5.3. Sustainable Human Development or Sustainable Human Condition (alternative view).

The idea of SHD does not enjoy a wide currency in Armenia yet, and there are quite a few whose point of view is grounded in the attitude of "development at any cost", which unfortunately is still shared by many.

There are two major approaches to the conceptual framework of sustainable human development: i) any country, irrespective of the level of its development, is in a position to get on the sustainable human development track; and ii) sustainable human development is a prerogative of the developed (advanced) countries.

Of course, developing countries can and should follow in the steps of progress but for some the first steps of this journey have been limited to the tasks of providing elementary sanitation (the use of clean water and of sewer), of meeting, to a certain extent, the population's food needs and of reducing infant mortality.

For another group of countries the tasks of top priority within the sustainable human development paradigm are environmental protection, human rights, equal opportunities for all groups of the population irrespective of racial, ethnic, sex, confessional, social and other differences. Additionally, this group of countries promote the advancement of these and similar issues in third world countries out of the awareness of the importance of unity, interdependence and, what is more, of the scope of the sustainable human development process for the entire planet. For all these high priority issues, economic interests (growth of production, raising of living standards, etc.) do not disappear from the agenda. However, unlike earlier times economic concerns are no longer self-sufficient, nor are they ends in themselves. They have become integrated with the issues described above. This is not the case for developing countries.

If we construe sustainability as a state of dynamic balance, then the current situation in Armenia is not sustainable. A weak economy, high level of unemployment, low levels of income and consumption, inadequate accessibility of educational, medical and housing construction services, sharp polarization of the society and inability of the State to fully ensure social and political rights of the people cause immanent tension in all the spheres of societal life.

Hence the most urgent task for Armenia for the near future is going to be to secure stability and only after that, the sustainable development. And the requirement to achieve stability is the same _ the self-preservation and survival of the nation.

Armenia will have to tackle the problem of raising the living standard for many years to come. It means that the top priority will be economic development, which can advance even in contrast to all other standards the quality of life.

And here all means (e.g. shadow or even corrupted or partially corrupted sectors of the commodity producing economy) are justified if they contribute to the national budget. They create new jobs, raise incomes and increase the production of GDP. The only condition is that the volume of such production should not exceed 15-20 per cent of GDP. Only in that case will it be feasible to retain at least some control over that sector.

If, to increase that pie (GDP), the opportunity presents itself to produce commodities that, though competitive on the CIS, Middle Eastern, South Caucasus and other markets, are the outcome of not very environmentally sound production, this option should be considered as well. Facilitation would be made significantly easy, as already there is a perceived need of such production in a number of Armenia's neighboring countries.

Of course, gradually Armenia on her own or rather with international support will be able to take a few important steps forward from the stable situation to sustainable human development. Therefore it should be clearly understood that the economy cannot be a hostage to defense needs or to environmental protection demands. On the contrary, a strong economy is a guarantee of both strong defense and strong environmental protection. However, that economy should be established in the first place.

Box 5.2 Armenia on the SHD track Perceiving SHD as a 21st century challenge and as the desirable future, it would be interesting to examine Armenia as a potential candidate for entering the club of the elite (i.e. joining those countries that have already made it to the next millennium). Therefore, a brief digression in retrospect might be of some interest. Early 20th century. Population is small, dispersed and sparse and the economy is likewise self-subsistent peasant, small-scale and rural-based. Cities of any significance and, consequently, industries of any significance are virtually non-existent. Water supply and irrigation are precarious and insecure. Nomadic sheep herding and grain-crops dependent on God; no orchards or vineyards. The residents' dream is to feed their families to their hearts' content at least from time to time, to have many children so that some of them survive and to avoid extermination by invaders. Late 1980s. Strong industrial potential and developed services sphere (about 90% of the GDP production). Highly efficient agriculture based primarily on manger stockbreeding, orchards and vineyards and serious irrigation, water supply and sewer-related problems have been resolved. It would be fair to say that a historical leap equivalent to two centuries of development was accomplished within 90 years and that time went "faster" due only to the policies of building a socialist system in the USSR. This created certain advantages for peripheral republics of which Armenia succeeded to make maximum use. Late 20th century. Armenia managed to preserve many of her earlier accomplishments: public health care, education, science, well-educated and professionally developed cadres as well as the most important element, the people's mentality. As for their psychology, value attitudes, capabilities, needs and requirements, inclinations, they are more apt to feel they belong to the 1980s, and not to the beginning of the century. However, judging by certain indexes such as GDP per capita and the structure production (with agriculture being predominant) Armenia slid far back to the 1930s. In both cases, such leading branches as industry and new construction appeared to be in an embryonic state. However, in the `30s, they did not exist, and now they have ceased to exist. And this has formed the basis of fundamental contradictions (one could say root causes) in the transition period. That is, contradictions between Armenia's expectation of (or striving for) seriously moving down the road toward SHD and having the means to achieve this.