In his speech, the President noted in particular that Armenia today is living in a rapidly changing world, where the logic of international relations, the forms of interaction between states, economic ties and, naturally, the tools of diplomacy are changing.
The President said:
“Armenia is also changing as a sovereign state — in terms of its state capacities, economic and social potential, international relations and the way it perceives its role in the world. The incredible changes that have taken place in our country and in developments concerning it over the past year are proof of this.
Under these circumstances, we must not only preserve the traditional and fundamental functions of our diplomacy, but also expand their substance through new approaches and changes.
Representing Armenia, maintaining political dialogue, protecting the interests of our citizens, and carrying out consular and protocol work continue to form the foundation of the diplomatic service. But modern diplomacy is no longer merely about maintaining established relations. It is also about creating new relationships, identifying opportunities and making them accessible to Armenia.
It is noteworthy that under these changing conditions and circumstances, the Government decided to expand the functions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to include international trade. This is certainly not merely a change of name, but a significant additional workload which, in my firm conviction, should indeed have been entrusted to the Foreign Ministry. Let me remind you that for a short period following the Soviet era, in 1990–1991, this function was carried out by Armenia’s Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations, after which it was simply transferred to the Government.
Let us acknowledge that diplomacy is not limited exclusively to political relations, particularly since in the modern world they are also closely interconnected with the economic factor. Therefore, from now on, economic diplomacy — or, if you prefer, trade diplomacy — will be added to the Foreign Ministry’s ‘traditional functions’.
I fully share the view of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia that the work of ambassadors should also be assessed by the volume and growth of our trade and economic relations with the respective country. It is important to measure the results of a diplomatic mission’s work by practical outcomes as well — by deepening economic ties and ensuring opportunities for Armenian businesses to enter international markets. I believe a clear objective should be set: to boost bilateral trade and, especially, to promote Armenia’s investment attractiveness.
In this context, I would suggest making more active use of business forums, B2B meetings and round-table discussions, perhaps including such formats in the programme of every high-level visit. It is well known that business makes its own way and that the state has relatively little to do in this regard. However, I believe that providing an appropriate format — a distinctive platform — and the participation or presence of the leadership of the respective countries at such events would provide an additional guarantee for creating an atmosphere of mutual trust.
Before concluding my remarks, I would certainly like to address the ideology and philosophy of ‘Real Armenia’ within the logic of assessing the 35th anniversary of the independence of the Republic of Armenia.
What happened in 1991 — I mean the independence referendum — subsequently failed in any way to consolidate the substance of independence. On the contrary, over the years it devalued it and disappointed and discouraged many people, distancing them from the aspiration to have an independent and sovereign state of their own. Over the years, our country became a clan-based, corrupt state whose very existence had come to depend solely and exclusively on a ‘third force’.
‘The challenge is to make politics more responsive to the demands of its own citizens, so that through the political process Armenia ceases to be oligarchic and instead becomes a society that provides much greater incentives for the majority of its citizens, enabling it to make use of its significant potential.’ These are Acemoglu’s words.
‘I am, of course, not an expert on Armenia, but I can say that Armenia’s problem is not geographical, cultural or geopolitical, but political.’ He said this back in 2013 during an economic forum at the State University, speaking online. And his assessments are simply one hundred per cent true.
The situation changed after the Velvet Revolution of 2018, when the authorities began consistently combating phenomena that particularly hindered improvements in domestic life — corruption, patronage, liberalisation of business and the abolition of other privileges. Unfortunately, solutions to external issues, which had long been deadlocked, had become impossible because of the will of both the conflicting parties themselves and the mediators.
Let me remind you once again that the guiding ideology of the Third Republic was the ‘exclusion of the third force’. Who abandoned it, when and why remains unanswered to this day.
On the one hand, the question is why the Armenian authorities before the Velvet Revolution did not in practice formalise the unification of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia, but instead negotiated with Azerbaijan for more than a quarter of a century over some kind of ‘status’, while at the international level advancing the objective of ‘recognition and implementation of the right to self-determination’. I share the assessment that, in fact, from 1994 to 2022 Armenia as a state suffered from a ‘duality complex’: domestically it acted as a ‘claimant’, while externally it presented itself as a subject of international law.
What happened afterwards required a new approach and a realistic assessment of the situation, and the 2022 Prague summit marked the beginning of that process. It became the starting point that made it possible to act as a fully sovereign, independent and predictable country, one that is prepared to face reality and, on that basis, make decisions that may be painful but are rational, pragmatic and necessary for the state. The difference between the descriptions of foreign policy in the Government programmes for 2021–2026 and 2026–2031 is itself evidence of this.
The most important message is the message of Peace and the readiness of the Republic of Armenia to make it a reality through a balanced and balancing foreign policy.
I wish you productive work and success in protecting and advancing the interests of the Republic of Armenia.”
