“Aravot” says Western-sponsored official events in Armenia marking international anti-corruption and human rights days “show the whole depth of human hypocrisy and cynicism.” “It would seem that an official who makes $1,000 a month but builds houses worth $1 million should at least blush a little when talking about corruption,” editorializes the paper. “But lengthy state service has made those people thick-skinned, cynical and shameless.”
“Yesterday, the Armenian people were fighting against corruption,” “Hayk” comments sarcastically on the subject. “At the forefront of the fight was [Prime Minister] Tigran Sarkisian, who very fittingly accused the Armenian people of not fighting against corruption hard enough … In theory, Tigran Sarkisian is right to say that corruption is spreading because of popular indifference. But if we get back to reality, we will see that corruption is imposed on the people by the authorities. If the Armenian citizen was confident that judges rule justly, he would not attempt to give bribes.”
“Hayots Ashkhar” is inclined to agree with those who believe that social rights such as employment and free education and healthcare are more important than individual freedoms and rights. The paper says the state is primarily responsible for upholding and guaranteeing those rights.
“Zhamanak” says Armenia is losing hopes for the implementation of its normalization agreements with Turkey. In these circumstances, says the paper, one should expect domestic political issues to again come to the fore in the months ahead. “The authority will sooner or later have to take a look at internal problems,” it says. It claims that President Serzh Sarkisian will have to deal with not only the opposition but also the lingering influence of his predecessor Robert Kocharian.
“Golos Armenii” criticizes Armenia’s accession to the World Trade Organization in 2003. “Our inability to draw lessons from others’ mistakes manifested here as well,” says the Russian-language paper. “WTO membership became an unjustified end in itself. And yet it was necessary to take into account all possible consequences of such a serious step. As a result, we have failed to protect our market against external goods interventions.”