Interview of President Serzh Sargsyan to “Moskovskie Novosti”

Territorial integrity does not mean inviolability of borders

On the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the disintegration of the USSR, President Serzh Sargsyan gave an interview to the Russian “Moskovskie Novosti” (Moscow News) paper.

Mr. President, Vladimir Putin has once said that the breakdown of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. For you, is it a disaster, a tragedy, or a victory?

Serzh Sargsyan: I agree that for many people the collapse of the Soviet Union became a tragedy, because their regular life rhythm was disrupted, perceived prosperity was gone, and they were compelled to drastically change their lives. Enormous efforts had been made to insure security of the people. The already throbbing conflicts and problems, at the time of the breakup unfolded into military conflicts, or to be precise – into wars. On the other hand, however, many nations had been dreaming of independence. After attaining independence, our people were able to turn the centuries-long cherished dream into reality.

Independent Armenia is only twenty years old. From the viewpoint of the entire history of the Armenian nation, it’s a drop in the ocean. Armenia had lost her independence many centuries ago, and the first independent republic was short-lived – only two and a half years, just a split second in history. Certainly, the Soviet Armenia was a very important chapter in the history of the Armenian people, a period of formation and systematization of the institutional memory of the people. And it helped us to hold out.

So, the base, which had been created during the soviet times, allowed to hold out in the future, when the USSR disintegrated?

Serzh Sargsyan: Yes, the mentioned base was the economy, demographics, culture and science and formation of the institutional memory of the people.

In the end of the day, for Armenia and the Armenian people was the soviet period dominated by good or bad?

Serzh Sargsyan: The Armenians, as all the others, went through all hardships which existed in the Soviet Union. However, overall I believe that there were more good occurrences than bad. Armenia was developing, and living standards and conditions, let’s say, in Armenia of 1988 are incomparable with the pre-Soviet situation. I think that actually Armenia was developing rapidly.

Are those, who claim that Armenia in Soviet times was a privileged entity, right?

Serzh Sargsyan: Really? I don’t think Armenia had privileges. The Armenian people are hardworking and aim-oriented enough. To be honest, I never heard such phraseology.

You’ve mentioned a number of positive things which Armenia got during Soviet times. However, Armenia became one of the places where the breakup of the USSR started on, why?

Serzh Sargsyan: There are two reasons: Although Armenia was developing rapidly, nevertheless, the national problem was in existence. We were living in a huge country and in foreign policy our interests had not been always taken into consideration. For instance, in the USSR-Turkey bilateral relations. The Armenian are spread all over the world, mostly because our people had been subjected to genocide. In western societies they were speaking about it freely. You see, we knew about it, and it certainly had an impact on the situation. Official policy was regarded in Armenia extremely negatively.

Second reason, at the dawn of the soviet times, the Caucasian Bureau of the Communist Party had adopted a decision to detach historical Armenian regions Nagorno Karabakh and Nakhijevan and hand them over to Azerbaijan. Never, especially in case of Nagorno Karabakh, had we agreed with such a decision. In Nagorno Karabakh that unlawful decision had always been protested. In Gorbachev era, with perestroika, the protest had become more material. When people saw that the just decision was still unattainable, they started to protect vigorously.

When did you personally realize that the Soviet Union was doomed?

Serzh Sargsyan: It’s hard to recall particularly when, but I was actively involved in Karabakh movement since 1988. At the time, being a Communist Party functionary, I knew that the movement would go on ceaselessly, I knew that either we reach the ultimate goal, or Karabakh would be cleansed of Armenians, as it had happened with Nakhijevan. I resigned from the USSR Communist Party. I knew, of course, that becoming independent would not be a smooth, lossless process. I also knew the region we lived in very well. We were ready for those difficulties.

Do you remember the day when you realized “that’s it, this is the end”? Until then there was some hope for holding the union together, for some kind of a normal solution within one country; but later it became obvious that that was the end, separation was inevitable and no matter what, we would take the road toward independence.

Serzh Sargsyan: If I am not mistaken, it was sometime between 1990 and 1991 when I learned that the interior troops were leaving the territory of Nagorno Karabakh. On the eve of the troops’ withdrawal, we had already realized that we would stand face to face with our problem and that there would be boisterous events.

