A LOOK AT RAFFI HOVANNISIAN THROUGH U.S. EMBASSY CABLES
01:14 PM | TODAY | POLITICS
Armenia’s Hybrid Politician: A Look at Raffi Hovannisian through U.S.
Embassy Cables
The U.S. Embassy cables released by WikiLeaks provide invaluable
information and insight on how American diplomats assess the inner
workings of Armenia’s politics in general, and key players like Raffi
Hovannisian in particular. As embassy officials grappled to absorb the
day-to-day politics of the country, time and again they voiced their
agreement with Hovannisian’s assessment of the political landscape
in the country. They often judged him-the leader of the often sole
opposition faction in parliament-to be a politician of a different
breed, the exception among the “traditional” opposition politicians.
However, they generally frowned upon his foreign policy views, which
they attributed to his diaspora background.
Amb. Marie Yovanovitch visits Hovannisian in Freedom Sq., two weeks
into the latter’s hunger strike in March 2011.
Hovannisian is a product of the West, in that his democratic
reform-oriented politics aspire to create an Armenia governed by the
rule of law, divorced from a “Russia-centered” foreign policy. The
cables reveal that Hovannisian repeatedly urged U.S. diplomats to
balance their geopolitical objectives with support for democratic
reforms. And so in 2005, Hovannisian joined forces with two other
opposition figures-Aram Sargsyan and Hovhannes Hovhannisian-to
create a “Western-leaning” union that would replace President Robert
Kocharian’s government. Then-U.S. Ambassador John Evans informed
Washington of these developments, under the subhead, “Three (Somewhat)
Big Fish Join Forces.” Evans wrote that the alliance could be “viable”
if managed right, though he doubted that it could pose a real threat
to Kocharian’s regime. Evans added, “Given Raffi Hovannisian’s track
record of joining and then departing coalitions,” it was yet to be
seen if he would be the “poster child” of the new alliance. Perhaps
it was this move of Hovannisian’s that raised suspicions among
some-including members of the ruling Republican Party-that Hovannisian
could be an agent of the West. In one cable, U.S. Charge d’Affaires
Joseph Pennington wrote that a member of the Republican Party’s top
executive council Samvel Nikoyan “shared his (completely mistaken)
belief that Heritage Party leader and former AmCit [American citizen]
Raffi Hovhannissian takes political instructions from the U.S.
Government.” Less than a year later, Evans wrote of a “weakened” and
“demoralized” opposition.
Harassment and blacklisting
Hovannisian has had a difficult task at hand, struggling to make
his torch visible in a political environment that muffles voices of
dissent. In 2006, Heritage Party officials notified the U.S. Embassy
that the party was being subjected to harassment. In a confidential
cable dated Aug. 8, 2006, Evans said his office did not rule out that
President Kocharian was behind the attacks on opposition parties.
Heritage Party members alleged the harassment began after Hovannisian
publicly and harshly criticized Kocharian at a rally in November 2005.
Referring to a letter Hovannisian had addressed to Kocharian,
which included 21 “pointed” questions, Evans wrote, “Hovannisian was
emboldened in his perceived mandate after he learned that, according
to the results of a May 2006 Gallup poll…he was the most popular
Armenian politician, with an approval rating of 74 percent.”
In a separate cable, Evans relayed how, according to media
representatives, the president’s office had circulated a blacklist of
politicians-including Hovannisian-who could not appear on television
shows. U.S. Charge d’Affaires Anthony Godfrey confirmed the claim in
a subsequent cable, and raised concerns about the fairness of the
upcoming 2007 parliamentary elections. By March 2007, ahead of the
said elections, the situation had improved, according to Godfrey,
and opposition figures like Hovannisian had begun to appear on TV
in interviews.
The 2007 elections
Once again, Raffi Hovannisian was enjoying “high favorability
ratings” in U.S. funded polls, wrote Godfrey on May 4, 2007, in a
cable discussing the upcoming May 12 parliamentary elections. Godfrey
however, doubted Hovannisian’s electability. “[He] may be seen as too
much of a ‘nice guy’ for Armenian voters to believe he could succeed
in the shark-filled political waters,” wrote Godfrey, adding, “[He]
also has practically no organizational base or natural constituency,
although his American-style campaign methods look as professional as
any in the race.” In a separate cable, Godfrey highlightedinstances
of intimidation employed by the authorities to scare off potential
Hovannisian supporters, as witnessed by OSCE observers.
