Tweet
Interview: Sarkisian On Upcoming Vote, Turkish Relations, Nagorno-Karabakh
http://www.rferl.org/content/armenia-president-serzh-sarkisian-interview/24878387.html
"I consider that a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem achieved as
soon as possible will be only positive for the development of Armenia,"
says Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian. "But as they say, it takes two
hands to clap."
January 20, 2013
Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian sat down with RFE/RL at the weekend for
an exclusive interview ahead of the February 18 vote in which the leader of
the ruling Republican Party of Armenia will be seeking a second term in
office.
In an interview with Harry Tamrazian, the director of RFE/RL's Armenian
Service, Sarkisian discussed his competition in the upcoming vote, the
state of Armenian-Turkish relations, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, and
the outflow of Armenian citizens to Russia and the West.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, during its post-Soviet period Armenia has always
had difficulties during the holding of elections. Perhaps only the first
presidential election was not criticized. And after that first election,
each subsequent one was more or less criticized by international and local
observers and the opposition has refused to accept the outcomes of these
elections. Now Armenia, as they say, like air, needs a clean vote -- that
is, free and fair elections. How are you going to ensure that? How will you
guarantee that the results of the elections are acceptable to Europe, the
West and, most importantly, to the people?
President Serzh Sarkisian: *You know, elections in Armenia have had
difficulties not only in the post-Soviet years. First, I don't think that
perfect elections were held in Armenia during the Soviet years. Secondly,
maybe from your point of view the first [presidential] election was not
subjected to criticism, but I think that the first elections were
criticized more than our last elections. I mean the parliamentary elections.
Without agreeing with the way the question is formulated, I should say
that, yes, we ought to raise the benchmark. We have always tried to hold
elections that would instill both our people and our partners with more
confidence, and I think that the parliamentary elections that were held in
2012 elicited more positive than negative responses. And the elections to
local government bodies held in September were evaluated as elections fully
corresponding to European standards. We consider these achievements of 2012
to be the lowest benchmark for holding the 2013 elections.
I am confident that we shall be able to hold such elections, because
holding such elections first of all meets our own interests and then the
interests of our partners. In many cases, in order to find an excuse for
difficulties or other problems that emerge during elections, some start to
say that we do not hold elections for the Europeans or, say, the CIS
(Commonwealth of Independent States) -- for this one or that one. Of
course, we hold elections for ourselves. But we are acting within the
domain of the international community and it is a very desirable - and I
would even say necessary - requirement that members of this community
consider you to be one of them.
*RFE/RL: After all, we have relations with the European Union=85
Sarkisian:* Of course, of course, with all=85So we will do everything for the
results we have registered, I repeat, to be the lowest benchmark, so we
will do everything to consolidate this success.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, who is the candidate against whom you are
competing? Who is, at this moment, your main rival? Is it Paruyr Hayrikian,
Raffi Hovannisian, or Hrant Bagratian? Or maybe someone else?
Sarkisian:* Your first word was much more correct - a competitor rather
than a rival, because, frankly, I have not regarded anyone to be my rival
at any of the elections. We have always - and if, indeed, you look back at
the electoral processes you will surely notice -- that we have not worked
against anyone. We have always supported the principle of being in favor of
something, not against.
And we have waged our struggle, competed so that our ideas find broader
support rather than tried to expose the mistakes or weak points of others.
In this sense, I think that this election will not be an exception. And
despite certain circumstances, this time we will remain committed to our
approach.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, opinions are often voiced today that the elections
are not competitive. My question was in that sense. Anyway, do you have an
opponent?
Sarkisian:* I am inclined to believe that it is not the government's
problem to nurture a competitor. I think that the task of the government is
to provide a competitive environment, although this is not the
responsibility of the government alone. But what should we have said? Were
we supposed to go to Europe or the United States and bring one of our
compatriots, force him, or were we supposed to raise someone here?
This is something that they are trying to blame us for, that we are doing.
Thank God, we have never done it, nor will do it, and generally this is a
thankless job. I think that nevertheless we have managed to create a
competitive environment and a competitive field. The matter concerns the
possibilities for the expression for candidates, political forces. I am
very glad that the success we registered during the parliamentary elections
has been consolidated now - even though we are at the beginning of a
process - as the Yerevan Press Club has already registered that the
problems that used to exist at pre-election stages in 2012 no longer exist
at the same stage during the current election. And we should continue our
way forward in the same spirit.
You know, I don't agree with those who say that there are no strong
competitors or people who could poll a significant number of votes. And who
has said that Raffi Hovannisian, Hrant Bagratian, or Paruyr Hayrikian, who
have merits and a track record, are easier competitors or have less
experience of debate or public speaking? In general, I strongly believe
that presidential elections are not restricted to just voting. Presidential
elections start from elections to local government bodies, where a
corresponding political party gets represented in local government bodies
and then continue in parliamentary elections and finally end in
presidential elections proper.
Of course, it is very difficult for them, because members of the Republican
Party today are leaders in more than 70 percent of local government bodies
across Armenia. And no matter how much they say that this is the use of the
government resource, I can never agree with that. People there waged
political struggle and got into leadership positions. And why shouldn't
they use their leadership -- I mean their prestige -- for their political
party or for ensuring the victory of their party's leader? I think time is
needed for our public to understand that to come out of obscurity and say I
will be a president tomorrow is wrong. People become presidents with their
teams, due to their track record, and not by criticizing the government.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, how do you evaluate [opposition leader] Levon
Ter-Petrossian's decision not to participate in the election?
Sarkisian: *This was his decision and I have to treat it with respect.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, do you hold meetings, consultations with the first
and second presidents? And if yes, then around what issues are your
discussions held?
Sarkisian:* I think that it is the goal of not only the first and second
presidents, but also more or less known people, to have a better Armenia.
Simply, each of us probably has his own solution to this problem. So I
think these meetings, discussions, though not directly, are constantly
present in our society. Once they can be expressed in the form of
statements, some other time they could be in the form of interviews. But I
think that they are constantly present and thank God they are present.
Of course, it would be very good if all former leaders gathered on some
occasion and tried, perhaps not publicly, to hold some discussions, but, as
they say, hope is a good thing. I hope that one day not only the former
presidents of Armenia but also former prime ministers, foreign ministers,
defense ministers, people who think they made a contribution to this
service, could easily gather and have discussions, without insulting each
other.
*RFE/RL: Do you want it to be so?
Sarkisian:* Of course, I do.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, in the modern history of Armenia, the events of
March 1 [2008] are marked as a unique case of violence used by the
government against the opposition and the opposition electorate. Innocent
people were killed. You must yourself have taken it hard. I remember one of
your first interviews, there were even speculations that you did not want
to assume the leadership of the country. In your program speech, Mr.
President, you mentioned that during your time in office the atmosphere of
intolerance was eliminated, that there is no longer an atmosphere when what
the opposition says is regarded as high treason.
