Author: Badalian Vardan

AZERBAIJAN TOLD U.S. IT WANTS “FULL MEMBERSHIP” IN NATO
by Joshua Kucera

EurasiaNet.org
Sept 5 2011
NY

Azerbaijan’s defense minister told U.S. officials that the country was
interested in “active cooperation with NATO up to full membership” but
couldn’t say so publicly, according to a diplomatic cable recently
released by Wikileaks. The cable recounts a 2007 meeting between
Defense Minister Safar Abiyev and a U.S. delegation from the Pentagon
and State Department headed by then-Assistant Secretary of Defense
for International Security Peter Rodman:

Abiyev said that Azerbaijan’s cooperation with NATO had a goal
in mind. He said that this goal “could not be announced, for
certain reasons” at present, but that Azerbaijan sought “active
cooperation with NATO up to full membership”. He said that the ongoing
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was the only inhibitor of Azerbaijan moving
even more quickly with NATO: “It is time for more serious, more active
steps by the US in Minsk Group. Our cooperation with the US and NATO
would be more open and more decisive in this case.”

There is ample reason for suspicion here. It’s not clear what the
“certain reasons” for Baku’s reticence were, perhaps the fear of a bad
Iranian or Russian reaction, an issue that’s frequently cited in the
cables from Baku. There is reason to doubt the sincerity of that fear
(see below). But even if you take the Azerbaijanis at their word,
if you can’t even announce publicly that you want to join NATO,
the obstacles are so daunting as to make any such wish meaningless.

The last part of that quote suggests (though the cable writer doesn’t
say this) that Azerbaijan wanted to dangle NATO cooperation as a
carrot to get the U.S. to take its side in the Nagorno Karabakh
negotiations, or perhaps to get the U.S. Congressional restrictions
on arms provisions to Azerbaijan overturned. Perhaps there has been
a shift in attitude in Baku since 2007, but as my colleague Shahin
Abbasov reported earlier this summer, what little Azerbaijan-NATO
cooperation had existed seems to be declining.

But that hasn’t stopped the U.S. from continuing to push more forms of
military cooperation. Another cable, from 2009, discussed the visit of
the commanding general of U.S. Air Forces Europe General Roger Brady
to the airfield at Nasosnaya, near Baku, which the U.S. was inspecting
as a potential replacement for the Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan. The
airport had already been renovated with U.S. money, and Azerbaijani
officials brought up the possibility of further renovations, with the
costs shared by the U.S. and Azerbaijan. “There may well be potential
at Nasosnaya, particularly if Manas’ future was again in doubt,”
the cable’s author wrote.

Another cable discusses Azerbaijan’s contributions to the
transportation of U.S. military cargo overland to Afghanistan on the
Northern Distribution Network. It contains a remarkable statistic:
as of 2009, when the cable was written, fully 96 percent of the
container traffic through Baku’s sea terminal was NDN-related.

And the cable again presents Azerbaijan as a willing partner behind the
scenes, but unwilling to make its desire for a closer alliance public.

Baku would also be very sensitive to pressure from Russia and Iran
if it consented to lethal transit within the NDN framework. The
Azerbaijanis’ reaction when the idea of NATO AWACS overflight was
floated in Brussels in late August 2009, as well as the skittishness
of the Foreign Ministry in April 2009 over approval of the REGIONAL
RESPONSE 09 military exercise, and the ongoing example of the MFA’s
stubborn resistance to a train-and-equip program linked to an expanded
deployment all suggest that Azerbaijan’s enthusiasm for overt signs
of increasing closeness to the United States is waning.

Yet, the cables from Baku frequently describe Baku’s repeated attempts
to get arms provisions from the U.S. It doesn’t get too much more
“overt,” to use the U.S. Embassy’s word, than weapons sales. Why
aren’t they afraid of Iran and Russia’s reaction if they were to buy
American weapons? It seems like they profess to be worried about that
reaction when the U.S. wants something from them, but when they want
something from the U.S., it’s not such a big deal.

