Excerpts of an interview by Ara Kalayjian with historian and journalist Sergei Mikoyan and writer Zori Balayan on contemporary Armenian concerns
Q- Mr. Mikoyan, it’s now more than two years perestroika [restructuring] and glasnost [openness] have been in effect in the Soviet Union under Mr. Mikhail Gorbachev’s initiative. Now, how would that affect constituent nationalities of the Soviet Union; how will perestroika and glasnost bring new initiatives and new opportunities to all the nationalities, but in particular the Armenian people living in the Armenian S.S.R. and the more than two million Armenians living outside Armenia but in the Soviet Union.
Sergei Mikoyan: Well, of course we believe that perestroika must be connected not only with the administration of our economy, but with every aspect of our life.
[…]
Of course perestroika means that we begin to look anew at many issues which were for the last decades in a state stagnation. Among those issue is of course the very important problem of national – I would like say ethnic since this is the word used in English – aspects of our life. I would say that Armenians living in Moscow – and there are many – will have the opportunity to teach their children Armenian, because it’s difficult to continue to keep their identity in a huge city like Moscow, where everybody speaks only Russian. So I hope that I myself will be able to learn Armenian in Moscow in a school for adults, and also my son will be able to do so. But the most important issue for us Armenians in the Soviet Union, is of course the question of Karabagh.
Q- Not also Nakhichevan?
Mikoyan: You see, as a matter of principle, Nakhichevan is also an Armenian land. It’s a pity that the authorities of the region did everything during the last decades toward changing the ethnic proportions of Nakhichevan, so that now only one or two percent of the population is Armenian.
Q- I think presently there are not more than 5,000 Armenians out of a population of approximately 250,000 people. That is, there are a quarter of a million Turks in Nakhichevan, as against only, 5,000 Armenians.
Mikoyan: But if we compare that with those Armenian lands which are now in Turkey, one must understand that even if there are very few Armenians living on our ancient lands, still we believe those territories to be Armenian in spite of the ethnic change, especially when the change is realized through actions we will never forgive or forget.
Q- So that applies also to Nakhichevan. That is, it doesn’t matter how many Armenians presently live in that area, Nakhichevan is part of historic Armenia, as it has been since the beginning of our history.
Mikoyan: Yes.
Q- And we have a right to that land.
Mikoyan: Yes, we have that right. In my interview with you last October I did not mention Nakhichevan in that respect because I understand it will be very very difficult to get back Nakhichevan.
Q-And you believe that at present preference should be given to Karabagh, where the demographic situation is different.
Mikoyan: Yes, it’s more realistic and I think Bismarck said that politics is the art of the possible.
Q- It was Benjamin Disraeli.
Mikoyan: Yes, Disraeli. So I think that it’s now much more realistic to demand the return of Karabagh to Armenia. And I think It’s only now, during perestroika, that we may not only speak about it, but have very strong hopes that it will be done.
Q- Do you have any sources or channels in Moscow to have your voice heard in the higher circles of the Soviet government?
Mikoyan: Well, personally I don’t have any special opportunities or means, but thanks to the openness in our press now I can make my opinions known to wide circles of people. For example, I wrote an article explaining that I could not understand why one autonomous region [Karabagh], one ethnic group [Armenian] was included in the republic of another ethnic group [Azerbaijan S.S.R.]. So, I expressed my opinion in the press. I don’t have other opportunities or channels.
Q- Do you think such opportunities will be available in the coming days, weeks or months in Moscow, where a lot of Armenians have influential positions in the arts, sciences, in the government, for the solution of the Karabagh problem?
Mikoyan: You see, I think the important factor is not whether there are many influential Armenians in Moscow, but the fact that this idea [of reunification of Karabagh with Armenia] is a correct one, and nobody can dispute or deny the fact that 70 or 75 percent of Karabagh’s population is Armenian. So, the only objection can come from Baku [the capital of Azerbaijani S.S.R.]. I also think that it’s very important for the people of Karabagh, those who live there, to be very strong and very decisive, otherwise we in Moscow cannot do anything.
Q- In what way and manner can Karabagh Armenians be more decisive and determined?
Mikoyan: I think they must demand a referendum to be held in Karabagh on this issue. And as I understand it, there is now some work being carried out in this direction.
Q- In Karabagh itself?
Mikoyan: Yes, both in Karabagh and from outside. Signatures are being collected for this purpose – for the holding of a referendum.
Q- If, then, such a petition is readied, to whom should it be addressed – the Baku government? Would the government of Azerbaijan hold a referendum?
Mikoyan: Well, we have the Supreme Council of the U.S.S.R., and I think that’s the proper authority to send the petition to.
Q- And of course the referendum would be help only in Karabagh and not in Azerbaijan.
Mikoyan: Yes.
Q- Not in Azerbaijan.
Mikoyan: Of course not.
Q- Only in Karabagh, where 75% of the population is ethnic Armenian. So it’s evident that the referendum’s outcome will be for the reunification of Karabagh with Armenia.
Mikoyan: Yes, yes, but many people in the Karabagh villages are not active; Armenians living in those villages are not so active.
Q- How do you explain that. Is it because they are afraid?
Mikoyan: You see, for many decades of stagnation of our political life, they used to believe that nothing could change. So our aim and duty now is to convince them that perestroika is a reality – a reality not only in Moscow but in every part of our country.
Q- It seems that these Karabagh villagers would be more confident and more forthcoming if perestroika really arrived and was established in the Republic of Armenia itself.
