Tweet
Ambassador Yovanovitch Discusses US Policy in Armenia in Exclusive
Asbarez Interview
Friday, October 29th, 2010
by Asbarez
During her recent visit to Los Angeles, the US Ambassador to Armenia,
Marie Yovanovitch, expressed interest in discussing US policy in
Armenia with Asbarez. Overall, her visit to the Western Region
communities were met with skepticism, given that she generally
reiterated previous positions articulated by the State Department.
Asbarez's Allen Yekikian sat down with Yovanovitch at the Glendale
Public Library on October 14 to discuss Washington's position on
Armenian-American issues and the State Department's approach to
Armenia and surrounding neighbors. Below is the interview in its
entirety.
Allen Yekikian: Is mentioning the Armenian Genocide still a firing
offense for U.S. diplomats? Do you fear retaliation by the State
Department and a fate similar to your predecessor Ambassador Evans, if
you were to speak honestly about the Armenian Genocide? What actions
would you take against any of the employees at the U.S. embassy in
Yerevan if they spoke honestly about the Armenian Genocide?
Marie Yovanovitch: Well I think that US policy is very clear and I
think that all US government employees-our job is to uphold the US
policy and represent US policy, for example in Iraq or on Israel,
there is only one US policy and that's the President's policy. Nobody
would expect that there should be be 15 different views about the way
forward and the same thing is true on this issue.
A.Y.: Does the U.S. have military or economic interests in connection
to Turkey that influence its decision on whether to use the word
`genocide,' when discussing the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians from
1915-1923?
M.Y.: Obviously Turkey is a NATO ally it's been a longstanding partner
for the US. But i think that when the President looks at this issue
and makes these decisions, he takes a lot of issues into account. I
think if you look at his statement from April 24, I think it's pretty
clear what his views are and that he thinks it's important to have a
clear and full and just accounting of the facts. He points to the
discussions that Armenians and Turks are having on these issues and
how important that is.
A.Y.: In a July 2008 letter to then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman Joe Biden, Matthew Reynolds, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, wrote, `We indeed hold Ottoman officials
responsible for those crimes.' What does the U.S. government mean,
when it says it holds Ottoman officials `responsible for those
crimes,' which as you just said the President has characterized in his
April statement as brutal massacres of more than a million people?
M.Y.: Well I think it's pretty clear what we mean by that. We hold
them responsible.
A.Y: What does that entail. Responsibility for a crime in the US
entails punishment, jail time, legal action or fines. So what does the
US government consider as punishment in this case?
M.Y.: I'd refer you back to Assistant Secretary Reynolds' letter on that.
A.Y.: The President's statement in April clearly characterized
everything that encompasses Genocide but fell short of using the word.
What does it take for the President to call it what it is? If the
Republic of Turkey recognized the Armenian Genocide tomorrow, would
the United States then also do the same?
M.Y.: All of our policies, whether they are domestic or foreign are
the President's policies and he makes those decisions. You are asking
me a couple of hypothetical questions so all I can say is we can't
really answer hypothetical questions; it's really up to the President
to make that decision.
A.Y.: Did you ever meet with the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey to discuss
ending Turkey's blockade, as you committed to do during your
confirmation hearing?
M.Y.: I meet with the ambassadors and others in all of the embassies
in the region, so Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey because, obviously,
there are a lot of issues that we've discussed and we certainly
discussed these issues with Ambassador Jeffery when he was in place
and now Charge d'affairs Doug Siloman.
A.Y.: A little while back we had the flotilla incident with Turkey and
Israel and the blockade of aid ships going to Gaza. The US took a
position on that. Why hasn't the US taken a position on the nearly two
decade-long illegal blockade of Armenia?
M.Y.: We think that the border should be opened immediately and
without preconditions. We've encouraged both sides to move forward and
ratify the protocols so I think our position is pretty clear.
A.Y.: Armenia began the rapprochement process between Turkey and
Armenia on the principles of immediate relations without preconditions
but it quickly evolved to include a whole slew of preconditions that
eventually stalled the talks as a result of Turkey's refusal to move
forward without a resolution of the Karabakh conflict favoring
Azerbaijan.
M.Y.: Yeah, right, that's the only one I'm aware of.
A.Y.: Right, but Turkey also requires Armenia end any international
efforts for Genocide recognition. So What...
M.Y.: I'm not aware of that.
A.Y.: Well going back to the Karabakh precondition, what is the US
government's position on that and how is it dealing with that since it
was a key broker of the rapprochement process.
M.Y.: I know that this is a controversial issue in the Armenian
community here, and it's certainly been the topic of much discussion
in Yerevan-and Armenia more broadly. We think that it's very important
to move forward; we understand that it's very difficult, but our
position is that there should be normalization without preconditions.
We've said that publicly and I can assure you that we have said that
privately. We hope that just as President Sarkisian indicated in his
statement in April-that at some point the Turks would be ready to come
back to the table and start moving that process forward again-and
that's something that we are ready to assist the parties on if they
need our assistance.
A.Y.: So does official Washington consider Turkey's requirement to
resolve Karabakh a precondition.
