ARMENIAN REPORTER
PO Box 129
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: 1-201-226-1995
Fax: 1-201-226-1660
3191 Casitas Ave Ste 216
Los Angeles CA 90039
Tel: 1-323-671-1030
Fax: 1-323-671-1033
1 Yeghvard Hwy Fl 5
Yerevan 0054 Armenia
Tel: 374-10-367-195
Fax: 374-10-367-195 fax
Web:
Email: [email protected]
March 22, 2008 — From the front section
To see the printed version of the newspaper, complete with photographs
and additional content, visit and download the pdf
files. It’s free.
1. Armenia’s parliament tightens law on rallies and demonstrations (by
Armen Hakobyan)
2. Armenian-American translator killed in terrorist bombing in Baghdad
(by Elyssa Karanian)
* Albert Haroutounian dreamed of a "world of no terror, nor any wars"
3. Editor’s Note: New changes in Armenian Reporter format are coming,
expected to enhance reader experience
4. Washington briefing (by Emil Sanamyan)
* Armenian-Americans advocate against genocide
* Members of Congress call for revision of administration’s foreign aid proposal
* State Department report complains of "small window" into Nagorno-Karabakh
* President Bush hosts Georgian leader
5. UN resolution vote seen as damaging the Karabakh peace process (by
Tatul Hakobyan)
* U.S., Russia, France side with Armenia over Azerbaijan-proposed
nonbinding measure
6. U.S. official sees return of democratic momentum (Emil Sanamyan
interviews Matthew Bryza)
* Expects specific OSCE proposals to strengthen Karabakh cease-fire
7. From Armenia, in brief
* Victor Dallakian proposes ways to defuse the political tension in Armenia
* The Armenian Revolutionary Federation joins the government
* Four leading powers in the National Assembly sign coalition agreement
* Ministry of Diaspora Affairs?
* PACE Monitoring Committee expresses concern about arrests in Armenia
8. Shavarsh Kocharian: Armenia must be a strong and stable democracy
8a. About Shavarsh Kocharian
9. Paruir Hairikian: Serge Sargsian has the majority’s support, but he
must address legitimate grievances
9a. About Paruir Hairikian
10. "We must have a real democracy" (by Betty Panossian-Ter Sarkissian)
* Young university students express themselves
11. EBRD partners with Cascade Bank to benefit small business
* "A sign of continued trust in Armenia’s economy"
12. Letters
* Let them enjoy their choice (Miran P. Sarkissian)
* Armenia’s students need your helping hand (Yn. Violet Kasparian)
* Cheer for Arts & Culture (Papken V. Janjigian)
* Two cheers (Loretta Nassar)
13. Commentary: Growing pains in a fledgling democracy, continued (by
Sylvie Tertzakian)
14. Living in Armenia: Yerevan Spring: a metaphor for instability (by
Maria Titizian)
15. Editorial: A time to rebuild confidence
************************************** *************************************
1. Armenia’s parliament tightens law on rallies and demonstrations
by Armen Hakobyan
YEREVAN — The 20-day state of emergency declared by President Robert
Kocharian on March 1 expired on schedule without incident. A special
session of parliament was convened on March 17 to consider amendments
to the law "On Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies, and
Demonstrations." The amendments, which will make it more difficult for
opponents of the government to hold lawful mass rallies in the near
future, were adopted 90-6 and signed into law the next day by Mr.
Kocharian.
Armenia’s law on rallies was previously very liberal: organizers
simply had to provide the authorities with three days advance notice
of their intention to hold a rally. Under Article 9 of the law,
responsible authorities could restrict the organization and holding
of public gatherings if they had information that "these rallies call
for the violent overthrow of the constitutional order of the country,
the instigation of national, racial or religious hatred, violence, or
calls for war."
Under the amended law, notification is not sufficient; organizers of
public gatherings or events have to apply for permission to the City
of Yerevan five days in advance of their event. The city then has to
inform the police or the National Security Service, which must give
or withhold their consent within 72 hours. Under the old law, the
authorities had until noon the following day to raise objections.
Permission can now be withheld if, "according to reliable sources,
these gatherings call for the violent overthrow of the constitutional
order of the country, the instigation of national, racial or religious
hatred, violence or calls for war or can cause mass disorder or
criminal activity, threaten state security, social order, public
health or the distortion of morality, and the violation of the rights
and freedoms of others."
Armen Martirossian, a member of parliament and part of the Heritage
Party bloc, voted against the amendments to the law. (Mr. Martirossian
was injured on March 1 when he tried to protect a police officer who
was being attacked by rioters in front of Yerevan’s City Hall.)
"From now on it is possible to call it the law ‘On Not Conducting
Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations,’" Mr. Martirossian
said. "These new amendments in reality limit people’s constitutional
rights. This new law gives the representatives of the authorities, the
police and the National Security Service, the ability to prohibit
events that they don’t want. In other words, everything was done so
that our citizens cannot hold rallies, meetings, or processions. Even
if we put aside the technical side of the law, in reality this process
was not a legislative demand, but a political one. In other words,
this was a reaction to the situation on the ground."
Mr. Martirossian, speaking to the Armenian Reporter, added, "What is
important here? This is going to deepen the chasm between the people
and the authorities. It will add to the suspicion, to the deteriorated
mood that exists in society. Instead, the parliament, the country’s
legislative body, could have taken the first steps toward dialogue; it
could have rejected the amendments or could have voted against them to
show that it is interested in dialogue. The parliament didn’t take
that route; it did the exact opposite. It was successful in showing
its muscle to society."
One of the authors of the amendment, member of parliament Rafik
Petrosyan, of the Republican Party bloc, held an opposing view. "The
proposed amendments to the law laid the groundwork for us to once
again re-examine our legislation, to clarify what was wrong with the
laws in the first place that allowed the development of this
situation. That examination showed us that international rights and
articles enshrined in our own constitution were not expressed in that
law on conducting meetings, assemblies, rallies, and demonstrations."
The legislator cited Articles 11 and 18 of the European Convention
on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which makes provisions for
certain limitations in the freedom of assembly; these are reflected in
Article 43 of Armenia’s Constitution. According to Article 43, the
freedom to hold rallies and demonstrations can be limited by law where
it "is necessary for the national security of a democratic society,
for the protection of social order, to stop criminal activity, protect
public health and morality, for the protection of rights and freedoms
of others," said Mr. Petrosyan.
Mr. Petrosyan said that they also took into consideration the
experience of and legislation in EU countries such as Germany, Italy,
Denmark, and the Baltic countries, whose clauses are in sync with the
amendments passed in Armenia’s legislature on March 17. "The
legislation in those countries is written almost exactly like the new
amendments."
Mr. Petrosyan also made the following point: "My opponents are
mistaken on one point. They think that [I believe] the passing of this
law will solve all the problems. I stress, that to come out of this
situation, political steps are required to establish civil accord and
solidarity. To achieve that, aside from the law, we must seek
resolutions to economic and social issues, ensure the establishment of
justice in the country, the lack of which everyone is talking about.
Also, improvements in the judiciary are necessary, which is in bad
shape today."
* * *
Image:
Protestors taking part in a silent, unsanctioned demonstration in
Yerevan on March 21, a day after the expiration of the state of
emergency. Security forces in riot gear prevented a crowd from
forming. Photo: Armen Hakobyan for the Armenian Reporter.
*************************************** ***********************************
2. Armenian-American translator killed in terrorist bombing in Baghdad
* Albert Haroutounian dreamed of a "world of no terror, nor any wars"
by Elyssa Karanian
HAVERTOWN, Pa. — Albert A. Haroutounian, a 36-year-old civilian
translator from Havertown, was killed March 10 while working on a U.S.
military contract in Iraq. Mr. Haroutounian’s funeral service was
conducted on Tuesday, March 18, at a Honey Brook, Pa., funeral home by
Fr. Vertanes Kalayjian. "As the visiting pastor in Philadelphia, I was
called upon to perform the service," said Fr. Kalayjian, who serves
the Wynnewood and Cheltenham parishes. "He was well-loved. It was such
a sad experience for all those involved."
Mr. Haroutounian was working for Trinity Inc., a consulting company
that employs translators across the world. It was a job for which Mr.
Haroutounian — born and raised in Kuwait, and fluent in Armenian,
Arabic, and English — seemed eminently qualified.
Devastatingly, this young life was cut short when a suicide bomber
in Baghdad detonated his explosives a mere 30 feet from Mr.
Haroutounian, according to Associated Press reports. The blast was
said to be the deadliest attack on American forces in over eight
months, killing five and injuring three soldiers.
Following injuries sustained in this explosion, Mr. Haroutounian
died just two weeks shy of an expected date of return to the United
States for vacation.
Son of the late Azadouhie Nalbandian Baba and Aramis N. Baba of
California, Mr. Haroutounian was born in Kuwait in 1971, the grandson
of Armenian immigrants. Led by their father, he and his three brothers
migrated to the United States shortly after their mother’s death in
1985.
Although English was his third language, Mr. Haroutounian managed to
put his creative spirit to work in the writing of a romantic
science-fiction novel about time travel, The Clock Doc.
Aside from writing, and other interests such as sports and travel,
Mr. Haroutounian’s dream was to open his own pizza restaurant in
Delaware County; friends have speculated that this dream was the
impetus behind his taking contracts in Iraq. As one of six people
selected for their proficiency in Arabic to work as an interpreter,
Mr. Haroutounian had served about eight months on an open-ended
contract in Iraq — a stint that would have earned him more than
enough money to open his restaurant.
Apparently, his plans to take the job in Iraq were kept secret from
his close friends and family until after Mr. Haroutounian had already
embarked overseas. A close family friend noted that she received a
call from Mr. Haroutounian after he had already arrived in Iraq; it
was only then that she learned of his mission.
* "A lot of ambition"
Alfredo Canavati, owner of Alfredo’s Pizza in Havertown, a former
employer and also close friend of Mr. Haroutounian’s, said in an
interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer: "He received an offer from
that company [Trinity Inc.], and he was going for the money."
Mr. Haroutounian’s family chose to keep their grieving private and
firmly declined to comment. Rick Neylon, however, a vice president of
Trinity Technology Group in Fairfax, Va., spoke very highly of Mr.
Haroutounian, whom he knew in an employment capacity. "Anyone who met
him, who spent even just a day with him, knew that he was an
incredible man. He was a very dedicated individual, very trusted, and
he wanted to do well at everything he did.
"He was so strong, he didn’t hesitate to go out and do anything."
Mr. Neylon mentioned how this aspect of Mr. Haroutounian’s character
led him to be intensely well liked and highly respected among the
soldiers in Iraq. As a translator in the war zone, Mr. Haroutounian
was not a combatant, and did not carry a sidearm.
