Tweet
RECOGNITION OF THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BY TURKEY IS A SECONDARY ISSUE - INTERVIEW WITH HARUT SASSOUNIAN
Regnum
http://www.regnum.ru/english/89 7320.html
Oct 10 2007
Russia
Harut Sassounian is a prominent public figure, author, publisher of
The California Courier newspaper, President of the United Armenian
Fund, Lincy Foundation Vice President.
REGNUM: A number of the US-based Armenian organizations are currently
advocating the recognition of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey
in 1915. At present, 226 US Congressmen are reportedly advocating
the adoption of a resolution on the Armenian Genocide. What is your
opinion of the prospects for the adoption of the resolution? What is
the importance of the resolution, considering the fact that Armenian
political circles have no clear idea of their further steps after
the worldwide recognition of the Armenian Genocide?
Regarding your question about the prospects for the adoption of the
resolution by the US Congress, I can say that more than half of the
435 Members of Congress have co-sponsored the resolution. This means
that, if the resolution is submitted to a vote even tomorrow morning,
it will be adopted without any problems. I think that around 350
Congressmen will vote for the resolution and just a few will vote
against it. The major problem is whether the leadership of the
US Congress will submit the resolution to a vote or, under Bush
administration pressure, the resolution will be shelved, which was
the case in 2000, when Speaker Hastert withdrew the resolution at the
last moment. Otherwise, it would have certainly been adopted. The
question is whether the scandal similar to that in 2000 will recur
or the resolution will be submitted to a vote. I think that this
time the resolution will be submitted to a vote, and its adoption
has almost a hundred-per-cent chance, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has
been making statements advocating the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide for 20 years. Besides, when I contacted her last November,
before she was elected Speaker, she stated that she had been advocating
the recognition of the Armenian Genocide for many years and intended
to do so in the next year as well. Thus, we have a promise made by
Nancy Pelosi who has not changed her position for many years. Also,
a majority in the US Congress favors the adoption of the resolution.
The submission of the resolution to a vote was postponed because of
the parliamentary and, later, presidential elections in Turkey. We
did not want the Armenian side to be accused of aiding the radicals
in the Turkish elections. Now we have nothing to wait for and the
resolution will certainly be submitted to a vote.
Of course, a tough struggle over the resolution has started. The
Turkish Government is constantly blackmailing the United States,
making statements on severing relations, putting obstacles for US
troops in Iraq, and so on. The blackmail is actually senseless, as
each statement like that damages the image of Turkey itself. Turkish
commentators have recently pointed out that the time of threats have
passed, and the blackmail damages Turkey itself. Alternative ways of
admitting past events need to be found. We are now witnessing the
formation of a favorable atmosphere both in the US Congress and in
Turkey. However, the Turkish side still does not find the courage to
admit this Crime Against Humanity, and the most likely reason is a
psychological barrier - it is difficult to admit the fact that their
forefathers committed such a barbaric act against another people.
Turkish leaders realize that the Genocide is a fact, and their
statements on the necessity for "studying and discussing" the issue
are a political game. They do not need either historians or studies,
they know the truth. However, Turkish authorities fear that the
admission of the Armenian Genocide will cause a negative reaction
by their public and radical forces. But for this fear, the Genocide
would have been admitted long ago.
The United Nations has recognized the Armenian Genocide. Over
20 countries, the European Parliament, hundreds of specialists in
genocide and Holocaust, historians and other scholars recognized the
Armenian Genocide long ago. But, the most important thing is that
the US Congress has already approved a similar resolution on the
Armenian Genocide in 1975 and 1984. Moreover, in 1981, US President
Ronald Reagan signed a Presidential Proclamation designating the
events of 1915 as Genocide. Since the US President has admitted the
fact of the Armenian Genocide by signing an official declaration and
the US Congress has approved the aforementioned resolution twice,
the adoption of the resolution for the third time is of little
importance. The Armenian Genocide has already been recognized and
the resolution will not add anything new.
The only problem is that the Turkish side is fighting the resolution,
claiming that it is the first resolution of this kind. If the Turkish
side did not fight it, I would not care about whether the resolution
would be adopted or not. However, since the Turkish side is waging a
political struggle, and the resolution has been submitted, we cannot
retreat. Otherwise, it will be viewed as the Armenian side's defeat.
