Internet Press Conference with Hrach Galstyan

Tarana Kyaziomva, ''Turan'' news agency-www.contact.az (Azerbaijan)

-Hello, Mr. Galstyan! In what economic situation do you think Armenia may find itself in case of a war with Iran?

-Surely, the economic relations between Armenia and Russia are significant. There are prospective projects of economic cooperation between the two countries. However, the economic ties between Armenia and Iran are not any longer considered as significant from the perspective of the economic development of Armenia. And in case the situation with Iran aggravates, it seems more serious the problems of humanitarian and even political, rather than economic nature may come afore.

Aydin Kerimov, "Novoye Vremya" newspaper-www.novoye-vremya.com (Azerbaijan)

1.Hello! Can we expect any intensity in the negotiation process on the Karabakh issue after the Ministers’ meeting in Paris?

-I think that next year and further on the intensity of negotiations will fluctuate within the average scale. It is no secret that the intensity and efficiency of negotiations are largely conditioned not only by the domestic developments in both countries – Armenia and Azerbaijan, but also the international atmosphere. That is why there are no premises to assume that the intensity of the negotiation process may change sharply, and some unpredictable processes may take place: those are impossible to foresee and discern. Thus, some processes and possible aggravations in the region may become the reason why significant international players would be more interested in the resolution of the conflicts in the regional hot spots. There have already been such cases in the history of our region.

2.What can be anticipated from the upcoming visit of the Minsk Group Co-Chairs into the region, for example, can we think of a new meeting of the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan?

-The negotiation process with contributions from the mediators is mostly invisible from aside. The activities of the mediators and the parties of the Karabakh conflict have so far seemed to be fulfilling activities typical of an initial design stage for constructing a building. The base is there. Our peoples are aspired and strive for living peacefully and developing sustainably, for becoming full-fledged members of the international community, participating in the processes of cultural, economic and humanitarian exchange. All of these are the main values and the bases on which the “building” of regional commonwealth may be built upon. Our peoples, societies and communities (no matter whether they are Armenians, Azerbaijanis, or Georgians by their culture and nationality, or whether they belong to other ethnic and cultural groups) must come to the conclusion that this regional commonwealth has no alternative. This is the only way of the self-expression of each.

Anna Bartkulashvili, freelance Journalist (Azerbaijan)

1.Hello, Mr. Galstyan! Thank you for your participation in the interview. What objective do you think Mrs. Clinton’s visit to South Caucasus pursued? Do you agree that her visit and the tone of the statements only aggravated the tension in the Armenian and Azerbaijani relations?

-No, I do not agree to your comment. It is common international practice, and Mrs. Clinton’s visit should be looked at from this very perspective. Correspondingly, the positions and activities of the regional actors should also be viewed from this very perspective. Everyone promotes his or her own interests or to be more exact, a certain relevant perception of their interests. And still, all that happened in the days of the US Secretary of State H. Clinton’s visit must be perceived within the framework of international and legal norms. And even if we do come up with an evaluation of anything (since we are used to evaluating everything), all this must be evaluated as a useful and positive activity.

2.What do you have to say about the Caucasian factor in Russian politics?

-Undoubtedly, Russia has its own interests in the region, and this is not a secret. And there are no doubts that Russia is trying to promote its own interests. But we live in the 21st century, and everyone understands that the interests of one party (in the given case – the concrete interests of Russia) are shaped, taking into account the interests of the regional actors themselves. I think that it is high time that we stopped demonizing one of the interested parties, or on the contrary, think that the presence of any external force will be of common good.

Natigh Javadli, "Bizim Yol" newspaper-www.bizimyol.az (Azerbaijan)

1.Hello! It is no secret to anyone that the Russian ruling power supports Armenia in the Karabakh conflict. In terms of the global processes taking place all over the world and in case a democratic regime comes to power, do you still expect such support?

-I have already answered this question, but I should add a couple of words. We are all heading for democracy. There is no point or a line crossing which we can say that this is it! We are already living in democracy! Democracy is a process and efforts, and it is absolutely counterproductive to always think and act so that “if there is this, we will solve the Karabakh conflict.” The Karabakh conflict itself is everyday work done by both politicians, and the societies, and every one of us.