As a sign of respect and dignity for Mr. Haroutounian after his
death, his coffin was escorted by Trinity colleagues from Iraq to
Kuwait to Germany and finally Dover. There Mr. Neylon met the coffin
and escorted it to the funeral home in Honey Brook.
"This doesn’t happen often," Mr. Neylon said. "There were volunteers
to escort him, which indicates how much respect there was. For someone
to travel for three days [as an escort, and then] to turn around and
come right back … it just shows how much his friends cared about him."
"He had a lot of ambition," Mr. Canavati said to the Inquirer. "But
he always liked to help people who were struggling because he
struggled. He told me that he was basically trying to save the world."
A biographical note on Mr. Haroutounian’s website states: "He
believes in a world of no terror, nor any wars, as he values the lives
of all human kind." It adds that "his greatest message to the entire
world would be to simply live in happiness, for peace and harmony to
be among us all."
Mr. Neylon, who attended Mr. Haroutounian’s hokejash at Wynnewood’s
St. Sahag and St. Mesrob Church, said, "What Albert wrote is not
fiction. What he wrote was the way he lived and thought and spoke.
Those of us that knew him know that what’s written on his webpage is
truly the way Albert was."
Speaking figuratively of Albert Haroutonian’s bravery and character,
Neylon said, "He was a warrior."
********************************** ****************************************
3. Editor’s Note: New changes in Armenian Reporter format are coming,
expected to enhance reader experience
A year ago, on March 3, 2007, we introduced an entirely new format for
the Armenian Reporter. As we enhanced our content — with a new focus
on arts and culture, independent political news and analysis from
Washington, independent reporting from a full-fledged bureau in
Armenia, and in-depth coverage of California news and personalities —
our new format allowed us to present articles, images, charts, and
maps to our readers in an effective manner.
At the time, we promised to listen carefully to the opinions of our
growing circle of readers. We have done so. In response, and for the
additional reasons discussed below, we will be introducing some
changes in our format over the next two weeks.
* The first two sections of the newspaper currently are a 12-page
section of national, international, and Armenia news and commentary,
and a 12-page section of community news. We will combine these two
sections to form a 24-page main section.
The integrated main section will cover national, international,
Armenia, and community news and commentary. The newspaper will
continue to appear in two regional editions, with the community pages
in each edition focusing on local news and carrying local advertising.
Combining the first two sections will make it easier for you to
navigate the paper. It will allow us to offer regional advertisers the
option of more prominent placement in the newspaper.
This change will also allow us more flexibility in allocating space.
Thus, for example, if there’s a lot of community news one week, we can
allocate it more space than we could in the 12-page format. But we
will make sure to keep your favorite items — such as the Calendar of
Events, the Washington Briefing, the Living in Armenia column — in
the same place every week.
* The Arts & Culture section will change to a 12-page tabloid format
from a 24-page half-tabloid format. It will come nested inside the
main section, printed however on different paper than the main
section. Thus, readers who want to pull it out will be able readily to
do so.
* Thanks to this change, we will be able to mail the newspaper to
subscribers without an envelope, which will save paper and money —
and allow subscribers to see the front page without having first to
rip open an envelope.
* The outside pages of the newspaper will be printed on heavier paper.
This will allow the paper to reach readers in better shape now that we
are eliminating envelopes.
Our editors and correspondents in New Jersey, Washington, Los
Angeles, and Yerevan and our freelancers across the globe will
continue to offer you timely, reliable stories about all things
Armenian.
And the Armenian Reporter will continue to grow. Our circulation has
grown to 35,000 copies a week — from less than 5,000 a year ago. Our
streamlined format will bring about cost savings that will allow us to
continue the phenomenal growth of our community of readers.
Please continue to let us know what you think. We will continue to
strive to surpass your expectations.
*********************************** ***************************************
4. Washington briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
* Armenian-Americans advocate against genocide
More than 100 activists visited congressional offices from March
12–14 to advocate for legislative action against genocide, the
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) reported. The second
annual campaign was organized jointly by the ANCA and Genocide
Intervention Network (GI-Net).
The activists met with dozens of legislators and visited offices of
every Senate and House member, focusing on the violence in Darfur and
Turkey’s campaign of genocide denial.
A congressional measure affirming the U.S. record on the Armenian
Genocide was passed by the House Foreign Affairs Committee last
October in spite of unprecedented opposition from the White House and
the Turkish government. The resolution, House Resolution 106, can be
brought up for a vote by the House of Representatives at any time
before conclusion of the congressional session at the end of this
year.
* Members of Congress call for revision of administration’s foreign aid proposal
Co-chairs of the Armenian Congressional Caucus Reps. Frank Pallone
(D.-N.J.) and Joe Knollenberg (R.-Mich.) together with thirty-seven
other House members called on House appropriators to increase U.S. aid
to Armenia and Azerbaijan and cut all military assistance to
Azerbaijan.
In a March 19 letter addressed to House Foreign Operations
Subcommittee chair Rep. Nita Lowey (D.-N.Y.) and ranking member Frank
Wolf (R,-Va.), and made available by Rep. Knollenberg’s staff, the
members of Congress cited continued war threats by Azerbaijan and
called on the subcommittee to "zero out funding for Azerbaijan under
the Foreign Military Financing as well as the International Military
Education and Training account." The Bush administration requested
$3.9 million in such funding for Azerbaijan in the Fiscal Year 2009.
The letter also argued for $70 million in economic and $5 million in
military aid to Armenia and $10 million in development aid to
Nagorno-Karabakh. The administration had requested $24 million in
economic and $3.3 million in military aid to Armenia, and made no
request for Karabakh.
The members of Congress also called for the appropriations bill
language that would direct the State Department "to move in the
direction of diplomatic relations with Nagorno-Karabakh," to
facilitate open dialogue, alleviate threats to Nagorno-Karabakh and
aid in a peaceful resolution of conflicts.
* State Department report complains of "small window" into Nagorno-Karabakh
The annual "Narcotics Control Strategy Report" issued on February 29
complained that the State Department had "only a small window… into
activities in Nagorno Karabakh and the occupied territories."
The congressionally mandated report contains a country-by-country
analysis prepared primarily by U.S. embassies, which rely mostly on
local governments for information. One of these governments is
Azerbaijan’s, which has for years been conducting a propaganda
campaign against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, which includes
unsubstantiated allegations of drug running.
Until two years ago, the State Department referred to Azerbaijan’s
allegations that Karabakh was one of several routes used by
international drug runners. While the United States never validated
such charges, the reference itself had been used by Azerbaijan as a
purported endorsement of its claims.
After Nagorno-Karabakh officials communicated with the State
Department noting the baseless nature of the claims and inviting the
relevant U.S. officials to visit NKR to investigate any possible
concerns, the State Department dropped the reference. (See the March
10, 2007 issue of the Armenian Reporter.) But because of the existing
U.S. policy, its officials’ access to Karabakh remains restricted.
As in years past the report noted that that unlike Armenia,
"Azerbaijan is located along a drug transit route running from
Afghanistan and Central Asia into Western Europe" and Russia. The
report also noted that narcotics circulation currently poses a modest
challenge to Armenia, but that that could change should borders with
Turkey or Azerbaijan open.
* President Bush hosts Georgian leader
In a sign of continued U.S. support, Georgian President Mikhail
Saakashvili, who was re-elected in a contested election last January,
was hosted by President George W. Bush and other senior officials in
Washington this week.
Georgia is seeking to join the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty
Organization (NATO) and last year deployed one of the largest troop
contingents in support of U.S. occupation of Iraq. The United States
has supported Georgia’s NATO effort, although some European allies
remain hesitant.
During the March 19 meeting, President Bush said that "NATO [would]
benefit with a Georgian membership," but he stopped short of endorsing
Georgia’s hopes for securing a Membership Action Plan during the
upcoming NATO summit in Romania on April 2–4, according to the White
House press service.
President Bush also shared his admiration for Georgia and Mr.
Saakashvili’s leadership and reminisced about his 2005 trip to Tbilisi
"about the unbelievably good food, and about the dancing." Mr.
Saakashvili joked, "you will dance Georgia dance much better than I
do…. I know you’re not Georgian, you’re a Texan, but we are pretty
close."
Although, the Georgian opposition continues to protest what it
describes as a political crackdown and has not accepted the
presidential election results, U.S. officials have called on
opposition leaders to accept the official electoral outcome and focus
on parliamentary elections expected this May (see this page in the
January 26, 2008, Armenian Reporter).
Speaking at a March 19 presentation organized by the Atlantic
Council of the United States, a Washington think tank, and sponsored
by BP and Frontera Resources, two oil companies with interests in
Georgia, Mr. Saakashvili portrayed the recent domestic upheaval in
Georgia as a sign of pluralism and therefore proof of its successful
democratization.
On March 18, Armenian and Georgian human rights activists organized
a joint protest in opposition to both governments’ policies outside
their respective embassies in Washington. But the effort, covered by
three Georgian TV channels and this newspaper and dubbed a "peace
vigil" by the newly fashioned "Democracy Initiative for Armenia and
Georgia," failed to make an immediate impact as only two individual
participants joined the four organizers.
************************************* *************************************
5. UN resolution vote seen as damaging the Karabakh peace process
* U.S., Russia, France side with Armenia over Azerbaijan-proposed
nonbinding measure
by Tatul Hakobyan
YEREVAN — The United Nations General Assembly on March 14 adopted an
Azerbaijani-drafted resolution demanding the "immediate, complete and
unconditional" withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all of
Azerbaijan’s occupied lands.
Thirty-nine states, mostly Muslim ones and the members of GUAM
(Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova), voted in favor of the
resolution titled, "The situation in the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan." Seven, including OSCE Minsk Group co-chair states Russia,
the United States, and France, as well as India, cast "no" votes, and
another 150 states abstained or did not vote.
Armenia and Azerbaijan joined the United Nations in March 1992.
Since then, the UN has adopted four mandatory Security Council
resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The General Assembly has
also adopted a number of resolutions dealing with the conflict, and
although they are nonbinding, each UN resolution has political
significance, and therefore cannot be overlooked.
All four Security Council resolutions (822, 853, 874, and 884) were
adopted during the Karabakh war, in the period from March to November
of 1993, when Armenian forces successfully established a security zone
around Nagorno-Karabakh, laying the groundwork for today’s relative
peace.
The first resolution of the General Assembly, which was titled
"Emergency international assistance to refugees and displaced persons
in Azerbaijan," was adopted on December 20, 1993.
Between 1997 and 2002, during votes on the annual resolutions on
cooperation between the UN and the OSCE, Azerbaijan would introduce
amendments with language supporting its claim on Nagorno-Karabakh.
During those votes Armenia would be the lone country voting against
Azerbaijan’s proposals. In 1997, 1998, and 2000, the United States,
European Union countries, and Russia voted for such amendments,
essentially endorsing Azerbaijan claim. But since 2001, along with a
majority of UN member states, they began to abstain, while Armenia
would typically be a sole dissenting voice.