Despite having secured only six percent of the vote, and gaining seven
parliamentary seats, Rudolf V. Perina, the U.S. charge d’affaires ad
interim,believed Hovannisian’s campaign was a success. The title of
his cable said it all: “Survey Shows Heritage Party the Big Winner of
the May 12 Elections.” Perina was referring to a USAID-funded poll
that had determined that “Raffi Hovannisian and his Heritage party
gained the greatest increase in recognition and popularity following
the May 12 Armenian Parliamentary elections… No party came close
to achieving such an increase in both recognition and favorability,”
wrote Perina. “The poll revealed that at 29 percent, the Heritage
Party has the lowest unfavorability (negative opinion) rating in
the country.” What was more interesting, the poll found that in a
hypothetical presidential race that included then-Prime Minister Serge
Sarkisian and Hovannisian, the two would outpoll all other candidates.
Furthermore, the highest number of respondents-36 percent-said they
would vote for Hovannisian, compared to 30 percent for Sarkisian.
Perina thought Hovannisian’s pre-election campaign was “brilliant,”
that he was successful in converting his high favorability ratings
into ballots cast, and that his party “proved itself,” meaning that
more voters would feel confident to support him in the future.
Setting himself apart
In a subsequent cable dated Aug. 24, 2007, Perina reported that
Hovannisian had changed his campaign tactics leading up to the Aug. 26
race in District 15 for a majoritarian parliamentary seat. Instead
of driving around in a colorful bus-U.S.-style-Hovannisian was now
campaigning door-to-door. “[He] has been seen speaking to farmers in
fields and helping women carry water from wells,” wrote Perina.
“Hovannisian is in the race to build on his and his party’s burgeoning
popularity and, in his own words, ‘to reclaim step-by-step, day-by-day,
those votes stolen from us.’ It will be interesting to see if the
Heritage Party chairman’s strategy of bringing his national following
to this small backwater of rural Armenia helps boost his presidential
aspirations.”
Perina attributed the “failures” of “traditional” opposition figures
in Armenia to their desire to “mobilize the elite.” The U.S. diplomat
saw one exception: “There seems to be only one politician in Armenia
who can grasp the importance of reaching out directly to the voters
themselves, and that is the American-born-and-bred Raffi Hovannisian,
who also seems to us the clear public-opinion winner of the May [2007
parliamentary] election.” Perina saw Hovannisian as former President
Levon Ter Petrosian’s “most credible rival” in leading the opposition.
“Hovannisian now seems the biggest ‘X’ factor in the presidential
race. If he is able to run, he might have a real shot,” Perina wrote.
However, as both Ter Petrosian and Kocharian had denied Hovannisian
Armenian citizenship, the latter only became a citizen in 2001,
after Kocharian yielded; as presidential candidates are required
to have been a citizen of Armenia for at least 10 years, this meant
Hovannisian could not run for the highest office until 2011.
Hovannisian was untraditional both in building a support base and
in his exchanges with foreign diplomats, traits that often set him
apart from his political rivals. Reporting on meetings between Deputy
Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza and
various opposition figures in August 2007, Perina dwelled on Bryza’s
exchange with Hovannisian. “In sharp contrast to most oppositionists
meeting U.S. officials, Hovannisian wanted to talk not just about party
politics, but also about a wide range of foreign policy issues. He
highlighted Turkey…and commented that the most important ingredient
to success in negotiations with either Turkey or Azerbaijan would be
to have a president and a government with unquestionable democratic
legitimacy, which he felt no Armenian government has had since the
early years of President Levon Ter Petrosian. He felt that Armenian
leaders with real popular legitimacy would have much greater standing
to negotiate tough issues, including staking out a more independent
position from Russia. Hovannisian thought Armenia should naturally
align with the Euro-Atlantic community, and break the ‘vertical power’
of the Russia-Armenia relationship. He felt that Russia had already
been given far too many Armenian assets, and that this would be a
burden on future governments for years to come.”
