Hayots Ashkharh Daily, Armenia
Sept 29 2007
HAD HE RESIGNED IN GOOD TIME NEITHER HE WOULD HAVE HEADACHE NOR THE
PEOPLE
While there is a lively discussion of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s
`program based’ speech in Armenian press and political frameworks, in
Artsakh, the scandalous announcements made by the ex-President,
especially on Karabakh issue has been accepted with nuisance, but
callously.
Vahram Atanesyan
Head of the Foreign Relations Committee of NKR National Assembly
`Does the announcement made by Levon Ter-Petrosyan about the
regulation of Karabakh issue arouse a wave of `excitement’ in
Stepanakert?’
`No I don’t see anything serious in it. I don’t think by this
announcement the first President made a claim to stand for 2008
presidential elections. Only when the final decision is made and the
candidate to presidency is nominated, Karabakh will express its
attitude regarding his viewpoints.
As for the essence of the speech the first President didn’t say
anything new, he only repeated the same thing he said during the
press conference on December 26, 1997, and the article `War or Peace’
that followed this press conference. To be true, the ex-President
didn’t say anything new in 1997 either. He expressed the same
approaches in 1990, when he was elected as the Speaker of the Supreme
Council and in 1991, when he was elected as the President of Armenia.
In general it is his conceptual approach.’
‘What is the essence of that conceptual approach – to hand over
Karabakh to Azerbaijan in the status of an extended sovereignty?’
`I can’t say that what he really proposes is to hand over Karabakh
to Azerbaijan. And I can’t also say that he is against it and that he
wants to see Karabakh as an independent state or part of Armenia.
What the first President has announced in 1990 and is trying to
announce at present is absolutely not clear. In 1997 he agreed to
return the territories that form Karabakh’s security zone, to
Azerbaijan, to re-operate the communications, to leave the issue of
the status unsettled, later to make it a matter of discussion during
the negotiations. However this is how Levon Ter-Petrosyan formulated
his ideas in the well-known publication and during the press
conference.
If after ten years, in 2007 he repeats what he said in 1997, I’m
sure Levon Ter-Petrosyan can’t be represented in society as a serious
alternative, with such resources. Time and reality has changed. The
economic development recorded in Armenia during the previous ten
years and the process of state construction in the Republic of
Nagorno Karabakh, the economic and political reforms simply don’t
allow treating Karabakh problem with the conception of 10 years
antiquity.’
‘ Don’t you think that this time the ex-President was rather
clear; firstly he `certified’ that Azerbaijani side would never agree
to mutual concessions, after which he stated that the issue must be
settled. Because until Karabakh conflict is settled Armenia won’t
have future. Doesn’t this mean that Armenian side is doomed to
`improving’ the relations with Azerbaijan by means of unilateral
concessions?’
‘Had the first President expressed this viewpoint as a
presidential candidate, my attitude would have been quite different.
He delivered this speech on the occasion of the anniversary of
Armenia’s Independence, during the reception organized by Armenian
Pan National Movement. In my view Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s speech was
mainly addressed to his supporters, his party members, or it was a
political trick to attest his party’s preparedness.
I should repeat, I don’t observe this speech as the pre-election
program of a presidential candidate that is why I wouldn’t like to
express rough ideas. But if the first president takes a decision to
nominate his candidacy for presidency I don’t think he can represent
this concept to the people.’
Rudik Hyusnunsts
Deputy Speaker of NKR National Assembly
`How would you evaluate the September 21 speech of the
ex-President? Are you satisfied with the clauses on Karabakh issue?’
‘I don’t evaluate it as positive. If after 10 years’ silence Levon
Ter-Petrosyan is saying that there has been no improvement in
Armenia, moreover that the country is on the verge of ruin, if he
can’t see the economic development of the country, this means
something is wrong. If some people are trying to come to power by
criticizing, this means we deal with political ambitions and revenge,
which is also not welcome.
After all there are civilized ways for campaign. They can appear
with their political programs, obtain people’s vote and start
working. Otherwise it is a regular manifestation of populism that
doesn’t do credit to Armenia.
If he hasn’t lost his state mentality as a pro-state politician,
in my view he shouldn’t try to bring back what he has lost, by
criticism. If he really has something to say he should say.’
`Ter-Petrosyan was rather clear in his speech. That is – until
Karabakh entangled string exists, there is no future for Armenia.
That is why we must undo this entangled string at all costs.’
`During the previous years Armenia has been a success in
international arena, in internal political situation and in the field
of defense. If some people don’t believe that we, I mean Karabakh as
well, can stand firm on the ground, that we are able to enshrine our
achievements, our diplomatic and political attainments, then it is
their problem. I strongly believe that we can take Karabakh under our
care; we can re-populate our liberated territories. If someone is of
the other opinion then we can’t start on a journey with such people.
One thing I can say, we will never agree to unilateral
concessions. We are going to build our country. This is our
fundamental viewpoint. As for the political regulation of the issue,
when Azerbaijan speaks about real mutual concessions and when
Karabakh is involved in the Minsk group process as a full party, only
after that will Karabakh represent its attitudes.
Maxim Mirzoyan
MP of NKR National Assembly
`If you can remember after the `putch’ organized on August 26,
1991 the MPs of RA Supreme Council and Armenian representatives of
USSR Supreme Council gathered in Armenian Embassy in Moscow to
discuss the situation. Representatives from intelligentsia also
participated in those discussion, including Zory Balayan (Armenian
writer).
I was also present in that meeting and I proposed Levon
Ter-Petrosyan to resign. At that time he had the same viewpoints and
he said we must reduce to the level of the requirements of 1988. I
apposed, saying that they came to power through the `wave’ of
Karabakh Movement and now they deny the famous slogan `struggle,
struggle to the last breath’.
And only the deceased Sero Khanzadsyan and Lyudmila Harutyunyan
supported me. After that we didn’t meet. But it is a long story I
can’t tell you by phone. When you visit Stepanakert we will discuss
this topic.
Had that day Levon Ter-Petrosyan followed my advice and resigned,
neither he would have headache today nor the people. I have nothing
to add.
LILIT POGHOSYAN