At the same time, Azerbaijan was successful in building a coalition
of Islamic as well as GUAM states that voted with it, assuring the
passage of its amendments.
In 2006, Azerbaijan alleged that Armenians were intentionally
setting fires along the border (it was a particularly dry and hot
summer), introducing a resolution to that effect that also again would
reiterate Azerbaijan’s claim on Karabakh. Under OSCE Minsk Group
co-chair pressure, Azerbaijan pulled that resolution, instead agreeing
to an OSCE fact-finding trip to Karabakh, which in the end did not
substantiate Azerbaijani allegations.
In recent years, the GUAM states have introduced joint resolutions
stressing the territorial integrity of each, but the resolutions were
not brought up to a vote due to objections from Russia, in addition to
Armenia.
* What does the March 14 resolution say?
Resolutions adopted by the UN and other international organizations
are usually not blatantly one-sided; they tend to contain items
acceptable and items not very pleasant for the involved countries.
However, this particular General Assembly resolution is openly
one-sided.
The General Assembly called for the immediate, complete and
unconditional withdrawal of Armenian forces "from all the occupied
territories of Azerbaijan." It also called for "continued respect and
support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
within its internationally recognized borders." The resolution
reaffirmed "the inalienable right of the population expelled from the
occupied territories" of Azerbaijan to return to their homes, and to
achieve that end it underlined the need for the comprehensive
rehabilitation of all conflict-affected territories. No state should
recognize as lawful the current situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, nor
provide aid or assistance to maintain that situation, according to the
text, which also called for "normal, secure and equal conditions of
life for Armenian and Azerbaijani communities in the Nagorno-Karabakh
region" so that "an effective democratic system of self-governance"
can be built up.
* Why now?
A question emerges: why was the resolution adopted right now? There
could be several reasons, primarily the difficult domestic situation
in Armenia. Evidently, Armenia didn’t have enough time to utilize all
its foreign-policy resources to prevent voting on the resolution,
which it has successfully done in the past.
In his address before the vote, Armenia’s representative in the UN,
Ambassador Armen Martirosian, said that it was unprecedented for a
draft resolution to be put to a vote without any consultations, and
that the resolution’s purpose was not to encourage or facilitate
discussion. It was simply a way for Azerbaijan to list its wishes on a
piece of paper, Amb. Martirossian stressed.
* Yerevan and Baku respond
Certainly noteworthy is the fact that the OSCE Minsk co-chair
countries — France, Russia, and the United States (which are also
three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council; the
other two, the United Kingdom and China, abstained) — voted against
the resolution and with Armenia.
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian appeared pleased: "I hope
Azerbaijan got the message from the international community." He
characterized the resolution as hypocritical: "On the one hand, in an
effort to misinform member states, the resolution included a paragraph
that supports the OSCE Minsk Process. On the other hand, Azerbaijan
blatantly ignored the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs’ position."
Azerbaijan’s Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov said the document
has "legal and political force," saying that the resolution was
introduced following Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence
from Serbia. "Hereby, the Assembly confirmed Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity again," Azimov said, and that the resolution was a "serious
warning" to the United States, Russia, and France.
The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry went as far as to express
"resentment" against the states that voted against its proposal.
* Who are the "friends" and "enemies" of Armenia?
In diplomacy and politics, countries vote according to their own
national interests. The countries that voted against the resolution
presented by Baku in the UN were, naturally, Armenia, the three Minsk
Group co-chair states, as well as India, Angola and Vanuatu (a Pacific
territory of about 12,000 square meters comprising 80 islands). None
of the European Union countries voted for the resolution.
The representative of the United States, Alejandro D. Wolff, said
the representatives of France, Russia, and the United States, as
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, had jointly proposed to the two
parties a set of basic principles for the peaceful settlement of the
conflict, within the format of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Madrid
of November 2007.
Azerbaijan’s draft, said Mr. Wolff, selectively propagated certain
settlement principles to the exclusion of others, without considering
the co-chairs’ proposal in its balanced entirety. Because of that
selective approach, the three co-chairs opposed the unilateral draft
resolution.
The representative of Slovenia, speaking on behalf of the European
Union, said that, while recognizing the right of member states to
bring issues to the attention of the General Assembly for
consideration, the Minsk Group should retain the lead in settling the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The European Union reiterated its support
for all the principles, without exception, set up within the Minsk
Group, and valued the views of the group’s co-chairs.
In a March 15 statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry said, "the
draft resolution includes only some of the basic settlement principles
meeting only Azerbaijan’s interests, without mentioning, for example,
the ultimate need to determine Nagorno-Karabakh’s status through
holding a plebiscite for its population so that it could express its
will truly freely."
The position of Uzbekistan was unusual. While a member of the
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), that is to say in the
same military-political club as Russia and Armenia, voted in favor of
Azerbaijan, which is not a member of the CSTO. Two other Muslim
members of CSTO, the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan, did not take part
in the voting, that is to say, did not support Azerbaijan.
Kazakhstan, which in the past voted in Azerbaijan’s favor, abstained
from voting — most probably because of a previous Armenian demarche
tying Kazakhstan’s United Nations’ voting to its bid to chair the OSCE
in 2010.
Armenia must be also pleased with Iran’s position. Tehran, which
would also typically support Azerbaijan, did not participating in the
voting.
Somewhat unexpected was the pro-Azerbaijani position of Serbia, a
country with which Armenia has generally enjoyed warm relations and
which in the past did not vote against Armenian in either the UN or
European forums. The vote may be explained by Belgrade’s particularly
sensitivity over Kosovo’s independence. While Baku called Kosovo’s
unilateral declaration "illegal" and as an act of protest plans to
withdraw its peacekeeping unit from the region, Yerevan’s reaction was
more balanced, although Armenia has not yet recognized Kosovo’s
independence.
************************** ************************************************
6. U.S. official sees return of democratic momentum: Interview with
Matthew Bryza
* Expects specific OSCE proposals to strengthen Karabakh cease-fire
WASHINGTON — Deputy Assistant Secretary Matthew Bryza has been the
U.S. State Department’s point man for relations with Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, and Turkey since 2005; from 2001
to 2005 he held a similar portfolio at the National Security Council.
He is also the U.S. co-chair for the Karabakh mediation effort under
the aegis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE).
On March 20 Mr. Bryza discussed the most recent developments in
Armenia with the Armenian Reporter’s Washington editor Emil Sanamyan.
* "Fair and balanced" Karabakh deal within reach
Reporter: On March 19 Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian was reported by
RFE/RL as saying that Azerbaijan is "trying to start, through the OSCE
Secretariat, a process of the dissolution of the Minsk Group," which
has led international mediation in Karabakh since 1992. Can you
confirm that such an effort is underway?
Bryza: I know there has been an inquiry from the Azerbaijani mission
to the OSCE about what would be the procedures were any country to
wish to withdraw from the Minsk Group. But I do not know about
anything that went beyond an inquiry.
So when I read Mr. Oskanian’s statement it was news to me, and I
have not seen confirmation that the Azerbaijani effort had in fact
moved that far.
Reporter: We have also heard from the Azerbaijani ambassador Vilayat
Guliyev that the Minsk Group that you co-chair with the French and the
Russians has been "useless" and its approach to the conflict
"tendentious and one-sided," as day.az reported on March 19.
Overall, there seems to be an effort by Azerbaijan to pressure the
co-chair countries in the wake of the United Nations General Assembly
(UN GA) vote on March 14 (see story on page A3). What is happening
there?
Bryza: Ambassador Guliyev, with all due respect, is not
participating in negotiations under the Minsk Group and I would
presume is not aware of the details of what is on the table.
And what is on the table is a fair and balanced compromise that
includes elements that are attractive to Azerbaijan, an interpretation
of which was cited in the UN GA resolution, but there are also many
elements that are very attractive to Armenia that were not cited in
that resolution.
So I do not think that any of the people that are out there
criticizing the Minsk Group proposals are aware of what is really in
the proposal.
Reporter: The Minsk Group statement on March 19 suggested resuming
presidential-level negotiations as soon as possible. Do you expect a
meeting between Armenia’s president-elect Serge Sargsian and
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev during the upcoming NATO summit in
Romania, which both plan to attend? What would be the agenda for such
a meeting?
Bryza: What we said is that it would be useful for there to be a
meeting between the presidents as soon as they are ready to meet. I do
not know when that is going to happen. It could be [at the NATO
summit] or just after that.
The calendar is a bit complicated in that President-elect Sargsian
will not be inaugurated until April 9, and the summit in Romania is
from April 2 to 4. So Prime Minister Sargsian will not yet be the
president. So, there is a protocol problem, which could lead to a
delay, but it is up to them if they get together there. And if they
don’t, they would be able to meet shortly thereafter.
[In terms of agenda], it is clear now that the president-elect of
Armenia is in favor of continuing on the basis of the proposal on the
table [as it was presented at the OSCE ministerial meeting in Madrid
last November].
Reporter: On a related issue, former Nagorno-Karabakh deputy foreign
minister Massis Mayilian proposed several measures for strengthening
of the cease-fire, in particular expansion of Ambassador Andrzej
Kasprzyk’s monitoring group and tactical disengagement of forces along
the Line of Contact (see the March 15 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)
Are those issues on the Minsk Group agenda?
Bryza: Yes they are. And we rely heavily on Ambassador Kasprzyk’s
expertise and advice on what specific measures could be taken. It
would probably be useful to increase the distance of separation
between the forces along the Line of Contact, but specific ways to
implement those sorts of improvements to the cease-fire regime require
consultation and analysis of Ambassador Kasprzyk’s group. So when [the
Minsk Group co-chairs] do get together in Romania next month, we will
be able to come up with some specific proposals.
Reporter: The February 4, 1995, document, called an "Arrangement on
strengthening the ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict" was
referenced in one of the recent Minsk Group statements. Is there an
effort to make sure that it is implemented? Not in the least since it
is really the only agreement signed by the parties in addition to the
May 1994 cease-fire agreement?
Bryza: Of course we expect that the sides fully implement
pre-existing agreements. But which aspects have not been implemented?
You know [that] the cease-fire is more or less respected. Are there
elements in particular you have in mind?
Reporter: As the former Russian mediator Ambassador Vladimir
Kazimirov described this arrangement [to the Armenian Reporter, see
the January 26, 2008, issue] it sets out the complaint and
investigation procedure regarding cease-fire violations as well as
direct contact between commanders in the field. It does not appear
that any of that has been implemented in the 13 years since the time
the arrangement was signed.
Bryza: Yes, one of the issues we need to explore is to improve
communication between commanders along the Line of Contact. Right now
I cannot assess how far that agreement has or has not been
implemented; that requires real experts from [Ambassador Kasprzyk’s]
group.
