Reviewing a well-known article by Levon Ter-Petrosyan, 1997

***

In the spring of1992

Underscoring the need in creating «a system of security guarantee» and demilitarization of Nagorno Karabakh region, he suggested a variant as follows: full autonomy of Nagorno Karabakh and ensuring of normal vital activities of the region. At present, this variant would be acceptable both for Karabakh and Azerbaijan… Hopefully, the status of the autonomous republic as a part of Azerbaijan would satisfy interests of all parties: Karabakh remains to be a part of Azerbaijan; territorial integrity of the country is retained while residents of Karabakh enjoy guaranteed vital activities. This is our stance on the issue, and we are ready to discuss it at any level»(1).

In an interview to Turkish newspapers Hurriyet and Milliyet the Armenian President, stressing the importance of compromises both from Baku and Yerevan for conflict resolution, trumpeted his country’s preparedness to start talks with Turkey. He emphasized at a press-conference in Yerevan that «independence of Nagorno Karabakh would not be recognized by foreign countries» while the very fact of such an interference would be interpreted as meddling in Azerbaijan»(2).

In an interview to Le Figaro L.Ter-Petrosyan emphasized that no preconditions in «genocide» recognitions would be imposed to establish diplomatic relations with Turkey. Even better, no territorial claims to official Ankara from Yerevan were put forward as well, especially as «we joined the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe and thus recognized borders of Turkey»(3).

In the autumn of 1997

In November 1997 L. Ter-Petrosyan made public his approach to the situation around Nagorno Karabakh in his article «War or peace? Time to think again» published in newspapers «The Republic of Armenia» (Yerevan) and «Nezavisimaya gazeta» (Moscow). Note that editors of «Nezavisimaya gazeta

» commented views of the Armenian President as writing that there was a dead-locked situation in specifying the fate of Nagorno Karabakh: «the international community, including Russia, is not minded to decline from property redistribution and areas of geopolitical influence in Transcaucasia and recognize Nagorno Karabakh».

What is important to notice is that in his policy essay L. Ter-Petrosyan emphasized that «the war must be discarded» and the confrontation had to be resolved by means of «peace talks only». He added that «it is impossible to maintain the status quo indefinitely, for neither world community, nor economic potential of Armenia might do that». Given this fact, the only way to resolve the issue was, in his view, a compromise, otherwise the war is inevitable. «Refusal of compromise and, instead, maximalism is the shortest way toward the total loss of Karabakh and aggravation of Armenia’s position, L. Ter-Petrosyan specified the situation as saying that «what we are rejecting today, we’ll have to beg humbly tomorrow but fail, as it recurred in our history».

In so doing, L. Ter-Petrosyan substantiated his view by the fact that «the international community won’t long accept the situation around Nagorno Karabakh», for this «poses a threat to the regional cooperation and security». Granting this, he described as «fatal delusion» a dogma that Azerbaijan was an opponent of Karabakh and that it could easily be brought to knees». However, in reality «it is the international community we are challenging. This delusion means that our nation undergoes an ordeal». Also, L. Ter-Petrosyan wrote that «regardless of who rules in Russia, the latter cannot recognize the independence of Karabakh, for it can face twenty Karabakhs on its own territory?!».

A different question entirely is that L. Ter-Petrosyan assured everybody that «Armenia will never sign a document without Nagorno Karabakh’s signature». In other words, «any program or agreement on conflict settlement will be signed by Nagorno Karabakh»(4).

It must be acknowledged that the L. Ter-Petrosyan’s article had a bomb effect for the Armenian community. Moscow political expert Maria Mamikonyan described what had happened henceforth (see «Experimental creative center» - Sergey Kurginyan foundation). She qualified the L. Ter-Petrosyan’s views as «theoretical justification of inevitability and benevolence of Karabakh interests’ betrayal».

