– Mr. Arzumanyan, what meaning did the visit of the US State Secretary Hillary Clinton have for our region? What issues has the top US official solved by this visit?
– In the past the Armenian authorities with Russia implemented the “Property instead of debt” program. And during the past two years the Armenian government led by President Serzh Sargsyan is implementing “Everything for the sake of legitimacy” program. And so the west, in the person of Hillary Clinton came to the region to finalize the obligations of Armenia in this regard. It means that as of now the west states that it delays (but doesn’t cancel) all the reports of the State department regarding the low level of human rights in Armenia, all the statements, according to which the police has used force against the peaceful demonstrators of March 1, as a result of which people were murdered and hundreds were thrown to jail because of political motives. On the other hand all the statements and reports of various international organizations are put aside for an unknown period of time. By this, the west has done part of the deal. And so now it’s Serzh Sargsyan’s turn.
– Does this mean that the US State Secretary legitimized the power of Sargsyan? What for?
– At any rate, as of the current moment questing around the legitimacy of Sargsyan is not raised. So Clinton arrived and stated that it was a big honor for her to be in Armenia, didn’t say a single word about the political prisoners, even during her meetings with non-governmental organizations. This was a clear pledge, by which we are temporarily forgetting about your legitimacy. Now it’s your turn to abide with your obligations. That’s all. And for Armenia the key component of this process is the NKR conflict. And so they are sacrificing the NKR and the recognition of the Armenian Genocide to retain their power. It means they are begging legitimacy from the international community.
– What importance does the Armenian-Turkish relationship have in the context of everything for the sake of legitimacy?
– Initially Turkey tried to have a more important role in the region. It seems they are developing some key projects with Russia and in this regard there was the need to establish at least partnership relations with the three states of the region. And this had its barrier – the NKR conflict. It is no accident that Turkey would go after all that by having a precondition to return the neighboring territories of the NKR to Azerbaijan. So everything stemmed from that and led to that. So our government ended up admitting this reality and so deflected from the process. But this issue is one of the main components of the whole process. Perhaps there will be certain developments in this direction as well. There will at least be some imitational steps on part of Turkey. But all these issues should be observed in a common context and that is the quick solution of the NKR conflict based on these principles, which were promulgated by the presidents of the co-chairing states.
– You have interpreted this issue only in the context of Armenia and NKR conflict context. But was this the only goal of Clinton’s visit to the region?
– First of all it is impossible to visit one of the states of the region without visiting the rest of the states of the region. This parity is always maintained. It is violated during crises. When Georgia was at war they would visit only that state. Indeed without Azerbaijan and Armenia the NKR conflict cannot be discussed. And indeed they couldn’t help ignoring Georgia and visited that country to once again thank and encourage the country, which went to war with Russia with their advice. It means that the US continues considering Georgia as one of its key partners in the region. Ukraine is also an American idea. The establishment of GUAM is the idea of Bzhezinsky, who currently does a very active advising for Obama’s administration. And finally all the other issues are auxiliary to the NKR conflict. They need the South Caucasus without conflicts and the last conflict they need to resolve is the NKR, which causes headache for everybody.
– What developments do you think are expected regarding the NKR conflict as a result of the Clinton visit, the recent statements made and the recent developments?
– Everything will be done to quickly resolve the conflict based on the document and principles unacceptable for us. Armenia will try to shun and as usual take the international community as a fool. I don’t agree that in the event if Armenia keeps avoiding many counties and structures may make statements accusing Armenia of having political prisoners, authoritarian government, absence of a judicial system and other statements. Then will come the moment of the whip. At the moment we are in the period of a pancake. So we are in the middle of whip and pancake.
– Yesterday the foreign affairs minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mamedyarov stated that in the framework of the session of the ministers of the OSCE, during the meeting of the foreign affairs ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan they will discuss the issue of the return of Lachin and Qelbajar. In his words the issue of the return of the 5 regions is already resolved.
– This is no news. I am not saying what’s wrong or right. This is what the Azerbaijani side claims. Perhaps the Armenian side should also make statements in order to atone for these suspicions within the society. But it’s normal that the officials of the two conflicting countries make contradictory statements and each of them is trying to consider the document at hand as an important achievement, diplomatic victory, etc. But the developments have showed that in this whole process Armenia is not in a very good shape.
– They circulate a lot the version that the standpoints of the first president of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan are similar to the ones of Serzh Sargsyan. Do you agree with this opinion?
– Absolutely not and in order for me to answer this question I need hours. This is a separate dissertation topic. The previous government of Armenia has never thought of bargaining around the NKR or ignoring the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Shortly said, I don’t agree that their standpoints match.