The real purpose of the resolution is not recognition of the Armenian
Genocide, but a political struggle - the issue of which side has a
larger political capital in Washington.
So we must not give up the struggle and allow Turkey to gain victory by
exerting pressure. We must struggle for the adoption of the resolution
so that Turkey's political strength should be sapped once and for all.
As regards your question about the potential benefit from the adoption
of the resolution and further steps, the following can be said:
the recognition of the Genocide is not the Armenians' demand.
The Genocide did take place, and we know it. The Genocide was admitted
as far back as 1915-1923, when it was actually taking place.
When our forefathers were being killed, no one had any doubts about
what was going on. The Turks, who organized the Genocide, were well
aware of what they were doing. So the recognition of the Genocide is
not a step to be viewed as a great achievement. No, the recognition
is an actuality - for 92 years. The issue should be considered
from quite a different angle, and the Armenian people must come to
realize it. If the resolution is passed, and should Turkey admit the
Armenian Genocide, Armenians who are not well-grounded in politics
will think that they have achieved their cherished dream. No, the
admission of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey is an issue of secondary
importance for us. The following issue must be raised: a cruel crime
was committed against the Armenian people. The whole nation was
actually annihilated, our lands were seized and our 3,000-year-old
culture was destroyed. This is not only a cruel crime, but also a
great injustice. Therefore, our true demand is compensation for this
injustice. The world must know about what happened, and we have to a
great extent succeeded. The Turkish side is well aware that the step
to follow the admission of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey will be a
demand for compensation and return of the lands. This is the reason
why Turkey will not admit the Armenian Genocide, thereby trying to
force the Armenians to stop at this stage, so that we keep demanding
the admission of the Genocide for hundreds of years and will be unable
to go to the next step. I declare with all responsibility that it is
not so, the admission of the Armenian Genocide is of no value.
Our demands are: Turkey must compensate for the damages and return
our lands. Our demands do not depend on the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide before going on to the next steps. This is the
reason that a symposium recently was held at the University of
Southern California. Renowned specialists in international law were
invited. They explained the rights the Armenian people have under
international law, and to which courts Armenians could apply to
settle this issue. Now specialists must study the lawyers' advice and
decide which issue should be submitted to which court, as there is
the International Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights,
US Federal Courts, etc. This is a most important issue. It must be
studied with all seriousness, because, if we lose in court, Turkey
will claim that Armenians have no legal demands.
REGNUM: There is an opinion that Armenian Diasporan organizations,
while dealing with the issue of the Armenian Genocide, do not pay
enough attention to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Do you agree with
this viewpoint, and is it possible that the international community
should recognize the Armenian Genocide, without saying anything about
the necessity for compensations, and oblige the Armenian side to make
certain concessions in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue instead?
I disagree with the opinion that the Diaspora is ignoring the Artsakh
problem (In our conversation, I would prefer using the historical name
of Nagorno-Karabakh - Artsakh). I have heard such an opinion, but I
can state with confidence that not only this point of view is wrong,
but also the real situation is quite the opposite. Our people, neither
in Armenia nor in the Diaspora, have political sophistication. This
has been true throughout our history. Armenians have always had an
advanced culture, we have many excellent musicians, a rich literary
and architectural heritage, but, in contrast to Turkey, we have never
had political maturity. And no wonder. Turks ruled an empire for 600
years. We never had such an experience. We have always been under other
nations' yoke. All that we do in the political arena, including on the
issue of the Armenian Genocide, is unprofessional and insufficient. We
speak of the Armenian Genocide everywhere, make statements and give the
impression that we are making great efforts towards the settlement of
this issue. However, these are mere words without any value. The same
is true in the Artsakh problem. Everybody says: "We are for Artsakh.
This is our historical land." But what is really being done for
Artsakh? Yes, some young men went to war and sacrificed their lives
for Artsakh's freedom, which is the most valuable thing they could
do. But what are others doing? They are only talking. We are always
only talking. So I do not agree that we do more in this area than in
another, and this is the reality.
As regards the possibility of the international recognition of
the Armenian Genocide in exchange for certain concessions in the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue, such an idea does not exist, it is senseless.