M.Y.: We don't believe there should be any linkage and there should be
a movement forward in terms of normalization, opening the border,
diplomatic relations, ordinary commerce-directly, not through third
countries. Secretary Clinton was very clear when she was in Yerevan
when she said the ball is in the Turkish court. And we believe that
President Sarkisian was visionary, very brave, in terms of moving
forward on this issue. Because he knew it was going to be
controversial, he knew it was going to be difficult and yet he
undertook that step. We hope that at some point we can move forward
again and I think it's certainly clear to all the parties that we are
ready to help that process.
A.Y.: Why was it that when Secretary of State Clinton visited the
Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan, Dzidzernagapert, earlier this
year she did so in a personal and private capacity but when she
visited the Alley of Martyrs in Baku, which is in memory of several
dozen Azerbaijanis who died in fighting with the Soviet troops who
were sent into Baku to stop anti-Armenian pogroms of 1988, she made
that visit in her official capacity and in a highly public way? Are
you concerned that the Secretary's actions represent a double standard
that demeans the U.S. response to the mass murder and dispossession of
an entire civilization?
M.Y: I was with the Secretary when she went to Dzidzernagapert and it
was a really moving moment. She went to pay her respects to those who
died and we were greeted by Haik Demoyan, the director of the Museum
and Memorial complex, and he was able to provide context and explain
to the Secretary what she was seeing, what various things represented
and so forth. I think it was very important that she went there and it
was certainly very moving. Obviously you've seen the footage on TV and
the photos. We wanted to keep it as dignified as possible and I think
it was important that she went and I'm really glad that she did go.
A.Y.: Do you believe there can be a real reconciliation between Turkey
and Armenia, without a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian
Genocide?
M.Y.: I think these are all very difficult processes. When people come
together and talk about whatever it is that students talk about when
they are together or journalists and professors might have
professional issues they might want to talk about, other types of
professionals may have issues that sort of create this space for
dialogue. I think it's really hard to go back in history and discuss
some of these very difficult, very emotional, very difficult issues
when there's not a basis for trust. And I think right now, on both
sides of the border, because that border has been closed for so long
because of that history, there isn't a lot of knowledge on both sides
of the border about the other. So I think it's important to try to
create a space for dialogue and when you move forward with those
dialogues, gradually one takes on some of the harder issues.
I think if you look at the evolution in Turkey over the last few
years, there's clearly an interest in the issue of normalization and
so fort. I'm not saying this is a topic in every household, but
certainly in intellectual circles, this is a topic that is addressed.
I think there is a shift in the dialogue, where Turks are ready to ask
some questions of themselves. I'm not saying that they agree with
Armenians, but I think there is a shift in the dialogue and that's a
beginning. And I think it's important for Armenians and Turks to come
together and discuss many issues to create a basis of trust to also
talk about other issues.
A.Y.: Why has the Obama Administration, during its first two years in
office, called for reductions in the level of economic aid actually
provided to Armenia?
M.Y.: I Think all you need to do is look at the general budget
picture. The Armenia budget is not separate from that process. But I
am glad that the assistance to Armenia is among one of the highest per
capita in the world. We're pleased that we were able to maintain $45
million for fiscal year 2010 and as you know we don't have a final
budget yet for this fiscal year but we are hoping we could keep it up
there. We do a lot of important things with our assistance budget,
whether it's in terms of supporting Armenia's economic growth or
supporting democratic development, whether it's on the health side or
the social services side, through pension reforms and so forth. So
certainly, speaking as the American Ambassador to Armenia, we hope
those budget levels will be maintained. But again, we can't divorce
what we are doing in Armenia with the overall budget picture in the
United States.
A.Y.: By that same account, Azerbaijan continues to receive large
amounts of US aid, particularly military aid, freeing up its budget to
allocate more funds to its military. Why do our tax dollars fund
military aid to Azerbaijan at the same time that its government is
both threatening and actually using its military to start a new war
against Nagorno Karabakh? Couldn't that money, which is bolstering the
Azeri military machine, be better spent on democratization efforts in
both countries. Why does the US, and in particular me as a tax paying
citizen, continue to support a country threatening war?
M.Y.: That's a fair question. We also provide a lot of assistance to
Russia and most of the assistance to Russia and most of our assistance
to Azerbaijan goes to democratization programs because we feel that
it's important to help those countries with their ongoing transitions
to democracy. In the case of Azerbaijan, I think it would be clearly
in Armenia's interests if Azerbaijan moves forward in that democratic
process. Azerbaijan, I think, gets somewhere to the tune of half the
assistance we provide Armenia and I think there's a consensus on the
part of Congress and the executive branch that this is a good use of
our money-to try and help Azerbaijan make that transition.
You also asked about military funding, we provide funding to both
Armenia and Azerbaijan. We ensure that that funding does not raise
tensions in the area and destabilize the area and so forth. One of the
reasons we give assistance to Azerbaijan in this respect is that in a
post-911 world we have important counter-terrorism and
counter-narcotics programs with Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea.
A.Y.: You mentioned the US gives military aid to both Armenia and
Azerbaijan. But the President has also exercised his right to waive
Section 907, and has not yet released the report that justifies
providing military aid to Azerbaijan. Is there any reason that this
report should not be shared with the public? If not, can you instruct
the U.S. Embassy to release this report?
