Tweet
TIGRAN KHZMALYAN: ONLY CIVIL SOCIETY CAN SAVE ARMENIA FROM TURNING INTO AN APPENDAGE OF NEO-COLONIAL, IMPERIALISTIC SYSTEM
ArmInfo's interview with member of the Sardarapat Movement, film
director Tigran Khzmalyan
by David Stepanyan
ARMINFO Friday, April 19, 17:45
The Sardarapat Movement supported Raffi Hovannisian during the
post-election rallies. What did you expect from the BaRevolution?
Our statement was voiced at the first rally at the Liberty Square
after the so-called presidential election, and in two months after the
election we still go on insisting on what we said in the statement. We
did not join Raffi Hovannisian but the revolt the culmination of
which happened on 18 February - the election day. That day we again
saw just the same way as in 1996, 2003 and 2008 that presidential
election in Armenia is an obvious reason for the citizens to express
their disagreement with political, economic and ideological course of
the authorities of the republic which replace each other for the last
15 years. As a token of solidarity, we, members of the "Sardarapat"
movement and Pre-parliament came to the Square to participate in the
rally organized by a regular leader of the opposition in the person of
Raffi Hovannisian. However, the points of no return are clear to us,
after which we shall not stand next to him. But this does not at all
mean that we are not going to refuse cooperation with him.
Could you specify those points of no return?
In the person of the authorities of Armenia the society has got a well
organized system, fighting which is impossible from inside. In this
context, "Sardarapat" offered Raffi Hovannisian a systemized fight
on the basis of the relevant drawn out road map, which we are going
to offer to the society. The situation in Armenia should be assessed
and analyzed in the context of events taking place in the post-Soviet
territory in general, and in the Middle East, in particular, as
well as in the context of global changes in the world. Only if we
understand the place of Armenia in these processes, we shall be able
to understand what is taking place within the republic.
You said that Raffi Hovannisian accepted you suggestions but none of
them was realized. Why?
In word, Raffi Hovannisian agreed to our suggestions, but actually
he did not accept them. This happened as a result of changing of the
landmarks in the movement. At Serzh Sargsyan's inauguration day I
called Raffi Hovannisian's actions like a political suicide. But in
a day or two I understood that Raffi Hovannisian did not try to make
a political suicide, he sacrificed himself for quite certain goals,
for his own party. If we look at what happened in the last months,
we will see that Armenia's party system has been in ruins since late
2012, when a number of parties refused to run for presidency.
Why did this happen?
This happened because our parties do not meet their purpose - they
do not represent the society,
Can we say that now the influence of external forces has grown?
I am sure it has. But it was not they who wanted to leave Armenia
without parties. It was the wish of all the three Armenian presidents
since 1995, when Levon Ter-Petrosyan put a ban on Dashnaktsutyun and
began creating pocket parties. And his cause was continued by his
two successors. Ter- Petrosyan's motive was fear of the traditional
parties, while Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, who were both from
the province, just needed support. The initial mission of parties like
the RPA and Prosperous Armenia was to protect the economic interests
of one or another oligarch. But when it was time to protect the people
from the regime, they proved to be unprepared. In fact, there were
no parties left after Mar 1 2008. All we had was just signboards,
which fell in the autumn 2012.
But it was exactly the refusal of the ANC, the ARFD and Prosperous
Armenia to run in the presidential race that gave Raffi Hovannisian
the votes he got, wasn't it. Who was interested in this?
Since ANC, ARFD and PAP have refused to take part in the presidential
election, the vacuum was not at all filled by the Heritage party but
by the civil society. Just at that moment public movements in Armenia
became sharply active. I mean those which protected Mashtots park,
ecologists, people fighting for justice in the army, court, etc. That
is to say, the politicized society started quickly filling this niche.
Just this process seemed to be especially dangerous for external
controllers. The point is that everything happening in Armenia is
a very much important precedent for the post-Soviet countries, the
countries of Eastern Europe, and finally for the whole world. Few
people in the world are aware what happened in Iceland in autumn 2012.
