Author: Jidarian Alex

OPEN LETTER TO PRES. SARGSYAN FROM CHAIRMAN OF THE ACADEMIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ZORYAN INSTITUTE PROF. ROGER W. SMITH

AZG DAILY
06-10-2009

Armenian Genocide

Yours respectfully,Roger W. Smith, Chair, Academic Board of Directors

Dear President Sargsyan:

The Protocols for establishing diplomatic relations between Armenia
and Turkey, although intended to help normalize relations between the
two countries, raise serious questions about the process, and contain
pitfalls, which I have set out below for your kind consideration.

My interest in the Protocols arises from being a scholar of genocide
studies for most of my career, a founder of the International
Association of Genocide Scholars, Chairman of the Academic Board of
Directors of the Zoryan Institute, and a recipient of the Movses
Khorenatsi Medal last year, awarded by you, Mr. President, for my
"considerable contribution to the international recognition of the
Armenian Genocide."

I and other scholars, who have no personal, ethnic or political
motive for affirming the Armenian Genocide, feel we must point
out one significant aspect of the Protocols, the clauses that call
for a dialogue on the historical dimension with the aim to restore
mutual confidence between the two nations, including an impartial
scientific examination of the historical records and archives to
define existing problems and formulate recommendations and the
establishment of an intergovernmental bilateral commission which
shall comprise subcommissions for the prompt implementation of the
commitments mentioned in operations paragraph 2 above in this Protocol.

Does "the historical dimension" article refer to the Armenian Genocide,
and does the "intergovernmental bilateral commission" article refer
to a historical commission? If not, then how can Armenia hope to have
normal relations with Turkey while ignoring a major cause of the
tension between the two countries? If so, then they are a source
of grave concern, because there is a broad ensus that genocide
unquestionably occurred in the case of the Armenians.

You are well aware, Mr. President, that numerous distinguished
historians, political scientists, sociologists, legal scholars, and
authoritative institutions around the world have investigated the
Genocide many times over, issued academic publications, and even made
public declarations. These scholars have devoted their professional
lives to conducting scientific research with the highest levels of
academic integrity. As a result of their work, scholars have identified
the Armenian Genocide as the archetypal case of modern genocide,
whose pattern has many similarities with subsequent cases. Therefore,
any commission that purports now to conduct "an impartial scientific
examination of the historical records and archives" in effect dismisses
all of the extensive research that has already been conducted for
decades and implies that none of it was impartial or scientific. This
is offensive to all genocide scholars, but particularly non-Armenian
scholars, who feel their work is now being truly politicized.

I am sure you can appreciate that they have no confidence that a
politically organized commission would not compromise historical
truth, especially considering the imbalanced power relations between
Armenia and Turkey. This assessment is particularly exacerbated when
one considers the following:

1. The national archives of France, Great Britain, and the United
States, as well as Turkey and its wartime allies Germany and Austria,
to name only a few, are full of incontestable documentation of the
genocidal intent and nature of the annihilation of the Armenians.

2. The historical records of the official investigation by a Turkish
military Tribunal in post-war Turkey, recently published, based
on authenticated, official Turkish documents, found irrefutable
evidence of centrally organized mass murder against the bulk of the
Ottoman Empire’s own Armenian citizens. The prosecutors were Turks,
the judges were Turks, and most of the witnesses were Turks, including
high ranking military officers.

3. The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), reviewing
the Armenian case for the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission
(TARC), concluded that "the Events, viewed collectively, can thus
be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as
defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians,
politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in
continuing to so describe them."

4. Prime Minister Erdogan has stated repeatedly that Turkey would
never accept there was an Armenian Genocide, and even if a historical
commission found that the Armenian case is genocide, it is argued,
Turkey would just ignore the decision, as it did the report of the
ICTJ, which led to the resignation of all the Turkish members of TARC.

But most importantly, Mr. President, the scholars are concerned
that a historical commission would embolden those who would consider
perpetrating genocide in future years by showing how easily genocide
can be y by the powerful.

