Tweet
HOW FAR SHALL WE GO BY CONCEDING AND DISMANTLING?
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily, Armenia
Nov 1 2007
Interview with SHAVARSH KOCHARYAN, leader of the National Democratic
Party
"What new thing did the ex-President say in his demonstration speech
- anything that your colleagues belonging to the Opposition have not
voiced so far?"
"He didn't say anything new. The criticism made in that speech was
in most cases to the point; the Opposition had voiced those problems
from different tribunals for several years on end. It is a different
matter whether Levon Ter-Petrosyan really had the right to voice such
criticism, considering that he was the founder and the architect of
such a corrupt system. There is an English proverb saying, 'don't
throw a stone to another's house if your house is made of stone'.
Ter-Petrosyan did throw that stone in a situation when we all realized
that his 'house' was made of stone, and the first stone would smash
it into smithereens."
"Levon Ter-Petrosyan came in order 'to call the things by their
names and settle accounts' with the authorities for eliminating the
disastrous consequences of his tenure. Don't you consider that this
is, mildly speaking, strange?"
"During the period when he was in office the things were called by
their names many times, and the people demanded accountability by
organizing a so many of demonstrations and rallies. They demanded
accountability by refusing the passage of the Draft Constitution in
1995, as this Constitution had been cut out by his order to fit him,
and strictly ruled out both the independence of the judiciary and
the local self-government institution as well as the Parliament's
supervisory function.
The people demanded accountability by giving their vote of confidence
to Vazgen Manoukyan in 1996, but the Armenian pan-National Movement
maintained power by using tanks. Today the ex-President announces,
'Why should the Army interfere in political processes?' I wish
someone asked, 'Why should tanks have appeared in the streets of
Yerevan in 1996?' They either express dissatisfaction or accuse us
of earthing the electric current on purpose, in order to do harm to
the people. I said on one occasion that it was not earthing power;
it was rather a money transaction. That is, electric power was not
generated and then earthed; they just struck off the sum from the
budget and pocketed it. Unfortunately, after the 1998 shift of power
all this never became subject to serious criticism, that's why they
are now "settling accounts with the criminal administration."
"What about the biting language by which Mr. Ter-Petrosyan labeled the
authorities, calling the existing system as a 'state of plunderers and
chieftains'? To what extent is it proper to the 'first President' who
is trying to act from the positions of a serious, weighty political
figure, concerned about the country's future and its international
reputation."
"Frankly speaking, I didn't have a high opinion about Levon
Ter-Petrosyan in the past either. But the problem, to my mind, is on
a different plane. It is obvious that should he, by some miracle,
become a President, he will, under the amended Constitution, have
the status of the Queen of England; nothing more. Now, if this is a
state of chieftains, does it turn out that he is going to work as a
President in that state?
I don't see any logic here, apart from one thing: if, at the bottom
of his heart, he nurses hopes for achieving a shift of power through
a revolution. I just rule out this option."
"When the ex-President reformulated the 'Karabakh theses' advanced
in his 'Armenia-Marriott' speech, do you think he clarified what
solution he saw to this issue which has a decisive role for the future
developments of Armenia?"
"I don't think he introduced any clarity to this issue. He just
obscurely reiterated the approaches he was consistently trying
to call to life during the years when he was in power. That is,
to return Karabakh to Azerbaijan in the status of autonomy."
What is the conversation about? He made a public statement about that,
assured that he was ready to support his attitude "on any level"; he
even raised a question in the Supreme Council, saying that Karabakh
must participate in the Azerbaijani Majlis elections. Now he speaks
about the legal formulation of Artsakh's independence.
What does this mean? Autonomy is also a legal formulation; so is
cultural autonomy... The people of Artsakh have not only become
self-determined but also reaffirmed through a constitutional
referendum their right to live freely and independently. The fact
that Mr. Ter-Petrosyan avoids using that word in his speech definitely
proves that no changes have occurred in his approaches.
Moreover, they couldn't have occurred.
"Isn't is strange that the 'first President' of Armenia pretends to the
title of the 'third President', literally reiterating the Azerbaijani
side's viewpoint that the authority in Armenia has been cheating the
international community for 10 years running and, 'making a fool of
itself' pretends desirous to settle the issue but is actually doing
its best to prevent the conflict from being resolved."
"First, what do you mean by saying these authorities are unwilling to
'settle' the issue. Suppose, they adopt a variant which envisages
leaving Krabakh inside Azerbaijan. Is this an acceptable decision
for us?"
When it is said that the issue must not be settled without clarifying
the status, this, roughly speaking, means the following: the people
of Artsakh want to live independently, but let's think about Armenia
which has no future unless the Karabakh issue is settled. He said it
directly during his "Armenia-Marriott" speech. He even declared that
if there is anything we are to blame fro, it is only our inability to
"explain" to the people that Karabakh is the root of all evils.
With regard to the issue who actually prevents the conflict from
being settled, I think one must be blind not to see that the main
obstacle is the Azerbaijani leadership with its unyielding attitude
and bellicose statements.
Generally, if we summ up the logic of the October 26 speech in a
couple of words, it turns out that we first have to make concession
with regard to the Karabakh issue and then disorganize and dismantle
everything. Well, how far shall we go by conceding and dismantling?
