Tweet
Transcript: Armenia's Serzh Sargsyan
The Wall Street Journal's Marc Champion sat down with the President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, April 20, 2009, to talk about relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, the possibility that the U.S. will recognize Armenian genocide and more. Below is an edited transcript.
* * *
The Wall Street Journal: Opening up Armenia's border with Turkey matters for Armenia, but why does it also matter for the region, for the U.S. or Russia?
Mr. Sargsyan: I think the reason is straightforward, the fewer obstacles and artificial barriers the better for everyone. I believe it is also a very natural desire to see the last closed border of Europe opened. And thirdly, I believe for the U.S. and Russia and everybody else it's extremely important to see stability and peace in this region, and without this border being opened it is impossible to see a solid system of security in this region.
WSJ: Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey said recently there won't be a deal on border opening, there won't be a final deal signed until there is a resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. What is your response to that? Also, do you still think border can open by October, as you have said before?
Mr. Sargsyan: Of course that statement of Prime Minister Erdogan was not in the framework of our agreements. As you may know, I invited [Turkey's] President Gül to Yerevan [to a World Cup qualifier soccer match] and after that our efforts intensified and our negotiations lasted for a few months. Both we and the Turkish side in the negotiations supported the idea that we are negotiating without any preconditions. You know that there has been a genocide and there is no single Armenian in the world would doubt that there was a genocide. But by inviting President Gül to Armenia, we reiterated our position that non-recognition by the Turkish side of the genocide is not an insurmountable obstacle to restoration of relations between our countries. … Obviously setting preconditions at a point where the perimeters are already set and we are very close to a breakthrough is absolutely not acceptable for us.
Of course, if the border is open or is on the eve of opening, I will visit Turkey to attend the return match. Now I want to stress that the ball is on the Turkish side and since the media labeled this development as football diplomacy…like in any football game, this diplomacy has a time frame attached to it. Which means that the ball cannot be in the Turkish side all the time. …
WSJ: Do you mean you can only visit Turkey if the border has been reopened, or is about to be?
Mr. Sargsyan: You understood me exactly right.
WSJ: But if there is no sign of the border opening you will not visit?
Mr. Sargsyan: What is the sense of that? We invited President Gül to Armenia to use that opportunity to intensify our dialogue, to launch a conversation. The idea of me returning to visit for the return game was to further and achieve more in that dialogue, I was not supposed to travel to Turkey as a simple tourist or as a football fan.
WSJ: On April 24, President Barack Obama is due to make a statement on Armenian memorial day. The focus is on whether he uses the term genocide or doesn't. Right or wrong, it seems clear that if the U.S. recognizes the genocide that will make the Turks less willing to engage with Armenia. Which is more important to you? The U.S. genocide recognition now, or success in these reopening talks with Turkey?
Mr. Sargsyan: I think already now the motivation of Turkey has decreased, because as you said Prime Minister Erdogan is now offering preconditions. I believe it is not us Armenians who push the U.S. to recognize the genocide. The U.S. had its diplomats, missionaries and businesses in the Ottoman Empire, as well as its insurance companies, on the ground at the time of the genocide. The amount of evidence, the amount of factual materials the U.S. possesses on the matter of genocide is excessive and is as convincing today as it was years ago. Therefore the moment the U.S. finds it necessary to recognize the genocide they will do it…I don't believe we are pushing people into a dilemma between national interest and moral standing.
WSJ: So your preference, the preference of the Armenian government, would be for Mr. Obama to recognize the Armenian genocide, even if that puts the last nail in the coffin of any deal with Turkey to open the border any time soon?
Mr. Sargsyan: I would not like to see this process in a coffin. I would like us to be more open and broad-minded when watching this issue. That is why we want this issue of genocide not to be an obstacle to our relations with Turkey. After all, by recognizing the genocide neither we nor other countries that recognize it want to harm Turkey. I think this matter is very straightforward, restoration of justice and prevention of genocide in the future. Because if we try to tie relations between Armenia and Turkey to recognition of the genocide by one country or another …Armenian-Turkish relations will always be the footballs of other countries. If some countries decide to create difficulties in those relations, they would just announce a recognition of genocide and so would compromise relations between Armenia and Turkey. Once again, it is not we who are pushing the U.S. to recognize the genocide.
