Armenia vs. Azerbaijan: Marked civilizational differences

 Vigen Sargsyan 

Chief of Staff of Armenian President 
 

 Ramiz Mehdiyev

Chief of Staff of Azerbaijani President 

Statement format

Interview to ArmNews television company Statement format 

 

Statement format

Press conference for government mass media

Opinion about reports of OSCE/ODIHR and others 

‘The reports are quite in line with reality and the conduct of the elections in Armenia. This is also proved by the fact various observation missions, which are completely independent from each other but are at the same time rivaling ones, responded with almost the same opinions”. 

Opinion about reports of OSCE/ODIHR and others 

‘The draft report on the elections, which contains no positive episode, was prepared beforehand in the Warsaw office of that organization. It is appropriate to say here that such methods aim to aggravate the situation and provoke negative processes in Azerbaijani society. It follows from this that some observers were prepared beforehand to express negative opinions and we can only guess the reason for such a hostile disposition. 
This institution is not an independent organization at all so as to act independently. The OSCE operates, with its eyes directed to the U.S. Remembering that in the past, too, this organization was guided by concrete instructions, expressing partial opinions about elections in Azerbaijan, we were far from the idea of inviting it to the presidential elections. Yet the Azerbaijani side invited the OSCE/ODIHR, on the advice of the United States. And in fact it turned out that the reports of the U.S. State Department and the OSCE/ODHR are twins. This is a case of obvious abuse of confidence.”

Own opinion about quality of elections 

“In some cases, the problems discovered and the opinions coincide. They are mostly the same in the sense that the government, the Armenian authorities did their best so that the elections could be yet another step forward in this process. I say ‘yet another step forward’ because democracy and elections as its important component have no end, after which there will be no goal of moving forward, therefore it was yet another step. The OSCE/ODIHR’s formulation that the elections were held in the spirit of special attention to fundamental freedoms sounded dear to me. It is a very important assessment because eventually, assessment of elections is aimed at protecting fundamental freedoms, while the remaining shortcomings are rectifiable and can be resolved over time”. 

Own opinion about quality of elections 

“U.S. officials advised giving 25% of electors’ votes to the representative of the National Council and keeping 74-75% of votes – the U.S. State Department would allegedly give a balanced opinion in case of such a proportion of votes. By that logic, if we followed the advice, the opinion would be negative in all other cases. The result is known. Evidently, it was a strict warning, rather than friendly advice. It turns out that we were to hold false elections and not fair and transparent ones. And according to the desire of our partners, we were to ‘draw’ percentages for concrete presidential candidates. Doesn’t this mean an injury to national feelings and dignity of Azerbaijani voters who decide independently, without anyone’s interference, which political platform to vote for”. 

Response to criticism 

(In Armenia’s case – weak competition)
“We didn’t meet previously such a formation concerning Armenia. I don’t remember that international documents regulating observation missions’ work have clear formulations about competitive elections. Theoretically, elections without a second candidate can be elections of that kind, or elections in which, besides the elected or reelected leader – president or prime minister, depending on elections – all the others receive a small number of votes. The fact that parliamentary factions do not field their candidates does not mean that elections are uncompetitive. After all, in the elections which were considered competitive in Armenia, say, elections held in 2003 and 2008, the main rival was a political figure who did not have a parliamentary faction. In other words, it would be wrong to link it with the fact of being (not being) represented in the parliament. Besides, the fact that the runner-up collected 36.8% of votes shows that these elections were quite competitive”. 

Response to criticism 

(In Azerbaijan’s case, the whole election process) 
“A question suggests itself: In the event of such human rights problems and other serious problems existing in the United States, wouldn’t it be better if American government introduced proper order in their own country and only after that it taught other states how to live. Global politics is noted for a hard degree of predictability. There is always likelihood that the high and mighty will unexpectedly do such things that will shock people. For this reason, one should not be guided by feelings and be tempted by their ‘friendship’. 
As a rule, the American establishment regularly takes a pro-Armenian position. In the context of the Karabakh problem solution, it provides assistance to Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh in nongovernmental ways, hinders human rights problems, and consciously conducts a destructive line concerning the measures to nullify Section 907 of the US Freedom Support Act, which infringes on Azerbaijan’s national interests”.