IF TURKEY WANTS ISRAEL’S APOLOGY IT SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR ARMENIAN GENOCIDE FIRST

HULIQ.com

Sept 5 2011

Some say Turkish neo-ottoman appetite is growing and as Turkey
wants Israel to apologize for the flotilla incident, it should first
apologize to Armenia for the Armenian genocide by looking back to
its own history.

The subject was thrown into sharp relief this weekend when Turkey
sent Israel’s ambassador home after the Israelis refused to issue an
apology for killing nine Turkish nationals while enforcing a naval
blockade Israel has imposed on Gaza.

Turkey took the action after a United Nations panel found that Israel
had used excessive force in stopping a flotilla of Hamas sympathizers
launched from Turkey from reaching Gaza. The same panel, however,
also found that Israel was within its rights to impose and enforce
the blockade, and the Israeli government has used this finding to
reject Turkey’s call for an apology.

Turkey’s temper tantrum in response is somewhat ironic in light
of a similar request that has been waiting in its inbox for several
decades. That one, from Armenia, calls on Turkey to express regret for
the extermination of more than a million Armenians during the First
World War years, an act many regard as the first modern genocide but
which Turkey refuses to acknowledge as such.

As the Turkish and Armenian governments have been engaged in a delicate
diplomatic dance aimed at producing a mutually satisfying answer to
that request, and as the Turks have done nothing further recently to
upset the Armenians, there have been no displays of official ire from
Yerevan over the lack of response to that request.

In contrast, Turkey allowed the flotilla to set sail from its
territory, an action the Israelis could have interpreted as a
deliberate provocation on the Turkish government’s part.

Israel, however, counts Turkey as one of its few friends in the
Islamic world, and as such, has avoided any actions that might annoy
the Turks. That includes speaking up about the Armenian genocide, an
issue that one might expect the Israelis to be especially sympathetic.

The German government has issued a formal apology to Israel for the
Holocaust as well as paid reparations to Israel and the descendants
of those who perished in the systematic German extermination of Jews.

One of the reasons Turkey refuses to issue an apology for the Armenian
genocide is because the events occurred under a regime and in a country
that no longer exists. Yet the same could be said about the regime
that carried out the Holocaust. And with Turkey’s current government,
led by an Islamist party, moving to assert itself more as a regional
power, some of its traditional rivals are expressing fears that it
may have Ottoman ambitions.

All of this suggests that the Turkish government might want to rethink
its actrions in the wake of Israels refusal to apologize for the
flotilla intervention. Or maybe work on one of its own.

TURKISH HEALTH MINISTRY SAYS EVERY 5TH IN TURKEY SUFFERS INSANITY

AZG DAILY
06-09-2011

According to Turkish paper “Radikal”, Turkish Ministry of Healthcare
has released the psychological map of country’s population, which says
every 5th citizen in the country has certain psychological problems.

According to official data 18% of Turkish population suffers certain
psychological problems, while 11% of children and young population
have health problems.

Only one out of six who suffers mental disease applies to the doctor.

It’s said that insanity comes second after heart diseases, Panorama
reports.

WIKILEAKS DUBS HOVIK ABRAHAMYAN AS TIGRAN SARGSYAN’S MAIN RIVAL

PanARMENIAN.Net
September 5, 2011 – 18:08 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – WikiLeaks whistle blowing website has released
another stack of cables classified by deputy head of U.S. diplomatic
mission in Armenia Joseph Pennington after meeting with Armenian
Parliament Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan.

The meeting described focused on Armenia’s foreign policy and internal
reforms. According to Pennington, Abrahamyan called Prime Minister
Tigran Sargsyan, viewed as a reformer in Armenia, “a person whose
words don’t match his actions”.

As Pennington noted, in a conversation with Sargsyan, Abrahamyan
failed to get a clear response as to the means necessary to fight
corruption and oligopoly.

According to Pennington, without any noticeable sense of irony,
he went on to ridicule the PM’s asset declaration draft law that
would require 500 senior public officials to come clean about their
holdings and business interests.

