Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Interview: Sarkisian On Upcoming Vote, Turkish Relations, Nagorno-Ka

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interview: Sarkisian On Upcoming Vote, Turkish Relations, Nagorno-Ka

    Interview: Sarkisian On Upcoming Vote, Turkish Relations, Nagorno-Karabakh
    http://www.rferl.org/content/armenia-president-serzh-sarkisian-interview/24878387.html

    "I consider that a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem achieved as
    soon as possible will be only positive for the development of Armenia,"
    says Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian. "But as they say, it takes two
    hands to clap."


    January 20, 2013
    Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian sat down with RFE/RL at the weekend for
    an exclusive interview ahead of the February 18 vote in which the leader of
    the ruling Republican Party of Armenia will be seeking a second term in
    office.

    In an interview with Harry Tamrazian, the director of RFE/RL's Armenian
    Service, Sarkisian discussed his competition in the upcoming vote, the
    state of Armenian-Turkish relations, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, and
    the outflow of Armenian citizens to Russia and the West.

    *RFE/RL: Mr. President, during its post-Soviet period Armenia has always
    had difficulties during the holding of elections. Perhaps only the first
    presidential election was not criticized. And after that first election,
    each subsequent one was more or less criticized by international and local
    observers and the opposition has refused to accept the outcomes of these
    elections. Now Armenia, as they say, like air, needs a clean vote -- that
    is, free and fair elections. How are you going to ensure that? How will you
    guarantee that the results of the elections are acceptable to Europe, the
    West and, most importantly, to the people?

    President Serzh Sarkisian: *You know, elections in Armenia have had
    difficulties not only in the post-Soviet years. First, I don't think that
    perfect elections were held in Armenia during the Soviet years. Secondly,
    maybe from your point of view the first [presidential] election was not
    subjected to criticism, but I think that the first elections were
    criticized more than our last elections. I mean the parliamentary elections.

    Without agreeing with the way the question is formulated, I should say
    that, yes, we ought to raise the benchmark. We have always tried to hold
    elections that would instill both our people and our partners with more
    confidence, and I think that the parliamentary elections that were held in
    2012 elicited more positive than negative responses. And the elections to
    local government bodies held in September were evaluated as elections fully
    corresponding to European standards. We consider these achievements of 2012
    to be the lowest benchmark for holding the 2013 elections.

    I am confident that we shall be able to hold such elections, because
    holding such elections first of all meets our own interests and then the
    interests of our partners. In many cases, in order to find an excuse for
    difficulties or other problems that emerge during elections, some start to
    say that we do not hold elections for the Europeans or, say, the CIS
    (Commonwealth of Independent States) -- for this one or that one. Of
    course, we hold elections for ourselves. But we are acting within the
    domain of the international community and it is a very desirable - and I
    would even say necessary - requirement that members of this community
    consider you to be one of them.

    *RFE/RL: After all, we have relations with the European Union=85

    Sarkisian:* Of course, of course, with all=85So we will do everything for the
    results we have registered, I repeat, to be the lowest benchmark, so we
    will do everything to consolidate this success.

    *RFE/RL: Mr. President, who is the candidate against whom you are
    competing? Who is, at this moment, your main rival? Is it Paruyr Hayrikian,
    Raffi Hovannisian, or Hrant Bagratian? Or maybe someone else?

    Sarkisian:* Your first word was much more correct - a competitor rather
    than a rival, because, frankly, I have not regarded anyone to be my rival
    at any of the elections. We have always - and if, indeed, you look back at
    the electoral processes you will surely notice -- that we have not worked
    against anyone. We have always supported the principle of being in favor of
    something, not against.

    And we have waged our struggle, competed so that our ideas find broader
    support rather than tried to expose the mistakes or weak points of others.
    In this sense, I think that this election will not be an exception. And
    despite certain circumstances, this time we will remain committed to our
    approach.

    *RFE/RL: Mr. President, opinions are often voiced today that the elections
    are not competitive. My question was in that sense. Anyway, do you have an
    opponent?

    Sarkisian:* I am inclined to believe that it is not the government's
    problem to nurture a competitor. I think that the task of the government is
    to provide a competitive environment, although this is not the
    responsibility of the government alone. But what should we have said? Were
    we supposed to go to Europe or the United States and bring one of our
    compatriots, force him, or were we supposed to raise someone here?

