Category: 2018

I invite Karen Karapetyan to the Marriott Hotel tomorrow at 12:00. Pashinyan

Maral Takmazian
  • 26.04.2018

    •  

  • Armenia:

    •  

  • arm

    •  

  • rus

81
 1084

Yesterday, in this forum, you nominated me as a candidate for the people’s prime minister. This is a very responsible status and, naturally, we expect that the NA factions will make this decision by consensus. But I want us to clearly record one problem: the problem is not my becoming prime minister, but the elimination of the corrupt and anti-people system established in RA. Nikol Pashinyan announced this at the rally in Republic Square.

“Now there are various messages, offers of a deal, but I want all of us to clearly state that in this context, there can be no compromise with the corrupt and anti-people system. We have clearly discussed with our big team – KP, “My step” initiative, “Reject Serzh” initiative, that in this context there can be no talk of division of positions, division of people. And I want the people to record very clearly that we will not go to any behind-the-scenes agreement, because also because the active, key person of this process is not this platform, but the people standing in the square. And no deal can to be behind the people. And either I will be elected prime minister through the people’s demand, or no prime minister will be elected in RA at all,” he declared.

The leader of the Velvet Revolution stated that it is clear that any value of this division should not suffer even a millimeter and they will not take any step back.

“And we expect all factions of the National Assembly to recognize the people’s victory unconditionally without conditions and preconditions, because the people won and that victory should be recorded de jure as well,” he emphasized. 

He called to gather and concentrate forces ahead of May 1, when the National Assembly will elect a prime minister. On that day, Pashinyan announced, the people of Armenia should demonstrate their power with full force.

“I will assume the position of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia only under such conditions when every citizen of the Republic of Armenia feels himself to be the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia. there is no other option.”

He also referred to the previous round of negotiations, which failed. Pashinyan mentioned that in those days the RPA members said that Karen Karapetyan does not represent them, but now they have decided to authorize her to negotiate with him.

“We take note of that decision and express our readiness to continue the negotiation process within the framework of our agenda. And I invite Karen Karapetyan to the Marriott Hotel tomorrow at 12:00 to start the second stage of the negotiation process. But we have a specific condition: the negotiation must take place in the presence of journalists, so that the public is aware of what we are discussing. We will not negotiate with the RPA behind closed doors, we will negotiate in front of the people, because the people are the government and are our leaders,” he added.


Rallies in Yerevan are temporarily suspended. they are moved to Gyumri and Vanadzor. Tomorrow at 15:00, a motorcade to Gyumri will start, and the next day, at the same time, a motorcade to Vanadzor and Aparan. He also urged those who are tired during these days to rest these two days – watch a movie, rest, because active activities will start in a few days. And they have a plan for them, assured Pashinyan.


Azerbaijani press: Protests in Armenia will lead to civil war – Azerbaijani MP

Jirair Kafian
15:12 (UTC+04:00)

Baku, Azerbaijan, April 27

By Samir Ali – Trend:

Political and economic situation in Azerbaijan and Armenia is incomparably different, Azerbaijani MP Elman Mammadov told Trend April 27.

Despite that Azerbaijan is in the state of war and that 20 percent of its territories are occupied, thanks to the successful policy pursued by the country’s leadership, Azerbaijan’s international authority is growing, the MP noted.

“The policy pursued by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has strengthened the statehood of Azerbaijan, internal stability has been achieved, the economy and the army have strengthened,” he said.

“This dynamic development continues today. This is why the presidential election in Azerbaijan was held in a stable and transparent manner, and the people made their choice by having chosen a worthy candidate,” he added.

As for Armenia, because of its aggressive policy, this country takes a hostile attitude towards its neighbors, and therefore is isolated from the development in the region, from all international projects, interstate cooperation, the MP said.

“Today 80-90 percent of the Armenian economy is under the monopoly control of foreign countries. The “Karabakh clan”, which seized power in Armenia, by its actions brought the country and it people to the lowest level. “The consequences of such policy are obvious, and this is not the end. I think that protest rallies in the country will continue and they will lead to civil war,” he said.

Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan resigned on April 23 amid protests. He was elected president of Armenia twice, in 2008 and 2013. Protest rallies against his election as the prime minister began on April 13.