Now, what happened on March 1, in fact, was the display of the intolerance
of that time. Looking back at that tragedy of the recent past, what
thoughts do you have to share with our listeners, our viewers, and what
efforts would you make to prevent such things from recurring in our
society? And, most importantly, if you had an opportunity, what would you
tell the families of the March 1 victims?
Sarkisian: *I deny the speculations that I even thought of not assuming the
leadership of the state because that would be an instance of treachery and
I have never left the battlefield during hard times. I think that in
Armenia there are very few political figures who were satisfied with the
course of March 1. Yes, personally, I took it hard. But I don't think that
the government is the only side responsible for the stability of the
society and the state.
Yes, the government is the first to bear responsibility, but all political
forces are responsible for the stability, freedom, and calm atmosphere in
the country, including the political forces that always try to condition
their problems and failures by the activities of the government and for
which they always accuse the government. You spoke about the absence of
intolerance. I would add freedom of speech, an almost 100-percent freedom
of expression. These are means to, indeed, reduce animosity and intolerance
inside the country. But each of us should realize that everything should be
done for these processes to become irreversible. Even though even in states
with traditions this danger is present.
Therefore, I repeat, all political forces must feel their responsibility
for stability and also for the results. The less there is intolerance, the
fewer there will be adventure-seekers who want to try to use this
intolerance for their own interests. You say the government used violence.
But was it only the government that used violence? The government did not
need that at all. Why would the government need that if it had a majority
in the elections? Did it need that situation to overshadow the results of
the elections? Did the government want additional difficulties? I think
that the tragedy occurred because all of us were to blame.
I am not saying this on condition that if others say we are to blame what I
say will be correct. If they consider that they are not to blame, at the
end of the day they, too, remain alone, talk to themselves, eventually they
are also accountable to their conscience. So let them think about it. I
consider that all of us are to blame. If we consider ourselves to be people
who have influence on the course of life but could not prevent that bad
thing from happening, it means that we all are to blame.
*RFE/RL: Now, Mr. President, let's go back to your election program. You
promise to reform the justice system. This perhaps is a very important
matter for Armenia. It is important that you want to solve this problem
and, as nongovernmental organizations like to say, eliminate injustice in
Armenia. We know that during your time in office a high-ranking police
officer was arrested and, as you said, he was fabricating a case against
innocent people. And as a result of his activities an innocent person was
jailed.
Now I will cite an excerpt from your speech at a meeting with senior police
officers: `Instead of you, I feel ashamed. You should have been the first
to come forward and say to that high-ranking policeman, `You immoral type,
why are you putting our system to shame?'' Now this official is in prison,
but it was only due to your interference. We know that the system needs to
be reformed in order to exclude such abuse. If you are reelected, how
consistent will the government be in pursuing these reforms?
Sarkisian:* Being surprised is typical of a normal person. And I am glad
that people, including yourself, were surprised when a high-ranking
official was arrested in Armenia. It is always so. After that, people take
it for granted, as it happened in Armenia, because not one but several
senior officials were arrested. It then becomes an ordinary thing and many
now are not even interested in it. We do want to achieve a situation in
which a person, regardless of his position, must be arrested if he commits
a violation.
I always think about how to do so that all our citizens, broad sections of
the public, understand that the situation in the country also depends on
them. It seems to many that if the president wants this or that thing it
will happen tomorrow. They don't have a good idea about it. They don't
understand that appropriate conditions are needed for correct decisions to
be made. With the absence of these conditions, even your most correct
decision may have an opposite effect. We have such examples in our region,
in our country, and I can cite them, but the problem here is not citing the
examples but for us, together, to do everything depending on us to create
such conditions.
I should do so by reforming our economy, our business environment, so that
our GDP per capita grows, so that our only source of revenue, the taxes,
give us an opportunity to pay salaries to all officials at least in the
amount that could be enough for them to make both ends meet and maintain
their families. Members of the public should understand that it depends on
their activity. Otherwise, our legislation, which is very like the European
one, does not allow punishing a person whom even you know as a bribe-taker,
because the bribe-giver can always say that he was just paying back his
debt rather than bribing [the official].
I am not saying that this is the only reason, but I would like the
political forces to understand that this law is not only for others but
also for them and by their conduct and style of work they make others think
so as well. This is a complex approach. It is impossible within a second,
with the use of a magic stick to change the situation completely. But it is
apparent that there is certain progress. And this is not what I say; this
is the opinion of international organizations. I am certain that we have
already created sufficient conditions to make the solution to this big
problem visible for our society.
We, I repeat, should be able to provide social guarantees to our state
officials so that they are able to perform their duties properly. There is
no more dangerous person than a tired, rough, illiterate official. They
harm the government in the first place. It is the matter of the
government's prestige, even if this official has no party affiliation or
is
a member of another party.
*RFE/RL: Now a question concerning the economy. `We have been able to make
Armenia incomparably more attractive to a businessman and incomparably more
reliable as a country for investments.' This is the statement that you made
in your program speech. You have pledged to continue efforts in this
direction, but we know that in terms of economic freedoms, there are a
number of large businessmen in Armenia who abuse their monopoly positions.
Today, in Armenia, any person can start any business, but we know that a
commencing businessman will meet difficulties in selling his or her product
or service on the market. Why? We all know that this market is occupied and
is divided among large producers and large importing businesses. Besides,
some of these producers and importers are in parliament, and in this sense
they are in a more privileged situation. We know that free enterprise and
competition are very important for having a healthy economy, but often
competition in Armenia does not proceed by the rules of a free market.
Administrative levers are used in the process and some of the businessmen
possess such levers.
Mr. President, what can you do to redress this situation, to make this
field for free competition more stable?
Sarkisian:* You know, I am inclined to think that we do have problems here,
but these problems are not as grave as to have a great impact on free
competition and in general on the prospect of the country's development.
Why am I saying this? Because there are two objective criteria apart from
the GDP growth. I think the first objective criterion is the ratings of
prestigious international organizations. As you know, in 2012 we made big
progress and by this index we are in 33rd place in the world today. That
is, we are among the top 20 percent of the world's countries. Is it a bad
indication? This is a modest but sufficient, normal achievement.
The second objective criterion is the attitude of businessmen to tax
bodies. As far as I can see, the animosity that used to exist between these
two segments is gradually fading away. I am sure that the time when the
businessmen will realize the necessity of paying taxes is not far off. I am
not saying that they will realize that they should voluntarily provide some
of their means to the state. No one does it with pleasure anywhere in the
world, but in many places businessmen do realize that this is something
that must be done.
When the matter concerns monopolies=85I'd like that many critics first
thought and then jumped to conclusions. Does this really depend on the
environment, legislation, or the government of Armenia alone? Or is it that
it does exist but at the same time there are other objective conditions as
well -- that is, difficulties with communications, inaccessibility of
markets, and other circumstances. When the matter concerns starting up a
new business, the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, I want
everyone to finally have the courage to state in public that, yes, the
government must do everything; yes, the authorities must do a lot of
things, but are all people capable of doing business?
