WHO NEEDS A MAIDAN IN ARMENIA TODAY?
Mirror Spectator
Editorial 2-21 Feb 2015
By Edmond Y. Azadian
The Orange Revolution and the Rose Revolution brought regime changes
in Ukraine and Georgia, respectively, but Armenia was spared during
both cases and maintained its stability throughout those stormy
periods. But rumors, forecasts and political analyses always pointed
to the possibility of a color revolution in Armenia as well.
President Serge Sargisian’s administration weathered successfully the
tides of unrest fomented by the opposition, and taking the initiative,
it also deflated the opposition.
Levon Ter-Petrosian’s National Congress Party, which fed on the
popular discontent, could not use its ammunition to the fullest.
Therefore, although the opposition was cut to size and contained,
popular discontent remained as a latent force for any future
politician to explore and explode. The economy continued in stagnation,
emigration reached dangerous proportions and Armenia’s dependence on
Russia compromised its sovereignty. It seemed that those social and
political problems had not eroded the power of the ruling elite. But
recent developments indicate that challenges are on their way and
the administration is under constant pressure. Those pressures yield
result when coupled with outside factors.
In recent days, dramatic changes have taken place in Armenia’s domestic
political landscape. But to view and analyze the developments within
the context of internal political life may be too simplistic and
inconclusive. Currently, Russia is under siege because of the turmoil
in Ukraine; Moscow blames the US and the West for NATO creeping closer
and closer to Russian borders and the West’s countercharge is that
Moscow is fomenting turmoil in former Soviet Republics. No matter
where the truth stands, ensuing problems will impact Armenia as well,
since the country is so integrated with Russia socially, economically,
politically and militarily.
On February 12, 2015, the US House Foreign Affairs Committee held
hearings on US-Azerbaijan relations. Testimony was given by Dr. Svante
E. Cornell, director of Central Asia-Caucasus Institute at Johns
Hopkins University.
Outlining the US policy regarding the region, Dr. Cornell’s
recommendation was to overlook Azerbaijan’s human rights abuses and
base US policy on more pragmatic aspects, namely oil and regional
security. Further broadening the focus, the director stated: “The
task of countering [President Vladimir] Putin’s Russian imperialism
goes beyond Ukraine and requires a firm strategy to bolster the
states on Russia’s periphery, and especially to maintain the crucial
east-west corridor to Central Asia open. But the Caucasus and Central
Asia include fully one half of secular Muslim majority states in
the world…
Thus the Caucasus (and Central Asia) should be seen as bulwarks
against both Moscow and the Islamic radicalism of the Middle East.”
The implication is that since Russia has its hands full in a border
war in next-door Ukraine, it would be helpful for West’s containment
policy to trigger another flashpoint on Russia’s periphery, and
Armenia is one of those peripheral states.
It is no surprise, therefore, that as soon as the Serge Sargisian-Gagik
Tsaroukian controversy broke out, news outlets financed and directed by
Western countries unanimously took a very critical position vis-a-vis
the president’s statements.
It was indeed a political bombshell which President Sargisian lobbed
at the oligarch, who is the head of the Prosperous Armenia Party. He
portrayed Tsaroukian as “evil” and incompetent in Armenia’s political
life.
This development was in the making for a long time. Mr. Tsaroukian
is the titular head of the Prosperous Armenia Party, but actually,
the party was founded by the former president, Robert Kocharian,
and has been manipulated constantly by him in the background.
Sargisian’s Republican Party and the Prosperous Armenia Party formed
the ruling coalition initially, with the understanding that the
Putin-style transition would be implemented in Armenia, with Sargisian
serving out his term and paving the way for a Kocharian’s return.
Relations began souring when the plan did not work the way it was
supposed to; Sargisian did not relinquish the reins of power and the
coalition began to splinter. For a long time, Levon Ter-Petrosian
courted Tsaroukian to no avail. Now that Tsaroukian has become a
target of the president’s criticism threw the gauntlet and rallied
the opposition parties around him and called for a nationwide rally
on February 20, calling for he president’s resignation. Prosperous
Armenia joined the Armenian National Congress and Raffi Hovannisian’s
Heritage Party to use all means, including “civil disobedience” to
bring down Mr. Sargisian. The rally will prove to be a litmus test
of the opposition’s power.
Politics in Armenia are the mirror-image of those in Russia. Putin
jailed oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovski, who had opposed him politically,
usurped his assets worth over $10 billion and let him leave the
country almost penniless after 20 years of incarceration.
The same tactics are replayed in Armenia now. Tsaroukian was removed
from the National Security Council, he was stripped of his presidency
of the National Sports Agency and now the president has sent a formal
letter to the speaker of parliament, Galust Sahakian, to take away Mr.
Tsaroukian’s protection as a member of parliament. Meanwhile, all of
his businesses have been investigated for potential tax evasion. Thus
far, Mr. Tsaroukian has conducted his businesses in Armenia, employing
some 20,000 people, now all of a sudden, he has become a suspect upon
a fallout with the president.
The current administration has been able to destroy more sophisticated
oligarchs, like Khacahdour Soukiasyan, who left the country with his
huge capital, instead doing business in Europe and the Gulf states,
to the detriment of Armenia’s economy.
But despite his macho image, Mr. Tsaroukian thus far is behaving
smartly. It is apparent that he is being coached by much more
experienced political minds in the opposition. For example, in his
response to the president’s criticism, he said that he is not a
politician in the classic sense, but that he wishes to help his people.
Tsaroukian has crossed the Rubicon and with his help, the opposition
will fight the administration with renewed vigor.
Observers and the general public are stunned at this conflict taking
place at this time, which may lead to a new Maidan which, Mr.
Tsaroukian, has said he has avoided thus far.
Why is the president so emboldened when the country’s problem persist?
Emigration is continuing on a dangerous scale, the economy is
staggering and above all, the border with Azerbaijan is again becoming
a war zone.
The president’s domestic challenges are coupled with a foreign
relations challenge, when he suddenly decided to withdraw the Protocols
from the Parliament’s agenda. He took the last initiative the moment
Mr. Davutolgu had adopted a more conciliatory tone toward Armenia. The
Turkish prime minister reiterated his previous offer of relinquishing
one region in Karabagh to open the border with Armenia.
It is a different matter that the offer would not be a starter because
the give and take are not equivalent. Swapping territory for lifting
the blockade could prove to be an illusion, because the borders can
be closed at will any time, but land could be taken “only by blood,”
as noted Turkish dictator Kenan Evren.
This crisis is ill-timed, when the entire diaspora will be converging
to Armenia, too for the centennial commemoration of the Genocide. Not
only the diaspora, but also many dignitaries like President Francois
Hollande and others will arrive at a crisis-ridden country.
We do not want to see another Maidan reenacted. But who needed this
crisis at this time?