In 2001, the Zoryan Institute issued a rare public commentary about
Turkish-Armenian relations, in which it stated

Normally, dialogue is the first step towards the possible resolution
of any conflict, and therefore reconciliation. The participants
in a dialogue generally need to define the key issues which divide
the parties and establish a process by which the dialogue will be
conducted. There must be a sincere desire for mutual understanding
and willingness to accept the factual issues in contention, even if
emotionally highly charged….

Turkey does not have the capacity to enter into a process of dialogue
to define the key issue of the

Genocide. Even if genocide were to be affirmed by "an impartial
scientific examination of the historical records and archives,"
Turkey would not be able to accept this, as it is currently bound by
a strict penal code that makes it illegal for anyone from Turkey to
even mention the Armenian Genocide. Therefore, was the negotiation of
the protocols, so long in the making, done all this time in bad faith?

If not, then perhaps what is required is a modification of the
wording in the Protocol referring to the "historical dimension," or a
modification of the Turkish penal code, which currently criminalizes
discussion of this subject, to make the Protocols viable.

If such modifications are not possible due to diplomatic pressures
at this time, then perhaps it would be prudent to stage the process
so that discussion of the "historical dimension" is deferred. This
would allow the people of both countries, but especially Turkey, the
opportunity to demonstrate "a sincere desire for mutual understanding
and willingness to accept the factual issues in contention, even
if emotionally highly charged." In the meantime, Turkey and Armenia
could proceed with the establishment of a diplomatic exchange, which,
in itself, would be a major step towards reconciliation.

AKCAM: LYING ABOUT 1915: FREE. CALLING THE LIAR OUT: PUNISHABLE BY LAW
By Taner Akcam

kcam-lying-about-1915-free-calling-the-liar-out-pu nishable-by-law/
October 5, 2009

I’ve got steam coming out of my ears. I’m so angry, but what am I
supposed to do? Even if what I’m going to relate to you here doesn’t
seem believable, it’s all the truth… Here’s an example of what
the legal system is like in Turkey, what the law is like there and
how it operates. This is the kind of rubbish that makes you want
to shout out, "There is no rule of law in this country." In truth,
there are worse examples of injustice than what has happened to me,
but I’m going to tell you my story anyway.

Here’s the deal: Å~^Ï~KkrÏ~K Elekdag was the former Ambassador in
Washington. Since 2002, he’s been a member of the Turkish Parliament,
representing Istanbul from the Republican People’s Party (CHP). He went
to court in 2006 and sued me on the basis that I had insulted him,
and he did this not once, but in three separate lawsuits. Starting
in 2009, those lawsuits concluded one after the other, all in his
favor. So on the finding that I had insulted Å~^Ï~KkrÏ~K Elekdag,
I was ordered to pay him 10,000, 7,500, and 6,000 YTL (New Turkish
Lira; 1 = 0.67USD) in damages, respectively. Court costs and interest
will be added to these. In the end, my attorney says that just the
damages award of 6,000 YTL will end up costing me around 11,000 YTL.

The essence of the case is that on the subject of what happened in
1915, Elekdag made misleading statements to the public and flat out
lied. I came out and stated, "Å~^Ï~KkrÏ~K Elekdag is lying" and wrote
an article explaining why. I was ordered to pay damages three times
over for one single article.

The short version of what happened is this: In March 2005, with Elekdag
taking the lead, the CHP started a huge campaign that coincided with
the 90th anniversary of the genocide of the Armenians. The goal of
the campaign was to invite the United Kingdom to apologize to Turkey,
and the basis for that apology was a claim that in 1915-16 the British
government had published the "Blue Book" against Turkey and Germany,
claiming that both governments had engaged in massacres against the
civilian population. The claim further stated that in 1925, Great
Britain had acknowledged that the "Blue Book" published against Germany
had been a work of propaganda and had extended an official apology.

