SARGSIAN’S INTERVIEW TO RUSSIA TODAY TV
Azg
April 24 2009
Armenia
Question – Alexander Gurnov: Good evening, Mr. President. Thank you
for accepting our interview invitation. The first question, I would
like to address is the following: what is the meaning of the date of
April 24 for you as the President of the Republic of Armenia.
Answer: Serzh Sargsian, President of Armenia: Good afternoon! The
history of the people of Armenia is calculated in thousands of
years. Throughout that history we’ve had victories and defeats;
we have had gains and losses. But throughout our history there
is one turning point which is a dividing line. And that point is
the April 24 of 1915. After that we deal with absolutely different
reality. Hundreds of thousands and millions of people were living and
creating a cultural heritage and their daily life in their homeland,
but were made to leave those lands – part of which were massacred and
the other part had to escape to survive. And today in the world there
is no, almost no country where are no Armenians. The population of
today’s Armenia, almost half of it, are the heirs of the survivors of
the genocide. And these are realities which are in our life every day.
Today if you move from Yerevan 15-20 km towards Turkey you would see
the last closed border of Europe. Armenia gained its independence in
1991. And for 18 years now that border is closed. I cite this example
not to say that we are under blockade, but to make it clear that April
24 of 1915 is everyday present in our lives. April 24 is officially
announced as the day of the victims of the genocide. But even before
being officially recognized as such a date, April 24 has always been
for our people such a day of memory and remembrance, also for me as
one of the representatives of our people.
But for me as the President of Armenia it is my duty to take measures
to soften the impact of that terrible tragedy and to take measures
to make sure that such crimes will not repeat in the future. And
the most efficient way for that is the international recognition of
the genocide.
Question – Alexander Gurnov: These days many believe that the President
of the United States Barak Obama is likely to recognize the Armenian
genocide as he had promised during his election campaign. What is
the reason Armenians attach such a big importance to the genocide
recognition?
Answer: Serzh Sargsian, President of Armenia: Firstly, the recognition
of the genocide is the most efficient way for the prevention from
such crimes in the future. Secondly, justice means much for the
Armenian people. And recognition of the genocide is also affected
by that belief. There is no single Armenian in the world that is not
affected somehow by that genocide. And obviously each Armenian wants
to see justice in that regard.
The United States has been extensively present in the Ottoman
Empire through their diplomatic corps, through their missionaries,
businesspeople. We all know they had insurance companies functioning in
the Ottoman Empire. And for the US there is no doubt about the historic
nature of the genocide as it has taken place. They do not need any
additional proves or witnesses from us. I want to remind that 42 states
of the US have recognized the genocide. I want to remind that when the
US Congress Foreign Affairs Committee was hearing the case and they
do it on regular basis discussing the issue of the Armenian genocide –
it is almost unanimous recognition that there was genocide. But some of
the congressmen say: "Yes, there has been genocide, and the US has to
recognize that reality". And the others say: "Yes, it has taken place,
but now it is not in the national interests of the US to recognize it."
/i> Question – Alexander Gurnov: Mr. President, you described the
border with Turkey as the last closed one in Europe. In what degree
the events of 1915 hinder your relations with Turkey nowadays, about
100 years after the Genocide? What are the current perspectives of
normalization of relations?
Answer: Serzh Sargsian, President of Armenia: As I have mentioned,
April 24 1915 has everyday presence in our live. But also as you know
I have invited the President of Turkey Mr. Gul to come to Yerevan
last year in September to jointly watch the football game between
Armenia and Turkey and also to talk about our relations. And as you
know Mr. Gul accepted that invitation and visited Yerevan. We have
started an intensive negotiation stage with Turkey to establish
diplomatic relations.
We base ourselves on the fact that there has been genocide,
but non-recognition of that genocide by Turkey is not watched
by us as an insurmountable obstacle for the establishment of the
relations. We are in favor of having relations with Turkey without
any preconditions. As you know before Gul`s visit to Armenia Turkey
was offering two preconditions. One of them – genocide related and
the other – Naghorno Karabakh problem. In the negotiations that we
have had since, we both, Armenia and Turkey, took stance that our
negotiations shall proceed without any preconditions: establishment of
relations without preconditions and then discussion of any questions
that might be of interest to the parties.
And as you know Mr. Gul invited me to Turkey to jointly watch the
return football game and I will be happy to accept that invitation
and will visit Turkey, if by that time the border is open or at least
we are very close to that. Till recent period of time, everyone
was convinced that we have significantly progressed and there was
some expectation that would allow having a historic breakthrough,
but recently there have been statements by the Prime Minister of
Turkey to the effect that the Armenian-Turkish relations can improve
if Armenia compromises on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We watch this
as a step back from the existing agreements and as a precondition
being put forward. I believe that in our relations we have progressed
sufficiently. And now the ball is on the Turkish side of the field. And
if we use the football terminology (as this process has been labeled as
"football diplomacy" by the media) then we can say that any football
game has a certain timeframe that limits it.
Question – Alexander Gurnov: Mr. President, you mentioned the
Naghorno-Karabakh conflict. What are the perspectives of peaceful
settlement of Naghorno-Karabakh conflict and normalization of relations
with Azerbaijan – another important neighbor?
Answer: Serzh Sargsian, President of Armenia: As you know, the problem
of Nagorno-Karabakh is dealt with by the Minsk group and its co-chairs:
Russia, the US and France. And from the beginning of the presidency, I
have had three meetings with my Azeri counterpart Mr. Ilham Aliev. And
I think this one year has been a sufficient period for us to understand
each other’s positions, clarify those positions, and make our judgments
on them. I think now it is the right time to speed up the whole process
and to move towards mutually acceptable solutions. And as you know
the key point of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is the right to self
determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. If this issue is
solved, then all the other issues of concern can be solved.