In his comments Pennington stressed Abrahamyan is widely considered
one of Sargsyan’s most formidable rivals, and someone who is carefully
building up his own power base.

“With detainees or the NGO law, for example, Abrahamyan
likely concluded there was decent upside and limited cost to
at least presenting himself as an advocate for inclusiveness and
reconciliation. But where a reform agenda collides with his personal
or political interests, as with a draft law requiring him to reveal
his considerable business holdings, he reverts to what most suspect
is his true, thuggish form,” he said, according to cables released.

HOVIK ABRAHAMYAN COULD BECOME POTENTIAL THREAT TO SARGSYAN’S RULE: US AMBASSADOR

epress.am
09.05.2011 09:30

On Oct. 9, 2008, then US Ambassador to Armenia Marie L. Yovanovitch
met with National Assembly Speaker Hovik Abrahamyan (pictured). In
this, their first official meeting, the then new parliamentary
speaker “blasted” the opposition for “blackening” the image of
Armenia, asking the US ambassador to use US influence to moderate
the Levon Ter-Petrossin (LTP)-led opposition movement, according to
a confidential Oct. 29, 2008 cable recently published by WikiLeaks.

Abrahamyan appealed to the Ambassador for the Embassy to stop providing
the opposition with support. “The Speaker said such support was
‘harming our country,’ and that the opposition would be better off
devoting itself to preparing for the next parliamentary elections in
three years’ time. (COMMENT: In fact, we provide no support to the
opposition of any kind, although our frequent advocacy of political
freedoms and human rights can be misunderstood by the likes of
Abrahamyan as pro-LTP.)”

During the meeting, Abrahamyan played down the relevancy of the
opposition, saying that “‘their numbers are decreasing because they
have nothing to tell the public.’ Abrahamyan also pointed to the
resounding loss of LTP ally Ararat Zurabyan in the Sept. 28 election
for the post of Yerevan central district prefect as further evidence
of the lack of public confidence in the opposition. (COMMENT: Local
and international observers, including our own from the Embassy,
reported widespread irregularities in the conduct of the vote as
well as the vote count. However, Abrahamyan has a point about LTP’s
decreasing public support and lack of a compelling message.)”

Yovanovitch writes that in reference to the Mar. 1-2 post-election
unrest, Abrahamyan “said the authorities are not scared of the
opposition, but do fear provocations that seek to frame the authorities
for violence initiated by the opposition. Abrahamyan complained that
he has not heard ‘any constructive statements’ from the opposition
on the issues of reform currently underway in Armenia.

He declared that every country needs a constructive opposition,
‘not enemies’.

“In response, the Ambassador enumerated the continuing concerns of
the US government: that the conduct of the presidential election was
significantly flawed; that some of those detained during the Mar. 1
unrest appeared to have been arrested because of their political
activities; that there appeared to be a denial of fair, speedy justice
in many of the ongoing trials of those detained; that the electronic
media was being unfairly manipulated by the authorities so as to give
a one-sided picture of the situation; and that the political rights of
citizens to associate and assemble continued to be severely curtailed.

The Ambassador urged the government to resolve all these issues
and ‘turn the page’ on such an unfortunate chapter in Armenia’s
post-independence history.”

Abrahamyan admitted violations in the presidential election, but not
enough to influence the outcome, reads the cable.

“Abrahamyan also defended the banning of opposition rallies on various
grounds. He first argued that ‘we have not denied, but proposed new
venues’ to the opposition when their requests have come in. (COMMENT:
The alternative venues offered by the authorities are comparable to
denying protesters in Washington access to the Mall and offering them
instead the parking lot of RFK stadium.) The Ambassador objected
to the Speaker’s rationale for banning the opposition’s rallies,
and noted that in the 90 rally requests submitted since Mar., only
two were permitted for the originally requested venue. She reiterated
that by continually depriving the opposition their right to be heard,
the authorities only aggravated the situation.”