As proof of Elekdag’s conviction on the subject, he offered a speech
that British Foreign Minister A. Chamberlain had made to the British
Parliament in Dec. 2, 1925. Elekdag claimed that parliament had debated
the Blue Book during a hearing that day, and that the foreign minister
had acknowledged in a speech that the Blue Book was entirely a work of
propaganda, that it was completely fabricated, and he had apologized
to Germany.[1]

Starting March 1, 2005, Elekdag’s conviction that "England must
apologize" was turned into a campaign, and the campaign was introduced
under the heading "Attack on Genocide."[2] You couldn’t open a paper
without reading headlines like "Revenge After 90 Years," "International
Attack on the Blue Book," "Challenge to Genocide!"[3] It seemed like
there wasn’t a columnist alive who wasn’t declaring that the British
foreign minister had apologized to the Germans on Dec. 2, 1925, as
if it was the biggest historical truth ever uncovered and they were
all shouting out in one voice that England needed to apologize to
Turkey.[4] To buttress this propaganda, "scholars" from the West,
like Justin McCarthy and Andrew Mango, were invited to comment,
and they repeated that England had apologized to Germany. As for why
the British had never apologized to the Turks, it was explained away
by taking advantage of the inferiority complex Turks have regarding
the West: "No one cared about an injustice suffered by the Turks,"
it was said, because "They’re just Turks."[5]

Elekdag submitted a bill to the Turkish Grand National Assembly
(TGNA). On April 13, the TGNA had a general meeting on the subject of
"Turkish-Armenian Relations in History–Bringing Out the Truth on the
Claims of an Armenian Genocide" and by a majority vote it was decided
that an official letter should be sent to the British Parliament. In
this letter, a request was made that whatever Great Britain had done
to Germany should be done to Turkey as well. As in the example with
Germany, Great Britain needed to acknowledge that the Blue Book was
entirely false and issue an apology to Turkey.

The letter was presented first to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan for
signature, then to the opposition leader Baykal, and then signed by
members of the TGNA before being mailed out to the British Parliament.

What had just occurred was a scandal of huge proportions. Elekdag had
managed to drag the TGNA and Turkish government into an act of utter
outrageousness because there never had been a hearing in parliament,
as Elekdag had claimed, nor had the British foreign minister ever
apologized for anything. Yes, Great Britain had never said that the
information presented in the Blue Book about Germany was false nor
had it apologized to Germany. Moreover, in December 1925, there is
no record, as Elekdag claims, that the British Parliament held any
meetings regarding this subject. Elekdag was telling a bald faced lie.

Meanwhile, I wrote an article titled "A Scandal: The Letter from the
Turkish Grand National Assembly or Where is Å~^Ï~KkrÏ~K Elekdag and
Justin McCarthy dragging this country?" In the article, I explained
point by point how the claims that had been made were false. Quoting
the hearings that took place in parliament on Dec. 2, 1925, I showed
that nothing about the Blue Book had been discussed that day and that
nothing that could resemble an apology had been made.

My article was printed in serial form in the Agos newspaper and
published in Birikim magazine. Pencere Publications published the
Blue Book in Turkish and used my article as the preface. Elekdag
initiated three lawsuits, claiming I had insulted him three times,
once for each of these publications. The first case was filed in
the 13th Civil Court of Ankara against both me and Agos. The court
awarded the plaintiff 10,000 YTL and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeal
approved the award. The second case was filed in the 17th Civil Court
of Ankara. That one ended with a damages award of 6,000 YTL against me
and Birikim. The third, meanwhile, was filed in the 6th Civil Court
of Ankara against me and Pencere Publications. It concluded with an
award of damages totaling 7,500 YTL. In the end, I was punished three
times for one article and this was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

I had sent transcripts of the 1925 session in question to the court
and argued that Elekdag’s claim–that "England had apologized to
Germany over the Blue Book"–and the information he had related
about discussions within the British Parliament were wrong. I said
that he had misled the public, the Turkish Grand National Assembly,
and the Turkish government.

And because I had said that Elekdag was lying, the court ordered me
to pay monetary damages, finding that I had insulted him–on three
different occasions no less. Now I am being ordered to pay out.

