For much of the 20th century, Armenia was a part of the Soviet Union.
Although it has no significant geo-political importance to the West, it is a
southern salient of Christianity amid Muslim nations (Turkey to its west,
Iran to its south and Azerbaijan to its east) and a buffer state for Russia,
the great power to its north.
Armenia has long seen Russia as its protector and there is great affection
for the Russians among the Armenian people and its current government. And
while a significant number of Armenians are looking to the West for
democracy and prosperity, many other Armenians would rather ally their
country to Russia, as it was in the past.

Given all the problems facing Armenia as a small, land-locked country with
few natural resources and virtually no industrial infrastructure, why should
freedom of information be high on its political agenda?

As in the case of other hopefully emerging democracies that want the
economic benefits of association with international political and financial
organizations, Armenia must adopt certain reforms. Among the chief
anti-corruption reforms being thrust upon that country is the enactment of
FOI laws.

Thus the pressure for such laws is external, rather than internal, where
there are, of necessity, many more priorities.

Because the pressure to enact FOI laws is external rather than internal, the
question is whether Armenia is ready for such legislation.

The term "freedom of information" does not translate well. And in places
where there is no tradition of democratic government, it is merely a lofty
sounding expression.

The term is now being used throughout Europe as one of a series of freedoms
deemed to be basic human rights - such as the freedoms of speech and of the
press. Unfortunately, while the latter freedoms translate conceptually, FOI
does not.

"Freedom of information" is not really a freedom in the obvious sense. It is
a right. It must be defined and expressed in terms people will understand. I
believe the term "freedom of information" should be replaced by another term
that describes the concept of the right of any citizen to have access to
government records and/or proceedings or to government information in
general. In this regard, the term "government transparency" has greater
utility because it conveys more vividly the meaning and values underlying
FOI laws.

I also discovered another more pragmatic problem with respect to Armenia
implementing FOI legislation as intended. There appears to be skepticism
that any FOI legislation enacted by the current government will be anything
more than a token designed to appear to meet the requirements of Western
organizations with which the government desires to associate.

The same skepticism presents itself even if the government were to enact
good legislation because of a general sense that the government is corrupt
and will not permit such a law to be enforced according to its terms.

One way to deal with this problem is to have the external organizations
promoting democracy and anti-corruption within the Armenian government
seriously audit compliance in Armenia with any FOI laws enacted. Concerned
nongovernment organizations and civil society groups should make direct
contact with such external organizations at an appropriate time, present
their concerns and any evidence of governmental sabotage of the FOI
legislation.

In case of disingenuousness by the government with respect to the
legislation, the NGOs and civil groups should urge the external governmental
entities and organizations to treat the Armenian government as if it were in
default of its promises for transparency and anti-corruption reform.

As important as government transparency and a government free of corruption
are to any nation that aspires to become democratic, they are only a few of
the critical problems facing Armenia. The effects of history, geography, the
economy and international politics, among other things, must be overcome if
Armenia is to survive not only as a democracy, but as an independent state.

Although Armenia may be lacking in natural resources and infrastructure, it
does not appear to be lacking in the spirit, resourcefulness, energy and
intelligence of its people, who are dedicated to preserving their homeland
and their heritage. In this respect, they are worthy of our continued
efforts and support.

Mitchell W. Pearlman was the American representative at a January conference
in Yerevan, Armenia, designed to assist Armenia develop freedom of
information legislation.

Connecticut
Freedom of Information Commission, 18-20 Trinity St., Hartford 06106.

E-mail: foi@po.state.ct.us.