    This is something that they are trying to blame us for, that we are doing.
    Thank God, we have never done it, nor will do it, and generally this is a
    thankless job. I think that nevertheless we have managed to create a
    competitive environment and a competitive field. The matter concerns the
    possibilities for the expression for candidates, political forces. I am
    very glad that the success we registered during the parliamentary elections
    has been consolidated now - even though we are at the beginning of a
    process - as the Yerevan Press Club has already registered that the
    problems that used to exist at pre-election stages in 2012 no longer exist
    at the same stage during the current election. And we should continue our
    way forward in the same spirit.

    You know, I don't agree with those who say that there are no strong
    competitors or people who could poll a significant number of votes. And who
    has said that Raffi Hovannisian, Hrant Bagratian, or Paruyr Hayrikian, who
    have merits and a track record, are easier competitors or have less
    experience of debate or public speaking? In general, I strongly believe
    that presidential elections are not restricted to just voting. Presidential
    elections start from elections to local government bodies, where a
    corresponding political party gets represented in local government bodies
    and then continue in parliamentary elections and finally end in
    presidential elections proper.

    Of course, it is very difficult for them, because members of the Republican
    Party today are leaders in more than 70 percent of local government bodies
    across Armenia. And no matter how much they say that this is the use of the
    government resource, I can never agree with that. People there waged
    political struggle and got into leadership positions. And why shouldn't
    they use their leadership -- I mean their prestige -- for their political
    party or for ensuring the victory of their party's leader? I think time is
    needed for our public to understand that to come out of obscurity and say I
    will be a president tomorrow is wrong. People become presidents with their
    teams, due to their track record, and not by criticizing the government.

    *RFE/RL: Mr. President, how do you evaluate [opposition leader] Levon
    Ter-Petrossian's decision not to participate in the election?

    Sarkisian: *This was his decision and I have to treat it with respect.

    *RFE/RL: Mr. President, do you hold meetings, consultations with the first
    and second presidents? And if yes, then around what issues are your
    discussions held?

    Sarkisian:* I think that it is the goal of not only the first and second
    presidents, but also more or less known people, to have a better Armenia.
    Simply, each of us probably has his own solution to this problem. So I
    think these meetings, discussions, though not directly, are constantly
    present in our society. Once they can be expressed in the form of
    statements, some other time they could be in the form of interviews. But I
    think that they are constantly present and thank God they are present.

    Of course, it would be very good if all former leaders gathered on some
    occasion and tried, perhaps not publicly, to hold some discussions, but, as
    they say, hope is a good thing. I hope that one day not only the former
    presidents of Armenia but also former prime ministers, foreign ministers,
    defense ministers, people who think they made a contribution to this
    service, could easily gather and have discussions, without insulting each
    other.

    *RFE/RL: Do you want it to be so?

    Sarkisian:* Of course, I do.

    *RFE/RL: Mr. President, in the modern history of Armenia, the events of
    March 1 [2008] are marked as a unique case of violence used by the
    government against the opposition and the opposition electorate. Innocent
    people were killed. You must yourself have taken it hard. I remember one of
    your first interviews, there were even speculations that you did not want
    to assume the leadership of the country. In your program speech, Mr.
    President, you mentioned that during your time in office the atmosphere of
    intolerance was eliminated, that there is no longer an atmosphere when what
    the opposition says is regarded as high treason.

    Now, what happened on March 1, in fact, was the display of the intolerance
    of that time. Looking back at that tragedy of the recent past, what
    thoughts do you have to share with our listeners, our viewers, and what
    efforts would you make to prevent such things from recurring in our
    society? And, most importantly, if you had an opportunity, what would you
    tell the families of the March 1 victims?

    Sarkisian: *I deny the speculations that I even thought of not assuming the
    leadership of the state because that would be an instance of treachery and
    I have never left the battlefield during hard times. I think that in
    Armenia there are very few political figures who were satisfied with the
    course of March 1. Yes, personally, I took it hard. But I don't think that
    the government is the only side responsible for the stability of the
    society and the state.

