Armenia's Future, Relations with Turkey, and the Karabagh Conflict

Levon Ter-Petrossian, whose select articles, speeches, and interviews dealing with Armenian-Turkish relations, the Karabagh conflict, and the future of the Armenian statehood are presented in this volume, was the first president of independent Armenia. He served in that capacity from 1991 to 1998 when he resigned following a political crisis triggered by his endorsement of a plan for settling the Karabagh conflict. Ter-Petrossian had briefly served as the Chairman of Armenia’s Supreme Soviet prior to Armenia’s independence and adoption of a presidential system. He had assumed that post in the summer of 1990 when the Armenian National Movement (ANM) unseated the Communists in the elections to the Supreme Soviet in the summer of 1990, becoming the first noncommunist government of a constituent republic of the Soviet Union. Ter-Petrossian was one of the leaders of the ANM, which had started as a movement demanding the transfer of the jurisdiction of the Nagorno Karabagh Autonomous Region from the Azerbaijani to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, but which then transformed into a movement for democratic rule and independence from the Soviet Union. As such, it became an integral part of the wider democratic movement in the Soviet Union, while Ter-Petrossian became a highly respected figure in it, providing important critiques of the Soviet system, and forming particularly close ties with Boris Yelstin and the Russian liberals.

Karabagh Committee’s Response to Zory Balayan’s Speech on Pan-Turanism¹

The Armenia Committee of the Karabagh Movement [Karabagh Committee] is deeply concerned with the antidemocratic character of the current session [of the Supreme Soviet] and with the fundamentally flawed and shortsighted political program presented there.

Excerpt from a speech delivered at the Fourth Congress of the Armenian National Movement ¹

The strategy being worked out with regard to our relations with Iran and Turkey is familiar to you in its basic contours. The current Armenian administration has adopted the position that the guarantee of the survival of any country rests in its ability to establish normal relations with its neighbors. That is the cornerstone of our foreign policy. We cannot create a security system that is based on reliance on powerful but distant actors like Russia, Europe or the United States. We must strive to solve our problems locally, with our immediate neighbors.

(November 1, 1997) ¹

My September 26 press conference, more accurately that portion of the press conference that was devoted to Karabagh, became an occasion for fueling intense passions in the press and at gatherings organized by the opposition. This did not surprise me; to some extent, I had expected an even more passionate reaction. ²

Excerpt from a speech delivered at a rally on October 26, 2007 ¹

Let me now turn to the settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, which, as I have underscored so many times, is the single most important issue facing the Armenian state. Its resolution, more than anything else, determines the future of Armenia and Artsakh, the economic development of our countries, and the prosperity of the Armenian people. As long as that issue is not resolved, as long as the blockades that are choking us are not lifted, as long as relations with our immediate neighbors are not settled, and as long as our country is not integrated in regional and international frameworks, Armenia will be denied the opportunity of growth and development at a pace consistent with the demands of the modern world, no matter how many people argue otherwise.

Excerpt from a speech at a rally on October 17, 2008 ¹

I had promised to you during our rally on September 26 to reveal and explain in detail the strategy of the Armenian National Congress without concealing anything from you. Now it is the moment to fulfill that promise. Therefore, I ask you to be patient and to listen carefully to every word of my speech.

Even though I have reacted to the “Declaration on the Occasion of the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide” three times already (02/11/15, 02/17/2015, 03/01/2015), I find it necessary to again raise an alarm about the dangers contained in that document, which, I have no doubt, will create serious problems for Armenia in the near future. At the root of my concern is the necessity of realizing that the Declaration should be seen not only as an appropriate statement on the occasion of the centennial of the genocide but also as a document with extremely important implications for solving key problems of Armenia’s foreign policy, that is, as an important document with respect to Armenia’s state interests.