M.Y.: Well you know, we can take that question and get back to you.
Obviously, the US embassy in Yerevan wouldn't be the one that writes
that report and if that's an important answer for you we can ask
someone at the State Department to get back to you.
A.Y.: What signal is the President sending when the Administration
sends Azerbaijan's military more aid than Armenia, particularly when
Azerbaijan's leaders are threatening to use their army to start a new
war? You mentioned that the US takes steps to ensure its funding does
not destabilize the area, but it's clear with recent events that
Azerbaijan's President is in fact raising tensions in the region with
repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement with Karabakh that
results in deaths on the border.
M.Y.: Well, I think it's fairly straight forward and I understand that
perhaps you may not agree with this but we were very careful with the
assistance that we provide. Most of the assistance that we provide
both countries is actually in the form of training. We have important
missions with the country of Azerbaijan. It has a strategic location
on the Caspian Sea and as I said in a post-911 world, we need to work
with Azerbaijan on important issues of counter terrorism and
narcotics.
A.Y.: Armenia is similarly important in this post-911 world. It has
sent troops to serve alongside American soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Kosovo, and consistently called for stronger military cooperation
with the United States. What obstacles do you see preventing broader
U.S.-Armenia military cooperation?
M.Y.: Actually I think that what we've seen over the last couple years
is a strengthening of the bilateral military to military relationship
and I think it's a real positive and bright spot in our overall
bilateral relationship. We do many things, both through the NATO
partnership as well as bilaterally and I'll give you a couple
examples. On the NATO side, there was a NATO disaster response
exercise in Armenia recently and that's really important because
that's the way you train working with your neighbors and so forth
working with your neighbors on how to respond to a disaster. And I
think it was great that there was so much participation by NATO and
the partner countries.
Turkey had observers there so I think it was a real plus. On the
bilateral side, we are working with Armenia with US experts through a
NATO program with its strategic defense review. And that's a new way
of thinking for a post-Soviet military-trying to determine what does
it want its military to look like, what does it need to accomplish
those goals, and putting the budget piece into place too. You've
probably seen Secretary Gates' comments about the US military, saying
we need to cut by 10 percent because we can't do all the tasks we want
to do and the same thing is probably true with most militaries. So
this is a strategic defense review that kind of helps the Armenian
military leadership think strategically about where it's going.
A.Y.: Why do you think the people of Nagorno Karabagh have voted
repeatedly against being ruled by Azerbaijan?
M.Y.: I don't want to speak for the people of Karabakh, you have to ask others.
A.Y.: Throughout the Cold War, America argued against the foreign rule
Moscow imposed on the peoples of the Soviet bloc, yet, today, we
defend the very artificial borders drawn by Stalin to deny freedom to
the Armenian people of Nagorno Karabakh? Why is the U.S. defending
borders imposed by Stalin? If this principle had been applied during
the struggle for freedom by the American colonies, we would still be
part of England.
M.Y.: Obviously I've heard this question many times during my time
here in the United States, and in general. Obviously
self-determination is an important principle, but so is territorial
integrity. If that wasn't one of the bedrocks of the international
system you can imagine what we would be dealing with. So I think it's
important to try to move forward with negotiations to find a political
solution to the NK conflict-one that is acceptable to both sides. But
you know, that's going to require compromises on both sides as well.
A.Y.: Speaking of territorial integrity and self-determination, most
of the world's countries today were formed because of their exercise
of the principle of self-determination, including the most
recent-Kosov. Please explain the obvious inconsistency in the US not
advocating, let alone supporting, the self-determination of the people
of Nagorno-Karabakh and the recognition of the independence of the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic when it actively worked, over Serbia's
opposition, in support the independence and self-determination of
Kosovo? Also, please comment on the recent International Court of
Justice ruling upholding the legality of Kosovo's unilateral
declaration of independence.
M.Y.: Again, obviously every Armenian I talk to, whether it's here or
in Armenia, shares your view that Kosovo should be a precedent for NK.
But I think when we look at the situation, every conflict is unique
and challenging and different in its own way. You can't just impose
solutions onto another.
Obviously we want to use the lessons of history, the lessons that
different negotiations can help us with and we want to use those
lessons learned in finding a solution to the NK conflict. There are
many possible precedents out there. There are many conflicts, I can
think of a couple right now, that Armenians would not think relevant,
but perhaps the Azerbaijanis would. So where we find ourselves is
discussing which precedent would be the most useful and we will impose
on NK as an NK solution as opposed to trying to find a solution to NK.
I think that's what we need to focus on and that's where the efforts
of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs are.
A.Y.: Why is the US government looking so far away for precedents when
there are three fairly recent historical precedents that have defined
the reality on the ground between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in 1905,
1918, and 1991. In all three cases, three conflicts flared out between
the Armenians and Turkic people of the region over the same exact
reason, with the same people, and in the same territory. And the
underlying cause for all three conflicts was denial of the right to
self-determination to the Armenians of Karabakh. Why does the US
Government, and the Minsk Group in particular, not look to these
precedents, when working toward a resolution of the conflict?
M.Y.: I think the Minsk Group Co-Chairs are looking at the entire
situation and I think what we need to do is move forward with a
political solution with the negotiation that will actually lead to a
just and lasting peace.
