It is a very important issue. For example, we know what kind of country we want to see in 20, 30, 50 or 100 years. As a matter of fact, we do not have such a national or at least state-level response. The reason is that we still have to formulate a national vision, for example, as to how we see the settlement of the Karabakh issue. That is, when we clearly state how we understand the solution of the Karabakh issue, the remaining formulations will become much easier. No matter what kind of decision we will make. I mean that as a nation, as a state, we need to clearly formulate the way we see the resolution of the Karabakh issue.

And the foremost example is that no public discourse has ever been made on this topic yet. And when I was elected prime minister, there was a lot talk in social networks to the effect that we had already sold Karabakh or were going to do so. I was asking myself a simple question: those who fomented such allegations meant not only me, but also Armenia’s other leaders. In the meantime, they did not ask who, why and which way represented us in the negotiations, or why I should have such a conversation behind me as I was going to negotiate.

Because when you send me to negotiate on the Karabakh issue, you do not tell me at once the way you see the settlement of the conflict. No one told me: this is what you have to do, read and memorize it, and go ahead. This is just the source of different rumors being circulated in the media. The question is that nobody has told us how to resolve the issue. And that is one of the most important issues. What do we want in the context of the settlement of the Karabakh issue, how do we see the settlement in 50 years, and so on? Do we imagine that the Karabakh issue should be resolved internationally, or do we think that we should still be negotiating over specific points? Both are options. But we need to understand that we are going with a strategy to formulate our vision of Armenia in 100 years.

And it is not accidental that at the Friday meeting with the Public Council, which is the government’s advisory body according to our Constitution, they wanted to know the topics on which the Public Council should make recommendations as a consultative body. I said, for example, the Karabakh issue: Have we clearly formulated how we should solve the Karabakh issue?

Frankly speaking, a natural question may arise as to whether I had gone to negotiations without having my own vision. I naturally have an idea, but I do not want the solution to be my personal idea, because we should keep in mind that no president, no prime minister, no government can resolve the Karabakh issue on their own. It is up to the entire Armenian nation to decide thereupon, and the whole Armenian nation should clearly formulate the resolution.

And we have made a great mistake in the whole history of the Third Republic. Instead of saying that the solutions to the conflict should be central in our pre-election debates, we have done the opposite: we said let us not talk about Karabakh at all. That is why the atmosphere of this uncertainty and suspicion has been formed. In the meantime, this will have a practical significance as we can thereby formulate what we want from the settlement of the Karabakh issue, and why I say that we should strive for a national consensus because it is very important.

Look, from my statement that the Karabakh issue does not rest under the jurisdiction of the government or the prime minister, and that it is a matter of national relevance, the next issue arises, namely whether the nation, the people and each of its representatives are ready to bear any responsibility for the settlement of the issue.

Why do I say this? Because when we say that the Karabakh issue should be settled in one way or another, or that Armenia should be the guarantor of Karabakh’s security, we should bear in mind that our children will have to serve in the army.
When it comes here, many say my child will not go, the neighbor’s should go. This is part of our common responsibility, is it not?

When we say that the overall security level needs to be enhanced and that is why we should increase the State budget receipts, we should remember that every day each of us must ask for cash-register coupons. I mean that a key component of our national ideology is that we all should mind our social or individual behavior if we want to decide upon the future of our country, our State, and on everything, in general.

When asked in PACE on how we were going to fight corruption, I said the first step is that I myself should never get involved in corruption because corruption cannot be curbed if the prime minister is involved in corruption. I want to say that the key point of our party’s ideology is that individual effort and individual behavior are the precondition for everything. The root cause of all achievements and failures lies in our personal perceptions and in our civic stance. The program with which we initiated the whole political process said that the change of individual behavior was the key to the change of society.

If anyone wants to change the reality, he or she must be able to change and criticize themselves. Today self-criticism is the most viable tool in the Republic of Armenia. It is the most important issue, and we need to understand to what extent each of us is prepared to take responsibility for that!