– Mr. Papazayan, according to various sources, the Armenian-Turkish negotiations already imply the assumption of creating a commission of historians on surveying the issue of the genocide.
– Back in 2001 an Armenian-Turkish reconciliation commission was formed. The former minister of foreign affairs Alexander Arzumanyan, honorary ambassador Davit Hovhannisyan, political scientist Andranik Mihranyan (who recently received a medal from President Serzh Sargsyan) and Van Grigoryan (who was directly cooperating with the government) were members of that commission. I was offered to become a member of that commission but I refused. From the Turkish side there were former high-rank officials from the Turkish foreign affairs ministry. It was the initiative of the US and the initiator was a representative from the State Department. During their activities the members of the commission didn’t come to a common conclusion and for that purpose they applied to the court of New York in order to define how to formulate the events of 1915. In 2003 the court of New York made a verdict to define the events of 1915 as genocide. This commission was established with the silent support and agreement of the Armenian government. So the commission that is to be formed drastically differs from the previous one. In this case the essence of the suggestion is totally different. The group of Armenian and Turkish historians must gather and discuss the events of 1915. And it’s known that this is taking place with the support of Switzerland. Meanwhile in my opinion this issue is not subject to discussion at the level of historians. I don’t understand why a special commission would be established for historians. The historians have done their thing and will keep doing. This means put the issue of the genocide in doubt.
– In fact what’s the power of the verdict of New York court and will it be useful for these negotiations?
– The reputable court has made such a decision, which of course is applicable in the legal platform but I don’t understand why no one remembers or mentions that fact. The Armenian-Turkish agreement isn’t signed yet, commissions are not established and the friendship of Armenia and Turkey is still in the air. But if a commission is formed then no court will ever make a verdict to define the events of 1915 as genocide. They’d apologize by saying that they cannot make a decision like that because the Turks and Armenians have come to an agreement to discuss the issue of the genocide. Why would you apply to us? Discuss the issue and find out yourselves whether it was genocide or not. And this first of all relates to the political platform. And if this commission is established this will cause the cessation of the issue of the genocide worldwide.
– The statements of the International Crisis Group, co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group Mathew Bryza and others are not very favorable for Armenia. What’s the reason of that?
– All those are components of one meal, which is prepared for us. As a result we are not winning anything. Of course if the border is opened it can be registered as a positive step but it depends on what it’s going to cost us. Everything depends on the fact that the government is trying to gain legitimacy not inside but outside the country. First it was Moscow, then Brussels, Washington and now Ankara.
– If the legitimacy of the government wasn’t in doubt would the Armenian-Turkish or Armenian-Azerbaijani relations be in the same state?
– I think not. Of course, if Armenia had a strong and legitimate power then the government wouldn’t take such compromises. I don’t see any other reason. The solutions are always inside. Any politician should understand this simple fact. When you start to seek solutions outside the external forces will be using your weaknesses. The privilege of the previous government was that it was incomparably more legitimate and there was no need to seek the support of foreign forces to fortify their legitimacy. In 1988 perhaps there would be no change of government if Levon Ter-Petrosyan asked for the support of Boris Yeltsin or some other foreign state president. There were such offers of help. But he refused those orders because he knew that the help would have destructive consequences for the country.
– It was expected that on April 16 when the foreign affairs minister of Turkey was in Armenia a document would be signed regarding the opening of the border but now there is an opinion that it was delayed till fall.
– I don’t know for how long it was delayed and don’t know whether it will ever be signed or not. According to my information the document was ready to be signed. Perhaps they were waiting for the right political moment for the two sides. By attainting compromises from the Armenian side, such as establishment of diplomatic relations, recognition of territorial integrity, opening of border, establishment of a commission of historians and others, now the Turkish side went on to the solution of their next issue and that is connect the NKR conflict with the Turkish-Armenian relations.
– RA president Serzh Sargsyan says that NKR can in no event be granted to Azerbaijan and the prime minister of Turkey Erdogan declares that Turkey will not sign a final agreement with Armenia if the latter doesn’t give its consent on the resolution of the NKR conflict. So what is the reality?
– Of course it will be a theme of reality. Back in the day I also met with Turks and negotiated with them. But we didn’t discuss anything about the genocide because at that time the genocide issue wasn’t a priority on our agenda. But if we are speaking about the NKR conflict resolution what else can we discuss with the Turks? And none of the Turkish officials would ever offer to connect the genocide issue with other issues. That is an extra issue in the agenda of Armenia’s foreign policy. What’s the point of bringing up additional issues, which cannot be solved in near future?
– Was the issue of the regulation of the Armenian-Turkish relations more favorable during Kocharyan’s or Sargsyan’s presidency?
– Neither Kocharyan nor Sargsyan. Kocharyan didn’t have an objective to regulate the Armenian-Turkish relations. For Sargsyan it has become a crucial issue in his agenda. That is the difference.