After the handover of Artsakh in the autumn of 2020, Yerevan-based Turkish collaborationists foreseeably determined to renew their leadership mandate from the coup d’état of the spring of 2018. By then they were well aware that the price of passing power to them was the recognition of Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan, permission to deport the Armenian population, and the provision of the conditions necessary for the political and economic colonisation of Armenia. Contrary to expectations, the cold-blooded implementation of the clearly written script not only did not bring about the end of the Turkish group led by Pashinyan, but even breathed new life into it. At that point, the total majority of the country’s citizens (not to mention Spyurk – communities abroad) were so frustrated and disorientated that they settled for voting in an election of no choice. In this article we will talk about the man who, through his nomination alone, contributed to the victory of Pashinyan more than anyone else. His name is Robert Kocharyan.
In the 80s, Kocharyan, like many other would-be politicians and officials, took part in the nationwide struggle for the liberation of Artsakh, where he was born and where his ancestors had lived for generations. He was a member of the Krunk group and the Miatsum (‘Unification’) organisation, the first formal president of liberated Artsakh, and the second president of Armenia. All these regalia testify not so much to personal achievements, but to the grand chance that history has granted this man (just as the first president Levon Ter-Petrosyan). Just as any politician who stood at the origin of forging something great (and there is nothing greater than one’s own state), he only had two paths to follow. The first was to sacrifice everything personal for the cause of the common, and the second – to deplete the common for the sake of the personal. The subtotal as represented by the collective Pashinyan is the most telling example of the choice that has been made.
Kocharyan’s supporters often speak of his reign as a time of stability and prosperity, pointing to the construction of Northern Avenue and the lack of aggression coming from Azerbaijan as examples. The Northern Avenue claim may have been entertained at a push if it referred not to the head of state, but to the CEO of a construction company or at least to the Minister of Construction. As for the second point, we could argue here. The well-known classics not without reason assert that it is inherent to a politician to attribute to himself the rain in times of drought. Strategy-wise, Armenia was defeated in 1994 when it accepted to sign a ceasefire agreement (the Bishkek Protocols), giving Baku an opportunity to consolidate its strength and prepare for revenge. At the time, none of the so-called ‘fathers’ of the Third Republic, including the first President of Artsakh, Robert Kocharyan, objected or sought a different solution.
Azerbaijan, suffering a defeat, gained a chance. Throughout the two terms of Kocharyan’s presidency, Armenia was memorised by the international community as a country whose security is completely dependent on a sole external actor. Over 8 years, the country has had neither a National Security Strategy, nor a Foreign Policy Concept, nor a long-term programme of economic and military-technical development. As far as the Spyurk was concerned, Levon Ter- Petrosyan’s policy of containment was maintained (saying ‘yes’ to money from Spyurk and ‘no’ to its participation in the national life). What’s more, under Kocharyan, the country’s electoral code was changed: Armenian citizens abroad were barred from voting in presidential elections. During that period, Azerbaijan implemented several strategic geo-economic projects, including the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway, and effectively leveraged the geopolitical situation in the region (war in Afghanistan and Iraq) to align itself with leading global players.
In a nutshell, at that time Baku did not launch aggression against Artsakh not at all due to their fear of Robert Kocharyan, but because it was not expedient and prepared to do so. The ‘not an inch of land’ clause was intended for the Armenian audience only, which never bothered to ask the question: then what are the negotiations about? If Armenia is a triumphant country and it determines the geopolitical agenda in the South Caucasus, then why is there no willingness to at least sign a strategic alliance and security guarantees agreement with Artsakh (not even to mention the recognition of Artsakh)? Where do Armenia’s national interests begin and end, and how are they secured by the alleged Armenian lobby, which could not even keep the 907th section of the American ‘Freedom Support Act’, according to which Azerbaijan was declared an aggressor country denied any assistance from the United States? In this sense, Kocharyan’s tenure is not much dissimilar to the others: supremacy of shape over content, lack of nation- and state-building, amateurism, and wasted opportunities.
Let us reiterate that the collective subtotal of their (Ter-Petrosyan’s, Kocharyan’s and Sargsyan’s) rule is the rise to power of Turkish collaborationists headed by Pashinyan Pasha, who flushed all the achievements of the nationwide movement of the 80-90s down the toilet. The trampled tombs of their parents are a direct consequence of their conscious choice that turned the country into a thoroughfare for foreign intelligence services and agencies. A continuous swamp instead of a state and institutions. It is hard to doubt this, since the likes of Pashinyan do not sprout on a fertile ground. And even after the national disgrace of 2020, Robert Kocharyan, in contravention of all forecasts and polls, has run for election in 2021. For most of the lumpenised society (thanks for this ‘achievement’ to the fathers of the Third Republic), Kocharyan’s return was perceived as an attempt of revenge on the part of the so-called ‘Exes’. That’s how deftly the ‘opposition’ not only legitimised the elections declared by Turkish collaborationists with its participation, but also served them the keys to the state (whatever was left of it) on a silver platter.
As things stand in the here and now, despite the second tragedy – the uprooting of Armenians from Artsakh in 2023 – Robert Kocharyan’s and Serzh Sargsyan’s factions remain sitting in parliament, consenting to serve as punching bags. If you do not accept Pashinyan’s pro-Turkish rule, then what are you doing in the premises of the National Assembly, where anti-national and anti-state decisions are being taken? You don’t have to answer us, just try to give an honest answer to yourself, by recalling that 35 years ago you stood for something totally different.