The short answer is yes, we want all aspects of that agreement to be
implemented.
Reporter: Following the UN GA vote initiated by Azerbaijan, there
has been talk in Armenia that perhaps it is time to recognize the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. There is a proposal by the opposition
Heritage Party in parliament to recognize NKR. Considering the
postelection situation in Yerevan, such a step may even serve as a
basis for establishing cooperation between the governing parties and
the opposition.
What consequences do you foresee should the Armenian parliament move
on this issue?
Bryza: I think any move that prejudges the outcome of the
negotiations that are underway and that are achieving some real
results in terms of moving closer to finalizing the basic principles
would be unhelpful.
And we looked at the UN GA resolution of Azerbaijan in that very
light: that it was a one-sided resolution that did not reflect the
fair and balanced nature of the proposal on the table.
Similarly, if the Armenian side were to move unilaterally and
prejudge the outcome of the negotiations by recognizing Nagorno
Karabakh, that would be something that is very seriously undermining
the peace process.
I think that would be a highly asymmetric response [to Azerbaijan’s
move at the UN GA] and potentially a highly destabilizing move. [It
would mean] to decide that this is the end of the negotiating process
and we have unilaterally declared that the conflict is resolved in
this way.
I do not know how that would leave space for the continuation of
negotiations. We need to maintain the give and take that aims to
achieve this fair and balanced compromise which is absolutely within
reach right now and requires a little bit more work to reach a
compromise.
* U.S. aid to Armenia won’t be affected if positive trends continue
Reporter: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told members of Congress
in a March 12 hearing that the state of emergency in Armenia had "made
it necessary to suspend" some of U.S. assistance programs. Which
programs was Dr. Rice referring to?
Bryza: What I thought the secretary said is that we are looking into
suspending or beginning to implement limitations to some of our
programs.
One thing that you saw was that letter that came from [Millennium
Challenge Corporation CEO] Ambassador John Danilovich that talked
about the need to reconsider the MCC program in the current
circumstances. We were also in the process of possibly limiting
certain other flows of assistance money if the state of emergency was
not lifted and if the freedoms in Armenia were not restored.
But it sounds as perhaps those positive steps have been taken [in
terms of the lifting of the state of emergency] and since the positive
steps have been taken then there is no need for us to take negative
steps on our side.
I hope very much that lifting of the state of emergency moves
tensions in Armenia to a new phase, in which freedoms and democratic
momentum in Armenia are restored and we get back on track with all of
the items on our important agenda.
Reporter: Are there clear guidelines on what could cause MCC
suspension or termination? The MCC letter spoke of "policy reversals"
and you mention "momentum," but outside of the lifting of the state of
emergency, which has now happened, what specific steps can provide for
such a momentum? And what are, as Turks like to put it, the "red
lines"?
Bryza: I would rather not speculate about a specific "red line,"
because MCC has a much broader scope [to determine eligibility for
aid]. The MCC is a program that President George W. Bush has
developed, and he is very proud of it. It aims to provide assistance
in response to performance and reform.
If the impression in Washington is that a country has wandered far
away from democratic reforms, then by definition there needs to be
some ratcheting back of the MCC program. That is the phase we have
been in: trying to assess how much backtracking there may have been in
Armenia.
So, there is no specific red line, but a subjective judgment that
one has to make on whether or not there has been a large amount of
backtracking. And I would rather not get into a speculative discussion
about what might be too much, because I hope we have moved out of that
whole set of problems.
It seems that perhaps right now we are seeing the restoration of all
the freedoms and now that question of suspending assistance could
become moot, I hope. But it all depends on how fully the freedoms are
restored.
Reporter: Following your visit to Armenia on March 6–7 and
interview with The Associated Press, where you appeared to say that
the government actions on March 1 were too harsh, there seemed to be a
bit of back and forth, including what sounded like an annoyed reaction
from Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tigran Balayan. Have those matters
been resolved or is there still an argument going on?
Bryza: Well, the Foreign Ministry spokesman made his remarks and you
did not hear any retort or rejoinder from me so I do not think there
is any argument at all. And I do think I need to follow-up on that at
all. I think that we are looking forward and hoping to see all of the
freedoms restored and then we do not have to worry.
Reporter: While you were in Armenia, the government press office
publicized a couple of your remarks where you praised the leadership
of Prime Minister Sargsian. Certainly Mr. Sargsian had sounded open to
dialogue both before and after the March 1 events, although with the
caveat that people with whom he engages in dialogue recognize his
election victory. In your own words, what is your assessment of the
now president-elect Sargsian and his role in this crisis?
Bryza: Prime Minister Sargsian is preparing for his inauguration and
to make sure that he gets off on the right foot he seems to believe
that it is important to restore media freedoms and freedom of assembly
that were restricted under the state of emergency. And if he thought
differently, he would not be involved in lifting those restrictions —
so that is positive and a very good sign.
I have found Mr. Sargsian to be a constructive partner
diplomatically and in security matters who has a clear vision of where
he wants Armenia to evolve, in terms of having complementary relations
both with Russia and the Euro-Atlantic community. [Mr. Sargsian has
been] open-minded in terms of listening and analyzing and synthesizing
ideas and trying to come up with a way forward that is in a mutual
benefit of both of our countries. And that is all really good.
In terms of the events that just transpired — all I can say is that
they were a tragedy for all of the Armenian people and the important
thing is to make sure that these tragic events do not end up slowing
down the evolution of the Armenian democracy and do not end up somehow
undercutting shared values that are at the core of the U.S.-Armenian
relationship.
Again, the momentum is being restored and we will see where things
go from here.
Reporter: There seems to be a fine line that the government needs to
follow in terms of its pledge to prosecute people behind the violent
postelection unrest in Yerevan and working toward reconciliation. What
is your sense on how such a balance can be struck?
Bryza: In general, what we would like to see is restoration of the
confidence of all of the Armenian voters in their government, as well
as the restoration of the positive progress in U.S.-Armenia relations.
Of course it is very important that all those who committed violence
unlawfully, whether they are in opposition or in the government, be
prosecuted. Anybody who violated the election laws, either in the
campaign period, or the voting, or the tabulation of votes also should
be investigated and prosecuted.
It is important that journalists have the right to speak freely, but
also it is important that the journalists maintain professional and
ethical standards. A cooperative evolution needs to take place between
journalists and the government, as well as opposition leaders, to make
sure they focus on things that really matter to Armenia, which is
building democratic institutions.
Peaceful and lawful demonstrations are an important part of any
democracy. But again, I stress, peaceful and lawful, so there is
mutual responsibility.
That said, in our Euro-Atlantic world, whether it is fair or unfair
— it is just the way our culture is structured both Europe and U.S.
— when serious violence ensues between the government and the
population, we often blame the government first.
In Washington, D.C., for example, if there is a clash between the
protestors and the police, the police are going to be blamed for
brutality even if they were provoked. And that is what happened in
Armenia as well. Perhaps some in Armenia may think this is unfair, but
that is just a reality that the governments are seen bearing primary
responsibility when violence ensues.
Reporter: When you met with ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian, what
was your message to him? In your assessment, is he ready for a
constructive dialogue to help bring the country back to normalcy?
Bryza: I hope so. I would rather not divulge the specifics of the
private discussions that I had, but when you talk to Mr.
Ter-Petrossian you hear a very calm and seemingly a very reasonable
approach. I can only say that [I hope that] as he exercises his
democratic rights of the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, he
would do so in a way that strengthens Armenia’s democratic
institutions.
I have no way to predict in which way he is going to behave. I can
just express my hope.
Reporter: It has been two weeks since the Constitutional Court
turned down Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s challenge, letting the election
results stand. The state of emergency has also now been lifted.
How is the decision taken for President Bush to send a letter to the
president-elect, in this case Mr. Sargsian, and when? Are the
elections over, as far as you are concerned?
Bryza: It is a decision that the President of the United States has
to make as to when he offers his recognition or congratulations to any
foreign leader on an election. I would presume that in a situation of
the state of emergency it is quite difficult for any U.S. president to
reach out and congratulate.
I hope that we are seeing today that Armenia is moving into a new
phase when freedoms are restored. And I presume that our president
will have a different set of facts in his mind as he considers when
and how to acknowledge and congratulate Prime Minister Sargsian on
this last election.
*************************************** ***********************************
7. From Armenia, in brief
* Victor Dallakian proposes ways to defuse the political tension in Armenia
Victor Dallakian, an independent member of Armenia’s National
Assembly, made proposals to help defuse the tense political situation
in Armenia following the clashes of March 1–2 in Yerevan. According
to Noyan Tapan, Mr. Dallakian suggested president-elect Serge Sargsian
grant amnesty to those who were "simply expressing their political
views," but did not participate directly in the violence.
He also proposed providing a frequency to the former television
channel A1+, which was highly critical of the government, and granting
the opposition access to public television. He advocated the creation
of a new political council, headed by the president, where both the
parliamentary opposition and those outside of parliament would be
represented.
Mr. Dallakian also proposed passing a law on creating a Public
Chamber and introducing amendments to the electoral code that would
require a 100 percent proportional system and ensure proportional
representation on electoral commissions.
Another important recommendation was holding elections for the post
of regional governors (marzbeds), which are currently appointed by the
president, and on transforming Armenia into a parliamentary republic,
"whose government would be formed on the basis of parliamentary
election results, and in which the parliament would elect the
president."
* The Armenian Revolutionary Federation joins the government
The Supreme Body of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) in a
statement issued on March 19, announced that it would be joining the
government. The ARF said it is willing to take part in a national
unity government and called upon the political opposition to use this
opportunity to ensure that comprehensive reforms in the country take
place.
The statement reads: "In this environment the country is faced with
the imperative of re-establishing its national and state objectives,
deepening the multifaceted democratic reform process, restoring order,
and creating a national consensus atmosphere. Strengthening and
rebuilding a beneficial environment for development, preventing a new
wave of mass exodus from the country, and eliminating investment risks
are the priorities of the day. The only way to emerge from this
situation is to leave behind all political and individual interests in
the name of the homeland and the realization of national and state
aspirations facing Armenians. The best possible solution is to create
a government of national unity by all political parties represented in
parliament."
According to the party, a national unity government must ensure the
total independence of the judicial system; elimination of impunity;
making all equal before law; formation of a new and independent
electoral system, which would instill confidence in the electorate;
determining as one of its priorities, the elimination of economic
monopolies that would be enshrined by law; freedom of speech and
expression; objectivity and transparency in the workings of Public TV;
guarantees to the opposition to work unfettered within all government
structures.
The ARF also recommended that to realize these reforms and inspire
confidence, a Public Council be formed in conjunction with the
president’s office comprised of respected individuals, nongovernmental
organizations, and nonparliamentary powers.