2.In case Armenia and Azerbaijan become full-fledged members of the European Union, may the 20-year-old conflict (which may last even longer) that has taken the lives of many people, take a different form and will hostility start to look different?

-We must realize that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan will become a European Union member in the near future. But let us think by other categories – we can first perceive ourselves as members of the European community in both cultural and economic terms and in all other aspects. Only after that we may become full-fledged members of the EU. But there is a different prospect. We can form our own regional commonwealth, just like the EU. There are clear and distinct principles after which the European commonwealth was built – these are equal opportunities for all people, communities, minor and major ethnic groups, the surrender of national sovereignty, and on the contrary, the formation of new entities for sovereignty and so on. What prevents us from following this line of development? Perhaps this is what we should start to discuss?

3.About five – six years ago high-ranking official Darbinyan said in a forum: “In terms of the Karabakh conflict we are concerned about the large-scale projects Azerbaijan is implementing, especially because the levels of corruption and bribery in that country are rather high.” How can you comment on this statement?

-I do not understand your question. However, there is something else we must understand – in their statements politicians, especially high-ranking ones, adhere to principles that are timeserving or, to put it mildly, topical only in that period of time. We have a major principle – we all want to live peacefully and to develop stably, so that our elderly people and adults have an opportunity to get medical treatment, to live a decent life, so that our children receive good education and are competitive not only in our region, but also all over the world, so that our science and culture are known all over the world, too.

4.When speaking of Karabakh, do you base your approach on the map drawn by the Bolsheviks for every single country? Doesn’t this mean that the Bolsheviks were just in only one issue?

Answer-

5.When the truth on Karabkh issue is voiced in Armenia, how is public opinion formed with regard to the occupied neighboring territories? It would also be interesting to hear the opinion that has already been formed: the names of these regions have already been changed and even the football players present themselves as coming from this or that region. For example, the football team from Jebrail, that is not part of Nagorno Karabakh.

Answer-

Tarana Kyazimova, "Turan" news agency-www.contact.az (Azerbaijan)

1.What do you have to say about the recent incident along the front line and about the fact that the Azerbaijani borders are being fired at even today?

-Both Azerbaijani and Armenian borders as well as Azerbaijani and Armenian border villages are being fired at. The issue is different. What do all and what does each of us say in order to stop and prevent this? I will not have unveiled a major secret if I say that these sniper shots and operations will not solve the Karabakh issue. However, both Armenians and Azerbaijanis silently or contentedly think and approve of the actions of our own party, and on the contrary, we condemn the actions of the other party, we cause a sensation inside our countries and at international level. Huge resources are employed to prove that one of the parties is right. What we get as a result is not even a zero, but a negative value. People suffer, young men die. We give a reason to the international community to state once again that we do not appreciate human lives. And this makes everyone suffer, the capitalization of our economies decreases; investments become more expensive than they could be.

2.What can you say about the state of affairs in terms of corruption in Armenia?

-Yes, there is corruption in Armenia; it is there in Azerbaijan and Georgia, too. There is an exact international index. I have not gone deep into them, but I know that Azerbaijan is behind Armenia, you have a higher level of corruption. However, this does not calm me down. I want corruption not to exist in Armenia, or at least to have it at such a level that is commensurable with the level of corruption in Scandinavian states. I wish the same to Azerbaijan.

Anna Bartkulashvili, freelance Journalist (Azerbaijan)

-How do you assess the developments around Iran and the general situation with this regard?

Answer-

Aydin Kerimov, "Novoye Vremya" newspaper-www.novoye-vremya.com (Azerbaijan)

-What do you expect the outcome of the recent meeting of Foreign Affairs Ministers to be?

-I have already answered this question, this is a long-term process, and the work that is being done is not yet visible.

