ARMENIAN REPORTER
PO Box 129
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: 1-201-226-1995
Fax: 1-201-226-1660
3191 Casitas Ave Ste 216
Los Angeles CA 90039
Tel: 1-323-671-1030
Fax: 1-323-671-1033
1 Yeghvard Hwy Fl 5
Yerevan 0054 Armenia
Tel: 374-10-367-195
Fax: 374-10-367-195 fax
Web:
Email: [email protected]
February 16, 2008 — From the front section
To see the printed version of the newspaper, complete with photographs
and additional content, visit and download the pdf
files. It’s free.
1. Serge Sargsian is elected as Armenia’s third president (by Vincent Lima)
* Narrowly avoids runoff
* Chief rivals cry foul, refuse to concede
* Observers say vote was "mostly" fair
2. International observers assess presidential elections (by Maria Titizian)
* "Administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe
commitments and standards"
3. Tens of thousands protest election results (by Armen Hakobyan)
* Supporters rally around Levon Ter-Petrossian
4. Young and old vote for a better life (by Betty Panossian-Ter Sarkissian)
5. Washington briefing (by Emil Sanamyan)
* Sen. Brownback discusses "silk road" in Azerbaijan
* Turkish ground forces resume Iraq operations
6. United States, Europeans recognize Kosovo’s independence (by Emil Sanamyan)
* Russia and China are opposed
7. Assembly drops Genocide museum arbitration demand
* Cafesjian asks court to declare Assembly allegations false
8. February 1988, Yerevan, Opera Square (by Tatul Hakobyan)
* Azerbaijan’s answer: Sumgait
9. Commentary: Kosovo and the Karabakh power play (by Khatchik Der Ghougassian)
10. Commentary: To build an enduring democratic state (by Fr. Ktrij Devejian)
* A perspective on the presidential election from inside Armenia
11. Commentary: Growing pains in a fledgling democracy (by Sylvie Tertzakian)
12. Editorial: Extend an invitation to Washington
************************************** *************************************
1. Serge Sargsian is elected as Armenia’s third president
* Narrowly avoids runoff
* Chief rivals cry foul, refuse to concede
* Observers say vote was "mostly" fair
by Vincent Lima
YEREVAN – Prime Minister Serge Azati Sargsian was elected as Armenia’s
third president with 52.86 percent of the 1.6 million votes cast,
according to the preliminary count released by the Central Electoral
Commission (CEC). Just under 70 percent of eligible voters went to the
polls on February 19 in an election that the International Election
Observation Mission (IEOM) said, "was administered mostly in line with
OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards."
In choosing Mr. Sargsian, voters opted for stability and for
continuing the policies pursued over the last 10 years by President
Robert Kocharian, who was constitutionally barred from running for a
third consecutive term. Mr. Sargsian, a native of Nagorno-Karabakh who
has held senior ministerial posts in Armenia for the last 15 years, is
widely seen as a competent manager, affable, and open to new ideas.
"The high-State authorities made genuine efforts to address
shortcomings noted in previous elections," said the preliminary report
of the IEOM, which comprises observers from the Office for Democratic
Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE/ODIHR), the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly
(OSCE PA), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE),
and the European Parliament. But "there is a need for further
improvements and political will to tackle concerns such as the lack of
public confidence in the electoral process and the absence of a clear
separation between State and party functions. The conduct of the count
did not contribute to reduce suspicions among stakeholders." (See
story below.)
Levon Ter-Petrossian, the former president, who came in second place
with 21.51 percent of the vote, according to the preliminary CEC
count, refused to concede. On February 20, he started leading street
protests that were continuing at press time.
"Today the people of Armenia have chosen a peaceful and economically
strong future for their country," Mr. Sargsian said in a statement
released by his campaign. "I am proud to have received the confidence
of our citizens to continue our efforts to take our country forward on
the road to economic and social development. I thank all who voted for
me. But as I said before the elections, I am preparing to be the
president of all the citizens of Armenia."
Shortly after the release of the IEOM’s preliminary report, French
president Nicolas Sarkozy became the first foreign head of state to
congratulate Mr. Sargsian on his election. He was followed by
President Vladimir Putin of Russia, President Abdullah Gül of Turkey,
President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, senior European Union
officials, and others.
The U.S. State Department continues "to follow the observer
mission’s reports on the conduct of the election" and urges "the
Armenian authorities to swiftly address reported problems."
"Our statement does not mean we are questioning the outcome of
Armenia’s election," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza
told Mediamax. "But, nor are we yet in a position to declare all the
concerns about irregularities have been fully addressed. That will
take a little bit of time, as was the case with Georgia’s January 5
presidential election."
* Runoff avoided
By garnering a majority of the votes, Mr. Sargsian avoids a runoff
contest with the winner of the second-largest number of votes. Besides
Mr. Sargsian and Mr. Ter-Petrossian the top vote-getters were former
speaker Artur Baghdasarian with 16.67 percent of the vote, and the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation’s Vahan Hovhannesian with 6.18
percent, according to the preliminary CEC count.
Mr. Baghdasarian announced that he was requesting recounts in
specific polling stations. As of Feb. 22, recounts had taken place in
45 precincts and were continuing in 144 precincts. In most, minor
changes or no changes were made to the original count. In one central
Yerevan precinct, however, the recount showed that Mr. Sargsian had
won 395 votes but the precinct electoral commission had certified him
to have won 709 votes; Mr. Ter-Petrossian had won 392 votes, but the
commission had shortchanged him by 16 votes; Mr. Baghdasarian had
received 184 votes but had been credited with 134, and Mr.
Hovhannesian had won 120 votes but had been credited with only three.
The other five candidates had won a total of 93 votes but were shown
to have won a total of 17. The chairperson of the precinct electoral
commission has been arrested and, if convicted, faces two to five
years in prison; the other members of the commission are under
investigation.
Nine additional criminal investigations are underway as of Feb. 22.
They relate to assault in or around polling stations and hindering the
work of precinct electoral commissions.
Meanwhile, Mr. Ter-Petrossian has started a series of rallies,
marches, and sit-ins, and has called for students to boycott classes.
He has declared victory in the polls and called for the nullification
of the election results and the holding of new elections. The rallies
have been peaceful as of press time, with scant police presence. (See
story below.)
Protests have followed past elections as well.
During the Thursday rally, Mr. Baghdasarian’s campaign manager read
a statement about the recounts, but stopped short of joining Mr.
Ter-Petrossian’s movement. Later that day, Mr. Ter-Petrossian
announced that two defense ministry officials were joining his
movement. On Friday, he was joined on stage by a deputy prosecutor
general, Gagik Jhangirian. Mr. Jhangirian, who prosecuted the case of
the October 27, 1999, terrorist attack at Armenia’s National Assembly,
was promptly dismissed from his post for violating the legal ban on
political activity by prosecutors. At press time, Mr. Ter-Petrossian
had also been joined by seven members of parliament from Mr.
Sargsian’s Republican Party of Armenia and its ally, the Prosperous
Armenia Party.
* Safeguards
Voting was carried out and results were tallied by precinct electoral
commissions in 1,923 polling locations; 41 territorial electoral
commissions added up the local tallies and reported them to the CEC.
Each electoral commission includes a representative of each of the
five parties in parliament as well as presidential and judicial
appointees. The five parties in parliament include Mr. Sargsian’s
Republican Party of Armenia and the Prosperous Armenia Party, which
supported his candidacy; the Armenian Revolutionary Federation; Mr.