After all, a certain vein is needed to engage in entrepreneurial
activities, certain skills are needed. But that 99 percent of people try to
do business, this is a natural, understandable desire. I think it should be
no tragedy when some of them fail to do that. Because besides personal
skills and other things, there are also other circumstances -- for example,
the need for affordable resources. In Armenia today, the average [annual]
interest rate on bank loans is 11 percent in foreign currency and a little
more than 12 percent in Armenian drams. This is by three percentage points
lower if we compare it with what it was in 2008 in both cases. But is 11
percent enough for a person=85
There is also another problem. We pay very little attention to educating
people. A businessman should understand what he is doing, especially a
small- and medium-sized entrepreneur who cannot afford to hire consultants
or business managers. There are problems. Yes, there can be no doubt that
there are companies in Armenia that have a dominant position. There are
state officials in Armenia who try to abuse their office. There are
businessmen in Armenia who want to be solo participants of the market,
monopolists. Therefore, we create appropriate instruments and try to
improve the existing ones.
Today, we have an antitrust commission, which I think started to work very
well and it already has results. We already have the evaluations of an
international structure conducting the monitoring and also have certain
progress in this field. It is typical of all markets, everywhere, be it
small-, medium-sized, or large [businesses], but there are appropriate
instruments that regulate this matter. I am confident that we will have
very visible progress in this sphere during the next five years.
*RFE/RL: Now about the outward migration and job creation, Mr. President.
Perhaps this is the most difficult socioeconomic problem for post-Soviet
countries. Every year, Armenia, which is a very small country, in fact
loses tens of thousands of people who emigrate to Russia or Europe or the
United States. Research was published last year showing that about 55,000
Armenians acquired Russian citizenship in 2009 alone, which was the
second-highest rate of citizenship acquisition among the top 10
nationalities whose representatives apply for Russian citizenship.
According to the same research, more than 272,000 Armenians acquired
Russian citizenship in the period from 2001 to 2009. According to the
official data of the U.S. Census Bureau, about 20,000 of the Armenians who
went to the United States during the past decade have acquired American
passports. Any country would consider such a loss of population to be a
disaster. I am sure, Mr. President, you think so, as well. But what are you
going to do to stop this outflow?
Sarkisian: *Indeed, there is a problem here and this problem,
unfortunately, is perhaps the biggest of all problems that we face. On one
occasion I said recently that in no circumstance can a country be a prison
for its citizens. That is, I think that artificially closing the border,
creating artificial obstacles, may have only more catastrophic
consequences. We have only one way - to create conditions in Armenia that
would be, if not like, then at least close to the conditions that our
citizens seek abroad.
I categorically disagree with those who sometimes speak about the lack of
justice and freedom in Armenia, etc., and that this is the reason that our
citizens are leaving. Because when we look at the geography of their
emigration, the countries where they go, we can clearly see that these are
not countries with much more justice. They mainly go after high wages and
this problem indeed exists in Armenia today. I can say today that there is
no problem connected with finding jobs in Armenia, but in Armenia there is
a problem with finding high-paying jobs, because even if you watch TV, you
will see announcements every day with vacancies being offered.
We resumed the Vanadzor chemical plant and had a lot of trouble finding
people who are supposed to do simple work. Today there are modern factories
in Yerevan that need workers. True, the wages are low. Today, no one in
Armenia wants to be paid less than 150,000 drams (about $370) a month. For
one thing, it is something to be glad about, that people have higher
demands. For another thing, however, it is something to worry about because
people need to be paid twice as much as they are paid now for them to want
to be employed.
I don't want to go into citing different reasons, making excuses. I want
to
say only one thing: We always need to be careful in how we approach and
deal with figures. If what they are saying now is a reality, then we would
not be sitting here with you or would not be seeing anyone in the lobby of
this hotel, because it is known what the population was in Armenia in 1988.
It is known what annual figures they speak about. We can multiply these
figures by 20 or 21 very easily and see that there is no such thing.
But even if 20,000 people leave Armenia annually, it is really a big loss
for us. If we were a nation of 15 or 20 million, I would consider that a
positive thing if 20,000 or 30,000 people went abroad every year to make us
more recognizable, create additional opportunities for investments to
Armenia, integrate in different societies. It would only be beneficial to
us. And I disagree with your assumption that we lose these people. We don't
lose them. We constantly think that, yes, perhaps some small part of them
is lost. Perhaps some of them cannot resist other temptations. But in the
main they remain Armenians, but unfortunately work for the enhancement of
other countries, other economies.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, now perhaps we should pass on to the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue, because this is an issue that is interesting at
least for our region...I have followed the negotiations over the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict from the very beginning. I have covered many
rounds of talks. And at least I have the impression that everybody seems to
be pretty satisfied about this situation of [Nagorno-Karabakh's] de facto
independence. Nagorno-Karabakh is not recognized officially, but it de
facto enjoys independence.
On the other hand, we hear threats from the Azerbaijani side that if the
situation continues like this, they will have to resort to resolving the
issue militarily, recover their territories, that they constantly modernize
their army and very soon will be capable of achieving this goal. Mr.
President, such threats have been made to Armenia, especially in the past
few years. What do you think? Are these threats really serious? And if they
are, then what steps does Armenia take to neutralize this threat?
Sarkisian:* I strongly believe that in the long term it does not suit
anybody to leave the issue unsettled. First of all, it is not suitable for
the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, then the Republic of Armenia, and I am also
sure for Azerbaijan. Because living in conditions of a constant threat of
war is not that pleasant. And since 1988, already for 25 years, the
population of Nagorno-Karabakh has been living in conditions of this
threat. Consider that there is such a threat for children, for young
people, for everyone.
Therefore, I am absolutely convinced that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh
want the problem to be settled as soon as possible. And Armenia has
additional problems. Unfortunately, we are not rich in natural resources
and naturally have no easy inflow of investments. We have no other means to
be able to develop our economy. That is, the more open our economy is, the
more developed our communications are, the easier it will be for us to do.
And the situation of the unsettled conflict is a constant impediment to
these circumstances.
There is also another problem. From its scarce resources Armenia has to
allocate a large share for security and defense. We simply have to do it.
We have to have the army that is disproportionate by its size to the size
of our state. I will tell you more. It does not correspond to the
dimensions of our state also in terms of its combat readiness and
armaments. But we have to have a combat-ready army with modern armaments in
the amount that will enable it to fulfill the tasks set to it.
Why should we be interested in having the problem linger on? I have
repeatedly said -- and was frequently criticized for that - but today, too,
I consider that a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem achieved as soon
as possible will be only positive for the development of Armenia. But as
they say, it takes two hands to clap. Azerbaijan's agreement is also needed
for the problem to be resolved.
