Tweet
INTERVIEW OF PRESIDENT SERZH SARGSYAN TO "MOSKOVSKIE NOVOSTI"
Office of the President of the Republic
www.president.am
May 17 2011
Armenia
Territorial integrity does not mean inviolability of borders
On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the disintegration of
the USSR, President Serzh Sargsyan gave an interview to the Russian
"Moskovskie Novosti" (Moscow News) paper.
Mr. President, Vladimir Putin has once said that the breakdown of
the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th
century. For you, is it a disaster, a tragedy, or a victory?
Serzh Sargsyan: I agree that for many people the collapse of the
Soviet Union became a tragedy, because their regular life rhythm was
disrupted, perceived prosperity was gone, and they were compelled to
drastically change their lives. Enormous efforts had been made to
insure security of the people. The already throbbing conflicts and
problems, at the time of the breakup unfolded into military conflicts,
or to be precise - into wars. On the other hand, however, many nations
had been dreaming of independence. After attaining independence,
our people were able to turn the centuries-long cherished dream
into reality.
Independent Armenia is only twenty years old. From the viewpoint of
the entire history of the Armenian nation, it's a drop in the ocean.
Armenia had lost her independence many centuries ago, and the first
independent republic was short-lived - only two and a half years,
just a split second in history. Certainly, the Soviet Armenia was
a very important chapter in the history of the Armenian people, a
period of formation and systematization of the institutional memory
of the people. And it helped us to hold out.
So, the base, which had been created during the soviet times, allowed
to hold out in the future, when the USSR disintegrated?
Serzh Sargsyan: Yes, the mentioned base was the economy, demographics,
culture and science and formation of the institutional memory of
the people.
In the end of the day, for Armenia and the Armenian people was the
soviet period dominated by good or bad?
Serzh Sargsyan: The Armenians, as all the others, went through
all hardships which existed in the Soviet Union. However, overall
I believe that there were more good occurrences than bad. Armenia
was developing, and living standards and conditions, let's say, in
Armenia of 1988 are incomparable with the pre-Soviet situation. I
think that actually Armenia was developing rapidly.
Are those, who claim that Armenia in Soviet times was a privileged
entity, right?
Serzh Sargsyan: Really? I don't think Armenia had privileges. The
Armenian people are hardworking and aim-oriented enough. To be honest,
I never heard such phraseology.
You've mentioned a number of positive things which Armenia got during
Soviet times. However, Armenia became one of the places where the
breakup of the USSR started on, why?
Serzh Sargsyan: There are two reasons: Although Armenia was developing
rapidly, nevertheless, the national problem was in existence. We were
living in a huge country and in foreign policy our interests had not
been always taken into consideration. For instance, in the USSR-Turkey
bilateral relations. The Armenian are spread all over the world,
mostly because our people had been subjected to genocide. In western
societies they were speaking about it freely. You see, we knew about
it, and it certainly had an impact on the situation. Official policy
was regarded in Armenia extremely negatively.
Second reason, at the dawn of the soviet times, the Caucasian Bureau
of the Communist Party had adopted a decision to detach historical
Armenian regions Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhijevan and hand them over
to Azerbaijan. Never, especially in case of Nagorno Karabakh, had
we agreed with such a decision. In Nagorno Karabakh that unlawful
decision had always been protested. In Gorbachev era, with perestroika,
the protest had become more material. When people saw that the just
decision was still unattainable, they started to protect vigorously.
When did you personally realize that the Soviet Union was doomed?
Serzh Sargsyan: It's hard to recall particularly when, but I was
actively involved in Karabakh movement since 1988. At the time,
being a Communist Party functionary, I knew that the movement would
go on ceaselessly, I knew that either we reach the ultimate goal,
or Karabakh would be cleansed of Armenians, as it had happened
with Nakhijevan. I resigned from the USSR Communist Party. I knew,
of course, that becoming independent would not be a smooth, lossless
process. I also knew the region we lived in very well. We were ready
for those difficulties.
