SERZH SARGSYAN: "I WILL BE HAPPY TO ACCEPT INVITATION OF TURKEY’S PRESIDENT TO VISIT TURKEY TO WATCH THE RETURN FOOTBALL GAME IF BY THAT TIME THE BORDER IS OPEN OR AT LEAST WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO THAT"
ArmenPress
April 24 2009
Armenia
YEREVAN, APRIL 24, ARMENPRESS: President Serzh Sargsyan gave an
interview to the Russian – Russia Today TV. Bellow is the full text
of the interview.
– 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.
– 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 border 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.
– These days many believe that the President of the United States
Barack 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?
-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."
-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?
-As I have mentioned, April 24 1915 has everyday presence in our
live. But also as you know I have invited the President of 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 – Nagorno 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 breakthrough,
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.
-Mr. President, you mentioned the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. What
are the perspectives of peaceful settlement of Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict and normalization of relations with Azerbaijan – another
important neighbor?
-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 conflict is 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 against 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, Nagorno 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 Nagorno Karabakh control
also such territories which in the past have not been part of
Nagorno Karabakh autonomous district, but it should be remembered,
that people of Nagorno Karabakh call those territories "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 Nagorno Karabakh, and it is
not right to accuse the people of Nagorno 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. -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?
-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.
-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?
-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 international 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.