But in my opinion, the leadership of Azerbaijan has lost the sense of
reality. In my view, easy money, the petrodollars, do not have a positive
effect on the leadership of this country and their appetites increasingly
grow to the degree that they no longer limit themselves to regarding only
Nagorno-Karabakh as theirs. They already think that Armenia, too, was
created on Azerbaijani lands and that Yerevan is a historically Azerbaijani
land. And this is said by the president of a country which got its name
only about 100 years ago. Soon we will mark the 2,800th anniversary of the
foundation of Yerevan.
It is simply unrealistic to expect in these conditions that tomorrow or the
day after tomorrow we will achieve a result, create a document by some
miracle, and ensure a peaceful coexistence of the two peoples. But on the
other hand, I think that the leadership of Azerbaijan cannot be as
shortsighted as to attempt a new gambling. After all, only 20 years
separate us from the blunder of Azerbaijan when it seemed to that country
that very easily it could capture Nagorno-Karabakh and thus ultimately
solve that problem.
There is also another circumstance: It is clear that today's means [in
Azerbaijan] are the result of the sales of fuel resources, and these fuel
resources are sold to the international community. And lately the
international community on more than one occasion has proved that the
presence of fuel resources does not always play a crucial role in making
different decisions.
But since we, as I already said, have to deal with a country that has lost
the sense of reality, or, as they say, with an irrational country, we
should always be prepared to defend our people -- first of all the
population of Nagorno-Karabakh, then the population of the border regions
of Armenia, and Armenia in general. Therefore, we will continue to
strengthen our armed forces. We will continue to be constructive. We will
always be ready to continue the negotiations because the alternative is
war. And as I said we do not want a war. But if we are forced to wage a
war, then I think we will never fail the work of our companions, our
perished heroes.
*RFE/RL: Now about the current state of Turkish-Armenian relations. Mr.
President, the Turkish side, as they themselves write in the media, is
getting ready for an Armenian tsunami. The Turks believe that the Armenians
are having big plans for the centennial of the genocide and that the Turks
are in for hard times. Is such a tsunami really expected?
Sarkisian:* I have no doubts that the Turks are really in for hard times. I
have no doubts because having no desire to face up to history and at the
same time showing European ambitions cannot be combined easily. Yes, 2015
will mark the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. After 1915, the
Armenian people made superhuman efforts to survive, to treat its wounds, so
that it again could appear as a people and a nation to the world.
Thank God, our people managed to do that, and I am confident that there are
all grounds for our people to last -- to last and constantly remember the
genocide regardless of whether the Turks admit it or not. But memories
differ. If the Turks indeed have the courage and recognize the Armenian
genocide as soon as possible, I think our people could have some
understanding toward the people of today's Turkey, the government under
which the genocide was admitted.
But as long as the Turks refuse to admit the genocide -- moreover, continue
to deny it -- naturally, any representative of our people will always bear
in mind and constantly consider this fact in his or her actions. The
problem is not only that there was the genocide and this genocide must be
admitted. It's not only that we must respect the memory of the victims. The
thing is first of all that by admitting the genocide, future genocides are
prevented, and also a possibility is created for eliminating the
consequences of this genocide.
And until the consequences of the genocide are eliminated - and this is not
a matter of one day, a year, or even 10 or 20 years - this crime will
always be like a sore spot on a human body. This crime will always remind
us of itself. There is no doubt that this is going to be like that. With
this pain in our heart, we still tried to establish certain relations with
the Turks, but everyone was witness to how the Turks refused to live up to
their commitments. We appeared before the foreign ministers of the
countries that are permanent members of the UN Security Council and signed
a document and the Turks refused to implement the provisions of that
document.
I think there are two causes. The Turks, indeed, have a complex and don't
want to face up to history. And secondly, today they have a complex because
of their fraternity with the Azerbaijanis. Or maybe it's not a complex, but
their fraternity with Azerbaijan is an obstacle for them. You know that the
Azerbaijanis made a big noise. In any case, I consider that our initiative
was useful and all our partners realized who we have to deal with. On the
other hand, what kind of state we are, what kind of government we are, what
resolve and goals we have.
But with all that said, I still don't think it is appropriate to compare
the genocide [affirmation process] to a tsunami. They have failed to
understand what pain we have. And I don't think that the 100th anniversary
is a watershed and I don't think that we are in a 100-meter race, covering
a distance of one meter a year, and that upon reaching the 100th meter we
will stand or expect any big victory.
No, this is a landmark and we, of course, will reach this landmark. And I
think both the state of Armenia and the pan-Armenian organizations
worldwide will naturally become more active in connection with this
anniversary. But to say that we are going to make a storm in the world=85it
isn't our goal. Our goal is for the Turks to admit the Armenian genocide. I
am convinced it will happen. But the sooner it happens, the better, because
denying the genocide means continuing to commit genocide.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, one question in the end. In your programs you
promise to make drastic improvements in the economic and social situation
in Armenia. In the West, they usually ask the incumbents why they couldn't
realize that during their first term in office. How would you answer this
question?
Sarkisian:* As far as I know, there they also say that they have done this
or that, have new programs and now want to realize them. But I will answer
a little bit differently, because your question about Karabakh led me to
thinking and prompted me to remember what difficulties we experienced at
the beginning of the war and what efforts we made in order to stop the
Azerbaijanis who already reached Martakert, Askeran. And that moment is
very dear to me. But for that moment, we would not have had our subsequent
successes.
The same is here: I highly evaluate the efforts that we made to eliminate
the consequences of the global financial-economic crisis. You know, it is
always easy to criticize and it is always easy to say from the side that
our country is small and ask why the global crisis should have had any
impact on it. One can always find an occasion to criticize the government
and belittle its work. But I think that today we have an economy that is
completely different from what it was before the crisis. We can compare the
structure of our economy and see it.
On the other hand, the results that we have today are not that small.
International institutions, leading banks, suggest that the world economy
grew by 2 to 3 percent in 2012. We had 7 percent growth. Now, is it good or
bad? It can't be considered bad. I can also cite other indices. I can say
that our exports every year grow by an average of 15 percent. This is a
modest figure, but it is good. This 7 percent economic growth was first of
all promoted by a 10 percent growth in industry and agriculture. And this
is, to say so, the good aspect, a good indicator.
Why am I speaking about it in detail? I am doing so in order to answer your
question in the end with one sentence. We have prepared all grounds for
having much bigger successes in the next five years. I'd also like to add
that promises are always present in political life. During all elections
there are promises, there are big pledges and small promises, but the
leading political force always ought to try to set higher standards. And
even if it does not achieve these standards, it is still the right thing to
do.
I was obliged to speak about the North-South highway, which is a project
worth several billion dollars, so that after two or three years of speaking
about it we started the work. I had to speak about the railway, the nuclear
power plant, otherwise these project worth billions of dollars would not
have been set going and be in the process of implementation now. There is
only one promise that I think should not be given unless you're absolutely
sure you can keep it, and we have given this promise to our people. It is
the promise to work every day, from morning till night. And I think we have
kept this promise. How successful we have been so far? Maybe not as far as
we ourselves would want, but we have fulfilled our promise. Thank you.
http://www.rferl.org/content/armenia-president-serzh-sarkisian-interview/24878387.html
"I consider that a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem achieved as
soon as possible will be only positive for the development of Armenia,"
says Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian. "But as they say, it takes two
hands to clap."