The absurdity is so knee-deep that the 4th circuit Court of Appeals,
fully aware of what was going on in this lawsuit, wrote this in its
opinion affirming the decision regarding me and Birikim magazine:

"The magazine and the article are the same. Nevertheless, the lower
court, mistakenly interpreting them as two separate writings and two
separate publications, has ordered two separate awards for damages
which do not comply with procedure or the law and would normally
require a reversal. However, since eliminating the error in question
does not require that the matter be tried again, in compliance with the
438rd and last article of the HUMK [Rules of Court and Civil Procedure]
the amount of damages is appropriate for even one instance of this
offense so the decision was ratified as amended…."

The conclusion? Elekdag lies and because I called him out on those
lies, I was ordered to pay him damages.

Is there anything left to say?

You are free to tell all the lies you want in this country about
what happened in 1915. If you tell the truth about what happened,
they’ll make you pay damages. And that pretty much sums it up.

So Turkey is supposed to be joining with Armenia to form a commission
to discuss history, is that right? You don’t think they’re going to
turn around and tell Turkey to clean up its own act first?

The Turkish version of this article appeared in Taraf:

ARMENIA: AMID PROTESTS, SARGSYAN PUSHES FOR RECONCILIATION WITH TURKEY

/eav100509d.shtml
10/05/09

Several Diaspora protests have put a dent in Armenian President Serzh
Sargsyan’s effort to sell his government’s plan to reconcile with
Turkey to Armenians abroad.

Sargsyan is currently on a world tour to explain his government’s
position on the Armenian-Turkish protocols. [For background see the
Eurasia Insight archive].

Upwards of 3,000 Armenian emigres staged a protest on October 4 in
front of the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles, where Sargsyan was
staying as a part of his tour. Armenian news sources reported that
protesters held up slogans urging "No to the Protocols," the documents
that will set the groundwork for diplomatic ties with Turkey and
reopening the two countries’ border after a 16-year closure. Armenian
Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian and Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet
Davutoglu are expected to sign the protocols in Zurich on October
10. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

A similar demonstration in Paris turned violent on October 2, when
Diaspora protesters accused Sargsyan of treason and clashed with
riot police.

Meanwhile, in Armenia itself, objections to reconciliation with Turkey
show little sign of abating. The nationalist Armenian Revolution
Federation-Dashnaktsutiun, Armenia’s oldest political party, has been
maintaining a round-the-clock hunger strike in downtown Yerevan for
three weeks. Party members have been sitting in front of the Foreign
Ministry in 48-hour shifts, according to an October 4 blog post for
the Frontline Club, a London-based media organization.

OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS ARE IN BAKU

ARMENPRESS
OCTOBER 5, 2009
BAKU

OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Bernard Fasssier (France), Robert Bradtke
(USA), Yuri Merzlyakov (Russia) as well as special representative of
the OSCE chairperson in office Andrzej Kasprzyk arrived in Baku. The
official meetings of the co-chairs kick off today. Within the
framework of the visit they will meet with the Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev.

French co-chair Bernard Fassier told the Azerbaijani reporters about
the meetings they have conducted in Armenia. "We had very constructive
meetings in Yerevan about which we will inform after conversation in
Baku," he said.

APA

Abdullah Gul: `The time has come to lift the occupation factor in the
Azerbaijani lands’
[ 03 Oct 2009 14:15 ]

Nakhchivan ` APA. `The time has come to solve all conflicts in the
South Caucasus, including the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict,
peacefully and within the territorial integrity of the countries’,
said Turkish President Abdullah Gul in his speech at the 9th summit of
Turkic-speaking countries in Nakhchivan, APA reports.

He said Turkey gave special importance to the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. `We believe in necessity of lifting the occupation factor
in the occupied lands of Azerbaijan. The time has come. We wish for
the diplomatic solution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict that it will
be solved through the dialogue and peace and stability will be
established in the South Caucasus. Undoubtedly it could be realized
only after the lifting of occupation factor’.

ARMENIAN DEFENSE MINISTER MEETS WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF BELARUS ARMENIAN COMMUNITY

ARMENPRESS
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009
YEREVAN

On the initiative of the Armenian embassy in Belarus Armenian Defense
Minister Seyran Ohanyan met September 28 in Minsk with representatives
of Belarus Armenian community. Minister Ohanyan arrived in Belarus
to participate in "West 2009" joint Russian-Belarus military exercises.

