– In your interview given to “Regnum” news agency you said that Armenia was the only country in the region that was not dangerous, so there would not be any revolution in Armenia. Don’t you think that the issue of Javakhk can be a reason for revolution?
– I hope not because the issue of Javakhk is more economical. The issue of Javakhk can bring up problems both for Georgia and for Armenian and Georgian relations. The first important thing for me is that Javakhk is not Karabakh. Here the needs are different, the history is different and the future is different. From the geopolitical view the future of Javakhk lies within a new Georgia. On the one hand Javakhk is an important foothold within Georgia, eventually near the Black Sea. One the other hand Javakhk is very important for Armenian security. Let’s say Javakhk is a part of Armenia. In this case it would be easier to strengthen the blockade of Armenia even to the North. Javakhk within a new Georgia, I mean not the old one, but within a new Georgia from its ethnic point of view, can balance the power of the policy of Georgia in this region. I say this because it is not an abstract principle, but because of its practical application. Georgia is the most difficult country for Armenia to deal with since it is unpredictable and an unreliable neighbor. In fact we generally know what Azerbaijan’s position is, what Turkey’s position is. Georgia is more dangerous, because it’s a friend one day, and is not the next day. The next problem for Javakhk is that I have said before too is the following: it would be better for Javakhk to get more autonomy, but neither independence nor unification with Armenia. This is my personal opinion. From the view of population of Javakhk the future is much more promising in Georgia.
– What kind of solutions are there to get out of this revolutionary situation of Armenia?
– In general I believe that this is evolution but not revolution. But it is painful for me to accept that, because it is hard to wait for evolutionary change. The problem why I hesitate for revolution is that no one offers an alternative. Armenian politics in my opinion is a closed system. Policy is more based on personality than on ideology. Here individuals are more important than institutions. This is a part of the problem, the other part of the problem to me and the reason that I don’t like anybody is that I don’t see any political party that would protect the interests of margin allies of the society. One of the reasons that there can’t be a revolution in Armenia is that there isn’t any political party or individual that can lead the revolution. But the other reason that revolution is not proper for Armenia is that if we look closer to the revolution of fruit and flowers we will see that there was something like a theatre or a play there. The revolutions of Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Georgia were disappointing. So I think the institutional realization of Armenia is better.
– Often a lot of oppositionists go to the US and have meetings there and make more rapid announcements regarding the start of a revolution when they already have come back. If we take into account the fact that the recent revolutions were conducted in support of the US, can we say that the US invites people from Armenia to see who can be a leader or trustable for revolution? Do you think that in case if there is any revolution in Armenia it will be aided by the US?
– Let me talk to you like an American. I don’t mean like an American that is also Armenian, but like an Armenian that is also American. In general the reason that Washington prefers evolution is that revolutions don’t give stable partners to America. The program of the US to support revolutions in other countries has been changed because experience shows that the results of revolutions don’t comply with the interests of America. If there is anyone in Armenia like Saakashvili now, he will not be supported by the US. Even there were problems when backing a person like Karimov , and this was a good lesson. The US policy regarding Azerbaijan has now changed. People speak about apricot revolution in Armenia, but they forget about two things. If we look at this phenomenon of apricot revolution in Armenia, we will see two facts. The first is that apricot is grown only in Armenia and it can’t be brought here, from outside. The second thing is that the growing season for apricot is too short and it gives only a small window opportunity. It reminds me about Iran. The change, revolution or change of government can be done within Iran and only by Iranians. And this can not be obliged or forced by the US or military pressure. The same thing is for Armenia. In other words political change in Armenia is to be made in Armenia and by Armenians that live in Armenia, but not in Moscow or in Washington.
– Does America regret about aiding the revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan?
– Regret? No. Those powers that came to rule with the help of revolution prove that they are not democratic. Here the transition is neither complete nor sufficient. The last support that the US government provided to organize free and fair election in Armenia is very important. The target of America’s attention is the society’s alienation from political processes. Citizens are disappointed about politics and stay far away from it, because they don’t have real suffrage. If we fail to solve this problem, we will not be able to solve other problems either. My conclusion is that both the ruling elite and the opposition elite must understand that the society may fall into a very bad situation. The authorities must understand that it is very important to have a strong opposition. The opposition carries out its activities within the law, and it is not dangerous. The events that happened in April 12 in Armenia and recently in Azerbaijan show that the reaction of the authorities was stronger than it should have been. They thought this was a threat, but it wasn’t so at all.
– What are they afraid of?
– There are afraid because there is lack of legitimacy. And this is not only in Armenia. Leaders use their power for their own interests and purposes. Armenia is more stable in comparison with Azerbaijan and Georgia.
– Several months ago US ambassador John Evans announced that if the referendum was violated people would have a right to protect their own interests in streets. But when RA defense minister was in the US he made another announcement that contradicted what he had said. He said that America didn’t like street revolutions. Could you please explain this contradiction?
