Tweet
ARMENIAN AUTHORITIES' PRESENT FAILURE IN NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONS WITH TURKEY IS ALSO LEVON TER-PETROSYAN'S DEFEAT
ArmInfo
2009-06-16 15:43:00
Interviewed by Aram Araratyan
Interview of Director of Political Economy Research Center Andranik
Tevanyan with ArmInfo news agency
Elections to Council of Elders were held in Yerevan on May31. How
will you comment upon these elections?
These elections were held like all the elections before them, except
the presidential ones in 1991. All of them are held with much or
little fraud, the same happened this time. The peculiarity of these
elections was that there was a fight not only between the power and
the opposition, but inside the power as well. The Republican Party
of Armenia (RPA) headed by Serzh Sargsyan is trying to establish
centralized power in the country, and this policy is observed in
all spheres. For instance, in politics: since 2007 Serzh Sargsyan
has been trying to conduct policy by "Bolshevistic" methods. At the
parliamentary election in 2007 RPA "obtained" the overwhelming majority
of votes, at presidential election and the one to Yerevan Council
of Elders RPA gained "victory" in one round. The authorities are
obviously striving for unipolar and personal power by the "Turkmenbashi
model". Actually, these elections have become another step towards
establishment of such a power system. The for ces inside the power,
particularly, Prosperous Armenia Party, are trying to prevent this,
because if personal power system is formed in Armenia, this may lead
to property redistribution, which is a very dangerous phenomenon.
Time will show how it will work. I think Prosperous Armenia also
will shortly withdraw from the power coalition, otherwise it may be
driven back.
We still remember the example of Artur Baghdasaryan who is completely
subjected to the Armenian president's grace. And this is the essence
of present authorities which act according to the model - if you are
not with us, you are against us.
Can one state that these elections have become the "swan-song" for
the Armenian National Congress (ANC)?
Experience shows that in Armenia the force, which fails to gain formal
victory, finds itself in quite a complicated situation. Time will show
how the ANC will behave in the future. I predict a process of some
standstill for the next few years as I foresee no snap elections,
and in this situation it will be difficult for the ANC as it was
difficult for all oppositions in their time, including the one during
Levon Ter-Petrosyan's term in presidential office. If the elections
were not rigged, the opposition would certainly gain victory at
all elections. But the problem is that the opposition always sets
itself a task to win at the upcoming elections, and when it fails to
achieve t his result, it causes the public's disappointment. It would
be more reasonable for the opposition not to focus on achievement
of short-term and quick success, but to set itself a task to solve
long-term problems. At the same time, it is possible to gain a big
victory by means of small victories.
It is impossible to influence the governing system in the so-called
constitutional way, i.e. the authorities demonstrated their rules of
the game. And this is like a gauntlet thrown against our society. It
depends on the political forces how the public will respond to this
challenge. The political forces should be able to organize the public
on the ideological basis. In addition, during the election campaign
Levon Ter-Petrosyan didn't oppose himself to the policy conducted
by Serzh Sargsyan on the Karabakh problem and normalization of
the Armenian-Turkish relations, and in this case the fight was
for the chair. And in such a fight the victory belongs to those
who have more resources, i.e. to the authorities. The fight should
be ideological, and the ideological fight in Armenia should, first
and foremost, be around the issues related to our national security,
particularly, Karabakh and relations with our neighbors. If there are
no contradictions in these issues, the fight turns into a particular
fight for chair.
How can you explain the ARFD actual failure at the latest elections?
It is difficult to analyze the e lection results in Armenia as these
results do not correspond to the true picture of voting. Unfortunately,
we have been unable to see the real picture for over 10 years because
of electoral fraud. As for ARFD, they demonstrated comparatively low
results as firstly they did not conduct active election campaign,
and secondly they failed to explain and demonstrate to people that
they were no longer in power and why they were not. They should have
made their discrepancies with the authorities, particularly, the
discrepancies concerning Armenian-Turkish relations, the cornerstone
of their campaign, but they failed to. ARFD should have explained
that though Yerevan is not directly connected with foreign policy
by its functional peculiarities, nevertheless, they could become a
counterweight to the authorities not to allow them to conduct the
policy, which is wrong in ARFD's opinion. Moreover, not only ARFD,
but also the rest conducted weak campaign. The authorities managed
to depoliticize these elections restricting them to "asphaltization",
"disposing of garbage", planting greenery, etc. To note, ANC did not
conduct such furious campaign as during the presidential election
in 2008. I'll say it once again: if there are no contradictions at a
deep ideological level, and political elections are not perceived as
such in public consciousness, the authorities get more opportunities
for electoral fraud as the latter is co nnected with public mood
in most cases. Elections were also rigged in 2008, but even then
Levon Ter-Petrosyan held the second position. So there was a public
background of discontent people; now that this background declines,
the authorities certainly get more opportunities to rig the elections.
