Perpetrator Of Genocide And The One Who Resists It. Raffi Hovannisian
These topics were touched upon at the Lavrov-Mirzoyan press conference, and the
RA Foreign Minister’s answers were abrupt, evasive, and sometimes he was
silent. Is it possible to form an impression about Armenian-Russian relations
from the press conference? In what condition are they, and under the created
situation, what impact will they have on the Republic of Armenia?
– The state of those relations needs to be better;
they are in the basement; it can be seen in the reflection, as always, it is
vertical, not horizontal, and partnership. As always, the primary
responsibility belongs to the current government, which has brought its
irresponsible, disrespectful, irrelevant policy here. Russia also has its
responsibility: Its procedure and diplomacy in the direction of Turkey and
Azerbaijan has allowed Armenia to conduct a very superficial and irresponsible
policy. But the main thing is that we are in this situation because of
Armenia’s fragmented, superficial, and opportunistic politics. As for
anti-Russian or any anti-Western policy, there are forces in pro-government and
anti-government political circles that use very simple approaches and make very
counterintuitive, emotional expressions, either in an anti-Russian or Western
direction, either loving or rejecting them. Neither one nor the other reflects
the popular objective approach nor the national interest of Armenia. Armenia-centric
politics has no anti-Russian or anti-Western policy, but everything starts and
ends with Armenia’s state and national interest. Anti-Russia is targeted in a
question and answer; the opposite question and answer are heard during another
event. These are temporary, rhetorical problems created mainly by the
irresponsible policies of the current government.
– And in general, is Russia to blame for that Nikol
Pashinyan and his team coming to power in Armenia and continuing to remain in
force?
– You should not focus on
the reasons for the change of power in modern Armenian history but on today’s
state disaster, an unprecedented national crisis that needs to be overcome,
which is as internal as it is external. We must change internally, both
individually and nationally, and with state-authority personnel if our state
historiography is to continue. Regarding your question, I think that if the
history, government behavior, glory, and elections of our previous periods had
been of a different quality, in another way, the widespread anger and the
imperative of the popular upsurge would not have been at the level that erupted
in 2018. It is still being determined from which direction the international
actors were there. I have heard 4-5 different theories, but I need to find out
whether Russia, the West, or the East accompanied all of this. But we wouldn’t
have this day if it weren’t for the widespread anger, the vices of the previous
period, and the opportunism of the incumbents who came out. But popular upsurge
and the national outrage were used to realize their goals: There was
misbehavior and hypocrisy on the part of many, and that international
accompaniment could take place either very proactively on the one hand or
passively tolerated on the other; one initiated, accompanied and supported, the
other accepted, and, we can say, there was a particular international support.
– Recently, the session of the EPP political assembly took
place in Helsinki. On the first day of work, in the open part of the session,
you also gave a speech and raised the issue of imposing sanctions against
Azerbaijan. The audience responded warmly to your address; however, the
speakers, the EPP President, and the European Parliament President have yet to
respond to your questions. How would you interpret that?
– First, we should act
more and talk less. When we return home from international courts, it is not
essential what an individual or a party has done; what matters is that we act.
And when we have documents corresponding to the interests of Armenia or
pro-Armenian developments, they should not be attributed to our work or grace.
If something, a step, was done by my colleague, by another party, or by me, we
should be quietly satisfied that we participated. Still, that work was mainly
done by Europe, the USA, the Russian Federation, and Iran if that work has been
done in the given case.
I have been doing this
for 30 years, and I rarely address it, neither with a press conference nor with
a message; this is ongoing work; once in a while, it has an impact, but once in
a while, the effect is not immediately visible, once in a while different
people’s speeches, closed meetings with the heads of European structures, or
leaders of influential parties, something else. All those drops become
something: one sentence in the resolution, one deputy’s speech in the Council
of Ministers, or one article.
Its invisible
connections, one door opens another, and you can’t say I did it. In this case,
there were two possibilities in Helsinki: the panel discussion on the first day
featured three high-ranking European officials who spoke about Europe as a
driver of security values and defense. It was a very general conversation that
had nothing to do with Armenia: Ukraine, military, civilian cooperation,
Southern politics, and others; there was almost nothing about the Caucasus.
There was time and opportunity for three questions. As a representative of the
observer-member organization, I already had a speech the next day of work, so I
had to think whether it was worth asking for a vote. But since there were
high-ranking people, I thought it was worth it. First, the Ukrainian made a
speech. Applause, etc., as it is perceptible to them, the consciousness and
thought of all Europe is there. Then, the former Prime Minister of France
spoke, then I. It was the end, time was running out, and people were restless. I
told them there is another place, a little East, then the focus of your
interest. However, you have to decide whether this should be a question of
European values, security, and defense. Because Armenia and Artsakh is a place
that is now under siege by a war criminal, his elder brother, NATO member
Turkey, wants to destroy that part of European civilization. Turkey, a NATO
ally, wants to keep Finland and Sweden out of NATO.
I said that the siege of
Artsakh, which was then entering its 90th day, should have the same effect as
the siege and fall of Constantinople for Europe, which they may not feel today,
but will feel later. And I made it so that you are already doing your job; you
should have reports dedicated to Azerbaijan and Armenia soon, but not only kind
words and wording should solve this issue, but you should also go a step
further to sanctions.
Because if there is no
sanction against the perpetrator of genocide, the war criminal, there is no EPP
as a driving force in European security, values, and protection. I said that I
did not leave Armenia to beg them for anything; they should decide, this is
your business, and while you are talking about a dictatorship from your point
of view, as a fetish, you should think if there are other dictatorships, Azerbaijan,
Turkey.
The same Azerbaijan that
takes repackaged gas from Russia and gives it to you, and some of your leaders,
EPP members, and the same President of the European Commission said,
“Azerbaijan is our reliable partner.” Well, then, you decide for yourself: what
is the European value of remote security? Since the discussion was not
dedicated to the problems of the Caucasus, to Armenia, this, in the end, was a
bit like a cold shower, which did not imply any enthusiasm, just a little
confrontation for Europe.
And on the second day, I
already developed that approach in my speech, emphasizing democracy and our
internal problems; four years ago, a national upsurge, a hope for democracy,
also landed. Returning to Artsakh and international relations, I insisted that
Europe should never put a sign of equality between the perpetrator of genocide
and the one who resisted it.
– What impression did you get from your contacts
towards the Republic of Armenia, Artsakh, and, generally, the region? What is
the attitude of the European political forces?
– In general, from the environment, emotional
background, and speeches of political assemblies and congresses in the recent
period, I can say that there was almost a single-target situation, and Europe,
on the international stage, was targeting Ukraine, also organizationally, on
elections in EPP member states. But, recently, partly due to geopolitical
competition with Russia, but rather due to the quality of our participation,
both in bilateral meetings and in public speeches, our positions have become more
purposeful, accessible, and also interconnected through various documents and
steps. That is positive and encouraging, but we should not be under any
illusions because we have not seen a significant change in the general policy.
We hope to see more far-reaching changes with comprehensive, systematic work.
The latest adopted reports significantly differ from their predecessors,
opening a window of opportunity.
Interview: Nelly
GRIGORYAN
“Aravot” newspaper,
24.03.2023
Reports about Raffi Hovannisian's national and civic activities, together with a partial record of his public expressions, are still accessible at www.heritage.am.
Founded in 2002, Heritage has regional divisions throughout the land. Its central headquarters are located at 75 Yerznkian Street, Yerevan 0033, Armenia, with telephone contact at (37410) 27.16.00, fax at (37410) 52.48.18, email at , website: www.heritage.am