WSJ: Azerbaijan has been very upset by the prospect of the border opening, that seems to have been a reason why Mr. Erdogan made the border opening conditional on progress in Nagorno Karabakh. The Azeris say that if you open the border with Armenia it will remove any pressure on Armenia to compromise over Nagorno Karabakh. Are they right?
Mr. Sargsyan: When we were starting this negotiating process, I am confident that in Turkey they also calculated the possible reaction of Azerbaijan. I do not believe that anyone in Turkey expected anyone in Azerbaijan to applaud this process or to be excited about it. In other words the reaction of Azerbaijan as the motive for Turkey stepping back is not understandable for me. Especially as Azerbaijan's expectations concerning these negotiations are exaggerated. By opening Armenia's border or normalizing relations with Turkey, Armenia's approach to Nagorno Karabakh will not undergo any changes or amendments. The problem of Nagorno Karabakh can be solved only on the basis of mutual compromises. This can never be a one-way, give-me type of approach that resolves this problem of Nagorno Karabakh. Despite the absence of relations with Turkey and despite the economic situation in Armenia, there can be no Armenian leader who signs a paper or who has a small idea in his mind that Nagorno Karabakh can be given to Azerbaijan for any motivation or reason. …It has been one year now since I have been dealing with the Nagorno Karabakh issue as president of the country, and I have had three meetings with the president of Azerbaijan since. I believe this has been sufficient time to get understood by each other, we are aware of each other's positions, and now is the time for a very serious exchange of possible developments and ways to advance to a resolution.
I am happy to see that the Azeris seem right now to understand that this issue should be resolved by peaceful means and on the basis of all principles of international law. In these last three or four days I have had some pleasant moments watching my Azeri colleague visiting Russia. Both in his meetings with our Russian counterpart and in talking to Russian media he spoke about principles of international law, because until now they usually spoke about only one of those principles which is territorial integrity. The core issue of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is the right to self-determination of the people of Nagorno Karabakh. Once this problem is solved all the others will easily find their solution.
When Azeris speak about the occupation of some of their territories, they somewhat change or trick around the reality. They forget that those are the territories from which on a daily basis thousands of shells were fired at the people of Nagorno Karabakh. They forget that it was their side that by use of force imposed a war on the people of Nagorno Karabakh and posed a serious threat and challenge to the existence of the people of Nagorno Karabakh, which brought us to the outcome we are at today in the form of the self-defense of the people of Nagorno Karabakh. The fact that 15 years have elapsed since then doesn't change the cause and consequence of this reality.
WSJ: Does that mean the Chechens have a right to self-determination? Also you were military commander in Nagorno Karabakh, are you the right guy to negotiate a deal?
Mr. Sargsyan: I have been the head of the committee for self defense of Nagorno Karabakh. I was one of those who protected and fought for the rights of these people. And I think that, yes, I am one of those who has the right to conduct negotiations on this subject.
As to the first part of your question, yes we believe that all people have the right to self determination. We are not talking about all people who compactly populate a piece of territory. Azeris in their argument have gone so far as to say, well then maybe the Armenians also should have a right to self determination in Glendale in the United States, where they compactly live in one town. But we are talking about…a group of people who have been compactly living for thousands of years in that particular piece of land. Nagorno Karabakh has never been part of Azerbaijan. It was merged with Azerbaijan by a decision of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. And Nagorno Karabakh seceded from the Soviet Union exactly the way the republics have done it under the legislation of the Soviet Union… And of course, Chechnya also has a right to self-determination, and Chechens have entertained that right by a referendum they recently conducted. [Chechnya has held referenda on a new constitution within the Russian federation, following two devastating wars. Some observers challenged the Russian turnout figures as fraudulent.]
WSJ: Why were the borders drawn this way [to carve out autonomous regions populated by neighboring ethic groups]?
Mr. Sargsyan: This was formulated as an expression of goodwill to promote the advancement of communist ideas towards the Muslim east. And this was also done on a wider scale across the Soviet Union to complicate relationships and to …make sure that no Soviet republic ever had it in its mind to use the right to secession from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that was provided for in the constitution. Just imagine if Armenia had tried to secede from the Soviet Union, when there were two Armenian autonomous arrangements within Azerbaijan. These would stay with Azerbaijan forever. If Azerbaijan were to decide to secede from the Soviet Union, both Nakhichevan and Karabakh would be kept within the Soviet Union.