Baghdasarian’s Country of Laws Party; and the Heritage Party, which
supported Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s candidacy.
In addition, each candidate is entitled to have proxies at polling
places during preparations, voting, and tabulation, as well as at the
central and district electoral commissions. The 620 foreign and more
than 13,000 local observers and the media had access to these places
as well. Armenian television stations showed the tallying in various
polling places live.
An exit poll sponsored by Public Television suggested that 57
percent of the population had voted for Mr. Sargsian, with 17 percent
choosing former president Levon Ter-Petrossian. The poll was based on
interviews at 126 polling stations and was conducted by the British
Populus company, pollsters for the BBC and The Times of London. The
exit poll results also largely corresponded to the last pre-election
poll conducted by Populus.
Earlier polling in Yerevan by the pro-Ter-Petrossian daily Aravot
had likewise suggested that Mr. Sargsian had over twice as much
support as Mr. Ter-Petrossian – though not more support than all other
candidates combined. Those findings were validated by the preliminary
results, as Mr. Sargsian won about 45 percent of the vote in the
capital.
* A divided electorate
Mr. Sargsian entered the election season with certain advantages. The
first was de facto incumbency. As Mr. Kocharian’s close ally and
designated heir, he got the benefit of administrative resources as
well as credit for peace, stability, rapid economic growth, and the
dramatic reduction of poverty. He was the candidate of choice for
voters who did not wish to rock the boat and face unpredictable
outcomes.
But he also entered with certain vulnerabilities. The first is the
fact that a minority has enjoyed a disproportionate share of the
fruits of economic development. The second is the perception of
universal corruption, as top government officials are among the
wealthier individuals in the country, and other wealthy business
owners are among the members of parliament.
Opposition politicians tried to offer alternatives in the May 2007
parliamentary election – and before. But they were divided and not
especially effective.
Enter Levon Ter-Petrossian. Because of his stature as the first
president of Armenia and a leader of an effective popular movement
starting in 1988, he was perceived by the radical opposition as an
individual around whom a movement could be built. He was also backed
by a number of wealthy businesspeople and other individuals with
vested political influence.
But he came with serious vulnerabilities of his own: most people
blamed him for the collapse of the economy in the 1990s – and for
having no sympathy for people’s suffering in that period; they
remembered his own less-than-stellar record on democracy – banning the
ARF, allegedly stealing the 1996 elections.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s position on Karabakh was also an important
polarizing point: while some agreed with his position that Armenia
could not prosper without the prompt resolution of the conflict,
others found his willingness to accept terms dictated by Azerbaijan to
be unacceptable.
Thus, the election became more and more a contest between Mr.
Sargsian and Mr. Ter-Petrossian, with the other candidates getting
less and less serious attention.
Mr. Baghdasarian attracted a good part of the opposition vote. But
as Election Day approached, the impressive turnout of Mr.
Ter-Petrossian’s supporters in the streets, and the support of Raffi
Hovannisian’s Heritage Party put Mr. Ter-Petrossian in the lead of the
opposition vote.
Vahan Hovhannesian, who left a strong impression on many
middle-class voters and foreign observers as a thoughtful and moderate
figure who did, however, have the strength and willpower to confront
entrenched interests, was handicapped by the fact that his party has
been allied with the president for the last 10 years. (On Feb. 22, Mr.
Hovhannesian resigned as deputy speaker of the National Assembly. He
called for the government and Mr. Ter-Petrossian to avoid clashes that
would "endanger" Armenia and offered to mediate.)
On Election Day, then, many of the voters who had complaints about
the current government of Mr. Kocharian and Mr. Sargsian asked
themselves whether they trusted Mr. Ter-Petrossian and his team to be
the agents of change. Most decided that they did not.
* * *
For maps of election results, visit reporter.am and click on Section A
for Feb. 23.
********************************************* ******************************
2. International observers assess presidential elections
* "Administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe
commitments and standards"
by Maria Titizian
YEREVAN – A day after the presidential elections in Armenia, the
International Election Observation Mission issued its statement of
preliminary findings and conclusions in Yerevan. The heads of the
various international observer missions stated that for the large
part, Armenia’s presidential election adhered to OSCE and Council of
Europe commitments and standards.
Anne-Maria Lizin, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Vice President and
Special Coordinator of the OSCE short-term observers, stated that
while they felt Armenian authorities administered the election
democratically there were shortcomings. She stated that there was a
need for further improvement and political will overall. Ms. Lizin
stressed that there was an absence of a clear separation between the
government and political parties and there was a need to ensure the
equal treatment of all candidates. In her assessment the conduct of
the count did not contribute at all to the democratic process in
Armenia. She said that problems during tabulation of the votes must be
addressed and election complaints must be dealt with in a more formal
framework. While freedom of assembly was generally allowed, media
coverage of the official campaign was negative, particularly for one
candidate, and that Armenian public media was clearly biased, in her
opinion.
Head of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly delegation John
Prescott also noted improvement while underscoring some of the
difficulties. He stated that they were very concerned about the
apparent lack of public confidence toward the election, particularly
during vote counting. "Public trust is essential for any democracy. An
effective and trusted complaints procedure is necessary," stressed Mr.
Prescott. The fact that rallies were planned well in advance of
Election Day, ready to complain about the electoral process,
demonstrates the lack of public confidence in the system. According to
the head of mission there were 56 complaints received by the Central
Electoral Commission (CEC), and they were not confident that they were
dealt with in a formal situation. "Twenty-six of those complaints were
dismissed in the absence of those who filed the complaints," he said.
"Compared to the previous presidential elections, significant
progress was noted with regard to the preparation and conduct of the
electoral process. However, the whole electoral environment and
reported interferences still have to be carefully assessed. The EU
will continue to support the reinforcement of democracy in Armenia via
its Neighborhood Policy," said Marie Anne Isler Beguin, Head of the
European Parliament delegation.
The last to speak at the press conference was Ambassador Geert
Aherns, the Head of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and
Human Rights (ODIHR) long-term observation mission. This mission has
been in Armenia since January 7 and has already issued two interim
reports. Mr. Aherns said that they had teams stationed in all the
regions of Armenia and during Election Day processed thousands of
reports from their observers. He went on to say, "An election is not a
one-day event, and today’s statement is a preliminary one. We will
stay in Armenia to observe the completion of the tabulation process
and the resolution of election disputes through the available
mechanisms. "
In response to a journalist’s question as to whether in their
opinion the violations impacted the final results, Ms. Lizin said that
they never comment on the results of the elections, only on facts. She
said that their job is only to comment on the process. Were there any
violations? "Some of our observers had very bad experiences. However
our feeling is that there were improvements," said Ms. Lizin.
When asked about the thousands of people taking part in the rally in
support of Levon Ter-Petrossian as the press conference was taking
place, Mr. Prescott said, "We look at the whole equilibrium of the
election." He stressed however that their job was to observe the
actual implementation of the electoral process and that "we have
criteria between us, the Armenian authorities and the Armenian
political parties, which we agree to." When another journalist asked
whether reports of assaults raise questions about the validity of the
election, Mr. Aherns responded that they have been made aware that
there were violations. "We cannot reproduce facts by sources we cannot
verify. We ask for evidence but no one wants to produce evidence," he
continued.
The CIS observer mission also presented its report to the media on
February 20. In their report they state that in their opinion the
presidential elections in Armenia were free and transparent. There
were 193 observers included in the CIS observer mission. They did
acknowledge that there were violations; however, in their opinion,
those were of technical nature and could not affect the outcome of the
votes. Aleksander Troshin, CIS observer and Vice Chairman of the
Federal Assembly Council of the Russian Federation said, "The election
was open, free and represented an important step forward in Armenia’s
democratization process."