* Four leading powers in the National Assembly sign coalition agreement
The leaders of the Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), the Prosperous
Armenia Party (PAP), the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF), and
the Country of Laws Party (OEK) on March 21 signed a coalition
agreement, which president-elect Serge Sargsian called
"unprecedented."
At a briefing immediately following the signing ceremony, Mr.
Sargsian stated, "We needed political support for making these
reforms. For this reason we united our efforts and signed this
agreement."
According to Arminfo, the representative of the ARF Supreme Body,
Armen Rustamian, stated that the agreement was not about the
distribution of ministerial portfolios but a document about political
accord. "Today, the most important task is the reduction of tension in
the country," he said.
Artur Baghdasarian, the leader of OEK, reiterated that the political
forces included in the coalition agreement had gained the majority of
votes and "confidence in society." Mr. Baghdasarian also stated that
the members of the coalition agreement will shoulder the political
responsibility for the activity of the authorities, adding that in his
opinion Armenia will once again find its rightful place in the list of
stable, developing countries.
The Prosperous Armenia leader, Gagik Tsaroukian, said he believed
that in order to justify the expectations of Armenians and ensure
prosperity it was necessary for these forces to unite.
* Ministry of Diaspora Affairs?
In a question-and-answer session in the National Assembly on March 19,
Prime Minister Serge Sargsian confirmed that a ministry for diaspora
affairs would be created as part of the new government to be formed
shortly.
* PACE Monitoring Committee expresses concern about arrests in Armenia
At a meeting in Paris on March 18, the Monitoring Committee of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) expressed its
"deep concern about the arrest of more than one hundred persons in
Armenia and the conditions in which such arrests took place, following
the events of March 1 during which eight people died and some two
hundred persons were injured."
The arrests of opposition leaders and three members of parliament
are viewed as a crackdown on the opposition and according to the
Committee will not help to ease tensions in the country. They
recommend that authorities and the opposition commit themselves to a
genuine dialogue and refrain from actions that would only further
instigate tensions.
John Prescott, the Monitoring Committee special envoy to the region,
was on a fact-finding mission to Yerevan on March 7 and 8 and made the
following proposals:
* the recognition by all of the authority of the Constitutional Court
and its ruling on the outcome of the Presidential elections;
* the lifting of the state of emergency and the restoring of
individual human rights and freedoms;
* the release of all jailed activists who have not committed violent crimes;
* the establishment of an independent inquiry into the circumstances
that led to the events on 1 March 2008 and the monitoring of the
on-going investigation process;
* the initiation of a dialogue between all political forces, in the
following areas:
= reform of the electoral framework with a view to regaining public
trust in the conduct and outcome of elections;
= reform of the political system with a view to providing a proper
place for the opposition in the decision-making process and governance
of the country;
= media reform, especially aimed at the creation of a truly
independent public broadcaster.
The Monitoring Committee also expressed its willingness to organize
a series of round tables under the aegis of PACE between all political
forces in Armenia.
**************************************** **********************************
8. Shavarsh Kocharian: Armenia must be a strong and stable democracy
by Shavarsh Kocharian
YEREVAN — During the recent presidential elections and even before
the 2007 parliamentary elections, Armenia was and is at a crossroads.
We say that Armenia is a country in transition, but it is important to
first find out where we are in transit to and secondly where we stand
right now.
There are two fundamental issues: we are not an authoritarian
country like Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, but at the same time we are
not a democratic country, if we compare ourselves with the Baltic
countries of the former USSR. We are caught in between.
We must ask ourselves, where do we want to go and secondly, what
kind of stability are we hoping to achieve because it is possible to
have a stable country which is a dictatorship. That would be
destructive for Armenia. It is also possible to move toward democracy
and have democratic stability.
The first question of where do we want to go was emphasized and
brought to the forefront after all this turmoil and the tragic deaths
of March 1. If we know where we want to go, how are we going to get
there?
In order to quell the radical opposition, the authorities can take
harsh measures. These measures may solve the immediate issue, but it
does not solve the larger issue. Rather than fading away, the mass of
discontented people may increase. And so, even as the state ensures
that there will be no lootings, street disorder, and the like, it must
also be seen to be defending the rights of the people. The strength of
a state lies not in it ability to exert pressure, but in its ability
to defend the rights of its people. A state is strong when every
single person sees that instead of being a threat, the state is his or
her protector; the police officer is his or her defender; the courts
are not a disaster, but a body where one can go to assert one’s
rights.
If Armenia does not choose the path of democracy, we will lose on
many fronts, including the issue of security for our people in this
region. There is a discussion taking place among some political
scientists about the role of the United States in the events that led
to political tensions and clashes in Armenia. Let there be no
misunderstanding: the main reasons for what happened came from within
the country. There are honest people who want changes. Let us not
forget this. The fact that those aspirations can be manipulated is
another issue.
* Weakening Armenia?
If we compare the stance of the United States regarding the February
19 election in Armenia to its stance regarding the January 5 election
in Georgia, we will see they are poles apart.
I think that the solution of two issues is very important for the
United States: First, the settlement of the Artsakh issue, and second,
the establishment and improvement of Armenia-Turkey relations. The
present state of relations and the bills for the recognition of the
Genocide are a constant headache for the White House — they cannot
even send an Ambassador to Armenia. During each election in the United
States, the candidates have to take into account the existence of the
small, but at the same time organized Armenian-American community.
Sometimes the votes of the Armenian community can be decisive. And so,
it is necessary to settle the Armenian issues one way or another.
But how? In a way that favors one side, the stronger side? Or
through compromises on both sides? One way to solve the issue is to
make one side decisively weaker.
Azerbaijan is an established dictatorship, and it is difficult to
destabilize through mass rallies and the like.
In Armenia’s case, the comeback of the former president made it
possible to think of solving the issue in favor of the Azerbaijani
side. Azerbaijani society is polarized around two approaches. The
first approach is to solve the issue militarily today, and the other
one, which is the official approach of Baku, is to solve the issue
militarily tomorrow. "We are going to do it, but let us take some time
to become stronger, so we can guarantee resolving the issue by force
and during that time let the Armenians come to their senses and
capitulate," they say. The Azerbaijani side is so rigid that the
negotiations have come to a standstill.
Armenia has been inclined toward compromises, as long as Karabakh’s
independent status is preserved and it does not become an enclave.
There is the matter of security guarantees.
Now, after Levon Ter-Petrossian returned, it became clear that there
is also another approach. That approach is more yielding. The votes
that Mr. Ter-Petrossian received can be perceived not just as votes in
opposition to Serge Sargsian but also as votes in favor of ceding more
in Karabakh. This is an opening that can be exploited by whoever
chooses to do so.
The second factor is that internal instability weakens the state and
creates greater opportunities for external pressure. It is not a
coincidence that the Azerbaijanis even tried an audacious maneuver on
March 4, at the Line of Contact in Martakert. They may well continue
such attempts. Moreover, at that time, the Azerbaijani Yeni Musavat
party’s newspaper printed a fabricated article, according to which
there was a Kurdish PKK base in Nagorno-Karabakh. There was a response
to that article in Turkey and it was said that a joint military force
was being formed to discuss and find ways to destroy the base. In
other words, a scenario was being written to justify possible
aggression by Turkey and Azerbaijan against Armenians. Allegedly, it
has nothing to do with the Artsakh issue and it is aimed at destroying
the terrorists.
And so, it is understandable that there is a strategy: if Armenia is
weak then the issue must be solved in favor of the stronger side.
We have to come out of this situation and prove that we are not weak
and we can defend our own interests.
The democratization process in Armenia is necessary for both our
internal and external interests. We have to become the strong side. No
one should think that we are the weak side. That is how we must prove
our strength. Azerbaijan’s dollar-arrogance from its oil will not last
very long. By 2012–13, when the flow of oil decreases, the situation
there is going to become unbearable. From that point of view the
recent events in Armenia were, of course, very painful, as they once
again forced us to prove that we are able to overcome external
pressures. If we are capable of doing this, united, without panic,
without placing the blame on this or that external power, looking for
and resolving the basis of the problems internally, understanding the
rules of international politics and the position of other states, in
other words, more cleverly, we will have laid the basis for changing
the course of this unfavorable process to a more favorable one.
* * *
This commentary was adapted from an interview conducted by the
Armenian Reporter’s Armen Hakobyan.
* * *
8a. Shavarsh Kocharian
Shavarsh Kocharian was a member of Armenia’s parliament from 1990
through 2007. The leader of the National Democratic Party, he was
active in the Karabakh Movement. In 1990 he was elected to Armenia’s
Supreme Soviet, where he served as deputy chair of the Standing
Committee on Foreign Relations. He was elected to the National
Assembly in 1995, through the proportional list of Vazgen Manukian’s
National Democratic Union Party. He continued to serve on the Standing
Committee on Foreign Relations. He was reelected in 1999 and served as
the chair of the Standing Committee on Science, Education, Culture,
and Youth Affairs. In 2003 he was reelected to the National Assembly
through the proportional list of the Justice Alliance; he served on
the Standing Committee on Social, Health Care, and Environmental
Protection Affairs. In the 2007 parliamentary election, his party
failed to cross the 5 percent threshold. He supported Vazgen
Manukian’s presidential candidacy in the February 2008 election.
*************************************** ***********************************
9. Paruir Hairikian: Serge Sargsian has the majority’s support, but he
must address legitimate grievances
In an interview that appeared in the December 15, 2007 edition of the
Armenian Reporter, Paruir Hairikian, president of the National
Self-Determination Union, had spoken about the presidential elections
and his efforts to bring together opposition political parties around
a single presidential candidate. Asked whether the election would be
followed by confrontations, he had noted that candidate Levon
Ter-Petrossian and his supporters were "making provocative
declarations." He expected a repeat of the postelection confrontations
of 1996: "Of course I am not too happy about that, but everything can
be expected from people with an oligarchic mentality," he had said in
reference to Mr. Ter-Petrossian. What follows is a second interview,
conducted by the Armenian Reporter’s Armen Hakobyan after the bloody
confrontation of March 1–2.
Armenian Reporter: Was the scale of the developments that we
witnessed on the first two days of March what you anticipated when you
said "everything can be expected" — developments that some believe
were mainly connected with the Levon Ter-Petrossian phenomenon?
Paruir Hairikian: Right now I would not like to put the emphasis on
Levon Ter-Petrossian. I cannot call him the phenomenon, because
society’s discontent and the demand for progress is the phenomenon.
Levon Ter-Petrossian, who is not a phenomenon from my point of view,
became the focal point.
Were such developments to be expected or not? In terms of deaths,
no. We extend our condolences to the relatives of those who died and
we will continue to mourn the deaths of those innocent people and, in
general, the whole incident, for many years to come.