Armen Minasyan, panorama.am (Armenia)

1.Hello. The leaders of OSCE Minsk Group Co-chair states, the President of the US Barak Obama, the head of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and the President of France Francois Hollande at the G-20 Summit in Los Cabos made a joint statement on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, which particularly says: “We regret that the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia have not undertaken the serious steps our countries had called them to in our joint statement, made in Deauville on May 26, 2011.” Taking into consideration the fact that at the meeting in Kazan in 2011 it was the Azerbaijani side who renounced the document with the “Fundamental principles,” putting forth 10 new proposals, how would you comment on the fact that the statement does not specify which party fails to undertake those very “decisive steps?”

-I know Armen well and I am happy to take his questions. But he answered his own question himself. I will only add a little metaphysics here. The Karabakh problem has become a hostage of our internal processes. It often becomes an instrument, a small change in the solution of timeserving problems of individual politicians and blocks. Even we – the citizens and our societies, often forget and do not realize what particularly the essence of the Karabakh conflict is, and what it is that we should resolve, after all. And every time we seem to face the need to go back to the roots of the problem, everything is clear and distinct there – people’s security, a possibility to live in their own houses, and a possibility of full cultural self-expression. These are the very problems we are solving. The whole of the Karabakh issue lies within the frames of these problems. There is no conflict in Armenia or Azerbaijan; there is no conflict between the communities and commonwealths. All this is in papers, in the so-called big politics. In fact, these are abstract notions, not real fates of concrete people, whereas the latter should be the basis for any resolutions and actions on the part of the politicians.

2.After the latest incidents at the border, many experts assume that a renewal of hostilities is probable in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict zone in the upcoming 3 – 4 years. How realistic do you think such a prospect is?

-As a political scientist and a metaphysician in politics, I do not believe in the possibility for the renewal of a large-scale war. However, we have had the bad experience in the history of human kind. Often wars start out of nowhere and out of nothing. A rational analysis is impossible to carry out in this plain. Let me put it this way - there are no rational reasons for the aggravation of the situation, but they may come forth.

3.The experience with conflict resolution testifies to the fact that the possible outcome may also be accompanied by parallel processes. In particular, it is known that the actual resolution is possible only in the context of regional cooperation. Do you think that it is possible to rapidly resolve the Karabakh conflict when anti-Armenian propaganda is intensifying in Azerbaijan, and the feeling of hatred is been deeper rooted in wider societal circles, a circumstance that comes to exclude the possibility of mutual trust and regional cooperation?

-On the whole, I have answered that question, too.

Rizvan Huseynov, analyst (Azerbaijan)

1.To what extent do you think the West and Russia are interested in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict that has lasted over 20 years?

-I think that we have grounds to assume that all the actors are interested in a quick resolution of the conflict. The issue is different, and it mainly consists in the final resolution of the conflict – a process that requires huge resources – both material, and financial, and political. And this problem should be discussed on this very plain. We need donors for peace, and hence a question comes forth – when will donors be able to allocate the required large sums for peace? But this takes the responsibility away from the real participants of the conflict. We must shape up our own values ourselves, set our goals and make our resources serve these very purposes. Yes, peace is a resource-consuming process, but on the other hand, our real strive for peace itself will yield opportunities for the generation and formation of new and extensive resources.

2.How may the situation around Iran impact on the status quo of the Karabakh conflict?

-I have already answered this question, though partially. There are no doubts that the Iranian conflict may impact on the Karabakh processes, at least because the aggravation in Iran will create a situation of unpredictability and uncertainty in the whole region. But on the other hand, everything will depend on the ability of major actors who are taking part in the Iranian conflict to manage the risks. These risks are related to the other conflicts in the region and the Karabakh conflict, in the first place.

3.Will the Karabakh conflict eventually be resolved by force or by peace?

-The issue is rather from the metaphysical, than from the real politic realm. Unfortunately, in real politic and in life everything is possible – aggravations, skirmishes. However, there is nothing rational that could be the basis for major aggravations. For even after skirmishes the parties must sit at the table of negotiations. And hence, keeping in mind the possibilities for aggravations and their consequences, what prevents us from working exclusively for the sake of a peaceful resolution?