EURASIA INSIGHT
ARMENIA’S OPPOSITION LEADERS SEEK US SUPPORT
Emil Danielyan 3/30/05
March 30, 2005
Eurasianet
The Armenian opposition is growing frustrated with the European
Union’s apparent reluctance to press hard for political reform in
Yerevan. Opposition leaders now regard the United States as the only
potential source of external support for their efforts to force
President Robert Kocharian’s resignation and to open Armenia’s
political system.
One prominent oppositionist spoke for many of his colleagues recently
when he said privately, “The world has only one boss, and you know
what that country is.”
The opposition mood has been reinforced by the EU’s effective decision
not to set specific political conditions for Armenia’s participation
in its European Neighborhood Policy (ENP)– a program that envisages
privileged ties with the expanding union. Armenia as well as
neighboring Azerbaijan and Georgia were included in the program last
June in a move which heralded a deeper EU involvement in the South
Caucasus.
The ENP, also known as “Wider Europe,” offers participating nations
extensive cooperation in political, security and economic matters
without the prospect of EU membership. Easier access to the EU’s vast
and affluent internal market of more than 450 million consumers is
arguably the most tangible benefit offered under the program.
The three South Caucasus states are expected to negotiate individual
“action plans” with the European Commission, the EU’s executive
branch, by the end of this year. Earlier in March, the European
Commission released “country reports” on each of the ex-Soviet
republics that will form the basis of those action plans.
The 30-page report on Armenia stresses a need for democratic
elections, the rule of law, respect for human rights and further
economic reforms, but does not obligate Kocharian to achieve those
objectives. There is only a fleeting and cautiously worded reference
to Armenia’s post-Soviet history of fraudulent parliamentary and
presidential elections. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive]. Opposition parties are maintaining a boycott of parliament,
protesting what they maintain were rigged legislative elections in
2003 [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. In addition,
chronic human rights abuses and curbs on press freedom are only
briefly mentioned. The report, by contrast, is more specific on other
issues, such as veterinary safety and technical standards for
industrial products.
“I think that European structures, and the EU in particular, must get
tougher on the Armenian authorities for their failure to respect the
basic principles of democracy and human rights,” Victor Dallakian, a
leading member of Armenia’ s biggest opposition alliance, the Justice
bloc, told EurasiaNet. “I think a tougher approach will be more
productive than allowing the illegitimate regime to imitate
democratization and human rights protection.”
“Their indifferent attitude toward us, which is exposed by this
document, may not be justified but it is absolutely natural because
Armenia is of little interest to EU countries,” he added.
Dallakian and other opposition leaders are particularly upset with the
EU’s failure to react to the Armenian government’s crackdown on the
opposition during anti-Kocharian street protests last spring. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The crackdown involved
mass arrests, ransacking of opposition offices and the forceful
break-up of a demonstration in Yerevan.Both the United States and the
Council of Europe were critical of the Armenian government’ s handling
of the protests. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch, which strongly
condemned “the cycle of repression,” slammed the EU last January for
failing to “publicly encourage human rights improvements” in Armenia.
The EU countries’ approach appeared to have been summed up by an
official from the EU’s Tbilisi-based regional representation at a
recent seminar in Yerevan. “Armenia is a newly independent state and
we can’t expect it to have a perfect record,” Alexis Loiber said. When
asked about the success story of the ex-Soviet Baltic states that also
won independence in 1991 and are now considered established
democracies, he replied: “They are in a different part of the world
and in very different conditions.”
Such an attitude all but precludes European support for opposition
hopes of launching a mass-protest movement that produces political
change – emulating Georgia’s Rose Revolution in 2003 and Ukraine’s
Orange Revolution in 2004. Opposition leaders, who are equally
unhappy with the Council of Europe’s refusal to sanction Yerevan, now
feel that if there is any Western backing for regime change in Armenia
it will come from Washington.
This impression is fueling pro-American sentiment among the Armenian
oppositionists. Artashes Geghamian, who leads another major opposition
force, the National Unity Party, is perhaps the most vivid embodiment
of this phenomenon. Geghamian, who was calling for Armenia’s
accession to the Russia-Belarus union as recently as two years ago,
told hundreds of supporters in February that the United States “must
be the main pillar of the democratization and strengthening of the
Republic of Armenia.”
It remains open to question whether the United States will respond to
overtures from the Armenian opposition. The US government lent little
support to the opposition-led protest movement last spring and has not
given any indications of a policy shift. Some observers doubt that
Washington would be willing to undercut Kocharian now that there are
fresh hopes for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, a key
US goal in the region. [For background seethe Eurasia Insight
archive].
Kocharian himself has also engaged the Bush administration in recent
months, while putting a little distance between his administration and
Armenia’s traditional ally, Russia. [For background see the Eurasia
Insight archive].Some American political analysts say Kocharian is
currying the Bush administration’s favor in large measure to guard
against Washington’s potential support for regime change in
Armenia. Others argue it would be a mistake for Washingtonto back a
renewed opposition campaign to force Kocharian from power, as such
action would merely push the Armenian president back firmly into
Russia’s geopolitical sphere.
The “pro-America” phenomenon spreading in Armenia’s broader political
elite is driven by the growing impression that Russia’s influence in
the South Caucasus is withering, and that the United States will soon
be the dominantregional power, a commentary in the Yerevan newspaper
Iravunk suggested. “Both within the government and opposition camps
there is now no lack of forces making overtures to the USA in their
public speeches,” said the March 22 commentary. “It is clear to
everybody that the superpower’s [US] position in our region will
increasingly strengthen. So everybody is seeking to be friends with
the future master.”
Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.