Transcript: Armenia’s Serzh Sargsyan
The Wall Street Journal’s Marc Champion sat down with the President of
Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, April 20, 2009, to talk about relations with
Turkey and Azerbaijan, the possibility that the U.S. will recognize
Armenian genocide and more. Below is an edited transcript.
* * *
The Wall Street Journal: Opening up Armenia’s border with Turkey matters
for Armenia, but why does it also matter for the region, for the U.S. or
Russia?
Mr. Sargsyan: I think the reason is straightforward, the fewer obstacles
and artificial barriers the better for everyone. I believe it is also a
very natural desire to see the last closed border of Europe opened. And
thirdly, I believe for the U.S. and Russia and everybody else it’s
extremely important to see stability and peace in this region, and
without this border being opened it is impossible to see a solid system
of security in this region.
WSJ: Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey said recently there won’t be a
deal on border opening, there won’t be a final deal signed until there
is a resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. What is your response
to that? Also, do you still think border can open by October, as you
have said before?
Mr. Sargsyan: Of course that statement of Prime Minister Erdogan was not
in the framework of our agreements. As you may know, I invited
[Turkey’s] President Gül to Yerevan [to a World Cup qualifier soccer
match] and after that our efforts intensified and our negotiations
lasted for a few months. Both we and the Turkish side in the
negotiations supported the idea that we are negotiating without any
preconditions. You know that there has been a genocide and there is no
single Armenian in the world would doubt that there was a genocide. But
by inviting President Gül to Armenia, we reiterated our position that
non-recognition by the Turkish side of the genocide is not an
insurmountable obstacle to restoration of relations between our
countries. . Obviously setting preconditions at a point where the
perimeters are already set and we are very close to a breakthrough is
absolutely not acceptable for us.
Of course, if the border is open or is on the eve of opening, I will
visit Turkey to attend the return match. Now I want to stress that the
ball is on the Turkish side and since the media labeled this development
as football diplomacy.like in any football game, this diplomacy has a
time frame attached to it. Which means that the ball cannot be in the
Turkish side all the time. .
WSJ: Do you mean you can only visit Turkey if the border has been
reopened, or is about to be?
Mr. Sargsyan: You understood me exactly right.
WSJ: But if there is no sign of the border opening you will not visit?
Mr. Sargsyan: What is the sense of that? We invited President Gül to
Armenia to use that opportunity to intensify our dialogue, to launch a
conversation. The idea of me returning to visit for the return game was
to further and achieve more in that dialogue, I was not supposed to
travel to Turkey as a simple tourist or as a football fan.
WSJ: On April 24, President Barack Obama is due to make a statement on
Armenian memorial day. The focus is on whether he uses the term genocide
or doesn’t. Right or wrong, it seems clear that if the U.S. recognizes
the genocide that will make the Turks less willing to engage with
Armenia. Which is more important to you? The U.S. genocide recognition
now, or success in these reopening talks with Turkey?
Mr. Sargsyan: I think already now the motivation of Turkey has
decreased, because as you said Prime Minister Erdogan is now offering
preconditions. I believe it is not us Armenians who push the U.S. to
recognize the genocide. The U.S. had its diplomats, missionaries and
businesses in the Ottoman Empire, as well as its insurance companies, on
the ground at the time of the genocide. The amount of evidence, the
amount of factual materials the U.S. possesses on the matter of genocide
is excessive and is as convincing today as it was years ago. Therefore
the moment the U.S. finds it necessary to recognize the genocide they
will do it.I don’t believe we are pushing people into a dilemma between
national interest and moral standing.
WSJ: So your preference, the preference of the Armenian government,
would be for Mr. Obama to recognize the Armenian genocide, even if that
puts the last nail in the coffin of any deal with Turkey to open the
border any time soon?
Mr. Sargsyan: I would not like to see this process in a coffin. I would
like us to be more open and broad-minded when watching this issue. That
is why we want this issue of genocide not to be an obstacle to our
relations with Turkey. After all, by recognizing the genocide neither we
nor other countries that recognize it want to harm Turkey. I think this
matter is very straightforward, restoration of justice and prevention of
genocide in the future. Because if we try to tie relations between
Armenia and Turkey to recognition of the genocide by one country or
another .Armenian-Turkish relations will always be the footballs of
other countries. If some countries decide to create difficulties in
those relations, they would just announce a recognition of genocide and
so would compromise relations between Armenia and Turkey. Once again, it
is not we who are pushing the U.S. to recognize the genocide.
