On Monday, February 28, the Civilitas Foundation launched a new series of public forums. In addition to the periodic discussions by a group of individuals about specific topics on the national agenda, this new series will come to offer a stage to an individual who is or was in a position of authority and who is prepared to answer questions from the public.
Civilitas Director Salpi Ghazarian explained that the new series, entitled “100 Questions, 100 Answers” is based on the premise that leaders have the responsibility to talk to their constituents and the public has the right to dialogue with its leaders. These leaders can be from the world of politics, economics, business, education, culture, health or any other field.
The first guest was Civilitas founder Vartan Oskanian, former foreign minister of Armenia. The program was moderated by Aram Abrahamyan, editor of the daily newspaper, Aravot, and long-time host of the A1+ program, PS.
Questions from the audience ranged from current politics to regional issues, from elections to the recent upheaval in the Middle East.
Questions from the audience ranged from current politics to regional issues, from elections to the recent upheaval in the Middle East. Here are Mr. Oskanian’s comments.
ON THE NEWLY REINFORCED COALITION
It was too early to sign a coalition agreement. To determine from now who is to be the presidential candidate of the three parties is, I think, a bit premature. I also believe in the idea of checks and balances; any democratic system cannot be efficient if there are no political checks and balances there. I would have hoped that had the Prosperous Armenia party retained its independence, it would have taken on that role and served as a counter-weight. And in that way, I believe that would have been good for the state, for the country and for the people.
Today, it’s essential that those balances be created, that elections turn into such a counterbalance, and as outcome, create a political reality that has real built in checks and balances, not just appearing to be balanced. The coalition today is just a formality, since the Republican Party already enjoys an absolute majority, and the other members of the coalition really don’t have a role there. It would be a real coalition if none of the member parties already enjoy a majority. The Prosperous Armenia Party had increased such a likelihood. Now that chance has decreased, but there’s still time. I think the public, too, has begun to view its choices differently and I hope that in the next elections, we can try to realize that checks and balances idea.
ON THE ROLE OF PUBLIC OPINION IN FOREIGN POLICY
There are certain principles that those who implement public policy take into consideration. Including public opinion. On the most important issues facing our country, at least in my time, there was general coincidence of our approaches and public opinion: on the NK issue, in Turkey-Armenia relations, and our regional policies generally. Thus, that was never a grave issue. I don’t remember an instance that resulted in a serious backlash among the public. Today, for example, the situation is different. Armenia-Turkey relations created a negative backlash. There are a variety of disparate positions on the NK issue. Never has our public, or the Diaspora, or Armenians generally, been so divided on foreign policy issues. Today, how much weight is given to public opinion, I can’t say. My impression, at least on Armenia-Turkey is that public opinion was not really taken into consideration. From Day One, the authorities did what they had determined to do, despite public opinion, which in my opinion was more opposed than in favor.
ON POLITICAL MONOPOLIES
I’m convinced that Armenia’s biggest problem is not the economic monopolies or the injustices or corruption. If you ask me what the biggest problem is and where we need to start, I would say it’s the political monopoly. Politics is at the core of everything. The other issues all serve to sustain the monopolization of the political field. If each of today’s political parties were concerned about the country’s future and tried honestly to be a counterweight to the ruling party, I believe it would be possible to change things in Armenia today. I’m being guided by what’s out there today, by what we have to work with. If we can find the right configurations, we can produce outcomes and serve the people and the country.
ON CRITICISM
It’s been 20 years since independence. This year we’re going to celebrate and I’m sure the government will do so with great fanfare and we’ll hear only positive things. But this 20-year anniversary should also be reason to reflect. We must be able to coldly assess the path we’ve traveled, and what we’ve done wrong, what we’ve done right, how to learn from our mistakes, and what we should do to make the next decade more productive for Armenia. Today, you look at the situation and see that it’s quite complicated. People feel hopeless, and as a result, they leave the country. This is our greatest misfortune and must be stopped. The only way to do this is to be honest with ourselves, accurately assess the path we’ve traveled, and to provide the right direction for the country’s future. Only if there is such hope will our people regain their faith and remain in their country.
ON REVOLUTIONS IN THE ARAB WORLD
I would not want Armenia to undergo such turmoil. We don’t need that. If we go through what is happening in Libya, in Egypt, in the Arab world, our country can fall years behind. But I want to call your attention to the fact that the realities which were the cause of these revolutions in the Arab world, they are also present here – political monopoly, corruption, poverty, unemployment, wealth accumulation in a few hands. These are what brought the Arab world to its feet. Unfortunately, those phenomena are also extant in Armenia today. I repeat that I am not calling for us to go down that path. I would not want our people to undergo that kind of shock. But the turmoil in the Arab world should raise the alarm for all of us – first of all the government, the opposition and the public.
But let’s look carefully at what happened there. In the Arab countries that are going through upheaval, there have been no obvious leaders. There has not been one individual that has risen above the rest. This has been the expression of the people’s collective will. Why do I mention this? Don’t expect that there will always be a leader, an expectation that there will necessarily be a political force at the fore. The people can also make things happen. A lot depends on the people. I’m a liberal. At the basis of liberalism are two concepts – the individual and the rights of the individual. I believe that we must build a society that is good, that is normal, where the individual may live decently, and not at the expense of individuals. At the end of the day, we’re back to the individual, to you and you and you. You must think about what is being done to you and for you. The government must consider how each specific action affects the individual. Not on a general mass of people, but on individuals, specifically.
