In response to the proposal, put forth by a number of civil society and political forces on holding a referendum on the European future of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia, stated that he did not know the extent to which the EU was ready to engage with Armenia.
Lousineh Hakobyan, lawyer, the President of Europe in Law NGO and co-coordinator of the EU-Armenia Civil Society Platform, addressed this and other matters on European integration at Media Center on 12 July.
Noting that despite the EU’s repeated emphasis that the Eastern Partnership policy is not an instrument for enlargement, Lousinen Hakobyan observes that Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia, the three states involved in this policy, currently hold an EU candidate status, with Georgia’s candidate status suspended. L. Hakobyan pointed out that, in deciding on these states’ EU membership candidacy, the EU institutions particularly prioritized the European aspirations of the Georgian people and met them halfway.
Referring to the public opinion polls on EU membership in Armenia, Lousineh Hakobyan underscores the strong aspirations of Armenians in the same direction. She believes that a referendum, likely to yield a positive outcome, would bolster Armenia’s case for EU membership and serve as a crucial factor when the issue is discussed within the EU. Highlighting the significance of the referendum, L. Hakobyan urges the government to fulfill its commitments in the area of democratization, trade, economy, transport, nuclear energy, and a number of other areas. She emphasizes that submitting an application for EU membership would necessitate new commitments.
“In light of these developments in the Eastern Partnership policy, I believe the time is right for a referendum. The logic of Article 2 of the Constitution suggests that the pivotal question of Armenia’s European future must be decided by a referendum, aiming for a landmark vote from Armenian citizens. Given this context, frankly, I find the Prime Minister’s statement unclear. Does he believe the timing isn’t right or that a referendum on this issue shouldn’t happen at all? I firmly believe the timing is ideal, especially considering the ongoing enlargement within the Eastern Partnership region, which should render admission much more feasible now. It’s unlikely that a separate enlargement process will be organized specifically for Armenia after the current phase concludes.”
Regarding the EU’s response, the speaker notes that the organization itself lacks homogeneity. Some member states, such as the Baltic countries, show strong support for Armenia’s potential aspirations, sparing no effort to promote closer ties and affirming Armenia’s place within the European family. “We can rely on their steadfast support in terms of lobbying efforts, strengthening bilateral relations, and increasing contacts within the EU at all levels. Furthermore, we cannot disregard the significant resolution passed by the overwhelming majority of the European Parliament in March, which called on the European Commission and the European Council to support Yerevan in bolstering its cooperation with Brussels. This resolution should be seen as a positive gesture towards Armenia, which attests to the substantial backing for the country within this political institution.”
Lousineh Hakobyan highlighted that during last year’s Eastern Partnership annual conference, when asked whether the EU is ready for Armenia’s accession, relatively senior EU officials responded that the EU was an open institution and would consider Armenia’s application if the latter expressed an interest to apply. “It is clear that Armenia must meet specific criteria, yet, they also acknowledged that Armenia’s advancement in democratization in some areas, even surpasses Ukraine, Moldova, and Georgia.”
However, Hakobyan identified critical issues in the implementation of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement (CEPA), “areas where I can’t call the reforms slow, as most probably, they are not happening at all.” The judicial sector is on top of the list, the speaker believes.
According to L. Hakobyan, Armenia missed a crucial opportunity for judicial reform when public-demanded vetting was not carried out. “Conservative lawyers within the ruling party, aided by some international partners, opposed vetting as a viable solution, thus aborting the trend,” she stated. While legislative reforms are now attempting to address the matter in the future, L. Hakobyan described the current approach as discriminatory and selective, often in breach of judges’ rights. “The powers of a group of judges were terminated due to exercising their right to freedom of expression, contrary to the constitently established European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) practice. According to my information, these judges have already applied to the ECtHR, and I doubt the outcomes will be favorable for the State,” L. Hakobyan added. “In one of those cases, our Constitutional Court has already ruled to uphold the judge’s rights domestically, ensuring the restoration of violated right and preventing escalation to the ECtHR, which has been a persistent practice over the years.”
According to Lusine Hakobyan, there is a lack of coordination in the reform process at the state level. She points out that the senior leadership is primarily focused on security issues, the peace agenda, thus neglecting proper coordination of domestic reforms. The CEPA and other reform agendas generally progress independently and in silos, lacking universal coordination and logical interconnectedness.