The National Assembly speaker said, however, he was prepared to
open the parliamentary platform to “all political forces, people and
the public” to allow open discussions to take place, as long as the
discussions are based on objective, reasonable criticism. Abrahamyan
said that ‘we are ready to listen to their critiques,’ and that the
Ambassador will see in practice that ‘we are inclined to a constructive
approach,’ and that ‘we are democratic people’.”

The parties also discussed the Millennium Challenge Program (MCC),
with the parliamentary speaker urging the Ambassador to end its limited
funding suspension. “Abrahamyan said he hoped the Ambassador could
‘intervene to undo its delay.’ When told by the Ambassador that the
program was delayed because of its failing eligibility indicators,
the Speaker feigned surprise and said it was ‘news to me’.”

Yovanovitch informed Abrahamyan that “until Armenia substantively
addressed the fallout from the flawed presidential election and the
post-election violence, as well as its failing indicators, the future
of MCC would be in question. The Ambassador reiterated that it would
help if the authorities did three things: adjudicate in a transparent,
fair manner all of the cases of those detained in relation to the
election; allow people to demonstrate legally who want to; and allow
the media to work and report more freely.”

In the commentary which concludes the cable, the US ambassador writes,
“Abrahamyan typifies the type of Republican politician that makes up a
large chunk of the parliament and of the ruling party establishment:
politico-oligarchs who use political power to advance their business
interests and vice versa. Such figures brought Sargsyan to power, but
also could become a potential threat to Sargsyan’s rule if he moves
overtly against their interests. Over time, Abrahamyan’s political fate
may be a bellwether of reform prospects during President Sargsyan’s
Administration. At the moment, it is not clear to us whether he won his
current position because he enjoys Sargsyan’s trust and confidence,
or conversely whether he wrested the job from Sargsyan unwillingly,
and Sargsyan did not feel secure enough in his position to refuse.”

NON-MUSLIMS IN TURKEY PRAISE LAW TO RETURN CHRISTIAN PROPERTIES

Tert.am
11:32 05.09.11

Non-Muslim groups in Turkey have praised highly the government’s recent
move to return properties confiscated from religious minorities since
1936, Today’s Zaman reported.

They are now looking forward to the announcement of regulations as
to how the law will be implemented.

According to a decree published in the Official Gazette last weekend,
property seized from Christian and Jewish religious foundations
will be returned to them, and in cases where property belonging to
such organizations has been sold by the state to third parties, the
religious foundation will be paid the market value of the property
by the Ministry of Finance.

The decision was announced before an iftar (fast-breaking dinner)
on Aug. 28, attended by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and
representatives of non-Muslim communities in Istanbul. Turkey’s
non-Muslim citizens applaud the move and say the step was expected,
since the government has been working on the issue for some time.

“This is a very positive move,” said Rober Koptash,
editor-in-chief of the Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos. “However,
we have to see how the law will be implemented.”

Koptash was concerned about how the new regulations will affect
some properties belonging to non-Muslims. One of those properties is
the Tuzla Armenian Children’s Camp, which was built by Hrant Dink,
the former editor-in-chief of Agos, murdered in 2007. The camp is
not among the properties to be returned, as indicated by officials,
because under the new regulations the government will not return
or reimburse for properties no longer directly held by the state,
or from the sale of which the state received no income. The Tuzla
camp was bought by the Gedikpasha Armenian Foundation in 1962, but
subsequent to a Supreme Court of Appeals ruling in 1974, acquisitions
made after the 1936 declaration had no legal validity, and therefore
had to be returned to their former owners. As a result, the Tuzla
camp was returned to its first owner,” he said, adding that in
that case the state did not receive any money from the sale but the
transfer was still “unjust,” because the ruling was based on
ethnic “discrimination.”

Koptash also pointed out the need for a more comprehensive solution.

“We need arrangements to deal with expropriated property, since
those actions may not have been based on fair evaluations in many
cases.” Koptash was referring to a series of discriminatory
practices of the republic targeting non-Muslims. A new law on
foundations in 1936, aimed at controlling Muslim and non-Muslim
foundations, placed them under the guardianship of the Directorate
General for Foundations (VGM), in violation of the Lausanne Treaty
between Turkey and Western powers in 1923, which guaranteed non-Muslim
communities the right “to retain special education and property
rights.” This law also demanded that the foundations, which receive
most of their income from rents, declare their sources of income and
how it was spent: These are the “1936 Declarations.”

