Golos Armenii website, Armenia
Dec 6 2007

ARMENIAN LEADER ACCUSES FORMER PRESIDENT OF RUINING ECONOMY,
BETRAYING KARABAKH

Armenian President Robert Kocharyan has blamed former president Levon
Ter-Petrosyan for economic problems and failures in the settlement of
the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict in the 1990s. In an interview with
Golos Armenii newspaper, Kocharyan said that the ruling Armenian
Pan-National Movement (APNM), led by Ter-Petrosyan, abused the
people’s confidence, ruined the country’s economy and turned Armenia
into one of the poorest countries in the world. Speaking about the
election campaign for the 2008 presidential polls, Kocharyan said
that the APNM’s election campaign has "suffered a complete setback"
since Ter-Petrosyan failed to present himself as the leader of the
opposition. He said that the Election Code meets European standards
and the election process involves all political parties regardless of
their affiliation. The following is the text of an unattributed
report by Armenian newspaper Golos Armenii website on 6 December
headlined "Our people are smart and pragmatic and will not follow
screamers and adventurers". Subheadings have been inserted
editorially:

In his interview with Golos Armenii, President Robert Kocharyan gave
his first political evaluation of the former Armenian President Levon
Ter-Petrosyan’s activity: "I openly state today that the Armenian
Pan-National Movement [APNM] abused the people’s confidence. The APNM
ruined the country’s economy, turning Armenia into one of the poorest
countries in the world. The APNM came to power on the wave of the
Karabakh movement and betrayed it. The national ideology is alien to
the APNM which is ready to forget the genocide and make Armenia an
appendage of Turkey."

People won’t follow screamers and adventurers

"Our people are smart and pragmatic and will not follow screamers and
adventurers," President Robert Kocharyan said in reply to readers’
questions that were summarized and briefly formulated by Golos
Armenii.

[Correspondent] It is believed that elections are a period of
upheavals. Taking into consideration the experience of previous year,
should we expect that these elections will have this or that impact
on our economy and the successful work of the state machinery? Shall
we expect political upheavals?

[Kocharyan] The elections of 2003 and 2007 did not have any negative
impact on the rate of economic growth. The reason is simple: the
election results were predictable. Business circles understood that
the government’s economic policy will continue and that they can
easily continue their activity to expand production. All economic
indicators testify to a similar situation ahead of the forthcoming
presidential elections.

Moreover, in the light of the new constitution, the issue of power in
Armenia has already been solved. The parliamentary majority forms the
government and all economic issues are under its supervision. What we
are struggling for here is not power, but the presidency. If the
leader of the parliamentary majority wins, we will have a powerful
president able to make decisions and account for them. If the winner
is anyone else, the country will get a president with the status of
the English queen. Read the constitution: executive power in the
state belongs to the government. There are no doubts about the
ability of the state machinery to act efficiently. We have a
well-established system of public service and its activity has no
link to the election boom. As for the revolution, the parliamentary
elections have already answered this question. All potential
revolutionaries are political bankrupts. Our people are smart and
pragmatic. They won’t follow screamers and adventurers.

APNM suffers "complete setback"

[Correspondent] Until recently, a rather restrained tone of
discussions was common in the political sphere. With Levon
Ter-Petrosyan’s return to active politics, this tone changed and
there is more intolerance now. Sometimes it seems that it is not an
election campaign, but a fight to the death. What is the reason for
this?

[Kocharyan] Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s speeches have been extremely
aggressive and have fomented election debates. I suppose the first
task of the APNM is to present their own candidate as the main figure
in the opposition camp. Their tactic is simple: delicacy in relation
to opposition political forces, which is not typical of the APNM and
Levon Ter-Petrosyan, and extreme aggressiveness towards the
authorities. In other words, he tells the opposition: I am your
father; I am ready to lead you and will be kind to you for your
obedience. This was the tone – a father, not a partner. To make
things more convincing, all efforts were mobilized to organize a
large-scale rally, which was to prove the demand for Levon
Ter-Petrosyan. The task, set by the APNM for the first stage of the
election campaign, suffered a complete failure. He never became an
opposition boss. Rallies convinced people of the opposite. But all
this left a nasty taste in the mouth. The fury which he vented on
society is coming back to him. This is the law of political struggle,
and it does not matter how much the APNM is screaming about this.

