Lragir.am Online Newspaper
1 Charentz street,
Yerevan, Armenia
Telephone 093 167 604
email: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
web:
Interview with the founder of the Civilitas Foundation Vartan
Oskanian, who was foreign minister of Armenia from 1998 to 2008.
QUESTION: Mr. Oskanian, your foundation published a report on Armenia
in 2008, entitled Crisis and Opportunity (
< ia_in_2008_Crisis_and_opportuni
ty_ENG.pdf>
htt p:// 8_Crisis_and_opportunit
y_ENG.pdf) which was presented as a view from the inside. The departure
point for Armenian events in 2008 was the presidential election and the
developments that followed, in particular the unprecedented tragedy of March
1, when force was used against peaceful demonstrators. At that time, not
only were you part of the government — you held an important position,
foreign minister – but on March 1 you also were the speaker during the press
conference which was the authorities’ first response to what was happening.
In other words, you were at the center it seems of those events. Wouldn’t
that kind of situation have necessarily had an effect on the objectivity of
the report your foundation published?
OSKANIAN: First, as we had said, the report is a compilation of
opinions and input from various analysts and experts, and not my personal
viewpoints. The events of March 1, in my opinion, and many others have
echoed this too, are covered in the report in a manner as objective and
unbiased as possible. March 1 is one of the most tragic pages of our recent
history. In any country, the responsibility for such events, rests,
ultimately, with those in power. Still, we have attempted to compile the
different views about March 1, about what is known and what is not known,
but about which nevertheless there are diverse opinions. Those opinions are
extreme, contradictory, polarized as is our society. And perhaps in the
process of attempting to assemble these, the picture becomes less clear,
just like the details around what transpired that day. One shouldn’t try to
find those details in this report. That was neither our intent nor did we
have the capacity to find such information, provide a legal evaluation, or
to try to satisfy the need for reliable information surrounding those
events. Our purpose was to try to present what happened to the country as a
result of March 1. The assessment of the events themselves is quite clearly
presented in the report. After all, as a result of clashes between the
police and the demonstrators, Armenian citizens have died and for this, it
is, first of all, the authorities who are responsible.
As to the press conference of March 1, perhaps we should remember that
when I agreed to do that press conference, shots had not yet been fired,
there were no deaths, and there was still a chance to prevent a tragedy. I
believed that is what I tried to do during that press conference, too, by
calling on all sides to refrain from extreme steps. In fact, prior to the
press conference, I insisted and the President agreed to initiate a dialogue
if the opposition expressed readiness to do so. Only after that assurance
did I agree to the press conference. I believe I did everything that could
have been done, that a foreign minister had the authority to do, and even
more – speaking out at a most difficult time and taking on the
responsibility to issue a call for dialogue.
QUESTION:The report you present which reflects Armenia’s life last
year, domestically, regionally and globally, is entitled "Crisis and
Opportunity." The report talks about a deep institutional crisis in Armenia
in 2008 and the undesirable and tragic events were a result of that. You, as
a member of government, as foreign minister for 10 years, do you consider
yourself responsible for the deepening of the institutional crisis and its
grave expression?
OSKANIAN: Yes I do, as I believe that all those who have held
high-level positions during these 17 years of independence must bear
responsibility for the situation that’s been created. We all understand that
as far as the strengthening of democratic institutions is concerned, with
the possible exception of the very first election, unfortunately,
independent Armenia has not had a single period of which we can be proud.
And for this, it would be good that anyone who has held office, whether
today in opposition or in power, have the courage to acknowledge some
responsibility. So my answer is in the affirmative, but with some
reservations. I was minister of foreign affairs. I often disagreed with
domestic developments or phenomena, often spoke out about them, even
publicly. But for me as a diplomat, as minister, it was important that I
carry out the mission that I believed in. And towards that end, I did my
utmost. I worked for 17 years, believing that what I do is important and
beneficial for the country, and have not backed away from expressing my
disagreement on various issues, of course within the limits placed on me by
my position. Today there are no such limitations, and that’s because I made
the decision to be free, to not take on an official position. I did this
because I am convinced that this is what my task should be now and that
there are problems that cannot keep waiting for solutions. I believe that
the report broadly reflects these concerns, and offers systemic solutions to
come out of this crisis.
QUESTION: Mr. Oskanian, the report is presented as a view of Armenia
from within Armenia. Don’t you think that view is really more of an external
view, based more on external political developments, rather than strictly
Armenia, and in that sense perhaps an effort to slip from an inside view to
a view outside?
OSKANIAN: No I don’t think so. First, the purpose of the report was to
encapsulate and assess all the factors which impact Armenia, not just
domestic. Therefore, yes, a great deal of space was devoted to international
political, regional events. Last year there were many defining moments not
just for Armenia, but also for the region. There’s no need to repeat that
those events had and continue to have a huge impact on Armenia. Today, the
world says Caucasus, but they think of Georgia, and then, perhaps of
Azerbaijan. Making Armenia more visible on that map cannot be less important
than our internal issues.
This, and everything else that takes place in our region, or in the
world, has a great effect on Armenia’s internal developments. The best proof
of that is our domestic situation now, which you will agree is significantly
different from that of early 2008.