I am happy that most recently the leadership of Azerbaijan has been
talking about solving this conflict on the basis of all principles of
the international law. A few days ago the President of Azerbaijan has
met the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and he has talked to the
Russian media and reiterated that this problem has to be solved on
the basis of all principles of international law. And to remind you
I want to tell that for a long time the leadership of Azerbaijan has
been talking about solving this Nagorno-Karabakh conflict either by
military means or only on the principle of the territorial integrity.
In general when I hear people speaking about territorial integrity
in many cases not knowing the substance of the conflict or due to
political considerations many people prefer to say things that put
them into a very delicate condition – in many cases I start to think
that there are not only double, but also triple standards. Within
the last twenty years, the membership of the United Nations has been
increased by forty sovereign states. Forty out of 192 member states
of the UN have joined the organization in the last twenty years. How
could one then speak about inviolability of frontiers? Of course, I am
in favor of, and I can never be against the principle of territorial
integrity of states and we have never had any territorial claims
towards Azerbaijan. The problem is being deformed here.
It is the initiative of self-determination of the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh that has been represented as a territorial
claim of Armenia towards Azerbaijan, which is of course not
true. Nagorno-Karabakh was merged to Azerbaijan in the Soviet period
by the decision of the Communist Party Body and even in that case the
Constitution of the Soviet Union was straightforwardly providing for
the autonomous status of Nagorno-Karabakh as a district. In other
words, it was recognized as some national state arrangement. And
Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous district succeeded from the Soviet Union
and Azerbaijan according to the legislation of the Soviet Union. When
Azerbaijan today is speaking about the occupation of the part of
its territory, to put it in a most soft way, they forget how these
events unfolded. In 1991, along with Azerbaijan, Naghorno Karabakh
succeeded from the Soviet Union after which it suffered an aggression
from Azerbaijan and as the result of the military actions that were
imposed by Azerbaijan we have what we have today.
Indeed, today forces of self-defense of Naghorno Karabakh control
also such territories which in the past have not been part of
Naghorno Karabakh autonomous district, but it should be remembered,
that people of Naghorno Karabakh call those territories "security
zone". Despite the fact that the cease-fire stands for 15 years,
the cause-consequences relationships in that conflict have not
changed. From those territories on a daily bases thousands of shells
were thrown on peaceful inhabitants of Naghorno Karabakh, and it is
not right to accuse the people of Naghorno Karabakh, Armenians that
they have been able to secure their right for life by a heavy price
of their blood, and to call that an ‘occupation.’ I don’t think it
is a just approach.
I want to repeat that I am very happy that the President of Azerbaijan,
a few days ago, when he was speaking about international law principles
he also spoke about the fact that this also has to be addressed on
the basis of all founding principles of the UN and OSCE. Of course,
this is the way to move forward. As we all know, the most recent
ministerial summit of OSCE that took place at the end of 2008 in
Helsinki has stated three principles: the right to self determination,
territorial integrity and non-use of force as the guiding principles
for the solution of this conflict. And these principles are the basis
for the negotiations also incorporated into the framework document
offered to us by the Minsk Group co-chairs. So, if we look from this
perspective we have advanced significantly. There are possibilities
and chances that situation can greatly change as well.
Question – Alexander Gurnov: Mr. President, there is an opinion that
many problems in the post soviet area can be resolved through CIS
structures. According to another opinion, CIS has already exhausted
itself. Do you think that this is true or are there resources to
be used?
Answer: Serzh Sargsian, President of Armenia: I do not think that the
CIS has exhausted its resources and I have to state that the cease
fire that has been signed in 1994 has been signed exactly under the
auspices of the CIS. And this once again comes to prove that the CIS
is definitely needed. Any organization can be only what its members
want to see and make out of it. We have lived within one country for
70 years. And many countries for decades had been the part of the
Russian Empire before that. And to immediately interrupt all those
connections and ties – I do not think it is right or productive. If
countries like Canada or Australia till now keep their connections
and do not cut their ties with the United Kingdom, with the Royal
dynasty of the UK – it does not mean that Canada or Australia are
less sovereign states than we are. Within decades and centuries they
have created ties and connections that can be very beneficial within
the Commonwealth. Here much depends on Russia. If Russia believes
that the CIS is an important and needed structure, I think that the
resources of the CIS are increasing.
Question – Alexander Gurnov: Mr. President, Russia is actively
voicing the idea of the need to review the existing system of European
security and stressing the necessity to sign a new Treaty on European
security. In what degree official Yerevan shares this approach?
Answer: Serzh Sargsian, President of Armenia: I understand the
motivation of my Russian colleagues. I understand the position of
the Russian Federation. The security system that we see today was
formed decades ago, when it was difficult to take into account all
the realities, when the threats and challenges were significantly
different from what we face today. And exactly for that reason there
is need for some amendments and changes to the security system. Let
me bring a few examples. If we speak about the efficiency of OSCE,
as you know, there is an agreement regulating the conventional forces
in Europe and providing for certain quotas for each signatory country.
For a long period of time, Azerbaijan is significantly violating those
quotas. It was violating these quotas by getting supplies from one or
a few countries which are parties to the same treaty. And it seems that
no one is ready to take necessary steps to show us mechanisms for those
quotas. Security systems are usually being formed at the time of global
shocks – and the two world wars were the shocks like that. There are
analysts who even believe that it is a precondition for the formation
of a new security system – there should be a global shock before a
new international security architecture can be formed. But I hope,
that at the time of this global economic crisis the big powers of the
world will consider this as the major international shock that would
allow changing the security architecture as well within the European
model of security.