January 20, 2013
Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian sat down with RFE/RL at the weekend for
an exclusive interview ahead of the February 18 vote in which the leader of
the ruling Republican Party of Armenia will be seeking a second term in
office.
In an interview with Harry Tamrazian, the director of RFE/RL's Armenian
Service, Sarkisian discussed his competition in the upcoming vote, the
state of Armenian-Turkish relations, the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, and
the outflow of Armenian citizens to Russia and the West.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, during its post-Soviet period Armenia has always
had difficulties during the holding of elections. Perhaps only the first
presidential election was not criticized. And after that first election,
each subsequent one was more or less criticized by international and local
observers and the opposition has refused to accept the outcomes of these
elections. Now Armenia, as they say, like air, needs a clean vote -- that
is, free and fair elections. How are you going to ensure that? How will you
guarantee that the results of the elections are acceptable to Europe, the
West and, most importantly, to the people?
President Serzh Sarkisian: *You know, elections in Armenia have had
difficulties not only in the post-Soviet years. First, I don't think that
perfect elections were held in Armenia during the Soviet years. Secondly,
maybe from your point of view the first [presidential] election was not
subjected to criticism, but I think that the first elections were
criticized more than our last elections. I mean the parliamentary elections.
Without agreeing with the way the question is formulated, I should say
that, yes, we ought to raise the benchmark. We have always tried to hold
elections that would instill both our people and our partners with more
confidence, and I think that the parliamentary elections that were held in
2012 elicited more positive than negative responses. And the elections to
local government bodies held in September were evaluated as elections fully
corresponding to European standards. We consider these achievements of 2012
to be the lowest benchmark for holding the 2013 elections.
I am confident that we shall be able to hold such elections, because
holding such elections first of all meets our own interests and then the
interests of our partners. In many cases, in order to find an excuse for
difficulties or other problems that emerge during elections, some start to
say that we do not hold elections for the Europeans or, say, the CIS
(Commonwealth of Independent States) -- for this one or that one. Of
course, we hold elections for ourselves. But we are acting within the
domain of the international community and it is a very desirable - and I
would even say necessary - requirement that members of this community
consider you to be one of them.
*RFE/RL: After all, we have relations with the European Union=85
Sarkisian:* Of course, of course, with all=85So we will do everything for the
results we have registered, I repeat, to be the lowest benchmark, so we
will do everything to consolidate this success.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, who is the candidate against whom you are
competing? Who is, at this moment, your main rival? Is it Paruyr Hayrikian,
Raffi Hovannisian, or Hrant Bagratian? Or maybe someone else?
Sarkisian:* Your first word was much more correct - a competitor rather
than a rival, because, frankly, I have not regarded anyone to be my rival
at any of the elections. We have always - and if, indeed, you look back at
the electoral processes you will surely notice -- that we have not worked
against anyone. We have always supported the principle of being in favor of
something, not against.
And we have waged our struggle, competed so that our ideas find broader
support rather than tried to expose the mistakes or weak points of others.
In this sense, I think that this election will not be an exception. And
despite certain circumstances, this time we will remain committed to our
approach.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, opinions are often voiced today that the elections
are not competitive. My question was in that sense. Anyway, do you have an
opponent?
Sarkisian:* I am inclined to believe that it is not the government's
problem to nurture a competitor. I think that the task of the government is
to provide a competitive environment, although this is not the
responsibility of the government alone. But what should we have said? Were
we supposed to go to Europe or the United States and bring one of our
compatriots, force him, or were we supposed to raise someone here?
This is something that they are trying to blame us for, that we are doing.
Thank God, we have never done it, nor will do it, and generally this is a
thankless job. I think that nevertheless we have managed to create a
competitive environment and a competitive field. The matter concerns the
possibilities for the expression for candidates, political forces. I am
very glad that the success we registered during the parliamentary elections
has been consolidated now - even though we are at the beginning of a
process - as the Yerevan Press Club has already registered that the
problems that used to exist at pre-election stages in 2012 no longer exist
at the same stage during the current election. And we should continue our
way forward in the same spirit.
You know, I don't agree with those who say that there are no strong
competitors or people who could poll a significant number of votes. And who
has said that Raffi Hovannisian, Hrant Bagratian, or Paruyr Hayrikian, who
have merits and a track record, are easier competitors or have less
experience of debate or public speaking? In general, I strongly believe
that presidential elections are not restricted to just voting. Presidential
elections start from elections to local government bodies, where a
corresponding political party gets represented in local government bodies
and then continue in parliamentary elections and finally end in
presidential elections proper.
Of course, it is very difficult for them, because members of the Republican
Party today are leaders in more than 70 percent of local government bodies
across Armenia. And no matter how much they say that this is the use of the
government resource, I can never agree with that. People there waged
political struggle and got into leadership positions. And why shouldn't
they use their leadership -- I mean their prestige -- for their political
party or for ensuring the victory of their party's leader? I think time is
needed for our public to understand that to come out of obscurity and say I
will be a president tomorrow is wrong. People become presidents with their
teams, due to their track record, and not by criticizing the government.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, how do you evaluate [opposition leader] Levon
Ter-Petrossian's decision not to participate in the election?
Sarkisian: *This was his decision and I have to treat it with respect.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, do you hold meetings, consultations with the first
and second presidents? And if yes, then around what issues are your
discussions held?
Sarkisian:* I think that it is the goal of not only the first and second
presidents, but also more or less known people, to have a better Armenia.
Simply, each of us probably has his own solution to this problem. So I
think these meetings, discussions, though not directly, are constantly
present in our society. Once they can be expressed in the form of
statements, some other time they could be in the form of interviews. But I
think that they are constantly present and thank God they are present.
Of course, it would be very good if all former leaders gathered on some
occasion and tried, perhaps not publicly, to hold some discussions, but, as
they say, hope is a good thing. I hope that one day not only the former
presidents of Armenia but also former prime ministers, foreign ministers,
defense ministers, people who think they made a contribution to this
service, could easily gather and have discussions, without insulting each
other.
*RFE/RL: Do you want it to be so?
Sarkisian:* Of course, I do.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, in the modern history of Armenia, the events of
March 1 [2008] are marked as a unique case of violence used by the
government against the opposition and the opposition electorate. Innocent
people were killed. You must yourself have taken it hard. I remember one of
your first interviews, there were even speculations that you did not want
to assume the leadership of the country. In your program speech, Mr.
President, you mentioned that during your time in office the atmosphere of
intolerance was eliminated, that there is no longer an atmosphere when what
the opposition says is regarded as high treason.
