Hrant Margarian: Peoples should decide their fates on their own
28.12.2004 15:02 interview
YEREVAN (YERKIR) – The interview of the news agency REGNUM with ARF
Bureau representative Hrant Margarian
Question: Today, the whole world is following the developments in the
Ukraine not only because what is going on there is interesting but
also because it is a precedent. Do you believe the same could happen
in Armenia too?
Answer: The first impression is that the events in the Ukraine could
be assessed as a popular movement that aims at forming its own
power. So it isfine. And if it is to come to Armenia, it is really
good. But this from the first sight. But there is another version,
another concern that as it was the case in Georgia, in the Ukraine
too, the external forces play a great role, and those movements are
financed and sponsored by external forces. If we look at those
developments from this point of view, then we cannot accept them.
Q: In this respect, is Russia’s interfering unacceptable too?
A: Exactly. I have to say that we are not concerned about the internal
situation of Armenia: the political life in Armenia is quite stable
and we have no concerns that the same can happen in Armenia. But we
are a small country, and we have serious issues, national issues,
Karabakh for instance. And this fragile situation in the country might
make some foreign forces think that the same scenarios could be
implemented in Armenia too. I am hopeful that our nation and our
political forces, having in mind our national issues, would be wise
enough to not get into this trap.
However, I wouldn’t like this stance to be comprehended as
anti-democratic as our party has always had the flag of democracy in
its hands. We have always tried to push the government toward
democratization and more freedoms. We consider it our pivotal
issue. You may have noticed that our recent positions were aimed at
democratization of the government.
Q: Your opponents don’t hide that it is possible to get aid from
outside, and they say “we are pro-Western, and you, in turn, get held
from Russia.” What do they mean by “close relations” between the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) and Russia, especially when
the ARF was fighting against Russia’s influence during the Soviet
era. What is your opinion on the accusations that the ARF has adopted
the principle “three fronts, one border” allegedly imposed on you by
the Russian special services?
A: I don’t know whether it is good or bad that the ARF has no
assistance of any foreign force, but it is good that the ARF takes its
decisions on its own based on the reality and national
interests. Unfortunately, the relations between the ARF and Russian
government circles have never been on the desired level because
Russian politicians probably were under the impressions coming from
the Communist times.
As for such talks, yes, we believe that when our archrival Turkey
enjoyed the support of one of the poles of the two-pole world, it was
natural that could feel more confident in the orbit of the other
pole. But the world is changing. Anyhow, we seek Russia’s — and not
only Russia’s — friendship for our nation and party.
Q: Judging from your opponents’ statements, the repetition of the
Ukrainian scenario in Armenia would be under the choice “Armenia with
Russia or NATO.” What could Armenia do to join NATO without any
losses or turmoil?
A: I don’t know what would membership in NATO give to Armenia. But I
know something else: before Armenia could have a choice, Russia itself
should be present in the region. The issues would have a different
settlement then. What the Armenian National Movement (ANM) says is a
classical stance of a pro-Western party and it could not be viewed as
that of Armenia and the Armenia people.
Q: ANM’s statement has become a tool already that could serve as the
basis for imposing the Ukrainian scenario here. They would accuse the
ARF of being funded from outside, now they accept they too will be
funded from outside. It could affect the outcome of the
elections. What would you do if they succeeded?
A: I would like to stress once again that when talking about being
funded from outside, in our case they meant not a foreign country but
the Armenian Diaspora, which is different. When they admit they are
funded from outside,it means also they are led from outside.
The difference between Armenia, Georgia and the Ukraine is huge. The
fight between the authorities and the opposition in Armenia would move
to another field, the fight would be between the pro-national and
anti-national forces, or the pro-national forces and forces led by the
foreigners and then the pro-national forces would not fight for just
their political career, they would fight for national values.
Q: In the Ukraine there was a huge pressure on the election, and the
West said they would break their relations with the country if the
outcome was not what they wanted. In the case of Armenia, the Karabakh
issue is the weapon.
The Karabakh issue is related to Azerbaijan, Turkey and the
Genocide. If the West puts pressure in the Karabakh issue during a
revolution, would not the opposition — the pro-Western forces– adopt
the Western option of the settlement? Could you suggest a formula that
would be acceptable for all and would allow the opposition to win?
A: The Karabakh struggle is 16 years old and we have seen various
positions of the West, East and Russia. There are two essential facts
we should take into account. The first fact is that the great powers
are very powerful and have great potential but when they deal with
small regions, they have to accept the existing realities and also who
is in charge there. During the last 16 years, we have proved that we
have no intention to make concessions so those chauvinistic policies
would not succeed. And while the people have passed through social
hardships during those 16 years, no revolutions have happened due
tothose reasons.
A regime change took place only when there was a crisis of the
Karabakh issue. Whoever decided to make concessions — I am speaking
on behalf of the people — we have the capacity to push them aside. I
think there is no force in Armenia that would dare to exploit the
Karabakh issue for the benefit of its interest. But if the West
proposes an acceptable option, fine.
Q: What is the limit of concessions that the opposition could propose
having the support of the West?
A: I can’t speak of the opposition, it is up to them. In our case, I
believe we have already made concession. We live in peace for ten
years now, and that’s the best concession.