The opposition accused Sargsyan of poor governance and deteriorating economic situation in the country. On April 17, the opposition announced the beginning of a “velvet revolution”.


Society of love and solidarity should not be replaced by society of hatred and antagonism – Armen Ashotyan

Boris Nahapetian
| 17:29 | April 27 2018
Category
Politics

MP representing the Republican Party of Armenia Armen Ashotyan has commented on the recent domestic developments in Armenia, urging not to replace the society of love and solidarity with a society of hatred and antagonism, Ashotyan made a post on his Facebook page.

He noted that neither Nikol, nor Karepetyan should be blackened, nor anyone else. “Diploma vs. Gazprom is very weal argument. Armenia does not need war of compromising material, but rather competition of development programs.

Armen Ashotyan also noted that there is still a “golden window” until May 1 special session. “When you enter a blind alley, making half step back is not a retreat, but a chance to see light at the end of the tunnel “, he said.

Azerbaijani press: Azerbaijan is developing, Armenia is dying – MP

Mary Lazarian
26 April 2018 15:33 (UTC+04:00)

Baku, Azerbaijan, April 26

By Elchin Mehdiyev – Trend:

There are big differences between Azerbaijan and Armenia today: Azerbaijan is developing, and Armenia is dying, Tahir Rzayev, Deputy of the Milli Majlis (Parliament) told Trend April 26.

He said, the presidential election, which was held in each of the two countries, gave different results.

“Reforms leading to development are being carried out in Azerbaijan, a new government has been formed and stability has been further strengthened. In Armenia, political chaos began after the election, people took to the streets,” the MP said.

Rzayev noted that the resignation of Serzh Sargsyan from the government was supposed to happen long ago.

“Sargsyan retained the power by force of arms. The Armenian people did not want him as the head of the country, he is an enemy not only of Azerbaijan, but also of his own people,” the MP said.

He noted that Armenia was a failed country, was dependent on other states and existed on donations.

“It has no independent policy, and it has no democracy and freedom of speech. Unlike Armenia, Azerbaijan pursues an independent policy and does not claim foreign lands. President of Azerbaijan conducts wise policy, the country’s economy is developing, its prestige in the international arena is growing,” Rzayev said.

The MP also noted that the death of many peaceful Azerbaijanis is on Serzh Sargsyan’s conscience, and he must answer for his crimes before the court.


First World War: Bloody conflict in oil-rich Baku

Emil Lazarian
The Times, UK
 
First World War: Bloody conflict in oil-rich Baku

As London turned its attention to the Caucasus, fighting between Bolsheviks and Muslims plunged the city into chaos

by  Michael Tillotson

Men working in the thick smoke of the Baku oilfields on December 1, 1918

In April 1918 the attention of the British cabinet and military high command turned again to the Caucasus. The Turks appeared to be preparing to invade that turbulent melting pot of Armenians, Muslims and their Russian overlords with the aim of capturing the Baku oilfields, which it was said had resources “enough to light and heat every home on earth”.

Of equally troubling concern to ministers was that control of the region would, in theory at least, open the route through Persia – modern Iran – via Afghanistan to India, to where Lenin was known to have ambitions to carry the Bolshevik banner. The Caucasus had recently fallen under the tenuous control of the Baku Soviet, a shaky coalition of the city’s residents presided over by the Armenian Stepan Shaumian, an adroit communist dedicated to the conversion of the region to the supposedly unifying new dogma propagated by Petrograd.

Although Shaumian’s writ extended scarcely beyond the outskirts of Baku, in London’s perception the city had become the centre of authority and must be denied to Turkey if the oilfields and way to India were to kept out of enemy hands.

Aside from the railway between Baku and Russia’s previous administrative centre of Tiflis (now Tbilisi), overland communications were primitive and the best means of moving large bodies of troops was the Caspian Sea, lying like a plump reversed question mark to the east. Spanning 143,000 square miles, its coastlines lay in Russia to the north and east, Azerbaijan to the west and Persia to the south and southwest.