I have said that the Genocide is a fact, and its recognition is not a
concession, as we do not benefit anything from it. If anyone, guided
by political games, denies this fact, then this is that person's
problem. Moreover, we have reached a stage where the admission of
the Armenian Genocide is more in Turkey's interests than that of
Armenians. If Turkey should admit the Armenian Genocide even tomorrow,
the Armenians, who are politically naive, would think that they have
achieved their dream. That is, the Armenian side will just relax and
stop trying to achieve its true goals, namely, the return of lands and
compensation. The Armenian people must be mature enough to realize
their true goals. In this context, if Turkey admits the Armenian
Genocide, it will be the first to benefit. Although no official demand
for the admission of the Armenian Genocide is made on Turkey in the
context of the country's admission to the European Union, this issue
is constantly raised and used as a lever for exerting pressure on
Turkey. That is why, if a Turkish leader admits the Armenian Genocide
today, the next day the entire world will praise him as liberal and
progressive, for having admitted his forefathers' crimes. He will be
awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and many other prizes. Moreover, even if
Turkey fails to meet all requirements for the admission to the European
Union, the positive reaction to its admission of the Armenian Genocide
will be so great that a blind eye will be turned to other shortfalls,
thereby facilitating the process of Turkey's entry into the EU. Thus,
Turkey will benefit much, without losing anything. The principal error
of both Armenians and Turks is that they think that, in case Turkey
admits the Armenian Genocide, Armenians will demand their lands. In
fact, the two issues have nothing in common. If, in conformity with
international law, the Armenian people can demand their territories,
it is not at all necessary to wait for Turkey to admit the Armenian
Genocide for 90 or 900 years. Even if tomorrow we apply to court and
demand our territories, no court will say: "no, you cannot demand
territories until Turkey admits the Genocide." This is tantamount to
refusing to convict a murderer until he admits his guilt.
REGNUM: You often visit Armenia and, naturally, are acquainted with
the situation. If you had to enumerate the priorities of the country's
foreign policy, which issues would you first of all point out?
If we establish certain problems as priorities, the first thing to
note is, of course, Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, as the conflict
over Artsakh is unresolved. The major problem is a state of war or
rather a bloody ceasefire with Azerbaijan - shots can be heard on
the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, both sides sustain losses.
The second issue is the Armenian-Turkish relations - from the viewpoint
of both the past and the current blockade of Armenia
The third item is, I think, the Armenian-Georgian relations, which
are not problematic in general, but we have a problem of the Javakhk
Armenians - not a territorial issue. However, the problem is the
observation of the rights of the Armenians residing there. Of course,
some problems of human rights, social conditions, schools and churches
must be resolved in the context of friendly relations with Georgia.
REGNUM: The necessity for concessions has recently been spoken of
more and more often in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace
process. From the viewpoint of the Armenian Diaspora, what is the
degree of concessions?
Conflict can be settled through compromises - this is a fundamental
principle. Another way of settling conflicts is a decisive victory
over the enemy in military operations. The issue is settled either
at the negotiating table or on the battlefield. We gained a victory
on the battlefield, and cannot be defeated at the negotiating
table. I do not think that there exists any threat of resumption of
hostilities. Azerbaijan is not ready for war. If they were, they would
resume military operations without asking anyone. If hostilities
are resumed now, Azerbaijan may lose all the other territories,
particularly Shahumyan. That is, if Azerbaijan unleashes a war now,
it will lose more than it may gain. I disagree with the opinion that
the Armenian side must not cede even an inch of land.
Some territories surrounding Artsakh, which are of no strategic
importance or historically Armenian lands, may be ceded. It is not
up to us to decide which particular region, town or village may be
ceded to the Azerbaijani side. Time will come, and representatives
of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Artsakh, standing over a map, will draw
a border. However, we must not just cede the territories to them,
stating that this is our concession. In exchange, we must have them
recognize Artsakh as an independent state or as part of Armenia. A
relevant document must be signed, and an international peacekeeping
force must be stationed in adjacent territories. That is, concessions
are only possible in case of concessions on the part of Azerbaijan
and observation of the aforementioned terms. I think it must be a
comprehensive solution.
REGNUM: Do you think that the Azerbaijani side will agree to such
a solution?