ON COMPLEMENTARITY
Today, our regional policy has no ideological grounding and that I believe presents real problems for those conducting our foreign policy. That has had its negative impact on Armenia-Turkeyr elations and on the NK resolution of the conflict. It also creates complications in our efforts to conduct balanced relations with the US and with Russia. We implemented complementarity for 10 years and I assure you it was effective for Armenia. If you ask me, Armenia has no choice but complementarity. Today they talk of multi-vector policies. What is a vector? It’s a direction. I think that means not knowing exactly what to do. Complementarity bears content in the sense that one complements one’s relations with one country with relations with another country, in a specific sphere, in order to produce greater results for the country. There is content there. A policy of balance is also not complementarity. In Ter-Petrossian’s time, it was a policy of balance. We introduced complementarity. Today they say multi-vector. It appears as if only the vocabulary has changed, but there is also serious difference in content. I believe we need to return to complementarity as the concept at the base of our policy in order to be able to act more efficiently within the region and beyond.
ON ARMENIA’S PRO-RUSSIA LEANINGS
That is the perception. I often say, albeit joking, that today complementarity is being conducted in reverse. If in the past, we had to whatever extent, nevertheless positive vibes from both the US and Russia, today it’s the exact opposite. The US believes that we are Russia’s forepost, and Russia believes that our relations with the US are closer than they need to be. For example, I believe that when we still had 10 years on the agreement on Russian bases in Armenia, it was premature to extend it for another 40 years. I believe one of the reasons for this is the absence of complementarity. When there is uncertainty in your regional policy, there will necessarily be a loss of confidence among the big powers.
ON THE IDEA OF A BICAMERAL PARLIAMENT AND DIASPORA’S ROLE
This idea came as a surprise for me, since it had been neither discussed in Armenia nor had it matured as an idea. As in other issues, too, this was done in haste. Of course it’s premature to discuss that possibility because ideas such as this ought to be first discussed not in the Diaspora, but here, in Armenia. Our people should not have to hear about such an idea from the Minister of Diaspora. If there is such a proposal, it should first be presented here in Armenia, for the people’s consideration. Actually, I’m rather at a loss. For a small country like Armenia, with a3 million population, the necessity for a bicameral legislature is doubtful. In addition, if the purpose is to engage the Diaspora, there are plenty of ways to do that. For that, creating a second chamber is not essential.
ON ROBERT KOCHARIAN
I worked with Robert Kocharian for 10 years, and also before that, when he was president of NK and I was the chief NK negotiator. This long and productive relationships was based on reciprocal respect and understanding. We each accurately assessed the other’s potential. I continue to remain in contact with him and see him periodically. We have no joint projects. He has not given me instructions. I have not presented him with any requests, political or otherwise. It’s the cordial continuation of our professional relationship.
The occasional accusation that Kocharian uses me to express ideas important to him is an assumption and a primitive one, that is not even worth responding to. I can only say that people who make such assumptions are judging me by their own experience, never having been their own person, and always performing others’ instructions. In Armenia, there are lots of such people, and so this thinking is deeply entrenched. But people are individuals. They do have their own way of thinking, their own ideas, their own devotion to this country.
ON ELECTIONS
I have not made a decision of any sort. It all depends on how things evolve, then I’ll decide. You might say that time is passing, and that there is no time left. But I think there is. Depending on what transpires in the next several months, I’ll decide what my next steps will be.
ON THE EVENTS OF MARCH ONE
This is a question that I’ve been asked for the last three years and I’m pleased at the chance to respond. I’m touched that my role, the significance of my role in our public life is assessed so highly.
March 1, 2008, was a great tragedy. That should not have happened in Armenia. WE have lost years, in all ways, as a result. I had hoped that in these three years that wound would have been treated. But it’s still open and festering, for many reasons.
Let me say something about my role that day. When it was suggested to me to hold that press conference, I agreed for two reasons. The first was my political responsibility as someone in the public eye. Someone had to talk to the people that day. Silence under those conditions, when there had been incidents between the public and the police that morning, when a large crowd was gathering at another location, and when passions ran so high, silence was most dangerous. So, foremost was my sense of responsibility that day that led me to agree to conduct the press conference. When I gave the press conference, it was 6 pm. There were no deaths. Some people had been wounded that morning, but no shots had been fired. The first shot was fired at 9 pm. I spoke at 6 pm. I had done so after putting a very clear condition before the President that day – that I could announced that the president is prepared to enter into dialogue with the opposition, in order to search together for means to come out of that somber situation. The President agreed. If you watch the press conference on YouTube, I said I have the president’s consent to announce that he is ready for dialogue, and I call on the opposition to help to collectively seek a way out of this very serious situation.
On that day, I considered myself an individual intent on preventing further developments. If I believed I’d done something wrong, I would apologize, but I have nothing to apologize for.
ON WAYS TO HEAL THE WOUND.
The simplest way out would have been to free those who have been incarcerated for their involvement in events of that day. That should have been the President’s first act, first step.