Armenian Foreign Ministry press service told Armenpress that the
defense minister presented to the Armenian community the issues
Armenian Armed Forces are facing, the carried out reforms.

Seyran Ohanyan highly underscored the high level of Armenian-Belarus
multilateral relations, especially in defense sphere. He answered
to the questions of the present which particularly referred to
Armenian-Turkish relations, Karabakh conflict regulation.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE: ARMENIAN BUDGET DEFICIT AT 6.5-7% IN 2009

ARKA
Sep 30, 2009

YEREVAN, September 30. /ARKA/. Armenian budget deficit is expected
at about 6.5-7% by the end of this year, the country’s Minister of
Finance Tigran Davtyan said.

"We were attracting funds from external sources to compensate for
the gap between incomes and expenditures. It was not easy, even the
parliament allowed us bringing the budget deficit to 7.5%. I think
we will manage to maintain the deficit within this range and will
have deficit at 6.5-7% by the end of the year," the Minister told a
press conference Tuesday.

This will enable the government maintaining its anti-cyclic policy
and social and defense expenditures’ level, Davtyan said.

On-budget expenditures are to total 900-910 billion drams in 2009,
hence the main part will be fulfilled (planned budget expenditures
at 945 billion drams), he said.

The government responded to the crisis promptly and part of the
expenditures (e.g. on state machine and procurement of equipment)
was deferred. Yet, no expenditure related to promotion of the economy
has been postponed, Davtyan said.

US FOOD SECURITY EXPERTS TO SHARE THEIR EXPERIENCE WITH ARMENIAN SPECIALISTS

PanARMENIAN.Net
29.09.2009 21:14 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ SerfSave food security training project was launched
in Yerevan on September 29. The project, which will last 3 days,
was launched by USAID/CAPS in cooperation with American University’s
(AUA) Extension Department and Armenian Restaurant Association (ARA).

"The project aims at ensuring food security, as well as transferring
American specialists’ up-to-date knowledge to their Armenian
colleagues," CAPS Director Artak Kazaryan said, adding that all
restaurants in America possess such certificates.

At that he noted that program participants had been selected by
competition. Their total number is 20.

Training session will be followed by an exam scheduled for October
9. Successful participants will have be given the chance to further
their education and awarded international trainer’s certificate. This
is the third re-qualification program organized by CAPS.

Project covers 5 main spheres: fundamentals of food security, cross
pollution and allergens, personal hygiene, time and temperature,
decontamination and sanitation.

Virginia TEK Mahmood Khan, a leading Professor from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, has been invited to Armenia to deliver the
course.

In April last year, Mahmood Khan amended several university curricula,
assisted in the introduction of new training methods, as well as
delivered courses on food security and marketing for representatives
of the sphere in Armenia. Similar courses are also scheduled for
April next year.

Q, W AND X SPELL TROUBLE FOR KURDISH INTEGRATION
Thomas Seibert

The National
September 29, 2009

A Kurdish boy at a school in Diyarbakir, the capital of Turkey’s
Kurdish region. Chris Hondros / Getty Images

ISTANBUL // Can a "w" be a threat to national unity? The Turkish
government is preparing to submit to parliament a package of measures
designed to end the Kurdish conflict, which has cost tens of thousands
of lives, but nationalists have been up in arms since media reported
that Ankara is planning to allow Kurds to use such letters as q, w
and x in public – and maybe even reform the Turkish alphabet itself
to embrace the Kurdish letters officially.

"This is treason against the Turkish language," Oktay Vural, a
leading member of the right-wing Nationalist Movement Party, or MHP,
told reporters in Ankara. "This is not a democratic opening, but a
separatist one."

Q, w and x are not part of the Turkish alphabet at the moment, and
although their use in foreign language words and abbreviations –
such as "www" – is accepted, Kurdish activists who used the letters
in Kurdish words in the past have been charged with violating language
provisions laid down in a law dating from 1928.

