ARMENIA: CRITICISM OF KOCHARIAN ADMINISTRATION BUBBLES TO SURFACE
By Rovshan Ismayilov
EurasiaNet
March 6 2008
NY
The shockwaves created by the March 1 events in Yerevan are being
felt beyond Armenia’s borders, heightening concern about a regional
war. Meanwhile, criticism of President Robert Kocharian’s handling
of the crisis is starting to surface.
The international community reacted with alarm to reports of a
large-scale clash between Armenian and Azerbaijani troops along
the so-called Contact Line. The March 4-5 fighting was some of the
fiercest since the two sides agreed to a ceasefire agreement that
halted fighting over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory.
On March 5, US, European and Russian diplomats threw their collective
weight behind calls for an immediate cessation of the fighting. "We
believe there is no military solution to the conflict and further
escalation will endanger regional stability," US Ambassador to
Azerbaijan Anne Derse told journalists in Baku on March 6. "These
tragic events once again show that the sides need to work with the
OSCE Minsk Group to seek a peaceful solution."
Under heavy international pressure, both Armenian and Azerbaijani
officials pledged to respect the ceasefire, and the Contact Line
was quiet on March 6. Both sides blamed the other of making an
armed provocation. "It [the ceasefire violation] was sanctioned by
Armenian authorities to draw international attention away from tense
post-election political situation in Yerevan," Azerbaijani Foreign
Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told journalists in Baku. "They [Armenian
authorities] need such provocations to draw attention from internal
problems." Earlier, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian accused
Azerbaijani forces of making a "serious infringement" on Armenian
military positions.
Efforts to reach a Minsk Group-brokered peace settlement to the
Karabakh conflict have been stalemated for years. [For background
see the Eurasia Insight archive]. In Baku on March 5, Matthew Bryza,
a US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, as well as the American
co-chair of the Minsk Group, admitted that the flare-up in fighting
would set back the Karabakh peace process.
But many people now are not thinking so much about a peace process,
as they are about the possibility of a resumption of warfare in the
region. In the midst of a military buildup funded by energy-export
profits, Azerbaijani leaders have indulged in belligerent language in
recent months, hinting that they are readily contemplating a renewed
military effort to settle the Karabakh dispute. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive].
Azerbaijani officials have been chagrined by the relative silence of
the United States, European Union, along with related multilateral
organizations, especially the OSCE, over Kocharian’s handling of the
domestic political crisis in Yerevan. The feeling among some analysts
in Baku, as well as opposition supporters in Yerevan, is that Western
reticence over the Armenian government’s handling of the February 19
election was a contributing factor in the Kocharian administration’s
use of deadly force on March 1.
In an op-ed published by The Washington Post on March 5, Armenian
presidential candidate and opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian
decried the West for having a double standard, in which it criticizes
political abuses elsewhere in the CIS, but turns a blind eye toward
Yerevan.
"What do the people of Armenia expect from the West, and the United
States in particular? At the very least, we expect a strong and
unequivocal condemnation of the violence that occurred March 1
and recognition that the government, not the opposition, bears
responsibility," Kocharian wrote. "If these steps are not taken,
Armenians will draw two very undesirable conclusions: that peaceful
and lawful means of political struggle are ineffective and pointless,
and that the West cares about democracy only when it is politically
expedient to do so. The West must do everything possible to dissuade
Armenia’s citizens from reaching those conclusions."
If Western governments and multilateral organizations adopt a similarly
tentative line on the Karabakh question, the situation could quickly
explode, Azerbaijani Defense Minister Safar Abiyev warned. In comments
made while he was on a tour of front-line areas involved in the
March 4-5 fighting, Abiyev called for an intensified international
response. "Otherwise, a worse scenario may unfold," he said.
In Yerevan, the government, employing emergency powers, has gone to
great lengths to control information about the March 1 events. With
independent news outlets muzzled, Kocharian and others have tried to
frame the March 1 events as a criminal act unconnected to politics.
