Tweet
Armenian president opens the brackets in the story of contradictions to
his political opponent in the person of the first Armenian president
2008-02-16 21:57:00
ArmInfo. Today Armenian President Robert Kocharyan told why active
participants in the Karabakh war have found themselves in different
camps. In an interview with several local TV channels the president
explained this by the fact of giving up their principles regarding
certain political motives. 'And even when it seemed to everybody that
everything was done in a fully-fledged spirit, that was not so. When I
was president of Karabakh, we seemed to have excellent relations with
the authorities of Armenia and the existing disagreements were not a
topic for public discussion, as unity of the authorities was a very
important condition', - Robert Kocharyan emphasized and added in
particular that these disagreements were regarding the Dashnaks party.
'There was a serious conflict in Armenia, people were arrested, the
party was closed, but in Karabakh we continued an active cooperation.
We thought that for the success of the Karabakh movement and for
ensuring security we had to ensure cooperation with all the political
forces. But they were trying to involve me these problems, but I
resisted and it caused certain tension in our relations', - he
emphasized.
Robert Kocharyan also added that there were significant differences in
the approaches of the Karabakh conflict settlement. 'We thought that
Armenian authorities easily agreed to the idea top autonomy of Karabakh
within Azerbaijan. They said they agreed to any suggestion within the
frame of which Karabakh and Azerbaijan will come to consent. This was
weakening our positions much since we got an impression that Armenia is
not behind Karabakh in this matter either. This was fortifying the
world community's pressure upon us so that to break us in this issue.
The biggest disagreement which led to very serious conflict - are our
approaches to the strategy and tactic of the battle actions. They were
absolutely different approaches. We thought that security zone had to
be created around Karabakh, but Levon Ter-Petrosyan's viewpoint
differed. The first big conflict between us arose in 1993, two months
later after liberation of Kelbajar'. Saying that it is for the first
time that he tells this story, Robert Kocharyan said that a meeting
took place in Goris, on 12 June and the first Armenian president and
several members of Security Council were present at the meeting. Robert
Kocharyan and Foreign Minister Arkadiy Gukasyan were present at the
meeting from the Karabakh party. Yerevan demanded to return Kelbajar at
the meeting. Various reasons were presented, the main of which was
strong pressing of the world community and the fact that Ter-Petrosyan
promised them to return. 'We had a very hard talk, so hard that it
seemed impossible to restore the relations in future. We refused, and
in two day on 14 June Levon Ter-Petrosyan arrived in Karabakh by
helicopter and the talk continued this time with the speaker of the NKR
parliament Georgiy Petrosyan. The same pressure, the same threats.
They said if we di not return the territories now Armenia will fail. By
the way, this talk led to Georgiy Petrosyan's resignation. We agreed so
that not to damage our relations once and forever, and I said that
returning may happen we have two months to fortify our positions along
the entire line so that in future Kelbajar not to become a source of a
new threat for the defence of Karabakh. The following day I invited a
narrow circle of people for consultation and together with the military
leadership we adopted a decision to start the Agdam operation. That
time Karabakh was fired from all the sides and had losses every day. We
understood that if security zone is not created, nobody will remain in
Karabakh. Such a decision was dictated by the military situation. The
fire units in Agdam were neutralized in July and we started controlling
the territory. Soon everybody forgot about Kelbajar and a new story
started - this time with Agdam. Security Council gathered in Yerevan
and adopted a decision according to which it was inadmissible to occupy
new territories by the Defence Army of Nagornyy Karabakh. The decision
was delivered to us by helicopter. But we did not sign it and said it
is not worthy even of the fuel spend for its delivery. That was a very
serious conflict. Then we liberated Fizuli, Kubatlu, etc. And all those
steps were accompanied by the similar reaction of Yerevan', - Kocharyan
said.
The president also said he was not going to tell this and hoped to tell
the story in his memories several years later. 'Moreover, if we did not
implement this strategy in Karabakh, there would never be cease-fire.
Just such a strategy led to cease-fire and forced Azerbaijan to it. I
should also say that if we were united in our approaches and there was
no pressure upon us, our positions would be more favourable. To be
honest, we did not have a goal to occupy territories. That time we had
one goal - to ensure security of Nagornyy Karabakh. We had to
neutralize threat. If we froze the situation, I do not doubt we would
lose Karabakh and today we would a status of the country that lost and
Levon Ter-Petrosyan would the president of the country that lost. And
the soldier-liberators beside him would be the "Erkrapahs" of the
country that lost. Psychology of the people would be broken. Nobody in
Azerbaijan says with proud that he a veteran of the Karabakh war, as
they lost', - Kocharyan said and added that he does not think the
former leadership of Armenia did not want Karabakh to reach success.
But they were not bold, and did not really assessed the situation.
