– Mr. Bagratyan, on the threshold of the anniversary of the Armenian Genocide Memorial Day the necessity of its recognition in the world usually increases. As a rule, Armenians are making more efforts these days. On the other hand, we hear more often about opening the Turkish border and establishing relations with them. How do we reconcile these two approaches?
– The approach, which you just mentioned, has been the official policy of the Republic of Armenia for the past 15 years. No matter how the new government denies this, it still stays a key policy for our government.
– So what do we have now – the same policy now as before?
– You know the principles of foreign policy are bilateral, with their inner and outer components. The outer world doesn’t see any change in our country’s political course (at least this is what they are saying) over the past 10 years. They claim that the incumbent government is continuing what the pervious one started. In terms of internal policy, there are indeed differences. Regarding Genocide recognition, I can say that both the previous and the current governments are trying to make its recognition as inclusive as possible. Half of the countries, which have recognized the Genocide, did it during our governance and the other half during the governance of the incumbent. As in the past, many international guests are now visiting us, and going to the Genocide Memorial. In 1994-95, right after the cease-fire, we built the Genocide Museum.
– What is this stipulated by? Isn’t the current government different from the previous one? The previous government was preaching liberal ideas and the current one is more nationalistic and sounds very patriotic.
– I think the issue has a simple description. The sovereignty and independence of a country’s foreign policy is connected with such factors as how influential the political, economic and cultural role of that country is for the rest of the world. No matter how much we insist that we are powerful, it’s not going to change the opinion of other states, first of all our neighbors. It’s quite simple that the person rarely confesses that he or she is ugly or stupid. Others should say those things about the person. Thus it turns out that the level of power of a country is determined by other states. We, Armenians, must not forget this. For example, we don’t have to tell the international community that we are creative, smart, courageous and wise. Such an approach can be used only for internal consumption. Summing up, I’d like to say that our global and internal policies for issues such as the Genocide and the Karabakh conflict, the overall approaches of the state cannot be different from the previous government.
– OK, in that case, what’s the difference between the current and the previous government?
– The difference in global politics is noticed only in certain nuances. For example, the approach of the former government regarding the Genocide was the following:
-Recognition of the Genocide is an important issue but it’s only one direction of foreign policy and not the final purpose;
-Recognition of the Genocide doesn’t imply return of territories occupied in the given historical period. -And the population of Turkey must be informed about the Armenian Genocide and gradually prepare for its recognition;
-The Genocide fact must not be an obstacle for having normal relations with Turkey.
-Recognition of the Genocide is a purpose of foreign policy;
-The process of recognizing the Genocide must be as expanded as possible.
-We shouldn’t artificially impede Turkey to integrate into the EU but help the Europeans to use the fact of Genocide against Turkey.
As we see in the aspect of internal consumption there are essential changes. So in general the final goal is the same. In the first case we are trying to act in a more civilized manner and not consider Turkey as a foe and not impede its entrance into the EU. According to the second case we consider Turkey our enemy. It turns out that through the second case we are harming ourselves because if Turkey doesn’t move to the West it will move to the East. This kind of policy, claimed by radical and nationalistic forces of Armenia, is strategically harmful for us. It’s not an accident when the Turkish nationalists get more concerned when nationalistic forces lead the government of Armenia. The Turkish nationalists are quite happy with the current Armenian government.
– Yes, but the facts are showing that the Turks are totally anti-Armenian. If we become more moderate to them how are we going to benefit? Will Turkey not do what it plans to do anyway?
– Of course you are right. In terms of its own interests, Turkey should have acted that way. What do we want then? In any case, a Europeanized Turkey is much better than a fundamentalist one. A Turkey that lives well is better for Armenia than a Turkey that is poor. At this historical period, it’s to our benefit, but if at some point there is a need to fight against them we must be ready for that. But now we need a Europeanized turkey. Have you ever thought of the fact of when in the 10th century the Turks marched to Armenia (with a population of 4-6 million) with its army of 100,000 and conquered us? And now their population is 80 million, ours is 3 million.
– It’s quite well known at the expense of what massacres they reached 80 million.
– It’s hard for me to agree with you. Where is then the courage, the wisdom of our nation? Couldn’t our clever nation assimilate about 100,000 people over the period of centuries?
– OK, how did it happen then?
– The issue is more complicated. At this point I don’t think my historical analysis will be helpful, but I think the number one historical factor for us is demographic growth. Without demographic growth, it’s impossible to develop enough to conquer territories. However, the necessary conditions are also needed. Let’s remember that the Armenian state or nation has never given up or been destroyed regardless of the fact that it had constantly been in the rule of other states. The state has been destroyed only by the deeds of the Armenians. For Armenians, not the change of government but destruction of sovereignty is characteristic. In Armenian reality, the government never wishes to become the former government. The second factor is also demographic, however on the surface it looks religious. Don’t forget that to Christianity the monogamous marriage is characteristic. The Muslim world accepts the institution of several wives. Even in cases when we did a really good job at wars and won (such things were quite often, for example – the Zakaryans, Mleh, Levon II and Hetum I) we were not able to decrease the birth rates of our enemies. Even when killing men we were not able to cease the process of birth rates because those killed were substituted by other men.
– So, what, should we have accepted Islam or taken advantage of the more brutal methods of war?
