Moscow and Washington.

But on the other hand, in the 21st century, or even in the 19th  century, it was not possible to pursue a policy bypassing the  geopolitical centers, and that's no needed and not even reasonable.  The challenge here is that we are trying to change the name, saying a  balanced and balancing policy is what we need. We do not want this  new paradigm, which is so far still a theory, I tell this directly,  we realize this, but we are still unable to implement it. And that's  because of us, because it's one thing when you know what you need to  do, and it's another thing that the tradition is not that.

But on the other hand, this policy should not be perceived as a  policy of bypassing or ignoring the geopolitical centers, but we are  also trying to take steps. When I went to participate in the  inauguration of the Turkish president, there were both positive and  negative reactions in Armenia. These reactions reflect this whole  tangle. And the challenge is when we speak about paradigm, to what  extent are we going to be in the mode of cooperation, rather than in  the mode of monologue, because this is not easy for anyone to  perceive and realize that in this region for example, this political  map should continue to exists for centuries to come. Some people put  a question mark after this sentence. Some people frankly want to find  justifications so that this political map can stem from the interest  of all the regional countries without contradicting the interests of  geopolitical centers. I, for example, bear this second belief, but  that's not enough," he noted.

To clarify after signing the cease-fire agreement, which no one likes  in Armenia, , how does he justify staying in power? Prime Minister  said:  "Through elections. Based on the decision of the people,  because what I have said and I have done is that I bore and I bear  the responsibility for it. You know that after November 9, 2020, I  resigned for the purpose of having snap parliamentary elections to  answer exactly the question you ask. Not only others, but I and our  political team also ask that question. After November 9, 2020, if my  memory serves me correctly, in December, so basically, a month and a  few days later, we publicly proposed to our opponents and our critics  to have snap parliamentary elections. We could have done that snap  election in November or even in December, but everyone understands  that chaotic situation, when nobody was ready for elections, nobody  had planned elections, the Government would be best prepared for an  elections.

In December I publicly proposed, but we had a situation when the  opposition said that the power should be transferred to the  opposition, meaning to them. Our position was that the power or the  mandate to govern is not our property, we cannot just give it to  somebody. We received that mandate from the people and we agreed to  give that mandate, but to give it only to the people. And we are  obliged to put in place conditions for the people to decide to whom  that mandate should be transferred.

Our most important obligation in that situation would be to ensure  the free expression of the people's will, to have a free, fair,  competitive and transparent election. After that the election took  place in a very tense but democratic atmosphere. By the way, very  importantly, before the election, the civil society demanded and we  changed the electoral code, switching to a fully proportional  representation electoral system, and the context was such that there  was an election of the Prime Minister. Under the old context and the  new context that was the case.  Snap parliamentary elections took  place in a very difficult environment, often charged with hate  speech. So there was a vote and I was elected the Prime Minister,  which was essentially a direct election, because with those numbers  in the election, under our Constitution the candidacy of the Prime  Minister is not discussed in the parliament. The power that gets the  majority, and our party received constitutional majority, immediately  appoints the Prime Minister. Importantly, the whole international  community unanimously said that the election was free, fair,  democratic and transparent. Now, whether the people made the best  choice they could is a question that only people can answer in the  upcoming election," summed up Pashinyan.