********************************** *****************************************
3. Tens of thousands protest election results
* Supporters rally around Levon Ter-Petrossian
by Armen Hakobyan
YEREVAN – One of the peculiarities of elections in Armenia has to do
not so much with the official results but with the events that follow
the release of the official results – waves of protest led by those
candidates who did not fare well.
The presidential elections that took place in Armenia on February 19
did not veer very far from this well-trodden path. Several days before
the elections, former president and presidential candidate Levon
Ter-Petrossian and his campaign team announced that he was the winner
of the presidential race and February 19 would simply arrive to verify
that reality. Before the elections pro-Ter Petrossian print media
published announcements by the former president that there was to be a
victory rally at the Matenadaran, the repository of ancient
manuscripts in central Yerevan, on February 20 at 3 p.m.
"Even with all the efforts of the authorities and criminal world,
which included bribery, violence, ballot stuffing, at 8 p.m. the
people’s candidate had already won," Mr. Ter-Petrossian said
addressing the crowd and referring to himself. "Everything changed
after 8 p.m. After 8 p.m. those final results which are now known to
us were created, manufactured, and then publicized." The tens of
thousands of people who had gathered in front of the Matenadaran began
chanting, "Levon, president," followed by "Serzhig, withdraw!"
One of Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s team had placed a large campaign poster
of Mr. Sargsian’s on the street leading up to the Matenadaran. Mr.
Ter-Petrossian’s supporters then proceeded to step on it and spit on
it. One woman even began to dance on it to the applause of her fellow
protesters.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s campaign official Nikol Pashinian read an
official statement at the rally. "Taking into consideration the
widespread fraud and violence which have completely distorted the
expression of the people’s will, the first president of the Republic
of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrossian’s campaign does not recognize the
results released by the Central Electoral Commission of the 2008
presidential elections and demands holding new elections. We publicly
announce that we will continue our people’s movement in the name of
the reestablishment of legal authorities in Armenia and the return of
people’s pride."
At this point in the rally the conclusions of the International
Election Observer Mission had just been released. They had
acknowledged that Armenian authorities had administered the elections
"mostly" in accordance with OSCE and European standards.
"The Central Electoral Commission committed the most illegal and
irresponsible act at 8 p.m. by announcing that 1,64o,000 people had
participated in the elections. With the most accurate calculations and
utmost responsibility I am announcing that in Armenia there are only
1,700,000 eligible voters. According to our calculations and again
with responsibility I say that in reality only 1,100,000 people voted.
The rest, the other 500,000, is what we have continually warned about,
that which took place in 1998 and 2003. In other words the authorities
have added 500,000 extra ballots," said Mr. Ter-Petrossian. He added
that he had warned international organizations and the observers;
however they did not take his warnings seriously. "I find that
international organizations and the observers are equally responsible
for these scandalous elections," stressed the former president.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian went on to criticize the other eight presidential
candidates, saying that they share equal blame for what happened on
February 19.
The rally then turned into a protest march. They walked toward
Republic Square. From there the thousands of protesters marched to the
Central Electoral Commission building. There were no clashes. Finally
the protesters walked into Freedom Square where they remained for most
of the evening in a celebratory mood.
The next day, on February 21, the protest rally continued. Mr.
Pashinian announced that Freedom Square was going to be the
headquarters for the "people’s protest." He announced that they had a
series of events planned throughout the city and at various government
buildings and a number of surprises. One of those "surprises" was the
appearance of Heghine Bisharian, deputy leader of the Country of Laws
party and campaign manager of presidential candidate Artur
Baghdasarian. Ms. Bisharian decried Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s
characterization of Mr. Baghdasarian, on the eve of the election, as a
traitor, and went on to read a statement that the party had released a
day earlier: "We are announcing that we have called for a recount and
are stating that the results of over 200 polling districts be
considered null and void. After the recount we are convinced that the
votes for our candidate will rise significantly which will have a
significant impact on the final results of the election. We are
appealing to the authorities not to disrupt this process." Her party
did not join the protest.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian then announced that deputy Defense Ministers
Generals Manvel Grigorian and Gagik Melkonian had informed him that
they had joined his movement. He called for a student strike. A tent
city was pitched and thousands remained overnight.
The following day, February 22, Raffi Hovannisian, leader of the
Heritage Party, joined Mr. Ter-Petrossian in Freedom Square. Mr.
Hovhanisian called on Mr. Sargsian to apologize to the Armenian people
for vote rigging. He said, "Mr. Sargsian ask yourself if you deserved
such a victory that was accompanied with mass violation and ballot
stuffing."
Shortly afterward deputy prosecutor general of Armenia Gagik
Jhangiryan came out in support of Mr. Ter-Petrossian. He was
responsible for prosecuting the perpetrators of the Oct. 27, 1999,
assassinations in parliament. He called upon citizens to protect their
vote and their choice and join the "winner."
Late Friday evening 4 members of Mr. Sargsian’s Republican Party
faction and three members of the Prosperous Armenia Party faction
(which is in the governing coalition with the Republicans) defected to
Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s camp.
******************************************* ********************************
4. Young and old vote for a better life
by Betty Panossian-Ter Sarkissian
YEREVAN – With high expectations, hopes for a brighter future, and a
better life, first-time voters joined other citizens to cast their
ballots to elect Armenia’s third president. In Armenia 18-year-olds
can vote in the elections, but they are not the only ones in search of
better days. According to the local media, the oldest voter during the
presidential elections was a 117-year-old.
Gegham Shushanyan, 22, an engineering student at Yerevan State
University, was participating in the elections for the first time with
hopes for a more prosperous country. He had already voted and was
still lingering in front of the polling station with palpable
enthusiasm. Making use of his electoral right to elect a president for
the first time made him aware that his voice is decisive in changing
the country toward the better. "Taking part in the elections makes me
feel that I am of some use in my country," he said. "I am positive
that these will be free elections. We are witnessing with our own eyes
that no one is being subjected to any pressure." However, many other
young voters did not share his optimism.
What does he expect form Armenia’s next president? More workplaces
and employment opportunities answered the graduate student. The
expectations of his peers standing a few steps away from us are
similar.
Edgar Arakelyan, an unemployed 22-year-old from Yerevan, had come to
cast his vote at polling station 4/11 in Yerevan with high hopes that
the coming five years will bring him and his peers more employment
opportunities, something that the candidate he has voted for has
promised. A goldsmith, Edgar says that he might not have voted, but
"otherwise, I am sure someone else might have used my vote!"
Ellen Ohanyan had come to elect a new president in a very upbeat
mood. A graduate student specializing in local self government, she is
confident that the new president will greatly improve the country in
the five coming years. "I have read all the campaign platforms and I
am positive that the one elected by the majority will know what is
best for our country," she said.
"I am not in a positive mood," says 20-years-old language student
Irina Khurshudyan at polling station 10/28 in Yerevan. "Everyone says
it is obvious who will be the next president." Yet she decided not to
forego her vote. "This is my duty as a citizen, and I am obliged to
carry it through," she adds.
Irina is positive that the elections will go to a second round; if
not then she thinks the result might be very questionable and even
cause turmoil. "Perhaps that is the reason why there are no classes
tomorrow," she adds.
Eva Avagyan, 19, had also carefully followed the electoral campaign
on TV, and has voted for a candidate who she hoped would end
widespread poverty in the country.