– Just the opposite. With regards to religion, on the contrary, we have to universalize our Christian belief. However, understanding the demographic advantage that Islam has, many of our kin nations changed their religion. For example, the Persians were forced to concoct Shiite in order to remain coreligionists after the conversion of religion. Or the Azerbaijani. At first they were the citizens of the Armenian Aghvank kingdom. Then, realizing the difficult situation, they also converted to Islam. Afterwards, by assimilating with the Persians, the Turks and the invaders from the North Caucasus, they became Azerbaijani. Armenians chose their national sameness and extended the historical road for existence. This is also a method. But it is required to apply it correspondingly. For example, nowadays we often talk about the successes of the Armenian side during the Artsakh war in the early ‘90s. However, frankly, almost all the main victories were recorded during my term as prime minister. (Don’t worry; I am not thinking about crediting somebody else. That was the people’s victory. But when I see how they talk about their contributions to victories that did or did not exist, I want to remind them that after the people came the first president of the republic, the government, and more than half of the government’s decisions referred to the army. After all that it would be reasonable for the others to talk). First of all, the valiance of our soldiers achieved victory. Then, the Armenian government was able to use its resources more effectively. But there were other factors as well. In particular, we had the technology for battle. One of the first decisions of our government has been the creation of tolerable conditions for the Azerbaijani captives and letting them go without any formalities in accordance with international rules and regulations. On the battlefield or when being surrounded they were surrendering instead of shooting until the final bullet knowing that to become captive does not mean death. In other words, the resistance of their army received a serious blow. This means that our and their technologies of war can not be the same.
– What is the reason for the present and former authorities’ similarity (externally) and difference (domestically) for the Artsakh conflict?
– “Externally” it is clear that there is not a big difference. Both in the past and currently in the sense of the historical period:
-Azerbaijan is getting its territories back (fully or partially, excluding the territory of Nagorno-Karabagh)
-The roads are being opened
-The issue concerning the status of Nagorno-Karabagh is being postponed
“Domestically”, on the one hand, it is called a debate on the phased and package deal versions (in reality it has always been and is the phased version), the referendum right is recalled (this doesn’t contradict the previous one, rather it complements and perhaps it is the use of the domestic element, “face saving”), and on the other hand, as a huge defect, they recall Karabagh’s not being part of the negotiations. You know, after all, the difference or essence of the issue is not in that document. I have already had the occasion to say that either Armenia has to choose one of those solutions or, if it doesn’t want Armenians to leave Artsakh, it must populate Artsakh and announce (and that is natural) that our people need places to live. Only this will change the attitude of the international community towards the issue. But when more and more people emigrate from Armenia, when people leave a country with a “two-digit” growth to a country with or without growth (because the whole country is split into “us” and “them”), in this case there can be no other variant for the Karabagh conflict settlement.
– We often read the so-called treacherous positions of the former authorities on the Genocide and Karabagh issues. If this is the case, then why don’t you counterattack?
– I personally have always responded and not because I am like that, but rather so that the history remains accurate. My observations show that often certain presses write a lie and present that as a vision and start to criticize. Recently there was an article printed in a well-known Russian language newspaper where there had been an attempt to get me back to reality and warn people about the defeatist position. In particular, it stated that “Mr. Bagratyan considers it wrong for the Armenian Genocide recognition issue to be part of Armenia’s foreign policy”. According to them, I have said that if it weren’t for the Genocide issue, then Armenia’s participation in the oil pipeline and railway projects would be secured. As a matter of fact, according to that article, I propose sacrificing Armenian interests for the Karabagh issue. I suppose that we are either dealing with an ill person, or the request of the authorities. If any one of the sentences of that article is accurate and if there is evidence, I am ready to honor the author. After all, those things are being said to someone who was prime minister as the victories were achieved. After all, the approval of the Genocide resolution in the Russian Duma ten years ago was due to my work and efforts. I get the impression that this pro-government paper wrote these stupid remarks with the purpose of distracting the people’s attention from the current failures. I think that we have to free ourselves of the former and present conception and not give orders to the myrmidons of the presses once and for all. That’s not a good thing. In the last century the “former” Andranik did not cooperate with the then-Dashnak government and in 1919 left Armenia, which was living through a continuing Genocide due to the failure of the government (even until December 1920). As a result, Armenians were massacred in 1919 in Nakhijevan, where there had not been any massacres. Poghos Nubar Pasha, who was hurt by the fact that the Young Turks [who had come to power with the help of the Dashnaks] had perpetrated the Genocide, announced that the issue of Western Armenia is only their issue and refused to cooperate with the legal government. The end result was the absolute perdition of Western Armenia. Not wanting to step down from power (in other words, to become the former), the Dashnaks did not help Shahumyan and actually helped a lot in his downfall. Shahumyan was a great Armenian. I don’t know what they say about his views on society, but he was one who had taken power in the neighboring Muslim country (imagine how much power he had) and was solving national issues. Drastamat Kanayan, who was the Defense Minister of Bolshevik Armenia and did not want to become the former, organized the shipping of the Sardarapat heroes to Baku and then from there asked the people of Zangezur to surrender to the Bolsheviks. Parallel to that, Al. Myasnikyan [to whom the members of the first revolution committee of Armenia did not want to be looked at as the former], was not able to fulfill his patriotic deed until the end due to that scum of society. After all, it was thanks to Myasnikyan that Zangezur was not handed over to Azerbaijan.
It is the lesson of history-each government should not suffer from the pain of being the former and must get up and leave when the time comes to do so.