Baku, a well-developed cosmopolitan city, sits on a small peninsula on the Azerbaijani shore, with transport vessels plying from its port to others around the coast. At Hamadan, in neutral and compliant Persia, Major-General Lionel Dunsterville and a cadre of instructors intended to turn the Armenians, whose territory faced the border, into a military force capable of holding back the Turks. He waited impatiently for reinforcements from Baghdad, 300 miles away. These were essential if he was to have a force capable of fighting its way through to the port of Enzeli on the southern coast, from where Dunsterville planned to sail north to Baku, then utilise the railway for an advance on Tiflis. The mountainous territory between Hamadan and Enzeli was the haunt of tribesmen likely to massacre the 44-man cadre of instructors, unless it had a substantial escort.

Baku city lay quiet, but with an underlying tension because the Muslim majority resented the oilfield workers from neighbouring Armenia. Worrying news for the Muslims that the British government was providing funds and arms to the Armenians, ostensibly to build up an army against the threatening Turks, elicited support for the Muslims from a totally unexpected direction. Arrival of the advance guard of the former tsarist Muslim Savage Division by sea from Lankaran on the coast near the Azerbaijani border with Persia introduced confusion, then violence.

Officials of the Baku Soviet strode down to the harbour to demand the newcomers’ intentions, only to be sent sprinting back to their headquarters by rifle fire. Bolshevik troops were summoned and eventually overcame and disarmed the relatively small number of aggressors, but then the rest of the Savage Division arrived, giving the Muslims the advantage of numbers. There were, however, Russian-manned naval vessels in the harbour whose crews joined the Bolsheviks. Barricades were thrown up, trenches dug and within hours the city was engulfed in fighting between the Russian Bolsheviks and the Muslims, who were soon getting the worst of it.

At first the Armenians declared their neutrality and tried to hide themselves away in their own quarter of the city, but extreme nationalists among them prevailed in their urgings to take the opportunity to attack their ancient enemies. As so often happens in civil conflict, the fighting degenerated into wholesale slaughter, in this case of the Muslim population and the pillage and destruction of their houses. For three days everyone not involved in the fighting locked their doors.

The wife of a British officer serving with the defunct military mission to the tsar’s army, Ida Dewar Durie, watched the mayhem from her first-floor room in the Hotel d’Europe, where she and her companion lived on bread, cheese and Caspian caviar, because the hotel’s food stocks had been looted by both sides. Makeshift hospitals for the many wounded were established and Mrs Dewar Durie noticed that most of the stretcher bearers were former Austrian or German prisoners-of-war set free by the Bolsheviks. The Muslim quarter of Baku was soon in flames and further resistance ended with the Bolsheviks and Armenians triumphant.

The Bolshevik leader Shaumian sent a dispatch to Lenin stating that 10,000 Muslims, including the Savage Division, had been soundly defeated and, embroidering his report – as victors are prone to do – added that the handful of Muslim survivors were now “rallying to the Bolshevik cause”.

Factual and distorted rumours of the fighting and its outcome reached Dunsterville, who was still awaiting reinforcements at Hamadan. Before their arrival came changed instructions, a not infrequent military experience. Instead of arming and training the Armenians to fight the Turks, he was ordered to secure Baku and its strategic oilfields.

News of the massacre of the Muslims in Baku and the known hostility of the victorious Bolsheviks to the British, because they suspected they were being sent to dislodge them, gave him much to think about. Selected for his assignment because he was a Russian speaker, Dunsterville was a patient and painstaking man who kept a daily diary throughout the war. We shall hear of him again after he eventually sailed into Baku, not with the infantry division he had requested after receipt of his new orders from Baghdad, but one infantry battalion and a squadron of armoured cars. Command headquarters habitually regard requests for reinforcements as overstated.

Azerbaijani Press: Armenia’s "Velvet Revolution" keeps peace with Russia – for now