WSJ: Azerbaijan has been very upset by the prospect of the border
opening, that seems to have been a reason why Mr. Erdogan made the
border opening conditional on progress in Nagorno Karabakh. The Azeris
say that if you open the border with Armenia it will remove any pressure
on Armenia to compromise over Nagorno Karabakh. Are they right?
Mr. Sargsyan: When we were starting this negotiating process, I am
confident that in Turkey they also calculated the possible reaction of
Azerbaijan. I do not believe that anyone in Turkey expected anyone in
Azerbaijan to applaud this process or to be excited about it. In other
words the reaction of Azerbaijan as the motive for Turkey stepping back
is not understandable for me. Especially as Azerbaijan’s expectations
concerning these negotiations are exaggerated. By opening Armenia’s
border or normalizing relations with Turkey, Armenia’s approach to
Nagorno Karabakh will not undergo any changes or amendments. The problem
of Nagorno Karabakh can be solved only on the basis of mutual
compromises. This can never be a one-way, give-me type of approach that
resolves this problem of Nagorno Karabakh. Despite the absence of
relations with Turkey and despite the economic situation in Armenia,
there can be no Armenian leader who signs a paper or who has a small
idea in his mind that Nagorno Karabakh can be given to Azerbaijan for
any motivation or reason. .It has been one year now since I have been
dealing with the Nagorno Karabakh issue as president of the country, and
I have had three meetings with the president of Azerbaijan since. I
believe this has been sufficient time to get understood by each other,
we are aware of each other’s positions, and now is the time for a very
serious exchange of possible developments and ways to advance to a
resolution.
I am happy to see that the Azeris seem right now to understand that this
issue should be resolved by peaceful means and on the basis of all
principles of international law. In these last three or four days I have
had some pleasant moments watching my Azeri colleague visiting Russia.
Both in his meetings with our Russian counterpart and in talking to
Russian media he spoke about principles of international law, because
until now they usually spoke about only one of those principles which is
territorial integrity. The core issue of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
is the right to self-determination of the people of Nagorno Karabakh.
Once this problem is solved all the others will easily find their
solution.
When Azeris speak about the occupation of some of their territories,
they somewhat change or trick around the reality. They forget that those
are the territories from which on a daily basis thousands of shells were
fired at the people of Nagorno Karabakh. They forget that it was their
side that by use of force imposed a war on the people of Nagorno
Karabakh and posed a serious threat and challenge to the existence of
the people of Nagorno Karabakh, which brought us to the outcome we are
at today in the form of the self-defense of the people of Nagorno
Karabakh. The fact that 15 years have elapsed since then doesn’t change
the cause and consequence of this reality.
WSJ: Does that mean the Chechens have a right to self-determination?
Also you were military commander in Nagorno Karabakh, are you the right
guy to negotiate a deal?
Mr. Sargsyan: I have been the head of the committee for self defense of
Nagorno Karabakh. I was one of those who protected and fought for the
rights of these people. And I think that, yes, I am one of those who has
the right to conduct negotiations on this subject.
As to the first part of your question, yes we believe that all people
have the right to self determination. We are not talking about all
people who compactly populate a piece of territory. Azeris in their
argument have gone so far as to say, well then maybe the Armenians also
should have a right to self determination in Glendale in the United
States, where they compactly live in one town. But we are talking
about.a group of people who have been compactly living for thousands of
years in that particular piece of land. Nagorno Karabakh has never been
part of Azerbaijan. It was merged with Azerbaijan by a decision of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union. And Nagorno Karabakh seceded from
the Soviet Union exactly the way the republics have done it under the
legislation of the Soviet Union. And of course, Chechnya also has a
right to self-determination, and Chechens have entertained that right by
a referendum they recently conducted. [Chechnya has held referenda on a
new constitution within the Russian federation, following two
devastating wars. Some observers challenged the Russian turnout figures
as fraudulent.]
WSJ: Why were the borders drawn this way [to carve out autonomous
regions populated by neighboring ethic groups]?