Raffi ‘unhelpful’
Not all of Hovannisian’s political maneuvers were perceived favorably
by U.S. diplomats. In fact, often-or as often as he discussed foreign
policy-his approach was deemed to counter U.S. or western-supported
objectives. For instance, Hovannisian introduced a bill in parliament
calling for the recognition of Nagorno-Karabagh. “The move has
little chance of being enacted or signed by the president, but makes
for clever politics. The populist ploy will put the government and
ruling party in the position of having to block an initiative that
would be very popular among average Armenians, if enacted,” wrote
Perina, adding, “Of course, the move is extremely unhelpful from
the perspective of Minsk Group negotiations and efforts to resolve
the conflict.”
When Turkey and Russia upped their attempts to broker peace between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, then-U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch sent
a cable, dated Nov. 17, 2008, with an overview of official and public
perceptions in Armenia. In it, she spotlighted Hovannisian’s position:
“[He] highlighted ‘genocide’ recognition as a high priority, and
hinted at a view we have detected elsewhere that Armenia should make
no decisive moves on Turkey or NK until the next U.S. Administration
takes office.” Hovannisian along with many others hoped that the Obama
Administration would “open a new century” in U.S.-Armenia relations,
beginning with recognition of the Armenian Genocide to a change in
the U.S. position on Nagorno-Karabagh. Yovanovitch characterized that
approach as “worrying,” because she believed it could thwart “major
progress toward transforming the regional reality for the better.”
Dinner and a personality profile
In May 2009, Raffi Hovannisian accepted Yovanovitch’s invitation to
dinner. The ambassador was as much interested in Hovannisian’s views
on the recent election for Yerevan mayor as she was on his thoughts
on Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. The dinner produced two detailed
accounts of Hovannisian’s politics, one on his take on domestic
politics, and another on his foreign policy. In the first, Yovanovitch
gave the following testimony on her impressions of Hovannisian: “An
Armenian-American emigre to Armenia who renounced his U.S. citizenship
in the 1990’s to position himself for a run at Armenia’s presidency,
Hovannisian is an aberration in the rough-and-tumble politics of
post-Soviet Armenia. While Armenian-born politicians run fast and
dirty, Hovannisian has remained faithful to his decades-long goal
of transforming Armenia’s deformed political culture. Barred from
running for president last year on an immigration technicality,
it is widely assumed that the authorities will never permit the
reformist Hovannisian a chance at the country’s top posts. One
gets the impression in speaking with him that Hovannisian realizes
his boat has sailed, and that he is now focused on grooming young,
reform-minded, local politicians to overturn the paradigm that has
bedeviled his ancestral homeland.”
Yovanovitch’s second cable focused on Hovannisian’s support of
rapprochement without preconditions, something all three presidential
administrations had advocated for since independence. However,
he said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s provocative
statements-especially regarding Karabagh-and his use of “emotive
vocabulary” were “fraying Armenia’s nerves.” He considered the
response from the Armenian side inadequate. He noted that the timing
of the roadmap to normalization-just before newly elected President
Obama’s April 24 address-was being met with suspicion and fear that the
Armenian government had sold out. Yovanovitch, in turn, stressed that
the present opportunity to normalize relations with Turkey was “truly
rare,” and that “trust on both sides, particularly between President
Sarkisian and PM Erdogan was critical, lest the opportunity be
lost.” According to the cable, “Hovannisian then griped that ‘a border
opening’ should not even be part of Turkish-Armenian negotiations to
normalize relations. He called the 1993 border closing by Turkey a
‘hostile act,’ and said that years after ‘Turkey unilaterally closed
its border with Armenia,’ it now seeks ‘additional chits’ to re-open
it. Hovannisian fumed that the current Turkish approach amounted to
‘puerile diplomacy.'”