    Yes, the government is the first to bear responsibility, but all political
    forces are responsible for the stability, freedom, and calm atmosphere in
    the country, including the political forces that always try to condition
    their problems and failures by the activities of the government and for
    which they always accuse the government. You spoke about the absence of
    intolerance. I would add freedom of speech, an almost 100-percent freedom
    of expression. These are means to, indeed, reduce animosity and intolerance
    inside the country. But each of us should realize that everything should be
    done for these processes to become irreversible. Even though even in states
    with traditions this danger is present.

    Therefore, I repeat, all political forces must feel their responsibility
    for stability and also for the results. The less there is intolerance, the
    fewer there will be adventure-seekers who want to try to use this
    intolerance for their own interests. You say the government used violence.
    But was it only the government that used violence? The government did not
    need that at all. Why would the government need that if it had a majority
    in the elections? Did it need that situation to overshadow the results of
    the elections? Did the government want additional difficulties? I think
    that the tragedy occurred because all of us were to blame.

    I am not saying this on condition that if others say we are to blame what I
    say will be correct. If they consider that they are not to blame, at the
    end of the day they, too, remain alone, talk to themselves, eventually they
    are also accountable to their conscience. So let them think about it. I
    consider that all of us are to blame. If we consider ourselves to be people
    who have influence on the course of life but could not prevent that bad
    thing from happening, it means that we all are to blame.

    *RFE/RL: Now, Mr. President, let's go back to your election program. You
    promise to reform the justice system. This perhaps is a very important
    matter for Armenia. It is important that you want to solve this problem
    and, as nongovernmental organizations like to say, eliminate injustice in
    Armenia. We know that during your time in office a high-ranking police
    officer was arrested and, as you said, he was fabricating a case against
    innocent people. And as a result of his activities an innocent person was
    jailed.

    Now I will cite an excerpt from your speech at a meeting with senior police
    officers: `Instead of you, I feel ashamed. You should have been the first
    to come forward and say to that high-ranking policeman, `You immoral type,
    why are you putting our system to shame?'' Now this official is in prison,
    but it was only due to your interference. We know that the system needs to
    be reformed in order to exclude such abuse. If you are reelected, how
    consistent will the government be in pursuing these reforms?

    Sarkisian:* Being surprised is typical of a normal person. And I am glad
    that people, including yourself, were surprised when a high-ranking
    official was arrested in Armenia. It is always so. After that, people take
    it for granted, as it happened in Armenia, because not one but several
    senior officials were arrested. It then becomes an ordinary thing and many
    now are not even interested in it. We do want to achieve a situation in
    which a person, regardless of his position, must be arrested if he commits
    a violation.

    I always think about how to do so that all our citizens, broad sections of
    the public, understand that the situation in the country also depends on
    them. It seems to many that if the president wants this or that thing it
    will happen tomorrow. They don't have a good idea about it. They don't
    understand that appropriate conditions are needed for correct decisions to
    be made. With the absence of these conditions, even your most correct
    decision may have an opposite effect. We have such examples in our region,
    in our country, and I can cite them, but the problem here is not citing the
    examples but for us, together, to do everything depending on us to create
    such conditions.

    I should do so by reforming our economy, our business environment, so that
    our GDP per capita grows, so that our only source of revenue, the taxes,
    give us an opportunity to pay salaries to all officials at least in the
    amount that could be enough for them to make both ends meet and maintain
    their families. Members of the public should understand that it depends on
    their activity. Otherwise, our legislation, which is very like the European
    one, does not allow punishing a person whom even you know as a bribe-taker,
    because the bribe-giver can always say that he was just paying back his
    debt rather than bribing [the official].

    I am not saying that this is the only reason, but I would like the
    political forces to understand that this law is not only for others but
    also for them and by their conduct and style of work they make others think
    so as well. This is a complex approach. It is impossible within a second,
    with the use of a magic stick to change the situation completely. But it is
    apparent that there is certain progress. And this is not what I say; this
    is the opinion of international organizations. I am certain that we have
    already created sufficient conditions to make the solution to this big
    problem visible for our society.

    We, I repeat, should be able to provide social guarantees to our state
    officials so that they are able to perform their duties properly. There is
    no more dangerous person than a tired, rough, illiterate official. They
    harm the government in the first place. It is the matter of the
    government's prestige, even if this official has no party affiliation or
    is
    a member of another party.