APNM "abused" people’s confidence

[Correspondent] After the election of 1998, there was a public demand
for a political evaluation of the activity of the APNM and the former
authorities. You avoided this evaluation though you were strongly
criticized for this at the time. Why?

[Kocharyan] Yes, indeed, all political parties and NGOs demanded a
political evaluation of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s and APNM’s rule. I
really avoided this kind of evaluation, but I explained my position.
My position is the following. I did not want to continue the Soviet
tradition when every new leader started by criticizing his
predecessor. I considered it necessary to show the result, and the
people would see the difference for themselves and make an
evaluation. Besides that, Levon Ter-Petrosyan acted extremely
quietly. None of the APNM activists was persecuted. Otherwise, half
of them would still be in jail for grand theft. Vano Siradeghyan has
been on the wanted list for organizing murders. I avoided this
subject for nine years until Levon Ter-Petrosyan himself and the APNM
provoked these discussions. I openly state today that the APNM abused
the people’s confidence and ruined the country’s economy, turning
Armenia into one of the poorest countries in the world. The APNM came
to power on the wave of the Karabakh movement and betrayed it. The
national ideology is alien to the APNM which is ready to forget the
genocide and make Armenia an appendage of Turkey. Incidentally, I am
not saying anything new. All this has been said for a hundred times,
but I just avoided these evaluations. Of course, this does not apply
to everybody – sometimes professionals were appointed to various
positions and they tried to do something to ease the situation. Levon
Ter-Petrosyan’s latest speeches contain so many lies that I would
rather ignore them.

Nagornyy Karabakh

[Correspondent] In his speeches, Levon Ter-Petrosyan makes various
accusations against the authorities, particularly, regarding the
resolution of Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. He says you are
deliberately delaying the [conflict] settlement, leading it into a
deadlock. Your comments.

[Kocharyan] The Karabakh issue is the most painful for the APNM. They
came to power on the wave of the Karabakh movement and very quickly
changed so much that they were ready to give up Karabakh. Karabakh
became a burden for them – something that got in the way of their
peaceful life and had to be disposed of quickly. Incidentally, Vazgen
Sargsyan saw that clearly, and therefore, he sided with me in 1998. I
am saying with full responsibility that before Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s
resignation, all negotiations were held in the context of
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. The following formula was
applied: de jure – part of Azerbaijan, de facto – relatively
independent status, in fact, broad autonomy within Azerbaijan.

It was a defeatist position to eliminate the consequences of which I
have spent many years. Now the basis of the negotiating process is
the principle of self-determination. The final status must be decided
in a referendum in Nagornyy Karabakh. Before the referendum, it is
planned to ensure the international recognition of the actual
situation in the NKR [Nagornyy Karabakh republic]. We have been close
to signing an agreement on the basic principles of the [conflict]
resolution twice, and both times it failed through Azerbaijan’s
fault. I think it necessary to publish again the draft agreement they
tried to force on us in 1997 so that people themselves can evaluate
it. Incidentally, the APNM is saying today that Azerbaijan must be
our main partner. Without surrendering Karabakh, it is simply
impossible. Thus, decide for yourselves what the aim of all this
story was.

[Correspondent] Ter-Petrosyan’s thesis that our success in the war
was primarily connected with domestic political instability in
Azerbaijan has caused wide repercussions. Your opinion.