– I can’t say anything about what John Evans said, but generally I can speak about the approach and position of Serj Sargsyan. The process of the referendum is more important for the US than the results. It is only the business of Armenians whether to vote “for” the referendum or no. To be honest, this is none of our business. The visit of Serj Sargsyan was within the scopes of a military relations program. And he visited the US as the RA defense minister, but not as a politician. Here I don’t see any interventions in the domestic developments by the US, because America is interested not in personalities, but in processes. Even in case of financial support. I worry about the fact that we will have to wait very long for evolution.
– Recently the press, on behalf of the authorities, wrote that the follower of Kocharyan was going to be Serj Sargsyan and the power would be given to him in 2008. Has this issue been discussed in the US and does America consider Serj Sargsyan as America’s partner?
– America wants to see sustainability and security in the region. It is very important for Armenia to have a person who can make limitations on the influence of Russia on Armenia. I think the most dangerous thing for Armenia is its dependence on Russia. Armenia doesn’t consider its strategic role as important. But instead of this Armenia considers the strategic role of Russia more important. I would like to see such a leader in Armenia that would not let Armenia become the next captive of Russia. But I don’t see this person here, because we don’t have any strong political leader.
– You say that there is no political leader who is able to lead the revolution process. How can people see any good political leader if they don’t let the opposition make public meetings, participate in TV programs and communicate with the society? Don’t you think that in these conditions there may be no alternative leader during the next presidential elections, which will give a chance to the authorities keep their places?
– Yes, this problem is very important. Of course information is power. They try to imitate Russians in Armenia, but you may have noted that both the opposition and independent press are controlled more during the ruling period of Putin while press is just a tool for the strong authorities. I think this problem can be solved by founding a new independent press. You need this kind of press, which would give a chance to form new authorities. I have no idea about what you can do to solve this problem. On the one hand we have to strengthen civil rights, but on the other hand we have a closed political system which doesn’t let us do this.
– A lot of people are not going to vote for the Constitutional Draft only because of the provision about dual citizenship. Don’t you think that in the future Diaspora Armenians may try to get good positions here?
– Of course that is dangerous, that is why I don’t agree with dual citizenship. There are two dangers, but I hope these will not happen. There may be someone from Moscow or London who wants to come here with large amounts of money and say that he is an angel and that he wants to save Armenia. For example Ara Abrahamyan, ex prime minister Armen Sargsyan, etc. This is not possible, but I think it is dangerous. I worry that rich people may come from abroad and buy territories here. What is the aim here? What kind of Armenia do they want to build? For instance there are pirates that come here and bring a monument of a gladiator for Armenia that costs two million dollars. I don’t mean Gafeschyan. I regret about this because they could invest this money and found a factory here. How can people put that monument of gladiator to waste? This is disrespect to Armenians.
– The opposition intends on making the Constitutional referendum as a trust referendum for the authorities. What do you think? Is it possible?
– I don’t think they can do this. It is a long time already that the opposition is not able to take people out to streets. It is a long time already that it is absurd to boycott the works of the National Assembly. There is some dissatisfaction and nervous things among the society, but the opposition must create a united power and offer something to come out of this situation, they must offer something that is missing here. On the one hand the opposition understands this and tries to petition people to support them, but on the other hand it seems to be a provocative action in order to get a stronger response from the authorities than it should be. And the opposition must offer to discuss a serious, concrete social or political issue instead of going to the public smiling and petitioning to vote for their candidate. They must not offer to discuss issues only connected with corruption, but also with the roots and solutions. This is a suggestion both for the authorities and for the opposition. The difference is that the opposition says that the authorities are kings and dictators and that they should solve these problems too. Now the problem consists in correct and right management.
– In your interview you also noted that it would be pity for you if Turkey didn’t become a member of the EU. Do the American authorities take any steps regarding this? Do they have any leverages to influence the RA authorities?
– America has other reasons to see Turkey in that status than I do. It is important for the US to see Turkey in the EU when it comes to the war against terrorism, because America wants to show that there is an Islamic country in the EU and that their war against terrorism is not against any Islamic country. I want to see Turkey in the “narrow strait jacket” of the EU, where Turkey will have to solve its problems without affecting the interests of its neighbors. Being in the EU Turkey will have to change its military partner and thus there will be less potential danger from Turkey. Except the war against terrorism, America wants to weaken the EU from the inside as its main competitor. The approach of the US in connection with the membership of Turkey in the EU doesn’t concern Armenia at all; the problem of Genocide is just a tool in their hands to use.
– By the way you said that the RA military doctrine must be like the army of Israel. Why do you offer this model? After all, Israel is always in war and their resources are concentrated in this direction.
– We are always in war too. I don’t suggest making occupation like Israel does. My suggestion will be helpful and it is the following: both Israel and Armenia are small countries and it will be easy to enter this territory from the military point of view. The most important key of the doctrine of Israel army is to strengthen their fast respond groups. The military doctrine of Armenia is Russian and doesn’t comply with the Armenian standards. It is easy to enter this territory and weaken it now. My suggestion is to study the doctrines of other countries and to work out a special approach for Armenian military resources.