Armenia after riots
09. 03.2008
Andrei Areshev
After the state of emergency was introduced in Armenia, the situation
in the country somewhat normalized. The police arrested the instigators
of March 1 riots which caused tragic consequences. Four members of the
Armenian parliament, Akop Akopyan, Myasnik Malkhasanyan, Sasun
Mikaelyan and Khachtur Sukiasyan, faced the deprival of deputy
immunity. The country`s Prosecutor General`s Office accused them of
rendering support to former President Levon Ter-Petrosyan, who headed
the opposition movement. In accordance with the Article 56.1 of the
Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, `President of the Republic can
be brought to responsibility after he leaves office for actions not
related to his status’.
The Armenian national television demonstrated pictures of March 1
events, featuring that those were exactly `peace marchers’ who
initiated the clashes with the police, while plans to hold meeting near
the Matenadaran were hampered by Nikola Pashinyan, Ter-Petrosian
closest ally. According to official data, the clashes resulted in 48
injures among the civilians and 117 among the police officers- quite
impressive statistics.
The authorities are very likely not to repeat the mistakes. The
country’s defence and law enforcement agencies made quite a plain
statement. In a televised address, the Armenian Police Chief, Colonel
Gegam Petrosian, called on people `not to hold another protest
campaign’ and warned that `the whole police staff is on the alert to
repel any illegal actions’.
In this way the authorities reacted to the rallies organized by
Ter-Petrosian and his allies. When the former president addressed his
supporters after it was reported about the first victims of the
clashes, he asked them to end the protest campaign until the state of
emergency expired 20 days later. But one may imagine that the situation
may become even worse after March 20 as Levon Ter-Petrosian is
notorious for his `surprises’. According to the Head of the Center for
Strategic Analysis `Ararat’, Armen Aivazyan, the political situation in
Armenia remains very tense. `It does not necessarily mean that
immediately after March 20 the opposition will hold new riots, but
Saturday events can repeat in this or that way. And that would mark the
decline of the Armenian statehood’. Some of the ongoing processes
verify the guess. Yet the opposition leaders have not shown even a sign
of regret about the March 1 events. It makes us think that from the
very beginning these people have more `serious’ plans and expected more
than 8 dead and hundreds injured¦
Now the instigators use the approved tactics of disseminating rumors,
aimed at dividing the society into numerous hostile groups. They also
disseminate misinformation about corpses in the center of the city and
about `the Karabakh special task forces’, who beat pregnant women and
children. They told people that robberies in Yerevan were committed by
the prisoners who had been released especially for the operation.
According to the opposition, the number of peace marches was up to
300,000¦Rumors as an instrument of subversive activities proved very
effective in times of instability as peoples` minds become more
vulnerable to persuasion.
Despite some restrictions imposed by the current state of emergency,
the group of instigators do not waste time and try to use all available
means to control the information. They try to present the information
from Yerevan in a way they would like to see it and try to seize
control over the Armenian department of the Radio Liberty. The
opposition continues the dissemination of false information by means of
SMS messaging and Internet. They try to neutralize every sources of
information which do not meet the interests of the opposition party.
The Western news agencies and the so-called `human rights activists’
provide Ter-Petrosian`s party with external information support by
regularly reporting on the authorities` alleged attitude towards `peace
marchers’.
However, Ter-Petrosian failed to seize control of the Internet: the
information which had already been made public proves that the
opposition party had undertaken an attempt of an armed riot. The
`peaceful’ character of protests on the Freedom Square demonstrated in
full that the leader of the radical opposition party had no intentions
to behave in a strict accordance with the law, as members of the
Armenian Liberation Movement (AOD) insisted. On the contrary, they
wanted to destroy a `pyramid of power’ as soon as possible, and the
former president used to say this before. In an interview given to the
journalist V. Dubnov and later published in Yerevan, Levon
Ter-Petrosian said: `I do not agree that our party of opposition failed
to undermine the vertical of power in Armenia¦ the March 1 events and
the fact that many deputies, diplomats and defence ministry officers
backed our position- isn`t it convincing enough? Those were very
serious events. Finally we are witnessing the collapse of the state
machine’. But when it became clear that all these declarations were
just the figment of the mind of an `outstanding scientist’, the events
immediately resulted in a tragic outcome.