Until March 1, I considered the situation to be more than just good,
in fact, very good, for two reasons: I respected the restraint of the
authorities and the ability of the demonstrators to resist
provocation.
But on March 1, something happened that disrupted the whole process.
Concerning the prediction that I made during our previous meeting that
"everything can be expected from people with an oligarchic mentality,"
I meant that there were two dangerous tendencies. The first is
ignorance. In other words, people do not want to accept that nowadays,
the post of president is not an important post in Armenia. After the
constitutional amendments, those who wanted to participate in
political processes should have taken part in the 2007 parliamentary
elections in earnest, as the number of votes could have ensured
political clout.
During the past few days I have met with many ambassadors, the
majority of whom have directly asked why Levon Ter-Petrossian did not
participate in the parliamentary elections. The diplomats of foreign
countries comprehended the importance of this while, not only Levon
Ter-Petrossian, but also the rest of our political leaders refused to
accept and understand what is written in the Constitution; that the
president is simply the "Queen of England." Only after I used this
term did Robert Kocharian repeat it. He said that if Serge Sargsian,
the representative of the majority party in the National Assembly, is
not elected, then whoever is elected will find himself in the position
of the Queen of England. In a critical situation the Queen of England
can play a major role, but under our present Constitution, Armenia’s
president, under nonemergency conditions, plays almost no role.
AR: You said there were two dangerous tendencies.
PH: The second dangerous tendency was that these people did not have
a broad national goal, an ideological goal. If during the
parliamentary elections Serge Sargsian had already secured official
leverage and had formed alliances, then others were tempted with the
probability that some might "turn to them." During our meetings, which
were aimed at making Armenia the most democratic country, I noticed
that they were only interested in the aftermath: with a "first let us
get hold of the position, and then we will see how ‘they’ will turn to
us" ploy. ["They" refers to members of the majority party in
parliament, who might have allied themselves with a president of
another party, if the election brought such a candidate to power.] Not
a single self-respecting person in the world has ever relied on a
traitor; they have got the job done with their own people. In other
words, generally speaking, everything could have been expected from
those who were fighting for positions….
As for Raffi Hovannisian, what did he do? After speaking against
Levon Ter-Petrossian his whole political life, condemning and
reproaching him, moreover, after being rejected by Ter-Petrossian,
Raffi Hovannisian went and nestled under Levon Ter-Petrossian’s sword.
AR: Do you agree with the point of view that Ter-Petrossian was
resolutely aiming at confrontation and a clash?
PH: I know that there is such a viewpoint…. Was he aiming for
confrontation? Well, that is Levon Ter-Petrossian’s style, which comes
from the past. I have been against that style and I have opposed him
because of that. And so, I would not like to talk about that.
On the other hand, Levon Ter-Petrossian has the bitter experience of
what forced him to resign. He has lied, continues to lie, and will lie
again that in 1998 he resigned because of the Artsakh issue. There
have always been disagreements on the Artsakh issue, but that is not
the reason he resigned. He resigned because he was not recognized as a
legitimate president by the international community [because of
questions about the 1996 presidential election]. In other words, he
knows how he exited and he is trying to do the same thing to his
present-day rival who is his student and comrade-in-arms of yesterday.
AR: What happened on March 1? A democratic revolt? An attempt to
take over power by force? An ongoing revolution?
PH: History shows that Armenians can have outbursts, but they are
not a revolutionary nation. We are not a nation inclined toward
internal revolutions. I cannot say if that is a good thing or not. I
am not even talking about the fact that I am not a revolutionary. I do
not accept revolutions. In 1993 when, several hundreds of thousands of
discontented people gathered around me against Levon Ter-Petrossian
and I was the one who had to decide whether or not to attack, I did
not let that happen in order to avoid creating the precedent of such a
negative incident. Later, of course, negative and fruitless precedents
were created. I am against revolutions, because not a single
revolution has given society more good than bad.
Making radical changes through politics is a different thing. But
the Bolshevik definition of the word revolution is unacceptable to me;
it is an evil. It is well known that a large number of people were in
jail in the Bastille when they demolished it and afterward about
80,000 people were beheaded. What is positive in that revolution?
There is an army of disgruntled people in Armenia. I must add that
the same army exists in every nation. On the one hand the discontent
of people filled with anger is justified, while on the other hand they
are simply discontented and expect better things, and that is the
prerequisite of progress. Levon Ter-Petrossian managed to consolidate
the main mass of the discontented people. With these results he could
consider himself a victorious figure, as he entered the field with 1.5
percent and received more than 20 percent (even though all of those
votes were not his alone; Stepan Demirchian, Raffi Hovannisian, Aram
Karapetian, and others joined him, bringing with them some percentage
of votes). It turned out that Levon Ter-Petrossian moved from the
fifth position to the second position, which in itself is a big
achievement and every political figure, particularly after being
invited to join the dialogue, would have taken advantage of that. In
other words, he should have acted the same way Karen Demirchian did in
1998. In 1998 he lost the presidential election but did not protest,
and within a few months he joined that team and became the speaker of
the National Assembly and gained leverage.
Karen Demirchian is not my role model. But Levon Ter-Petrossian
chose not to take that path. He, for some unknown reason, needed to
take the fast track. But at the same time, he knew that only a small
portion of those screaming "Levon" were truly his supporters. In
essence, those gathered were a group of people discontent with events
that had taken place during Robert Kocharian’s rule. They are always
there and will remain there. But we should also notice that Levon
Ter-Petrossian managed to use those people as his main prop.
AR: Do you think the clashes will continue?
PH: Naturally, every single Armenian, not just those who wield
authority, but every single person with a moral political reputation
must with unbiased and true words help to improve the situation.
In any established state, the heads of the National Security
Services and the police would have been dismissed for the simple fact
that there are so many illegal weapons in circulation. Please
understand me correctly. The relations between the head of the police,
Haik Haroutounian, and myself have been good since our defense of the
Lachin corridor, but I am speaking the truth.
I am not expecting any tension in upcoming developments. I know that
Robert Kocharian is still the president, but he has to leave the arena
in a few days. I know that Serge Sargsian’s team has received moral
political supremacy because, if there were people who doubted that he
had received 52 percent of votes, then currently, after Artur
Baghdasarian joined him, the question of today’s authorities not being
representative of the majority of society is no longer on the agenda;
even more so, after the ARF joins them. So it turns out that there is
an authority that represents the majority of society.
The issue is not whether I am content or discontent about that. I
have clearly stated my opinion of the Republican Party in my book,
Beneath the Vodka Bottle. I am simply stating that they have solved
the moral political supremacy issue. It is a completely different
matter that even if you have 90 percent popularity, the smallest
electoral violation remains a violation. The violators must bear
responsibility.
AR: Thank you.
* * *
9a. Paruir Hairikian
Mr. Hairikian, a Soviet-era dissident, established the National
Self-Determination Union and was the main challenger to Levon
Ter-Petrossian in the 1991 presidential election. NSDU was one of two
opposition parties to win parliamentary seats in the 1995 elections.
The party came fifth in the 1998 election with 5 percent of the vote.
Also in 1998 Mr. Hairikian worked briefly as human rights ombudsperson
under President Kocharian, before resigning. The party did not
participate in the 2007 race.
******************************************* *******************************
10. "We must have a real democracy"
* Young university students express themselves
by Betty Panossian-Ter Sarkissian
YEREVAN – In Armenia, the question too often is not what people can or
are willing to do for their country to make it a better place, a place
where they would want to spend the rest of their lives, but rather, it
is what the government should do for them.
How can problems in the country be resolved? What can the youth,
mainly university students, do?
On March 19, one day before the end of the 20-day state of emergency
in Yerevan, the Armenian Reporter approached several students in
Yerevan to find out what they think about recent events and their
hopes for the future.
"I do not care who rules this country," said 19-year-old Zohrab
Tomasyan, a second-year engineering student. "What I’m concerned about
is seeing someone who takes care of the needs of the students and the
youth." Not that he was complaining about anything, he was quick to
add.
Edgar Matevosyan, an 18-year-old marketing student, was one of the
many young people saying that they could do nothing to improve things
in Armenia. "What can we do? We are too young and few in number," he
said. Another student, who wished to disclose neither his name nor his
major, saying that his talking with the Reporter might cause him
headaches, said, "We have to study hard, do our jobs, and things will
be better on their own. Only a strong and clever ruler, president, can
make things better for our country."
"The future of our country will be even calmer. Events like those of
March 1 will never be repeated. Everything will flow in its natural
course," said 18-year-old Bagour Bablumian, another second-year
student at the Yerevan State University Engineering School. "Things
are good for our country and they will be even better in the near
future," he said. A classmate chimed in, "We are witnessing ongoing
massive construction," but refused to disclose his name.
"Things will be better for our country if Levon Ter-Petrossian is
elected as president of Armenia. In fact, he already has been
elected," said Nelly Ghonakhjyan, a 17-year-old first year journalism
student, referring to Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s unsupported claim that he
won not a fifth but almost two-thirds of the vote on February 19. "It
is just the people have to persist in the same way they were
expressing their wish for a better future. We will not cease. We will
continue to fight until we get what we want," The things that they
want according to Nelly is "justice and absence of corruption" in the
country. "I am convinced that if Levon Ter-Petrossian was our
president, the corruption will end, we will not see beggars in the
streets, and we will find real students in the universities, not some
thick-headed people who ‘buy’ their diplomas," she said.
Her friend, who preferred to remain anonymous, added: "I am
convinced that as soon as the state of emergency ends, we will
continue our protests and meetings. Everything was calm at those
meetings," she said. "I just want to add that that was not the way to
treat the people in the square. We feel ourselves ashamed in front of
the whole world. And if Levon Ter-Petrossian comes to the presidency,
everything will be better for our country."
"If we want our country to be a better place, we must have a real
democracy. Only then will the people put an end to this apathy," said
Zeena Mamoulian, a second-year chemistry student. "The worst thing is
that currently the people have to choose between the bad and the
worse. However, they still do not think they, as youth, have enough
power to make changes in the country." Her friend, Varduhi Sargsyan,
who studies management at the Polytechnic State Institute in Yerevan,
added: "It is pointless, no one seriously considers what the youth
wants and has to say in our country."
********************************** ****************************************
11. EBRD partners with Cascade Bank to benefit small business
* "A sign of continued trust in Armenia’s economy"
YEREVAN — The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is
advancing $5 million to Cascade Bank to fund a program intended to
strengthen small and medium-sized enterprises in Armenia, the banks
announced on March 17. The EBRD investment will help Cascade Bank
expand its lending to small and medium businesses.
Michael Weinstein, head of EBRD’s Yerevan office, said small and
medium enterprises are "so important because it is here that jobs are
being created, living standards and being improved, and a middle class
is emerging."