Let's talk a little about the so-called initiative foreign policy
of the Armenian authorities, particularly, about the attempts to
normalize the relations with Turkey. What do you think this policy
has led to since almost its beginning?
I think no radical changes have happened over this time. By means
of the so-called "football diplomacy" Serzh Sargsyan tried, first
and foremost, to solve the problem of his legitimacy, and he solved
this problem to some extent. As a result of the "football diplomacy",
at present the winners are Turkey, Azerbaijan, the USA, Russia, EU
and temporarily Serzh Sargsyan. The state interests of Armenia were
not taken into account in the given case. This is also proved by the
April 22 statement on the road map, which actually gave nothing to us,
but numerous opportunities to Turkey to solve its problems. Moreover,
judging by the recent developments, Turkey actually became a mediator
in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, which it didn't afford doing
even over the years of Artsakh war. This means that Armenian-Turkish
relations were used as a method to solve the problem of=2 0domestic
legitimacy. It is noteworthy that the authorities to some extent
stole the slogan used by Levon Ter-Petrosyan during the presidential
campaign. At May 1 rally the first president of Armenia said that
he positively estimated Serzh Sargsyan's steps in this matter. His
only objection concerned creation of a commission of historians on
investigation of the Armenian Genocide. However, after Erdogan's harsh
statements that opening of borders is out of the question without
withdrawal of Armenian troops from Karabakh, Ter-Petrosyan tried to
give up his own statements when he saw that Serzh Sargsyan's policy
in this matter failed. Reverting to the question whether ANC will
manage to remain in the political field, I think this depends on how
much they will manage to reconsider their approaches to the Karabakh
problem and the Armenian-Turkish relations.
Otherwise they will have no chances for success. Furthermore, the
authorities' failure in issue of Turkey is also Ter-Petrosyan's defeat
as the formula "Armenia cannot develop until it has open borders with
Turkey and Azerbaijan" belongs to him. According to this formula, it
turns out that Armenia is ready to pay any price for the open borders.
Today Ter-Petrosyan says that one shouldn't pay any price for this,
so it turns out that Armenia cannot develop. If the key goal is opening
the borders, one should pay for it, and the price is20already quoted -
it is Karabakh and renunciation of Genocide. But it is necessary to
take into account that if the price is paid, Armenia's independence
itself will be endangered. We will not cede the territories and
make rapprochement, because if we cede the lands, even more demands
will be laid down to us. Today we ask Turkey to open the border
almost on bended knees, Turkey sees this and certainly knocks up
the prices by laying down preconditions. We should maximally use
all our internal resources, become stronger to be able to maintain
our positions in the foreign arena. Is it the fault of the shut
down borders that Armenia practically lacks economic competition,
corruption is dominating, and elections are rigged? It is our fault,
and we should solve these problems to be reckoned with in the foreign
arena, and not to say that we live badly because we have closed
borders and by ceding the land we'll get rid of the unnecessary
headache. Those who think so unconsciously propagandize a new war
as by ceding the lands we cede our security zones and give the rival
better positions for attacking. Azerbaijan and Turkey will establish
normal friendly relations with us only when they see that we can
easily develop without them, and they will benefit themselves. And
when we say that we cannot do without open borders, they certainly
lay down thousands of preconditions. I myself advocate normalization
of b oth Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, but I
am not ready and do not want to pay the price they demand.
Is it possible to normalize the Armenian-Turkish relations and open
the borders before the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement?
I don't think it will shortly be possible to open the Armenian-Turkish
border. Our diplomacy has been entrapped and the price for
normalization of relations with our western neighbor is very
high. This price was partly paid when on the threshold of the 94th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide the achievement of the road-map
was announced. Though this had no legal consequences, this was the
defeat of our diplomacy. I don't think either that the Karabakh
conflict will shortly be settled. It is another question whether we
develop or settle these territories. For instance, nobody demands
Kars from Turkey today. Though even now there are people who dream of
"from-sea-to-sea" Armenia. But if you tell them to go and develop
Karabakh which is really our territory today, they consider it too
insignificant. These people are short-sighted and practically as
dangerous as those "neobolshevistic Ghukas Ghukasyans" who suppose
that we'll live better if we make concessions to Turkey.