And it happened, everything started with Karabakh, the breakup of the Soviet Union had started at that particular time. What would be Your perception of the perfect solution now?

Serzh Sargsyan: The problem can be decided only based on mutual concessions. All these years, we have been looking for compromise. But here’s the bottom line – the future of the people of Nagorno Karabakh will be decided by the people of Nagorno Karabakh, they must have every opportunity to live in security on their historical land. As you know, the OSCE Minsk Group has been dealing with this problem, the President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev is making great personal efforts, and we are very grateful for that. It's been the Minsk Group that proposed a document which is provisionally called the Madrid principles. It implies the resolution of the problem based on three principles: non-use of force or threat to use force, principle of territorial integrity and right of people to self-determination. Overall, the document provides an opportunity to continue negotiations and to proceed with the drafting of a comprehensive peace agreement.

We know precisely what these three principles mean. After protracted reckoning, the Azeris also said yes, but then for no obvious reason started to interpret these principles differently, in their own way. Until now, at the every level the Azeri leadership has been constantly threatening with the resumption of military actions. It’s a violation of the first principle. The principle of territorial integrity is explicit for us and for them, even though it looks like they have turned it into an absolute dogma, outside the realm of international law, while the right for self-determination is perceived by them as self-determination in the framework of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Such self-determination does not exist; it’s an incomplete, primitive self-determination. And as long as Azerbaijan does not comprehend the meaning of that particular principle, it will be very difficult to get solution to the problem. Karabakh defended its independence in a bloody and cruel war, in the most gruesome conditions and it would be naïve to assume that the people of Karabakh will give up everything they’ve achieved.

But if two sides comprehend the principle of territorial integrity differently and draw borders on the map differently, it’s hard to believe that progress is possible.

Serzh Sargsyan: I believe, we do comprehend it differently. But these are principles the world is guided by. These principles – territorial integrity and self-determination of people – allowed Armenia and Azerbaijan to become independent states. Why is it acceptable in one case, but misinterpreted in the other? It is illogical. Territorial integrity does not mean inviolability of borders, otherwise there would be no new states, while in the last 20-30 years a dozen of new states has appeared on the world map.

Do you think recent formation of the two new states in the South Caucasus will have an impact on the resolution of the NK conflict?

Serzh Sargsyan: The NK problem is different from any other similar problem. In general, all these conflicts are unique, each of them has its own specific causes, consequences, and dynamics. As a precedent, yes, creation of new states does have a positive impact on the world’s perception regarding the right of the NK people. And it’s not about our recognition of the state sovereignty of Kosovo, Southern Sudan, Abkhazia or South Ossetia; it’s about the fact that the international community in different combinations accepts that in this or that particular case separation is a legal form for the realization of the right for self-determination.

Do You believe there is a real threat for the resumption of military actions?

Serzh Sargsyan: I think, there is a possibility, because I cannot understand why Azerbaijan is dragging its feet on negotiations. Probably, there are some schemes related to the accumulation of more power and resources to try at the opportune moment to instigate a new reckless military provocation. It’s a flawed approach, the situation may unfold in two ways: first, all-out war and as a result, the occupation of Nagorno Karabakh, which is possible only if the people of NK are totally eliminated, and the second, Azerbaijan’s defeat and loss of additional territories. In that case Azerbaijan will be complaining again about the loss of five, six or more regions. Then what? Another cease-fire, another agreement, new violations of the cease-fire, another war…These scenarios are without prospect.

Does Armenia consider the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh?
Serzh Sargsyan: Certainly, we wouldn’t neglect such a possibility. For instance, it may become very real in case there is a resumption of military actions. Usually, we get a more straightforward question, «Why Armenia does not recognize the independence of Nagorno Karabakh?” Because we are conducting negotiations, and the recognition of Nagorno Karabakh means the disruption of these negotiations. In any case, it’s better to negotiate.

Your are the third leader of the country, what has been achieved during these twenty years and what has not been achieved?

Serzh Sargsyan: The greatest achievement – maintained stability in our country. There were times when times were hard. Along with switching from planned to market economy, we had to provide for our people’s security. Azerbaijan unleashed war, Turkey was unconditionally supporting Azerbaijan, Georgia was going through a civil war: it was very difficult to provide people even with the essential goods. We were having huge problems in the energy sector. And all of it, against a background of a devastating earthquake, which left hundreds of thousands without shelter, against a backdrop of refugee problems, when almost five hundred thousand people, who escaped elimination, arrived at small Armenia. They had left all their possessions behind, in their abandoned homes. And the greatest achievement has been our ability to maintain security.