Now, what happened on March 1, in fact, was the display of the intolerance
of that time. Looking back at that tragedy of the recent past, what
thoughts do you have to share with our listeners, our viewers, and what
efforts would you make to prevent such things from recurring in our
society? And, most importantly, if you had an opportunity, what would you
tell the families of the March 1 victims?
Sarkisian: *I deny the speculations that I even thought of not assuming the
leadership of the state because that would be an instance of treachery and
I have never left the battlefield during hard times. I think that in
Armenia there are very few political figures who were satisfied with the
course of March 1. Yes, personally, I took it hard. But I don't think that
the government is the only side responsible for the stability of the
society and the state.
Yes, the government is the first to bear responsibility, but all political
forces are responsible for the stability, freedom, and calm atmosphere in
the country, including the political forces that always try to condition
their problems and failures by the activities of the government and for
which they always accuse the government. You spoke about the absence of
intolerance. I would add freedom of speech, an almost 100-percent freedom
of expression. These are means to, indeed, reduce animosity and intolerance
inside the country. But each of us should realize that everything should be
done for these processes to become irreversible. Even though even in states
with traditions this danger is present.
Therefore, I repeat, all political forces must feel their responsibility
for stability and also for the results. The less there is intolerance, the
fewer there will be adventure-seekers who want to try to use this
intolerance for their own interests. You say the government used violence.
But was it only the government that used violence? The government did not
need that at all. Why would the government need that if it had a majority
in the elections? Did it need that situation to overshadow the results of
the elections? Did the government want additional difficulties? I think
that the tragedy occurred because all of us were to blame.
I am not saying this on condition that if others say we are to blame what I
say will be correct. If they consider that they are not to blame, at the
end of the day they, too, remain alone, talk to themselves, eventually they
are also accountable to their conscience. So let them think about it. I
consider that all of us are to blame. If we consider ourselves to be people
who have influence on the course of life but could not prevent that bad
thing from happening, it means that we all are to blame.
*RFE/RL: Now, Mr. President, let's go back to your election program. You
promise to reform the justice system. This perhaps is a very important
matter for Armenia. It is important that you want to solve this problem
and, as nongovernmental organizations like to say, eliminate injustice in
Armenia. We know that during your time in office a high-ranking police
officer was arrested and, as you said, he was fabricating a case against
innocent people. And as a result of his activities an innocent person was
jailed.
Now I will cite an excerpt from your speech at a meeting with senior police
officers: `Instead of you, I feel ashamed. You should have been the first
to come forward and say to that high-ranking policeman, `You immoral type,
why are you putting our system to shame?'' Now this official is in prison,
but it was only due to your interference. We know that the system needs to
be reformed in order to exclude such abuse. If you are reelected, how
consistent will the government be in pursuing these reforms?
Sarkisian:* Being surprised is typical of a normal person. And I am glad
that people, including yourself, were surprised when a high-ranking
official was arrested in Armenia. It is always so. After that, people take
it for granted, as it happened in Armenia, because not one but several
senior officials were arrested. It then becomes an ordinary thing and many
now are not even interested in it. We do want to achieve a situation in
which a person, regardless of his position, must be arrested if he commits
a violation.
I always think about how to do so that all our citizens, broad sections of
the public, understand that the situation in the country also depends on
them. It seems to many that if the president wants this or that thing it
will happen tomorrow. They don't have a good idea about it. They don't
understand that appropriate conditions are needed for correct decisions to
be made. With the absence of these conditions, even your most correct
decision may have an opposite effect. We have such examples in our region,
in our country, and I can cite them, but the problem here is not citing the
examples but for us, together, to do everything depending on us to create
such conditions.
I should do so by reforming our economy, our business environment, so that
our GDP per capita grows, so that our only source of revenue, the taxes,
give us an opportunity to pay salaries to all officials at least in the
amount that could be enough for them to make both ends meet and maintain
their families. Members of the public should understand that it depends on
their activity. Otherwise, our legislation, which is very like the European
one, does not allow punishing a person whom even you know as a bribe-taker,
because the bribe-giver can always say that he was just paying back his
debt rather than bribing [the official].
I am not saying that this is the only reason, but I would like the
political forces to understand that this law is not only for others but
also for them and by their conduct and style of work they make others think
so as well. This is a complex approach. It is impossible within a second,
with the use of a magic stick to change the situation completely. But it is
apparent that there is certain progress. And this is not what I say; this
is the opinion of international organizations. I am certain that we have
already created sufficient conditions to make the solution to this big
problem visible for our society.
We, I repeat, should be able to provide social guarantees to our state
officials so that they are able to perform their duties properly. There is
no more dangerous person than a tired, rough, illiterate official. They
harm the government in the first place. It is the matter of the
government's prestige, even if this official has no party affiliation or
is
a member of another party.
*RFE/RL: Now a question concerning the economy. `We have been able to make
Armenia incomparably more attractive to a businessman and incomparably more
reliable as a country for investments.' This is the statement that you made
in your program speech. You have pledged to continue efforts in this
direction, but we know that in terms of economic freedoms, there are a
number of large businessmen in Armenia who abuse their monopoly positions.
Today, in Armenia, any person can start any business, but we know that a
commencing businessman will meet difficulties in selling his or her product
or service on the market. Why? We all know that this market is occupied and
is divided among large producers and large importing businesses. Besides,
some of these producers and importers are in parliament, and in this sense
they are in a more privileged situation. We know that free enterprise and
competition are very important for having a healthy economy, but often
competition in Armenia does not proceed by the rules of a free market.
Administrative levers are used in the process and some of the businessmen
possess such levers.
Mr. President, what can you do to redress this situation, to make this
field for free competition more stable?
Sarkisian:* You know, I am inclined to think that we do have problems here,
but these problems are not as grave as to have a great impact on free
competition and in general on the prospect of the country's development.
Why am I saying this? Because there are two objective criteria apart from
the GDP growth. I think the first objective criterion is the ratings of
prestigious international organizations. As you know, in 2012 we made big
progress and by this index we are in 33rd place in the world today. That
is, we are among the top 20 percent of the world's countries. Is it a bad
indication? This is a modest but sufficient, normal achievement.
The second objective criterion is the attitude of businessmen to tax
bodies. As far as I can see, the animosity that used to exist between these
two segments is gradually fading away. I am sure that the time when the
businessmen will realize the necessity of paying taxes is not far off. I am
not saying that they will realize that they should voluntarily provide some
of their means to the state. No one does it with pleasure anywhere in the
world, but in many places businessmen do realize that this is something
that must be done.
When the matter concerns monopolies=85I'd like that many critics first
thought and then jumped to conclusions. Does this really depend on the
environment, legislation, or the government of Armenia alone? Or is it that
it does exist but at the same time there are other objective conditions as
well -- that is, difficulties with communications, inaccessibility of
markets, and other circumstances. When the matter concerns starting up a
new business, the development of small and medium-sized enterprises, I want
everyone to finally have the courage to state in public that, yes, the
government must do everything; yes, the authorities must do a lot of
things, but are all people capable of doing business?