If they do not, we have nothing to propose to them. We gained a
victory, and the Artsakh problem is resolved for us. We have nothing
else to solve. We are quite satisfied with the present-day situation -
Artsakh was liberated, full stop! It is in Azerbaijan's interest to
propose something to us, and concessions on our part will be possible
in exchange for that "something."
REGNUM: At present, Northern Martakert, Shahumyan and Getashen -
the last named is part of Nagorno-Karabakh - are under Azerbaijan's
control. In your opinion, what is the solution to the problem of the
regions in question?
A solution to the problem of the territories may be based on the
principle of territorial swap. If we cede part of some territories
under Artsakh's control to Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani side returns
the aforementioned territories. Another way is the resumption of
hostilities and return of the territories by force.
REGNUM: Nevertheless, you rule out the possibility of resumption
of hostilities in the immediate prospect. How long can this
neither-peace-nor-war state last?
I am not a prophet. However, I personally rule out the possibility
of such developments in the next few years. But we must always be
ready for an attack.
REGNUM: What is your description of Armenia's present-day foreign
policy - nationalistic, liberal?
Once again I have to say what I have already said. I am not
delighted with the political maturity of Armenians, both inside and
outside Armenia. In general, I am not satisfied. I would not like to
criticize Armenia's authorities, because they have the same problem
as all Armenians. Armenia's policy in the international arena is not
impressive. I can neither say that they committed major blunders nor
can their work be called brilliant.
REGNUM: As a specialist in the field of communication, what is your
opinion of Armenian information policy? If we consider the presence of
Azerbaijan, Turkey and Armenia in the sphere of information activities,
what problems can you see?
Our work in most fields lacks professionalism. Whatever field you
ask about, I will have to repeat the same phrase. The work carried
out in the information field is equal to zero.
REGNUM: To what do you attribute this deficiency and how can it
be improved?
To improve in an area, one should first of all realize its value.
Neither the Armenian people nor the authorities realize the value
of the information field. For example, when Presidents Aliyev and
Kocharyan agree on specific issues, and Aliyev then goes back on his
word, it takes our authorities almost a year to reveal this fact.
This information must be spread within 24 hours through all media
outlets, PR-companies should be employed to flood Western newspapers
with analytical articles, to show the world that we are a peaceful
nation and ready for negotiations and concessions. And it is not us,
but Azerbaijanis, who are the cause of war. We must clearly realize
that information is power. It must be collected and used at the
right moment.
REGNUM: As seen from Armenia, the Diaspora seems to be strong,
but disunited? We have a 3-million-strong community in Russia,
rather strong communities in the US and Europe. However, they do not
cooperate. In your opinion, is there a necessity for at least these
communities to cooperate, or the currently applied method is right and
no need for coordination of Armenian communities' activities exists?
What is going on now is both wrong and a waste of energy. We are a
small nation, and cannot afford to be disunited. We need centralization
of forces, cooperation not only between the aforementioned three
communities, but also among Armenian communities worldwide. I have
some ideas of how to organize Armenians worldwide, but I would not
like to go into the details at this time. The unification of Armenians
around common national ideas is a goal that can be attained. Members of
Armenian communities worldwide must set themselves tasks and determine
the ways of accomplishing them.
Armenians worldwide can elect their leaders by democratic principles,
by means of a vote. No one in the Diaspora should declare himself to
be a leader without the vote of the Armenian public. Thus, we will
have an elected body in the Diaspora that will cooperate with the
elected leaders of Armenia and Artsakh.
REGNUM: You are also a representative of the Lincy Foundation. I
would like to ask you a question. It is a hypothetical question, to
be exact. In your opinion, in the context of the current situation,
when Armenia's borderline villages are hardly populated, would not it
be better to direct the Foundation's resources to the implementation of
a repatriation program for Armenians, which is of paramount importance,
rather than to the renovation of Armenia's roads, which is important
as well?
It is not up to me to decide where our Foundation's resources must
be directed. In Armenia, I supervise the work carried out under the
Foundation's programs. I am well acquainted with what is going on in
Armenia, and if I had the authority, funds would have been directed
to the resolution of some other problems. The process of allocating
funds is as follows: Armenia's top-level authorities propose the
direction and a schedule of necessary works. The Lincy Foundation
considers the authorities' proposals under the following principle:
"If we want to do anything good for Armenia, who is better informed
of the country's needs - those living in far away Los Angeles or the
ones that grew up in this land, who are governing the country and
are responsible for their people's future?"