Ambassador Heikki Talvitie, the Special Envoy of the OSCE
Chairman-in-Office, was surprised to know that the protesters had been
holding their campaign for 9 days running without having an official
permission and not being disturbed by the authorities. However, Mr.
Talvitie also thinks that `since the opposition in Armenia possessed
arms, it was impossible to avoid riots’. Mr. Talvitie did not elaborate
on the issue and won`t say where those `peace marchers’ could obtain
the weapons. However, he has already concluded that both sides are to
blame for the tragedy of March 1.
Many western experts were inspired by the events in Yerevan and started
playing the roles of mediators between the authorities and its radical
opponents. Probably, Ter-Petrosian and his supporters sought such kind
of mediation and deliberately caused clashes between the civilians. Mr.
Talvitie, who believes that in light of the recent events in Yerevan
the presence of foreign observers from the OSCE is absolutely
necessary, is not the only Western envoy urgently send to Yerevan.
Peter Semnebi, a special representative of the EU for South Caucasus
and Head of EC Mission in Armenia Raul Lutzenberger have already
arrived, while the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza is on his way to Yerevan.
Javier Solana and Terry Davis have also displayed their concern over
the situation in Armenia. Washington appeals calls on the opposing
sides to hold a dialogue, and it seems that Mr. Bryza is expected to
monitor the process. According to the statement made by the US
Department of State, Bryza`s visit to Yerevan should not be interpreted
as Washington’s `official mediation’ between Armenian authorities and
the opposition.
Although the goals sound quite reasonable, it seems that they are
needed to press on Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sarkisyan to release the
arrested protesters to let them complete their `mission’. A recent
statement made by the Slovenian authorities on the behalf of the whole
EU reflects this very thought.
Many countries have experienced that the organizers of the `color
revolutions’ achieve their goals if the authorities, having lost the
support of the majority of the population, start looking for allies
outside the country and thus become the hostages of external powers.
This is what we are witnessing in Armenia today.
For instance, in his statement, Secretary General of the Council of
Europe Terry Davis emphasizes that the investigation into the riots
should be carried out in accordance with the law and not be used to
pursue the political opponents. And then Mr. Davis presents a standard
list of demands where just the only is left behind: the necessity of
`international investigation’ as it was in 2005 after the riots in
Uzbek Andijan. Keeping such standard in mind, any instigator can be
called `a political opponent’ and then `a political prisoner’ or `a
prisoner of consciousness’, and thus the opposition may receive another
lever to go on with political pressure, blackmail and attempts to
control home processes in whatever country¦
Being Armenia`s major political and military ally, Russia could have a
serious influence on the ongoing process. Moscow is interested in
stability in Armenia and in nearby regions.
It must be mentioned that the West displayed its `theatrical’ concern
over Armenia on March 4, when a big armed clash took place in the
Mardakert region in Nagorno-Karabakh. According to the Armenian Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian, the Azeri side used armored vehicles and
special task forces. Armenia’s retaliatory measures helped to maintain
the status-quo.
As it was suggested earlier, Azerbaijan will try to use unstable
political situation in Armenia to strengthen its positions in the
region. On February 26 Baku proposed a UN General Assembly draft
resolution headlined `Situation on the Azeri occupied territories’,
demanding to confirm its borders and its claim to Nagorno-Karabakh.
Amid the riots in Yerevan, the announcement made by the Caucasus
Project Director of the International Crisis Group, Sabine Freizer was
left unnoticed. Ms. Freizer said that Armenia and Azerbaijan had
practically reached a territorial accord, although yet failed to agree
on the width of the corridor linking Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia and
on the mechanism of voting in Nagorno-Karabakh. Ms. Freizer again
thought of the situation in a wishful sense. However, another conflict
on the Karabakh-Azeri border, especially in view of Mr. Bryza`s visit
to Baku, serves as an additional `message’ to Armenia to be more
flexible towards the demands of the West.
Now the most important task is to overcome the crisis within the
country and punish the instigators of the March 1 riots. To enter a
brand new era of development, Armenia must get rid of tribal
corruption, which took roots during Ter-Petrosian`s presidency. If the
authorities fail to do this, Armenia will face hard times.