    *RFE/RL: Now a question concerning the economy. `We have been able to make
    Armenia incomparably more attractive to a businessman and incomparably more
    reliable as a country for investments.' This is the statement that you made
    in your program speech. You have pledged to continue efforts in this
    direction, but we know that in terms of economic freedoms, there are a
    number of large businessmen in Armenia who abuse their monopoly positions.

    Today, in Armenia, any person can start any business, but we know that a
    commencing businessman will meet difficulties in selling his or her product
    or service on the market. Why? We all know that this market is occupied and
    is divided among large producers and large importing businesses. Besides,
    some of these producers and importers are in parliament, and in this sense
    they are in a more privileged situation. We know that free enterprise and
    competition are very important for having a healthy economy, but often
    competition in Armenia does not proceed by the rules of a free market.
    Administrative levers are used in the process and some of the businessmen
    possess such levers.

    Mr. President, what can you do to redress this situation, to make this
    field for free competition more stable?

    Sarkisian:* You know, I am inclined to think that we do have problems here,
    but these problems are not as grave as to have a great impact on free
    competition and in general on the prospect of the country's development.
    Why am I saying this? Because there are two objective criteria apart from
    the GDP growth. I think the first objective criterion is the ratings of
    prestigious international organizations. As you know, in 2012 we made big
    progress and by this index we are in 33rd place in the world today. That
    is, we are among the top 20 percent of the world's countries. Is it a bad
    indication? This is a modest but sufficient, normal achievement.

    The second objective criterion is the attitude of businessmen to tax
    bodies. As far as I can see, the animosity that used to exist between these
    two segments is gradually fading away. I am sure that the time when the
    businessmen will realize the necessity of paying taxes is not far off. I am
    not saying that they will realize that they should voluntarily provide some
    of their means to the state. No one does it with pleasure anywhere in the
    world, but in many places businessmen do realize that this is something
    that must be done.

    When the matter concerns monopolies=85I'd like that many critics first
    thought and then jumped to conclusions. Does this really depend on the
    environment, legislation, or the government of Armenia alone? Or is it that
    it does exist but at the same time there are other objective conditions as
    well -- that is, difficulties with communications, inaccessibility of
    markets, and other circumstances. When the matter concerns starting up a
    new business, the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, I want
    everyone to finally have the courage to state in public that, yes, the
    government must do everything; yes, the authorities must do a lot of
    things, but are all people capable of doing business?

    After all, a certain vein is needed to engage in entrepreneurial
    activities, certain skills are needed. But that 99 percent of people try to
    do business, this is a natural, understandable desire. I think it should be
    no tragedy when some of them fail to do that. Because besides personal
    skills and other things, there are also other circumstances -- for example,
    the need for affordable resources. In Armenia today, the average [annual]
    interest rate on bank loans is 11 percent in foreign currency and a little
    more than 12 percent in Armenian drams. This is by three percentage points
    lower if we compare it with what it was in 2008 in both cases. But is 11
    percent enough for a person=85

    There is also another problem. We pay very little attention to educating
    people. A businessman should understand what he is doing, especially a
    small- and medium-sized entrepreneur who cannot afford to hire consultants
    or business managers. There are problems. Yes, there can be no doubt that
    there are companies in Armenia that have a dominant position. There are
    state officials in Armenia who try to abuse their office. There are
    businessmen in Armenia who want to be solo participants of the market,
    monopolists. Therefore, we create appropriate instruments and try to
    improve the existing ones.

    Today, we have an antitrust commission, which I think started to work very
    well and it already has results. We already have the evaluations of an
    international structure conducting the monitoring and also have certain
    progress in this field. It is typical of all markets, everywhere, be it
    small-, medium-sized, or large [businesses], but there are appropriate
    instruments that regulate this matter. I am confident that we will have
    very visible progress in this sphere during the next five years.

    *RFE/RL: Now about the outward migration and job creation, Mr. President.
    Perhaps this is the most difficult socioeconomic problem for post-Soviet
    countries. Every year, Armenia, which is a very small country, in fact
    loses tens of thousands of people who emigrate to Russia or Europe or the
    United States. Research was published last year showing that about 55,000
    Armenians acquired Russian citizenship in 2009 alone, which was the
    second-highest rate of citizenship acquisition among the top 10
    nationalities whose representatives apply for Russian citizenship.