Under the high court’s 1974 ruling – described as “massacring the
law” by many human rights lawyers – non-Muslim foundations lost
thousands of properties. The laws on foundations have been altered a
couple of times, with new amendments following each other; new laws
granted some rights, which were then rescinded by other regulations.

ARMENIA’S MILITARY PROSECUTOR ON DETAILS OF AGHASI ABRAHAMYAN MURDER CASE

Tert.am
10:12 05.09.11

The military police in Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR),
interrogated the mates of soldier Aghasi Abrahamyan. They said he was
“calmly doing his service.”

Military Prosecutor Gevorg Kostanyan said that the law-enforcers are
now gathering corroborative evidence to assess the degree of guilt
of each of those involved in the case.

On returning to the barracks after a night scuffle with the soldier
on duty, Aghasi Abrahamyan fainted. A little later, he was taken
to the aid station, 30 km. away from the military unit. However,
the personnel did not give the unconscious soldier the first aid for
hours. The head of the medical station, who arrived a few hours later,
instead of taking care of the soldier, struck him in the face twice
and insulted him. “Stop putting on airs,” the doctor said, kicking
the soldier. Then Aghasi Abrahamyan was taken to Stepanakert military
hospital, where he died.

Gevorg Kostanyan gav assurances that all those guilty of the soldier’s
death will be punished with all the rigors of the law.

UN TIGRE EN PAPIER
Jean [email protected]

armenews.com
lundi 5 septembre 2011
TURQUIE

Selon le site israelien d’information Debka, de sources americaines a
Washington, on a reagi très durement au propos publies dans le journal
turc Hurriyet selon lesquels des milieux proches du parti Republicain
auraient ete a l’origine des fuites sur le Rapport Palmer au New-York
Times, ceci intentionnellement afin d’embarrasser le President Obama
et la Secretaire d’Etat Clinton. En effet, selon Hurriyet, les amis
republicains de Netanyahou a Washington auraient diffuse un mensonge
selon lequel c’est Ankara qui aurait demande un ajournement de six
mois pour la publication du Rapport Palmer. Toujours selon Hurriyet,
c’est cette ” fausse ” information qui aurait motive Erdogan et son
ministre des Affaires etrangères a monter au creneau contre Israël.

Le periodique turc rapporte les propos d’une personnalite du
Gouvernement d’Ankara : ” les Israeliens peuvent aller au diable. Ils
vont voir ce que cela veut dire de respecter les règles maritimes
internationales quand notre flotte sera presente en Mer Mediterranee.

” Ces sources americaines affirment que la constance de la
desinformation turque est totalement infondee et a pour objectif de
semer la discorde entre Jerusalem et Washington : ” Personne ne sait
qui est a l’origine de la fuite du Rapport Palmer au New-York Times
et si a Washington, on sait qui est-ce, il n’y aucune chance qu’on
le sache a Ankara. Il s’agit d’un pretexte dangereux où les Turcs
exploitent les divergences de politique interne americaine pour creer
des crises internationale ”

Toujours selon ces sources, les menaces turques de faire operer leur
flotte contre la Marine israelienne sont des chèques sans provision.

La flotte turque est incapable de se mesurer aux navires israeliens
equipes de technologie ultramoderne et de missiles mer-mer dernier
cri, de systèmes de brouillage electronique dont ne disposent pas les
Turcs. D’autre part, la flotte turque ne possède pas de sous-marins
sophistiques comme les Dolphins israeliens et elle n’a pas non plus de
couverture aerienne comme en dispose la Marine israelienne. De plus,
l’ironie est que le peu de sophistication technologique dans l’armee
turque lui parvient d’equipements de fabrication israelienne comme
les drones.