While the young voted for employment and further opportunities,
older voters made use of their votes to ensure that the coming five
years will ensure a better quality of life for themselves and their
families.
Laura Khachigyan was sitting on a chair at the end of the line
leading up to the polling room at polling station 10/29 in Yerevan.
The 75-year-old had come to elect the next president of Armenia. Some
of the good things of life was all she wished for her next five years.
Her friend, 70-year-old Rima Poghosyan, after stating that she would
not disclose whom she voted for, said that she wished to see a
president who will think about the people.
Wanting to see the fifth presidential elections bring changes to the
political power of the country was one of the things the older voters
agreed on.
Albert Ghazaryan was voting at polling station 9/16 in Yerevan. The
81-year-old mechanical technician has voted in every election since
the independence of Armenia and he expresses his disappointment
immediately. "I am distressed that in so many years there has not been
a single personality whom the people trust. There is no real power,"
he said. However, Mr. Ghazaryan has found a candidate who he thinks
deserves his vote. He came to his decision by listening to the
campaign speeches of his favored candidate. "He knows our troubles and
promises to do something about them."
The high cost of living, declining standards in education, the
repayment of deposits made in Soviet banks, and lack of opportunities
in the country are some of the troubles that darken most of their
days, said Mr. Ghazaryan while his friends stood by. They place a
great deal of importance on the intellectual powers of the candidate.
The older voters understood that everything cannot be achieved all
at once, "However, we want to see a starting point."
************************************ ***************************************
5. Washington briefing
by Emil Sanamyan
* Sen. Brownback discusses "silk road" in Azerbaijan
Senator Sam Brownback (R.-Kan.), a veteran proponent of the U.S. role
in Caspian energy development, became the second U.S. senator to visit
Azerbaijan so far this year (see this page in the Jan. 19 Armenian
Reporter).
Local media reported that in his talk at the country’s Diplomatic
Academy, Mr. Brownback called for a "more active dialogue on several
issues" between the U.S. and Azerbaijan. He reportedly said that
should bilateral relations strengthen, that would create an
opportunity for a complete repeal of the currently waiverable Section
907 of the U.S. Freedom Support Act, which provides restrictions on
U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijan’s recently established Diplomatic Academy is led by the
country’s former ambassador to the United States Hafiz Pashayev, who
has been recruiting Western experts to work there. Among recent hires
as the academy’s director of research and publications is former U.S.
official Paul Goble, who in the early 1990s proposed a territorial
swap as a way to resolve the Karabakh conflict, the so-called Goble
Plan.
* Turkish ground forces resume Iraq operations
Several thousand Turkish military personnel, backed by warplanes and
helicopters, re-entered northern Iraq on February 21 to fight
anti-Turkey Kurdish forces based there, Turkish and international news
agencies reported. A similar operation was undertaken last year, after
the U.S. and Turkey agreed to jointly target Kurdish forces. Iraqi
officials downplayed the operation, suggesting that only a few hundred
Turkish soldiers were involved.
The U.S. has urged Turkey to limit the operation to "precise
targeting" of Kurdish rebels. "We were notified [of Turkey’s plans]
and we urged the Turkish government to limit their operations to
precise targeting of the PKK, to limit the scope and duration of their
operations," White House spokesperson Scott Stanzel said on February
22.
Following disagreements over Iraq and particularly its
Kurdish-populated north, the U.S. and Turkey appear to be acting in
concert. Senior U.S. and Turkish military officials exchanged visits
in recent weeks. Next month, Vice President Dick Cheney, along with a
large U.S. military delegation, is due to visit Ankara, Turkish media
reported this week. The visit is expected to focus on issues related
to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan.
************************************ ***************************************
6. United States, Europeans recognize Kosovo’s independence
* Russia and China are opposed
by Emil Sanamyan
WASHINGTON – The United Nations-administered former Serbian province
of Kosovo declared independence on February 17 and was recognized by
the United States the following day. The United States was joined by
the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Turkey, and more than a dozen
other states. Serbia, along with Russia and China, protested the move.
The United States has been pushing for an international consensus to
grant Kosovo a transitional independent status under European Union
control for over a year. But talks between Serbs and Kosovars, as well
as those at the United Nations’ Security Council, have deadlocked.
Kosovo, which has an ethnic Albanian majority and borders on Albania,
has been outside of Belgrade’s control since a 1999 U.S.-led war that
expelled Serbian forces accused of ethnic cleansing.
President George W. Bush acknowledged international disagreements on
the issue but argued that "history will prove this to be the correct
move," The AP reported on February 19. He added he believes the
solution to the status issue would help ensure regional peace.
Undersecretary of State Nick Burns, one of the architects of the
Bush administration’s Kosovo policy, said that the United States is
committing $334 million in additional assistance to Kosovo, which has
a population of about two million.
U.S. officials have taken pains to describe Kosovo’s independence,
bypassing international law, as a unique case that would not
necessarily be repeated elsewhere.
But the declaration of independence and its subsequent recognition
by several major world powers nevertheless sets a precedent: the U.S.
and its allies have recognized the independence of a breakaway region
(Kosovo) despite opposition from its former ruler (Serbia) and
important international players (Russia and to a lesser extent China).
Some states were clearly worried. Unlike its ally Turkey, Azerbaijan
has so far refused to recognize Kosovo, calling its declaration
"illegal." Armenian officials said they were following the
developments in and around Kosovo, and have not ruled out recognition.
Georgia’s president in turn appeared to have won assurances that
Russia would not, for now at least, recognize the independence of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia that have been de facto independent from
Tbilisi since the early 1990s.
Serbia’s government recalled its ambassador to the United States and
vowed not to recognize Kosovo, but ruled out a new military
intervention into an area controlled by NATO and its partner
peacekeeping forces, including a small contingent from Armenia.
Hundreds of thousands of protestors took to the streets in Serbia’s
capital Belgrade later in the week, at one point setting the evacuated
U.S. embassy on fire, the Washington Post reported on February 21. But
while protests and disagreements continue, most Western observers
considered Kosovo’s independence a done deal.
******************************************* ********************************
7. Assembly drops Genocide museum arbitration demand
* Cafesjian asks court to declare Assembly allegations false
MINNEAPOLIS – On Wednesday, February 12, the Armenian Assembly of
America dropped its demand for arbitration against Gerard L. Cafesjian
and the Cafesjian Family Foundation, Inc. in the dispute over the
future of the Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial, Inc. (AGMM). The
Assembly, on its behalf and purportedly on behalf of the AGMM, had
entered a demand for arbitration in September 2007. Mr. Cafesjian had
immediately rejected the demand and filed a lawsuit in the United
States District Court in Minneapolis to block arbitration.
"I think the Assembly finally realized what we had been saying all
along," said John Waters, vice president of the Cafesjian Family
Foundation (with which this newspaper is affiliated). "Mr. Cafesjian
and the foundation have no obligation to arbitrate, and the Assembly
cannot compel arbitration. We have repeatedly attempted to resolve
this dispute through negotiation, and will continue our efforts to
find a mutually agreeable settlement. If we are unable to reach a
negotiated settlement, we will defend our rights through the courts."
Now, in response to the Assembly withdrawing its arbitration demand,
Mr. Cafesjian has filed a new action in the U.S. District Court in
Minneapolis, asking the court to declare the allegations in the
Assembly arbitration demand untrue.
"The allegations the Assembly made in the arbitration demand are
damaging to the reputations of Mr. Cafesjian and the Cafesjian Family
Foundation," said Mr. Waters. "Mr. Cafesjian has been the project’s
most significant champion and largest financial donor."