A.Y.: That `just and lasting peace,' according to the Minsk Group
co-chairs, is articulated in the Madrid Principles, which call on
Nagorno Karabagh to make specific, up-front, and irrevocable land and
security concessions in exchange for a vague promise that Azerbaijan
will agree to an as-yet undefined process to address its status at
some point in the future. Why is this a good deal for Nagorno
Karabagh, which in fact is not even a full participant to the peace
process?
M.Y.: Because a decision was made a while ago that Armenia could
represent NK. I think the Minsk Group negotiators were just in
Karabakh. They have frequent consultations with the NK authorities, as
well as with people in NK to find out what they are thinking and so
forth. I think that there's general recognition that a just and
lasting solution to the conflict is not going to be possible without
input from the NK folks. So I think that at some point they will be
brought into the process, but that's going to have to be something
that all the parties agree to, including Azerbaijan. Clearly we are
not at that point yet, so in the interim, the Co-Chairs are frequently
going to the region in order to find out the views of the NK
authorities.
A.Y.: Moving onto the Armenians of Georgia, why has the U.S.
government remained silent in the face of abuses against the Armenian
Church, unfair restrictions on Armenian schools, and all other forms
of cultural, social, political and economic pressure intended to
intimidate and ultimately drive away the region's historic Armenian
population, particularly in Javakhk, which the Georgian Foreign
Minister recently said does not exist?
M.Y.: I was recently in Javakhk, traveling with Ambassador Bass who is
our ambassador to Georgia. It was obviously very interesting for me.
We met with a number of local government authorities as well as folks
who were living in the region and of course many of them are Armenian.
I can't really agree with the premise of your question that there is a
purposeful campaign to drive out Armenians.
Those that I spoke with actually felt their lives were getting better
and they pointed to two things. One was gasification, that over the
last five years the government of Georgia have made a concerted effort
to hook up certain cities in outlying areas with gas. That makes a
tremendous difference to the quality of life. Not everyone has this
yet but that was something a lot of people pointed to.
The second thing was that was the road that was being built. The
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is building a road to the
Armenian border and having just driven that road-parts of it are
completed and parts of it aren't. What a difference in terms of
bringing your crops to market in Tbilisi-hugely beneficial to the
people of that area, especially now since they are being hired to
build those roads. In the future, they can use that road for commerce
and so forth. That's US government money, US tax-payer money.
The government of Georgia is building secondary and tertiary roads off
of that main road to the villages. Now all of the villages going to
have great roads leading to them-no. But again, it's better than it
was and it's a step forward.
The US Government has quite a number of programs-administered by the
US Embassy in Georgia-in Javakhk. We've got $220 million dollars of
programming, that includes the road, but across the board. That
includes helping with democratic transition in terms of economic
growth and so forth and that benefits the people in the region,
including Armenians.
A.Y.: I was also recently there in August. I did see the roads, they
are nicely paved. But I saw a different picture than what you are
describing. In fact, non of the people working on the road that runs
directly through Javakhk and to the Armenian border are Armenian,
despite the fact that Akhalkalak, for example, is almost entirely
populated by Armenians. Furthermore, Armenian schools have been taken
over by the state, which has imposed mandatory reductions in hours per
week they are permitted to teach Armenian language.
M.Y.: If I can just say, I did meet Armenians who were working on the
road and I specifically asked the question, whose getting hired.
Locals are getting hired. Most folks in that part of Georgia are
Armenian. We certainly try to encourage Georgia to invest in that
region. In fact, what we've seen-I hear you telling me something
different-but what we've seen is that Georgia is investing in that
part of the country. There's a lot of need in Georgia just as there is
in Armenia and I think in that regard those two are fairly comparable.
On the schools, we did meet with some schools, I should say one
Armenian and one Georgian school and the teachers raised the issue as
well. The minority schools, or ethnic schools- whether they are
Armenian, Russian, Azerbaijani-all of the teaching at those schools is
in that language, except for if they are studying a foreign language.
You are right, what is being reduced is teaching Armenian grammar and
so forth. That is something the US embassy in Georgia has raised with
the government in Tbilisi. One of the programs that we have in Georgia
is to help the educational system in terms of how it makes its
decisions and to try to help them make decisions based on facts as
opposed to `well we think this might be a good thing to do.' It's sort
of strategic planning and so forth and we hope that it will help with
all the schools in Georgia.
A.Y.: Georgia's Foreign Ministry recently traveled to Armenia where he
denied the existence of the Armenian region of Javakhk. So does the US
government recognize that the region of Javakhk exists?
M.Y.: It does. Obviously Georgians call that region Samtskhe-Javakhetti.
A.Y.: This will be my final question. For more than a year, the
Armenian community has raised the issue of the 9th Circuit Court
finding declaring California's Armenian Genocide Life Insurance
Recovery law as unconstitutional. How should we interpret the lack of
response/silence by the administration on this front? Should we take
that a sign that the administration has no intention of challenging
the courts finding or that the administration agrees with the court's
ruling?
M.Y.: Can you remind me where this stands right now? Is this in
litigation right now? If I could can I just take that question because
I don't have a substantive answer.