Meanwhile, Iceland's residents simply refused external management and
the political and economic model built for several decades. The power
change took place, but not by the will of this or that party, but of
the civil society. This precedent was perceived in the whole world
like extremely dangerous. That's why, it is kept secret. This is the
reason, why an attempt of the Armenian society to start resolving its
own problems was so nervously taken by the power centers in abroad,
which have been leading Armenia to neocolonialism. Aat present
they are trying to replace the mauser regime and junta in Armenia
by neocolonialism. Levon Ter-Petrosyan has recently said the newly
set up Armenian National Congress party has come to make a bourgeois
and democratic revolution in Armenia. I said the same to journalists
a month ago, but not because we like it, but because the last stage
of break-down of the military and feudal system inherited from the
USSR and its unavoidable transition to the bourgeois and democratic
system is taking place in Armenia as well as in the entire post-Soviet
territory.
And what is the role of Raffi Hovannisian in all this?
To lead mass protests. But after two month of his leadership, those
monitoring the situation in the country from outside realized that
things might go out of control and brought it home to Hovannisian on
Apr 9 that his movement was getting dangerous. They realized that
it would be much easier for them to control separate parties than
a nationwide movement. So, we can say that from 2:00 PM till 6:00
PM on Apr 9 Raffi Hovannisian underwent the same evolution Levon
Ter-Petrossian was going through for long two years from 2008 till
2010, that is, from the leader of a nationwide movement back to the
leader of a party. There is no other explanation for the rambling
speech Hovannisian delivered and all the other strange actions he
took on that day. Apr 9 might have become the best day of his life,
but instead he appeared with the worst speech he had ever made. The
only explanation for this is that he was offered to stop being the
leader of the people in exchange of a stronger role in his party. It
was an offer he could not decline. It was almost the same thing that
happened to Levon Ter- Petrosyan in 2008, when Serzh Sargsyan managed
to convince the West that he would do better the thing they meant
for Ter-Petrosyan. The only difference is that this time it was not
Sargsyan who made the offer.
And what is Russia's role in all these processes?
Unfortunately, Russia is continuously losing its powers, traditional
spheres of control and influence. Russian lost its influence in Georgia
at once. In Azerbaijan it is happening slowly but consistently, and
the Gabala radar station is the best evidence of that. In Armenia it
is happening especially slowly due to the instincts of our people that
have chosen the right course. However, for the first time over the
last 200 years we have a generation in Armenia for which the Russian
orientation is not a priority. By means of some financial investments
of the last years, the Western embassies have managed to create a
situation when Russia is no longer unique in the eyes of the Armenian
public. Due to some subjective and objective reasons, for instance,
the wrong policy of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Russia is yielding
its positions. Today's sharp withdrawal of Russia is disastrous for
Armenia, because Armenians had already felt the consequences of such
withdrawal 100 years ago during the World War I. I think that like
in 1988 the national movement is assistance and not an obstacle to
Russia. It seems to me that the recent attempt to give Armenia orange
colors was doomed to failure.
Armenia will be the last country to face 'orange' revolution. It's
alien to our thoughts.
You mean that today the interests of the West and Serzh Sargsyan no
longer coincide?
Already not. In the last years Serzh Sargsyan has evolved
from a Soviet-type politician into a person with pro-Western,
bourgeois-democratic values. It was a maneuver that saved him as a
political figure and put him in the place initially meant for Levon
Ter-Petrossyan. He is still trying to play this role and the last
thing he did was weaken Raffi Hovannisian. But he has done all he could
and can do no more. He cannot get rid of the military feudal heritage
left by his predecessors Robert Kocharyan and Levon Ter-Petrosyan.
In this light, Raffi Hovannisian was a more respectable figure in the
eyes of the Western community. As a matter of fact, Armenia will not
be able to avoid the bourgeois- democratic phase. This will certainly
bring more welfare, legality and transparency in our life. But the
question is what will be prevalent in that model - bourgeois or
democratic. We insist on a national democratic system because the
bourgeois model imposed on our country is nothing but a neo-colonial
regime. What we need is the model applied in Iceland or Switzerland -
a model implying the rule of the people. Only civil society can save us
from becoming an appendage of the neo- colonial, imperialistic system.
And if Raffi Hovannisian is more respectable in the eyes of the West
than Serzh Sargsyan, why don't they use the popular movement to change
the regime in Armenia?
They in the West cannot afford using a popular movement to change
the regime in Armenia as was the case in 2009-2010, when Levon
Ter-Petrosyan abstained from doing it. In the modern world no single
bourgeois leader must be put into power by the his people or he will
always depend on them. Consequently, he must take the rule through
some backstage intrigue orchestrated by certain centers of force.