Referring to AGMM trustees and Armenian Assembly leaders Hirair
Hovnanian and Van Krikorian, he added, "We will not stand idly by
while Mr. Hovnanian and Mr. Krikorian use the Assembly in an attempt
to smear his good name."
************************************* **************************************
8. February 1988, Yerevan, Opera Square
* Azerbaijan’s answer: Sumgait
by Tatul Hakobyan
[This is the second installment in the Armenian Reporter’s celebration
of the 20th anniversary of the Karabakh Movement. The first
installment appeared last week.]
YEREVAN – The last week of February 1988 entirely changed the life of
director Tigran Khzmalian, one of the chroniclers of the Karabakh war.
The Soviet youngster, a fan of rock and roll, French movies, and
Russian literature, could no longer continue lecturing at Yerevan
State University because "the world around me was changing."
"Prior to the news of Sumgait, it was a unique Armenian soiree, a
brotherly revolution. Later on, I was to write in my films and
articles that the slogans of the great French revolution – liberty,
equality and fraternity, had come to life in the 20th century. For us
the last week of February was a true revolution – we entered the
crater, were tempered, and emerged a different people," says Mr.
Khzmalian.
The wave of rallies, which started in Nagorno-Karabakh on February
12 began reaching Yerevan. During February 20-26, Opera Square, which
was later renamed Freedom Square, became a gathering point for the
Armenian people; the theme of the discussion was Karabakh. For the
first time in the Soviet Union a mass national movement had started
that challenged the political-administrative system and the autocracy
of the Communist Party.
On February 25, probably the most populous rally in the 70-year
history of the Soviet Union took place. According to different
assessments more than half a million Armenians demanded the union of
Karabakh with Armenia. On February 20, a steering committee was formed
in Yerevan, which was to organize the rallies. Nine people were
included in the committee, all of them with roots in Karabakh. Three
of them, Igor Muradian, Manvel Sargsian, and Gagik Safarian, worked in
Yerevan; the other six worked in Stepanakert and the regions of
Karabakh.
Rimma Demirchian, the widow of Karen Demirchian, the leader of
Soviet Armenia for 14 years, recounts that the awakening of Karabakh
was not unexpected for her husband. On February 18 Karen Demirchian
left for Moscow with his wife.
"That day the environmentalists had organized a rally and Karen said
that the Karabakh rally would take place the next day. This did not
come unexpectedly to him. He used to say that the issue would not be
solved at that time, it was too early and had not yet matured. When
the issue was raised he thought about raising the status of Karabakh;
turning Karabakh into an autonomous republic. His writings state that
he had succeeded in coming to an agreement on the issue with [Soviet
Politburo member Yegor] Ligachev and the others," says Mrs.
Demirchian.
One of the last prime ministers of Soviet Armenia, Fadey Sargsian
says that Mr. Demirchian was very interested in the solution of the
Karabakh issue.
"His speeches in the Politburo sessions, at which I was present,
were very incisive and daring. There was strong pressure on Demirchian
by the Central Committee, especially by Ligachev…. On February 1988,
Ligachev invited Demirchian and [Soviet Azerbaijani leader Kamran]
Bagirov and said that ‘the issue of Karabakh’s self-determination and
reunion with Armenia cannot have a positive solution. It is necessary
to eliminate discussions about it,’" says Mr. Sargsian.
After returning from Moscow, Mr. Demirchian received some of the
leaders of the rallies taking place in Opera Square, among them Silva
Kaputikian. The poet suggested to the leader of Armenia that he join
the people in the square "for the sake of our nation; for the sake of
its violated rights."
In one of her books Ms. Kaputikian described the dramatic situation
of those days: "Instead of the usual irony on his face, Demirchian was
worried and wore an expression of hopelessness. He knew more than all
of us…. The meeting lasted a few hours and it was decided to meet
again the next morning. The next morning the faces of the Karabakhi
people were beaming with happiness. They had received news that in an
extraordinary session late in the evening of the Regional Executive
Committee in Stepanakert, the members of parliament, apart from the
Azerbaijani members, had unanimously approved the decision to unify
with Armenia. ‘Are you aware of that Comrade Demirchian?’ the people
of Karabakh asked while congratulating him. Demirchian was not in the
mood to receive congratulations. ‘I know,’ he answered thoughtfully.
‘That decision, of course, changes the situation.’"
Moscow’s answer to the rallies taking place in Yerevan and
Stepanakert and to the February 20 decision of the Regional Executive
Council of Nagorno-Karabakh arrived soon. On February 21, the
Politburo condemned the movement and labeled the participants as
"extremists, separatists, and nationalists."
On February 22, in order to control the situation and calm the
people down, General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev sent three separate
delegations to Baku, Stepanakert, and Yerevan. Secretary of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Georgi
Razumovskiy, and the first deputy of the president of the Supreme
Council’s presidium, Pyotr Demichev, arrived in the Autonomous Region
of Nagorno-Karabakh. In Stepanakert, Mr. Razumovskiy announced that
Karabakh was a part of Azerbaijan and every effort to unify the region
with Armenia was prohibited and unacceptable. Secretary of the Central
Committee Alexander Lukyanov and Politburo candidate member Vladimir
Dolgikh arrived in Yerevan.
During those days, when the Opera Square was exploding with national
demands, in an attempt to respond to his critics, Mr. Demirchian
announced that Karabakh "was not in his pocket." Demirchian was a
much-loved leader but his words, despite being the bitter truth, were
evidently out of date. Those comments were received with strong
opposition by the revolutionary masses.
"Karen came out in front of the people and announced that he was
demanding from Moscow the formation of a special commission on the
Karabakh issue, but people thought that was not enough. They were
demanding immediate unification of Karabakh with Armenia. When people
complained, Karen said, ‘Karabakh is not in my pocket for me to give.’
I consider that a historic statement. Currently we are waiting to see
what the international community will say and how developments will
proceed. Now Karabakh is in nobody’s pocket for them to take out and
give," says Mrs. Demirchian.
Moscow understood that a de facto diarchy (dual power) had been
established in Armenia. Karen Demirchian had lost control of the
hundreds of thousands rallying and of the Armenian Communist Party.
Only those standing at the microphone in the Opera Square could calm
the people down and lead them.
On February 26, Mr. Gorbachev received Zori Balayan and Silva
Kaputikian. All those who participated at this meeting have written
about it in their memoirs and books, but each of them has presented
his or her own version of the discussions.
According to Ms. Kaputikian, Mr. Gorbachev declined the opportunity
to hand Karabakh over to Armenia. "Currently this is very hard. We
have 19 such questions, all of which need to be resolved," Mr.
Gorbachev had answered. "At least include it in the structure of the
Russian Federation," proposed the Armenian writers. Mr. Gorbachev
happily smiled and said, "All such autonomies want to enter the
structure of Russia…. That is also impossible … and right now it
is necessary to calm down the people in Karabakh and Yerevan." The
Armenian intellectuals insisted: "But how? At least establish a
committee that will deal with the Karabakh issue." Smiling once again,
Mr. Gorbachev had said, "The whole of the Politburo is dealing with
Karabakh."
Mr. Balayan and Ms. Kaputikian agreed to Mr. Gorbachev’s proposal –
that they return to Yerevan and persuade the participants of the rally
to disperse.
"I returned to Yerevan on the eve of February 27 with Zori Balayan.
