Eurasianet, NY
Jan 11 2005
POLLS SHOW PRO-WESTERN SHIFT IN ARMENIAN PUBLIC OPINION
Emil Danielyan 1/11/05
Armenians, traditionally oriented toward Russia, are increasingly
losing faith in the benefits of a special relationship with Moscow
and are becoming more pro-Western in their outlook, according to
recent opinion polls.
Analysts in Yerevan say the pro-American shift in public perceptions
over the past year is connected with a host of factors, not the least
of them being the resounding success of Western-backed popular
revolts in Georgia and Ukraine. [For additional information see the
Eurasia Insight archive]. Popular views have also been greatly
affected by the discourse of large sections of the country’s
post-Soviet intellectual and political elites that regard the United
States and the European Union as the ultimate guarantors of their
country’s independence and prosperity.
The change is particularly visible among Armenia’s opposition
political activists, who are buoyed by the success of opposition
movements in Georgia and Ukraine, while continuing to seethe over
Russia’s ongoing support for President Robert Kocharian’s
administration. Some of them are now openly calling for an end to
Armenia’s military alliance with Russia and its accession to NATO and
the EU.
“In the past, no political forces would openly call for Armenia’s
membership in NATO, safe in the knowledge that they would not only
fail to get public support but also face harsh criticism. The
situation is markedly different now,” says Stepan Safarian, an
analyst at the Armenian Center for National and International Studies
(ACNIS), a private think-tank.
“It is the opposition that enjoys the greatest popular support in
Armenia. So naturally, its mood is being passed on to the general
public,” he adds.
This assertion seems to have been born out by a nationwide opinion
poll conducted by the ACNIS in December. Nearly two thirds of 2,000
respondents said they want their country to eventually join the EU
and only 12 percent were against. A similar survey conducted by the
Vox Populi polling organization in October found that 72 percent of
Yerevan residents preferred the expanding union to the
Russian-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States.
Support for Armenia’s entry into the EU was practically unanimous
among 100 political and public policy experts separately questioned
by ACNIS. They were also overwhelmingly in favor of NATO membership.
The figures are remarkable for a small Christian nation that has for
centuries viewed Russia as its main protector against hostile Muslim
neighbors, notably Turkey and Azerbaijan. This sense of insecurity
has been key to Armenia’s heavy reliance on Moscow for defense and
security since the Soviet collapse. The conflict with Azerbaijan over
Nagorno-Karabakh only reinforced it. [For additional information see
the Eurasia Insight archive].
“I think that over the past two or three years our society has become
much more realistic and is beginning to understand the external
challenges facing our state,” said Suren Sureniants, a senior member
of Armenia’s most radical opposition party, Hanrapetutiun (Republic).
Hanrapetutiun is currently in talks with two other opposition groups
over the formation of a new alliance that would not only strive to
force Kocharian from power, but also offer Armenians a pro-Western
alternative to policies pursued by incumbent authorities. Failure to
come up with such “ideological alternative,” in Sureniants’s words,
was the main reason for the opposition’s inability to topple
Kocharian with a campaign of street protests last spring. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Unlike its counterparts in Georgia and Ukraine, the Armenian
opposition found little support from Western governments, which
appeared to be wary of the Armenian opposition’s vague agenda and
past Russian connections. The oppositionists appear to have studied
the lessons of the “Orange Revolution” in Kyiv, and are now changing
tack. One of the most popular of them, Artashes Geghamian, was
calling for Armenia’s accession the Russia-Belarus economic union as
recently as two years ago. Geghamian now is an opponent of the idea.
His National Unity Party voted for the dispatch of Armenian
non-combat troops to Iraq during parliamentary debates in late
December.
The opposition leaders’ “vehement desire to demonstrate their
pro-Western stance” was denounced by a leading pro-Kocharian daily,
Hayots Ashkhar. The paper voiced confidence that the pending Armenian
troop deployment in Iraq should boost Kocharian’s pro-American
credentials in Washington.
US President George W. Bush recently signed a proclamation
authorizing the immediate implementation of “normal trade relations”
with Armenia. The presidential action is the reflection of a steady
improvement in US-Armenian ties in recent months. The proclamation,
signed January 7, said that normal trade ties were made possible by
the fact that Armenia had “made considerable progress in enacting
market reforms” and had “demonstrated a strong desire to build a
friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States.”
Other Kocharian loyalists are less sanguine. Vahan Hovannisian, a
leader of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, a traditionally
pro-Russian party represented in government, warned of a potential
“dangerous” export of Western-backed revolutions to Armenia. “I don’t
think that Armenian voters are today prepared to trust extreme
anti-Russian forces,” Hovannisian said at a recent news conference.
“Having said that, it is evident that anti-Russian sentiment in
Armenian society is growing and there are objective reasons for
that.”
According to Safarian, the analyst, Russia’s hasty endorsement of a
rigged presidential ballot in Ukraine and its ensuing humiliation is
one of those reasons. “There is a growing number of events testifying
to Russia’s weakness, and the Armenian public does not fail to notice
them,” he says.
Safarian believes that Moscow’s unequivocal acceptance of Kocharian’s
disputed reelection nearly two years ago, its hard bargain on
Armenia’s debts and the closure last fall of Russia’s borders with
Georgia also alienated many Armenians. [For background see the
Eurasia Insight archive]. Indeed, the two-month transport blockade,
ostensibly aimed at preventing cross-border attacks by Chechen
militants, hit landlocked Armenia hard by cutting off one of its main
supply lines. [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. The Russians faced an unprecedented barrage of criticism
from Armenian politicians and media at the time.
“The Russian factor is now one of the key challenges that threaten
the sovereignty, security and democratization of our country,”
Sureniants charged. He claimed that a key element in the Kremlin’s
strategy of maintaining Russian foothold in the South Caucasus and
elsewhere in the former Soviet Union is to prop up illegitimate
regimes and thwart the resolution of ethnic disputes.
The changing popular mood means that such views are not considered
extreme and marginal in Armenia anymore.
Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.