VARDAN OSKANIAN: I MADE THE DECISION NOT TO REMAIN IN GOVERNMENT EVEN BEFORE THE CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION
Lragir.am
13:02:55 – 02/02/2009
Interview with the foreign minister of Armenia in 1998-2008, the
founder of the Civilitas Foundation Vardan Oskanyan
Mr. Oskanian, your foundation published a report on Armenia in 2008,
entitled Crisis and Opportunity, which was presented as an view
from the inside. The departure point for Armenian events in 2008
was the presidential election and the developments that followed,
in particular the unprecedented tragedy of March 1, when force
was used against peaceful demonstrators. At that time, not only
were you part of the government — you held an important position,
foreign minister – but on March 1 you also were the speaker during
the press conference which was the authorities’ first response to
what was happening. In other words, you were at the center it seems
of those events. Wouldn’t that kind of situation have necessarily had
an effect on the objectivity of the report your foundation published?
First, as we had said, the report is a compilation of opinions
and input from various analysts and experts, and not my personal
viewpoints. The events of March 1, in my opinion, and many others have
echoed this too, are covered in the report in a manner as objective
and unbiased as possible.
March 1 is one of the most tragic pages of our 0D recent history. In
any country, the responsibility for such events, rests, ultimately,
with those in power. Still, we have attempted to compile the different
views about March 1, about what is known and what is not known, but
about which nevertheless there are diverse opinions. Those opinions
are extreme, contradictory, polarized as is our society. And perhaps
in the process of attempting to assemble these, the picture becomes
less clear, just like the details around what transpired that day. One
shouldn’t try to find those details in this report. That was neither
our intent nor did we have the capacity to find such information,
provide a legal evaluation, or to try to satisfy the need for reliable
information surrounding those events. Our purpose was to try to
present what happened to the country as a result of March 1. The
assessment of the events themselves is quite clearly presented in
the report. After all, as a result of clashes between the police and
the demonstrators, Armenian citizens have died and for this, it is,
first of all, the authorities who are responsible.
As to the press conference of March 1, perhaps we should remember
that when I agreed to do that press conference, shots had not yet been
fired, there were no deaths, and there was still a chance to prevent
a tragedy. I believed that is what I tried to do during that press
conference, too, by calling on all sides to refrain20from extreme
steps. In fact, prior to the press conference, I insisted and the
President agreed to initiate a dialogue if the opposition expressed
readiness to do so. Only after that assurance did I agree to the
press conference. I believe I did everything that could have been
done, that a foreign minister had the authority to do, and even more –
speaking out at a most difficult time and taking on the responsibility
to issue a call for dialogue.
The report you present which reflects Armenia’s life last year,
domestically, regionally and globally, is entitled "Crisis and
Opportunity." The report talks about a deep institutional crisis in
Armenia in 2008 and the undesirable and tragic events were a result
of that.
You, as a member of government, as foreign minister for 10 years,
do you consider yourself responsible for the deepening of the
institutional crisis and its grave expression?
Yes I do, as I believe that all those who have held high-level
positions during these 17 years of independence must bear
responsibility for the situation that’s been created. We all understand
that as far as the strengthening of democratic institutions is
concerned, with the possible exception of the very first election,
unfortunately, independent Armenia has not had a single period of
which we can be proud. And for this, it would be good that anyone who
has held office, whether today in oppositi on or in power, have the
courage to acknowledge some responsibility. So my answer is in the
affirmative, but with some reservations. I was minister of foreign
affairs. I often disagreed with domestic developments or phenomena,
often spoke out about them, even publicly. But for me as a diplomat,
as minister, it was important that I carry out the mission that I
believed in.
And towards that end, I did my utmost. I worked for 17 years, believing
that what I do is important and beneficial for the country, and have
not backed away from expressing my disagreement on various issues,
of course within the limits placed on me by my position. Today there
are no such limitations, and that’s because I made the decision to
be free, to not take on an official position. I did this because I am
convinced that this is what my task should be now and that there are
problems that cannot keep waiting for solutions. I believe that the
report broadly reflects these concerns, and offers systemic solutions
to come out of this crisis.
Mr. Oskanian, the report is presented as a view of Armenia from within
Armenia. Don’t you think that view is really more of an external view,
based more on external political developments, rather than strictly
Armenia, and in that sense perhaps an effort to slip from an inside
view to a view outside?
No I don’t think so. First, the purpose of the report was to enca
psulate and assess all the factors which impact Armenia, not just
domestic.
Therefore, yes, a great deal of space was devoted to international
political, regional events. Last year there were many defining moments
not just for Armenia, but also for the region. There’s no need to
repeat that those events had and continue to have a huge impact on
Armenia. Today, the world says Caucasus, but they think of Georgia,
and then, perhaps of Azerbaijan. Making Armenia more visible on that
map cannot be less important than our internal issues.
This, and everything else that takes place in our region, or in the
world, has a great effect on Armenia’s internal developments. The best
proof of that is our domestic situation now, which you will agree is
significantly different from that of early 2008.
