Wednesday, October 14 2020 19:46

ArmInfo.. President of Armenia Armen Sarkissian gave an interview to the German BILD.

BILD: Mr. President, we have just come from Stepanakert, the capital  of the region Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been shelled by the  Azerbaijani army for two weeks now. However, the Armenian army is  also attacking civilian targets in the neighboring country, for  example recently in Ganja. People died there.

Armen Sarkissian: "First of all, there is an announcement by the  Foreign Minister of the Republic of Armenia on this issue. I've got  the assurances from my Minister of Defense and the Foreign Minister  that Armenia was not instrumental in doing that."

But independent journalists were on the ground and have documented  the extent of the destruction.

Armen Sarkissian: "No, Armenia was not involved in that. I mean the  Republic of Armenia, and I'm the President of the Republic of  Armenia. You're coming from Stepanakert. That is the Republic of  Nagorno-Karabakh, the Republic Artsakh. 

You witnessed huge shellings there. How many days were you in  Stepanakert?" Almost one week.

Armen Sarkissian: "Did you see many shellings or was it just once?"  We were in a basement every night.

Armen Sarkissian: "That basically answers your question. This war was  started by the Azeri side. From the first day, instead of all going  to the negotiation table together, Azerbaijan decided that they have  the right to start a war. To start a war and to not only kill young  soldiers at the frontline and to bomb left and right, but also to  bomb civilians. Civilians in villages. In many cities of  Nagorno-Karabakh.  If you are starting a war like that, you feel free  to shell all the civilians and to use all possible types of weapons,  including the air force, terrorists from Syria, Turkish military  equipment, Turkish drones, and all of that. Do you expect that the  other side will politely do nothing or that it will use the hunting  knife?" But there is a difference between military and civil targets,  after all!

Armen Sarkissian: "Were you in Stepanakert? Is it a military target  or a civilian target?"

Yes, Stepanakert was attacked.

Sarkissian: "So why doesn't the international community condemn what  the other side, together with Turkey, is doing? For more than two  weeks now, they have been shelling civilians and killing civilians."

Chancellor Merkel calls for "both sides" to deescalate. Are you  disappointed by the German reaction?

Sarkissian: "Any tougher reaction in this case from anyone - from the  international community, including Germany and the European Union, or  from NATO - should, first of all, be towards Turkey. Because I think  - as do a lot of other people - that the Turkish presence and  activities in the war against Nagorno-Karabakh have dramatically  changed the whole picture.  If, as before, only Azerbaijan were  involved, we would probably have seen a couple of days of fighting,  and then it would have been stopped. The international community  pleading to both sides for a ceasefire would have meant something for  both sides.  By "international community", I mean not only Chancellor  Merkel or President Macron or the European Union or something that we  would have expected from NATO. But in the conflict, there is now a  third party - which is Turkey. It is not part of the conflict. There  is nothing for Turkey to fight for.  Of course, they put forward  excuses. Sometimes they say that the Azeris are ethnic brothers. I'm  sorry, but their ethnic brothers go far beyond Central Asia, to  Mongolia, to the north of China - will they also get involved in any  problem there? Second, they are playing the old usual card about PKK  fighters, which is complete nonsense. Third, they pretend to protect  the energy resources and the pipeline, which is also nonsense. If the  Armenians wanted to shoot that pipeline, they could have done so  twenty years ago to prevent Azerbaijan from making billions."

Why does the Chancellor call for both sides to deescalate, in your  view?

Sarkissian: "It's not my business to comment on what Chancellor  Merkel is doing."

What would you want Germany to do?

Sarkissian: "That's a different story. I wish Germany would realize  that the situation we're now facing in Caucasus is very dangerous.  It's not only dangerous for the people in Nagorno-Karabakh, the  people in Artsakh, who fought in the first war for several years.  Everybody was saying: how on earth does this small country want to  win the war against Azerbaijan that was supported by Turkey?  But  they won."

What could Germany do?

