– Mr. Giragossian, how will you interpret the statement of the Ambassador of Turkey to Azerbaijan Khulusi Keleji made on August 25?
– In practice this statement doesn’t mean anything important. Although the government of Turkey decided to respond to the statement of Serzh Sargsyan but they did it in a lower level and in a milder manner. They chose their Ambassador in Turkey and not in Georgia. This is important as the Ambassador of Turkey in Georgia plays a key role in the Armenian-Turkish relations. And the statement of the Turkish Ambassador to Azerbaijan mostly relates to the Azerbaijani-Turkish relations. In other words, his statement was basically addressed to the Azerbaijani society rather than the Armenian one. Sargsyan did the right thing to make such a statement as by that it demonstrated that the patience of Armenia is gradually fading.
– Will Serzh Sargsyan go to Turkey?
– I think yes. But the thing is that the approaches of Turkey have already changed. Their interest in regulating the Armenian-Turkish relations has weakened. This has two reasons. One of the reasons is that Turkey underestimated the reaction of Azerbaijan and overestimated its strengths and was mistaken to assume that there is no need for rush to regulate relations with Armenia. But the second reason is more important. The regulation of relations with Armenia is no more a priority for the Turkish government. During the past two weeks they have developed a new program related to the peaceful settlement of the Kurdish issue and in this regard the relations with Armenia were left for the next stage. But I think that Turkey will make a decision to encourage the visit of the Armenian president to Turkey. For example, they can open the border for one day. But this is not enough in the aspect of regulation of Armenian-Turkish relations and I am less optimistic. I think the Turkish side doesn’t have as much will and desire to do so as it had compared to the previous year.
– This means that if the borders are not opened and Sargsyan goes to Turkey he will violate the precondition brought up by him. Do you agree with this?
– No, by his statement Sargsyan was threatening Turkey by saying that he will visit Turkey only when the borders are opened or any tenacious step is taken in that direction. And if he ends up going to Turkey it won’t mean that he is changing his statement. His visit is going to be an exam for Turkey because this is the claim that the world and the US particularly make for Turkey. And if Turkey loses this chance then it will be Turkey that loses the game not Armenia.
– To what extent is the regulation of the Armenian-Turkish relations connected with the issue of the NKR conflict resolution?
– The NKR conflict hence doesn’t directly connect to the Armenian-Turkish relations. The whole process, Gul’s visit and the processes in Switzerland is based on the separation of these two issues. But as the Turks underestimated the reaction of Azerbaijan their statements are aimed at sufficing Azerbaijan. In reality, however, the Turkish strategy differs from these statements. It tries to notice some signals of progress in the regulation of the NKR conflict. The Madrid principles and the consent of Azerbaijan and Armenia around certain points were attempts to show certain success to Turkey. However, none of the sides, including Turkey, expect any change in the NKR issue.
– In that case how would you construe Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s statement, who claims that the government of Armenia has given up Karabakh long ago? There was time when Ter-Petrosyan himself was being blamed of compromising the NKR. Don’t you think that such a high-level politician wouldn’t make such a groundless statement?
– The statements of Ter-Petrosyan and the ANC less relate to the NKR issue and are more connected with the internal political situation of Armenia. Thus, as an analyst, I cannot say if he is right or wrong. But the statement of Ter-Petrosyan reveals one thing for sure and that is after March 1, 2008 the political crisis in Armenia is not overcome yet and it still continues. This is the reason why the NKR conflict and the foreign relations of Armenia have become internal political issues.
– In your opinion, why were the opposition forces (ANC, Heritage, and partly the ARF) not able to unite around this platform? Is it possible that such cohesion may become possible? Or maybe not of the opposition forces has never had a wish to unite.
– Let us be realistic and let us see what the actual situation in Armenia is. We have four different forces or more accurately to say prospects. The first one is the government, which has very little legitimacy and reputation. We have Levon-Ter-Petrosyan’s opposition movement, the actions of which are mostly focused on the streets rather than at the offices. The third prospect is the opposition, which exists inside the system and that is the parliamentary opposition, the Heritage faction, which is very constructive. The fourth prospect is the newest Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which is neither an opposition party nor it is in the governmental coalition. Therefore it is very difficult to unite these drastically different units. And perhaps there is even no need for them to unite in the conditions of polarization that exists in the society. Or the solution is the suggestion of Raffi Hovhannisian to start a national dialog. Indeed, the government is making a mistake to refuse this compromise. But the opposition should do one thing as well. It should struggle against the government based on issues and policies and not individuals.
– In your opinion, what changes will the social-economic situation of Armenia go through? And what impact is it going to have on the internal political developments?
– The social-economic sector is more important. It is the social-economic crisis that may become a threat for the government. The political and economic systems in Armenia are very closed and due to the lack of flexibility they cannot withstand the crisis. And this is the reason why the actual instability is both economic and political. But this also means that without a political solution there can be no economic progress. So I think that the crisis is going to worsen even more and even reach a social riot level.
– Can the September rally of the ANC create deviation in the political life of the country?
– The fall of the current year differs from the one of the previous year because at that time there was need to maintain the influence of the movement. This means that in September and October of the previous year were more important. But today the opposition of Ter-Petrosyan is gradually weakening but the issues are increasing and thus are proliferating the instability in the country. But I don’t see Ter-Petrosyan as a candidate. I envision him as a mechanism, as a locomotive of changes. This means that his goal is not to have the power in his hands but the change of the system. The Armenian people have changed compared to the period of March 1 of 2008. They are more awake. But the country has also changed in the context that prior to March 1 the return to the status quo is impossible. And that is the reason why Ter-Petrosyan is not a political threat for Sargsyan. The real threat is inside the political system. We are speaking about the fight among elites and not the three presidents. In other words it is necessary that the political system of the country is reformed. I think the current situation cannot last too long. Like it or not the government should undertake changes in the country. And the main stimulus of these changes is not the government.