WSJ: In early May you will be in Prague for the European Union's Eastern Partnership talks, and President Aliyev will be there too. Is that the occasion to, as you said earlier, start making some real progress on Nagorno Karabakh?
Mr. Sargsyan: Why not? The Co-chairs [of the so-called Minsk group overseeing talks – France, Russia and the U.S.] have asked me about that opportunity and I have said I don't mind any meeting in any location… We will be guided by the principles of the Minsk group, which also include the idea of territorial integrity and self-determination. And if the President of Azerbaijan is ready to continue negotiations on the basis of these principles, and to achieve progress on that, we are ready.
WSJ: The sub-commissions [to be set up under the proposed Turkey-Armenia agreement] as I understand it will include one on history, what would its goal be?
Mr. Sargsyan: You are asking what questions can be addressed by that historical questions. I can give you one example. The historic Armenian monuments in the Ottoman Empire and today. There are thousands of such monuments. I am sure that Turkey would have many questions to raise with us.
WSJ: Is the genocide an acceptable issue to discuss?
Mr. Sargsyan: We cannot prohibit Turkey from raising any issue in any of the sub-commissions, just as they cannot limit us in raising any issue. One thing is for sure – the fact that a genocide took place raises no doubts in us.
WSJ: Azerbaijan has come into a lot of money from oil revenues recently, and they spent a lot on defense, on military equipment. Is that a concern to you? Do you see in that a potential threat of further war in Nagorno Karabakh?
Mr. Sargsyan: Of course it concerns us. … At the same time I am confident the resources we have allocated to the Armenian armed forces are serious and sufficient. And our armed forces are very well prepared to fight defensive battles.
WSJ: Are you confident that if you needed it, the Collective Security Treaty Organization [A NATO look-alike comprising Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan] would intervene on your behalf?
Mr. Sargsyan: The collective defense principle of an attack against one is an attack against all is a corner stone of the CSTO… And you know that particular provision of the CSTO guided us recently when we established collective forces for reaction in case of armed attacks, which of course brought a very painful reaction from Azerbaijan. And I think it also motivated Azerbaijan to get closer to Russia. And I am happy to see that in the South Caucasus has emerged that believes Russia is a strategic partner.
The Wall Street Journal's Marc Champion sat down with the President of Armenia, Serzh Sargsyan, April 20, 2009, to talk about relations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, the possibility that the U.S. will recognize Armenian genocide and more. Below is an edited transcript.
* * *
The Wall Street Journal: Opening up Armenia's border with Turkey matters for Armenia, but why does it also matter for the region, for the U.S. or Russia?
Mr. Sargsyan: I think the reason is straightforward, the fewer obstacles and artificial barriers the better for everyone. I believe it is also a very natural desire to see the last closed border of Europe opened. And thirdly, I believe for the U.S. and Russia and everybody else it's extremely important to see stability and peace in this region, and without this border being opened it is impossible to see a solid system of security in this region.
WSJ: Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey said recently there won't be a deal on border opening, there won't be a final deal signed until there is a resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. What is your response to that? Also, do you still think border can open by October, as you have said before?
Mr. Sargsyan: Of course that statement of Prime Minister Erdogan was not in the framework of our agreements. As you may know, I invited [Turkey's] President Gül to Yerevan [to a World Cup qualifier soccer match] and after that our efforts intensified and our negotiations lasted for a few months. Both we and the Turkish side in the negotiations supported the idea that we are negotiating without any preconditions. You know that there has been a genocide and there is no single Armenian in the world would doubt that there was a genocide. But by inviting President Gül to Armenia, we reiterated our position that non-recognition by the Turkish side of the genocide is not an insurmountable obstacle to restoration of relations between our countries. … Obviously setting preconditions at a point where the perimeters are already set and we are very close to a breakthrough is absolutely not acceptable for us.
Of course, if the border is open or is on the eve of opening, I will visit Turkey to attend the return match. Now I want to stress that the ball is on the Turkish side and since the media labeled this development as football diplomacy…like in any football game, this diplomacy has a time frame attached to it. Which means that the ball cannot be in the Turkish side all the time. …
WSJ: Do you mean you can only visit Turkey if the border has been reopened, or is about to be?
Mr. Sargsyan: You understood me exactly right.
WSJ: But if there is no sign of the border opening you will not visit?
