Holding his first news conference in about three years, Kocharian also blamed Pashinian for Russia’s failure to try to stop Azerbaijan’s September 2023 military offensive that forced Nagorno-Karabakh’s population to flee to Armenia.
“Of course, the [Hayastan] alliance will have a significant participation in all processes, whether it’s a street struggle initiated by someone or regular or snap elections,” he said. “I cannot clarify anything regarding the format [of that participation.] My approach is as follows: we should participate in the most pragmatic format.”
The 70-year-old ex-president, who ruled Armenia from 1998-2008, has kept a low profile in the last couple of years. The bloc led by him came in a distant second in the last general elections held in 2021.
Kocharian acknowledged that the approval ratings of this and other mainstream opposition groups are low at present despite an apparent lack of strong popular support for the Armenian government. But he insisted that they can defeat Pashinian’s Civil Contract party in the next elections.
“Yes, the opposition’s rating is low. But will it remain low? I don’t think so,” he said.
Vahagn Aleksanian, Civil Contract’s deputy chairman, dismissed the remarks. He said that Kocharian and his political allies do not pose a serious threat to Pashinian’s government.
Like other opposition groups, Hayastan holds Pashinian responsible for Armenia’s defeat in the 2020 war with Azerbaijan. Kocharian repeated opposition allegations that Pashinian made the six-week war inevitable by rejecting a 2019 peace plan drafted by the United States, Russia and France.
He further echoed Russian claims that the Armenian premier predetermined Baku’s subsequent recapture of Karabakh by recognizing Azerbaijani sovereignty over the Armenian-populated region during Western-mediated talks with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev held in 2022. That not only sealed Karabakh’s fate but also “nullified Russia’s mediating mandate,” he said.
“Many in our country are upset, asking why Russia did not honor its commitments,” Kocharian went on. “Let’s try to look at this through Russia’s eyes. You see a different thing from the Russian angle. What you see is: you could stop what’s happening in Karabakh only by military intervention. There was no other option.
“But military intervention for whom? For an Armenia that deceived you, sided with your enemies at a critical moment? Would any of you get in a fight for a friend who betrayed you? I don’t think so.”
“This press conference looked more like a press conference by the Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson than by a former president of the Republic of Armenia,” scoffed Aleksanian.
The ruling party representative claimed that Pashinian’s decisions could not have influenced Russian actions because Moscow itself had earlier recognized Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan and made a “strategic” decision to let Baku regain control of the territory.
Pashinian’s detractors say that he is responsible for not only the fall of Karabakh but also the fact that Armenia risks fully or partly losing control of its strategic Syunik province which Azerbaijan wants to serve as a corridor to the Nakhichevan exclave. Aliyev has repeatedly threatened to open such a corridor by force.
Syunik is the only Armenian region bordering Iran. Hence, Tehran’s strong opposition to the extraterritorial corridor sought by Baku.
“If it weren't for this Iranian position, Aliyev wouldn't have any obstacles [to invading Syunik] and the Armenian government would say, ‘Well, what can we do? We’re not going to fight for those mountains,’” Kocharian said in this regard.
Classified U.S. government documents obtained by RFE/RL’s Armenian Service recently suggest that in 1999 Kocharian and then Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev discussed and even agreed in principle on a peace formula whereby Azerbaijan would recognize Karabakh as part of Armenia in exchange for gaining control of Syunik’s Meghri district.
Kocharian confirmed on Monday that he discussed the idea which he said was floated by Aliyev Sr. in Washington. But he insisted that he never accepted it.
“The process was beneficial for us, and right from the beginning I had no doubt that we will have an opportunity to bring the discussions to an acceptable variant for us,” he said.
The ex-president argued that the U.S., Russian and French mediators officially proposed a more favorable deal for the Armenian side when he and Aliyev held several days of intensive negotiations on the Florida island of Key West in April 2001.
Kocharian and former members of his administration have said in that past that the proposed deal would formalize Armenian control of Karabakh and only require Armenia to guarantee unfettered transport communication between Nakhichevan and the rest of Azerbaijan. According to them, Heydar Aliyev agreed to such a settlement at Key West only to walk away from it a few weeks later.