Do you remember the day when you realized "that's it, this is the
end"? Until then there was some hope for holding the union together,
for some kind of a normal solution within one country; but later it
became obvious that that was the end, separation was inevitable and
no matter what, we would take the road toward independence.
Serzh Sargsyan: If I am not mistaken, it was sometime between 1990
and 1991 when I learned that the interior troops were leaving the
territory of Nagorno Karabakh. On the eve of the troops' withdrawal,
we had already realized that we would stand face to face with our
problem and that there would be boisterous events.
And it happened, everything started with Karabakh, the breakup of the
Soviet Union had started at that particular time. What would be Your
perception of the perfect solution now?
Serzh Sargsyan: The problem can be decided only based on mutual
concessions. All these years, we have been looking for compromise. But
here's the bottom line - the future of the people of Nagorno Karabakh
will be decided by the people of Nagorno Karabakh, they must have
every opportunity to live in security on their historical land. As
you know, the OSCE Minsk Group has been dealing with this problem,
the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev is making
great personal efforts, and we are very grateful for that. It's been
the Minsk Group that proposed a document which is provisionally called
the Madrid principles. It implies the resolution of the problem based
on three principles: non-use of force or threat to use force, principle
of territorial integrity and right of people to self-determination.
Overall, the document provides an opportunity to continue negotiations
and to proceed with the drafting of a comprehensive peace agreement.
We know precisely what these three principles mean. After protracted
reckoning, the Azeris also said yes, but then for no obvious reason
started to interpret these principles differently, in their own way.
Until now, at the every level the Azeri leadership has been constantly
threatening with the resumption of military actions. It's a violation
of the first principle. The principle of territorial integrity is
explicit for us and for them, even though it looks like they have
turned it into an absolute dogma, outside the realm of international
law, while the right for self-determination is perceived by them
as self-determination in the framework of Azerbaijan's territorial
integrity. Such self-determination does not exist; it's an incomplete,
primitive self-determination. And as long as Azerbaijan does not
comprehend the meaning of that particular principle, it will be
very difficult to get solution to the problem. Karabakh defended its
independence in a bloody and cruel war, in the most gruesome conditions
and it would be naïve to assume that the people of Karabakh will give
up everything they've achieved.
But if two sides comprehend the principle of territorial integrity
differently and draw borders on the map differently, it's hard to
believe that progress is possible.
Serzh Sargsyan: I believe, we do comprehend it differently. But these
are principles the world is guided by. These principles - territorial
integrity and self-determination of people - allowed Armenia and
Azerbaijan to become independent states. Why is it acceptable in one
case, but misinterpreted in the other? It is illogical. Territorial
integrity does not mean inviolability of borders, otherwise there
would be no new states, while in the last 20-30 years a dozen of new
states has appeared on the world map.
Do you think recent formation of the two new states in the South
Caucasus will have an impact on the resolution of the NK conflict?
Serzh Sargsyan: The NK problem is different from any other similar
problem. In general, all these conflicts are unique, each of them has
its own specific causes, consequences, and dynamics. As a precedent,
yes, creation of new states does have a positive impact on the world's
perception regarding the right of the NK people. And it's not about
our recognition of the state sovereignty of Kosovo, Southern Sudan,
Abkhazia or South Ossetia; it's about the fact that the international
community in different combinations accepts that in this or that
particular case separation is a legal form for the realization of
the right for self-determination.
Do You believe there is a real threat for the resumption of military
actions?
Serzh Sargsyan: I think, there is a possibility, because I cannot
understand why Azerbaijan is dragging its feet on negotiations.
Probably, there are some schemes related to the accumulation of more
power and resources to try at the opportune moment to instigate a new
reckless military provocation. It's a flawed approach, the situation
may unfold in two ways: first, all-out war and as a result, the
occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, which is possible only if the people
of NK are totally eliminated, and the second, Azerbaijan's defeat
and loss of additional territories. In that case Azerbaijan will be
complaining again about the loss of five, six or more regions. Then
what? Another cease-fire, another agreement, new violations of the
cease-fire, another war...These scenarios are without prospect.