Mr. Sargsyan: What is the sense of that? We invited President Gül to Armenia to use that opportunity to intensify our dialogue, to launch a conversation. The idea of me returning to visit for the return game was to further and achieve more in that dialogue, I was not supposed to travel to Turkey as a simple tourist or as a football fan.
WSJ: On April 24, President Barack Obama is due to make a statement on Armenian memorial day. The focus is on whether he uses the term genocide or doesn't. Right or wrong, it seems clear that if the U.S. recognizes the genocide that will make the Turks less willing to engage with Armenia. Which is more important to you? The U.S. genocide recognition now, or success in these reopening talks with Turkey?
Mr. Sargsyan: I think already now the motivation of Turkey has decreased, because as you said Prime Minister Erdogan is now offering preconditions. I believe it is not us Armenians who push the U.S. to recognize the genocide. The U.S. had its diplomats, missionaries and businesses in the Ottoman Empire, as well as its insurance companies, on the ground at the time of the genocide. The amount of evidence, the amount of factual materials the U.S. possesses on the matter of genocide is excessive and is as convincing today as it was years ago. Therefore the moment the U.S. finds it necessary to recognize the genocide they will do it…I don't believe we are pushing people into a dilemma between national interest and moral standing.
WSJ: So your preference, the preference of the Armenian government, would be for Mr. Obama to recognize the Armenian genocide, even if that puts the last nail in the coffin of any deal with Turkey to open the border any time soon?
Mr. Sargsyan: I would not like to see this process in a coffin. I would like us to be more open and broad-minded when watching this issue. That is why we want this issue of genocide not to be an obstacle to our relations with Turkey. After all, by recognizing the genocide neither we nor other countries that recognize it want to harm Turkey. I think this matter is very straightforward, restoration of justice and prevention of genocide in the future. Because if we try to tie relations between Armenia and Turkey to recognition of the genocide by one country or another …Armenian-Turkish relations will always be the footballs of other countries. If some countries decide to create difficulties in those relations, they would just announce a recognition of genocide and so would compromise relations between Armenia and Turkey. Once again, it is not we who are pushing the U.S. to recognize the genocide.
WSJ: Azerbaijan has been very upset by the prospect of the border opening, that seems to have been a reason why Mr. Erdogan made the border opening conditional on progress in Nagorno Karabakh. The Azeris say that if you open the border with Armenia it will remove any pressure on Armenia to compromise over Nagorno Karabakh. Are they right?
Mr. Sargsyan: When we were starting this negotiating process, I am confident that in Turkey they also calculated the possible reaction of Azerbaijan. I do not believe that anyone in Turkey expected anyone in Azerbaijan to applaud this process or to be excited about it. In other words the reaction of Azerbaijan as the motive for Turkey stepping back is not understandable for me. Especially as Azerbaijan's expectations concerning these negotiations are exaggerated. By opening Armenia's border or normalizing relations with Turkey, Armenia's approach to Nagorno Karabakh will not undergo any changes or amendments. The problem of Nagorno Karabakh can be solved only on the basis of mutual compromises. This can never be a one-way, give-me type of approach that resolves this problem of Nagorno Karabakh. Despite the absence of relations with Turkey and despite the economic situation in Armenia, there can be no Armenian leader who signs a paper or who has a small idea in his mind that Nagorno Karabakh can be given to Azerbaijan for any motivation or reason. …It has been one year now since I have been dealing with the Nagorno Karabakh issue as president of the country, and I have had three meetings with the president of Azerbaijan since. I believe this has been sufficient time to get understood by each other, we are aware of each other's positions, and now is the time for a very serious exchange of possible developments and ways to advance to a resolution.
I am happy to see that the Azeris seem right now to understand that this issue should be resolved by peaceful means and on the basis of all principles of international law. In these last three or four days I have had some pleasant moments watching my Azeri colleague visiting Russia. Both in his meetings with our Russian counterpart and in talking to Russian media he spoke about principles of international law, because until now they usually spoke about only one of those principles which is territorial integrity. The core issue of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is the right to self-determination of the people of Nagorno Karabakh. Once this problem is solved all the others will easily find their solution.