"Giving funds at this time is a sign of EBRD’s continued trust in
Armenia’ economy and EBRD’s continuing commitment to provide support
where possible," Jonathan Stark, CEO of Cascade Capital Holdings, told
the Armenian Reporter. He noted that the line of credit "further
strengthens the Cascade financial group’s relationship with EBRD. It
will help Cascade Bank’s mission to offer innovative, affordable loans
to a broader client base and to act as a progressive force encouraging
investment in Armenia."
Mr. Stark noted that interest rates have been rising in Armenia. To
compete for deposits, banks have been offering higher interest rates
for savings and, by extension, charging higher rates for loans. The
lower-cost EBRD funds will help keep Cascade Bank’s rates competitive
and give stability to the small-and-medium-business market, Mr. Stark
said.
The bank is actively canvassing for borrowers.
Cascade Bank is 100-percent owned by Cascade Capital Holdings, which
in turn is owned by the U.S.–based Cafesjian Family Foundation, with
which this newspaper is affiliated. Cascade Capital Holdings’ other
operating units include Cascade Credit, Cascade Insurance, and Cascade
Investments.
–V.L.
******************** ************************************************** ****
12. Letters
* Let them enjoy their choice
Sir:
Armenia is to be considered a very rich country after the February 19
elections. Why? Because the country has ended not with one, not with
two, but with three Presidents (see "The three presidents of
modern-day Armenia," by Maria Titizian, Armenian Reporter, March 1).
While the rest of the world is concerned with rising prices,
unemployment and upcoming recessions due to oil prices and other
economic woes, part of the Armenian population seems to be extremely
well-off financially and with a lot of time to spare in
demonstrations, street clashes, and political arguments which have
absolutely no base or provide any logic to the outside observer.
So, with presidential elections having resulted in the election of a
new President of the Armenian Republic in the person of Serge
Sargsian, who received a clear majority of he vote, we have the
Republic’s first President Ter-Petrossian playing all sorts of dirty
games to spoil the orderly transition of the government from the old
to the new.
"Why is that?" I was asked by a well-known member of the European
Commission and a personal friend, the other day. I concocted some
(hopefully) profound explanation about "conflicts of interest,"
"converging waves of influence," and the usual thoughts — as I myself
cannot understand the real reasons for the deadly turmoil.
From where I sit, however, here in Brussels, Armenia’s current
Ter-Petrossian-inflicted problems are not being looked upon favorably
by the European Union members: neither by the European Commission nor
by European Parliamentarians of any political ilk. The Belgian
Commissioner, Louis Michel, last week answered Parliament’s requests
by giving Armenia EU assistance in the field of police and judiciary
cooperation. He confirmed that a third of the European cooperation
budget granted to Armenia is dedicated to reforming its judicial
system.
The skeptical reader certainly wishes to know the following: When
are Armenians in Armenia, generally considered an intelligent and
educated population and electorate, going to realize that playing
stupid games and falling into the trap set up for them by a
delusional, medieval literature professor who lives in the feudal
society of his readings and his imagination are futile and
non-productive? The man was a disaster when he was president of the
new country of Armenia, and has developed into a bellicose,
intellectually arrogant, and sadistic "political" leader serving
nobody’s interests but his very own.
The old adage states that people deserve the government and leaders
they choose. The Armenian voters have already decided. We in the
diaspora should ensure they get a chance to experience the results of
their choice, and condemn hallucinatory claims by an ex-politico who
should retire to the medieval castle of his mind and let go of his
ambitions and his followers.
If not, I am afraid the unsettled situation will affect Armenia’s
economic conditions in a terrible way, including a downturn in
tourists.
Then what will Armenians do about professor Ter-Petrossian?
Very truly yours,
Miran P. Sarkissian
Brussels, Belgium
* Armenia’s students need your helping hand
Sir:
During the season of Great Lent we try to teach our children to be
aware of the needs of others. We may particularly want to point out to
them the needs of the children of Armenia, who have suffered greatly
since the earthquake of 1988. As adults, we are aware how important
education is to these children who will be the future of their
country.
In order to help Armenia’s young students prosper in their
schoolwork, the Eastern Diocese’s Women’s Guild Central Council
started its "School Bag Project" in January of 1992. I’ve written
about it in prior editions of this paper, and your readers have been
supportive. The canvas school bags are filled with basic materials to
help students to do their best work: a notebook, notebook paper,
pencils, pens, eraser, pencil sharpener, ruler, scissors, composition
book, crayons, chalkboard and chalk, colored pencils, and construction
paper. We also include a book of Bible stories translated into Eastern
Armenian.
To date, 9,000 filled bags have been sent and distributed to
children in Yerevan, Stepanavan, Gyumri, Karabakh, and the Davoosh
section of Armenia. Your readers can support the project by sending in
a donation of $20 per bag; checks should be made payable to the
"Women’s Guild Central Council" and mailed to Yeretzgin Violet
Kasparian, 263 Ridge Street, New Milford, N.J. 07646.
These kind donations help put smiles on the faces of Armenia’s
children, who bless all the donors, and pray for their well-being.
Very truly yours,
Yn. Violet Kaparian
New Milford, N.J.
* Cheer for Arts & Culture
Sir:
I am compelled to write in praise of you Arts & Culture section of the
Armenian Reporter.
Armenian homes with teenage children will be blessed reading your
excellent articles about the personalities in our cultural life in
theatre, film, photography, poetry, acting, music, painting, etc. It
appears we are on the threshold of an inspiring cultural revival in
our diaspora. Congratulations to you and your gifted reporters.
Very truly yours,
Papken V. Janjigian
Newport, R.I.
* Two cheers
Sir:
I love the Armenian Reporter!
The writing is super, the presentation and layout attractive. The
magazine section is full of surprises and wonderful "finds": people
and places I would never have heard about otherwise.
There is an energy that is contagious, and best of all it comes
neatly packaged in a white envelope!
Bravo!
Very truly yours,
Loretta Nassar
Tenafly, N.J.
******************************************** ******************************
13. Commentary: Growing pains in a fledgling democracy, continued
by Sylvie Tertzakian
Recently, referring to the rhetoric of the Obama and Clinton
presidential campaigns, CNN’s Larry King used the word "wacky." One
wonders if that is the appropriate term to describe the recent events
in Yerevan.
My last article, which appeared on February 23, was written before
the results of Armenia’s presidential elections were out. Today, two
weeks later, I am writing while Yerevan is in a state of emergency.
Prime Minister Serge Sargsian won the elections with 53 percent, Levon
Ter-Petrossian received 21 percent of the vote. Not happy with the
outcome, the latter called the elections flawed, took to the streets
with his supporters to protest the "rigged elections," and demanded
new elections.
It was supposed to be a colored revolution in line with the ones in
Ukraine and Georgia. Instead, it turned into violence, looting, and
deaths in the streets of Yerevan.
Since Armenia’s independence in 1991, the diaspora has handled
Armenia with kid gloves. Money poured in from various organizations
and philanthropists to help the country transition from a communist
country to a modern one. The largest amount was donated by Kirk
Kerkorian to help improve the infrastructure of the country. One of
the projects was to resurface the pavements of the city’s center and
Liberty Square. The project changed the image of Yerevan to the tune
of a modern city, making it a joy to walk the streets in Yerevan’s
center. According to the news, the peaceful singing and dancing of the
protesters was stopped by police. The protesters reassembled, started
barricading themselves, clashed with the government forces. There was
looting. Eight Armenians died in the resurfaced center. The clashes
were reported in the international news. Wacky? Yes indeed.
Armenia will regress by a few years as a result of the latest
events. What was achieved by the collective effort of the locals and
the diasporans has already been damaged. One wonders if the genuine
effort by the diaspora to help Armenia make the giant leap from
communism to a modern country will continue at the same pace. Will the
Telethon of 2008 achieve the results of the one in 2007? Will these
protests shake the unwavering and unconditional support of the
diaspora?
Why would some Armenian émigrés and diasporans in L.A. demonstrate
in solidarity with the opposition in Armenia? In my last article, I
had mentioned that people in great numbers had left Armenia in the
early 1990s, due to the harsh prevailing conditions: Lack of
employment, water, heating, and electricity — and lack of
opportunity. Having left those conditions behind and having embraced a
comfortable lifestyle in L.A., what triggered them to join the
protests? And what about the others who have not lived in Armenia?
What has been their input for the reconstruction of the country? What
triggered their protests?
The outcome of the elections should have never resulted in these
tragic events. Here in the U.S., the Obama and the Clinton campaigns
have been neck to neck. Angry words have been exchanged and the
American people are anxiously waiting to find out who the presidential
nominee for the Democratic Party will be. Despite the heated rhetoric
by the two sides, both candidates have made it clear that no matter
who wins, the unity of the party and the people comes first. That is
rising to the plate in a civilized society.
That brings us to the question: does the violence in Yerevan point
to an uncivilized society? Why didn’t the candidates in Armenia hold
debates? Why did the opposition take to the streets? One answer might
be the fact that the country is undergoing growing pains on its path
to democracy. It’s time to grow up as a nation. The Genocide should
not be the only unifying factor for the nation. The country is in need
of well functioning schools, hospitals, infrastructure, employment,
safety net for the needy, etc. It’s time to forget political agendas
and join forces to build a viable economy that can compete in the
global economy. It’s time for the opposition to accept the outcome of
the elections, it’s time for the authorities to listen to the pulse of
the people, it’s time for everyone to work together to achieve all
these goals and secure Armenia’s borders.
If nothing else, the recent events tell us that we have to look to
the future, work together as one people with one purpose; national
unity and political/economic progress. We are justified to call the
recent events "wacky", but we should not allow it to be the leitmotif
of Armenia’s politics.
* * *
Sylvie Tertzakian is a community activist and formerly adjunct
professor at Chapman University in Orange, California.
************************************* *************************************
14. Living in Armenia: Yerevan Spring: a metaphor for instability
by Maria Titizian
The first day of spring is celebrated on March 1 in Armenia. It has
nothing to with the tilting of the axis of the earth toward the sun,
impacting the length of daylight as the hemisphere begins to warm. No,
it’s just an arbitrary date, like all things Soviet. Summer officially
begins on June 1, autumn on September 1, and winter is December 1. It
is an oversimplification of processes, both natural and cultural,
which probably began when Soviet authorities decided to change our
alphabet decades ago, allegedly to simplify the spelling.
Spring, however, has taken on a whole new meaning in Armenia these
days. Just as the Prague Spring is used today as a metaphor, denoting
a period of political liberalization in Czechoslovakia 40 years ago in
1968, that was followed by the invasion and occupation of the country
by the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries, the Yerevan Spring of
2008 will be remembered for its turbulent unrest.
