Security sector reform in Armenia
In the last few years, the South Caucasus has gradually gained in geo-political importance, with Russia, the US, Turkey, Iran, the EU and NATO all competing for influence. Armenia is Russia's closest ally in the region, and Iran has also established good relations. In contrast, Western governments have commonly shown more interest in Georgia and Azerbaijan, particularly in military and security co-operation. Yet Armenia remains open to closer co-operation with the EU and NATO. Furthermore, events in Armenia, particularly in the security sector, have a significant impact on its neighbours. There is therefore a need to better understand the Armenian security sector, both on its own terms and in comparison to Western concepts and standards of security sector reform.
The Armenian government does not currently appear to have a coherent plan for reform of the security sector. It has not yet even produced a national security concept that would clearly state the threats that Armenia faces and how it intends to deal with them. There have been some positive moves with respect to judicial reform, though sometimes this was a result of pressure from the Council of Europe and has been introduced half-heartedly. There is also some movement on police reform, as indicated by the development of a Police Assistance Programme with the OSCE.
However, the limited reforms that have occurred in Armenia cannot be understood as 'security sector reform' (SSR) as it is usually defined. Very little has been done to address the key issue of improving democratic governance, the cornerstone of most SSR activities. There has been insignificant progress in the areas of strengthening the rule of law, improving democratic control, civilianisation, professionalisation, and demilitarisation. Yet it is unfair to judge the Armenian security sector against the tenets of SSR, as the Armenian authorities have never committed to this idea or perceived security in these terms, emphasising that they are not prepared to risk any changes that may weaken Armenia's military readiness. It makes more sense to see the development of the Armenian security sector in terms of an initial formation phase, and then a second phase in which these institutions were formally and informally strengthened legally, financially and structurally without radically changing their fundamental principles or practice.
Implementing reforms that strengthen the rule of law, reduce corruption, and improve the public's participation in and trust for the security sector would go a long way to reducing the tensions in Armenia and creating a state that is more sustainable over the long term. Such reforms would find strong backing from the public, and from the international community, which should give the government the strength needed to face down powerful elements who are resistant to change. Given the political situation, reforms may be more possible in justice and policing, as the history of the sector to the current day seems to show. Encouraging these reforms now could save a lot of trouble for the government, the state, and the Armenian people over the long term.
