MOCKERY IN KOCHARYAN’S ADDRESS
Lragir.am
16/04/2010
Interview with the coordinator of the central office of the Armenian
National Congress Levon Zurabyan
Robert Kocharyan responded to Ter-Petrosyan’s address to the rally
on April 6 rather aggressively. You announced in response that the
"client is losing temper". Nevertheless, in your opinion, what was
the reason for his nervousness?
Kocharyan’s nervous response was the best evidence and confirmation
of Ter-Petrosyan’s arguments. The problem was that in the context
of these failures, when the public opinion is angry, when not only
the opposition and the society but also the government camp realizes
Serge Sargsyan’s failure, reaction occurred inside the same regime,
and Kocharyan tried to make use of it. The problem is not Kocharyan’s
unbearable mania for power but Kocharyan’s worry that he will not be
able to enjoy what he has robbed, Serge Sargsyan will not be able to
ensure the interests of the oligarchic system. A process began when
all the supporters of Kocharyan were mobilized, enrolment from the
Republicans began, the government underwent pressure. All these were
revealed, and it turned out that Kocharyan’s actions were out of time
and unsuccessful. The intentions of Kocharyan’s camp were revealed
when it was not difficult for Serge Sargsyan to counteract them. I
think at the moment Kocharyan is week, his supporters were pressured,
chased. And at the moment the internal riot has been clamped down.
Simply Serge Sargsyan has to choose whether he wants to consider
it as an armistice in the struggle against Kocharyan’s elements,
or understands that if they appear in a more dangerous situation,
they may raise the flag of riot, and kill the germ in his camp.
The impression is that the Armenian National Congress criticizes
Kocharyan more than Sargsyan. criticism against Kocharyan still sounds
in Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s speeches though 2.5 years have passed since
he left office.
We unmasked Serge Sargsyan’s regime, explained all the failures. But
for the sake of truth, we must also say that the basis of these
failures, both conceptually and practically, was laid by Robert
Kocharyan. He launched the negotiations on the Armenian-Turkish
commission of historians, he removed Nagorno-Karabakh from the
negotiations, he led the negotiations into this situation. And when
Kocharyan’s team tries to benefit from this situation to avoid
responsibility, we must stop him. They do not have the right to
benefit from it, being the author of all failures. Maybe tactically
it would have been justified to play on the controversies existing
between them but in that case we would renege on our principles.
Are you worried that Kocharyan will return to politics, or do you
agree with Serge Sargsyan that he has never quit politics?
It is obvious that Kocharyan has quit politics, it is obvious
that he was trying to return, and it is obvious that the attempt
failed. And Serge Sargsyan’s statements were mere "mockery" addressed
to Kocharyan. He responded to allegations that Kocharyan had quit
politics one day later, saying that Kocharyan has never quit it. It
was mockery and indication of Kocharyan’s defeat.
We must take into account that Robert Kocharyan and Serge Sargsyan
are the two heads of the same dragon. This is a bandit state,
an oligarchic regime, and there is an organized, oppositionist,
popular movement against it, represented by the Congress. And if
intrigues began in the camp, it is the consequence of the failures
about which we talked. Inside the regime there may be people who
will finally adopt a rational thinking. Serge Sargsyan may do so,
who can see the path along which the country is moving. If they move
to the rational field, it is possible to meet all the challenges
through national conciliation. If they move to the rational field,
they must take the first step, end the struggle against their people
and release the political prisoners. Then it will be possible to launch
the negotiations on the right way of solution of the political crisis.
Although we have our schedule, it is not a dogma, and we will not step
back. On the contrary, if we see the regime demonstrate a rational
approach, an intention to solve the problems through agreement,
national conciliation, it is possible to negotiate. Here, naturally,
compromise, agreement is possible. But without that it means the
government does not leave any alternative to confrontation.
The opposition periodically speaks about the absence of democracy,
but how shall we understand the fact that in the United States Obama
commended democracy in Armenia to Serge Sargsyan.