Mr. Sargsyan: This was formulated as an expression of goodwill to
promote the advancement of communist ideas towards the Muslim east. And
this was also done on a wider scale across the Soviet Union to
complicate relationships and to .make sure that no Soviet republic ever
had it in its mind to use the right to secession from the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics that was provided for in the constitution.
Just imagine if Armenia had tried to secede from the Soviet Union, when
there were two Armenian autonomous arrangements within Azerbaijan. These
would stay with Azerbaijan forever. If Azerbaijan were to decide to
secede from the Soviet Union, both Nakhichevan and Karabakh would be
kept within the Soviet Union.
WSJ: In early May you will be in Prague for the European Union’s Eastern
Partnership talks, and President Aliyev will be there too. Is that the
occasion to, as you said earlier, start making some real progress on
Nagorno Karabakh?
Mr. Sargsyan: Why not? The Co-chairs [of the so-called Minsk group
overseeing talks – France, Russia and the U.S.] have asked me about that
opportunity and I have said I don’t mind any meeting in any location. We
will be guided by the principles of the Minsk group, which also include
the idea of territorial integrity and self-determination. And if the
President of Azerbaijan is ready to continue negotiations on the basis
of these principles, and to achieve progress on that, we are ready.
WSJ: The sub-commissions [to be set up under the proposed Turkey-Armenia
agreement] as I understand it will include one on history, what would
its goal be?
Mr. Sargsyan: You are asking what questions can be addressed by that
historical questions. I can give you one example. The historic Armenian
monuments in the Ottoman Empire and today. There are thousands of such
monuments. I am sure that Turkey would have many questions to raise with
us.
WSJ: Is the genocide an acceptable issue to discuss?
Mr. Sargsyan: We cannot prohibit Turkey from raising any issue in any of
the sub-commissions, just as they cannot limit us in raising any issue.
One thing is for sure – the fact that a genocide took place raises no
doubts in us.
WSJ: Azerbaijan has come into a lot of money from oil revenues recently,
and they spent a lot on defense, on military equipment. Is that a
concern to you? Do you see in that a potential threat of further war in
Nagorno Karabakh?
Mr. Sargsyan: Of course it concerns us. . At the same time I am
confident the resources we have allocated to the Armenian armed forces
are serious and sufficient. And our armed forces are very well prepared
to fight defensive battles.
WSJ: Are you confident that if you needed it, the Collective Security
Treaty Organization [A NATO look-alike comprising Armenia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan] would intervene on your
behalf?
Mr. Sargsyan: The collective defense principle of an attack against one
is an attack against all is a corner stone of the CSTO. And you know
that particular provision of the CSTO guided us recently when we
established collective forces for reaction in case of armed attacks,
which of course brought a very painful reaction from Azerbaijan. And I
think it also motivated Azerbaijan to get closer to Russia. And I am
happy to see that in the South Caucasus has emerged that believes Russia
is a strategic partner.
WSJ: Has Russia been supportive of your efforts to reopen with Turkey?
Mr. Sargsyan: At least at all the meetings at different levels we have
heard from Russia that they are in favor of reopening with Turkey.
Meanwhile, the biggest effort has been put in and continues to be in by
the United States of America, for which I am very thankful to the
administration of the U.S.A.
WSJ: Your election last year had a problematic response in the street
[eight people were killed in a police crackdown on demonstrators] and
then internationally. Does that make it harder for you to reach
agreements such as this one with Turkey?
Mr. Sargsyan: We are ready for relations without preconditions despite
all the obstacles we might face, despite all possible pressures we might
feel. But of course post election developments in Armenia have
restrained me in many fields. And of course, if developments did not go
in that direction we could make much better decisions for Armenia. But I
am confident we are overcoming these post-electoral developments.
WSJ: The Council of Europe just put off a decision on whether to suspend
Armenia’s membership because of these events. Is there anything you
would say to the Council of Europe about the detentions? [Armenian
opposition parties say 56 people still being held are political
prisoners.]
Mr. Sargsyan: They closely monitor the situation and they have full
information on it. I think developments in Armenia now are fully in line
with Council of Europe statements after the elections. With all European
structures, not only the Council of Europe, we cooperate because of our
belief in the usefulness of that cooperation. And it is our aim to
deepen these cooperations. We wish to live according to civilized rules.