Why is it that in your annual report on Armenia, speaking as you do
about events in Armenia, you have referred so frequently to the Levon
Ter- Petrossian years, looking there for the roots of today’s crisis,
and sort of ignoring the problems which were the result of the ten
years of Robert Kocharian’s governance? What is the cause of that
kind of disbalance?
It is not Levon Ter-Petrossian’s years which we have analyzed. What
we have done is reflected on the electoral system and falsifications
and elections which are not seen as credible by our society, and the
continuing post-election periods of=2 0crisis. In speaking about the
events of 2008 and trying to provide a substantial analysis, there
was reason to mention that the 2008 elections were not Armenia’s
first controversial elections, and the problems are not new, and that
their roots, are indeed in the 1990s. Seen from that perspective,
the continuation of non-democratic traditions is clearly presented
in the report, that refers to all the years since independence.
The report plainly reads: "Successive administrations have resorted
to similar practices to hold on to power…Thus, disputed elections
and the resulting lack of confidence in the democratic mechanisms for
rotation of power among key political actors has been the principal
source of political instability in Armenia ever since independence."
Mr. Oskanian, how do you explain that in the report, in the section
which describes domestic events, there is a scarcity of facts,
as opposed to the sections on foreign relations and economy,
and especially that the issue of political prisoners is almost
circumvented?
The facts are those facts which exist regarding the 2008 events. In
some cases, the facts are quite scarce, but even in that case, the
report also includes analysis, the assumptions of the various camps,
the assertions, the viewpoints, even if all these are not facts. The
arrests, and the trials too, and the reactions of the international
community to both are presented rather thoroughly.=2 0The facts that
we have are there – that we have political activists who have been
behind bars since March 1, who in the opinion of many are there
for political reasons, that the trials and the general political
environment around these cases is a matter of serious concern for
the public and for the international community.
I had expressed my personal concern about these events months
ago. The situation at PACE was the basis of my concern. Armenia was
threatened by the loss of voice in that body. That alone worries
me a great deal. We found ourselves in a situation which could
have been avoided months ago. This time we were able to evade
the worst-case scenario, but I’m certain that we could have even
avoided the theoretical possibility of such a scenario if, early on,
there had been political will, and a real determination to solve the
problem. Today the discussion is whether the authorities won because
PACE did not sanction the Armenian delegation, or in fact did the
opposition win because the axe continues to hang over our heads,
with a repeat session scheduled for april. I think that all that has
happened in these last several months is evidence that we have all
lost. Just the fact that for nearly one year these discussions are
continuing and the problem has still not been resolved, and that PACE
has now passed a third resolution on this situation, all this is a
serious blow to A rmenia’s international standing. By postponing the
problem by a few months, we gain nothing. On the contrary, we lose
more. It’s been nearly a year since March 1, and I don’t see a reason
that the problem can’t be resolved once and for all. I don’t know
who thinks he’s won or who thinks he’s lost as a result of these last
PACE hearings, but so long as all doubts have not been laid to rest
as to whether there are people in Armenia behind bars for political
reasons, then we have all lost, Armenia has lost.
In preparing the report, your intention was that it be balanced
and unbiased. Do you agree that balance is not always the same as
unbiased? How do you personally assess the report? Does it present a
complete picture of Armenia in 2008? And what have you gleaned from
this first effort in order to make the future reports more unbiased,
focused and complete?
I know that we have tried to present a comprehensive look at the
events about which we have written. Such reports are perceived in
different ways.
We agree with some analyses, not with others, sometimes we think
that the assessments are not critical enough, other times not. This
is truly the first such attempt within Armenia, and perhaps that is
why the standards to which we have been held are higher than those
applied to the reports prepared by non-Armenian entities. In any case,
there has not been such a comprehensive look at Armenia and events
which impact Armenia. We will continue this tradition, because we
are certain that such a look from within, and the discussion which
followed the publication of the report, on the same themes that the
report covers, we are convinced that these are both essential and
useful for our society. For us, this process is no less important than
the outcome. The responses we have heard from different quarters,
from various political positions is satisfactory and sufficient for
us to believe that we should continue with this project.
Mr. Oskanian, when you speak of democracy and other issues, there
are those who counter by saying that you have begun to criticize the
authorities only after having lost your position and that’s how your
new activities can be explained.
I think I have responded to these questions many times and
extensively. I made the decision early on, even before the change
of administration, not to remain in government. On the contrary,
I voluntarily made the decision as a matter of principle, so that I
would have all the right to express my opinion on any matter. Those
who judge a person’s position by the chair he holds are generally
those who would cling to a chair, in any administration, at any price,
and usually do so.
Second, we should not forget that following the presidential election,
there has been a change of a dministration. Regardless of the efforts
to identify one with the other, to me it’s obvious that politically,
economically and in foreign relations, there are serious differences
between these two administrations. Therefore my opinions on these
issues should not come as a surprise to any one.
Sometimes I think the real surprise for many is that one could in
fact voluntarily decline a position of power.