Sarkissian: "The situation has become much more geopolitically  complex. Because now Turkey is on the ground in Azerbaijan. It's  there with military forces, with drones, with airplanes, and many  other things. And some analysts think that it is there to stay. Not  in order to protect the pipelines, but to control them. If that is  the case, if we look at the future geopolitically, we will see a very  unstable Caucasus - which is not good for anyone in the region and  beyond. Turkey will control the energy resources, not only in  Azerbaijan, but also at the Caspian Sea and in Central Asia. In some  sense, Europe is then also a hostage of Turkey, because Turkey will  control the oil and the gas that comes from the Caspian Sea to the  European Union."

What could that mean for Germany?

Sarkissian: "Germany and part of the European Union are getting oil  and gas from that source. If you then have a country that has already  created centres of political instability all around itself : Look at  what's happening in Libya. What is Turkey doing in Libya? They were  in Egypt before. When they are talking about the territorial  integrity of Azerbaijan, then what about them crossing the border to  Iraq? Or the border to Syria? What about them having conflicts with  Cyprus and Greece? What about now entering Armenia?"

Let's become more concrete! Do you expect EU/NATO sanctions against  Turkey?

Sarkissian: "I'm not the one to expect Germany, the European Union,  NATO to do something. But expect them to use all of their possible  means of putting pressure on Turkey."

Would you prefer sanctions?

Sarkissian: "Let's not do "ifs." That's wishful thinking: would you  prefer this or that? I would prefer anything that the European Union,  Germany, NATO or other EU countries will find suitable for putting  pressure on Turkey in order to stop its intervention in this conflict  concerning Nagorno-Karabakh."

How do you assess the so-called "ceasefire" that, in principle, has  been in place since Saturday?

Sarkissian: "First of all, the ceasefire is partly kept, but not  fully. As you have said yourself: immediately after the ceasefire,  there was shelling from the Azeri side."

Are you concerned that the war might escalate into a large-scale  proxy war?

Sarkissian: "I'm definitely very worried that this conflict could get  out of hand. I'm concerned, first of all, because there is a third  player. If this only concerned Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan, I  would be much more hopeful that the conflict can be contained. But  with Turkey involved and with the Turkish attitude that we can see in  the whole region, I am very uncomfortable with this situation.  There  is another component, which is Turkey bringing mujahidin or militant  Islamists into the conflict.  This makes everything completely  unstable. These are my concerns and I'm saying to all of our friends  that just appealing to the sides for a ceasefire is not enough.  We  cannot close our eyes before the involvement of Turkey. You were  there, you've probably seen with your own eyes how Turkish drones are  used in Stepanakert and other places. They are using their aircrafts.  They are using their artillery, which is stopping the anti-aircraft  systems."

How could Erdogan be stopped?

Sarkissian: "There is only one way: by putting pressure on him.  Involving a third party and then a fourth party will increase the  escalation level even further.  Armenia is very careful here. To this  day, when there is a full-scale war, Armenia has not announced its  recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh. Do you know why? In all of these  years, Armenia decided not to recognize the independence of  Nagorno-Karabakh in order not to disturb the process of peace talks -  to give peace talks a chance and to come up with a final solution  that is acceptable for all.  This is why Armenia didn't want to  recognize the independence of Nagorno- Karabakh."

According to the UN, in terms of international law, Karabakh belongs  to Azerbaijan. Why has Armenia never acknowledged that?