From: A. Papazian
Asbarez Interview
Friday, October 29th, 2010
by Asbarez
During her recent visit to Los Angeles, the US Ambassador to Armenia,
Marie Yovanovitch, expressed interest in discussing US policy in
Armenia with Asbarez. Overall, her visit to the Western Region
communities were met with skepticism, given that she generally
reiterated previous positions articulated by the State Department.
Asbarez's Allen Yekikian sat down with Yovanovitch at the Glendale
Public Library on October 14 to discuss Washington's position on
Armenian-American issues and the State Department's approach to
Armenia and surrounding neighbors. Below is the interview in its
entirety.
Allen Yekikian: Is mentioning the Armenian Genocide still a firing
offense for U.S. diplomats? Do you fear retaliation by the State
Department and a fate similar to your predecessor Ambassador Evans, if
you were to speak honestly about the Armenian Genocide? What actions
would you take against any of the employees at the U.S. embassy in
Yerevan if they spoke honestly about the Armenian Genocide?
Marie Yovanovitch: Well I think that US policy is very clear and I
think that all US government employees-our job is to uphold the US
policy and represent US policy, for example in Iraq or on Israel,
there is only one US policy and that's the President's policy. Nobody
would expect that there should be be 15 different views about the way
forward and the same thing is true on this issue.
A.Y.: Does the U.S. have military or economic interests in connection
to Turkey that influence its decision on whether to use the word
`genocide,' when discussing the massacre of 1.5 million Armenians from
1915-1923?
M.Y.: Obviously Turkey is a NATO ally it's been a longstanding partner
for the US. But i think that when the President looks at this issue
and makes these decisions, he takes a lot of issues into account. I
think if you look at his statement from April 24, I think it's pretty
clear what his views are and that he thinks it's important to have a
clear and full and just accounting of the facts. He points to the
discussions that Armenians and Turks are having on these issues and
how important that is.
A.Y.: In a July 2008 letter to then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman Joe Biden, Matthew Reynolds, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, wrote, `We indeed hold Ottoman officials
responsible for those crimes.' What does the U.S. government mean,
when it says it holds Ottoman officials `responsible for those
crimes,' which as you just said the President has characterized in his
April statement as brutal massacres of more than a million people?
M.Y.: Well I think it's pretty clear what we mean by that. We hold
them responsible.
A.Y: What does that entail. Responsibility for a crime in the US
entails punishment, jail time, legal action or fines. So what does the
US government consider as punishment in this case?
M.Y.: I'd refer you back to Assistant Secretary Reynolds' letter on that.
A.Y.: The President's statement in April clearly characterized
everything that encompasses Genocide but fell short of using the word.
What does it take for the President to call it what it is? If the
Republic of Turkey recognized the Armenian Genocide tomorrow, would
the United States then also do the same?
M.Y.: All of our policies, whether they are domestic or foreign are
the President's policies and he makes those decisions. You are asking
me a couple of hypothetical questions so all I can say is we can't
really answer hypothetical questions; it's really up to the President
to make that decision.
A.Y.: Did you ever meet with the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey to discuss
ending Turkey's blockade, as you committed to do during your
confirmation hearing?
M.Y.: I meet with the ambassadors and others in all of the embassies
in the region, so Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey because, obviously,
there are a lot of issues that we've discussed and we certainly
discussed these issues with Ambassador Jeffery when he was in place
and now Charge d'affairs Doug Siloman.
A.Y.: A little while back we had the flotilla incident with Turkey and
Israel and the blockade of aid ships going to Gaza. The US took a
position on that. Why hasn't the US taken a position on the nearly two
decade-long illegal blockade of Armenia?
M.Y.: We think that the border should be opened immediately and
without preconditions. We've encouraged both sides to move forward and
ratify the protocols so I think our position is pretty clear.
A.Y.: Armenia began the rapprochement process between Turkey and
Armenia on the principles of immediate relations without preconditions
but it quickly evolved to include a whole slew of preconditions that
eventually stalled the talks as a result of Turkey's refusal to move
forward without a resolution of the Karabakh conflict favoring
Azerbaijan.
M.Y.: Yeah, right, that's the only one I'm aware of.
A.Y.: Right, but Turkey also requires Armenia end any international
efforts for Genocide recognition. So What...
M.Y.: I'm not aware of that.
A.Y.: Well going back to the Karabakh precondition, what is the US
government's position on that and how is it dealing with that since it
was a key broker of the rapprochement process.
M.Y.: I know that this is a controversial issue in the Armenian
community here, and it's certainly been the topic of much discussion
in Yerevan-and Armenia more broadly. We think that it's very important
to move forward; we understand that it's very difficult, but our
position is that there should be normalization without preconditions.
We've said that publicly and I can assure you that we have said that
privately. We hope that just as President Sarkisian indicated in his
statement in April-that at some point the Turks would be ready to come
back to the table and start moving that process forward again-and
that's something that we are ready to assist the parties on if they
need our assistance.
A.Y.: So does official Washington consider Turkey's requirement to
resolve Karabakh a precondition.
