If the Union rightly condemns actions that distort the will of voters, then this condemnation must be principled and applied indiscriminately; Robert Amsterdam

I present my official letter to the High Representative of the European Union, Kaya Kalas

High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Vice President of the European Commission

Her Excellency Mrs. Kaya Kalas

European Foreign Policy Service
Brussels

Topic: The credibility of the electoral process in the Republic of Armenia and the intervention through disinformation on the eve of the elections

Your Excellency Madam High Representative,

I address you with the deep institutional respect and reverence that is worthy of both your high position and the values ​​that you are called to represent. I am not doing this to ask the European Union to stand by this or that political force in Armenia, but on the contrary, to ask that the Union apply in Armenia exactly the same standard by which it measures electoral interference anywhere else in the world.

A few weeks before the parliamentary elections of Armenia to be held on June 7, the pan-European media, Euronews, announced in advance that the incumbent Prime Minister Mr. Nikol Pashinyan will win the Armenian elections. Shortly before the publication of this article, the International Republican Institute (IRI) published a survey that gave the opposition “Strong Armenia” party only six percent of the vote, when in any poll conducted on the ground in Armenia and enjoying the least credibility, it does not give it less than twenty-five percent of the vote. The gap between the figures presented in the survey of the International Republican Institute and the results of internal surveys in Armenia is not a margin of error. they are simply incomparable.

When an international survey records figures so far removed from the reality of the given country, it ceases to be a legitimate survey of electoral public opinion. The election forecast published weeks before the undoubtedly decisive vote, with numbers unrecognizable to any local observer, does not inform the citizen, but disorients and passives him. Its function is not to inform the voter about the current trends in Armenia, but on the contrary, it serves as a means to convince him that his decision is not essential. It convinces that the expected result is already predetermined, and therefore approaching the voting booth is useless.

It is hard to imagine a modus operandi more antithetical to the very essence of suffrage than that of trying to convince people that voting is pointless.
Madam High Representative, it is appropriate to remind that the democracy, rule of law, pluralism and respect for human rights stipulated in Article 2 of the Treaty on the European Union are not just beautiful rhetorical words, but the very fundamental values ​​on which the Union is based.

Moreover, Article 21 requires that the European Union be guided by these values ​​in its external activities. The right to free elections is not limited only to the presence of ballot boxes. it implies a public environment where the will of the people will be formed without manipulation and where the citizen will be confident that his vote is decisive. The election, the result of which is announced as not yet held, is not a free election, but a political farce.

For years, the European Union has invested enormous resources in creating an entire concept and institutional system aimed at countering what its own documents describe as “external information manipulation and interference”.

The Union rightly warns about the danger of those actions that try to predetermine the outcome of the elections and kill the voter’s faith in the power of their own vote. Therefore, it is extremely important that the same vigilance is shown when the act of predicting the name of the winner takes place from within the European Union itself, weeks before these crucial elections. The principles of the European Union must be applied indiscriminately and consistently. the same practice cannot be considered unacceptable interference when it comes from one geographical direction, and qualified as legitimate journalism when it comes from the opposite direction.

Added to these concerns are the stubborn claims that a part of the fifty million euros allocated to the current government of Armenia from the West can be directed to the financing of just such campaigns. The purpose of this letter is not to verify numbers, but to emphasize the fundamental requirement of democratic credibility. European funds from European taxpayers cannot be used directly or indirectly to predetermine the outcome of sovereign elections or to attempt to do so. If the Union demands transparency from others, then it must be ready to provide transparency in the use of its own resources.

The comfortable thesis according to which any development contrary to the desired result for the European Union in Armenia is explained by “Russian disinformation” is prominent. This is an extremely convenient, invulnerable point of view, whereby any criticism of the government, any dissenting voice, any defense of the Armenian Apostolic Church or national sovereignty is automatically labeled as foreign propaganda and therefore dismissed without the need for any discussion or response. However, the argument that serves to deny everything does not actually prove anything. Armenia, being a sovereign state, the cradle of Christianity and a key part of the balance of its region, deserves to be considered as an independent political entity, and not a theater of propaganda war between foreign powers.

Intervention is intervention, regardless of the flag under which it is ordered. If the Union rightly condemns actions that distort the will of voters, then this condemnation must be principled and applied indiscriminately. Otherwise, the European defense of democracy risks being perceived not as a principle, but as a political preference, completely devaluing the values ​​enshrined in Article 2.

Based on the above, it is respectfully but formally requested that you and the European External Action Service take four steps that are fully consistent

To the mission of the Union:

1. Publicly reaffirm the principle that the only legal verdict of the elections is what is recorded through the ballot on the day of the vote, and never any premature announcement.

2. Check that no European funds are directly or indirectly used to finance campaigns that aim to predetermine or influence the results of the Armenian elections.

3. To support real, transparent and independent observation of the elections in accordance with OSCE/ODIHR standards.

4. Refrain from giving institutional confidence by European structures to public opinion polls, whose detachment from reality makes them, to put it mildly, highly vulnerable.

I sincerely thank you for your attention to these observations. I present them in the belief that the European Union is all the more powerful when it is consistent in applying the values ​​it espouses, and that few things can bring greater honor to normative power than applying to itself the standards it demands of others.
I am ready to provide additional details.

Sincerely,
Robert R. Amsterdam