[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Despite the state of emergency, alternative views are coming to
light. On March 4, the Russian news agency Regnum distributed a
statement issued the same day by Armenia’s ombudsman, Armen Arutiunian,
who seemed to place most of the blame for the March 1 events on the
Kocharian administration.
Arutiunian disputed the official version of events, under which
security forces took action to contain looting and disorderly behavior
by opposition supporters. "The March 1 events started with the forcible
dispersion of a peaceful protest at Liberty Square," Arutiunian stated.
Beyond the immediate dissatisfaction arising out of the controversial
February 19 presidential election, Arutiunian said there were several
underlying causes for the tragedy, many of them linked to the arbitrary
behavior of the Kocharian administration. [For background see the
Eurasia Insight archive]. "The situation was caused by the harsh
system of government, the hyper-concentration of power, a nominal
system of checks and balances, social and economic polarization,
the fusion of [big] business and government, the absence of public
oversight of government, and a lack of civil liberties.," Arutiunian’s
statement said.
Arutiunuian also questions the government’s ability to conduct an
impartial investigation into the events. He noted that authorities
have already rounded up at least 30 opposition activists on charges
of inciting violence. "Why is the question of possible violations by
law enforcement agents and the prosecution of [potential] violators
not being discussed?"
Kocharian reacted bitterly to Arutiunian’s assessment. He publicly
regretted Arutunian’s selection as ombudsman, describing it as one of
his worst political appointments. He also tacitly accused the ombudsman
of treasonous behavior. "He doesn’t know what he’s talking about,"
Kocharian said at a March 5 news conference. According to a report
distributed by the Moscow-based Regnum news agency, Kocharian also
fumed that as an Armenian citizen, Arutiunian should remember that
he works "for Armenia, and not for Strasbourg," where the European
Court of Human Rights is located.
Some CIS commentators described the March 1 events in Yerevan as the
end of an era of hope generated by the so-called color revolutions in
Ukraine, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan. While the democratization process in
the CIS lost momentum long ago, the use of force by Armenian officials
to squelch opposition suggest that authoritarianism is ascendant all
across the region. "The Nagorno-Karabakh warlord Kocharian proved to be
far harsher than the ‘Red Director’ [Leonid] Kuchma," wrote Ukrainian
commentator Sergei Klimovich said in a March 3 analysis posted on the
Podrobnosti.ua news website. Klimovich was referring to the Orange
Revolution of 2004 in Ukraine and then-president Kuchma’s reluctance
to use force in a situation similar to that just faced by Kocharian,
in which a rigged election generated a large-scale, permanent protest.
The general US and European silence on the Armenian government’s
handling of the presidential election and its aftermath has not
escaped the attention of those CIS states with a Western-orientation,
Klimovich said. To a certain extent, the West in general, and the OSCE
and Council of Europe in particular, discredited itself with faulty
election assessments that deemed the vote generally free-and-fair,
when it, in fact, contained serious flaws and irregularities, he
suggested. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. "The
Armenian presidential election was one of those rare instances when
the opinions of European and CIS [i.e. Russian] monitors coincided,
and not in favor of the opposition," he wrote.
US diplomats have provided no indication that they will press
either Kocharian or the president-elect Serzh Sarkisian for an
honest accounting of the March 1 events, or for adjustments that
could promote reconciliation and the stabilization of the domestic
political environment. Bryza, the deputy assistant secretary of
state, arrived in Yerevan on March 6 and appeared to offer a strong
endorsement for incumbent authorities. "You are a special leader,"
the official Armenpress news agency quoted Bryza as telling Sarkisian
during a meeting. "You have the vision and approaches which we want
to see for the implementation of joint programs. We want you and
Armenia to succeed."
In sharp contrast to the US diplomatic stance, Canada on March 5
issued a broad critique of the Kocharian administration’s practices.
"It is a democratic right of people everywhere to gather and express
their views, as long as it is done in a peaceful manner," Canadian
Foreign Minister Maxime Bernier said in a statement, referring to
the Yerevan election protest. "We urge the government of Armenia to
respect these fundamental freedoms by lifting the state of emergency
as soon as possible."
Editor’s Note: Rovshan Ismayilov provided reporting for this story
from Baku.