Office of the President of the Republic
www.president.am
May 17 2011
Armenia
Territorial integrity does not mean inviolability of borders
On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the disintegration of
the USSR, President Serzh Sargsyan gave an interview to the Russian
"Moskovskie Novosti" (Moscow News) paper.
Mr. President, Vladimir Putin has once said that the breakdown of
the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th
century. For you, is it a disaster, a tragedy, or a victory?
Serzh Sargsyan: I agree that for many people the collapse of the
Soviet Union became a tragedy, because their regular life rhythm was
disrupted, perceived prosperity was gone, and they were compelled to
drastically change their lives. Enormous efforts had been made to
insure security of the people. The already throbbing conflicts and
problems, at the time of the breakup unfolded into military conflicts,
or to be precise - into wars. On the other hand, however, many nations
had been dreaming of independence. After attaining independence,
our people were able to turn the centuries-long cherished dream
into reality.
Independent Armenia is only twenty years old. From the viewpoint of
the entire history of the Armenian nation, it's a drop in the ocean.
Armenia had lost her independence many centuries ago, and the first
independent republic was short-lived - only two and a half years,
just a split second in history. Certainly, the Soviet Armenia was
a very important chapter in the history of the Armenian people, a
period of formation and systematization of the institutional memory
of the people. And it helped us to hold out.
So, the base, which had been created during the soviet times, allowed
to hold out in the future, when the USSR disintegrated?
Serzh Sargsyan: Yes, the mentioned base was the economy, demographics,
culture and science and formation of the institutional memory of
the people.
In the end of the day, for Armenia and the Armenian people was the
soviet period dominated by good or bad?
Serzh Sargsyan: The Armenians, as all the others, went through
all hardships which existed in the Soviet Union. However, overall
I believe that there were more good occurrences than bad. Armenia
was developing, and living standards and conditions, let's say, in
Armenia of 1988 are incomparable with the pre-Soviet situation. I
think that actually Armenia was developing rapidly.
Are those, who claim that Armenia in Soviet times was a privileged
entity, right?
Serzh Sargsyan: Really? I don't think Armenia had privileges. The
Armenian people are hardworking and aim-oriented enough. To be honest,
I never heard such phraseology.
You've mentioned a number of positive things which Armenia got during
Soviet times. However, Armenia became one of the places where the
breakup of the USSR started on, why?
Serzh Sargsyan: There are two reasons: Although Armenia was developing
rapidly, nevertheless, the national problem was in existence. We were
living in a huge country and in foreign policy our interests had not
been always taken into consideration. For instance, in the USSR-Turkey
bilateral relations. The Armenian are spread all over the world,
mostly because our people had been subjected to genocide. In western
societies they were speaking about it freely. You see, we knew about
it, and it certainly had an impact on the situation. Official policy
was regarded in Armenia extremely negatively.
Second reason, at the dawn of the soviet times, the Caucasian Bureau
of the Communist Party had adopted a decision to detach historical
Armenian regions Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhijevan and hand them over
to Azerbaijan. Never, especially in case of Nagorno Karabakh, had
we agreed with such a decision. In Nagorno Karabakh that unlawful
decision had always been protested. In Gorbachev era, with perestroika,
the protest had become more material. When people saw that the just
decision was still unattainable, they started to protect vigorously.
When did you personally realize that the Soviet Union was doomed?
Serzh Sargsyan: It's hard to recall particularly when, but I was
actively involved in Karabakh movement since 1988. At the time,
being a Communist Party functionary, I knew that the movement would
go on ceaselessly, I knew that either we reach the ultimate goal,
or Karabakh would be cleansed of Armenians, as it had happened
with Nakhijevan. I resigned from the USSR Communist Party. I knew,
of course, that becoming independent would not be a smooth, lossless
process. I also knew the region we lived in very well. We were ready
for those difficulties.
