In Armenia, the position of Defense Minister has always been a political office. Ohanyan on the defense sector.

Changing the law to make the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces the Deputy Minister of Defense contradicts the fundamental principles established as far back as 2008. This was stated by Seyran Ohanyan, the leader of the Armenia parliamentary faction and former Minister of Defense, in an interview with NEWS.am regarding reforms in the defense sector, which stipulate that the Chief of the General Staff will simultaneously be the Minister's first deputy.

“In Armenia, the position of Defense Minister has always been a political office. Only Vagharshak Harutyunyan was a military man at the time of his appointment; all the other Defense Ministers have been civilians and members of the political team. The functional responsibilities of the Minister of Defense and the Chief of General Staff have been separated; the Minister has been responsible for the military-political situation, military personnel policy, and military education, as well as for the financial provision of the Armed Forces and the issues of comprehensive support. The position of the Chief of General Staff has been permanent because political team members can change; thus, the General Staff must remain permanent, and the person holding the rank of Lieutenant General must lead it at all times,” Ohanyan stated.

According to him, even in this case, the vertical command structure according to the Law on Defense has previously been organized as follows: the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, then the Minister of Defense, and then the Chief of General Staff. “That is, the Chief of General Staff is subordinate to the Minister. Today, it is still the same according to the law. By artificially making the Chief of General Staff the first deputy of the Minister, you equate a thoroughly experienced Lieutenant General Chief of Staff with other first deputies appointed to some political office,” he emphasized.

“If tomorrow the Minister must be absent, between the two first deputies, you set aside the experienced one and appoint a representative of the young political team as acting Minister. Secondly, by making the Chief of General Staff the Deputy Minister, you politicize the Chief of General Staff's position. This politicization has also been one of the main reasons we suffered defeat in the last war. Furthermore, by changing both the Minister and the Chief of General Staff, it leads to both being new, not fully grasping the situation, and secondly, every time a Minister changes, the Chief of General Staff must also change, thus you politicize the Chief of General Staff's position. This has happened; the Minister of Defense and the Chief of General Staff have been changed rapidly, and the commander of the Artsakh Defense Army, too.

I heard that the Minister of Defense says the General Staff should deal with its own business, not with supplies. During my time, the General Staff did not deal with supplies; it issued the orders, and the relevant department of the Ministry of Defense carried out all the procurement,” the former Minister emphasized.

When asked if this makes the position subject to political decisions and if the Prime Minister could dictate any political decision, Seyran Ohanyan replied, “They cannot dictate political decisions to the General Staff, but they are politicizing the position of the Chief of General Staff. The Chief of General Staff becomes a deputy of a person who is a team member, who can be either experienced or inexperienced. In this case, when you become the Minister’s deputy, the commander becomes the Minister of Defense. The political leader becomes the head of the military structure, which is unacceptable. A member of the political team should exercise control over the military structure. The Minister of Defense conducts democratic and public control over the military structure within the framework of civilian oversight. And the Armed Forces must carry out their specific tasks without being involved in civilian activities. But that does not mean that the Chief of General Staff does not report to the Minister.”

When asked why there has been no appointment of a Chief of General Staff for already four months, he answered, “If there is an intentional delay, that is very bad; such an attitude towards the Armed Forces is concerning. Either they cannot implement a correct personnel policy or cannot find and appoint the right personnel.”