In her concluding remarks summarizing her impressions on Hovannisian’s
foreign policy, Yovanovitch wrote, “The grandson of a ‘genocide’
survivor who was dismissed as foreign minister after issuing heated
remarks on an official visit to Turkey in the early 1990’s, Raffi
Hovannisian obviously has strong views on the way Armenia should
handle rapprochement with Turkey. The authorities have a long way
to go to prepare their public on rapprochement if they have yet to
convince a respected opinion maker like Hovannisian of the merits of
their approach. If properly informed and consulted, Hovannisian could
be a powerful advocate of rapprochement-if not, he could become yet
another opponent on a long and growing list.”
Hopeful and resolute
On June 18, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon met with Hovannisian. During the
meeting, Hovannisian criticized the elections for Yerevan mayor and
City Council as a “failed post-Soviet election” that revealed the
challenges ahead in the establishment of the rule of law, as well as
a transparent electoral system. He expressed his hopes that the ARF,
which had recently defected from the ruling coalition, would turn into
a real opposition party. “He expressed hope that the ARF-Dashnaktsutiun
Party, which recently broke with the governing coalition over its
reconciliation efforts with Turkey, will become a genuine opposition
party and will not focus just on the single issue of genocide
recognition. He hopes it will support rule of law and democratic
reform, which he claims to be at the heart of Heritage’s agenda,” wrote
Yovanovitch. Hovannisian spoke about the sophistication in election
fraud, about how there was essentially a one-party rule in the country,
as the Republican Party always ensured its candidates would have the
necessary votes to win by using administrative resources. He said
the Armenian authorities knew how to “play” Europe well-by hinting
at reforms just before the quarterly meetings of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), but rarely coming through.
Gordon also became familiar with Hovannisian’s views on Turkey. He
“insisted” that Turkey come to terms with its past, as real
normalization would not be possible without Turkey acknowledging the
genocide. He rejected the notion of a historical commission that would
place the genocide at its center. He also argued that recognition
of Nagorno-Karabagh, like recognition of Kosovo or South Ossetia,
was a political act; and that, like the latter two, Karabagh should
enjoy it as well.
In her comments, Yovanovitch said Hovannisian’s positions are
“generally well-crafted” and “based on sound legal argument, even in
cases where they may not be politically viable.” As to his involvement
in politics, she believed that he is “unwilling to invest himself
fully in the political process at home at the risk of a major failure.”
Protocols tip the scale
About two months later, on Aug. 31, 2009, Yovanovitch was relaying
back to Washington news that the opposition-comprised of “the
ultra-nationalist” ARF, the Armenian National Congress (ANC), and
Heritage-had joined forces to oppose Sarkisian and his handling of
the Turkey-Armenia rapprochement negotiations. They were calling on
the president to pull out of the talks and “denounce alleged Armenian
concessions on N-K.” Yovanovitch conveyed that following the ARF’s
“raucous two-day conference” in Stepanakert, the other opposition
parties had quickly joined forces. She noted that “the loudest and
most strident criticism of Armenian policy on Turkey and N-K” was
coming from the ARF.
“Armenia’s failure to achieve real progress toward normalization and
a border opening with Turkey by the time of the Turkey-Armenia soccer
match in October would create a clear danger point for Sarkisian and
his government, though most of our interlocutors downplay scenarios
that could lead to the President’s removal,” warned Yovanovitch,
“Fortuitously for Sarkisian, personal rivalries and differing
perspectives among the three opposition groups will likely hinder
their ability to form and maintain a united front. The rising and
increasingly vocal criticism of the President’s foreign policies,
however, make significant, near-term concessions on N-K very unlikely,
and ensure that Sarkisian will stay away from the Turkey-Armenia soccer
match in October in the absence of visible progress toward a deal,”
she added, but reassured Washington that “the long-term agendas and
personal rivalries” among the opposition groups would pose a challenge
to their unified front against Sarkisian.
As for Raffi Hovannisian, Yovanovitch would attribute his stance
to his diaspora roots, faintly implying that the oddball politician
was a hybrid, the child of two different worlds, and that, in this
case, one side was dominating: “As a diaspora Armenian himself,
Hovannisian’s personal convictions on issues like Turkey and N-K are in
some respects similar to Dashnak views. But the Heritage agenda-which
lays heavy emphasis on political reform, rule of law, human rights,
and democratization-is significantly broader than the Dashnaks’,”
she wrote.