It is important to take into account the context in which everything
was said. Moreover, if we read the report of the U.S. department
on human rights, there is no word about democracy there. Moreover,
it is a classic description of autocracy. Hence, I perceive the words
about the state of democracy as a hint that Serge Sargsyan has a lot of
things to do there. But there is one thing we understand. By the way,
the American press, namely the New York Times, writes that Obama is
clearly implementing real politik, and for him democracy, human rights
are secondary. The United States implements real politik regarding
Armenia. Hence, they can utter words of praise for Serge Sargsyan,
assign a value to him because they have expectations regarding the
Armenian-Turkish relations and the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. It is also
obvious that if these expectations do not come true, the United States
will not need to assign a value to Serge Sargsyan.
The Republicans are trying to show that if this time their expectations
do not come true, it will be Turkey’s fault, not the fault of Armenia,
and he will abort the process.
Independent from whether it depends on Serge Sargsyan or not, even if
Serge Sargsyan no longer has a role in that, also for reasons that do
not depend on him, there will be no need to support this despot. It
is clear to everyone that these questions will be handed in package,
therefore the United States, Europe and the Russian Federation will
continue their efforts in this direction.
Serge Sargsyan assures that they will not agree to normalize the
Armenian-Turkish relations in prejudice for the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
Serge Sargsyan must choose between two options, either he handles
these issues in package or he does not. In both cases there are
political consequences and a price that he must pay.
Will it be impossible to avoid premises?
It is ruled out. The entire process showed that Turkey has strongly
and consistently linked these two issues. It is obvious to everyone.
In that case, is it possible that Turkey will cause failure of the
process?
But what does it change? Turkey is so big and so very invulnerable to
international pressure, that it can downright abort the process. The
normalization of the Armenian and Turkish relations is linked to
the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, and it is Turkey that
links, and it cannot be made to change its stance. Serge Sargsyan’s
failure was due to ingeniousness, as he thought that blaming Turkey
for aborting the Armenian-Turkish process is an important achievement.
Turkey is responsible for linking these issues, and will bear his
responsibility. There is nothing Serge Sargsyan can do about it.
During the visit to the region of Tavush Serge Sargsyan stated
in regard to the NKR issue, "From the distance of 2010 we can say
what solution was proposed to us 10-13 years ago, and thanks God we
disagreed to that solution. And if we do not agree to that solution,
it is obvious that from now on we will not offer such a bad or worse
solution to our people."
His statements are absurd. To what Serge Sargsyan agrees is worse
compared with the option discussed in 1997. At that time the Armenian
side kept under control Nagorno-Karabakh and Lachin, there was also a
process for keeping Kelbajar under control. And Nagorno-Karabakh right
for self-determination was confirmed by the circumstance that three
parties were to sign the treaty, Armenia, Azerbaijan and NKR. And it
was stipulated in the treaty that the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh
will be determined through negotiations between Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Nagorno-Karabakh. It meant that NKR will say the deciding word in
the resolution on the status of NKR. What we have now is much weaker,
there is only control on NKR, the narrow corridor connecting Armenia
and NKR, Lachin, will be under international control. And if the
territories surrounding Karabakh were said to be demilitarized, no
Azerbaijani forces were said to be deployed there, only peacekeepers,
now only observers are concerned. There is a word about expression
of will which has not been defined and concretized.
Moreover, it is predetermined to bring about a solution which will
observe the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. In other words, weaker
guarantees, worse prospects, for the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. NKR
does nor have a deciding role in the talks on its fate and status.
Kocharyan’s office announced that NKR had been left out of the talks
during Ter-Petrosyan’s office, and even when it participated in the
talks, it was highly titular.
It is absurd. The most important indicator of the participation of
NKR is the following: the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs offered official
proposals on the NKR settlement to three parties, NKR, Azerbaijan,
Armenia, and received official response from all the three parties. In
1998, during Kocharyan’s office, the proposals were officially offered
to all the three parties. But that was the last time. Then the talks
were between two parties. Moreover, it was during Kocharyan’s office
in 2007 when the proposal of Madrid principles was offered to Armenia
and Azerbaijan.