How do you estimate the current economic situation in the country?
Even the official data show the current economic downturn. In
January-April GDP officially fell in the country by 9.7%, foreign
trade - by 30%, export decreased twice, import - by 25%. Construction,
which is one of the locomotives of Armenia's development, fell by 48%
as compared with the results of 2008.
This is the impact of the global financial crisis...
This is the result of both the crisis impact and domestic economic
policy of the authorities who confused the goal with methods. The
key goal of the government became to fill the budget; this goal
meets the philosophy of "economic bolshevism". They think if they
collect all the funds for the budget, they will manage to control
the whole economy. And if you control economy, you control the whole
political field, including the opposition. There is a famous formula
- if there is no economic democracy, there is no political democracy
either. Economic relations are the main basis of politics. There can
be no liberal democracy with the planned economy; on the contrary,
there may be a free economic system with an authoritarian political
top. The present economic policy aimed at collecting funds for the
budget damages the country. Small and medium enterprises were the first
to feel the damage, now the large ones are being "hunted". Having come
out against large entrepreneurs, the government indirectly confessed
that the first part of the program is completed: small and medium
businesses are "emptied" completely , and one may receive additional
resources only from large business where people had illusions that
nothing will happen to them. Moreover, large business has been turned
into almost a devil incarnate, its destruction is propagandized in
the society. Actually, the tax package recently submitted by the
government demonstrates that the authorities want to establish a
system of "supergrasses and spies" in large business. This also shows
that the authorities do not conceal that they actually want to have
a share in large business. The authorities are trying to "shift" the
reasons of failure of their economic policy on the global financial
crisis though earlier they stated that the crisis wouldn't affect
Armenia. I suppose this resource will also be expired in the near
future. The crisis hasn't attained its goal yet. According to my
forecasts, as a result of our authorities' economic policy and the
impact of the global financial crisis, the economic downturn will
continue until spring 2009.
Thanks for the interview.
ArmInfo
2009-06-16 15:43:00
Interviewed by Aram Araratyan
Interview of Director of Political Economy Research Center Andranik
Tevanyan with ArmInfo news agency
Elections to Council of Elders were held in Yerevan on May31. How
will you comment upon these elections?
These elections were held like all the elections before them, except
the presidential ones in 1991. All of them are held with much or
little fraud, the same happened this time. The peculiarity of these
elections was that there was a fight not only between the power and
the opposition, but inside the power as well. The Republican Party
of Armenia (RPA) headed by Serzh Sargsyan is trying to establish
centralized power in the country, and this policy is observed in
all spheres. For instance, in politics: since 2007 Serzh Sargsyan
has been trying to conduct policy by "Bolshevistic" methods. At the
parliamentary election in 2007 RPA "obtained" the overwhelming majority
of votes, at presidential election and the one to Yerevan Council
of Elders RPA gained "victory" in one round. The authorities are
obviously striving for unipolar and personal power by the "Turkmenbashi
model". Actually, these elections have become another step towards
establishment of such a power system. The for ces inside the power,
particularly, Prosperous Armenia Party, are trying to prevent this,
because if personal power system is formed in Armenia, this may lead
to property redistribution, which is a very dangerous phenomenon.
Time will show how it will work. I think Prosperous Armenia also
will shortly withdraw from the power coalition, otherwise it may be
driven back.
We still remember the example of Artur Baghdasaryan who is completely
subjected to the Armenian president's grace. And this is the essence
of present authorities which act according to the model - if you are
not with us, you are against us.
Can one state that these elections have become the "swan-song" for
the Armenian National Congress (ANC)?
Experience shows that in Armenia the force, which fails to gain formal
victory, finds itself in quite a complicated situation. Time will show
how the ANC will behave in the future. I predict a process of some
standstill for the next few years as I foresee no snap elections,
and in this situation it will be difficult for the ANC as it was
difficult for all oppositions in their time, including the one during
Levon Ter-Petrosyan's term in presidential office. If the elections
were not rigged, the opposition would certainly gain victory at
all elections. But the problem is that the opposition always sets
itself a task to win at the upcoming elections, and when it fails to
achieve t his result, it causes the public's disappointment. It would
be more reasonable for the opposition not to focus on achievement
of short-term and quick success, but to set itself a task to solve
long-term problems. At the same time, it is possible to gain a big
victory by means of small victories.