I was unspeakably tired and exhausted. The vestiges of that tiredness
combined with the density of the swings of emotion had remained until
the next day, when it was necessary to once again appear before not
only the sea of people at the rally but also to the entire nation,
gathered in front of their television sets, waiting for the news from
Moscow," wrote Ms. Kaputikian.
The other leaders of the movement were impatiently awaiting the
return of the Armenian writers.
"They came and told us that we should disperse the rallies; that
they had talked to Gorbachev and he had promised a few things and it
was necessary to stop the rallies for a month. The square emptied and
on February 27 the massacres of Sumgait began. When we tried to come
out onto the square, the army had already occupied it," one of the
early leaders of the movement, Khachik Stamboltsian recalls,
criticizing the steps of the writers.
In one of her books Ms. Kaputikian writes, "Zori went to a taping
earlier and returned from the television station to the rally. I was
unable to speak during the rally…. Even today, many criticize Zori
Balayan and me saying, ‘You returned from the meeting with Gorbachev
inspired and emphasized that Gorbachev had said that yes, our demand
was just, Karabakh would be ours etc., etc.’ I do not know what Zori
said during the rally or how he described our meeting. I only know
that at the end of his speech he announced roughly the following: that
we would win, we would even reach Van, Moush, and Bitlis, and other
such inspiring appeals."
On February 27, when the rallies had already stopped in Yerevan, the
city of Sumgait, on the shores of the Caspian, became the new focus of
events.
Sonia Hakobian had moved to her new apartment three days before the
massacres started in Sumgait. Armenians were scattered all over
Sumgait and only during the day of the massacres did Sonia realize how
many Armenians lived in the city. She and her family together with
another 5,000 Armenians found shelter from the slaughterers in the
huge cultural center building, close to the Lenin Square, which was
under the control of the Soviet marines.
Sumgait, in essence, was an attempt to intimidate the people of
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as those in Armenia, who had come out in the
hundreds of thousands and demanded the reunification of Karabakh with
Armenia. Sumgait could have been a "good lesson" for those other
nations of the Soviet Union also making national demands of Moscow.
"Rallies in Yerevan and Karabakh demanded unification with Armenia.
This was the reason behind the massacres. We had not thought that they
would come and drive us out of our homes. We had been waiting for a
state apartment for 12 years. My husband and I worked in factories and
finally we received the three-room apartment where we lived for just
three days. Currently an Azerbaijani family from Amasiya [in northern
Armenia] is living in our apartment," says Sonia. Her family, as well
as many others from Sumgait has settled in Mughni village, near
Ashtarak.
********************************** *****************************************
9. Commentary: Kosovo and the Karabakh power play
by Khatchik Der Ghougassian
BUENOS AIRES – Perhaps the hottest international issue this month is
the controversy involving Kosovo’s declaration of independence. The
move itself seems to be unilateral, but Western allies, the United
States, and much of the European Union have already recognized it. On
the other hand, Serbia and Russia oppose the move; but it is unclear
whether Belgrade and Moscow have the leverage to eventually block the
process of legitimizing Kosovo’s de facto independence since the 1999
NATO intervention.
The larger question, of course, involves the impact this
international reaction will have on similar conflicts in other parts
of the world. As is well known, the essential controversy in
international law between territorial integrity and the right of
self-determination remains unresolved. Western allies make it clear
that an independent Kosovo would be a unique case, and not a model for
other territorial disputes. But that only raises the question: To what
extent would the independence of Kosovo be "justified, unique and
unavoidable," to quote Roger Cohen in the New York Times ("Here Comes
Kosovo," Feb. 14, 2008)? Or to put it in another way: Why couldn’t the
same argument be made for the independence of Abkhazia, Southern
Ossetia – or Nagorno-Karabakh?
The answer seems to be that Kosovo is the beneficiary of a "power
play" to recognize its "uniqueness" and thereby grant it independence.
The same can hardly be said of the other regions mentioned. One reason
for this difference is that Kosovo’s current status as a disputed
territory is the consequence of external intervention by NATO. By
contrast, the de facto independence of the breakaway regions in the
Southern Caucasus came about as the result of wars won largely by the
internal, local populations. Russia and other regional entities played
a role in these wars; but that role was in no way comparable to NATO’s
intervention.
This difference is important to understand, for NATO’s intervention
inevitably reserved for the Western allies a leading role in deciding
the future of Kosovo. It is a matter of record that both the United
States and the Europeans were engaged in the process of crafting the
"uniqueness" argument that would permit the granting of independence
to the Kosovars; Kosovo’s Serbian population had little room to
maneuver, and Belgrade was almost completely marginalized following
years of international sanctions.
In the South Caucasus, on the other hand, the autonomy of local
players, whether breakaway regions or independent states, is far
greater – although ultimately restricted to the conditions imposed by
the logic of the international power play. That is to say, in the
South Caucasus local players have more room to create situations and
to interact with international politics than do the corresponding
actors in the Balkans.
Ultimately, Kosovo’s independence is more a matter of Russia’s
dispute with the West than it is (for example) a matter of the balance
of power between Serbia and Albania. But the more dynamic and complex
balance-of-power relations in the Southern Caucasus make the situation
there correspondingly more volatile. Russia’s presence in the region
is not as preponderant as NATO’s presence in the Balkans, and so
Russia cannot as easily ratify its own decisions with regard to
independence.
Nor is it entirely clear whether Moscow would truly desire to
sponsor the independence of Abkhazia, South Osetia, and
Nagorno-Karabakh: it has, after all, its own Chechnya to think about;
and the enduring potential for conflict in the breakaway regions is a
valuable lever to employ in its own negotiations with the three
Southern Caucasian republics – and, for that matter, in talks with the
West.
But what does all this suggest about the particular case of Nagorno-Karabakh?
Remarkably, whenever Russian diplomacy has voiced opposition to the
independence of Kosovo on the basis of its potential impact or
consequence elsewhere, it has almost always cited the isolated example
of Abkhazia. The alternative example of Nagorno-Karabakh seems,
therefore, to lie outside the orbit of Russia’s concerns – or at
least, that is the appearance Russia wishes to project.
Indeed, at this stage, the possible impact of Kosovo’s independence
on Nagorno-Karabakh would have been an academic matter, of concern
only to analysts rather than to actual policy makers, had the question
not been raised during Armenia’s presidential campaign with the
emergence of Levon Ter-Petrossian as an opposition candidate to Prime
Minister Serge Sargsian.
The former president brought up the issue both to vindicate the
policy of his own administration (from 1991 to 1998), and as a cudgel
to attack the present Kocharian administration. In particular, Mr.
Ter-Petrossian urged movement toward a solution, claiming that the
passage of more time would not play to Armenia’s advantage. His
initiative led the other candidates to stake out their own positions –
usually leading to an argument over whether Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s
approach was or was not "defeatist," but at the same time offering no
clear proposals as to how to proceed over Karabakh.
The sole exception was the Armenian Revolutionary Federation’s
candidate Vahan Hovhannesian, who conditioned any negotiation with
Azerbaijan on the latter’s willingness to sign a nonaggression pact
with Armenia. Mr. Hovhannesian’s approach, though clearly tougher, is
hardly a surprise coming from a party which says that Armenia can
accept no concession with Azerbaijan short of full independence for
Nagorno-Karabakh.
The larger question, of course, is not whether a solution is needed
for the former Armenian enclave, but whether any Armenian president
can decisively affect the situation, even if he can summon the
political will to make the issue a top priority. The above comparative
analysis of the South Caucasus and the Balkans seems to indicate that
very little, if anything, could be done today – except to keep pace
with Azerbaijan in the military balance of power.