About a week later, Hovannisian resigned from the National Assembly,
leaving many, including Pennington, dumbfounded. Heritage leader
Armen Martirosiantold embassy officials that Hovannisian had said
his reasons were “personal and related to crucial national issues.”
Martirosian seemed as stunned as Pennington. “I know [Hovannisian’s
explanation] doesn’t mean much to you, and it doesn’t to me either,
but that’s what he told us,” he said, while Heritage Party Secretary
Stepan Safarian said, “Raffi is a combination of an Armenian and
American politician, so maybe you’ll [Pennington] understand him
better than I do.”
Some believed Hovannisian’s decision was linked to his disapproval of
the Armenia-Turkey rapprochement protocols. Others suspected he was
“saving” himself for the 2013 presidential elections. “Rectifying the
historic injustices committed against the Armenian population in early
20th century Turkey (what he refers to as ‘the great dispossession’)
has been Hovannisian’s cause celebre throughout his professional
career-as independent Armenia’s first Foreign Minister, as founder
and director of a prominent think tank, and then as political party
founder and aspirant for the Armenian presidency. A sharp critic
of the GOAM’s [government of Armenia] rapprochement policy that he
thought was selling out ‘the cause,’ it appears that Hovannisian
could not stomach the recently signed Turkish-Armenian protocols,”
wrote Pennington, adding, “A principled resignation to protest a
policy would make sense if one were a member of the ruling party. In
Hovannisian’s case, however, it isn’t yet clear what statement he
hopes to make in resigning from the sole-and miniscule-opposition
faction in Parliament. The idea that Hovannisian is ‘saving’ himself
for a presidential run seems farfetched. By opting out of one of the
most important debates in Armenia’s political history, it seems more
likely that Hovannisian is taking a step toward political irrelevance.”
“The reformist” Hovannisian reemergence
Hovannisian is in fact a hybrid politician. He is persistent in his
efforts to connect to voters, whether by driving to the countryside
in a brightly colored bus or by giving a helping hand to a potential
voter. All the while, he has continued to craft an image of himself
as “the people’s man.” Even his populist campaign slogan-“It is
possible!”-is reminiscent of U.S. President Barack Obama’s “Yes We
Can!” catchphrase, which was successful in capitalizing on the idea of
hope-a commodity many Armenian voters thirst for. U.S. diplomats have
recognized Hovannisian’s ability and will to appeal to and bond with
common folk, a strength other opposition leaders, like the “deeply
disliked” opposition leader Ter Petrosian, have failed to hone.
Hovannisian has also long been on the record with his demands for
democratic reforms, another bonus that sits well with the multitude of
disgruntled citizens. He believes democratization should be supported
and prioritized by American diplomats, and it has been his mission to
drive this message home. There is very little room for questioning
U.S. policies towards Armenia. What the cables demonstrate is that
geopolitical considerations are at the forefront of U.S. concerns in
the Caucasus. Some might even think it naïve of the former foreign
minister to hope otherwise, given the U.S. foreign policy track
record. But Hovannisian has adopted a different angle to sell to
American diplomats: Forget about democratization for its own sake,
support democratic reforms for the sake of regional solutions that
are supported by a legitimate government-and by extension, the people.
After all, we all witnessed the pitiful ending to the Armenia-Turkey
rapprochement protocols, and so did the American diplomats.
But U.S. Embassy officials have also learned that in Armenia, given
enough time (sometime as little as days) the opposition begins butting
heads. U.S. envoys have watched as opposition coalitions formed and
dissolved, marked by personal grudges, rivalries, and “clashes of
egos.” The opposition, it seemed, just couldn’t maintain alliances
long enough to mount successful and unified campaigns.
As part of the tapestry that is the opposition, Hovannisian, too, has
proved to have-in Ambassador Evans’ words-a “track record of joining
and then departing coalitions.” Sometimes, those within his party
circle have been unaware or unsure of his political maneuvers. And so,
Hovannisian has remained an enigma for both his Armenian compatriots
and his American observers. Time and again he has appeared to be on
the brink of “irrelevance,” only to resurface, undaunted. A hybrid
politician, Hovannisian is both unconventional and unpredictable-and
that is his edge.