Mikoyan: Exactly. You’re absolutely right. And unfortunately the struggle between those who are for and against perestroika may not benefit the Karabagh Armenians. And it is not accidental that those who are against perestroika are also opposed to the idea of referendum.
Q- That’s the old guard; old customs and mentalities die hard. It’s very difficult for people to adapt to change. Now then, unless openness takes root in Armenia, the Karabagh villagers won’t try to do anything that would seem to them to be dangerous, because of past history.
Mikoyan: No, I don’t believe they will think that it’s dangerous for their families or their lives to ask for a referendum. They simply believe that it’s useless. The most dangerous thing is this passivity.
Balayan: Let me say that the petition is ready. Secondly, I must stress that you should not use the term Azerbaijan. There is no such thing as a distinct country called Azerbaijan. There is only the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan, a multinational state.
Q- Yes, the term came into use only after 1920.
Balayan: We can understand the terms Georgia, Russia, Armenia- but not Azerbaijan. By using such a term we confirm the existence of such a country. There is no such country. In the land now called the Azerbaijan S.S.R. have lived, in Lenin’s words, “Caucasian Tatars,” and the Republic was established by bringing together different ethnic groups such as Tatars, Russians, Armenians – it was a multinational republic, which was later christened Azerbaijan by Stalin. The nucleus of the Azerbaijan S.S.R. was the Baku Commune. Later in the early 1920’s, thanks to Stalin we lost Nakhichevan, Mountainous Karabagh as well as the plain of Karabagh to the Azerbaijan S.S.R.
Q- It’s a fact that only 9% of Soviet Armenia’s soil is arable – and this for a country whose area is not more than 29,000 sq. kilometers. It means that Armenia cannot sustain an ever increasing population, and that’s why thousands of young Armenians leave their homeland and settle in different regions of the Soviet Union. Now, in the event that Mountainous Karabagh is returned, can this situation be improved; that is, can Karabagh feed its more than 150,000 inhabitants and contribute to the agriculture of Armenia?
Balayan: Karabagh is a very fertile region, notwithstanding its name [Mountainous]; it is tiny.
Q- It’s 4,400 sq. kilometers.
Balayan: Yes, 4,000 sq. kilometers, but it can feed both its inhabitants and those of Armenia. A reunited Karabagh can improve things tremendously – it can guarantee our existence for another hundred years.
Q- But Karabagh’s agriculture and industry are not developed, and it’s because-
Balayan: Well, that’s done intentionally, our purpose.
Q- And it’s proven, and documented, isn’t it – this intention to keep Karabagh underdeveloped?
Balayan: But of course and at various times letters of protest signed by local intellectuals and scientists have been sent to Moscow. This is not a secret, and I am not divulging classified materials or news. The newspapers in our country have written about all these, and have discussed the problems openly.
Q- Let’s return to the petition on a referendum in Karabagh.
Balayan: Yes, almost 100,000 people in Karabagh signed it and it was sent to the Communist Party Central Committee in Moscow.
Q- What is the next step, now that a petition of 100,000 signatures is in Moscow?
Balayan: Under the leadership and guidance of Secretary General Gorbachev, the Central Committee has appointed a special Commission to deal with the various problems and issues pertaining to the nationalities. The Commission was to receive a delegation from Karabagh – 13 people from Karabagh, and 4 from Moscow. They have presented him with a report, complete with historical data and government and Party documents proving the right of the Armenian people to Karabagh, and have complained that for the past seventy years they were talking about their homeland, and therefore he did not think of them as being nationalists. This is true glasnost. The issue of Karabagh is not the problem alone of the Armenia-Azerbaijan. The issue of Karabagh is, in effect, a Russian problem. It’s strategic issue. The same is true for Nakhichevan. For centuries, Russians and Armenians have fought for a secure southern border for the Russian Empire. And along that southern borderline were erected Russian/Armenian defensive zones – as Alexandropol [Leninakan] and Kars. This togetherness and cooperation was motivated by a mutually felt strategic – tactical necessity. And both peoples never betrayed that mutual trust. But what happened suddenly in the 1920’s? A single person called Djugashvili, that is Stalin, took it upon himself to accede to Turkish demands and to put Nakhichevan and Karabagh under Azerbaijani jurisdiction and control. Can you picture this? He was definitely used by the Turks. And the fact is the Turks were able to turkify this southern region – a region that had been for a long time a Russian zone and a security bastion. And why was this done? Because Turkey’s intent was to deny Armenia the regions of Nakhichevan and Karabagh, and to incorporate them into Azerbaijan, for Turkey’s though of this latter region as her own natural domain. But Azerbaijan is a multinational Soviet Socialist Republic – it’s ours, it’s part of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. Turkey cannot have any claim to it.
Q- Who, in your opinion, would be most opposed to the solution of the Karabagh and Nakhichevan problem?
Balayan: Definitely would say the Pan-Islamist. Pan-Islamists are the fascists of Islam. Pan Islamism is allied with Pan- Turanism and Pan-Turkism. Pan-Islamism that emanates from Ankara, has already centers inside the Soviet Union, such as in Baku, Tashkent, Makhachkala and Ufa. We know about Pan-Islamist activists who have come from Turkey; they do not have too many followers in the Soviet Union; they are against the reunification of Karabagh and Nakhichevan with Armenia. And their position is clearly against Russia, and against Russian strategic interests.
[The Armenian Mirror-Spectator, Boston, February 6, 1988]
The Karabagh File, Documents and Facts, 1918-1988, First Edition, Cambridge Toronto 1988, by the ZORYAN INSTITUTE, edited by: Gerard J. LIBARIDIAN, pp. 73-77