Faced with Baku’s demand to have it all and have it now, Yerevan has
little recourse but to take seriously the threat of aggression from
Azerbaijan. Alternatively, it could raise the stakes, and the
challenge, with the recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence –
provided some international support for such a move could be foreseen.
As for the situation as it exists today, there is no concession
Armenia could make that would satisfy Azerbaijan, without also
creating internal strife within the republic, or seriously
jeopardizing its own national security.
* * *
Khatchik Der Ghougassian is a professor of International Relations at
the Universidad de San Andrés, in Buenos Aires, Argentina; and a
visiting assistant professor at the American University of Armenia, in
Yerevan.
************************************* **************************************
10.Comment ary: To build an enduring democratic state
* A perspective on the presidential election from inside Armenia
by Fr. Ktrij Devejian
YEREVAN – Since Tuesday’s presidential elections in Armenia, I have
received a number of well-intentioned e-mails from diasporan Armenians
who have strong opinions about the outcome, and the methods with which
that outcome was reached. Many of these authors have used language
bordering on the hysterical and offensive to characterize the current
situation in Armenia. Some state that they have received their
information from sources within Armenia, including a number of
"opposition" websites.
Well, since I am actually in Armenia, I would like to explain a few
things which may not occur to those who don’t live here. And as a
resident of this country for the past seven years, I think I have
earned the right to make certain observations and criticisms emanating
>From personal experiences.
Armenia is not the United States. Therefore, there is no accepted
tradition or institutional culture when it comes to many political
activities to which Americans are accustomed. Democracy and democratic
principles in Armenia are developing and progressing. It may not be
happening at a pace that is acceptable to many; nevertheless, it is
happening. Notwithstanding the pace, however, each and every Armenian,
whether in Armenia or in the diaspora, has a solemn responsibility to
support and encourage the maintenance, strength and endurance of our
statehood.
Stability for our state is a high priority, one that may be
difficult to comprehend for anyone or any people who, having enjoyed
free and independent statehood for centuries, thus take it for
granted. In the U.S., we accept America as no longer an experiment –
it is a fait accompli. By contrast, Armenia is at a crossroads, and
our very survival is at stake. Turkey continues its illegal blockade
of Armenia and refuses to establish diplomatic ties with us. We are
still technically at war, and although the cease-fire with Azerbaijan
has held for more than 10 years, it is still a fragile and tenuous
one. The threat of resuming hostilities and aggression by the Azeris
is one that we live with every day, and has been one of the reasons, I
believe, that unlike Georgia, Ukraine, and other former Soviet
countries, Armenia has persevered and remained free of major civic
unrest in recent years. We understand that unity is our weapon and our
strength. And although internally we may have sharp disagreements and
heated political arguments, Armenians know well that at the end of the
day, no one, no nation, no country and no international organization
can be relied upon to save us this time from complete annihilation. I
am sure many of you would agree.
It is true, the elections were not flawless. Deficiencies of all
sorts were observed and are an unfortunate reality. However, the
constitution of the Republic of Armenia worked: scheduled elections
did take place, and a president who is term-limited is willingly
stepping aside and giving up the power entrusted to him by the people.
This may no longer be a revolutionary concept in California,
Massachusetts, or Illinois, but for the former Soviet Union, it’s an
important, if symbolic, step. (For those who need further info, see
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, etc.)
Furthermore, international observers from the United States, Europe
and Russia were present before and during the election to monitor the
campaign atmosphere and balloting. They issued an 11-page report on
the day following the elections. You can read it here:
[See page A8 for the executive summary.]
The report is available in English and Armenian, and was prepared by
the OSCE/ODIHR monitoring mission. The report is critical in some
areas, and offers praise in others, which was to be expected. In a
nutshell, the monitors presented their findings, stating that the 2008
presidential elections were "mostly in line with international
commitments."
This is not an apologia. We all want Armenia to do better. We all
wait for the day when elections in Armenia are completely fair and
transparent. And that day will come when our citizens fully become
aware of their rights and responsibilities, and when the western
"culture" of elections, voting, campaigning and political platforms
become better integrated into Armenian society.
But just because that day is not here yet, does not mean that we
throw up our arms, give up on democracy and think it merely an
experiment gone bad. It has been said that democracy is a very bad
form of government – it’s just much better than anything else that’s
been tried in history. It would be hard to find anyone today, whether
the authorities of Armenia or the opposition, who would seriously
argue that abandoning our republican form of government because we
haven’t yet perfected it, is a logical or preferred path to follow.
We must therefore take great care before making frantic accusations,
for they are heard by us as well as our adversaries. The mental
laziness of giving in to wild conspiracies does not serve the
long-term endurance of Armenia or the diaspora. For the first time in
more than 600 years, Armenia is free and independent, and we are
therefore obligated to place our national interests ahead of our
personal gains or aspirations.
* * *
Fr. Ktrij Devejian is the foreign press secretary of the Catholicate
of All Armenians, at the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin. Born and
educated in the United States, Fr. Devejian has lived in Armenia for
the past seven years.
****************************************** *********************************
11. Commentary: Growing pains in a fledgling democracy
by Sylvie Tertzakian
In the 1990s, I frequently traveled to Armenia to deliver the Orange
County Armenian Professional Society’s (OCAPS) philanthropic funds to
the staff of the Moushegh Ishkhan School in Yerevan. I also
accompanied my husband on his medical missions to train Armenia’s
urologists in the latest techniques. Those were the dark days of
Armenia. At night the city was shrouded in complete darkness.
I remember taking showers mixing water from two pails of water, one
hot and the other cold. My then-teenage daughter, Taleen, accompanied
me during one Easter break to help distribute the OCAPS funds to the
teachers.
Upon arrival in the city early in the morning after a very long
flight, Taleen wanted to take a shower. An American teenager used to
the amenities in the United States, she was not able to grasp the
conditions prevailing in the city. Touched by what she experienced and
by the resilience of the people, she traveled back to Yerevan that
same summer to volunteer for Project Hope. She helped make artificial
limbs for the wounded soldiers in Karabakh.
A good number of the men had left for Russia and Europe in search of
work in order to provide for their families back home. Some of them
never returned. Some women were pushed to prostitution in Turkey, the
Arab Emirates, and other countries. Old women roamed the streets of
Yerevan begging for food. The newly coined currency, the dram, was
devalued, pushing the middle class into the ranks of the poor. Many
were selling their homes for a one-way ticket to the United States.
Others were selling their precious art works and other items at
Vernisssage, Yerevan’s open-air flea market, to feed their families.
Starved dogs were everywhere and many were shot on sight. Those were
the dark days.
Fast forward to July 2007. Some who had left the country in the
nineties had returned. Sidewalk cafes were full of people until the
early hours of the morning, reminiscent of life in the major cities of
Europe. People celebrated weddings, engagements, even birthdays of
little children who were asleep in their homes in the care of nannies,
unaware of the celebrations.
Construction cranes were present in the center of the city. An
abundance of cars had created traffic jams. I would ask cab drivers if
life was getting better. Some were happy that it was the tourist
season. They were happy that money was trickling down to them from a
booming tourist and construction industry. Others complained about
corruption and hoped that one day their lives would improve.
The past few years, a new middle class emerged, many of them small
business owners or professionals. They have created jobs for others.
They are happy with the stability in the country and would like to see
it continue.
Our family made the bold decision to celebrate this past New Year’s
Eve in Yerevan. It was our first winter in Armenia and I must say it
was freezing cold for us, Californians. It was a novelty for us to
witness the entire city shut down from December 30 to January 7 (by
then we had left).