HOMMAGE AUX SOLDATS AMERICAINS TUES LORS D’UN CRASH EN ARMENIE
[email protected]

armenews.com
lundi 5 septembre 2011
ARMENIE

Un general de l’armee de l’air americain a remercie vendredi les
habitants dans un village situe a l’ouest de l’Armenie pour avoir
rendu hommage au 17 membres de l’equipage americain qui ont ete tues
près de Sasnashen par des avions sovietiques il y a 53 ans.

Le general major, Mark Zamzow, vice-commandant de l’armee de l’air en
Allemagne, a marque l’evenement avec le sous-secretaire a la defense
armenien Davit Tonoyan et des dizaines de villageois de Sasnashen.

L’avion C-130 Hercules est tombe alors qu’il etait en mission près
de la frontière sovietique le 2 septembre 1958. Selon la force armee
americaine, il a ete attaque par un avion MiG après etre entre dans
l’espace aerien sovietique. Les 17 membres de l’equipe a bord de
l’avion ont ete tues.

Selon l’ambassade americaine a Erevan, les habitants de Sasnashen
commemorent depuis des decennies cette date. Ils pensent que cette
man~uvre aerienne a ete menee pour eviter le bombardement du village
et pour sauver ainsi la population locale.

Un memorial a ete erige près du lieu du crash en septembre 1993,
deux ans seulement après la chute du regime sovietique.

” J’etais profondement touche lorsque j’ai appris que les citoyens de
Sasnashen se rappelaient encore l’evenement et qu’ils ont depuis 1958
rendu hommage chaque annee aux membres de l’equipage le 2 septembre
“, a declare Zamzow lors de la commemoration.

L’Union sovietique a restitue ce qui restait des six membres de
l’equipage après 1958.

Une equipe de l’armee americaine s’est rendue sur le site du crash
en 1993 et a recupere plus de 2000 fragments d’os et de dents, des
affaires personnelles et l’epave de l’avion.

L’ensemble a ete enterre dans une seule tombe au cimetière national
d’Arlington en 1998.

Des affaires davantage personnelles des membres de l’equipage ont
ete envoyees aux Etats-Unis.

Le service de la defense americain a finance des infrastructures a
Sasnashen et dans les environs ces dernières annees.

Zamzow a inaugure vendredi une crèche dans le village et un hôpital
près de la ville de Talin.

Sargsyan, Kocharian, Ter-Petrossian and the 2008 Presidential
Election, According to US Diplomat in Armenia

09.03.2011 11:46 epress.am

`Mounting evidence… has called into question the government’s claim
that PM Serzh Sargsyan won a legitimate first-round majority on Feb.
19 [2008]. This result, combined with the subsequent heavy-handed use
of force and declared State of Emergency, has left PM Sargsyan with a
severe crisis of legitimacy,’ writes then US Deputy Chief of Mission
(DCM) to Armenia Joseph Pennington in yet another cable – this one
dated Mar. 10, 2008 – released by WikiLeaks on Aug. 30, 2011.

Recall that mass protests in Yerevan on Mar. 1-2 against alleged
electoral fraud followed the 2008 presidential election in Armenia,
the results of which declared current President Serzh Sargsyan (then
prime minister) as successor to then President Robert Kocharian.

Pennington notes that the `mounting evidence’ includes the latest
ODIHR interim report, but that `most observers do not believe PM Serzh
Sargsyan did not legitimately won a first round majority in the
election,’ calling into doubts both the legitimacy and the
illegitimacy of the presidential election.

The cable continues listing the series of `hard truths’ that the US’
policy deliberations must negotiate `among a thicket of harsh
realities that leave us with few truly appealing choices,’ including:

`This [that Sargsyan may not legitimately have won the majority] may
not have been his own doing. President Kocharian and other
influential, anti-democratic forces may each have had their own
reasons for engineering this outcome. However, Sargsyan at best has
failed to take a strong stand against it, or the subsequent harsh
crackdown.

`Serzh Sargsyan has been an excellent, and pro-Western partner as
defense minister, accelerating Armenia’s Euro-Atlantic engagement.