    According to the same research, more than 272,000 Armenians acquired
    Russian citizenship in the period from 2001 to 2009. According to the
    official data of the U.S. Census Bureau, about 20,000 of the Armenians who
    went to the United States during the past decade have acquired American
    passports. Any country would consider such a loss of population to be a
    disaster. I am sure, Mr. President, you think so, as well. But what are you
    going to do to stop this outflow?

    Sarkisian: *Indeed, there is a problem here and this problem,
    unfortunately, is perhaps the biggest of all problems that we face. On one
    occasion I said recently that in no circumstance can a country be a prison
    for its citizens. That is, I think that artificially closing the border,
    creating artificial obstacles, may have only more catastrophic
    consequences. We have only one way - to create conditions in Armenia that
    would be, if not like, then at least close to the conditions that our
    citizens seek abroad.

    I categorically disagree with those who sometimes speak about the lack of
    justice and freedom in Armenia, etc., and that this is the reason that our
    citizens are leaving. Because when we look at the geography of their
    emigration, the countries where they go, we can clearly see that these are
    not countries with much more justice. They mainly go after high wages and
    this problem indeed exists in Armenia today. I can say today that there is
    no problem connected with finding jobs in Armenia, but in Armenia there is
    a problem with finding high-paying jobs, because even if you watch TV, you
    will see announcements every day with vacancies being offered.

    We resumed the Vanadzor chemical plant and had a lot of trouble finding
    people who are supposed to do simple work. Today there are modern factories
    in Yerevan that need workers. True, the wages are low. Today, no one in
    Armenia wants to be paid less than 150,000 drams (about $370) a month. For
    one thing, it is something to be glad about, that people have higher
    demands. For another thing, however, it is something to worry about because
    people need to be paid twice as much as they are paid now for them to want
    to be employed.

    I don't want to go into citing different reasons, making excuses. I want
    to
    say only one thing: We always need to be careful in how we approach and
    deal with figures. If what they are saying now is a reality, then we would
    not be sitting here with you or would not be seeing anyone in the lobby of
    this hotel, because it is known what the population was in Armenia in 1988.
    It is known what annual figures they speak about. We can multiply these
    figures by 20 or 21 very easily and see that there is no such thing.

    But even if 20,000 people leave Armenia annually, it is really a big loss
    for us. If we were a nation of 15 or 20 million, I would consider that a
    positive thing if 20,000 or 30,000 people went abroad every year to make us
    more recognizable, create additional opportunities for investments to
    Armenia, integrate in different societies. It would only be beneficial to
    us. And I disagree with your assumption that we lose these people. We don't
    lose them. We constantly think that, yes, perhaps some small part of them
    is lost. Perhaps some of them cannot resist other temptations. But in the
    main they remain Armenians, but unfortunately work for the enhancement of
    other countries, other economies.

    *RFE/RL: Mr. President, now perhaps we should pass on to the
    Nagorno-Karabakh issue, because this is an issue that is interesting at
    least for our region...I have followed the negotiations over the
    Nagorno-Karabakh conflict from the very beginning. I have covered many
    rounds of talks. And at least I have the impression that everybody seems to
    be pretty satisfied about this situation of [Nagorno-Karabakh's] de facto
    independence. Nagorno-Karabakh is not recognized officially, but it de
    facto enjoys independence.

    On the other hand, we hear threats from the Azerbaijani side that if the
    situation continues like this, they will have to resort to resolving the
    issue militarily, recover their territories, that they constantly modernize
    their army and very soon will be capable of achieving this goal. Mr.
    President, such threats have been made to Armenia, especially in the past
    few years. What do you think? Are these threats really serious? And if they
    are, then what steps does Armenia take to neutralize this threat?

    Sarkisian:* I strongly believe that in the long term it does not suit
    anybody to leave the issue unsettled. First of all, it is not suitable for
    the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, then the Republic of Armenia, and I am also
    sure for Azerbaijan. Because living in conditions of a constant threat of
    war is not that pleasant. And since 1988, already for 25 years, the
    population of Nagorno-Karabakh has been living in conditions of this
    threat. Consider that there is such a threat for children, for young
    people, for everyone.

