President Serzh Sarkisian and his political opponents led by Levon Ter-Petrosian have very similar conceptual approaches to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and Turkish-Armenian relations, according to a former top aide to Armenia’s first president.
Gerard Libaridian, a U.S.-Armenian scholar who had served as Ter-Petrosian’s national security adviser in the 1990s, suggested on Wednesday that with his crackdown on the ex-president’s Armenian National Congress (HAK) Sarkisian is complicating the success of his conciliatory policies on Karabakh and Turkey.
“I am a bit surprised that the authorities are pursuing a different internal policy,” Libaridian told RFE/RL in an interview. “Their most natural allies in the success of the two processes must be the Congress. Which other political force may support that policy?”
“In trying to make this foreign policy a success, they are suppressing a political force that can support it at home,” he said. “I don’t understand this contradiction.”
During his 1991-1998, Ter-Petrosian earned acclaim in the West for his readiness to make major concessions to Azerbaijan in the Karabakh conflict and his strong support for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. Sarkisian has similarly won accolades for embarking on an unprecedented rapprochement with Turkey and seeking to push forward the Karabakh peace process.
Ter-Petrosian has been highly critical of Sarkisian’s controversial overtures to Ankara, however, saying that the Armenian leader has “sold out” greater international recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide for the sake of clinging to power. Speaking at an HAK rally in Yerevan on May 15, Ter-Petrosian described as “nonsense” parallels drawn between his and Sarkisian’s Turkish policies.
Libaridian, who presently teaches Armenian history at the University of Michigan, reserved judgment on the year-long Turkish-Armenian dialogue, citing a lack of tangible results produced by it so far. Still, he made clear that he supports any Turkish-Armenian negotiations in principle.
When asked about chances for the success of the ongoing talks between Ankara and Yerevan, Libaridian said: “During the past 15 years we have had situations where optimism reached its climax and where even European and American diplomats would say that something is about to happen. That experience must tell one thing: one could harbor optimism psychologically but should act realistically.”
“I am a bit surprised that the authorities are pursuing a different internal policy,” Libaridian told RFE/RL in an interview. “Their most natural allies in the success of the two processes must be the Congress. Which other political force may support that policy?”
“In trying to make this foreign policy a success, they are suppressing a political force that can support it at home,” he said. “I don’t understand this contradiction.”
During his 1991-1998, Ter-Petrosian earned acclaim in the West for his readiness to make major concessions to Azerbaijan in the Karabakh conflict and his strong support for Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. Sarkisian has similarly won accolades for embarking on an unprecedented rapprochement with Turkey and seeking to push forward the Karabakh peace process.
Ter-Petrosian has been highly critical of Sarkisian’s controversial overtures to Ankara, however, saying that the Armenian leader has “sold out” greater international recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide for the sake of clinging to power. Speaking at an HAK rally in Yerevan on May 15, Ter-Petrosian described as “nonsense” parallels drawn between his and Sarkisian’s Turkish policies.
Libaridian, who presently teaches Armenian history at the University of Michigan, reserved judgment on the year-long Turkish-Armenian dialogue, citing a lack of tangible results produced by it so far. Still, he made clear that he supports any Turkish-Armenian negotiations in principle.
When asked about chances for the success of the ongoing talks between Ankara and Yerevan, Libaridian said: “During the past 15 years we have had situations where optimism reached its climax and where even European and American diplomats would say that something is about to happen. That experience must tell one thing: one could harbor optimism psychologically but should act realistically.”