M.Y.: We don't believe there should be any linkage and there should be
a movement forward in terms of normalization, opening the border,
diplomatic relations, ordinary commerce-directly, not through third
countries. Secretary Clinton was very clear when she was in Yerevan
when she said the ball is in the Turkish court. And we believe that
President Sarkisian was visionary, very brave, in terms of moving
forward on this issue. Because he knew it was going to be
controversial, he knew it was going to be difficult and yet he
undertook that step. We hope that at some point we can move forward
again and I think it's certainly clear to all the parties that we are
ready to help that process.
A.Y.: Why was it that when Secretary of State Clinton visited the
Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan, Dzidzernagapert, earlier this
year she did so in a personal and private capacity but when she
visited the Alley of Martyrs in Baku, which is in memory of several
dozen Azerbaijanis who died in fighting with the Soviet troops who
were sent into Baku to stop anti-Armenian pogroms of 1988, she made
that visit in her official capacity and in a highly public way? Are
you concerned that the Secretary's actions represent a double standard
that demeans the U.S. response to the mass murder and dispossession of
an entire civilization?
M.Y: I was with the Secretary when she went to Dzidzernagapert and it
was a really moving moment. She went to pay her respects to those who
died and we were greeted by Haik Demoyan, the director of the Museum
and Memorial complex, and he was able to provide context and explain
to the Secretary what she was seeing, what various things represented
and so forth. I think it was very important that she went there and it
was certainly very moving. Obviously you've seen the footage on TV and
the photos. We wanted to keep it as dignified as possible and I think
it was important that she went and I'm really glad that she did go.
A.Y.: Do you believe there can be a real reconciliation between Turkey
and Armenia, without a truthful and just resolution of the Armenian
Genocide?
M.Y.: I think these are all very difficult processes. When people come
together and talk about whatever it is that students talk about when
they are together or journalists and professors might have
professional issues they might want to talk about, other types of
professionals may have issues that sort of create this space for
dialogue. I think it's really hard to go back in history and discuss
some of these very difficult, very emotional, very difficult issues
when there's not a basis for trust. And I think right now, on both
sides of the border, because that border has been closed for so long
because of that history, there isn't a lot of knowledge on both sides
of the border about the other. So I think it's important to try to
create a space for dialogue and when you move forward with those
dialogues, gradually one takes on some of the harder issues.
I think if you look at the evolution in Turkey over the last few
years, there's clearly an interest in the issue of normalization and
so fort. I'm not saying this is a topic in every household, but
certainly in intellectual circles, this is a topic that is addressed.
I think there is a shift in the dialogue, where Turks are ready to ask
some questions of themselves. I'm not saying that they agree with
Armenians, but I think there is a shift in the dialogue and that's a
beginning. And I think it's important for Armenians and Turks to come
together and discuss many issues to create a basis of trust to also
talk about other issues.
A.Y.: Why has the Obama Administration, during its first two years in
office, called for reductions in the level of economic aid actually
provided to Armenia?
M.Y.: I Think all you need to do is look at the general budget
picture. The Armenia budget is not separate from that process. But I
am glad that the assistance to Armenia is among one of the highest per
capita in the world. We're pleased that we were able to maintain $45
million for fiscal year 2010 and as you know we don't have a final
budget yet for this fiscal year but we are hoping we could keep it up
there. We do a lot of important things with our assistance budget,
whether it's in terms of supporting Armenia's economic growth or
supporting democratic development, whether it's on the health side or
the social services side, through pension reforms and so forth. So
certainly, speaking as the American Ambassador to Armenia, we hope
those budget levels will be maintained. But again, we can't divorce
what we are doing in Armenia with the overall budget picture in the
United States.
A.Y.: By that same account, Azerbaijan continues to receive large
amounts of US aid, particularly military aid, freeing up its budget to
allocate more funds to its military. Why do our tax dollars fund
military aid to Azerbaijan at the same time that its government is
both threatening and actually using its military to start a new war
against Nagorno Karabakh? Couldn't that money, which is bolstering the
Azeri military machine, be better spent on democratization efforts in
both countries. Why does the US, and in particular me as a tax paying
citizen, continue to support a country threatening war?
M.Y.: That's a fair question. We also provide a lot of assistance to
Russia and most of the assistance to Russia and most of our assistance
to Azerbaijan goes to democratization programs because we feel that
it's important to help those countries with their ongoing transitions
to democracy. In the case of Azerbaijan, I think it would be clearly
in Armenia's interests if Azerbaijan moves forward in that democratic
process. Azerbaijan, I think, gets somewhere to the tune of half the
assistance we provide Armenia and I think there's a consensus on the
part of Congress and the executive branch that this is a good use of
our money-to try and help Azerbaijan make that transition.
You also asked about military funding, we provide funding to both
Armenia and Azerbaijan. We ensure that that funding does not raise
tensions in the area and destabilize the area and so forth. One of the
reasons we give assistance to Azerbaijan in this respect is that in a
post-911 world we have important counter-terrorism and
counter-narcotics programs with Azerbaijan on the Caspian Sea.
A.Y.: You mentioned the US gives military aid to both Armenia and
Azerbaijan. But the President has also exercised his right to waive
Section 907, and has not yet released the report that justifies
providing military aid to Azerbaijan. Is there any reason that this
report should not be shared with the public? If not, can you instruct
the U.S. Embassy to release this report?
M.Y.: Well you know, we can take that question and get back to you.