[Kocharyan] This thesis by Levon Ter-Petrosyan is the most dangerous
one. Hardly anyone would dare to diminish the heroic struggle of our
people in this way. Azerbaijan was not defeated because of domestic
political instability. On the contrary, instability and replacement
of presidents took place because of our victories. Instability in
Azerbaijan was the consequence of the heroic struggle of our people.
It is enough to compare the chronology of military operations and
domestic political problems of Azerbaijan. If we had fought badly in
Karabakh, the authorities would have been constantly changing here in
Yerevan. That’s to say everything would have been the other way
round. This goes to show that Levon Ter-Petrosyan never understood
the essence of the national-liberation struggle, its motives and
internal energy. Incidentally, we liberated Shushi, we did not seize
it. That is not the point the war started from, it started much
earlier. This shows the level of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s awareness as
the then president of Armenia. Aggression did not start from our
actions. Operation Ring, which was followed by the forcible
deportation of several Armenian villages, was carried out in April
1991 [by Azerbaijani special forces].

Economic collapse of the early 1990s

[Correspondent] In order to justify the cold and hungry years of the
early 1990s, the APNM links all problems to the war in Artsakh. How
are these issues linked? Could the collapse of the economy be avoided
in 1991-94?

[Kocharyan] The statement "We suffered because of Artsakh" is false.
Patriotism was not a source of our people’s suffering. Industry did
not grind to a standstill because of the war. Please, tell me how
many enterprises were targeted by air strikes? There was no situation
in which nobody could work as a result of total mobilization.
Agriculture had problems because of the war only in border regions.
Please, explain to me what hindered industry and agriculture?

Energy crisis? Who closed the nuclear power plant, organized mass
protests and set the people against authorities? Incidentally, even
without the nuclear power plant, we have enough power generating
capacities.

Blockade? The same roads are still blocked, and we are connected to
the world through Georgia and Iran as was the case at the time.

Broken relations? I admit that they decreased by 20 per cent. A
people striving for independence does not close its strategic
economic entities – nuclear power plants, Nairit or Alaverdi. I do
remember the tents on the rails that blocked Nairit. Who set them up
and what does the Artsakh war have to do with this? If the APNM had
the slightest idea about economics, it would not have closed these
entities, but on the contrary, it would have urged the people to
defend them. They had only one target – power. The price of this
power was the ruined economy. What does the Artsakh war have to do
with this? There was a good-for-nothing government in Armenia itself.
Vazgen Sargsyan clearly said this in his famous speech in January
1998.

[Correspondent] You worked as president of Karabakh for five years
and have already spent 10 years in Armenia… It is surprising that
Levon Ter-Petrosyan made a statement about election for three years
in order clear out the Augean stables. What is your experience
telling you? Is it possible to really improve something in three
years?

At least two or three years are needed to form serious prerequisites
for development. These are programmes, effective administration and
public support for decisions. The real results become tangible later.
Incidentally, the president is not elected to clear something out.
There are special sanitary services in communities to this end. The
president is elected to build a state. What can you really do in
three years – to ruin the country. This is really possible. The APNM
ruined the economy in three years, turning Armenia into one of the
poorest countries in the world. He was in power for eight years.
Perhaps, he cleared the country from factories, machine tools,
equipment, grapevines and from its economy in general. It is possible
to easily rob a country in three years.

Ready for elections

[Correspondent] Before the election they usually say that the results
of the elections will be rigged, and as a rule, there are people who
say again that they will not allow this to happen. I wonder if we are
ready to hold efficient elections both from an organizational and
political point of view?

[Kocharyan] This is an old and worn-out trick. It is used by those
who doubt their own success or are sure of their own failure. The aim
is to justify their own failure by unfair elections. The Election
Code passed all possible tests, and specialists say that it complies
with European standards. Not only parties themselves are taking part
in electoral committees of all levels, they are also authorized to
appoint proxies with extensive powers to control the process of
voting and vote-counting. That’s to say this is a process which
involves both the state and political parties. And what’s more,
elections themselves are organized by a body formed mainly by
parties. So, all participants in the process must take it seriously.
We are ready for this.