– On December 2 the foreign ministers of the OSCE c-chair countries made statement following the meeting of the Armenian and Azeri foreign ministers and said that “the growing frequency of the Armenian and Azeri presidents has significantly supported to the activation of dialogue between the parties.” In other words, this statement may be interpreted as some improvement in the Karabakh conflict settlement. In your interview given to the radio Liberty you said that the authorities, people and destiny of Karabakh are the hostage of the policy implemented by Armenia.
– Yes, maybe this progress pointed out by the co-chairmen is connected with it as well. Because the final goal of the co-chairs as representatives of the super-states is to develop their interests and priorities in the region. From this point of view it was very important to stop Karabakh being an independent factor. The fact that it is more than 10 years Karabakh does not take part in the negotiations has supported this too. We have reached a point where the Armenian foreign minister says that Karabakh will join the process of negotiations whenever there is a need. In consideration of the results of the past presidential elections in Armenia we may assume that Karabakh may rely in Armenia on Serzh Sargsyan only, who is originally from Karabakh. This is a very poor alternative because on the one hand it is clear that democracy is abused in Armenia, and on the other hand the Karabakhi people don’t believe in any other political power in Armenia, especially the ANC. There is a belief in Karabakh that as soon as Levon Ter-Petrosyan comes to power he will give the lands and abuse the rights of the Karabakhi people. In other words, in Karabakh the alternative choice is between Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Serzh Sargsyan. If it is the choice, it is better for them to support Serzh Sargsyan. There is no guarantee that Serzh Sargsyan will be able to protect Karabakh’s interests though.
– You said that Armenia does not do anything to include Karabakh in the process of negotiations but recently the Armenian foreign minister announced that “there is no meeting during which Armenia does not raise the issue of Karabakh’s participation in the negotiation process because it is impossible to reach any agreement without Karabakh’s participation because the problem is between Karabakh and Azerbaijan and Armenia wants to support the process.”
– There should be someone to listen to what is being said. If only saying could help, the world map would be totally different now. We would have Armenia according to the agreement of Sevr. The reality is different and politics means skills to do concrete actions and manipulate those processes. Thus, if the authorities are saying that Karabakh should be a part of the negotiation process, they should act as well.
– What actions specifically do you means?
– They may announce that if Karabakh does not become a party to the negotiation process in reasonable terms, Armenia will start the process of recognizing the Republic of Karabakh in parallel with the process of negotiating with Azerbaijan. It may last 6 months or one year, but the results should be the recognition of Karabakh.
– If Armenia does so, it will have the image of an aggressor in the international community and the risk of a new war will be increased as well.
– I believe this logic of negotiations is not in Armenia’s interests. The Minsk Group negotiations and the agenda of these negotiations are frustrating the real meaning and timing of the conflict, and are deciding the results from the point of view that Armenia is considered to be an aggressor now too. Now there is a provision in the principles of Madrid as well, according to which the Armenian forces should be taken out of the liberated lands and Azeri people should return to those areas. There are rumors about Shushi as well, and Armenia will be connected with Karabakh through the corridor of Lachin. In a word, it is the same, and if we are giving all these things peacefully, it means something is wrong.
– After the meeting in Athens the parties reaffirmed that the parties would settle the conflict through peaceful means. Our foreign minister happily announced about the victory of the Armenian diplomacy; even Azerbaijan agrees with the self-determination right of Karabakh (of course, after the recognition of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity on part of Armenia).
– Currently efforts are being made both within the negotiations format and by separate parties for the purpose of returning the process to the status of 1988. It is about the self-determination right of Karabakh in the framework of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. In other words, Azerbaijan interprets it as Karabakh’s sovereignty within Azerbaijan. However we have lost the half million Armenian community of Azerbaijan. We had 500.000 refugees. We had losses during the war. By the way, we were not the ones to initiate the war. From this point of view it was the foreign policy diplomats’ responsibility to find new ways to make Turkey, Azerbaijan and the international community to act in a new situation with new principles. I see such opportunity and we have worked out such project.
– During the 12th congress of the RPA president Serzh Sargsyan said that he was not against listening to smart ideas. Have you knocked at his door with your project?
– A long time ago I proposed a meeting with him and asked to pass him the provisions of my project. They either do not want or they don’t think that my project may have the rational solution to support the authorities in this work. It is up to them to decide.
– You said that the Karabakhi people and authorities don’t trust the Armenian authorities. One can sit and disagree with others, but there are other means as well rather than being passive.
– The Karabakhi people should first of all demand from their authorities. The fact is that the Karabakhi authorities are in a very difficult situation from this point of view. They either have to trust Serzh Sargsyan, whose policy (if the process is success as the co-chairs say) will end up returning the lands, Azeri’s return to those lands, or they can go against him knowing that another radical party will come to power, which will abuse Karabakh’s interest more radically. From this point of view the opportunity of choice in Karabakh is very narrow.
– Do you think the danger of war is serious?
– It’s wrong to say that tomorrow there may be a war, but we should be ready for the war threat all the time. Global processes are happening in the world and we should analyze the situation and processes in the South Caucasus in this context. Even small tension in the relations between the super-states or lack of mutual understanding may result in a war through the entire line of competition. It could be Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia or Karabakh; time will show who the next victim is. We should be ready for any change, including the war threat. We should be ready psychologically as well.
– May the inner political situation allow us have the same results in case of a new war as we did in the war of Karabakh? May the dialogue between the authorities and opposition result in at least partial solution of the political crisis in the domestic political sector?
– In our political field there is a lack of principality, which is conditioned by the comprehension and philosophical gaps. So the dialog between any two people is possible at any time. It is a different thing that the dialog has a more appropriated nature and is conditioned by the necessity of time and not the comprehension of the state benefit. The enemies can become close friends and allies. However, even in this case I don’t see any dialog between Levon Ter-Petrosyan and Serzh Sargsyan. In Armenia there is a serious political crisis, which has entered into a covert state from a more visible stage. From the outside the factors emphasizing the crisis are not seen. There are no rallies, pickets, civil intolerance but in general there is internal tension and the lack of trust to the government gradually increases. People have become totally indifferent to the government, opposition and politics in general. This means that when the critical time comes people may not care to protect their own destiny. This may mean as a fiasco of the state for Armenia.