Hovannisian's visit to Moscow was part of this logic. Having received
a tough offer from the one side, he had nothing left to do but to
appeal to the other, but all they told him was 'try and go, they have
already decided everything.' And he went.
ArmInfo's interview with member of the Sardarapat Movement, film
director Tigran Khzmalyan
by David Stepanyan
ARMINFO Friday, April 19, 17:45
The Sardarapat Movement supported Raffi Hovannisian during the
post-election rallies. What did you expect from the BaRevolution?
Our statement was voiced at the first rally at the Liberty Square
after the so-called presidential election, and in two months after the
election we still go on insisting on what we said in the statement. We
did not join Raffi Hovannisian but the revolt the culmination of
which happened on 18 February - the election day. That day we again
saw just the same way as in 1996, 2003 and 2008 that presidential
election in Armenia is an obvious reason for the citizens to express
their disagreement with political, economic and ideological course of
the authorities of the republic which replace each other for the last
15 years. As a token of solidarity, we, members of the "Sardarapat"
movement and Pre-parliament came to the Square to participate in the
rally organized by a regular leader of the opposition in the person of
Raffi Hovannisian. However, the points of no return are clear to us,
after which we shall not stand next to him. But this does not at all
mean that we are not going to refuse cooperation with him.
Could you specify those points of no return?
In the person of the authorities of Armenia the society has got a well
organized system, fighting which is impossible from inside. In this
context, "Sardarapat" offered Raffi Hovannisian a systemized fight
on the basis of the relevant drawn out road map, which we are going
to offer to the society. The situation in Armenia should be assessed
and analyzed in the context of events taking place in the post-Soviet
territory in general, and in the Middle East, in particular, as
well as in the context of global changes in the world. Only if we
understand the place of Armenia in these processes, we shall be able
to understand what is taking place within the republic.
You said that Raffi Hovannisian accepted you suggestions but none of
them was realized. Why?
In word, Raffi Hovannisian agreed to our suggestions, but actually
he did not accept them. This happened as a result of changing of the
landmarks in the movement. At Serzh Sargsyan's inauguration day I
called Raffi Hovannisian's actions like a political suicide. But in
a day or two I understood that Raffi Hovannisian did not try to make
a political suicide, he sacrificed himself for quite certain goals,
for his own party. If we look at what happened in the last months,
we will see that Armenia's party system has been in ruins since late
2012, when a number of parties refused to run for presidency.
Why did this happen?
This happened because our parties do not meet their purpose - they
do not represent the society,
Can we say that now the influence of external forces has grown?
I am sure it has. But it was not they who wanted to leave Armenia
without parties. It was the wish of all the three Armenian presidents
since 1995, when Levon Ter-Petrosyan put a ban on Dashnaktsutyun and
began creating pocket parties. And his cause was continued by his
two successors. Ter- Petrosyan's motive was fear of the traditional
parties, while Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan, who were both from
the province, just needed support. The initial mission of parties like
the RPA and Prosperous Armenia was to protect the economic interests
of one or another oligarch. But when it was time to protect the people
from the regime, they proved to be unprepared. In fact, there were
no parties left after Mar 1 2008. All we had was just signboards,
which fell in the autumn 2012.
But it was exactly the refusal of the ANC, the ARFD and Prosperous
Armenia to run in the presidential race that gave Raffi Hovannisian
the votes he got, wasn't it. Who was interested in this?
Since ANC, ARFD and PAP have refused to take part in the presidential
election, the vacuum was not at all filled by the Heritage party but
by the civil society. Just at that moment public movements in Armenia
became sharply active. I mean those which protected Mashtots park,
ecologists, people fighting for justice in the army, court, etc. That
is to say, the politicized society started quickly filling this niche.
Just this process seemed to be especially dangerous for external
controllers. The point is that everything happening in Armenia is
a very much important precedent for the post-Soviet countries, the
countries of Eastern Europe, and finally for the whole world. Few
people in the world are aware what happened in Iceland in autumn 2012.
Meanwhile, Iceland's residents simply refused external management and
the political and economic model built for several decades. The power
change took place, but not by the will of this or that party, but of
the civil society. This precedent was perceived in the whole world
like extremely dangerous. That's why, it is kept secret. This is the
reason, why an attempt of the Armenian society to start resolving its
own problems was so nervously taken by the power centers in abroad,
which have been leading Armenia to neocolonialism. Aat present
they are trying to replace the mauser regime and junta in Armenia
by neocolonialism. Levon Ter-Petrosyan has recently said the newly
set up Armenian National Congress party has come to make a bourgeois
and democratic revolution in Armenia. I said the same to journalists
a month ago, but not because we like it, but because the last stage
of break-down of the military and feudal system inherited from the
USSR and its unavoidable transition to the bourgeois and democratic
system is taking place in Armenia as well as in the entire post-Soviet
territory.