When asked about the consistency and influence of civil society in monitoring these reforms, L. Hakobyan noted:
“There is indeed monitoring, but I must note a caveat. Civil society is not homogeneous; certain elements affiliated with political parties, having inflitrated into the civil society and availing themselves of significant financial resources, do not contribute to the overarching goals or strengthening of civil society. Moreover, they disrupt civil society’s agenda by interpreting events through the lens of their party leaders. One prevalent narrative they push is that we are a complete failure — having lost the war, failed in foreign policy, and democracy in general. Utilizing their political parties’ ideologies and agendas, this faction of civil society seeks to persuade international partners that Armenia’s situation is hopeless.
In contrast, the genuine civil society, independent of political affiliations and other influences, adheres to a different principle: if the government declares its commitment to European integration and takes consistent steps in that direction, we will support these efforts. However, we also criticize the government for its inadequate implementation of commitments and promised reforms.”
Lousineh Hakobyan believes Armenia is falling behind in implementing reforms, and European institutions are expressing dissatisfaction. When asked whether this is due to Armenia failing to do its homework and being unprepared, Hakobyan responded:
“Some entities assess the progress negatively. The EU, the State Department, and other partners have identified certain deficiencies in the judicial and legal spheres. However, overall, despite these shortcomings, it is recognized that Armenia is progressing towards democracy. Regarding the commitments under CEPA, Armenia and the EU are negotiating a more ambitious cooperation agenda. The trilateral meeting on April 5 was organized within that context and marked a truly unprecedented milestone.”
“But there are also areas where progress is evident. Since 2018, we have seen free and fair elections. While they were not flawless, they marked a significant improvement from previous practices. People can now participate in peaceful assemblies, and generally these gatherings are not dispersed as long as they adhere to the law. Of course, there are issues here too; at times, police use disproportionate force, and individual officers should be held accountable, which is not a consistent practice. However, overall, those who wish to protest in Armenia are able to do so.”
Regarding the events near the National Assembly building on June 12, L. Hakobyan commented as follows: “Daniel Ioannisyan, Levon Barseghyan, and I, along with a few other organizations, issued a statement concerning the police actions. There were problematic aspects, but we also dissented with the assessment of some colleagues who described it as a peaceful assembly. They overlooked the fact that the participants attempted to breach the police chain and, failing that, broke through the fence of the Lovers’ Park to bypass the police and reach the National Assembly building. Yet, the National Assembly is a protected site. Given Armenia’s history of multiple attacks on the National Assembly since 1996, including the slaughter of the state leadership in 1999, it’s clear that this cannot be classified as a peaceful assembly. In this regard, we disagreed with those colleagues who viewed it differently and chose not to sign their statement.”
As for CEPA, it remains our primary document with the EU. Our Platform has repeatedly proposed revising the CEPA implementation roadmap, especially in relation to democratic reforms, as the current one does not align with the aspirations of the civil society. We have received positive feedback, indicating readiness to proceed with revisions. Currently, we are actively collaborating within the Platform to define new priorities and update the roadmap. We have also requested the government to share the draft document under negotiation so that we can engage in consultations within the civil society, and if confidential provisions are included, those could be shared with some stakeholders, to enable input from the wider civil society. We are currently at this stage.”
“And what is the current status of visa liberalization?”
In response to this question, Hakobyan mentioned:
“We consistently raise this issue in all our meetings, advocating for the start of negotiations on visa liberalization with Armenia as soon as possible. We’ve been informed that some member states have reservations. We have also requested a meeting, tentatively scheduled for September, to further discuss this matter. It appears there are certain human rights obligations that Armenia has yet to fulfill, including the adoption of the Law on Equality and the ratification of the Istanbul Convention, and so on. I anticipate having a more detailed discussion on these topics soon with the representatives and ambassadors of the member states.
We have written to the Deputy Prime Minister’s office, offering civil society’s readiness to support through consultation, capacity building and enhancement interventions in any way possible. We have requested guidance on where our assistance would be most beneficial, and I hope for an enhanced effectiveness of our dialogue moving forward. We stand ready to offer our support in the specified areas, where they would need our advisory opinion and assistance, and look forward to collaborating in this capacity.”