The US State Department’s report on human rights in Armenia was published recently, 63 pages in all. As an aside, the section on Turkey was only 46 pages long, which implies that there were fewer things to write about. This is a case wherein the less they have to say, the better. A general glance at the report indicates that what the Americans have written is correct.

Perhaps others would have emphasised other sorts of things than what the Americans have; nevertheless, the facts and evaluations presented in the report are accurate. And now, some have once again started to display expressions of surprise on their faces. Why? What, is it that we have no idea what is going on in our police or army, with regards to our freedom of expression, or in business? We knew it and know it better than the Americans. It’s just that their word weighs heavier and, naturally, their influence is felt more strongly. This is a reality which no leadership in the modern world can disregard.

Now I would like to turn to certain related issues, which are in fact essential for understanding the report. Objections are being raised that no state has the right to interfere in the internal matters of any other state. I agree, but human rights have long since ceased being domestic issues of states. Human rights are currently global in their reach and in their nature. It is not for no reason that those rights are referred to as “Universal Human Rights”.

Besides which, almost all countries of the world, including Armenia, have signed on to numerous conventions pertaining to human rights, and have accordingly given legal expression to their obligations and have borne unquestionable responsibilities. Even if there are countries that have not acceded to such treaties – although I know of no such place – it makes no difference, as they are all bound to follow human rights anyway, as human rights are considered to be jus cogens, a peremptory norm, a fundamental principle of international law.

The other objection is that they are starting to compare our country with our neighbours or that they are generally comparing among various countries. Firstly, human rights are not comparative in nature, but are absolute values in and of themselves. And then, if it seems to some that they are being strict with us and if that is true, then the complaint ought not to be against the strictness, but in order to demand that the same level of strictness be maintained with regards to other countries as well.

And now for the most important part. It is unfortunate that we do not consider the issue of human rights in Armenia, perhaps even more so than in many other countries, as an issue of vital importance. Let me elaborate. The conditions of human rights in Somalia, for example, or in Chad, are doubtless much worse. However, there is an immense difference between us and them, as the challenges we have to face are different.

The countries I have named could last another fifty years this way, in the hope that, ultimately, things will get better. We do not have fifty years. We do not even have thirty years. Our country is fast losing its population, the elderly demographic is increasing, the outflow of people and of capital from the country is becoming more severe, all of our infrastructure is extremely deteriorated, the lack of confidence in the authorities is deepening, people are being alienated from their own land, etc., etc. In the course of twenty years, we have managed to exhaust our legacy.

Being in the geopolitical condition that we are and facing a de facto wartime situation, all of this could affect not only the future of our state, but also the collective survival of the Armenian people.

There are a number of authoritarian countries which can maintain states by selling oil or gas. We do not have that possibility. Our only path is to preserve our state by the inflow of people and capital through the rule of law and consolidated democracy, through establishing conditions for the manifestation of creative business by people. Perhaps then we would be able to withstand the escalating dangers.

But as long as our authorities and society in general do not consider human rights to be a means for our livelihood and the best method of governing the country, but as Western capriciousness or a bludgeon raised by dark forces against us, we shall not be able to achieve progress.

Why should I deny my own faults? I have myself not arrived easily at this conclusion. I used to think that, at a certain stage of development of a society, it would be worthwhile to limit the rights of a single individual for the sake of the common good. But experience has shown that not to be the case. As society is comprised of individuals, therefore the violation of the rights of even one individual would ultimately bring about the violation of the rights of society as a whole.

The firm establishment of human rights is the unshakable foundation of the realisation of all of our national and social aspirations, of the centuries-long dreams of our people. We simply do not have any other alternative, as, without the preservation of human rights, we simply do not have a future.

Ara Papian

Head of the Modus Vivendi Centre

10 April, 2011