Chalian Meline 
Turan Information Agency, Azerbaijani Opposition Media
 Friday
Armenia's "Velvet Revolution" keeps peace with Russia - for now
The leaders of the protest movement that toppled Armenia's longtime
leader Serzh Sargsyan have studiously - and so far successfully -
avoided making their call for a "velvet revolution" about Armenia's
foreign relations.
But not far under the surface of the protest movement lie strongly
skeptical attitudes of the country's tight relationship with Russia.
And if, as seems increasingly likely, a fundamental change in
Armenia's politics is underway, the country's relationship to Russia
will come under pressure.
Russia is Armenia's closest ally and security guarantor, maintaining a
large military base in Armenia and providing substantial military aid.
Armenia is a member of Russia's two most significant regional
organizations, the security-oriented Collective Security Treaty
Organization (CSTO) and the trade bloc Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).
Russian border guards man the country's frontier with Turkey.
Moscow tends to hold a dim view of popular revolts in its post-Soviet
allies, regularly warning of the danger of so-called "color
revolutions" such as those seen in Georgia and Ukraine. And it
generally saw Sargsyan as a reliable, if not enthusiastic, steward of
Russian-Armenian ties.
Nevertheless, the Kremlin has maintained a hands-off attitude toward
events in Yerevan.
"For now we see that the situation is not unfolding in a destabilizing
way which is a cause for satisfaction," Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry
Peskov told reporters the day after Sargsyan stepped down.
The leader of the anti-Sargsyan movement, Nikol Pashinyan, carefully
avoided voicing any international agenda during the protests. And when
Sargsyan stepped down, Pashinyan took pains to announce that he did
not foresee any significant changes to Armenia's relationship with
Russia. He has said that he supports staying in the CSTO and EAEU and
keeping the Russian military base.
Pashinyan and other leaders of the movement met Russian officials at
their embassy in Yerevan on the evening of April 25, and Russia
appeared to give its tacit approval. "I met with official
representatives from Moscow, who assured me of Russia's
noninterference in Armenia's internal affairs," Pashinyan told a rally
the same evening.
In the past, however, Pashinyan and other protest leaders have taken
more Russia-skeptical positions. The Yelk bloc in parliament, to which
many of the leaders including Pashinyan belong, submitted a proposal
last year to leave the EAEU. Pashinyan has also expressed skepticism
about the CSTO's value to Armenia.
At a press conference on April 24, the day after Sargsyan resigned,
Pashinyan alluded to the possibility of geopolitical shifts in the
future. "We're not going to make any sharp geopolitical movements.
We're going to do everything in the interests of Armenia. Any question
has to be discussed in its own time," he said.
At the protests, many of the participants, unprompted, criticized
Sargsyan's close ties to Moscow and expressed hope that a change in
government would lead to a less pro-Russia orientation.
"You're not from Russia, are you?" one protester asked angrily when
approached by a reporter during one of the low moments of the
movement, shortly after Pashinyan had been arrested. "Good. All of
this is Russia's fault."
After Sargsyan stepped down, another protester - asked what his hopes
for the country were now - put foreign relations close to the top of
list: "We hope that the politics won't be only pro-Russia, that they
will be more balanced."
And even as Moscow has stayed relatively sanguine about the events
unfolding in Armenia, many pro-Kremlin commentators have been framing
the developments as a potentially dangerous color revolution. The
protest leaders "are committed to the West," said analyst Nikolai
Spiridonov in an interview with the Russian news agency RIA Novosti's
Ukrainian service. "We can assume that if one of them becomes
president or prime minister, under the new system, then the balance of
power in the country will change in favor of the West."
One Russian meme has the Kremlin's attack dog TV anchor Dmitry
Kiselyov asking Russian President Vladimir Putin: "I don't understand
- are the Armenians now Banderovtsy, or not yet?" ("Banderovtsy" is a
Russian derogatory term for Ukrainian nationalists and a key trope in
Russia's information war against Ukraine's 2014 "Maidan" revolution
that brought in a pro-Western leadership.)
"Pashinyan wants a pro-Western political course," said Anton
Evstratov, a Russian commentator and history professor in Yerevan. But
there are deep security and economic ties that bind Armenia to Russia,
which will make it difficult for him to implement any sort of
pro-Western agenda, Evstratov said. "The question is, is he able to
put his pro-Western views into reality?"
He said that Russian officials' low-key reaction also is the result of
a belated understanding that the Kremlin's heavy-handed approach
backfired. Evstratov said he was "surprised" by the "soft" reactions
from Russian officials like Peskov, but said that they appeared to
have learned from their mistakes in Georgia (during the Rose
Revolution of 2003) and Ukraine (during the Maidan revolution of
2013-14), when the heavy-handed Russian reaction exacerbated events
and largely turned the two countries against Russia. "They [Russians]
are doing it much more professionally now."
Pashinyan and his colleagues could be compared to "Euroskeptics who
come into parliament on a nationalistic movement, but when they are in
power they become far more moderate and able to negotiate," said Yuri
Kofner, head of the Eurasian sector of the Centre for Comprehensive
European and International Studies at Moscow's Higher School of
Economics, and an advocate of greater Eurasian integration. "I think
the situation can be similar here."
Styopa Safaryan, a former member of Armenia"s parliament who advocates
closer ties with the West, said Russia is likely reassured by
Pashinyan's relatively balanced foreign policy orientation. Pashinyan
did advocate leaving the EAEU, "however, he also was not supporting
Armenia's full European and Euro-Atlantic integration," Safaryan told
Eurasianet. "Pashinyan will not change Armenia's foreign policy agenda
and there is nothing to threaten Russia and Russian interests."
He added, though, that free and fair elections - one of Pashinyan's
major demands - could help more openly pro-Western parties gain a
foothold in the country.
Joshua Kucera is the Turkey/Caucasus editor at Eurasianet, and author
of The Bug Pit.