The row over the Kurdish letters died down after the government denied
there were plans to change the alphabet, but the linguistic debate was
only an early skirmish in a political battle about to begin in earnest.

The "Kurdish opening", as the government’s Kurdish plans are called
by the media, will be at the top of the agenda of deputies returning
to parliament in Ankara tomorrow after a long summer break. Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, sees an opportunity to end the
Kurdish conflict and can count on the support of many war-weary
voters and the military. But the row about the Kurdish letters and
other details of Ankara’s plan shows that Mr Erdogan faces an uphill
struggle to win opposition support for the legal changes necessary
to get the initiative on tra od that could be crucial for Turkey’s
domestic and foreign policies, and for Mr Erdogan’s own career as
well. Apart from the "Kurdish opening", parliament will also debate
recent agreements between Turkey and Armenia for the normalisation
of relations and an eventual opening of the closed border between
the two neighbours. The documents are to be signed by the foreign
ministers of the two countries on October 10. After that, parliaments
in Ankara and Yerevan will vote on the agreements.

With the Kurdish and Armenian issues, Mr Erdogan is tackling the
two most sensitive topics in Turkish politics at the same time. The
opposition in Ankara has been protesting against planned steps on both
issues. Mr Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party, or AKP,
has enough seats in parliament to push through legal changes on its
own, but it would prefer to get other parties on board as well.

In several speeches over the past few weeks, Mr Erdogan has made it
clear that he is aware of the potential political fallout for himself
and AKP, should the "Kurdish opening" fail to stop the violence that
has plagued the country since 1984, the year rebels of the Kurdistan
Workers’ Party, or PKK, took up arms to fight for Kurdish self-rule.

"Whatever the cost may be, we will not take a step back," Mr Erdogan
told an audience in Istanbul last month. "Our party may lose votes
… We took that risk when we set out on our way and we will do what
is necessary." Mr Erdogan has said he wants the "Kurdish opening" to
be up and running by the end of the year. The package’s main aim is
to give more cultural rights to Kurds in an effort to weaken support
for the PKK. According to press reports, the plan includes such steps
as allowing Turkish families to give Kurdish names to their children,
adding directions in Kurdish to road signs in the Kurdish area in
south-eastern Anatolia, ending restrictions on the use of the Kurdish
language during election campaigns and giving Kurdish children the
chance to learn their an optional subject in their schools.

In the run-up to the parliamentary debates, the government has tested
public opinion about the "Kurdish opening". According to reports,
government polls show that between 55 per cent and 64 per cent of
the electorate support the initiative.

A crucial factor has been the support of the military, which is
highly respected among Turks. Last week, Ilker Basbug, the chief
of general staff, was quoted as saying he did not see a problem
in teaching Kurdish to children in state schools, a statement that
makes it harder for opposition parties like the MHP to argue that Mr
Erdogan’s government is selling out to Kurdish separatists.

FIRST HOME ISSUES
Hrant Ter-Abrahamyan

iew-lrahos15322.html
16:35:11 – 28/09/2009

In your opinion what is opposition? What are its functions and
its role?

Opposition is an important component of any democratic society. The
functions of the opposition are very clear and are contained in the
word "opposition". In other words, the function of the opposition
is to voice the shortages, and negative phenomenon present in
the society. When they make a difference between constructive
and fundamental opposition I don’t understand it. The fundamental
opposition blacks everyone, these are typical cliches the users of
which do not understand what a democratic society means. Of course,
the opposition has to present the black because it is its function. For
example, if someone says they do not accept the Constitution or the
Republic, this may be fundamental. We have no such an opposition.

As to the legitimacy, each government maybe legitimate only in case
there is a serious opposition. A strong opposition has to be expedient
for the government. Let us take the example of England. There
the oppositional leader is paid by the state to black, said in
our language. In other words, it is a very important function for
the country. And I always think that I would be very happy if the
government solved all my problems, in other words, all the problems I
voice and criticize. Only a smart government could do such a thing. We
do not have such a government.

What forces do you consider oppositional in Armenia today? Are there
oppositional forces in Armenia?