It is impossible to influence the governing system in the so-called
constitutional way, i.e. the authorities demonstrated their rules of
the game. And this is like a gauntlet thrown against our society. It
depends on the political forces how the public will respond to this
challenge. The political forces should be able to organize the public
on the ideological basis. In addition, during the election campaign
Levon Ter-Petrosyan didn't oppose himself to the policy conducted
by Serzh Sargsyan on the Karabakh problem and normalization of
the Armenian-Turkish relations, and in this case the fight was
for the chair. And in such a fight the victory belongs to those
who have more resources, i.e. to the authorities. The fight should
be ideological, and the ideological fight in Armenia should, first
and foremost, be around the issues related to our national security,
particularly, Karabakh and relations with our neighbors. If there are
no contradictions in these issues, the fight turns into a particular
fight for chair.
How can you explain the ARFD actual failure at the latest elections?
It is difficult to analyze the e lection results in Armenia as these
results do not correspond to the true picture of voting. Unfortunately,
we have been unable to see the real picture for over 10 years because
of electoral fraud. As for ARFD, they demonstrated comparatively low
results as firstly they did not conduct active election campaign,
and secondly they failed to explain and demonstrate to people that
they were no longer in power and why they were not. They should have
made their discrepancies with the authorities, particularly, the
discrepancies concerning Armenian-Turkish relations, the cornerstone
of their campaign, but they failed to. ARFD should have explained
that though Yerevan is not directly connected with foreign policy
by its functional peculiarities, nevertheless, they could become a
counterweight to the authorities not to allow them to conduct the
policy, which is wrong in ARFD's opinion. Moreover, not only ARFD,
but also the rest conducted weak campaign. The authorities managed
to depoliticize these elections restricting them to "asphaltization",
"disposing of garbage", planting greenery, etc. To note, ANC did not
conduct such furious campaign as during the presidential election
in 2008. I'll say it once again: if there are no contradictions at a
deep ideological level, and political elections are not perceived as
such in public consciousness, the authorities get more opportunities
for electoral fraud as the latter is co nnected with public mood
in most cases. Elections were also rigged in 2008, but even then
Levon Ter-Petrosyan held the second position. So there was a public
background of discontent people; now that this background declines,
the authorities certainly get more opportunities to rig the elections.
Let's talk a little about the so-called initiative foreign policy
of the Armenian authorities, particularly, about the attempts to
normalize the relations with Turkey. What do you think this policy
has led to since almost its beginning?
I think no radical changes have happened over this time. By means
of the so-called "football diplomacy" Serzh Sargsyan tried, first
and foremost, to solve the problem of his legitimacy, and he solved
this problem to some extent. As a result of the "football diplomacy",
at present the winners are Turkey, Azerbaijan, the USA, Russia, EU
and temporarily Serzh Sargsyan. The state interests of Armenia were
not taken into account in the given case. This is also proved by the
April 22 statement on the road map, which actually gave nothing to us,
but numerous opportunities to Turkey to solve its problems. Moreover,
judging by the recent developments, Turkey actually became a mediator
in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, which it didn't afford doing
even over the years of Artsakh war. This means that Armenian-Turkish
relations were used as a method to solve the problem of=2 0domestic
legitimacy. It is noteworthy that the authorities to some extent
stole the slogan used by Levon Ter-Petrosyan during the presidential
campaign. At May 1 rally the first president of Armenia said that
he positively estimated Serzh Sargsyan's steps in this matter. His
only objection concerned creation of a commission of historians on
investigation of the Armenian Genocide. However, after Erdogan's harsh
statements that opening of borders is out of the question without
withdrawal of Armenian troops from Karabakh, Ter-Petrosyan tried to
give up his own statements when he saw that Serzh Sargsyan's policy
in this matter failed. Reverting to the question whether ANC will
manage to remain in the political field, I think this depends on how
much they will manage to reconsider their approaches to the Karabakh
problem and the Armenian-Turkish relations.