'When they phoned me and said: "What are you doing? We shall lose
Armenia>, I replied: "We stand firm at the battle field and you have to
stand firm at the diplomatic field'.
his political opponent in the person of the first Armenian president
2008-02-16 21:57:00
ArmInfo. Today Armenian President Robert Kocharyan told why active
participants in the Karabakh war have found themselves in different
camps. In an interview with several local TV channels the president
explained this by the fact of giving up their principles regarding
certain political motives. 'And even when it seemed to everybody that
everything was done in a fully-fledged spirit, that was not so. When I
was president of Karabakh, we seemed to have excellent relations with
the authorities of Armenia and the existing disagreements were not a
topic for public discussion, as unity of the authorities was a very
important condition', - Robert Kocharyan emphasized and added in
particular that these disagreements were regarding the Dashnaks party.
'There was a serious conflict in Armenia, people were arrested, the
party was closed, but in Karabakh we continued an active cooperation.
We thought that for the success of the Karabakh movement and for
ensuring security we had to ensure cooperation with all the political
forces. But they were trying to involve me these problems, but I
resisted and it caused certain tension in our relations', - he
emphasized.
Robert Kocharyan also added that there were significant differences in
the approaches of the Karabakh conflict settlement. 'We thought that
Armenian authorities easily agreed to the idea top autonomy of Karabakh
within Azerbaijan. They said they agreed to any suggestion within the
frame of which Karabakh and Azerbaijan will come to consent. This was
weakening our positions much since we got an impression that Armenia is
not behind Karabakh in this matter either. This was fortifying the
world community's pressure upon us so that to break us in this issue.
The biggest disagreement which led to very serious conflict - are our
approaches to the strategy and tactic of the battle actions. They were
absolutely different approaches. We thought that security zone had to
be created around Karabakh, but Levon Ter-Petrosyan's viewpoint
differed. The first big conflict between us arose in 1993, two months
later after liberation of Kelbajar'. Saying that it is for the first
time that he tells this story, Robert Kocharyan said that a meeting
took place in Goris, on 12 June and the first Armenian president and
several members of Security Council were present at the meeting. Robert
Kocharyan and Foreign Minister Arkadiy Gukasyan were present at the
meeting from the Karabakh party. Yerevan demanded to return Kelbajar at
the meeting. Various reasons were presented, the main of which was
strong pressing of the world community and the fact that Ter-Petrosyan
promised them to return. 'We had a very hard talk, so hard that it
seemed impossible to restore the relations in future. We refused, and
in two day on 14 June Levon Ter-Petrosyan arrived in Karabakh by
helicopter and the talk continued this time with the speaker of the NKR
parliament Georgiy Petrosyan. The same pressure, the same threats.
They said if we di not return the territories now Armenia will fail. By
the way, this talk led to Georgiy Petrosyan's resignation. We agreed so
that not to damage our relations once and forever, and I said that
returning may happen we have two months to fortify our positions along
the entire line so that in future Kelbajar not to become a source of a
new threat for the defence of Karabakh. The following day I invited a
narrow circle of people for consultation and together with the military
leadership we adopted a decision to start the Agdam operation. That
time Karabakh was fired from all the sides and had losses every day. We
understood that if security zone is not created, nobody will remain in
Karabakh. Such a decision was dictated by the military situation. The
fire units in Agdam were neutralized in July and we started controlling
the territory. Soon everybody forgot about Kelbajar and a new story
started - this time with Agdam. Security Council gathered in Yerevan
and adopted a decision according to which it was inadmissible to occupy
new territories by the Defence Army of Nagornyy Karabakh. The decision
was delivered to us by helicopter. But we did not sign it and said it
is not worthy even of the fuel spend for its delivery. That was a very
serious conflict. Then we liberated Fizuli, Kubatlu, etc. And all those
steps were accompanied by the similar reaction of Yerevan', - Kocharyan
said.
The president also said he was not going to tell this and hoped to tell
the story in his memories several years later. 'Moreover, if we did not
implement this strategy in Karabakh, there would never be cease-fire.
Just such a strategy led to cease-fire and forced Azerbaijan to it. I
should also say that if we were united in our approaches and there was
no pressure upon us, our positions would be more favourable. To be
honest, we did not have a goal to occupy territories. That time we had
one goal - to ensure security of Nagornyy Karabakh. We had to
neutralize threat. If we froze the situation, I do not doubt we would
lose Karabakh and today we would a status of the country that lost and
Levon Ter-Petrosyan would the president of the country that lost. And
the soldier-liberators beside him would be the "Erkrapahs" of the
country that lost. Psychology of the people would be broken. Nobody in
Azerbaijan says with proud that he a veteran of the Karabakh war, as
they lost', - Kocharyan said and added that he does not think the
former leadership of Armenia did not want Karabakh to reach success.
But they were not bold, and did not really assessed the situation.
'When they phoned me and said: "What are you doing? We shall lose
Armenia>, I replied: "We stand firm at the battle field and you have to
stand firm at the diplomatic field'.