WHO HURRIES TO `CLOSE’ THE CURTAIN OF THE `MARCH 1′ CASE AND WHY?
LILIT POGHOSYAN
Hayots Ashkhar Daily
11 Oct 2008
Armenia
As we know, three American experts who participated in the activities
of the `9/11 Commission’ have this week arrived in Armenia with the
purpose of providing assistance to the interim parliamentary committee
investigating the March 1-2 incidents.
Set up under the auspices of the US Congress, the commission conducted
long and thorough work in an effort to obtain full and comprehensive
information on what had happened. The `investigation’ launched by the
best specialists in the sphere lasted around 2 years (20 months). In
that period, the committee members talked to more than 1200 individuals
some way or another related to the terrorist act and studied around 2
million documents.
In the meantime, it didn’t occur to any international human rights
organization, European structure, statesman or ordinary citizen to kick
up a fuss over the issue that the investigation of the case was being
deliberately delayed or attempts were being made to conceal some facts
etc.
And nor especially disseminate statements that the investigation
results were not reliable and didn’t inspire confidence in the ordinary
American citizens since the `Al Quaida’ terrorists didn’t participate
in the activities of the commission based on the prin
ciples of parity.
Although in this case too, the public had a problem in terms of
confidence, considering the subsequent rumors that the American
Government and law enforcement agencies had been previously warned
about the terrorist acts that were being planned but didn’t
deliberately or negligently take any measure to prevent the tragedy.
But in our case, any person who isn’t lazy criticizes the suspicious
`sluggishness’ of the interim committee, addresses accusations and
reproaches to them for not providing answers within a very short period
of time. Let alone the `concerns’, and accusations directed to the
inquest body, as well as the menacing questions as to why the arrested
`political prisoners’ accused of participating in the organization of
the acts of violence and mass disorders haven’t been released now that
7 months have passed after the March 1 incidents.
Obedient to the Europeans and Americans’ instructions to `disclose’ the
details of the March 1 incidents within a short period of time, the
National Assembly even established a deadline, obliging the committee
to rapidly disclose the details of the incident and report on their
causes and the mechanisms of preventing their repetition at the end of
October.
And the Council of Europe stamped its seal, establishing a `strict’
control over the activities of the inquest body and the in
terim
committee, periodically sending its envoys and obliging them to report
on the achievements in the sphere of Armenia’s democratization, i.e.
the release of the individuals arrested for their `political views’,
since the impunity of the revolutionaries is the only criterion of
democracy for these people.
It is, of course, possible to argue that the `September 11′ and the
`March 1′ are crimes committed with different purposes, on different
levels and with different motives. We agree to that. But who said that
finding and interrogating the hundreds of activists who participated in
the mass disorders, comparing the testimonies submitted by them and the
law enforcers and making a relevant assessment on the activities of
each takes less time and efforts than elucidating the dark pages of the
`American tragedy’? And if this comparison is improper, it’s only
because the professional, expertise and material technical resources of
ours are very far from the American standards.
So, why are the neo-Bolsheviks and their Western sponsors hurrying to
`close’ the curtain of March 1, reproaching and reviling the activities
of the inquest body and the interim committee?
We believe the answer is clear. The pro-Levon activists do not need the
disclosure of the truth. What they need is speculations enabling them
to remain on the surface of water a little more or, if the
worst comes
to the worst, save their own skins and avoid criminal liability. The
truth is contraindicated. Otherwise, they wouldn’t boycott the activity
of a committee set up at their own demand, persistently refusing to
introduce to the committee their doubts and assumptions, `facts and
arguments’ and discuss any issue with the Head of the investigative
group, specialists and experts in an environment of open and
transparent cooperation.
As to the western structures `disseminating democracy’, they are
interested in the March 1 incidents inasmuch as they serve for them as
a lever for `oppressing’ the Armenian authorities and imposing on them
`flexible approaches’ towards the settlement of the Karabakh issue. All
the rest is a simple disguise.