When Azeris speak about the occupation of some of their territories, they somewhat change or trick around the reality. They forget that those are the territories from which on a daily basis thousands of shells were fired at the people of Nagorno Karabakh. They forget that it was their side that by use of force imposed a war on the people of Nagorno Karabakh and posed a serious threat and challenge to the existence of the people of Nagorno Karabakh, which brought us to the outcome we are at today in the form of the self-defense of the people of Nagorno Karabakh. The fact that 15 years have elapsed since then doesn't change the cause and consequence of this reality.
WSJ: Does that mean the Chechens have a right to self-determination? Also you were military commander in Nagorno Karabakh, are you the right guy to negotiate a deal?
Mr. Sargsyan: I have been the head of the committee for self defense of Nagorno Karabakh. I was one of those who protected and fought for the rights of these people. And I think that, yes, I am one of those who has the right to conduct negotiations on this subject.
As to the first part of your question, yes we believe that all people have the right to self determination. We are not talking about all people who compactly populate a piece of territory. Azeris in their argument have gone so far as to say, well then maybe the Armenians also should have a right to self determination in Glendale in the United States, where they compactly live in one town. But we are talking about…a group of people who have been compactly living for thousands of years in that particular piece of land. Nagorno Karabakh has never been part of Azerbaijan. It was merged with Azerbaijan by a decision of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. And Nagorno Karabakh seceded from the Soviet Union exactly the way the republics have done it under the legislation of the Soviet Union… And of course, Chechnya also has a right to self-determination, and Chechens have entertained that right by a referendum they recently conducted. [Chechnya has held referenda on a new constitution within the Russian federation, following two devastating wars. Some observers challenged the Russian turnout figures as fraudulent.]
WSJ: Why were the borders drawn this way [to carve out autonomous regions populated by neighboring ethic groups]?
Mr. Sargsyan: This was formulated as an expression of goodwill to promote the advancement of communist ideas towards the Muslim east. And this was also done on a wider scale across the Soviet Union to complicate relationships and to …make sure that no Soviet republic ever had it in its mind to use the right to secession from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that was provided for in the constitution. Just imagine if Armenia had tried to secede from the Soviet Union, when there were two Armenian autonomous arrangements within Azerbaijan. These would stay with Azerbaijan forever. If Azerbaijan were to decide to secede from the Soviet Union, both Nakhichevan and Karabakh would be kept within the Soviet Union.
WSJ: In early May you will be in Prague for the European Union's Eastern Partnership talks, and President Aliyev will be there too. Is that the occasion to, as you said earlier, start making some real progress on Nagorno Karabakh?
Mr. Sargsyan: Why not? The Co-chairs [of the so-called Minsk group overseeing talks – France, Russia and the U.S.] have asked me about that opportunity and I have said I don't mind any meeting in any location… We will be guided by the principles of the Minsk group, which also include the idea of territorial integrity and self-determination. And if the President of Azerbaijan is ready to continue negotiations on the basis of these principles, and to achieve progress on that, we are ready.
WSJ: The sub-commissions [to be set up under the proposed Turkey-Armenia agreement] as I understand it will include one on history, what would its goal be?
Mr. Sargsyan: You are asking what questions can be addressed by that historical questions. I can give you one example. The historic Armenian monuments in the Ottoman Empire and today. There are thousands of such monuments. I am sure that Turkey would have many questions to raise with us.
WSJ: Is the genocide an acceptable issue to discuss?
Mr. Sargsyan: We cannot prohibit Turkey from raising any issue in any of the sub-commissions, just as they cannot limit us in raising any issue. One thing is for sure – the fact that a genocide took place raises no doubts in us.
WSJ: Azerbaijan has come into a lot of money from oil revenues recently, and they spent a lot on defense, on military equipment. Is that a concern to you? Do you see in that a potential threat of further war in Nagorno Karabakh?
Mr. Sargsyan: Of course it concerns us. … At the same time I am confident the resources we have allocated to the Armenian armed forces are serious and sufficient. And our armed forces are very well prepared to fight defensive battles.
WSJ: Are you confident that if you needed it, the Collective Security Treaty Organization [A NATO look-alike comprising Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan] would intervene on your behalf?
Mr. Sargsyan: The collective defense principle of an attack against one is an attack against all is a corner stone of the CSTO… And you know that particular provision of the CSTO guided us recently when we established collective forces for reaction in case of armed attacks, which of course brought a very painful reaction from Azerbaijan. And I think it also motivated Azerbaijan to get closer to Russia. And I am happy to see that in the South Caucasus has emerged that believes Russia is a strategic partner.
Comment