QUESTION: Why is it that in your annual report on Armenia, speaking as
you do about events in Armenia, you have referred so frequently to the Levon
Ter- Petrossian years, looking there for the roots of today’s crisis, and
sort of ignoring the problems which were the result of the ten years of
Robert Kocharian’s governance? What is the cause of that kind of disbalance?
OSKANIAN: It is not Levon Ter-Petrossian’s years which we have
analyzed. What we have done is reflected on the electoral system and
falsifications and elections which are not seen as credible by our society,
and the continuing post-election periods of crisis. In speaking about the
events of 2008 and trying to provide a substantial analysis, there was
reason to mention that the 2008 elections were not Armenia’s first
controversial elections, and the problems are not new, and that their roots,
are indeed in the 1990s. Seen from that perspective, the continuation of
non-democratic traditions is clearly presented in the report, that refers to
all the years since independence. The report plainly reads: "Successive
administrations have resorted to similar practices to hold on to power:Thus,
disputed elections and the resulting lack of confidence in the democratic
mechanisms for rotation of power among key political actors has been the
principal source of political instability in Armenia ever since
independence."
QUESTION: Mr. Oskanian, how do you explain that in the report, in the
section which describes domestic events, there is a scarcity of facts, as
opposed to the sections on foreign relations and economy, and especially
that the issue of political prisoners is almost circumvented?
OSKANIAN: The facts are those facts which exist regarding the 2008
events. In some cases, the facts are quite scarce, but even in that case,
the report also includes analysis, the assumptions of the various camps, the
assertions, the viewpoints, even if all these are not facts. The arrests,
and the trials too, and the reactions of the international community to both
are presented rather thoroughly. The facts that we have are there – that we
have political activists who have been behind bars since March 1, who in the
opinion of many are there for political reasons, that the trials and the
general political environment around these cases is a matter of serious
concern for the public and for the international community.
I had expressed my personal concern about these events months ago. The
situation at PACE was the basis of my concern. Armenia was threatened by the
loss of voice in that body. That alone worries me a great deal. We found
ourselves in a situation which could have been avoided months ago. This time
we were able to evade the worst-case scenario, but I’m certain that we could
have even avoided the theoretical possibility of such a scenario if, early
on, there had been political will, and a real determination to solve the
problem. Today the discussion is whether the authorities won because PACE
did not sanction the Armenian delegation, or in fact did the opposition win
because the axe continues to hang over our heads, with a repeat session
scheduled for april. I think that all that has happened in these last
several months is evidence that we have all lost. Just the fact that for
nearly one year these discussions are continuing and the problem has still
not been resolved, and that PACE has now passed a third resolution on this
situation, all this is a serious blow to Armenia’s international standing.
By postponing the problem by a few months, we gain nothing. On the contrary,
we lose more. It’s been nearly a year since March 1, and I don’t see a
reason that the problem can’t be resolved once and for all. I don’t know who
thinks he’s won or who thinks he’s lost as a result of these last PACE
hearings, but so long as all doubts have not been laid to rest as to whether
there are people in Armenia behind bars for political reasons, then we have
all lost, Armenia has lost.
QUESTION: In preparing the report, your intention was that it be
balanced and unbiased. Do you agree that balance is not always the same as
unbiased? How do you personally assess the report? Does it present a
complete picture of Armenia in 2008? And what have you gleaned from this
first effort in order to make the future reports more unbiased, focused and
complete?
OSKANIAN: I know that we have tried to present a comprehensive look at
the events about which we have written. Such reports are perceived in
different ways. We agree with some analyses, not with others, sometimes we
think that the assessments are not critical enough, other times not. This
is truly the first such attempt within Armenia, and perhaps that is why the
standards to which we have been held are higher than those applied to the
reports prepared by non-Armenian entities. In any case, there has not been
such a comprehensive look at Armenia and events which impact Armenia. We
will continue this tradition, because we are certain that such a look from
within, and the discussion which followed the publication of the report, on
the same themes that the report covers, we are convinced that these are both
essential and useful for our society. For us, this process is no less
important than the outcome. The responses we have heard from different
quarters, from various political positions is satisfactory and sufficient
for us to believe that we should continue with this project.
QUESTION: Mr. Oskanian, when you speak of democracy and other issues,
there are those who counter by saying that you have begun to criticize the
authorities only after having lost your position and that’s how your new
activities can be explained.
OSKANIAN: I think I have responded to these questions many times and
extensively. I made the decision early on, even before the change of
administration, not to remain in government. On the contrary, I voluntarily
made the decision as a matter of principle, so that I would have all the
right to express my opinion on any matter. Those who judge a person’s
position by the chair he holds are generally those who would cling to a
chair, in any administration, at any price, and usually do so.
Second, we should not forget that following the presidential election,
there has been a change of administration. Regardless of the efforts to
identify one with the other, to me it’s obvious that politically,
economically and in foreign relations, there are serious differences between
these two administrations. Therefore my opinions on these issues should not
come as a surprise to any one. Sometimes I think the real surprise for many
is that one could in fact voluntarily decline a position of power.