    Therefore, I am absolutely convinced that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh
    want the problem to be settled as soon as possible. And Armenia has
    additional problems. Unfortunately, we are not rich in natural resources
    and naturally have no easy inflow of investments. We have no other means to
    be able to develop our economy. That is, the more open our economy is, the
    more developed our communications are, the easier it will be for us to do.
    And the situation of the unsettled conflict is a constant impediment to
    these circumstances.

    There is also another problem. From its scarce resources Armenia has to
    allocate a large share for security and defense. We simply have to do it.
    We have to have the army that is disproportionate by its size to the size
    of our state. I will tell you more. It does not correspond to the
    dimensions of our state also in terms of its combat readiness and
    armaments. But we have to have a combat-ready army with modern armaments in
    the amount that will enable it to fulfill the tasks set to it.

    Why should we be interested in having the problem linger on? I have
    repeatedly said -- and was frequently criticized for that - but today, too,
    I consider that a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem achieved as soon
    as possible will be only positive for the development of Armenia. But as
    they say, it takes two hands to clap. Azerbaijan's agreement is also needed
    for the problem to be resolved.

    But in my opinion, the leadership of Azerbaijan has lost the sense of
    reality. In my view, easy money, the petrodollars, do not have a positive
    effect on the leadership of this country and their appetites increasingly
    grow to the degree that they no longer limit themselves to regarding only
    Nagorno-Karabakh as theirs. They already think that Armenia, too, was
    created on Azerbaijani lands and that Yerevan is a historically Azerbaijani
    land. And this is said by the president of a country which got its name
    only about 100 years ago. Soon we will mark the 2,800th anniversary of the
    foundation of Yerevan.

    It is simply unrealistic to expect in these conditions that tomorrow or the
    day after tomorrow we will achieve a result, create a document by some
    miracle, and ensure a peaceful coexistence of the two peoples. But on the
    other hand, I think that the leadership of Azerbaijan cannot be as
    shortsighted as to attempt a new gambling. After all, only 20 years
    separate us from the blunder of Azerbaijan when it seemed to that country
    that very easily it could capture Nagorno-Karabakh and thus ultimately
    solve that problem.

    There is also another circumstance: It is clear that today's means [in
    Azerbaijan] are the result of the sales of fuel resources, and these fuel
    resources are sold to the international community. And lately the
    international community on more than one occasion has proved that the
    presence of fuel resources does not always play a crucial role in making
    different decisions.

    But since we, as I already said, have to deal with a country that has lost
    the sense of reality, or, as they say, with an irrational country, we
    should always be prepared to defend our people -- first of all the
    population of Nagorno-Karabakh, then the population of the border regions
    of Armenia, and Armenia in general. Therefore, we will continue to
    strengthen our armed forces. We will continue to be constructive. We will
    always be ready to continue the negotiations because the alternative is
    war. And as I said we do not want a war. But if we are forced to wage a
    war, then I think we will never fail the work of our companions, our
    perished heroes.

    *RFE/RL: Now about the current state of Turkish-Armenian relations. Mr.
    President, the Turkish side, as they themselves write in the media, is
    getting ready for an Armenian tsunami. The Turks believe that the Armenians
    are having big plans for the centennial of the genocide and that the Turks
    are in for hard times. Is such a tsunami really expected?

    Sarkisian:* I have no doubts that the Turks are really in for hard times. I
    have no doubts because having no desire to face up to history and at the
    same time showing European ambitions cannot be combined easily. Yes, 2015
    will mark the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. After 1915, the
    Armenian people made superhuman efforts to survive, to treat its wounds, so
    that it again could appear as a people and a nation to the world.

    Thank God, our people managed to do that, and I am confident that there are
    all grounds for our people to last -- to last and constantly remember the
    genocide regardless of whether the Turks admit it or not. But memories
    differ. If the Turks indeed have the courage and recognize the Armenian
    genocide as soon as possible, I think our people could have some
    understanding toward the people of today's Turkey, the government under
    which the genocide was admitted.

    But as long as the Turks refuse to admit the genocide -- moreover, continue
    to deny it -- naturally, any representative of our people will always bear
    in mind and constantly consider this fact in his or her actions. The
    problem is not only that there was the genocide and this genocide must be
    admitted. It's not only that we must respect the memory of the victims. The
    thing is first of all that by admitting the genocide, future genocides are
    prevented, and also a possibility is created for eliminating the
    consequences of this genocide.