After all, a certain vein is needed to engage in entrepreneurial
activities, certain skills are needed. But that 99 percent of people try to
do business, this is a natural, understandable desire. I think it should be
no tragedy when some of them fail to do that. Because besides personal
skills and other things, there are also other circumstances -- for example,
the need for affordable resources. In Armenia today, the average [annual]
interest rate on bank loans is 11 percent in foreign currency and a little
more than 12 percent in Armenian drams. This is by three percentage points
lower if we compare it with what it was in 2008 in both cases. But is 11
percent enough for a person=85
There is also another problem. We pay very little attention to educating
people. A businessman should understand what he is doing, especially a
small- and medium-sized entrepreneur who cannot afford to hire consultants
or business managers. There are problems. Yes, there can be no doubt that
there are companies in Armenia that have a dominant position. There are
state officials in Armenia who try to abuse their office. There are
businessmen in Armenia who want to be solo participants of the market,
monopolists. Therefore, we create appropriate instruments and try to
improve the existing ones.
Today, we have an antitrust commission, which I think started to work very
well and it already has results. We already have the evaluations of an
international structure conducting the monitoring and also have certain
progress in this field. It is typical of all markets, everywhere, be it
small-, medium-sized, or large [businesses], but there are appropriate
instruments that regulate this matter. I am confident that we will have
very visible progress in this sphere during the next five years.
*RFE/RL: Now about the outward migration and job creation, Mr. President.
Perhaps this is the most difficult socioeconomic problem for post-Soviet
countries. Every year, Armenia, which is a very small country, in fact
loses tens of thousands of people who emigrate to Russia or Europe or the
United States. Research was published last year showing that about 55,000
Armenians acquired Russian citizenship in 2009 alone, which was the
second-highest rate of citizenship acquisition among the top 10
nationalities whose representatives apply for Russian citizenship.
According to the same research, more than 272,000 Armenians acquired
Russian citizenship in the period from 2001 to 2009. According to the
official data of the U.S. Census Bureau, about 20,000 of the Armenians who
went to the United States during the past decade have acquired American
passports. Any country would consider such a loss of population to be a
disaster. I am sure, Mr. President, you think so, as well. But what are you
going to do to stop this outflow?
Sarkisian: *Indeed, there is a problem here and this problem,
unfortunately, is perhaps the biggest of all problems that we face. On one
occasion I said recently that in no circumstance can a country be a prison
for its citizens. That is, I think that artificially closing the border,
creating artificial obstacles, may have only more catastrophic
consequences. We have only one way - to create conditions in Armenia that
would be, if not like, then at least close to the conditions that our
citizens seek abroad.
I categorically disagree with those who sometimes speak about the lack of
justice and freedom in Armenia, etc., and that this is the reason that our
citizens are leaving. Because when we look at the geography of their
emigration, the countries where they go, we can clearly see that these are
not countries with much more justice. They mainly go after high wages and
this problem indeed exists in Armenia today. I can say today that there is
no problem connected with finding jobs in Armenia, but in Armenia there is
a problem with finding high-paying jobs, because even if you watch TV, you
will see announcements every day with vacancies being offered.
We resumed the Vanadzor chemical plant and had a lot of trouble finding
people who are supposed to do simple work. Today there are modern factories
in Yerevan that need workers. True, the wages are low. Today, no one in
Armenia wants to be paid less than 150,000 drams (about $370) a month. For
one thing, it is something to be glad about, that people have higher
demands. For another thing, however, it is something to worry about because
people need to be paid twice as much as they are paid now for them to want
to be employed.
I don't want to go into citing different reasons, making excuses. I want
to
say only one thing: We always need to be careful in how we approach and
deal with figures. If what they are saying now is a reality, then we would
not be sitting here with you or would not be seeing anyone in the lobby of
this hotel, because it is known what the population was in Armenia in 1988.
It is known what annual figures they speak about. We can multiply these
figures by 20 or 21 very easily and see that there is no such thing.
But even if 20,000 people leave Armenia annually, it is really a big loss
for us. If we were a nation of 15 or 20 million, I would consider that a
positive thing if 20,000 or 30,000 people went abroad every year to make us
more recognizable, create additional opportunities for investments to
Armenia, integrate in different societies. It would only be beneficial to
us. And I disagree with your assumption that we lose these people. We don't
lose them. We constantly think that, yes, perhaps some small part of them
is lost. Perhaps some of them cannot resist other temptations. But in the
main they remain Armenians, but unfortunately work for the enhancement of
other countries, other economies.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, now perhaps we should pass on to the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue, because this is an issue that is interesting at
least for our region...I have followed the negotiations over the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict from the very beginning. I have covered many
rounds of talks. And at least I have the impression that everybody seems to
be pretty satisfied about this situation of [Nagorno-Karabakh's] de facto
independence. Nagorno-Karabakh is not recognized officially, but it de
facto enjoys independence.
On the other hand, we hear threats from the Azerbaijani side that if the
situation continues like this, they will have to resort to resolving the
issue militarily, recover their territories, that they constantly modernize
their army and very soon will be capable of achieving this goal. Mr.
President, such threats have been made to Armenia, especially in the past
few years. What do you think? Are these threats really serious? And if they
are, then what steps does Armenia take to neutralize this threat?
Sarkisian:* I strongly believe that in the long term it does not suit
anybody to leave the issue unsettled. First of all, it is not suitable for
the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, then the Republic of Armenia, and I am also
sure for Azerbaijan. Because living in conditions of a constant threat of
war is not that pleasant. And since 1988, already for 25 years, the
population of Nagorno-Karabakh has been living in conditions of this
threat. Consider that there is such a threat for children, for young
people, for everyone.
Therefore, I am absolutely convinced that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh
want the problem to be settled as soon as possible. And Armenia has
additional problems. Unfortunately, we are not rich in natural resources
and naturally have no easy inflow of investments. We have no other means to
be able to develop our economy. That is, the more open our economy is, the
more developed our communications are, the easier it will be for us to do.
And the situation of the unsettled conflict is a constant impediment to
these circumstances.
There is also another problem. From its scarce resources Armenia has to
allocate a large share for security and defense. We simply have to do it.
We have to have the army that is disproportionate by its size to the size
of our state. I will tell you more. It does not correspond to the
dimensions of our state also in terms of its combat readiness and
armaments. But we have to have a combat-ready army with modern armaments in
the amount that will enable it to fulfill the tasks set to it.
Why should we be interested in having the problem linger on? I have
repeatedly said -- and was frequently criticized for that - but today, too,
I consider that a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem achieved as soon
as possible will be only positive for the development of Armenia. But as
they say, it takes two hands to clap. Azerbaijan's agreement is also needed
for the problem to be resolved.