`Sargsyan’s main rival, former President Levon Ter-Petrossian (LTP),
is no angel. His own presidential administration from independence
through 1998 grew increasingly authoritarian and corrupt, and he stole
the 1996 presidential election to hold onto power. He and his advisers
have privately made clear all along that they fully expected the
authorities to steal the election, and thus the LTP strategy was
always focused more on post-election public demonstrations to force
the government from power, rather than a strategy simply to win at the
ballot box.

`LTP is not an isolated extremist. Official figures gave him 21.5
percent (just over 350,000) of votes cast on Feb. 19, and the true
figure is doubtless substantially higher. Our best guess would be
somewhere between 30-35 percent (490,000 – 570,000 votes). His popular
support has only grown in the past two weeks. Many Armenians tell us
`it’s not about LTP anymore, it’s about this government’s behavior.’

`Post-election events have made LTP into by far the most legitimate
opposition political figure – more so than all the others combined.
The regime’s use of force against peaceful demonstrators, the media
blackout, and other elements of the crackdown have increased popular
outrage, and by default made LTP supporters out of many who still
dislike the man. If a run-off election were held now, LTP would very
likely beat Sargsyan. Many Armenians now see LTP as the only one with
a chance to break down what they see as the deepening entrenchment of
a Karabakhi-led kleptocracy in Armenia, seemingly determined to
monopolize every lever of political and economic power.

`However much we might suspect LTP’s motives and methods, during the
current election cycle, he and his supporters are predominantly the
victims while Sargsyan’s supporters were the wrong-doers. However, it
must also be acknowledged that there was a cadre of perhaps several
hundred people – within the perhaps 20,000 people protesting in front
of the French Embassy – which seemed to be pre-prepared and spoiling
for a violent confrontation with police. LTP’s most radical
lieutenant, Nikol Pashinyan, used extreme rhetoric to exhort
protesters to fight. LTP distanced himself from this in our subsequent
private conversation, but it is very possible that he was aware and
approved of this militant cadre in advance.

`It may indeed be the case that Serzh Sargsyan is, in his heart, more
progressive and democratic than his longtime friend and close
political partner Robert Kocharian. There have been tantalizing hints
that give room for hope on this score. It could also be the case that
Sargsyan desperately needs public legitimacy and Western support in
order to have the political strength to oust the most corrupt,
noxious, and thuggish elements which are now key pillars of the
government.

`Withholding that support may pull the rug out from under what could
be Sargsyan’s sincere desire to clean house. This may, indeed, have
been Kocharian and other influential figures’ goal all along – to
ensure that Sargsyan’s election was so tainted as to make it
impossible for Sargsyan to marginalize them in the post-election
political constellation.’

The American diplomat then goes on to list four possible scenarios in
the aftermath of the election:

`SCENARIO 1 – PROTRACTED STALEMATE, INSTABILITY, REPRESSION: We fear
the mostly likely scenario over the medium to long term is that
Sargsyan will go along with regime elements counselling tough
measures. Underestimating the size, strength, and depth of public
sympathy that has been generated for LTP, Sargsyan will attempt to
crush the LTP-led opposition through police, security services, and
prosecutions, jailing many key LTP lieutenants and possibly LTP
himself on politically motivated charges. This will make LTP even more
of a hero-martyr of democracy. He will find himself relying ever more
heavily on a political crackdown to stay in control, and Armenia will
end up much more authoritarian than it has ever been since the Soviet
period.

`SCENARIO 2 – KOCHARIAN IS CORRECT, OUTRAGE PASSES, STOICISM SETS IN:
It may be that – as President Kocharian predicted to DAS Bryza during
his recent visit – the widespread popular outrage will die down more
quickly and comprehensively than we now suspect. Keeping key
organizers in prison may over time be sufficient to keep protests from
gaining traction, and society may settle back down into the quiescent,
semi-authoritarianism that prevailed throughout Kocharian’s
administration. A type of normalcy will resume, in which the broadcast
media remain tightly controlled by pro-regime forces, and various
elements of society know where the boundaries are. This is a recipe
for stagnation and steady deepening of political and economic
corruption, behind a window-dressing of democratic platitudes and
Westernization – until the next flashpoint emerges on some future day.