Sargsyan’s resignation is the start of a process

Emil Lazarian
Netgazeti, Georgia
April 24 2018
 
 
Sargsyan’s resignation is the start of a process
 
 by Mikayel Zolyan
Velvet revolution in Armenia: First impressions
 
[Armenian News note: the below is translated from Georgian]
What would seem unimaginable a month ago and unlikely a week ago has happened in Armenia. Resignation of Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan became inevitable during daytime on 23 April. Readers of Netgazeti may remember that the author of these words was quite sceptical about prospects for protests just a week ago.
 
Many thought back on 22 April that the protest movement was going to suffer a defeat. [MP] Nikol Pashinyan and other leaders of the protests were detained. It would seem at first glance that the movement was beheaded and the government was to proceed with targeted repressions until the movement found itself localised and suppressed.
 
However, events took quite a different turn. Pashinyan said at the 23 April rally that government representatives kept coming to him and offering various options for compromise. At the beginning, they offered that Sargsyan would resign in half a year, then in two months, and then in a week. Pashinyan gave the same answer to all these offers: He demanded that Sargsyan resign in two hours.
 
Finally, Pashinyan’s demands were satisfied: Serzh Sargsyan published a statement, in which he said: “I was wrong and Nikol Pashinyan was right”.
 
What happened? The problem is that the detainment of the protest leaders had a reverse effect. After the opposition supporters emerged from the first shock, something unprecedented started taking pace in the whole of Armenia. People took to the streets in the capital city [Yerevan] and remote villages. Something unimaginable happened in Yerevan in the evening: Two endless streams of citizens headed from various areas in the city to the central Republic Square.
 
When these two streams met, a most numerous rally during the protests assembled in the square.
 
The opposition said that 160,000 people attended it and the government spoke about a rally of 35,000, although it was clear that the mobilisation was unprecedented.
 
It became clear even to the government on the evening of 23 April that it would be necessary to use force to stop the protests, but this would lead to a high number of victims.
 
Given Serzh Sargsyan’s reputation of being a cynical and cruel politician, many thought in Armenia that he would not surrender and would suppress the protests even at the expense of numerous victims.
 
At his talks with Nikol Pashinyan on the morning of 22 April, Sargsyan effectively openly threatened to repeat the events that took place on 1 March 2008, when 10 people died at a rally as a result of the use of force.
 
However, to use force, Sargsyan needed support from the political elite, which was weakening every second. At the same time, 24 April was drawing closer. Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day [24 April] was an additional factor of psychological pressure on Sargsyan.
 
Finally, Sargsyan, the chairman of the Armenian Chess Federation, realised that the game was lost and made a statement, which left even many of his opponents surprised due to its sincerity.
 
Why did this happen?
 
What happened is a result of the coincidence of several factors at the same time. Sargsyan’s phenomenal unpopularity was one of them. It is difficult to find another politician in world history, who would lack popular support to such an extent, but would nevertheless try to extend his rule after the end of his term as president. What Sargsyan always succeeded in was that he used to deceive his opponents and probably it was due to this that he ceased to be rational.
 
