“Now is not the time to accuse the authorities and try to hold them accountable for mistakes and failures”
Interview of ilur.am with Levon Ter-Petrosyan.
– Mr. President, without any exaggeration, meeting with Serzh Sargsyan upon your initiative, was a sensational surprise for everyone. How will you explain this?
– That shouldn’t surprise to people following my activity, when Armenia and Karabakh face danger, despite serious discrepancies with the authorities, I have always appeared with likewise initiatives. You should memorize my public offer made 28 October, 1999 devoted to “Declaration on the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide,” and finally, the ANC’s statement of April 2 approved by me.
–How did you make the proposal to Serzh Sargsyan—through a mediator or personally? Maybe this is a detail, however, it’s interesting to the society.
– It’s useless seeking for any consultation regarding this issue. As I’m a follower of open, non-backstage policy, I have nothing to conceal from the society. I sent the following handwritten letter to Serzh Sargsyan on April 5, “Serzh, don’t you think our meeting against the background of current situation, by passing optimism to the society, will be positively perceived both by the society and the international community? Sure, out talk will cover the issue of coming out with dignity and without political losses, as well as appropriateness of circulating ideas of signing a military contract between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. As propagandist skills, those ideas, make sense, however, their implementation, I consider, should be not an impulsive reflection, but an implication of serious confidential discussion and precise calculation. Venue and time for the meeting is up to you. You are free to mention the fact of meeting in publication, and that it took place upon my initiative. There is no need for any video or photo, as, you know, I dislike demonstrative things.”
Since Serzh Sargsyan was going to be in Germany in the following days, he replied to me by phone that we will meet at my home on his return, which is what happened.
– However, under rather complicated relations with Armenia’s authorities, and in particular, with Serzh Sargsyan, and mutual sharp accusations, it’s impossible to imagine that in our reality such a civilized meeting may take place, which brings honor both to you and Serzh Sargsyan.
–Firstly, in the field of political conduct, nothing is impossible, and secondly, what seems impossible in our reality, is possible in normal states. In case of external threat, usually, in such countries, internal contradictions are put aside and efforts of all political powers are being directed to national consolidation and unified response to the threat. If, unfortunately, this isn’t so, it’s explained for the simple circumstance, that as a 25-year independent state, necessary traditions of state mentality are absent yet. However, manifestation of exemplary consolidation of political powers, social groups and freedom fighters in Armenia in recent Karabakh-Azerbaijan military opposition, should be considered a positive shift in this regard.
– Judging from electronic media and Facebook reflections, the society has positively assessed your meeting with Serzh Sargsyan, however, there is another point, that slightly said, doubters and ill-wishers attempt to cast doubt on that fact.
–Conspiracy theory supporters and intrigue-seekers have always been present and will be. However, usually likewise people don’t have any impact on political processes, thus, it’s useless paying attention to what they say. The opinion of the majority is crucial here.
–Upon perceptions of many people, your anticipations on the process of Karabakh issue settlement made years before, become a reality. What do you think of this?
–One shouldn’t seek for something magic in an anticipation; they were simply assessments coming from my perception of development trends of political processes. If some people think, I’m going to be satisfied with realization of my “anticipations”, they are in misunderstanding. I’d be much gladder, if I had been mistaken and they hadn’t come true. “Deep” ideas of “I told this before” is infertile baloney.
–Mr. president, in your opinion, what purpose does bloody military adventurism recently unleashed by Azerbaijan pursue?
–Wide-scale Karabakh-Azerbaijan clashes on the Line of Contact remind me of 1973 Arab-Israeli scenario, the so-called Yom Kipur War. As, surely, many people aren’t familiar with the scenario, it’s worth introducing its essence in a couple of words. The war unleashed unexpected for Israel, initiators of which were Egypt and Syria. And although, in the end, the Arabian side was defeated, at the initial stage of military operations, due to the recorded serious success, authorities of Egypt, represented by president Anwar Sadat saved his image, and turning it into a document, boldly concluded a Peace Treaty and established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1979 in Camp David, as a result returning Sinai Peninsula. The same way, Aliyev, by value of immense casualties, by causing considerable losses to the Armenian side, and by taking a few positions due to unexpected actions, will try to gain sympathy of his nation through a symbolic “trump” and will try to intensify its positions in the forthcoming Karabakh issue settlement negotiations.
–What do you think, will ceasefire serious violations repeat?
–As ceasefire has been concluded through mediation of Russia, this means, not excluding shootings, Russia is able not to allow wide-scale ceasefire violations. As an implication, naturally, this consequence increases Russia’s role in the forthcoming negotiations on Karabakh issue settlement.
–If it’s not a secret, will you say which document will be put on negotiation table and will it enshrine returning of some territories and criteria of deploying of a peacekeeping mission?
–This question shows what a mess our experts and political analysts have made. The document, to be discussed, contains article both on returning of territories and deploying a peacekeeping mission. Madrid Principles and comprehensive program grounded by them have been repeatedly approved in OSCE MG Co-chairs’ joint statements, and have been principally agreed by presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Madrid Principles have been adopted by Robert Kocharyan, and regarding this issue, the political parties have unconditionally supported him. It’s Kocharyan that deprived Karabakh of internationally recognized status of being an equal party to the conflict.
Accordingly, Serzh Sargsyan has adopted all that from Kocharyan, and his part of responsibility in the abovementioned issues isn’t more, than that of other actors, which had been a part of the latter’s regime. I don’t give any assessments, I just record existent undeniable realities.
–Thank you for the detailed clarifications, and, finally the last question: what position would the Armenian side adopt in the forthcoming negotiations and what responsibilities should be assumed by oppositional political powers and the society regarding this issue?
– Serzh Sargsyan must feel dominant during negotiations enjoying people’s support. Naturally, the Armenian side must gain maximal possible through tough but constructive negotiations. As refers to the role of opposition and the public, it must be nothing but temporary freezing of domestic disagreements and national consolidation. Now it is not the proper time to blame the authorities or demand explanations for their mistakes. War will soon enter the phase of diplomacy or complicated negotiations from the battlefield. Due to position their positions our commanders in that war will be Serzh Sargsyan and Bako Sahakyan. Even if Sahakyan does not directly participate in the negotiations, Serzh Sargsyan cannot ignore his position in any case (by the way, I have an arrangement to meet with Sahakyan as well).
Serzh Sargsyan must feel dominant round the negotiation table, enjoying his people’s support, his administration is obliged to make some positive steps, address the needs of the people carrying a real struggle against corruption, arbitrariness of law enforcement bodies, monopolies, electoral frauds, and haughtiness of state officials. The relations between the authorities and the public must be built based not on unilateral attitude, but mutual trust and support. It is not right to ignore the people and opposition during good times, but expect their support during bad times.