Regnum
http://www.regnum.ru/english/89 7320.html
Oct 10 2007
Russia
Harut Sassounian is a prominent public figure, author, publisher of
The California Courier newspaper, President of the United Armenian
Fund, Lincy Foundation Vice President.
REGNUM: A number of the US-based Armenian organizations are currently
advocating the recognition of the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman Turkey
in 1915. At present, 226 US Congressmen are reportedly advocating
the adoption of a resolution on the Armenian Genocide. What is your
opinion of the prospects for the adoption of the resolution? What is
the importance of the resolution, considering the fact that Armenian
political circles have no clear idea of their further steps after
the worldwide recognition of the Armenian Genocide?
Regarding your question about the prospects for the adoption of the
resolution by the US Congress, I can say that more than half of the
435 Members of Congress have co-sponsored the resolution. This means
that, if the resolution is submitted to a vote even tomorrow morning,
it will be adopted without any problems. I think that around 350
Congressmen will vote for the resolution and just a few will vote
against it. The major problem is whether the leadership of the
US Congress will submit the resolution to a vote or, under Bush
administration pressure, the resolution will be shelved, which was
the case in 2000, when Speaker Hastert withdrew the resolution at the
last moment. Otherwise, it would have certainly been adopted. The
question is whether the scandal similar to that in 2000 will recur
or the resolution will be submitted to a vote. I think that this
time the resolution will be submitted to a vote, and its adoption
has almost a hundred-per-cent chance, as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has
been making statements advocating the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide for 20 years. Besides, when I contacted her last November,
before she was elected Speaker, she stated that she had been advocating
the recognition of the Armenian Genocide for many years and intended
to do so in the next year as well. Thus, we have a promise made by
Nancy Pelosi who has not changed her position for many years. Also,
a majority in the US Congress favors the adoption of the resolution.
The submission of the resolution to a vote was postponed because of
the parliamentary and, later, presidential elections in Turkey. We
did not want the Armenian side to be accused of aiding the radicals
in the Turkish elections. Now we have nothing to wait for and the
resolution will certainly be submitted to a vote.
Of course, a tough struggle over the resolution has started. The
Turkish Government is constantly blackmailing the United States,
making statements on severing relations, putting obstacles for US
troops in Iraq, and so on. The blackmail is actually senseless, as
each statement like that damages the image of Turkey itself. Turkish
commentators have recently pointed out that the time of threats have
passed, and the blackmail damages Turkey itself. Alternative ways of
admitting past events need to be found. We are now witnessing the
formation of a favorable atmosphere both in the US Congress and in
Turkey. However, the Turkish side still does not find the courage to
admit this Crime Against Humanity, and the most likely reason is a
psychological barrier - it is difficult to admit the fact that their
forefathers committed such a barbaric act against another people.
Turkish leaders realize that the Genocide is a fact, and their
statements on the necessity for "studying and discussing" the issue
are a political game. They do not need either historians or studies,
they know the truth. However, Turkish authorities fear that the
admission of the Armenian Genocide will cause a negative reaction
by their public and radical forces. But for this fear, the Genocide
would have been admitted long ago.
The United Nations has recognized the Armenian Genocide. Over
20 countries, the European Parliament, hundreds of specialists in
genocide and Holocaust, historians and other scholars recognized the
Armenian Genocide long ago. But, the most important thing is that
the US Congress has already approved a similar resolution on the
Armenian Genocide in 1975 and 1984. Moreover, in 1981, US President
Ronald Reagan signed a Presidential Proclamation designating the
events of 1915 as Genocide. Since the US President has admitted the
fact of the Armenian Genocide by signing an official declaration and
the US Congress has approved the aforementioned resolution twice,
the adoption of the resolution for the third time is of little
importance. The Armenian Genocide has already been recognized and
the resolution will not add anything new.
The only problem is that the Turkish side is fighting the resolution,
claiming that it is the first resolution of this kind. If the Turkish
side did not fight it, I would not care about whether the resolution
would be adopted or not. However, since the Turkish side is waging a
political struggle, and the resolution has been submitted, we cannot
retreat. Otherwise, it will be viewed as the Armenian side's defeat.
