Note – This interview was published in The Valley of Death by Tatul Hakobyan. The interview was first published in 2016.
How will Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s approach about Nagorno Karabakh conflict resolution be interpreted in our history textbooks in 20 or 200 years.
Levon Ter-Petrosyan is a political actor and a statesman, who is liked and hated, tagged as a traitor or worshipped as a hero by many of our compatriots in Armenia, Artsakh and the Armenian Diaspora, says journalist Tatul Hakobyan in his interview with “Gala TV” while discussing the first president’s speech at the convention of the Armenian National Congress.
Mr. Hakobyan, Armenia’s first president Levon Ter-Petrosyan spoke during the convention of his Armenian National Congress party. The first president reaffirmed his approach on Nagorno Karabakh conflict, suggesting that what he believed was a solution for this conflict years ago is becoming inevitable today. “There is simply no other solution than what we were suggesting 18 years ago. If anyone is telling our public that there is another way out, they are simply speculating. The solution is the same as it was suggested back in 1997. The document which is being discussed at the negotiating table today, is nothing new, but the same as it was in 1997 and that document suggests an intermediate international recognition of Nagorno Karabakh in return for some territories, while the final status of Karabakh will be left to the future, after international peace keeping forces are installed on the line of contact between Karabakh and Azerbaijan”. What do you think about this statement by the first president?
- Levon Ter-Petrosyan has once again proved that he is consistent about his beliefs and opinions. His speech today at the convention of the Armenian National Congress was deep and comprehensive which was followed by wide criticism as expected. My take from this speech is that the first president believes in his vision of fixing the Karabakh conflict and bring peace to Armenia and Artsakh by the logic which he suggested back in 1997. However, we should not forget that the reason for his resignation was also his approach on Nagorno Karabakh.
I am certain, that this speech will become discussed, criticized and quoted political text of Armenia in the near future. One thing is clear, with regards to this particular topic Levon Ter-Petrosyan cannot change his approach, he is basically repeating what he said back in 1993 and 1997. The speech was long, and he touched upon various important topics, which are often disregarded by many politicians in our country. If I have to compare, I can say that Ter-Petrosyan is unique in tackling the most pressing issues of Armenia, which, again is bypassed by other state and political actors. Some of those topics have to deal with the problems of our demographics, migration, corruption, as well as our relations with our neighbors.
If we have to compare Ter-Petrosyan’s speech with the speech of Serzh Sargsyan, who spoke at a meeting with cultural figures, the atmosphere and the topics of discussion was much more positive, where the third president was trying not to touch upon our most important challenges and problems. Although, the formats of these two events were different, I would like to point out the fact that the first president has always been able to stand above populism and present the realities as they are.
In your opinion, have Ter-Petrosyan’s claims about the situation, which he made back in 1997 been proven right or wrong?
This is a question to which we cannot have a final answer, so long as the final solution to Nagorno Karabakh is absent. I have said this before, time will show who was right or wrong with regards to Artsakh. If in 20 or 200 years we see that the status quo in Nagorno Karabakh is maintained, our history textbooks will remember the first president as a leader who had a defeatist approach and did not believe in the strength of his nation. But we also have to remember, that there can be a scenario when we can lose a lot more in Karabakh, than what we could have if we followed the course suggested by Levon Ter-Petrosyan. In that case our history textbooks will talk about how wrong we were for not listening to the first president, who was offering to make concessions at the time when we had an upper hand after winning in the field of war.
So long as there is no solution in Artsakh, it is very difficult to assess whether Ter-Petrosyan was right or wrong, however some problems are vivid. We have a growing demographic problem in Armenia, which, in my view, is the biggest single challenge of our country. I also think that the biggest reason for this continued outflow of people from Armenia is the fact that Nagorno Karabakh conflict is unresolved and our relations with our neighbors is far from normal. This is the reality, whether we like it or not.
Another point by Ter-Petrosyan seems to be true. The solution for Artsakh which he was suggesting back in 1997, is now back on negotiation’s table. The difference is that Levon Ter-Petrosyan was ready to make territorial concessions in return for an interim status for Nagorno Karabakh, while today we do not know, if the current government accepts it or not.
If we want to keep what we have, we need to legitimately elected a new government. Otherwise, with the kind of regime that we have in Armenia today, how can we advocate our interests in foreign affairs? In other words, if we continue to get weaker as a country, it seems like we may have serious losses in the near future?
- This is indeed an important argument however I believe that even with most legitimate government we may still lose if a new war begins in Nagorno Karabakh. On the other hand, it is also possible not to lose at a war with a non-legitimate administration. Legitimacy is very important, but it does not cure all the problems that a nation has, thus I would pose this question differently or bring an example. Back in 1997, when Levon Ter-Petrosyan was ready to make painful concessions, he also had questionable legitimacy. The first president and his administration did have serious deficit of legitimacy. There are many examples in history, when a non-legitimate government won at wars and vice versa. Having said this, there is no doubt in my mind that a legitimate government has much stronger positions to negotiate and conduct policies especially when it comes to international relations. Among other things, when you have a real vote of confidence from your public, you feel much stronger and your back is more secure. Non-legitimate regimes always also feel weaker in their bilateral relations, be it with Moscow, western countries or any other counterparts, even authoritarian regimes. From that perspective I would agree that legitimacy is important.
Mr. Hakobyan, what were Ter-Petrosyans key messages?
There were several key points in Ter-Petrosyan’s hour long speech, which I believe can create new discussions in our domestic political discourse. First and foremost, Ter-Petrosyan called on current Serzh Sargsyan to accepts the painful concessions which are offered to his administration. On the one hand he criticized Sargsyan’s regime, tagging it as a catastrophe for Armenians, on the other hand he had a clear message directed to the third president.
Can we assume, that by this statement he is offering his services to Serzh Sargsyan?
I don’t think that the first president is the type of political and state player, who would be offering services expecting a couple of parliamentary seats in return. I do believe, that Levon Ter-Petrosyan is seriously concerned about the future of our nation and the country.
Going back to his messages. I still think that his main target audience is the current government. The first president is criticizing the administration’s “Army-Nation” policy, which in his view is not suitable in our case. He also brought examples from history, about how these kinds of policies had highly negative impact. It is also important to note his other message with regards to the Armenian Diaspora. According to Ter-Petrosyan, there should be no illusions and expectations about the role of the Diaspora in solving our issues. His point is not about the weaknesses of the Diaspora, but rather a call to sober up and understand that on the one hand the Armenian Diaspora has limited abilities, on the other, when they see that the government is robbing its own nation, there will be less and less motivation in the Diaspora to support Armenia. Ter-Petrosyan also indirectly criticized the other parties of ruling coalition, which Armenian Revolutionary Federation is a part of. Meanwhile, he reminded about Armenia’s second president, who has been hunting animals in Africa.
Yet another important message from this speech is about the political philosophy, which hist successors Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan adopted in 1998. The argument that Armenia can develop even in current situation, with unresolved Nagorno Karabakh conflict, economic blockade and the close borders has been proven wrong. In other words, his views that Armenia needs to normalize its relations with its neighbors to have economic growth and development remains unchanged.
These were the main messages of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s, which also makes it clear why he suggested “Peace, reconciliation, good neighborly relations” as the main motto for his Armenian National Congress party before the parliamentary elections of 2017.
Armenuhi Vardanyan, December 18, 2016