A few days ago, while the sun was shining brilliantly, and flower
vendors were selling the first local blooms of spring, I had the sad
task of going to the wake of my friend’s mother. In Armenia there are
no funeral homes and the custom is to keep the deceased in the home
until the burial. The rituals surrounding funerals are always the
same. One room in the house is cleared of all furniture, the casket is
placed on a table in the center of the room. Flowers are placed,
candles burn, and the lamenting, soulful melody of a duduk can be
heard playing from another room. The mourners, mostly women, sit in
the room with the deceased on benches that are lined up along the
walls, while the men stand outside, their shoulders bent, eyes cast
downward, struggling with a sorrow they don’t know how to express.
Mourners file in, express their sympathies to the immediate family,
sit by the casket for an appropriate amount of time, and then leave.
While my husband stood in the hallway with the other men, I sat by
my friend’s side and held her hand. "My mother was a good woman. She
had five children and never once did we ever hear her complain about
anything. Yes, my mother was a good woman," Hasmig said, trying to
affirm the fact that her mother’s existence had meant something. It
certainly had to her children and bevy of grandchldren. Suddenly, I
realized that the events of March 1 that had rocked the country were
no longer a priority for this family who had to deal with a personal
tragedy of having lost a loved one.
However morbid it may sound, it was a relief not to have to think
about it – about the thousands of people protesting at Opera Square,
the clashes, the riot police, looting, death, the complete structural
meltdown of the country’s political system and the declaration of a
state of emergency. A funeral had served as a welcome diversion.
The political and social crisis in Armenia has taken over our lives.
It seems that’s all we talk about. It has been all-encompassing and
overwhelming. For days, immediately following the clashes, we went
about our business, but we all felt like there had been a death in the
family. I can no longer remember what we used to talk about before
March 1, or even before February 19. There was the usual list of
complaints that we were good at complaining about. But there was also
hope and belief and although not always clearly defined, a vision.
I no longer know whom to believe and what to believe. What I hear on
the news, I question. What I hear from friends and acquaintances, I
cannot verify. What I hear from people who participated in the
movement riddled by rumours and innuendo, I brush aside as rumours and
innuendo.
Everybody theorizes, postulates, makes assumptions based on their
own perspective of events and of the nation’s history. But there are
so many unanswered questions. How did we get here? Was it a necessary
evil on the road to democracy? Where do we go from this point forward.
Are there solutions to the very complex problems that this country
faces? How do we create a consensus when political discourse is at a
standstill? Will we ever be able to rebuild social cohesion? Was there
ever social cohesion in the country? I could fill up pages of blank
paper with questions to which I have no answers.
What I do know is that on the first day of spring in Armenia, the
country was almost knocked off its foundations. It was a political
earthquake, the aftershocks of which we will feel for years to come.
Different politicians and political forces are offering solutions,
but there’s no roadmap and most importantly I am not convinced that
there is the political will without which any fundamental structural
and institutional change is only a pipe dream. We can only hope that
the newly elected president of the country and his political team will
realize their vulnerability, that their legitimacy is hanging by a
thin thread and that they not only have to face the people who took
part in the movement, but the entire nation.
If we had a truly free and independent media, it would take a
leading role and honestly survey all the viewoints and present what
the collective thoughts were on what went wrong and how we could have
prevented this. The media needs to serve its purpose and serve our
democracy. It must be the voice of the people, all of the people and
not only one narrow power or interest group. Mass media needs to and
can bring all the issues together, put them on the table, examine all
the viewpoints, without passing judgement or editorializing and then
offer solutions. Presently there is no forum where the country is
talking to each other. We only have people in different corners, each
yelling louder than the other, with no one listening.
No one is explaining the motivation of the demonstrators, why they
were there and what they were searching for. Not all of them had
joined the movement because they believed Levon Ter-Petrossian was
their savior. They demanded something: what did they want? Why didn’t
the government hear them? The media was never objectively reporting
their concerns. The opposition media, instead of serving as a
counterbalance, only contributed to the lies and half-truths. We need
balanced journalists, free, unhindered reporting that searches for the
truth without governmental blockades. With the state of emergency
over, it’s time that all journalists and editors rose to the occasion.
Our government signs international agreements, accepts millions of
dollars in aid and programs directed at the creation of a civil
society, but they don’t listen to their own people. And then a man
goes into a square in the heart of the city and claims he has won 65
percent of the vote and people, who had forced him to resign a decade
earlier, rally around him. This same man, who when he re-entered the
political arena months ago, was not talking about February 19,
Election Day; he was preparing for the day after, and people followed
him. No one bothered to ask them why.
We need televisied dialogue, objective reporting, an independent
communications commission that doesn’t pull broadcast licences. Public
TV needs to be really public and not state-run. The protests and the
deaths will be in vain if nothing is learned.
Yerevan, Spring 2008.
******************************************* *******************************
15. Editorial: A time to rebuild confidence
The declared 20-day state of emergency in Armenia came to an end
yesterday without incident. There have been some changes in the
political landscape over the last three weeks. We review these changes
and ask what more needs to be done by various entities in Armenia, by
the United States government, and by Armenian-Americans in order to
move forward.
On March 8, Armenia’s Constitutional Court affirmed the outcome of
the February 19 presidential election. Its verdict is final and not
subject to appeal. Thus, all who speak of the rule of law must accept
President-elect Serge Sargsian’s mandate to govern.
Those who supported other candidates or questioned the election
process must now move on to what parties out of power do between
elections in all democracies: criticize policies with which they
disagree, propose alternatives, and organize for the next scheduled
elections (which are municipal elections later this year).
* * *
The focus of public attention has shifted from the election to the
assessment of responsibility for the deaths and mayhem of March 1 and
2. People across the political spectrum are asking valid questions
about how things came to this and about the use of lethal force by
police and security forces.
These questions must be addressed promptly and in a credible manner.
That’s the right thing to do, and there are lessons to be learned.
Moreover, if the questions are not answered credibly, this matter will
fester as a moral and political wound. The opposition will use it to
mobilize outrage and distrust toward the president, the security
forces, the prosecutors, the courts, and the rule of law in general.
The government may use it to suppress future peaceful protests.
In response to recommendations that an independent prosecutor be
appointed, President Kocharian said on March 20 that the prosecutor
general IS independent: he is chosen by parliament for a six-year term
and is not subject to being fired by the president. Mr. Kocharian
added that foreign forensic experts have been asked to join the
investigation.
The president was open, however, to fact-finding beyond the
law-enforcement role of the prosecutor general. And indeed, there may
be organizations and individuals inside and outside Armenia that bear
responsibility that’s political, not criminal.
The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, who last week
carried out a three-day investigation in Armenia, recommended
establishing a domestic commission of inquiry. He noted that in other
European countries, such commissions have heard "all involved actors
and affected victims" as well as nongovernmental organizations and
national human rights institutions. The process has "contributed to
healing and reconciliation and has ensured a thorough investigation."
This is a recommendation worth pursuing.
* * *
During the state of emergency, the National Assembly amended Armenia’s
very permissive law on public rallies. Organizers now require prior
permission for public gatherings, and permission can be denied if
law-enforcement officials determine that the demonstration could turn
violent or advocate violence. Similar restrictions are, of course, in
place in many U.S. cities and elsewhere in the world.
In the aftermath of March 1–2, it appears highly unlikely that any
political demonstrations will be sanctioned in the near future. The
political opposition thus has a choice: to seek the path of political
consultations and compromise, or to take to the streets illegally,
triggering new clashes. Some political actors have opted for
advocating the second route, in the long-held hope that street
protests will be massive and security forces will disobey orders to
disperse protesters, leading to a collapse of the government.
This threat to Armenia’s stability and national security has driven
responsible political leaders of all stripes to pursue the path of
political dialogue.
Mr. Sargsian’s effort to form a broad coalition has continued with
some success. Artur Baghdasarian, who came in third place in the
presidential election, agreed on February 29 to join the government
along with his Country of Laws Party. This week, the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation agreed to join a government of "national
reconciliation" on certain terms. This is a bold move for both
parties, which in the interests of stability and national security
risk losing their credibility as alternatives to Mr. Sargsian’s
Republican Party of Armenia. The Heritage Party, with 7 members of
parliament, remains the only opposition party in the National
Assembly.
There are also nonpartisan members of parliament who are part of the
opposition. Chief among them is Victor Dallakian of Vanadzor, who
successfully led parliamentary opposition to a move, late last year,
to take U.S.–funded Radio Liberty off Armenia’s public radio. Mr.
Dallakian this week proposed a number of steps that the government
could take to end what he sees as a political impasse. He deserves
praise for promoting constructive engagement.
* * *
Armenia’s friends — Armenian-Americans and members of Congress —
have worked very hard to build U.S.-Armenia relations over the years.
True, the Bush administration’s record on Armenia leaves a lot to be
desired. But the United States has been generous in its support, based
on shared values, shared interests, and Armenia’s performance. The
$235.6 million, five-year Millennium Challenge Contract is a good
example of that sort of support.
In response to the events of March 1–2 and the declaration of a
state of emergency, the U.S. government put pressure on the Armenian
government "to uphold the rule of law, lift the state of emergency,
and restore press freedoms." It threatened to suspend or terminate the
Millennium Challenge program and other aid.
In view of the Bush administration’s record, the Armenian government
must look carefully at advice from the United States to make sure it
is indeed rooted in mutual interests and values.
In an interview this week with the Armenian Reporter, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza acknowledged that "positive
steps have been taken" by the Armenian government and "there is no
need for us to take negative steps on our side."
Mr. Bryza also rightly acknowledged that the opposition shares
responsibility with the government for peaceful and lawful action.
The U.S. government needs to emphasize the latter point more
forcefully. Opposition forces in Armenia should not have the
impression that the United States encourages a transfer of power in
Armenia by unlawful means, or that it considers such a transfer of
power a step toward greater democracy.
* * *
Many Armenian-Americans have been following the developing situation
in Armenia closely. Information — some of it reliable, some of it
rumor and provocation — has been flowing among Armenians in Armenia,
the United States, and the rest of the world through a true worldwide
web.
Because of this worldwide conversation, the passion and the rancor
that have characterized recent politics in Armenia have gone well
beyond Armenia’s borders. As in Armenia, likewise in the diaspora,
this passion is real. It should not be dissipated, but harnessed to
constructive efforts on behalf of Armenia and Karabakh — the states
and the people.
As for the rancor, we cannot allow anything to undermine our abiding
commitment to nurturing the homeland and its people, and to
reinforcing our immense victories of the last two decades: statehood,
the liberation of Karabakh, stability in a democratic constitutional
order, and rapid economic growth, to name a few. We should build on
these victories, so that freedom, democracy, and the rule of law
become more deeply entrenched, prosperity is more evenly distributed,
and our homeland’s borders become ever more secure.
***************************************** **********************************
Please send your news to [email protected] and your letters to
[email protected]
(c) 2008 Armenian Reporter LLC. All Rights Reserved