The real purpose of the resolution is not recognition of the Armenian
Genocide, but a political struggle - the issue of which side has a
larger political capital in Washington.
So we must not give up the struggle and allow Turkey to gain victory by
exerting pressure. We must struggle for the adoption of the resolution
so that Turkey's political strength should be sapped once and for all.
As regards your question about the potential benefit from the adoption
of the resolution and further steps, the following can be said:
the recognition of the Genocide is not the Armenians' demand.
The Genocide did take place, and we know it. The Genocide was admitted
as far back as 1915-1923, when it was actually taking place.
When our forefathers were being killed, no one had any doubts about
what was going on. The Turks, who organized the Genocide, were well
aware of what they were doing. So the recognition of the Genocide is
not a step to be viewed as a great achievement. No, the recognition
is an actuality - for 92 years. The issue should be considered
from quite a different angle, and the Armenian people must come to
realize it. If the resolution is passed, and should Turkey admit the
Armenian Genocide, Armenians who are not well-grounded in politics
will think that they have achieved their cherished dream. No, the
admission of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey is an issue of secondary
importance for us. The following issue must be raised: a cruel crime
was committed against the Armenian people. The whole nation was
actually annihilated, our lands were seized and our 3,000-year-old
culture was destroyed. This is not only a cruel crime, but also a
great injustice. Therefore, our true demand is compensation for this
injustice. The world must know about what happened, and we have to a
great extent succeeded. The Turkish side is well aware that the step
to follow the admission of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey will be a
demand for compensation and return of the lands. This is the reason
why Turkey will not admit the Armenian Genocide, thereby trying to
force the Armenians to stop at this stage, so that we keep demanding
the admission of the Genocide for hundreds of years and will be unable
to go to the next step. I declare with all responsibility that it is
not so, the admission of the Armenian Genocide is of no value.
Our demands are: Turkey must compensate for the damages and return
our lands. Our demands do not depend on the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide before going on to the next steps. This is the
reason that a symposium recently was held at the University of
Southern California. Renowned specialists in international law were
invited. They explained the rights the Armenian people have under
international law, and to which courts Armenians could apply to
settle this issue. Now specialists must study the lawyers' advice and
decide which issue should be submitted to which court, as there is
the International Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights,
US Federal Courts, etc. This is a most important issue. It must be
studied with all seriousness, because, if we lose in court, Turkey
will claim that Armenians have no legal demands.
REGNUM: There is an opinion that Armenian Diasporan organizations,
while dealing with the issue of the Armenian Genocide, do not pay
enough attention to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Do you agree with
this viewpoint, and is it possible that the international community
should recognize the Armenian Genocide, without saying anything about
the necessity for compensations, and oblige the Armenian side to make
certain concessions in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue instead?
I disagree with the opinion that the Diaspora is ignoring the Artsakh
problem (In our conversation, I would prefer using the historical name
of Nagorno-Karabakh - Artsakh). I have heard such an opinion, but I
can state with confidence that not only this point of view is wrong,
but also the real situation is quite the opposite. Our people, neither
in Armenia nor in the Diaspora, have political sophistication. This
has been true throughout our history. Armenians have always had an
advanced culture, we have many excellent musicians, a rich literary
and architectural heritage, but, in contrast to Turkey, we have never
had political maturity. And no wonder. Turks ruled an empire for 600
years. We never had such an experience. We have always been under other
nations' yoke. All that we do in the political arena, including on the
issue of the Armenian Genocide, is unprofessional and insufficient. We
speak of the Armenian Genocide everywhere, make statements and give the
impression that we are making great efforts towards the settlement of
this issue. However, these are mere words without any value. The same
is true in the Artsakh problem. Everybody says: "We are for Artsakh.
This is our historical land." But what is really being done for
Artsakh? Yes, some young men went to war and sacrificed their lives
for Artsakh's freedom, which is the most valuable thing they could
do. But what are others doing? They are only talking. We are always
only talking. So I do not agree that we do more in this area than in
another, and this is the reality.
As regards the possibility of the international recognition of
the Armenian Genocide in exchange for certain concessions in the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue, such an idea does not exist, it is senseless.