Had Sargsyan agreed to appoint someone else as prime minister, remaining [in power] as “eminence grise”, the country could have avoided protests or they would not have been so large. However, what Sargsyan probably feared more was that it was his companions, who could have removed him from power, but not people. Probably it was this that he meant when he said that he was wrong.
 
Another factor that made the protests successful was the tactic chosen by the opposition. During the days of the protests, I got the impression on many accounts that Pashinyan and his companions had read a book on revolutionary technologies and non-violent protests.
 
Of course, Pashinyan and his team also made mistakes, but as a whole, he presented himself as a certain combination of Vladimir Lenin and Mahatma Gandhi during the last days of the protests. On the one hand, they resorted to as much pressure as possible, depriving the government of the opportunity to take a breath, and on the other, they made protests non-violent, which did not enable the government to use force.
 
Despite provocations during the protests on the part of police and pro-government “titushki” [paid thugs, who worked closely with the police during protests in Ukraine against the regime of Viktor Yanukovych], the opposition effectively used no force. Many university students and young people participated in the protests and even school students stood there, which made the use of force psychologically difficult.
 
The position of external forces, in particular Russia, is the third and most unexpected factor. The position of Western countries was more or less predictable – appeals to resolve the situation peacefully, but Russia’s position proved to be unexpected. We have become accustomed to the fact that as a rule, Russia takes such processes as a threat to its own influence and what is worst, perceives them as a threat to stability within Russia. However, Russia has not made similar statements this time and comments by [Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson] Maria Zakharova were conspicuously neutral and Russian TV channels did not speak about another “colour revolution”, “Maydan”, and the “cookies of the Department of State”.
 
Such a reaction was so unexpected that a conspiracy theory emerged, saying that Moscow was behind the protests, which seems absolutely unimaginable.
 
In reality, Moscow presumably took into account its experience of Ukraine and refused to openly assume responsibility for the use of force by an unpopular politician. Moreover, Moscow presumably expected that as a result of all this, power would go to incumbent Acting Prime Minister Karen Karapetyan, who is believed to be a pro-Russian politician and a comparatively calm attitude to the protests is due to this.
 
It was presumably due to these reasons that Moscow decided to disregard the events in Armenia that may have their impact on protest movements in Russia proper as well as in other countries of the [Russian-led] Eurasian Union.
 
What may happen?
 
The opposition won a sweeping victory. However, as Nikol Pashinyan said at the 23 April rally, not everything ends with it. A few days earlier, Pashinyan published the following programme: 1. Serzh Sargsyan’s resignation; 2. Formation of a provisional government led by a “popular candidate” [most likely implying Pashinyan proper or one of his companions] [square brackets as published]; 3. Early [parliamentary] elections with all measures taken to make them free and transparent.
 
The first point in the programme has already been achieved, but Pashinyan and his supporters will now have to struggle to implement the remaining points, which may prove to be more difficult than the struggle against Sargsyan, as it is difficult to say, how long it will be possible to maintain the “revolutionary” energy of the masses. At the same time, Karapetyan, who is more popular among people than Serzh Sargsyan, may enjoy support from Moscow, as said above.
 
Pashinyan does not yet have an experienced political team. However, the experience his companions have accumulated over the past three weeks should also be taken into account.
 
One way or another, everything now depends on Pashinyan’s ability to transform street protests into constant political support.
 
I think it will not be an exaggeration to say that Pashinyan is the most popular politician in Armenia now. If he manages to “push back” Karapetyan and the Republican Party and to come to the head of the government, holding really transparent elections later, his party will win much more votes than his Yelk [Way out] bloc in 2017.
 
Of course, the Republican Party will do all it can to prevent this from happening, but this cannot be ruled out in case of street protests. Correspondingly, the Republican Party will have to make concessions, a rift will take place within the party, and some MPs will quit the Republican Party to side with Pashinyan.
 
The events in Armenia are still far from having the knot untied. Serzh Sargsyan’s resignation is not the end to the process. It is the beginning of the process. However, the resignation is quite important as a fact. This is the first case in Armenian history, when a ruler had to resign because of popular protests. At the same time, Sargsyan did not use force, which can also be regarded as a precedent not only for the future of Armenia, but also for the rest of the post-Soviet countries.
 
At the same time, this is the first case in not only Armenia, but also in the whole post-Soviet area, when the leader of protests was not from either political or business elite.
 