In so doing, she gave an account of events on hot scents (1998):

• On 20 January, Karabakh separatists turned down an OSCE plan of broad autonomy for Karabakh within the framework of Azerbaijan;
• On 18-21 January, three team-mates of Ter-Petrosyan  were wounded in Yerevan – chief security officer,  deputy interior minister and prefect of a city district;
• On 26 January, Defense Minister of Armenia Vazgen Sarkisyan addressed a press-conference calling the public to the national unity. He qualified recent attempted assassinations as framing-ups;
• 30 January - 2 February – a series of voluntary retirements in the Armenian government (Ter-Petrosyan’s allies – author’s note);
• 3 February – L. Ter-Petrosyan’s file in resignation;
• 4 February – enactment of President’s resignation by the parliament

It is important to note that Maria Mamikonyan described the events above as «smooth abolition of Armenian President» whose policy essay and «statements on territorial integrity of Azerbaijan» proved to be «excessively cynical for ordinary citizens» and «absolutely inadmissible for Karabakh politicians» that held key positions in “Ter-Petrosyan’s Armenia»(5, 6).

L. Ter-Petrosyan’s message of 2015

In 2015 L. Ter-Petrosyan submitted a draft message on the occasion of the 100 anniversary of the so-called «Armenian genocide». In particular, he pointed out that Armenia should call European countries «not to lay claims on recognition of the Armenian genocide as pre-condition at talks over Turkey’s joining the European Union».

The document proceeded as follows:

 «In considering a certain interrelationship between Armenian-Turkish relations and Karabakh settlement, Armenia is ready, on the basis of Madrid principles and by means of peace talks, to resolve the conflict provided that, prior to the settlement schedule, conditions, there will be clarified terms and legal implications of the planned referendum  on the future status of Nagorno Karabakh, as well as questions due to the deployment in the region of international peace-keeping forces to ensure security of Karabakh population»(7).

L. Ter-Petrosyan – N. Pashinyan: equality sign? Or?

Of interest are L. Ter-Petrosyan and N. Pashinyan’s description of their interrelations (based on public information though), especially as up to now the current Armenian President has been regarded as appointee of L. Ter-Petrosyan.    

In 2019 L. Ter-Petrosyan vilified as utter rubbish mass media’ allegations that N. Pashinyan was his «political godchild». In former President’s his words, during his journalist activity N. Pashinyan was Ter-Petrosyan’s ardent opponent. When starting his political activity N. Pashinyan stopped criticism for the moment but resumed it after Ter-Petrosyan-led «Armenian National Congress» (ANC), «Booming Armenia» and «Heritage» Parties succeeded in building collaboration. Then Pashinyan broke off contacts with the ANC. «All this indicates that allegations that Pashinyan is my political godchild is none other than crazy idea», he noted.

Also, L. Ter-Petrosyan reminded that after 2012 he had a meeting with Pashinyan just one time, on 16 July 2018, according to official information. «From then on, I had no contacts with the Prime Minister, either by phone or through intermediary, - he emphasized, -  [and] if anybody believes that Pashinyan can be sequacious, he is greatly mistaken... I’ve never met before such an independent and self-sufficing person».

At the same time, L. Ter-Petrosyan pointed out that N. Pashinyan «rejected some principles of his predecessors, such as conduct of negotiations by Armenia n behalf of Nagorno Karabakh «with a special emphasis on the necessity of restoring Nagorno Karabakh’ status as a full-fledged party to the negotiation process (8).

Earlier 2020,  N. Pashinyan maintained that «political relations» with L. Ter-Petrosyan «ended in 2012», so there are not «any ideological, organizational and political relations» between him and Ter-Petrosyan. Following N. Pashinyan’ election as Prime Minister he met with L. Ter-Petrosyan, «and it was our one and only meeting since 2012» (9).

This being said, many inform-resources paid attention to the fact that in January this year N. Pashinyan did not congratulate L. Ter-Petrosyan on his 75-anniversary. At the same time, press-secretary of the Prime Minister Vladimir Karapetyan, L. Ter-Petrosyan’s associate, was released from his position.