I have said that the Genocide is a fact, and its recognition is not a
concession, as we do not benefit anything from it. If anyone, guided
by political games, denies this fact, then this is that person's
problem. Moreover, we have reached a stage where the admission of
the Armenian Genocide is more in Turkey's interests than that of
Armenians. If Turkey should admit the Armenian Genocide even tomorrow,
the Armenians, who are politically naive, would think that they have
achieved their dream. That is, the Armenian side will just relax and
stop trying to achieve its true goals, namely, the return of lands and
compensation. The Armenian people must be mature enough to realize
their true goals. In this context, if Turkey admits the Armenian
Genocide, it will be the first to benefit. Although no official demand
for the admission of the Armenian Genocide is made on Turkey in the
context of the country's admission to the European Union, this issue
is constantly raised and used as a lever for exerting pressure on
Turkey. That is why, if a Turkish leader admits the Armenian Genocide
today, the next day the entire world will praise him as liberal and
progressive, for having admitted his forefathers' crimes. He will be
awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and many other prizes. Moreover, even if
Turkey fails to meet all requirements for the admission to the European
Union, the positive reaction to its admission of the Armenian Genocide
will be so great that a blind eye will be turned to other shortfalls,
thereby facilitating the process of Turkey's entry into the EU. Thus,
Turkey will benefit much, without losing anything. The principal error
of both Armenians and Turks is that they think that, in case Turkey
admits the Armenian Genocide, Armenians will demand their lands. In
fact, the two issues have nothing in common. If, in conformity with
international law, the Armenian people can demand their territories,
it is not at all necessary to wait for Turkey to admit the Armenian
Genocide for 90 or 900 years. Even if tomorrow we apply to court and
demand our territories, no court will say: "no, you cannot demand
territories until Turkey admits the Genocide." This is tantamount to
refusing to convict a murderer until he admits his guilt.
REGNUM: You often visit Armenia and, naturally, are acquainted with
the situation. If you had to enumerate the priorities of the country's
foreign policy, which issues would you first of all point out?
If we establish certain problems as priorities, the first thing to
note is, of course, Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, as the conflict
over Artsakh is unresolved. The major problem is a state of war or
rather a bloody ceasefire with Azerbaijan - shots can be heard on
the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, both sides sustain losses.
The second issue is the Armenian-Turkish relations - from the viewpoint
of both the past and the current blockade of Armenia
The third item is, I think, the Armenian-Georgian relations, which
are not problematic in general, but we have a problem of the Javakhk
Armenians - not a territorial issue. However, the problem is the
observation of the rights of the Armenians residing there. Of course,
some problems of human rights, social conditions, schools and churches
must be resolved in the context of friendly relations with Georgia.
REGNUM: The necessity for concessions has recently been spoken of
more and more often in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace
process. From the viewpoint of the Armenian Diaspora, what is the
degree of concessions?
Conflict can be settled through compromises - this is a fundamental
principle. Another way of settling conflicts is a decisive victory
over the enemy in military operations. The issue is settled either
at the negotiating table or on the battlefield. We gained a victory
on the battlefield, and cannot be defeated at the negotiating
table. I do not think that there exists any threat of resumption of
hostilities. Azerbaijan is not ready for war. If they were, they would
resume military operations without asking anyone. If hostilities
are resumed now, Azerbaijan may lose all the other territories,
particularly Shahumyan. That is, if Azerbaijan unleashes a war now,
it will lose more than it may gain. I disagree with the opinion that
the Armenian side must not cede even an inch of land.
Some territories surrounding Artsakh, which are of no strategic
importance or historically Armenian lands, may be ceded. It is not
up to us to decide which particular region, town or village may be
ceded to the Azerbaijani side. Time will come, and representatives
of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Artsakh, standing over a map, will draw
a border. However, we must not just cede the territories to them,
stating that this is our concession. In exchange, we must have them
recognize Artsakh as an independent state or as part of Armenia. A
relevant document must be signed, and an international peacekeeping
force must be stationed in adjacent territories. That is, concessions
are only possible in case of concessions on the part of Azerbaijan
and observation of the aforementioned terms. I think it must be a
comprehensive solution.
REGNUM: Do you think that the Azerbaijani side will agree to such
a solution?
If they do not, we have nothing to propose to them. We gained a
victory, and the Artsakh problem is resolved for us. We have nothing
else to solve. We are quite satisfied with the present-day situation -
Artsakh was liberated, full stop! It is in Azerbaijan's interest to
propose something to us, and concessions on our part will be possible
in exchange for that "something."
