OPINION: Edward Sharmazanov - "In its foreign political priorities Armenia has always been a supporter of “both … and”, not “either … or” policy."

ArmInfo's Interview with Edward Sharmazanov, Vice Speaker of Armenian National Assembly, Spokesperson of Republican Party of Armenia

 

In his latest interview, the second president of Armenia Robert Kocharyan specified the reasons why he is not running for presidency on Feb 18 2013. The key reason is that the rivalry of two Nagorno-Karabakh natives, longtime companions would put many of the voters before a hard choice and might cause active speculations. In the meantime, he criticized the policy of his successor. What do you think about the reasons of such assessment?

 

The ex-president of Armenia Robert Kocharyan has the right to express his opinion, to agree or disagree with the political course of the incumbent authorities, as well as to advance or not to advance his own nominee at the presidential election. It is the unalienable right of not only the first and the second presidents, but also the right of any politician. I think the opinion expressed by Kocharyan is nothing new, as he has regularly expressed it over the past few years.  As regards the reason why he has not advanced his nominee for the forthcoming presidential election, I think it should be looked for in his interview; I am used to assessing a more realistic political situation. My opinion has not changed over the past few years. I believe that the only most-fancied candidate for presidency is the incumbent President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan.   

 

Most analysts agree with your assessment of chances for the incumbent President. Yet, many spoke of a possible force majeure connected with Kocharyan. As a member of the Republican Party of Armenia, do you think force majeure is possible given the present realities? 

 

I don't think that in the present situation the occurrence of a force majeure situation is possible. We were in the force majeure situation during the March events of 2008 accompanied by the moral and political crisis and human victims. The society was divided into two poles and was full of enmity and hatred. I personally participated in all those events and know firsthand how hard the situation was. At present such force majeure is not expected. During the past five years the authorities directly faced the reality and were working hard to have such a result. There are numerous problems in Armenia today which should be resolved. Today the level of pluralism, democracy, freedom of press and political culture cannot be compared with the level Armenia had 5 years ago. Neither Serzh Sargsyan nor the ruling party is guilty of the fact that today the society links settlement of problems only with members of the Republican Party of Armenia. Today just the president is answerable to the Armenian people for the negotiating process on Karabakh and for security of Armenia. And the man with long experience capable to stand against the above-mentioned force majeure situations should occupy this position. Just for this reason, today Serzh Sargsyan at the position of the head of state has no alternative. At the same time, undoubtedly, there are opposition politicians in Armenia, who can later come forward with interesting proposals.

 

Are these politicians among the other 7 candidates for president? Do you think the participation of 8 candidates in the elections is favorable for Armenia's image?

 

Certainly, I do. The competition at the election is always positive not only for Armenia but also for any other democratic country. Today many mass media say there is no competition at the elections. In this context, I would like to say that artificial competition is more dangerous for the authorities than its absence. The competition is very much important, but as a rule, in any country the main fight is taking place among two-three candidates. As for the presidential election in Armenia on 18 February, here as well two or three candidates will fight for the second place, and the forthcoming election will be like that of 1991, when we had an absolute first-runner - Levon Ter-Petrosyan, and other not less reputable politicians: Ashot Navasardyan and Paruyr Hayrikyan.

 

Do you think the second round of elections is possible, at least theoretically? 

 

There will be no need for the second round of the election. The campaign has not yet started but it is already clear that even in case of unification of the efforts of the rest 7 candidates, holding of the second round of the election is practically impossible. We have never had a task to gain victory in the first round of the election. It is very much important for the RPA, first of all, holding of transparent, free and democratic election.  And today Armenia has really got a historical chance to organize the best election after which the society will not be divided into ins and outs.

The sociologists really share your opinion, forecasting 70-80% of votes in favor of Serzh Sargsyan. If this happens, will it damage the international image of the authorities, taking into consideration how such high percentage is reached in the neighboring countries?

 

The society and nobody else will determine the percentage of confidence in the authorities. Armenia is very far from the Brezhnev times, when there was no pluralism, and saying that Sargsyan's opponents will fight for the second place, I do not mean that the incumbent president will gather 80-90% of votes. I just say that no other candidate except ours has a chance to gather 50+1% of votes. And as a ruling party, we have got a task to ensure all the needed conditions for the free will expression of our citizens. I am confident that foreign and local observers will get an opportunity to assure themselves of that.

 

The spokesperson of Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry Elman Abdullayev has stated that notwithstanding the presidential elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2013, the talks on the Karabakh problem will not stop. What do you think of that?

 

In the previous years of elections there was no progress in the negotiations on the Karabakh conflict either. However, the first obstacle to the progress has always been the non-constructive position of Azerbaijan. There will be no progress as long as Baku glorifies murderers, makes militarist statements, prepares the public for war and not for peace, and displays groundless maximalism, as well as recognizes only two or the three principles of the conflict's resolution etc. Armenia is committed to peaceful resolution of the conflict on the basis of the three principles of the International Law. Nevertheless, de-facto independent Nagorno Karabakh has already become an indisputable fact. De-jure recognition of this status is a matter of time. Armenia's official goal in the negotiation process on Karabakh is to achieve international recognition of NKR. Negotiations are held for the future status of Karabakh, which has been repeatedly declared by the Armenian party. However, Armenia will not make any unilateral concessions and the Karabakh people must decide the issue of their status. President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan has repeatedly voiced Armenia's official stance saying that no one has a right to decide the fate of the Karabakh people without reckoning with Stepanakert. Yerevan will never go on any steps contradicting the interests of Stepanakert, which are in harmony with the interests of Armenia and the Armenians worldwide.

 

What do you expect from the Jan 28 meeting of the Armenian and Azeri Foreign Ministers in Paris?

 

What I expect from Jan 28 meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers in Paris and from the general negotiations on Karabakh is an increase in pressing on Azerbaijan's maximalism. Otherwise, no breakthrough is possible in the peace process. I expect no serious achievements in the negotiations due to Baku's unwillingness to reckon with the three principles of the settlement process and Artsakh's removal from the process. In other words, I expect nothing serious from the Paris meeting.

 

Analysts consider the RPA to be an advocate of European integration. What do you think of the prospects for Armenia's participation in European integration processes and in Moscow's projects of integration in the post-Soviet space? 

 

The Republican Party of Armenia is a supporter of not only the European integration. We are also active supporters of fulfillment of the foreign political line in all the possible directions. I would like to say that over all those years deepening of relations with our strategic partner Russia was a priority number one for the RPA. In the long-lasting prospect, Armenia links its security with the allied relations with Russia and the CSTO membership. At the same time, stemming from the state interests of our country, we have been actively forming the partner relations with the European countries and the USA. We think it is quite possible. In one of his interviews, the President of Armenia strictly said that the republic is a supporter of fulfillment of practically all the integration processes in the CIS territory. There is no other way, taking into consideration Armenia's interest in new markets and opportunities, which such integration may give. Being a part of Europe, Armenia has a similar viewpoint about the processes of European integration and has been developing partner relations with Europe.

 

So, you think the forthcoming signing of the Association Agreement with the EU does not contradict Armenia's possible membership in the Customs Union and later in the Eurasian Union.

 

In the foreign policy priorities the RPA members have always supported the policy "both...and", but not "either...or". In the current actively globalizing world Russia itself is actively cooperating with Europe. I think that economic relations cannot develop only in one direction, they should be diversified. Armenia is an active supporter of the integration processes in the post-Soviet territory.

 

by David Stepanyan

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)