[Former Georgian President] Mikheil Saakashvili, [who led protests in Georgia in 2003 and deposed President Eduard Shevardnadze] was from Shevardnadze’s team and [former Georgian Prime Minister and founder of Georgia’s ruling Georgian Dream party, Bidzina] Ivanishvili, [who defeated Saakashvili’s party in 2012], is an oligarch. He [Pashinyan] is a former journalist turned opposition politician. It is going to be quite important, if he manages to come to power.
 
The main achievement for Armenian citizens is that they managed to stop what many in Armenia called “Turkmenisation” and “sultanate”, i.e. the creation of Serzh Sargsyan’s personal regime for an indefinite time. No matter how events may unfold, we can be sure that Armenia is not facing the prospect of becoming a “sultanate” in the near future.

Armenia is having a ‘color revolution.’ So why is Russia so calm?

Arpi Talalian
The Christian Science Monitor
Thursday
Armenia is having a ‘color revolution.’ So why is Russia so calm?
Unlike post-Soviet revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, and elsewhere, the current protests in Armenia have not alarmed the Kremlin, even though they look set to bring greater democracy. That is likely due to the lack of geopolitical stakes involved.
 
by Fred Weir Correspondent
 
 
It looks like the typical “color revolution.”
 
Pro-democracy crowds take to the streets in the capital of some post-Soviet republic to peacefully protest the political manipulations of their Moscow-friendly ruling elite and demand sweeping reforms to the corrupt, oligarchic economic system they’ve grown to despise.
 
That’s what’s happening right now in Armenia. For over two weeks, huge, mostly youthful crowds have been holding rolling demonstrations in the center of Yerevan and other Armenian cities, reacting to an attempt by two-term President Serzh Sargsyan to extend his grip on power. Most previous “color revolutions” in the former Soviet Union have been similarly triggered by fraudulent elections or other duplicitous abuses of power.
 
But unlike those previous cases, the massive popular upsurge in Armenia went almost unnoticed in Western capitals for 10 days, until Mr. Sargsyan suddenly bowed to the street and stepped aside last Monday. Moreover, Russia, which is home to more than 2 million Armenians and has been obsessed with the supposedly dire threat of “color revolutions” for years, was more alert but surprisingly calm.
 
Things are still up in the air on the streets of Yerevan, and the tense drama may well end up striking a major blow for democracy and the power of civil society. But there are few, if any, geopolitical stakes in Armenia. While the government might become more democratic, Armenia’s reliance on Russia for trade and security will not change. And that is the main reason for the almost disinterested shrugs on all sides.
 
“We may await wide-scale changes in domestic policies. New people may come to the top, with a whole new attitude,” says Alexander Iskandaryan, director of the independent Caucasus Institute in Yerevan. “But this revolution has an entirely internal genesis. Foreign policy isn’t even a subject for discussion.”
 
‘Russia will not intervene’
 
The tiny, landlocked republic of Armenia is a traditional Russian ally, a member of the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union and military Collective Security Treaty Organization, and wedged between its long-standing enemies Turkey and Azerbaijan. So, it depends heavily on Russia for its national security.
 
Though chronically poor by Western standards, over half of Armenians have post-secondary education. Large numbers go abroad for permanent or temporary employment. There are huge Armenian diasporas in Russia, North America, and Europe, and contacts are intense. The country of around 3 million people has enjoyed about 7 percent annual growth in recent years, but its GDP of around 11 billion is modest and heavily dependent on around $500 million in annual remittances from Armenians working abroad, mostly in Russia.
 
The recent street revolt came in response to Sargsyan’s attempt to “pull a Putin” by changing the constitution to vest the lion’s share of authority in the parliament, then getting his ruling Republican party to name him prime minister. Though his party did appoint him prime minister, he only lasted six days before resigning under popular pressure.
 
The largely spontaneous eruption ended up with Nikol Pashinyan, whose Civil Contract party holds just 8 percent of the seats in the parliament, as its leading symbol and most likely beneficiary. He is demanding that the parliament choose a “people’s candidate” who is not from the ruling Republican Party when it meets to decide on a new prime minister on May 1. Beyond that, he demands new elections and sweeping political reforms.
 