Otherwise they will have no chances for success. Furthermore, the
authorities' failure in issue of Turkey is also Ter-Petrosyan's defeat
as the formula "Armenia cannot develop until it has open borders with
Turkey and Azerbaijan" belongs to him. According to this formula, it
turns out that Armenia is ready to pay any price for the open borders.
Today Ter-Petrosyan says that one shouldn't pay any price for this,
so it turns out that Armenia cannot develop. If the key goal is opening
the borders, one should pay for it, and the price is20already quoted -
it is Karabakh and renunciation of Genocide. But it is necessary to
take into account that if the price is paid, Armenia's independence
itself will be endangered. We will not cede the territories and
make rapprochement, because if we cede the lands, even more demands
will be laid down to us. Today we ask Turkey to open the border
almost on bended knees, Turkey sees this and certainly knocks up
the prices by laying down preconditions. We should maximally use
all our internal resources, become stronger to be able to maintain
our positions in the foreign arena. Is it the fault of the shut
down borders that Armenia practically lacks economic competition,
corruption is dominating, and elections are rigged? It is our fault,
and we should solve these problems to be reckoned with in the foreign
arena, and not to say that we live badly because we have closed
borders and by ceding the land we'll get rid of the unnecessary
headache. Those who think so unconsciously propagandize a new war
as by ceding the lands we cede our security zones and give the rival
better positions for attacking. Azerbaijan and Turkey will establish
normal friendly relations with us only when they see that we can
easily develop without them, and they will benefit themselves. And
when we say that we cannot do without open borders, they certainly
lay down thousands of preconditions. I myself advocate normalization
of b oth Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, but I
am not ready and do not want to pay the price they demand.
Is it possible to normalize the Armenian-Turkish relations and open
the borders before the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement?
I don't think it will shortly be possible to open the Armenian-Turkish
border. Our diplomacy has been entrapped and the price for
normalization of relations with our western neighbor is very
high. This price was partly paid when on the threshold of the 94th
anniversary of the Armenian Genocide the achievement of the road-map
was announced. Though this had no legal consequences, this was the
defeat of our diplomacy. I don't think either that the Karabakh
conflict will shortly be settled. It is another question whether we
develop or settle these territories. For instance, nobody demands
Kars from Turkey today. Though even now there are people who dream of
"from-sea-to-sea" Armenia. But if you tell them to go and develop
Karabakh which is really our territory today, they consider it too
insignificant. These people are short-sighted and practically as
dangerous as those "neobolshevistic Ghukas Ghukasyans" who suppose
that we'll live better if we make concessions to Turkey.
How do you estimate the current economic situation in the country?
Even the official data show the current economic downturn. In
January-April GDP officially fell in the country by 9.7%, foreign
trade - by 30%, export decreased twice, import - by 25%. Construction,
which is one of the locomotives of Armenia's development, fell by 48%
as compared with the results of 2008.
This is the impact of the global financial crisis...
This is the result of both the crisis impact and domestic economic
policy of the authorities who confused the goal with methods. The
key goal of the government became to fill the budget; this goal
meets the philosophy of "economic bolshevism". They think if they
collect all the funds for the budget, they will manage to control
the whole economy. And if you control economy, you control the whole
political field, including the opposition. There is a famous formula
- if there is no economic democracy, there is no political democracy
either. Economic relations are the main basis of politics. There can
be no liberal democracy with the planned economy; on the contrary,
there may be a free economic system with an authoritarian political
top. The present economic policy aimed at collecting funds for the
budget damages the country. Small and medium enterprises were the first
to feel the damage, now the large ones are being "hunted". Having come
out against large entrepreneurs, the government indirectly confessed
that the first part of the program is completed: small and medium
businesses are "emptied" completely , and one may receive additional
resources only from large business where people had illusions that
nothing will happen to them. Moreover, large business has been turned
into almost a devil incarnate, its destruction is propagandized in
the society. Actually, the tax package recently submitted by the
government demonstrates that the authorities want to establish a
system of "supergrasses and spies" in large business. This also shows
that the authorities do not conceal that they actually want to have
a share in large business. The authorities are trying to "shift" the
reasons of failure of their economic policy on the global financial
crisis though earlier they stated that the crisis wouldn't affect
Armenia. I suppose this resource will also be expired in the near
future. The crisis hasn't attained its goal yet. According to my
forecasts, as a result of our authorities' economic policy and the
impact of the global financial crisis, the economic downturn will
continue until spring 2009.
Thanks for the interview.