And what is the role of Raffi Hovannisian in all this?
To lead mass protests. But after two month of his leadership, those
monitoring the situation in the country from outside realized that
things might go out of control and brought it home to Hovannisian on
Apr 9 that his movement was getting dangerous. They realized that
it would be much easier for them to control separate parties than
a nationwide movement. So, we can say that from 2:00 PM till 6:00
PM on Apr 9 Raffi Hovannisian underwent the same evolution Levon
Ter-Petrossian was going through for long two years from 2008 till
2010, that is, from the leader of a nationwide movement back to the
leader of a party. There is no other explanation for the rambling
speech Hovannisian delivered and all the other strange actions he
took on that day. Apr 9 might have become the best day of his life,
but instead he appeared with the worst speech he had ever made. The
only explanation for this is that he was offered to stop being the
leader of the people in exchange of a stronger role in his party. It
was an offer he could not decline. It was almost the same thing that
happened to Levon Ter- Petrosyan in 2008, when Serzh Sargsyan managed
to convince the West that he would do better the thing they meant
for Ter-Petrosyan. The only difference is that this time it was not
Sargsyan who made the offer.
And what is Russia's role in all these processes?
Unfortunately, Russia is continuously losing its powers, traditional
spheres of control and influence. Russian lost its influence in Georgia
at once. In Azerbaijan it is happening slowly but consistently, and
the Gabala radar station is the best evidence of that. In Armenia it
is happening especially slowly due to the instincts of our people that
have chosen the right course. However, for the first time over the
last 200 years we have a generation in Armenia for which the Russian
orientation is not a priority. By means of some financial investments
of the last years, the Western embassies have managed to create a
situation when Russia is no longer unique in the eyes of the Armenian
public. Due to some subjective and objective reasons, for instance,
the wrong policy of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Russia is yielding
its positions. Today's sharp withdrawal of Russia is disastrous for
Armenia, because Armenians had already felt the consequences of such
withdrawal 100 years ago during the World War I. I think that like
in 1988 the national movement is assistance and not an obstacle to
Russia. It seems to me that the recent attempt to give Armenia orange
colors was doomed to failure.
Armenia will be the last country to face 'orange' revolution. It's
alien to our thoughts.
You mean that today the interests of the West and Serzh Sargsyan no
longer coincide?
Already not. In the last years Serzh Sargsyan has evolved
from a Soviet-type politician into a person with pro-Western,
bourgeois-democratic values. It was a maneuver that saved him as a
political figure and put him in the place initially meant for Levon
Ter-Petrossyan. He is still trying to play this role and the last
thing he did was weaken Raffi Hovannisian. But he has done all he could
and can do no more. He cannot get rid of the military feudal heritage
left by his predecessors Robert Kocharyan and Levon Ter-Petrosyan.
In this light, Raffi Hovannisian was a more respectable figure in the
eyes of the Western community. As a matter of fact, Armenia will not
be able to avoid the bourgeois- democratic phase. This will certainly
bring more welfare, legality and transparency in our life. But the
question is what will be prevalent in that model - bourgeois or
democratic. We insist on a national democratic system because the
bourgeois model imposed on our country is nothing but a neo-colonial
regime. What we need is the model applied in Iceland or Switzerland -
a model implying the rule of the people. Only civil society can save us
from becoming an appendage of the neo- colonial, imperialistic system.
And if Raffi Hovannisian is more respectable in the eyes of the West
than Serzh Sargsyan, why don't they use the popular movement to change
the regime in Armenia?
They in the West cannot afford using a popular movement to change
the regime in Armenia as was the case in 2009-2010, when Levon
Ter-Petrosyan abstained from doing it. In the modern world no single
bourgeois leader must be put into power by the his people or he will
always depend on them. Consequently, he must take the rule through
some backstage intrigue orchestrated by certain centers of force.
Hovannisian's visit to Moscow was part of this logic. Having received
a tough offer from the one side, he had nothing left to do but to
appeal to the other, but all they told him was 'try and go, they have
already decided everything.' And he went.