Yes, I think there are. Even if the Congress is very much criticized
sometimes justly sometimes not, in the last two years it has been
fulfilling the function of the opposition very well. But there is an
objective circumstance here too that the opposition is one of the
components of the democratic system, but our is not democratic. In
this system, an opposition is very difficult to be formed, because in
reality, political questions are not solved in result of ideological
competitiveness.

We may say that the Heritage also existed as opposition until
the recent times. The Dashnaktsutyun is also trying to enter the
oppositional field, but I think it does not manage to.

What impedes the ARF to become full opposition?

I think the leadership of the Dashnaktsutyun connected very much with
the government from the point of business and it is difficult to
renounce all immediately. Of course, it is their internal question
and I do not want to go into details, but in order the public takes
for serious the oppositional image of the ARF, they have to prove
it but not demanding the resignation of the foreign minister when in
accordance with out Constitution, the president is the decider of the
foreign policy and we know what Edward Nalbandyan is and to demand his
resignation is only ridiculous. In result, although the ARF does a good
job, hunger strike, etc, but it does not gather the mass of people
around it because there is really very much worry among the public
in connection with the Armenian-Turkish relations. So the ARF has to
demand Serge Sargsyan’s resignation but when he signs the protocols,
no one will need his resignation any longer. The ARF is very late,
because this process started last year. Dashnaktsutyun was in the
coalition until April 23, it left it but in fact did not do anything
until autumn.

Is this not the serious issue around which all the oppositional forces,
though having different ideas, have to unite?

In theory, it is. The events of March 1 had serious influence on our
public. A split took place from some point a positive split. Look,
now there are many people who are led by the ARF stances today
and are against signing the protocols but there is the question on
responsibility here. This was voiced in the oppositional press too. But
supporting Serge Sargsyan you were for repression of democratic values
and did not attach importance to them. Look in what situation we are
now. For example, Armen Ayvazyan today says I am not given TV air
for me to discuss the Armenian and Turkish issue, but you were given
TV air after March 1. Now one may understand the value of free word,
everyone has to struggle for democracy. Will Armen Ayvazyan say now
that democracy is a secondary question and the main is the national
issues? And the most national issue is the election rigging.

The election rigging reflects the Armenian and Turkish
relations. There is the point that the parliaments have to ratify
the protocols. Although Turkey is not the homeland of democracy,
nevertheless it keeps the mechanism of election. Elections are not
rigged there and there is a parliament with the help of which they may
protract the process of ratification to reach the needed precondition
and to be able to repress always more Armenia. In other words, it
is a democratic parliament. Is there anyone in Armenia to believe
that the national Assembly may oppose the government? Everyone knows
abroad what the Armenian parliament is and that it does everything
by the order from above.

And now armed with Russian putinian idiot ideas they reached this
point.

In Singapore, nearly twenty years ago, both the opposition and the
government decided to hold a fair election and they built a marvelous
country in twenty years.

God helps it will be the same here. But I have not seen preconditions
so far. I do not notice that people release the importance of the
question. Everything is viewed on personal level here. Now if I ask
my most democratic friends, if we have not to let Tigran Karapetyan
become the president if one day the greater part of the public
votes for him, they will answer that we do because they again think
about personalities. I think from the point of those who rigged for
example the ’96, 2003 and 2008 presidential elections. In ’96 they
thought these people are idiots, Vazgen Manukyan, Dashnaktsutyun,
Paruyr Hayrikyan…how can they come to power? In 2003 they thought
"these people are idiot and do not understand how Stepan Demirchyan
may become president. He cannot. If in ’98 Karen Demirchyan came to
power with his colorful team, what the situation will be. We saw that
after his death his team ran into the arms of the government. So we
come to the conclusion that they were right to rig the election. No,
they were wrong. Because if it was a disaster that Vazgen Manukyan,
Stepan Demirchyan or Tigran Karapetyan came to power, so it is a worse
disaster when they rig the election because they destroy a public
institution which is for many generations to solve their questions
for 4-5 years. Not the person, but the institution is important.