Obviously, the US embassy in Yerevan wouldn't be the one that writes
that report and if that's an important answer for you we can ask
someone at the State Department to get back to you.
A.Y.: What signal is the President sending when the Administration
sends Azerbaijan's military more aid than Armenia, particularly when
Azerbaijan's leaders are threatening to use their army to start a new
war? You mentioned that the US takes steps to ensure its funding does
not destabilize the area, but it's clear with recent events that
Azerbaijan's President is in fact raising tensions in the region with
repeated violations of the cease-fire agreement with Karabakh that
results in deaths on the border.
M.Y.: Well, I think it's fairly straight forward and I understand that
perhaps you may not agree with this but we were very careful with the
assistance that we provide. Most of the assistance that we provide
both countries is actually in the form of training. We have important
missions with the country of Azerbaijan. It has a strategic location
on the Caspian Sea and as I said in a post-911 world, we need to work
with Azerbaijan on important issues of counter terrorism and
narcotics.
A.Y.: Armenia is similarly important in this post-911 world. It has
sent troops to serve alongside American soldiers in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Kosovo, and consistently called for stronger military cooperation
with the United States. What obstacles do you see preventing broader
U.S.-Armenia military cooperation?
M.Y.: Actually I think that what we've seen over the last couple years
is a strengthening of the bilateral military to military relationship
and I think it's a real positive and bright spot in our overall
bilateral relationship. We do many things, both through the NATO
partnership as well as bilaterally and I'll give you a couple
examples. On the NATO side, there was a NATO disaster response
exercise in Armenia recently and that's really important because
that's the way you train working with your neighbors and so forth
working with your neighbors on how to respond to a disaster. And I
think it was great that there was so much participation by NATO and
the partner countries.
Turkey had observers there so I think it was a real plus. On the
bilateral side, we are working with Armenia with US experts through a
NATO program with its strategic defense review. And that's a new way
of thinking for a post-Soviet military-trying to determine what does
it want its military to look like, what does it need to accomplish
those goals, and putting the budget piece into place too. You've
probably seen Secretary Gates' comments about the US military, saying
we need to cut by 10 percent because we can't do all the tasks we want
to do and the same thing is probably true with most militaries. So
this is a strategic defense review that kind of helps the Armenian
military leadership think strategically about where it's going.
A.Y.: Why do you think the people of Nagorno Karabagh have voted
repeatedly against being ruled by Azerbaijan?
M.Y.: I don't want to speak for the people of Karabakh, you have to ask others.
A.Y.: Throughout the Cold War, America argued against the foreign rule
Moscow imposed on the peoples of the Soviet bloc, yet, today, we
defend the very artificial borders drawn by Stalin to deny freedom to
the Armenian people of Nagorno Karabakh? Why is the U.S. defending
borders imposed by Stalin? If this principle had been applied during
the struggle for freedom by the American colonies, we would still be
part of England.
M.Y.: Obviously I've heard this question many times during my time
here in the United States, and in general. Obviously
self-determination is an important principle, but so is territorial
integrity. If that wasn't one of the bedrocks of the international
system you can imagine what we would be dealing with. So I think it's
important to try to move forward with negotiations to find a political
solution to the NK conflict-one that is acceptable to both sides. But
you know, that's going to require compromises on both sides as well.
A.Y.: Speaking of territorial integrity and self-determination, most
of the world's countries today were formed because of their exercise
of the principle of self-determination, including the most
recent-Kosov. Please explain the obvious inconsistency in the US not
advocating, let alone supporting, the self-determination of the people
of Nagorno-Karabakh and the recognition of the independence of the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic when it actively worked, over Serbia's
opposition, in support the independence and self-determination of
Kosovo? Also, please comment on the recent International Court of
Justice ruling upholding the legality of Kosovo's unilateral
declaration of independence.
M.Y.: Again, obviously every Armenian I talk to, whether it's here or
in Armenia, shares your view that Kosovo should be a precedent for NK.
But I think when we look at the situation, every conflict is unique
and challenging and different in its own way. You can't just impose
solutions onto another.
Obviously we want to use the lessons of history, the lessons that
different negotiations can help us with and we want to use those
lessons learned in finding a solution to the NK conflict. There are
many possible precedents out there. There are many conflicts, I can
think of a couple right now, that Armenians would not think relevant,
but perhaps the Azerbaijanis would. So where we find ourselves is
discussing which precedent would be the most useful and we will impose
on NK as an NK solution as opposed to trying to find a solution to NK.
I think that's what we need to focus on and that's where the efforts
of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs are.
A.Y.: Why is the US government looking so far away for precedents when
there are three fairly recent historical precedents that have defined
the reality on the ground between Armenia and Azerbaijan, in 1905,
1918, and 1991. In all three cases, three conflicts flared out between
the Armenians and Turkic people of the region over the same exact
reason, with the same people, and in the same territory. And the
underlying cause for all three conflicts was denial of the right to
self-determination to the Armenians of Karabakh. Why does the US
Government, and the Minsk Group in particular, not look to these
precedents, when working toward a resolution of the conflict?
M.Y.: I think the Minsk Group Co-Chairs are looking at the entire
situation and I think what we need to do is move forward with a
political solution with the negotiation that will actually lead to a
just and lasting peace.