Sarkissian: "At the moment, there is a war. As to international law -  the Armenian side is saying: what about the right of people who are  living on their own land?  Armenians have not occupied  Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenians have been living there for thousands of  years. You were there: there are monasteries from the 4th and 5th  century. Where was Azerbaijan back then or the Turks? There were not  even in Anatolia those days.  So this is their (the Armenians')  native land. What they are fighting for is to protect their homes,  their history, their dignity, their religion, and many other things.  To say that Armenians are invaders and that the Azeris are there in  order to free Karabakh from the Armenians is, in my vocabulary - and  in that of international law - called ethnic cleansing. Not  territorial integrity. Don't forget that the only time when  Azerbaijan had some jurisdiction over Nagorno-Karabakh was under the  Soviet Union.  If we consider the laws of the Soviet Union to be the  laws that the international community has to obey, then tell me  please! It is only 65 years ago that Azerbaijan was given  Nagorno-Karabakh by Comrade Stalin. If international law recognizes  what Comrade Stalin has created or designed, then tell me! So when we  are talking about international law, about integrity, and even human  rights, the basic value is the right of these people. Ask an elderly  grandmother and a young boy in Nagorno-Karabakh: do they trust the  Azerbaijanis?  65 years ago, Nagorno-Karabakh was an autonomous  region of Azerbaijan. Even under Soviet rule, they were trying  everything to carry out the ethnic cleansing, to get rid of the  Armenians on their ethnic land. Do they trust the Azeris? No. Is  there a solution or security for them? Can they accept anything less  than their independence? The answer is no. For a simple reason: they  had the highest level of autonomy in the Soviet Union, in Soviet  Azerbaijan. Because the guarantor of that autonomy was the government  of the Soviet Union. But even under that high guarantee of security,  Azerbaijan did everything: closing Armenian schools, forcing people  out, and a lot of Armenians from Nagorno-Karabakh left Azerbaijan."

Currently, weapons, including drones, are also delivered to  Azerbaijan by Israel.  Are you hopeful that these deliveries will be  stopped?

Sarkissian: "It is always good to have hope. I spoke to the President  of Israel. This was a couple of days ago. Of course, Israel is a  parliamentary republic. The President is not in charge of these arms  deliveries, but the government. I made it clear that I have three  points to make.  Number one: the contract between Israel and  Azerbaijan says that Israel will supply defensive systems. What we  have seen in Nagorno-Karabakh is that the Israeli systems are used  offensively. So it's either a breach of contract, or offensive  systems were supplied, not defensive systems. Number two: these  systems are used against the civilian population. That is a violation  of international law. Number three: under such circumstances, there  is always an "act of God" for every contract. So if there is an  uncontrollable situation, the contract stops until the situation is  resolved.  Supplying weapons to one of the parties during a war is  against international law. I made that clear to my colleague, the  President of Israel. We in Armenia believe that this is an  unfortunate situation. I asked him: please, Mr. President, I need  answers to my three questions. Why on earth are defensive weapons  becoming offensive weapons? Why are these weapons used against the  civilian population?  Why does the Israeli government not stop the  deliveries during a war? They can deliver whatever is in the contract  after the war is over.  Unfortunately, I have not received an answer  yet. I know - because worldwide, we have a lot of friends, Jewish  friends - that a lot of people are unhappy about what the Israeli  government is doing. A government that represents a nation that  suffered the Holocaust - against a nation that suffered a genocide. I  think this is morally unacceptable. Again: it's the government, not  the people."

There is a stream of refugees from Karabakh.

Sarkissian: "I'm not going to give a number, and when you speak of  half the population, this is basically children and elderly people.  They are in Yerevan, they are well taken care of, they are in houses.  People are very organized, very disciplined. They are self-organized.  Even before the government and the Ministry of Social Affairs they  started : Generally, the population started doing everything in order  to take care of these people. But they are here temporarily, they  will go back."

Do you need any help from the international community?

Sarkissian: "Of course! We need help to stop this bloody war. Because  who is suffering under it? The children. Because why would you, for  example, leave your children and the elderly in Stepanakert when the  enemy is bombing Stepanakert?  If the enemy were more humane and  would just fight on the frontline, everyone would stay in  Stepanakert. Why should they leave the city?  But they left because  of the shelling of civilians. And it wasn't just one bomb that killed  people, and not two bombs. There is shelling every day! Look at  Stepanakert from the air. You are German. It looks like German cities  during the Second World War. It is going to be something like that.   So how on earth can it be that, in the 21st century, in 2020, we are  allowing Turkey - together with Azerbaijan - to commit this crime?  All of these people will go back, because it is their homeland. When  they see something happening to their fathers, husbands, they will go  back. I know these women. Maybe they leave their children, but they  will go back. Because they are there in order to win."