Lilit Poghosyan
Hayots Ashkharh Daily, Armenia
Nov 1 2007
Interview with SHAVARSH KOCHARYAN, leader of the National Democratic
Party
"What new thing did the ex-President say in his demonstration speech
- anything that your colleagues belonging to the Opposition have not
voiced so far?"
"He didn't say anything new. The criticism made in that speech was
in most cases to the point; the Opposition had voiced those problems
from different tribunals for several years on end. It is a different
matter whether Levon Ter-Petrosyan really had the right to voice such
criticism, considering that he was the founder and the architect of
such a corrupt system. There is an English proverb saying, 'don't
throw a stone to another's house if your house is made of stone'.
Ter-Petrosyan did throw that stone in a situation when we all realized
that his 'house' was made of stone, and the first stone would smash
it into smithereens."
"Levon Ter-Petrosyan came in order 'to call the things by their
names and settle accounts' with the authorities for eliminating the
disastrous consequences of his tenure. Don't you consider that this
is, mildly speaking, strange?"
"During the period when he was in office the things were called by
their names many times, and the people demanded accountability by
organizing a so many of demonstrations and rallies. They demanded
accountability by refusing the passage of the Draft Constitution in
1995, as this Constitution had been cut out by his order to fit him,
and strictly ruled out both the independence of the judiciary and
the local self-government institution as well as the Parliament's
supervisory function.
The people demanded accountability by giving their vote of confidence
to Vazgen Manoukyan in 1996, but the Armenian pan-National Movement
maintained power by using tanks. Today the ex-President announces,
'Why should the Army interfere in political processes?' I wish
someone asked, 'Why should tanks have appeared in the streets of
Yerevan in 1996?' They either express dissatisfaction or accuse us
of earthing the electric current on purpose, in order to do harm to
the people. I said on one occasion that it was not earthing power;
it was rather a money transaction. That is, electric power was not
generated and then earthed; they just struck off the sum from the
budget and pocketed it. Unfortunately, after the 1998 shift of power
all this never became subject to serious criticism, that's why they
are now "settling accounts with the criminal administration."
"What about the biting language by which Mr. Ter-Petrosyan labeled the
authorities, calling the existing system as a 'state of plunderers and
chieftains'? To what extent is it proper to the 'first President' who
is trying to act from the positions of a serious, weighty political
figure, concerned about the country's future and its international
reputation."
"Frankly speaking, I didn't have a high opinion about Levon
Ter-Petrosyan in the past either. But the problem, to my mind, is on
a different plane. It is obvious that should he, by some miracle,
become a President, he will, under the amended Constitution, have
the status of the Queen of England; nothing more. Now, if this is a
state of chieftains, does it turn out that he is going to work as a
President in that state?
I don't see any logic here, apart from one thing: if, at the bottom
of his heart, he nurses hopes for achieving a shift of power through
a revolution. I just rule out this option."
"When the ex-President reformulated the 'Karabakh theses' advanced
in his 'Armenia-Marriott' speech, do you think he clarified what
solution he saw to this issue which has a decisive role for the future
developments of Armenia?"
"I don't think he introduced any clarity to this issue. He just
obscurely reiterated the approaches he was consistently trying
to call to life during the years when he was in power. That is,
to return Karabakh to Azerbaijan in the status of autonomy."
What is the conversation about? He made a public statement about that,
assured that he was ready to support his attitude "on any level"; he
even raised a question in the Supreme Council, saying that Karabakh
must participate in the Azerbaijani Majlis elections. Now he speaks
about the legal formulation of Artsakh's independence.
What does this mean? Autonomy is also a legal formulation; so is
cultural autonomy... The people of Artsakh have not only become
self-determined but also reaffirmed through a constitutional
referendum their right to live freely and independently. The fact
that Mr. Ter-Petrosyan avoids using that word in his speech definitely
proves that no changes have occurred in his approaches.
Moreover, they couldn't have occurred.
"Isn't is strange that the 'first President' of Armenia pretends to the
title of the 'third President', literally reiterating the Azerbaijani
side's viewpoint that the authority in Armenia has been cheating the
international community for 10 years running and, 'making a fool of
itself' pretends desirous to settle the issue but is actually doing
its best to prevent the conflict from being resolved."
"First, what do you mean by saying these authorities are unwilling to
'settle' the issue. Suppose, they adopt a variant which envisages
leaving Krabakh inside Azerbaijan. Is this an acceptable decision
for us?"
When it is said that the issue must not be settled without clarifying
the status, this, roughly speaking, means the following: the people
of Artsakh want to live independently, but let's think about Armenia
which has no future unless the Karabakh issue is settled. He said it
directly during his "Armenia-Marriott" speech. He even declared that
if there is anything we are to blame fro, it is only our inability to
"explain" to the people that Karabakh is the root of all evils.
With regard to the issue who actually prevents the conflict from
being settled, I think one must be blind not to see that the main
obstacle is the Azerbaijani leadership with its unyielding attitude
and bellicose statements.
Generally, if we summ up the logic of the October 26 speech in a
couple of words, it turns out that we first have to make concession
with regard to the Karabakh issue and then disorganize and dismantle
everything. Well, how far shall we go by conceding and dismantling?