But in my opinion, the leadership of Azerbaijan has lost the sense of
reality. In my view, easy money, the petrodollars, do not have a positive
effect on the leadership of this country and their appetites increasingly
grow to the degree that they no longer limit themselves to regarding only
Nagorno-Karabakh as theirs. They already think that Armenia, too, was
created on Azerbaijani lands and that Yerevan is a historically Azerbaijani
land. And this is said by the president of a country which got its name
only about 100 years ago. Soon we will mark the 2,800th anniversary of the
foundation of Yerevan.
It is simply unrealistic to expect in these conditions that tomorrow or the
day after tomorrow we will achieve a result, create a document by some
miracle, and ensure a peaceful coexistence of the two peoples. But on the
other hand, I think that the leadership of Azerbaijan cannot be as
shortsighted as to attempt a new gambling. After all, only 20 years
separate us from the blunder of Azerbaijan when it seemed to that country
that very easily it could capture Nagorno-Karabakh and thus ultimately
solve that problem.
There is also another circumstance: It is clear that today's means [in
Azerbaijan] are the result of the sales of fuel resources, and these fuel
resources are sold to the international community. And lately the
international community on more than one occasion has proved that the
presence of fuel resources does not always play a crucial role in making
different decisions.
But since we, as I already said, have to deal with a country that has lost
the sense of reality, or, as they say, with an irrational country, we
should always be prepared to defend our people -- first of all the
population of Nagorno-Karabakh, then the population of the border regions
of Armenia, and Armenia in general. Therefore, we will continue to
strengthen our armed forces. We will continue to be constructive. We will
always be ready to continue the negotiations because the alternative is
war. And as I said we do not want a war. But if we are forced to wage a
war, then I think we will never fail the work of our companions, our
perished heroes.
*RFE/RL: Now about the current state of Turkish-Armenian relations. Mr.
President, the Turkish side, as they themselves write in the media, is
getting ready for an Armenian tsunami. The Turks believe that the Armenians
are having big plans for the centennial of the genocide and that the Turks
are in for hard times. Is such a tsunami really expected?
Sarkisian:* I have no doubts that the Turks are really in for hard times. I
have no doubts because having no desire to face up to history and at the
same time showing European ambitions cannot be combined easily. Yes, 2015
will mark the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. After 1915, the
Armenian people made superhuman efforts to survive, to treat its wounds, so
that it again could appear as a people and a nation to the world.
Thank God, our people managed to do that, and I am confident that there are
all grounds for our people to last -- to last and constantly remember the
genocide regardless of whether the Turks admit it or not. But memories
differ. If the Turks indeed have the courage and recognize the Armenian
genocide as soon as possible, I think our people could have some
understanding toward the people of today's Turkey, the government under
which the genocide was admitted.
But as long as the Turks refuse to admit the genocide -- moreover, continue
to deny it -- naturally, any representative of our people will always bear
in mind and constantly consider this fact in his or her actions. The
problem is not only that there was the genocide and this genocide must be
admitted. It's not only that we must respect the memory of the victims. The
thing is first of all that by admitting the genocide, future genocides are
prevented, and also a possibility is created for eliminating the
consequences of this genocide.
And until the consequences of the genocide are eliminated - and this is not
a matter of one day, a year, or even 10 or 20 years - this crime will
always be like a sore spot on a human body. This crime will always remind
us of itself. There is no doubt that this is going to be like that. With
this pain in our heart, we still tried to establish certain relations with
the Turks, but everyone was witness to how the Turks refused to live up to
their commitments. We appeared before the foreign ministers of the
countries that are permanent members of the UN Security Council and signed
a document and the Turks refused to implement the provisions of that
document.
I think there are two causes. The Turks, indeed, have a complex and don't
want to face up to history. And secondly, today they have a complex because
of their fraternity with the Azerbaijanis. Or maybe it's not a complex, but
their fraternity with Azerbaijan is an obstacle for them. You know that the
Azerbaijanis made a big noise. In any case, I consider that our initiative
was useful and all our partners realized who we have to deal with. On the
other hand, what kind of state we are, what kind of government we are, what
resolve and goals we have.
But with all that said, I still don't think it is appropriate to compare
the genocide [affirmation process] to a tsunami. They have failed to
understand what pain we have. And I don't think that the 100th anniversary
is a watershed and I don't think that we are in a 100-meter race, covering
a distance of one meter a year, and that upon reaching the 100th meter we
will stand or expect any big victory.
No, this is a landmark and we, of course, will reach this landmark. And I
think both the state of Armenia and the pan-Armenian organizations
worldwide will naturally become more active in connection with this
anniversary. But to say that we are going to make a storm in the world=85it
isn't our goal. Our goal is for the Turks to admit the Armenian genocide. I
am convinced it will happen. But the sooner it happens, the better, because
denying the genocide means continuing to commit genocide.
*RFE/RL: Mr. President, one question in the end. In your programs you
promise to make drastic improvements in the economic and social situation
in Armenia. In the West, they usually ask the incumbents why they couldn't
realize that during their first term in office. How would you answer this
question?
Sarkisian:* As far as I know, there they also say that they have done this
or that, have new programs and now want to realize them. But I will answer
a little bit differently, because your question about Karabakh led me to
thinking and prompted me to remember what difficulties we experienced at
the beginning of the war and what efforts we made in order to stop the
Azerbaijanis who already reached Martakert, Askeran. And that moment is
very dear to me. But for that moment, we would not have had our subsequent
successes.
The same is here: I highly evaluate the efforts that we made to eliminate
the consequences of the global financial-economic crisis. You know, it is
always easy to criticize and it is always easy to say from the side that
our country is small and ask why the global crisis should have had any
impact on it. One can always find an occasion to criticize the government
and belittle its work. But I think that today we have an economy that is
completely different from what it was before the crisis. We can compare the
structure of our economy and see it.
On the other hand, the results that we have today are not that small.
International institutions, leading banks, suggest that the world economy
grew by 2 to 3 percent in 2012. We had 7 percent growth. Now, is it good or
bad? It can't be considered bad. I can also cite other indices. I can say
that our exports every year grow by an average of 15 percent. This is a
modest figure, but it is good. This 7 percent economic growth was first of
all promoted by a 10 percent growth in industry and agriculture. And this
is, to say so, the good aspect, a good indicator.
Why am I speaking about it in detail? I am doing so in order to answer your
question in the end with one sentence. We have prepared all grounds for
having much bigger successes in the next five years. I'd also like to add
that promises are always present in political life. During all elections
there are promises, there are big pledges and small promises, but the
leading political force always ought to try to set higher standards. And
even if it does not achieve these standards, it is still the right thing to
do.
I was obliged to speak about the North-South highway, which is a project
worth several billion dollars, so that after two or three years of speaking
about it we started the work. I had to speak about the railway, the nuclear
power plant, otherwise these project worth billions of dollars would not
have been set going and be in the process of implementation now. There is
only one promise that I think should not be given unless you're absolutely
sure you can keep it, and we have given this promise to our people. It is
the promise to work every day, from morning till night. And I think we have
kept this promise. How successful we have been so far? Maybe not as far as
we ourselves would want, but we have fulfilled our promise. Thank you.