This notwithstanding, in April this year L. Ter-Petrosyan advocated N. Pashinyan’s showdown against coronavirus Covid-19 incidence and expressed his hope that Robert Kocharyan and Serj Sargsyan «will instruct subordinate mass media to stop immediately their struggle against the authorities». Also, he suggested to suspend activities of the parliamentary commission investigating military actions in 2016, for its activity «stirs up emotions in strained situation»(10).

In June 2020, L. Ter-Petrosyan’s press-secretary refuted information about a meeting between N. Pashinyan and L. Ter-Petrosyan (novostink.net).

On 9 September, L. Ter-Petrosyan received in his mansion Russian Ambassador to Armenia, Sergey Kopyrkin (verelq.am).

Conclusion

Surely, even scant data from open sources could help unveil the fact that regardless of frigid relations between N. Pashinyan and L.Ter-Petrosyan, under difficult conditions for the Prime Minister the first President vociferously backed up N. Pashinyan. As a whole, the pro-western bias of N. Pashinyan is also associated with L. Ter-Petrosyan’s public goals.

By the same token, N. Pashinyan tried to introduce unrecognized, the so-called «Nagorno Karabakh Republic» as legal entity into the negotiation process of conflict settlement might, to some extent, be considered as L. Ter-Petrosyan’s support (see his article of 1997) for a separate signature of Nagorno Karabakh under any document relevant thereto.

On the other hand, N. Pashinyan openly ignored some important aspects of L. Ter-Petrosyan’s policy statement, to say the least, in the matter of Nagorno Karabakh’s belonging to Azerbaijan (with the proviso that broad autonomy remains in force). In other words, the question is about recognition of territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Yet in this case, the more interesting N. Pashinyan’s statement that «the first President has bad character: in the end he is always right» (11).

Perhaps, the current Prime Minister meant L. Ter-Petrosyan’s opinion that «maximalism is the nighest way to dismal failure of Karabakh and degradation of Armenia»: what we reject today, we shall beg humbly tomorrow, as it recurred in our history in the past»?

Links:

1.«Good fortune in this war might be temporary» (L. Ter-Petrosyan’s interview // Komsomolskaya pravda. 5 March 1992

2.March 1992

http://ayintarihi.byegm.gov.tr/m/date/1992-03-07

(site reference date – 11 September 2018)

3.Sukru Elekdag. Turkiye - Ermenistan Iliskileri // Milliyet 1 mart 1992

http://gazetearsivi.milliyet.com.tr/Arsiv/1992/03/

4.Cit. ex: Levon Ter-Petrosyan. War or peace? Time to think again

https://1news.az/news/vnimaniyu-pashinyana-stat-ya-ter-petrosyana-kotoraya-lishila-ego-vlasti

5.М. Mamikonyan. Caucasus is being reconstructed

http://zavtra.ru/blogs/1998-02-1721sng

6. On Presidency of L. Ter-Petrosyan see.: Teymur Atayev. A short excursus to the modern history of the Armenian-Azerbaijani confrontation or lessons of world geopolicy with oil taint/ http://idrak.org.az/ru/1/264

7.Ter-Petrosyan published his draft message in connection with the 100 anniversary of the Armenian genocide

https://rus.azatutyun.am/a/26918510.html

8.Naira Bulgadaryan. Ter-Petrosyan vilified as utter rubbish mass media’ allegations that N. Pashinyan was his «political godchild»

https://rus.azatutyun.am/a/29787451.html

9.Pashinyan-Levon Ter-Petrosyan: a new-ld intrigue with question marks

https://verelq.am/ru/node/58232

10.Ter-Petrosyan backed Pashinyan: Armenia «is at war with the epidemic

https://eadaily.com/ru/news/2020/04/08/ter-petrosyan-podderzhal-pashinyana-armeniya-v-sostoyanii-voyny-s-epidemiey

11. Ref.to Nikol Pashinyan’s article in "Aykakan zhamanak". Cit. ex: Happy jubilee, my President!

https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/blogs/275/posts/41249