REGNUM: At present, Northern Martakert, Shahumyan and Getashen -
the last named is part of Nagorno-Karabakh - are under Azerbaijan's
control. In your opinion, what is the solution to the problem of the
regions in question?
A solution to the problem of the territories may be based on the
principle of territorial swap. If we cede part of some territories
under Artsakh's control to Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani side returns
the aforementioned territories. Another way is the resumption of
hostilities and return of the territories by force.
REGNUM: Nevertheless, you rule out the possibility of resumption
of hostilities in the immediate prospect. How long can this
neither-peace-nor-war state last?
I am not a prophet. However, I personally rule out the possibility
of such developments in the next few years. But we must always be
ready for an attack.
REGNUM: What is your description of Armenia's present-day foreign
policy - nationalistic, liberal?
Once again I have to say what I have already said. I am not
delighted with the political maturity of Armenians, both inside and
outside Armenia. In general, I am not satisfied. I would not like to
criticize Armenia's authorities, because they have the same problem
as all Armenians. Armenia's policy in the international arena is not
impressive. I can neither say that they committed major blunders nor
can their work be called brilliant.
REGNUM: As a specialist in the field of communication, what is your
opinion of Armenian information policy? If we consider the presence of
Azerbaijan, Turkey and Armenia in the sphere of information activities,
what problems can you see?
Our work in most fields lacks professionalism. Whatever field you
ask about, I will have to repeat the same phrase. The work carried
out in the information field is equal to zero.
REGNUM: To what do you attribute this deficiency and how can it
be improved?
To improve in an area, one should first of all realize its value.
Neither the Armenian people nor the authorities realize the value
of the information field. For example, when Presidents Aliyev and
Kocharyan agree on specific issues, and Aliyev then goes back on his
word, it takes our authorities almost a year to reveal this fact.
This information must be spread within 24 hours through all media
outlets, PR-companies should be employed to flood Western newspapers
with analytical articles, to show the world that we are a peaceful
nation and ready for negotiations and concessions. And it is not us,
but Azerbaijanis, who are the cause of war. We must clearly realize
that information is power. It must be collected and used at the
right moment.
REGNUM: As seen from Armenia, the Diaspora seems to be strong,
but disunited? We have a 3-million-strong community in Russia,
rather strong communities in the US and Europe. However, they do not
cooperate. In your opinion, is there a necessity for at least these
communities to cooperate, or the currently applied method is right and
no need for coordination of Armenian communities' activities exists?
What is going on now is both wrong and a waste of energy. We are a
small nation, and cannot afford to be disunited. We need centralization
of forces, cooperation not only between the aforementioned three
communities, but also among Armenian communities worldwide. I have
some ideas of how to organize Armenians worldwide, but I would not
like to go into the details at this time. The unification of Armenians
around common national ideas is a goal that can be attained. Members of
Armenian communities worldwide must set themselves tasks and determine
the ways of accomplishing them.
Armenians worldwide can elect their leaders by democratic principles,
by means of a vote. No one in the Diaspora should declare himself to
be a leader without the vote of the Armenian public. Thus, we will
have an elected body in the Diaspora that will cooperate with the
elected leaders of Armenia and Artsakh.
REGNUM: You are also a representative of the Lincy Foundation. I
would like to ask you a question. It is a hypothetical question, to
be exact. In your opinion, in the context of the current situation,
when Armenia's borderline villages are hardly populated, would not it
be better to direct the Foundation's resources to the implementation of
a repatriation program for Armenians, which is of paramount importance,
rather than to the renovation of Armenia's roads, which is important
as well?
It is not up to me to decide where our Foundation's resources must
be directed. In Armenia, I supervise the work carried out under the
Foundation's programs. I am well acquainted with what is going on in
Armenia, and if I had the authority, funds would have been directed
to the resolution of some other problems. The process of allocating
funds is as follows: Armenia's top-level authorities propose the
direction and a schedule of necessary works. The Lincy Foundation
considers the authorities' proposals under the following principle:
"If we want to do anything good for Armenia, who is better informed
of the country's needs - those living in far away Los Angeles or the
ones that grew up in this land, who are governing the country and
are responsible for their people's future?"