    And until the consequences of the genocide are eliminated - and this is not
    a matter of one day, a year, or even 10 or 20 years - this crime will
    always be like a sore spot on a human body. This crime will always remind
    us of itself. There is no doubt that this is going to be like that. With
    this pain in our heart, we still tried to establish certain relations with
    the Turks, but everyone was witness to how the Turks refused to live up to
    their commitments. We appeared before the foreign ministers of the
    countries that are permanent members of the UN Security Council and signed
    a document and the Turks refused to implement the provisions of that
    document.

    I think there are two causes. The Turks, indeed, have a complex and don't
    want to face up to history. And secondly, today they have a complex because
    of their fraternity with the Azerbaijanis. Or maybe it's not a complex, but
    their fraternity with Azerbaijan is an obstacle for them. You know that the
    Azerbaijanis made a big noise. In any case, I consider that our initiative
    was useful and all our partners realized who we have to deal with. On the
    other hand, what kind of state we are, what kind of government we are, what
    resolve and goals we have.

    But with all that said, I still don't think it is appropriate to compare
    the genocide [affirmation process] to a tsunami. They have failed to
    understand what pain we have. And I don't think that the 100th anniversary
    is a watershed and I don't think that we are in a 100-meter race, covering
    a distance of one meter a year, and that upon reaching the 100th meter we
    will stand or expect any big victory.

    No, this is a landmark and we, of course, will reach this landmark. And I
    think both the state of Armenia and the pan-Armenian organizations
    worldwide will naturally become more active in connection with this
    anniversary. But to say that we are going to make a storm in the world=85it
    isn't our goal. Our goal is for the Turks to admit the Armenian genocide. I
    am convinced it will happen. But the sooner it happens, the better, because
    denying the genocide means continuing to commit genocide.

    *RFE/RL: Mr. President, one question in the end. In your programs you
    promise to make drastic improvements in the economic and social situation
    in Armenia. In the West, they usually ask the incumbents why they couldn't
    realize that during their first term in office. How would you answer this
    question?

    Sarkisian:* As far as I know, there they also say that they have done this
    or that, have new programs and now want to realize them. But I will answer
    a little bit differently, because your question about Karabakh led me to
    thinking and prompted me to remember what difficulties we experienced at
    the beginning of the war and what efforts we made in order to stop the
    Azerbaijanis who already reached Martakert, Askeran. And that moment is
    very dear to me. But for that moment, we would not have had our subsequent
    successes.

    The same is here: I highly evaluate the efforts that we made to eliminate
    the consequences of the global financial-economic crisis. You know, it is
    always easy to criticize and it is always easy to say from the side that
    our country is small and ask why the global crisis should have had any
    impact on it. One can always find an occasion to criticize the government
    and belittle its work. But I think that today we have an economy that is
    completely different from what it was before the crisis. We can compare the
    structure of our economy and see it.

    On the other hand, the results that we have today are not that small.
    International institutions, leading banks, suggest that the world economy
    grew by 2 to 3 percent in 2012. We had 7 percent growth. Now, is it good or
    bad? It can't be considered bad. I can also cite other indices. I can say
    that our exports every year grow by an average of 15 percent. This is a
    modest figure, but it is good. This 7 percent economic growth was first of
    all promoted by a 10 percent growth in industry and agriculture. And this
    is, to say so, the good aspect, a good indicator.

    Why am I speaking about it in detail? I am doing so in order to answer your
    question in the end with one sentence. We have prepared all grounds for
    having much bigger successes in the next five years. I'd also like to add
    that promises are always present in political life. During all elections
    there are promises, there are big pledges and small promises, but the
    leading political force always ought to try to set higher standards. And
    even if it does not achieve these standards, it is still the right thing to
    do.

    I was obliged to speak about the North-South highway, which is a project
    worth several billion dollars, so that after two or three years of speaking
    about it we started the work. I had to speak about the railway, the nuclear
    power plant, otherwise these project worth billions of dollars would not
    have been set going and be in the process of implementation now. There is
    only one promise that I think should not be given unless you're absolutely
    sure you can keep it, and we have given this promise to our people. It is
    the promise to work every day, from morning till night. And I think we have
    kept this promise. How successful we have been so far? Maybe not as far as
    we ourselves would want, but we have fulfilled our promise. Thank you.

Working...
X