A.Y.: That `just and lasting peace,' according to the Minsk Group
co-chairs, is articulated in the Madrid Principles, which call on
Nagorno Karabagh to make specific, up-front, and irrevocable land and
security concessions in exchange for a vague promise that Azerbaijan
will agree to an as-yet undefined process to address its status at
some point in the future. Why is this a good deal for Nagorno
Karabagh, which in fact is not even a full participant to the peace
process?
M.Y.: Because a decision was made a while ago that Armenia could
represent NK. I think the Minsk Group negotiators were just in
Karabakh. They have frequent consultations with the NK authorities, as
well as with people in NK to find out what they are thinking and so
forth. I think that there's general recognition that a just and
lasting solution to the conflict is not going to be possible without
input from the NK folks. So I think that at some point they will be
brought into the process, but that's going to have to be something
that all the parties agree to, including Azerbaijan. Clearly we are
not at that point yet, so in the interim, the Co-Chairs are frequently
going to the region in order to find out the views of the NK
authorities.
A.Y.: Moving onto the Armenians of Georgia, why has the U.S.
government remained silent in the face of abuses against the Armenian
Church, unfair restrictions on Armenian schools, and all other forms
of cultural, social, political and economic pressure intended to
intimidate and ultimately drive away the region's historic Armenian
population, particularly in Javakhk, which the Georgian Foreign
Minister recently said does not exist?
M.Y.: I was recently in Javakhk, traveling with Ambassador Bass who is
our ambassador to Georgia. It was obviously very interesting for me.
We met with a number of local government authorities as well as folks
who were living in the region and of course many of them are Armenian.
I can't really agree with the premise of your question that there is a
purposeful campaign to drive out Armenians.
Those that I spoke with actually felt their lives were getting better
and they pointed to two things. One was gasification, that over the
last five years the government of Georgia have made a concerted effort
to hook up certain cities in outlying areas with gas. That makes a
tremendous difference to the quality of life. Not everyone has this
yet but that was something a lot of people pointed to.
The second thing was that was the road that was being built. The
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is building a road to the
Armenian border and having just driven that road-parts of it are
completed and parts of it aren't. What a difference in terms of
bringing your crops to market in Tbilisi-hugely beneficial to the
people of that area, especially now since they are being hired to
build those roads. In the future, they can use that road for commerce
and so forth. That's US government money, US tax-payer money.
The government of Georgia is building secondary and tertiary roads off
of that main road to the villages. Now all of the villages going to
have great roads leading to them-no. But again, it's better than it
was and it's a step forward.
The US Government has quite a number of programs-administered by the
US Embassy in Georgia-in Javakhk. We've got $220 million dollars of
programming, that includes the road, but across the board. That
includes helping with democratic transition in terms of economic
growth and so forth and that benefits the people in the region,
including Armenians.
A.Y.: I was also recently there in August. I did see the roads, they
are nicely paved. But I saw a different picture than what you are
describing. In fact, non of the people working on the road that runs
directly through Javakhk and to the Armenian border are Armenian,
despite the fact that Akhalkalak, for example, is almost entirely
populated by Armenians. Furthermore, Armenian schools have been taken
over by the state, which has imposed mandatory reductions in hours per
week they are permitted to teach Armenian language.
M.Y.: If I can just say, I did meet Armenians who were working on the
road and I specifically asked the question, whose getting hired.
Locals are getting hired. Most folks in that part of Georgia are
Armenian. We certainly try to encourage Georgia to invest in that
region. In fact, what we've seen-I hear you telling me something
different-but what we've seen is that Georgia is investing in that
part of the country. There's a lot of need in Georgia just as there is
in Armenia and I think in that regard those two are fairly comparable.
On the schools, we did meet with some schools, I should say one
Armenian and one Georgian school and the teachers raised the issue as
well. The minority schools, or ethnic schools- whether they are
Armenian, Russian, Azerbaijani-all of the teaching at those schools is
in that language, except for if they are studying a foreign language.
You are right, what is being reduced is teaching Armenian grammar and
so forth. That is something the US embassy in Georgia has raised with
the government in Tbilisi. One of the programs that we have in Georgia
is to help the educational system in terms of how it makes its
decisions and to try to help them make decisions based on facts as
opposed to `well we think this might be a good thing to do.' It's sort
of strategic planning and so forth and we hope that it will help with
all the schools in Georgia.
A.Y.: Georgia's Foreign Ministry recently traveled to Armenia where he
denied the existence of the Armenian region of Javakhk. So does the US
government recognize that the region of Javakhk exists?
M.Y.: It does. Obviously Georgians call that region Samtskhe-Javakhetti.
A.Y.: This will be my final question. For more than a year, the
Armenian community has raised the issue of the 9th Circuit Court
finding declaring California's Armenian Genocide Life Insurance
Recovery law as unconstitutional. How should we interpret the lack of
response/silence by the administration on this front? Should we take
that a sign that the administration has no intention of challenging
the courts finding or that the administration agrees with the court's
ruling?
M.Y.: Can you remind me where this stands right now? Is this in
litigation right now? If I could can I just take that question because
I don't have a substantive answer.
From: A. Papazian