He hasn’t suggested any changes to Armenia’s complex relations with Russia. “I had a meeting with an official from Moscow and got reassurance that Russia would not intervene in Armenia’s internal affairs,” Mr. Pashinyan told a rally in central Yerevan earlier this week.
 
That’s a marked break from the Russian reaction to similar events which unfolded over the past decade and a half in Georgia, twice in Ukraine, and even twice in distant Kyrgyzstan. But in this case, the Kremlin has indeed repeatedly insisted that there is no cause for alarm. The fiery Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, even took to her Facebook page to declare “Armenia, Russia always stands with you!”
 
But in fact, Russia has not shown much interest in blocking Armenia’s dalliances with democracy, including those with the European Union. In 2017, without any apparent objection from Moscow, Armenia signed a revised Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement with the EU, and announced its intentions to keep developing its relations with both Russia and the EU, even though its main trading partner is Russia.
 
Armenia needs Russia
 
That boils down in large part, analysts say, to the immutability of Armenia’s security needs – even if it becomes more democratic.
 
“Armenia is in a complicated geopolitical situation, but the bottom line is that it doesn’t have many alternatives,” says Vladimir Zharikhin, deputy director of the Institute for the Commonwealth of Independent States, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. “It is very connected with its diaspora around the world, who are very influential. It always has maintained good relations with both Russia and the West. But, given that it is locked in [a frozen] war with Azerbaijan over [the Armenian-populated territory of] Nagorno-Karabakh, and has NATO member Turkey on its other border, it needs Russia and is not likely to change its geopolitical position no matter who comes to power.”
 
As a sharp example of a post-Soviet country whose population chafes at Russian-style “managed democracy” and corrupt crony-oriented economic policies, Armenia’s pro-democracy revolt seems another in a familiar series rocking the Putin-era ex-Soviet region. But as a Moscow vassal tearing itself free and rushing into the West’s embrace, not so much.
 
“It bears all the hallmarks of a ‘colored revolution,’ but it’s completely driven by domestic politics,” says Sergei Strokan, foreign affairs columnist for the Moscow business daily Kommersant. “Armenia’s agreement with the EU is mostly symbolic, since it remains highly dependent on Russian loans, arms, and trade. Indeed, there’s very little the West could offer Armenia, even if there was a Ukrainian-style mood to change sides on the streets in Yerevan today. But there isn’t. And I doubt the events in Armenia even register very much on US or European agendas at all as these very dramatic events unfold.”

Remembering the Victims of the Armenian Genocide

Emil Lazarian
US Official News
Thursday
Remembering the Victims of the Armenian Genocide
 
 
Sacramento: Democratic Party of California has issued the following press release:
103 years ago today, one of the worst crimes in human history began – the Armenian Genocide, when the government of the Ottoman Empire arrested and deported just under 300 Armenians from Constantinople. Those arrests were the first bloody acts in a genocide that would ultimately kill as many as 1.5 million people over the next few years.
 
 
More than a century later, it’s incumbent upon us to commemorate this monstrous crime. We must remember the victims; people’s whose lives and potential were mercilessly taken simply because of their heritage. And we must use their memory as a vigil to to never forget how bigoted, hateful and dehumanizing ideas made wholesale slaughter of the Armenian people official policy in the Ottoman Empire.
We know that hatred and bigotry exist in this world, and indeed, thrive in many dark corners. And we know that our obligation is to confront this bigotry and hatred, so that it can never arise again to threaten death and deprivation on innocent people. The world failed to heed the lesson of the Armenian Genocide, and a generation later, a new group of murderous leaders initiated the wholesale slaughter of Jewish people, Romani, homosexuals, eastern Europeans and others in occupied Europe.
That is why it is so vital that we keep alive the memory of the Armenian Genocide. We must never forget the evil that people are capable of, and the indifference that allows that evil to flourish.
103 years after the Armenian Genocide, 70 years after Auschwitz and Dachau were liberated, and 20 years after the horrors of Rwanda, it’s clear that we must continue to work for a peaceful and just world for all, free from strife and enmity between different peoples. As Americans, and as Democrats, we must hold the memory of the Armenian Genocide close to our hearts, and honor its victims by working to ensure a future where such unspeakable horrors are banished forever.