Streets were deserted while families had their dining tables laden
with food and sweets, and of course with Armenian brandy and vodka.
The ever-present turkey on the tables reminded me of Thanksgiving.
Friends and relatives gathered around dining tables ate and drank for
a whole week. Invariably they talked about politics and hoped for even
better days, when equal opportunities and full employment will be
afforded to every citizen. The highway patrol police were more lenient
with drivers, maybe because they were celebrating as well… Republic
Square was full of the old and the young who had gathered around a
towering Christmas tree. Horse-drawn carriages took people on a
merry-go-round in the square, reminding us of New York. Young parents
were entertaining their little ones on sleds, similar to scenes of
Russian folk art. They seemed happy, despite the minus 20 degrees
centigrade weather.
At the time I write this article, the results of the elections are
not out yet. Regardless of who the new president is, I hope that the
country stays stable. That it does not regress to the dark years, that
more people go back home and that their lives change to the better. I
hope that when they celebrate the New Year in 2009, they do so more
abundantly. They have suffered too long under different regimes and
conditions. It’s time for Armenia to enjoy peace and prosperity.
This past weekend, we witnessed on TV the people of Kosovo (90
percent Muslim Albanians) celebrate their independence from Serbia in
the midst of Christian Europe. They waved the Kosovo and U.S flags.
The United States was the first county to recognize their
independence. Along the same lines, Karabakh, with its 100 percent
Christian Armenian population in the midst of Muslim Turks, has been
seeking international recognition of its independence. It is this
writer’s wish that the U.S. will follow its own principles and
recognizes the independence of Karabakh giving the people the chance
to live in peace and prosperity after a long and difficult struggle
for independence. They deserve a better life. What happens in Karabakh
affects the life in Armenia.
* * *
Sylvie Tertzakian is a community activist and formerly adjunct
professor at Chapman University in Orange, California.
************************************* **************************************
12. Editorial: Extend an invitation to Washington
Turnout was exceptionally high, at 70 percent, for Armenia’s
presidential election on February 19. It indicated that Armenia has a
motivated electorate that believed its vote would make a difference.
According to the preliminary results announced by the Central
Electoral Commission, Prime Minister Serge Sargsian won 52.86 percent
of the vote and was elected as Armenia’s next president. Former
president Levon Ter-Petrossian came in second with 21.51 percent of
the vote, and former speaker Artur Baghdasarian came in third with
16.67 percent.
In choosing the prime minister over the other candidates, the
citizens of Armenia opted for stability and for continuing the
policies pursued over the last 10 years by President Robert Kocharian,
who is stepping down.
Mr. Sargsian, who served for 8½ years as defense minister (under Mr.
Ter-Petrossian during the Karabakh war, and again from 2000 to 2007),
has led the modernization and reform of Armenia’s defense forces and
Armenia’s cooperation with NATO, while maintaining excellent relations
with Russia.
He has taken the position that Turkey’s accession to the European
Union could be a good thing – making Armenia and the EU neighbors –
while at the same time standing firm on the importance of the
recognition by Turkey of the Armenian Genocide.
On the Karabakh conflict, Mr. Sargsian’s position appears to be much
the same as that of Mr. Kocharian: Armenians can make concessions in
exchange for an international status that would formalize the
nonsubordination of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic to Azerbaijan;
Karabakh would continue to have a direct overland border with Armenia
and international guarantees of its security.
Under the Constitution, social and economic policy will be the realm
of the new prime minister and government rather than the president.
But the president appoints the prosecutor general and has oversight of
the judiciary. As such, the new president will have the opportunity to
take decisive steps against official corruption and toward the
establishment of a level playing field for all citizens and for
businesses. Mr. Sargsian has declared that he "will strive for a new
Armenian mindset that will not tolerate the phenomenon of corruption.
Personal contacts must not be the basis of our system and whoever
promotes bribery will not be considered as a comrade, friend, or
fellow party member but as a law breaker." As president, he will have
the opportunity to put this mindset into action.
***
Had Mr. Sargsian received 46,750 fewer votes than shown in the
preliminary count, he would have had to face whoever came in second
place in a runoff election. Because the margin is narrow, concerns
about election fraud take on additional urgency.
It is therefore gratifying to learn the conclusion of the 316
trained observers from the International Election Observation Mission,
that the election "was administered mostly in line with OSCE and
Council of Europe commitments and standards. The high-State
authorities made genuine efforts to address shortcomings noted in
previous elections."
At the same time, however, the observation mission saw problems. For
example, it assessed the count as "bad" or "very bad" in some 16
percent of the polling stations visited. Recounts are going on in
specific precincts, and that is a good thing.
In addition, there were reports and rumors of assault, intimidation,
and bribery throughout Election Day. Though the observers confirm that
voting was calm and normal in some 90 percent of voting precincts, any
reports of violations remain cause for concern. The police are
investigating some 10 cases. Drawing on the testimony of observers,
candidate proxies, and electoral commission members they can and
should investigate additional cases.
That said, there are reasons to have confidence in the overall outcome.
First, there are numerous safeguards in place to ensure electoral
fairness. Each polling station is run by a commission that includes
appointees of parties that have blocs in parliament. Thus,
representatives of the supporters of each major candidate participate
in running each polling place. In addition, candidates can appoint
proxies to observe preparations, voting, and tallying in each polling
place. And observers and the media have access to all polling places
(a right that Reporter editors and reporters in Armenia took full
advantage of). The same is true of membership in and access to the
district and central electoral commissions.
It’s quite a challenge under these circumstances to engage in fraud
on a massive scale. True, some people can be bought or intimidated in
some places; but the proportion of the vote that went to each
candidate was fairly consistent across the country.
Second, reputable pollsters carried out exit polling on Election Day
and the results were consistent with the preliminary tally released by
the Central Electoral Commission. They were also consistent with the
Yerevan polling done earlier in February by a pro-Ter-Petrossian
newspaper.
***
Mr. Ter-Petrossian and Mr. Baghdasarian have refused to concede
defeat, as is their right. Mr. Baghdasarian has demanded recounts,
which is appropriate.
Mr. Ter-Petrossian is demanding a brand-new election based on the
claim that perhaps half a million illegitimate votes were cast,
depriving him of his victory. He has gathered tens of thousands of his
supporters in the streets to put pressure on the government to accede
to his demand. Some senior officials and members of parliament have
joined him. It remains to be seen whether more will.
If the movement in the street were a movement for free, fair, and
transparent elections, it would be a movement to join: there are few
things more heartening than people standing up to demand their rights.
Insofar as the aim is to give Mr. Ter-Petrossian a victory that he did
not garner at the polls, it is not a productive movement. On the
contrary, it is divisive and generates a kind of rancor and hatred
that is likely to far outlast the movement itself.
So far, Mr. Kocharian has acted very appropriately: he has done
nothing to stop the peaceful demonstrations, and police presence has
been minimal except at strategically important places like the
National Assembly. And Mr. Ter-Petrossian has not advocated violence
either. We hope that no one will succumb to the temptation to hurry
things along by turning them violent.
Mr. Sargsian has received congratulations from heads of state such
as President Sarkozy of France to President Gül of Turkey. President
Putin of Russia has already invited him to Moscow for an official
visit. We look forward to Mr. Sargsian’s first presidential visit to
Washington, which we hope will be soon.
******************************************* ********************************
Please send your news to [email protected] and your letters to
[email protected]
(c) 2008 Armenian Reporter LLC. All Rights Reserved