NO DOCTRINE, NO CONSISTENT WORK

Interview with SHAVARSH KOCHARYAN, Head of the National Democratic Party

“After the March 1 events, Azerbaijan took an unprecedentedly tough stance on the Karabakh issue. Did such exacerbations coincide with the revolutionary maneuvers of ‘Levon’s witnesses’ by accident or, were they different elements of the same chain?”
“Obviously, it wasn’t accidental. Azerbaijan’s taking a tougher stance and addressing a challenge to the Minsk Group was not accidental either. All that happened on the Armenian-Azerbaijani contact line was an operation called ‘reconnaissance in force’. The United States’ pressures and the Co-Chairs’ statements (where the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan was actually touched upon for the first time) were not accidental either. It was quite clear that all those things were interrelated.
The fact that Turkey and Azerbaijan have set up a joint group consisting of senior military officials with the purpose of ‘conducting studies’ and ‘elaborating a program’ aimed at eliminating the PKK bases in the territory of Artsakh should also be viewed as a component of the same chain. The White House, as we know, has included PKK in the list of terrorist organizations. That’s to say, certain preparatory work is being done for creating prerequisites of direct military intervention, and if the situation in our country does not move towards stabilization, those symptoms will be more salient and painful for Armenia.”
“In that regard, how do you estimate the statement introduced by the Parliament in connection with the settlement of the Karabakh conflict? Do you think it may curb Azerbaijan’s desires and impart a more ‘initiatory character’ to the Armenian diplomacy?”
“It’s obvious that we have very serious omissions in the negotiation process. The first omission is that our foreign policy has never been the first to launch attack. We, more frequently, responded to Azerbaijan’s steps. This has given rise to a situation which is quite beneficial to Azerbaijan. That is, it’s a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan and a part of Azerbaijan’s territory is under the Armenian control; therefore Armenia is an aggressor. Whereas, the self-determination of Karabakh has prefect legal bases, but the Armenian side keeps silent in that regard.
Otherwise, it would be definitely perceived that Karabakh rather than Kosovo should become a precedent.
Now, they are trying to create an anti-precedent by speculating the name of Karabakh. Why? Because in that case it is always possible to say that if the independence of Karabakh is not recognized, the others have absolutely no right to speak about it.
There is another important factor which, at first sight, bears no relationship with the negotiation process but shows what initiatory policy could mean. In particular, I mean the barbaric destruction of the cross-stones of Jugha. Surprising though it is, the issue never became a subject of public discussions in any high international tribunal.
Whereas, Azerbaijan made the fictitious issue of fires in the “occupied territories” subject to discussion in the UN Tribunal. Of course, the fires were not fictitious; they existed everywhere, both in the territory of Armenia and in Spain, Portugal etc. But profiting by the occasion, Azerbaijan forced its way towards achieving the recognition of the term “occupied territories”.
What comes out? We cannot be consistent in preserving our historical and cultural values, while Azerbaijan voices concern over alleged fires from the highest tribunals.
Why do I say this? Because it’s really time for Armenia to clarify its attitude and review its passive policy. From this point of view, I consider the current parliamentary discussions useful. As to the adoption of the statement, I consider it necessary but not useful. The next step shall involve signing an interstate agreement between Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.”
“Many parliamentarians believe that it’s time to insist on Karabakh’s full participation in the negotiation process.”
“Insisting is not enough; it’s necessary to bring specific facts. What do I mean? If there is an agreement which says that the RA authorities are entitled to present the interests of Karabakh (which also refers to the negotiation process), the Armenian representatives may always say, ‘Sorry, I am not authorized to act on behalf of Karabakh as much as this matter is concerned.’ In such situation, the party which has relevant competences shall be involved in the process, no matter whether or not it is desires to do so.
By the way, we shouldn’t try to estimate the recent statements of the West and especially, the United States as conspiracy directed against the Armenian parties. They should be viewed in the context of the American and Western pragmatism. They want the issue to be settled. And there are two options for settlement: mutual concession and conflict settlement at the expense of one of the parties. Why not take advantage of the situation if one of the parties is weak? Recently there seemed to be an impression that Azerbaijan was strong; strong in terms of its oil resources, in terms of its armament, bellicose posture and active work in different international tribunals. Armenia’s passive behavior naturally created a temptation to check to what extent the Armenian party was ready to resist the diplomatic pressures.
If, in the outcome of the developments, we don't grow weaker but, on the contrary, overcome the situation as a strong party and show that we are stronger than they even think us to be, we will immediately change the attitude of both the international organizations and the states which take a real interest in the solution of the problem but think that Armenia is weakened as a result of the post-electoral developments.
“Recently, the experts have been more frequently speaking about the possibility of resuming the military operations. They even express viewpoints that the war is inevitable. Do you think there is such prospect threatening us?”
“There is no such threat in the near future. But there is an important factor that should be born in mind. During the elections, the ex-President received 350 thousand votes which is quite a high percentage. If he had received 35 thousand or even 3.5 thousand votes, that would again be too much. Although those votes were mainly cast in favor of the candidate who harshly criticized the authorities, the interested circles interpret it otherwise; they say society in Armenia is split and ready for concessions with regard to the Karabakh issue.
This is a factor Azerbaijan will try to make use of and why not, be tempted into solving the problem through military operations.”
LILIT POGHOSYAN

<< | Home | >>

E-mail article | Discuss article new!

RSS © Hayots Ashkhar

Headlines for April 12, 2008

WHAT IS THE CRIME ARMENIANS COMMITTED?
ARTHUR HOVHANNISYAN 25
Recently a piece of noteworthy information has been published in “Hayots Ashkharh” and “Golos Armenii” dailies regarding the meeting and secret negotiations between L. Ter-Petrosyan and the leader of ...
PRINCIPAL STANCES UNCHANGEABLE
ARMEN TSATURYAN
“Toughening” and “Mitigation” Not Expected The recent discussions on Karabakh conflict in the National Assembly coincided with the consistent efforts of the pro-oppositional powers to shift the issue ...
NO DOCTRINE, NO CONSISTENT WORK
LILIT POGHOSYAN
Interview with SHAVARSH KOCHARYAN, Head of the National Democratic Party “After the March 1 events, Azerbaijan took an unprecedentedly tough stance on the Karabakh issue. Did such exacerbations coincide ...
DIDN’T MANAGE TO SAVE THE SOLDIER
Serviceman of the police forces Tigran Abgaryan, wounded on March 2, yesterday passed away in Hospital Named after Mikayelyan. He was moved to hospital in grave condition, with missile wounds of cervical ...