`SCENARIO 3 – Sargsyan IS A VISIONARY LEADER AFTER ALL: The most
constructive move Sargsyan could realistically make would be to make
dramatic steps to promote national reconciliation, and to show his
commitment to combat the thuggish and corrupt elements of government.
Ending the state of emergency and media blackout are important steps,
as would be ending the flagrantly partisan programming now airing on
public television. Longer term, management changes in the national
television/radio regulatory commission and in the Public Television
channel to introduce objectivity and balance would be very positive
steps. By prosecuting pro-governmental as well as oppositional figures
for election and post-election crimes, while freeing the majority of
pro-opposition figures that have been arrested, he could establish
fresh credibility. His choice of a new prime minister and cabinet will
be an important bellwether of the direction he intends; a good crop of
fresh, clean faces would win public approval, while recycling corrupt
ones would deepen public cynicism.

`SCENARIO 4 – Sargsyan FALLS: We have been surprised that several
serious, non-opposition political thinkers have independently told us
privately that they expect, based on events of the past two weeks,
that Serzh Sargsyan will be unable to hold power for more than a year
or two. This argument holds that the opposition genie is now out of
the bottle. Armenians are widely shocked and traumatized by the events
of Mar. 1. No Armenian government has before been responsible for
suppressing opposition protests so forcefully as to lead to
fatalities. An accelerating cycle of reaction and counter-reaction (as
postulated in Scenario 1), could get out of Sargsyan’s control or
require a more heavy-handed response than the security forces
themselves are prepared to stomach. Some Armenian political observers
insist to us that Armenians are different from other post-Soviet
societies, in that they have a lower willingness to tolerate state
violence. They are proud of their history of standing up against
Soviet tanks in 1988 to demand independence, and have a highly
developed sense of national unity. Armenian soldiers and police firing
on Armenian citizens is seen by many as crossing the Rubicon.
Depending on how events unfold, LTP could yet manage to harness enough
public outrage to provoke a people-power revolution. Alternatively, in
the face of a rising cycle of crises, Sargsyan could face the fate
that LTP himself faced in 1998, and be ousted by an insiders’ coup.’

Pennington concludes his analysis by the US’ possible next steps:

`REWARD GOOD BEHAVIOR: In the near term, the best strategy available
to us is to support in whatever way we can any genuine efforts from PM
Sargsyan along the lines of Scenario 3 above. We have repeatedly
urged these types of gestures to the PM and his aides, and will
continue to do so. We have already and will continue to convey
messages back and forth between the government and the LTP camp to the
extent the two parties find that constructive.

`WHILE NOT COMPROMISING OUR PRINCIPLES: Equally as important as
encouraging the prime minister and other stakeholders to do the right
things, will be for us to tell the truth as we see it. We strongly
believe that we do neither the Prime Minister nor Armenian democracy
any favors if we soft-pedal our criticism of anti-democratic
behaviors, whether from the government or opposition side. We must
send firm and clear messages to the PM and other government
interlocutors, as well as to the opposition, that we will hold them
accountable for the way they manage this crisis. Bad behavior will
lead to consequences in US engagement and assistance. In the long run,
Armenian public opinion (which tends to have a surprisingly long
memory) will hold us accountable for whether we are seen to stand up
for democratic principles. We should not allow our hopes for
Sargsyan’s better nature to run too far ahead of demonstrated,
tangible commitments on his part.

`WHEN TO CONGRATULATE Sargsyan: There was much discussion during EUR
DAS Bryza’s visit here last week among the Western diplomatic missions
about when those capitals which have not formally congratulated
Sargsyan for winning the presidency should do so. Our view is that a
White House congratulations would not be appropriate under the current
state of emergency and media blackout. We recommend that such
congratulations be deferred until A) after the state of emergency is
lifted, or B) just before the April 9 inauguration date, whichever
comes first. We recommend that the congratulatory message also include
messages about the need to address political divisions in Armenia.’