There is no war for ten years, and this says a lot. There are some
details. Some Armenian lands — Shahumian, Getashen, some parts of
Martakert — are still under occupation. We have a problem of having
final and secure borders with Azerbaijan. The issue is actually
settled but it should be also settled in talks. It will take some time
to secure the issue’s de jure settlement.
Q: The technologies that were put in work in the Ukraine were
powerful, raging from bribing the political elite and the mass media
to offering privileges for the Ukrainians working in Russia. Have you
though of gaining privilegesfor Armenians living in Russia?
A: I believe the nations should decide their fates on their
own. Neither Russia, or the West, or any other state should
interfere. We count on our nation. We believe there should be a dual
citizenship law in Armenia as there are more Armenians outside Armenia
than in Armenia.
Q: Opponents of the dual citizenship say there would be no one to
serve in the Armenian army. What could be done?
A: There are many countries that have dual citizenship. Whoever make
that statement have no knowledge of the issue. For instance, in
Greece, it doesn’t matter what country you are a citizen of, you
should do a military service for the Greek army too. The dual
citizenship laws differ in different courtiers.
Q: Robert Kocharian is serving his final term. What would happen if he
handpicks someone as his successor and you do not agree with that
decision?
A: If we do not like his candidate, we would not come to an
agreement. We would have our own candidate. We are not married, we
cooperated for reaching some political goals, and our roads could be
different tomorrow. We would nominate our own presidential candidate
for the next election, but we might also support theirs, or they might
support ours.
Q: Why there is no Saakashvili type charismatic leader in Armenia?
A: It is true that at currently there is no candidate in Armenia who
could have even a relative lead. The forces are almost equal. The
situation will be clearer as we approach the election. The political
parties in Armenia are not well-established and often a party’s rating
is seen as that of the candidate.
The ARF is different. The party has a certain rating but I can’t tell
which of our leaders has the corresponding rating. Maybe, this is
because we havea collective leadership and our party is not based on
individuals. I hope that in the next election people would vote for
the political platforms of the candidates and the candidates would
only gain from being represented by a party.
Q: Your opponents say that the ARF’s results in the National Assembly
election were faked. To support their allegation they point to the
fact that the ARF members did not win in the single-mandate
constituencies but they did under the party-list system.
A: Yes, the result were faked, but to the opposite direction. This is
a fact. We did not succeed in the single-mandate constituencies
because no political force did. It was the money that won because it
was easier to fake the results under the single-mandate system. I am
not saying we had the 50 percent but we had more than what was said we
had.
Our weight, however, is greater than the number of the seats we have
in the parliament. We did not challenge it, but we are not the party
which would easily digest it. It does not really matter whether we
have 12 seats in the parliament or 17-18, there would be no much
difference because I am sure that our small faction is more
influential than factions that have 30 or 40 members.We are the
largest Armenian political party. Everybody in Armenia would admit
that there is no party in Armenia that is larger or more organized
than the ARF. Until now, the Communists were considered a large party
too, but the situation is different now. This is a fact that no one
denies.
Q: The ARF was formed as a revolutionary and socialist party, but
after the Bolsheviks seized the power, the ARF moved to the Diaspora
and operated there as a nationalistic party. Maybe my question sounds
like one for a women’s magazine, but what exactly is the revolutionary
and socialist essence of the ARF?
A: The revolutionary is that we are not satisfied with the existing
situation and try to restore the full rights of the Armenian
people. Our socialism is defined in our fight for a fairer society
where peoples and nations would live in peace side by side and
develop.
We aspire for a better and fairer society for our nation and we
believe in such circumstances the people and the state would unite to
reach national goals. The revolutionary part does not necessarily
mean weapons. It is more a rebel against the injustice and can be in
form of political, public, cultural activities. If we were to
establish a new party with the same goals, we might call it
differently. Maybe.
But we have been carrying this name for 114 years and we see no
necessity to change it. We are the only political party of the former
Soviet Union that is a full member of the Socialist International. We
were not able to practice socialism in the Diaspora, there are no
class issues in the community. Bu I believe we have all the
opportunities to do so in Armenia.
Q: Is your party nationalistic, nationalistic-democratic,
nationalistic-liberal, like the parties of Yushchenko and Saakashvili?
Whatare the differences between them and you?
A: I don’t agree with those terms. We are the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation, they are them.
Q: Please comment on the European Union’s December 17 decision to
start entry talks with Turkey.
A: This decision cannot be qualified as final because if it is true
that the European nations are to make their decision through
referendums, then the EU’s decision means nothing. As for the Armenian
Genocide, I have to say that I have never believed — though I’d like
to believe so — that the Armenian Genocide would be a pre-condition
for Turkey’s admission. But also it is a fact that the Armenian
Genocide has never been raised so frequently, it has never been used
before to pressure Turkey. This is a great success. We made two issues
clear for us on December 17: Diaspora Armenians living in various
European countries and cities are as firm in the Armenian Genocide
issue as the Armenian residents to pay tribute to the Genocide victims
at the Tsitsernakaberd memorial on each April 24.
Secondly, it became apparent that a new stage began, meaning we should
mobilize our potential. No tragedy happened. Regardless of Turkey’s
membership we will continue our fight.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress