SERZH SARGSYAN: APRIL 24 OF 1915 WAS A TURNING POINT IN ARMENIA’S HISTORY
armradio.am
24.04.2009 17:20
President of the Republic of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, gave an interview
to the Russia Today TV Channel. The full text of the interview is
presented below:
Alexander Gurnov: Mr. President, the first question, I would like to
address is the following: what is the meaning of the date of April
24 for you as the President of the Republic of Armenia.
Serzh Sargsyan: The history of the people of Armenia is calculated
in thousands of years. Throughout that history we’ve had victories
and defeats; we have had gains and losses. But throughout our history
there is one turning point which is a dividing line. And that point
is the April 24 of 1915. After that we deal with absolutely different
reality. Hundreds of thousands and millions of people were living and
creating a cultural heritage and their daily life in their homeland,
but were made to leave those lands – part of which were massacred and
the other part had to escape to survive. And today in the world there
is no, almost no country where are no Armenians. The population of
today’s Armenia, almost half of it, are the heirs of the survivors of
the genocide. And these are realities which are in our life every day.
Today if you move from Yerevan 15-20 km towards Turkey you would see
the last closed bord er of Europe. Armenia gained its independence
in 1991. And for 18 years now that border is closed. I cite this
example not to say that we are under blockade, but to make it clear
that April 24 of 1915 is everyday present in our lives. April 24 is
officially announced as the day of the victims of the genocide. But
even before being officially recognized as such a date, April 24
has always been for our people such a day of memory and remembrance,
also for me as one of the representatives of our people.
But for me as the President of Armenia it is my duty to take measures
to soften the impact of that terrible tragedy and to take measures
to make sure that such crimes will not repeat in the future. And
the most efficient way for that is the international recognition of
the genocide.
Alexander Gurnov: These days many believe that the President of the
United States Barak Obama is likely to recognize the Armenian genocide
as he had promised during his election campaign. What is the reason
Armenians attach such a big importance to the genocide recognition?
Serzh Sargsyan: Firstly, the recognition of the genocide is the
most efficient way for the prevention from such crimes in the
future. Secondly, justice means much for the Armenian people. And
recognition of the genocide is also affected by that belief. There
is no single Armenian in the world that is not affected somehow by
that genocide.
And obviously each Armenian wants to see justice in that regard.
The United States has been extensively present in the Ottoman
Empire through their diplomatic corps, through their missionaries,
businesspeople. We all know they had insurance companies functioning in
the Ottoman Empire. And for the US there is no doubt about the historic
nature of the genocide as it has taken place. They do not need any
additional proves or witnesses from us. I want to remind that 42 states
of the US have recognized the genocide. I want to remind that when the
US Congress Foreign Affairs Committee was hearing the case and they
do it on regular basis discussing the issue of the Armenian genocide –
it is almost unanimous recognition that there was genocide. But some of
the congressmen say: "Yes, there has been genocide, and the US has to
recognize that reality". And the others say: "Yes, it has taken place,
but now it is not in the national interests of the US to recognize it."
Alexander Gurnov: Mr. President, you described the border with Turkey
as the last closed one in Europe. In what degree the events of 1915
hinder your relations with Turkey nowadays, about 100 years after
the Genocide? What are the current perspectives of normalization
of relations?
Serzh Sargsyan: As I have mentioned, April 24 1915 has everyday
presence in our live. But also as you know I have invited the President
o f Turkey Mr. Gul to come to Yerevan last year in September to jointly
watch the football game between Armenia and Turkey and also to talk
about our relations. And as you know Mr. Gul accepted that invitation
and visited Yerevan. We have started an intensive negotiation stage
with Turkey to establish diplomatic relations.
We base ourselves on the fact that there has been genocide,
but non-recognition of that genocide by Turkey is not watched
by us as an insurmountable obstacle for the establishment of the
relations. We are in favor of having relations with Turkey without
any preconditions. As you know before Gul`s visit to Armenia Turkey
was offering two preconditions. One of them – genocide related and
the other – Naghorno Karabakh problem.
In the negotiations that we have had since, we both, Armenia and
Turkey, took stance that our negotiations shall proceed without
any preconditions: establishment of relations without preconditions
and then discussion of any questions that might be of interest to
the parties.
And as you know Mr. Gul invited me to Turkey to jointly watch the
return football game and I will be happy to accept that invitation
and will visit Turkey, if by that time the border is open or at least
we are very close to that. Till recent period of time, everyone
was convinced that we have significantly progressed and there was
some expectation that would allow having a historic breakthroug h,
but recently there have been statements by the Prime Minister of
Turkey to the effect that the Armenian-Turkish relations can improve
if Armenia compromises on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We watch this
as a step back from the existing agreements and as a precondition
being put forward. I believe that in our relations we have progressed
sufficiently. And now the ball is on the Turkish side of the field. And
if we use the football terminology (as this process has been labeled as
"football diplomacy" by the media) then we can say that any football
game has a certain timeframe that limits it.
Alexander Gurnov: Mr. President, you mentioned the Naghorno-Karabakh
conflict. What are the perspectives of peaceful settlement of
Naghorno-Karabakh conflict and normalization of relations with
Azerbaijan – another important neighbor?
Serzh Sargsyan: As you know, the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh is
dealt with by the Minsk group and its co-chairs: Russia, the US and
France. And from the beginning of the presidency, I have had three
meetings with my Azeri counterpart Mr. Ilham Aliev. And I think
this one year has been a sufficient period for us to understand each
other’s positions, clarify those positions, and make our judgments on
them. I think now it is the right time to speed up the whole process
and to move towards mutually acceptable solutions. And as you know
the key point of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict20is the right to self
determination of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. If this issue is
solved, then all the other issues of concern can be solved.
I am happy that most recently the leadership of Azerbaijan has been
talking about solving this conflict on the basis of all principles of
the international law. A few days ago the President of Azerbaijan has
met the President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and he has talked to the
Russian media and reiterated that this problem has to be solved on
the basis of all principles of international law. And to remind you
I want to tell that for a long time the leadership of Azerbaijan has
been talking about solving this Nagorno-Karabakh conflict either by
military means or only on the principle of the territorial integrity.
In general when I hear people speaking about territorial integrity
in many cases not knowing the substance of the conflict or due to
political considerations many people prefer to say things that put
them into a very delicate condition – in many cases I start to think
that there are not only double, but also triple standards. Within
the last twenty years, the membership of the United Nations has been
increased by forty sovereign states. Forty out of 192 member states
of the UN have joined the organization in the last twenty years. How
could one then speak about inviolability of frontiers? Of course, I am
in favor of, and I can never be a gainst the principle of territorial
integrity of states and we have never had any territorial claims
towards Azerbaijan. The problem is being deformed here.
It is the initiative of self determination of the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh that has been represented as a territorial
claim of Armenia towards Azerbaijan, which is of course not
true. Nagorno-Karabakh was merged to Azerbaijan in the Soviet period
by the decision of the Communist Party Body and even in that case the
Constitution of the Soviet Union was straightforwardly providing for
the autonomous status of Nagorno-Karabakh as a district. In other
words, it was recognized as some national state arrangement. And
Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous district succeeded from the Soviet Union
and Azerbaijan according to the legislation of the Soviet Union. When
Azerbaijan today is speaking about the occupation of the part of
its territory, to put it in a most soft way, they forget how these
events unfolded. In 1991, along with Azerbaijan, Naghorno Karabakh
succeeded from the Soviet Union after which it suffered an aggression
from Azerbaijan and as the result of the military actions that were
imposed by Azerbaijan we have what we have today.
Indeed, today forces of self-defense of Naghorno Karabakh control
also such territories which in the past have not been part of
Naghorno Karabakh autonomous district, but it should be remembered,
that people of Naghorno Karabakh call those territor ies "security
zone". Despite the fact that the cease-fire stands for 15 years,
the cause-consequences relationships in that conflict have not
changed. From those territories on a daily bases thousands of shells
were thrown on peaceful inhabitants of Naghorno Karabakh, and it is
not right to accuse the people of Naghorno Karabakh, Armenians that
they have been able to secure their right for life by a heavy price
of their blood, and to call that an ‘occupation.’ I don’t think it
is a just approach.
I want to repeat that I am very happy that the President of Azerbaijan,
a few days ago, when he was speaking about international law principles
he also spoke about the fact that this also has to be addressed on
the basis of all founding principles of the UN and OSCE. Of course,
this is the way to move forward. As we all know, the most recent
ministerial summit of OSCE that took place at the end of 2008 in
Helsinki has stated three principles: the right to self determination,
territorial integrity and non-use of force as the guiding principles
for the solution of this conflict. And these principles are the basis
for the negotiations also incorporated into the framework document
offered to us by the Minsk Group co-chairs. So, if we look from this
perspective we have advanced significantly. There are possibilities
and chances that situation can greatly change as well.
Alexander Gurnov : Mr. President, there is an opinion that many
problems in the post soviet area can be resolved through CIS
structures. According to another opinion, CIS has already exhausted
itself. Do you think that this is true or are there resources to
be used?
Serzh Sargsyan: I do not think that the CIS has exhausted its resources
and I have to state that the cease fire that has been signed in 1994
has been signed exactly under the auspices of the CIS. And this
once again comes to prove that the CIS is definitely needed. Any
organization can be only what its members want to see and make out of
it. We have lived within one country for 70 years. And many countries
for decades had been the part of the Russian Empire before that. And to
immediately interrupt all those connections and ties – I do not think
it is right or productive. If countries like Canada or Australia till
now keep their connections and do not cut their ties with the United
Kingdom, with the Royal dynasty of the UK – it does not mean that
Canada or Australia are less sovereign states than we are. Within
decades and centuries they have created ties and connections that
can be very beneficial within the Commonwealth. Here much depends on
Russia. If Russia believes that the CIS is an important and needed
structure, I think that the resources of the CIS are increasing.
Alexander Gurnov: Mr. President, Russia is actively voicing the idea
of the need to review the existing system of European security and
stressing the necessity to sign a new Treaty on European security. In
what degree official Yerevan shares this approach?
Serzh Sargsyan: I understand the motivation of my Russian colleagues. I
understand the position of the Russian Federation. The security system
that we see today was formed decades ago, when it was difficult to
take into account all the realities, when the threats and challenges
were significantly different from what we face today. And exactly
for that reason there is need for some amendments and changes to the
security system. Let me bring a few examples. If we speak about the
efficiency of OSCE, as you know, there is an agreement regulating
the conventional forces in Europe and providing for certain quotas
for each signatory country.
For a long period of time, Azerbaijan is significantly violating those
quotas. It was violating these quotas by getting supplies from one or
a few countries which are parties to the same treaty. And it seems
that no one is ready to take necessary steps to show us mechanisms
for those quotas.
Security systems are usually being formed at the time of global
shocks – and the two world wars were the shocks like that. There are
analysts who even believe that it is a precondition for the formation
of a new security system – there should be a global shock before a
new int ernational security architecture can be formed. But I hope,
that at the time of this global economic crisis the big powers of the
world will consider this as the major international shock that would
allow changing the security architecture as well within the European
model of security.