Leaders are always tempted to criticize their predecessors. As the saying goes, “Everyone believes he is a strategist while watching the battle from a distance”. I have been leading the country since 2008 and refrained from such attitude since day one. To criticize the predecessors means to shift responsibility from you to the others. It’s not right. I am grateful to my predecessors and to all those who have ever done something good for Armenia.

All countries that had emerged after the breakup of the Soviet Union had one common problem: to shape identity. Has independent Armenia shaped its national identity? Do Armenians remain a divided nation, or they have found their home?

Serzh Sargsyan: For the majority of the Armenians Armenia is, certainly, not just a historical motherland, even though the two thirds of the nation resides abroad and almost all of them are citizens of the host countries. But it would be unfair to say that they have no “claims” regarding their historical motherland. Armenians easily integrate in the societies of the countries they live in. Probably that’s one of the reasons they achieve serious success in different areas. Unfortunately, so far we haven’t been able to fully utilize their potential. Why? I cannot answer that question for many years. I am confident that in time we will be able to use that potential more purposefully, because our greatest resource are our people, including those living outside Armenia.

Is it possible to have economic growth without solving apparent geopolitical problems, without normalizing relations with Turkey, etc.?

Serzh Sargsyan: You see, this question doesn’t have a direct and simple answer, i.e. yes, the growth is possible or no, the growth is impossible. If no, then how we manage to develop for the last twenty years? If yes, why are we developing at this pace? Of course, we will not starve if relations with Turkey are not normalized. However, I would like to restate what I have already said many times: we do not consider the economic aspect of the issue to be the moving force behind the normalization of the relations with Turkey. As Napoleon once said, country’s history is shaped by its geographical position. Geography is a verdict, destiny.

We live here and have to have some kind of relations with our neighbors. Not at any cost, however. When we started the normalization process with Turkey, many opponents were saying that it would impede the process of recognition of the Armenian Genocide all over the world. Those predictions, thanks God, came to naught. The fact of Genocide is undeniable and we will make every effort so that Turkey ultimately recognizes the Genocide. This is a struggle for justice, for security. Eventually, it’s a struggle for accepting the inadmissibility of such crimes; it unfolds not only in our region but all over the world.

Is it possible that after the hundredth anniversary of the tragic events of 1915 they cease to play such an important role in the bilateral relations?

Serzh Sargsyan: Reconciliation will start when Turkey recognizes the Armenian Genocide. There can be no reconciliation without recognition. Some are trying to present efforts to normalize relations with Turkey as an attempt for reconciliation. True reconciliation will come only after repentance.

Do you think the Collective Security Treaty Organization provides reliable protection for the Armenian borders?

Serzh Sargsyan: In any case, we are actively cooperating in the framework of the CSTO and are doing it with confidence. There is a solid legal base for the CSTO members to act together. Such confidence do exists.
The CSTO is a structure which was created by the leaders of the former Soviet republics to maintain some kind of unity. Besides the CSTO, are there any other good things left from the USSR?

Serzh Sargsyan: Certainly, a number of good things…

For instance?

Serzh Sargsyan: Our relations. Glorious traditions – we had been creating together, we have a common combat history, friendship. Independence doesn’t mean severing of all ties. Today, for instance, I asses our current relations with Russia as very, very good. I am not even sure if the relations were better in Soviet times.

How would You assess the dynamics of Russia’s changing role in the South Caucasus in general and for Armenia in particular?

Serzh Sargsyan: In our region Russia has a pivotal role regarding security issues. Much depends on Russia. On the other hand, we have never expected Russia to adopt a tough and explicitly pro-Armenian stance. In any case, Russia is a large country, Azerbaijan is her neighbor too, and for that reason Russia, unlike Turkey, which unequivocally supports Azerbaijan, cannot back only one party to the conflict. However, on the other side, Russia is our ally at the CSTO, and in case of resumption of military actions or substantial threat to our security, Russia has responsibilities and opportunities to react.