Do you remember the day when you realized "that's it, this is the
end"? Until then there was some hope for holding the union together,
for some kind of a normal solution within one country; but later it
became obvious that that was the end, separation was inevitable and
no matter what, we would take the road toward independence.
Serzh Sargsyan: If I am not mistaken, it was sometime between 1990
and 1991 when I learned that the interior troops were leaving the
territory of Nagorno Karabakh. On the eve of the troops' withdrawal,
we had already realized that we would stand face to face with our
problem and that there would be boisterous events.
And it happened, everything started with Karabakh, the breakup of the
Soviet Union had started at that particular time. What would be Your
perception of the perfect solution now?
Serzh Sargsyan: The problem can be decided only based on mutual
concessions. All these years, we have been looking for compromise. But
here's the bottom line - the future of the people of Nagorno Karabakh
will be decided by the people of Nagorno Karabakh, they must have
every opportunity to live in security on their historical land. As
you know, the OSCE Minsk Group has been dealing with this problem,
the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev is making
great personal efforts, and we are very grateful for that. It's been
the Minsk Group that proposed a document which is provisionally called
the Madrid principles. It implies the resolution of the problem based
on three principles: non-use of force or threat to use force, principle
of territorial integrity and right of people to self-determination.
Overall, the document provides an opportunity to continue negotiations
and to proceed with the drafting of a comprehensive peace agreement.
We know precisely what these three principles mean. After protracted
reckoning, the Azeris also said yes, but then for no obvious reason
started to interpret these principles differently, in their own way.
Until now, at the every level the Azeri leadership has been constantly
threatening with the resumption of military actions. It's a violation
of the first principle. The principle of territorial integrity is
explicit for us and for them, even though it looks like they have
turned it into an absolute dogma, outside the realm of international
law, while the right for self-determination is perceived by them
as self-determination in the framework of Azerbaijan's territorial
integrity. Such self-determination does not exist; it's an incomplete,
primitive self-determination. And as long as Azerbaijan does not
comprehend the meaning of that particular principle, it will be
very difficult to get solution to the problem. Karabakh defended its
independence in a bloody and cruel war, in the most gruesome conditions
and it would be naïve to assume that the people of Karabakh will give
up everything they've achieved.
But if two sides comprehend the principle of territorial integrity
differently and draw borders on the map differently, it's hard to
believe that progress is possible.
Serzh Sargsyan: I believe, we do comprehend it differently. But these
are principles the world is guided by. These principles - territorial
integrity and self-determination of people - allowed Armenia and
Azerbaijan to become independent states. Why is it acceptable in one
case, but misinterpreted in the other? It is illogical. Territorial
integrity does not mean inviolability of borders, otherwise there
would be no new states, while in the last 20-30 years a dozen of new
states has appeared on the world map.
Do you think recent formation of the two new states in the South
Caucasus will have an impact on the resolution of the NK conflict?
Serzh Sargsyan: The NK problem is different from any other similar
problem. In general, all these conflicts are unique, each of them has
its own specific causes, consequences, and dynamics. As a precedent,
yes, creation of new states does have a positive impact on the world's
perception regarding the right of the NK people. And it's not about
our recognition of the state sovereignty of Kosovo, Southern Sudan,
Abkhazia or South Ossetia; it's about the fact that the international
community in different combinations accepts that in this or that
particular case separation is a legal form for the realization of
the right for self-determination.
Do You believe there is a real threat for the resumption of military
actions?
Serzh Sargsyan: I think, there is a possibility, because I cannot
understand why Azerbaijan is dragging its feet on negotiations.
Probably, there are some schemes related to the accumulation of more
power and resources to try at the opportune moment to instigate a new
reckless military provocation. It's a flawed approach, the situation
may unfold in two ways: first, all-out war and as a result, the
occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, which is possible only if the people
of NK are totally eliminated, and the second, Azerbaijan's defeat
and loss of additional territories. In that case Azerbaijan will be
complaining again about the loss of five, six or more regions. Then
what? Another cease-fire, another agreement, new violations of the
cease-fire, another war...These scenarios are without prospect.