A COORDINATED EFFORT THROUGH DEMOCRACY
By Aram Adamyan
9 January 2009
Toronto
Two-thousand-and-eight was a year full of political activities in
the homeland and geopolitical developments that left their impact
on Armenia.
– The presidential election was held in February and was followed by
the tragic events in March that shook up Yerevan and the whole country.
– The Russian-Georgian war that broke out in August had many negative
effects on Armenia, but the Armenian economy would have seen more
catastrophic results had the war lasted longer.
– Armenia’s president, S. Sargsyan invited his Turkish counterpart to
come to Yerevan and watch the football match between the teams of the
two countries. In September, President Gul made the unprecedented
journey that seemed to signal a thaw in the diplomatic relations
between the two countries, and shortly afterwards a meltdown of
Armenian-Turkish relationship was observed.
– During the Fall, Turkey proposed the Caucasus security initiative
supported by Russia, and Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations about
Nagorno-Karabakh were reactivated. These events culminated in the
Russian-sponsored Maindorf Declaration.
– In the midst of all these activities Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey
held tripartite meetings and discussions about Karabakh. They plan to
have more meetings devoted to Karabakh as well as to other outstanding
issues, such=2 0as the closed borders between Turkey and Armenia,
and the Genocide of the Armenians that Turkey denies.
– On the international scene, two events deserve special
mention. Barack Obama, a supporter of the Genocide bill, was elected
as the new President of the USA. The European Council initiated and
continues to exercise pressure on Armenia for its failure to meet
Human Rights standards.
– Turkish-Armenian Relations
The Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations which previously were conducted
through the Minsk group, transformed into Armenian-Turkish
negotiations, whereby the Turkish side represents both Turkey and
Azerbaijan, while the Armenian side represents Armenia and the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Turkey continues to keep its border with
Armenia closed, and refuses to establish diplomatic relationships
with Armenia only because of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Indeed, in taking such a course towards Armenia, its policy is nothing
more than an extension of Azerbaijan’s policy towards Armenia.
During these negotiations, Turkey actively promotes the idea of
forming a joint commission of historians to study what happened during
1915-1923. The goal is to prevent the new US Administration from
calling the massacres Genocide. Historically the Armenian Diaspora
has conducted the efforts related to the recognition of the Genocide
by the international community.
It is fair to claim that the current format of negotiations
provides obvious tactical advantages t o the Turkish party. Neither
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic nor the Armenian Diaspora is represented
in the talks.
To make matters worse Turkey and Azerbaijan claim that the Republic of
Armenia is an aggressor and has annexed Azerbaijani territories. They
try to play the card of the victim, and propagate the idea that
the issue of the occupied Azeri territories should be part of the
discussions related to the Genocide. Moreover, Turkey tries to create
artificial conflicts of interests between Armenia and the Armenian
Diaspora in order to claim that there is no pan-Armenian position
with respect to the Genocide issue.
It will not be surprising to see Turkey seeking Russia’s help to
prevent furthering the promotion of the recognition of the Genocide
in the Western countries, where the Armenian Diaspora is active. Of
particular importance for Turkey is the USA, where the president-elect
has made reassuring promises to Armenians. While Russia itself has a
very influential Armenian Diaspora, it does not have direct leverage
over the Armenians in the Western countries. However, Russia has the
potential of inducing indirect modifications through Armenia to reduce
the level of demands by the Western Armenian Diaspora.
Russia – Turkey – Europe – NATO
After the war in Georgia, Turkish and Russian relations became
warmer as Turkey showed support to Russia’s actions. Her neutral to
pro-Russian stand is partly explained by trade motives and secondly by
a latent desire to distance itself from US interests in the region. In
return, Turkey expects favors by having Russia exert pressure on
Armenia to make concessions in Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations, and
possibly other matters.
The war was a Russian effort to prevent NATO expansion in the Black Sea
area. USA replied by establishing a diplomatic post in Crimea. This
strategically important peninsula, which is part of Ukraine, is
inhabited by a pro-Russian population and where the Russian Black Sea
Navy base is located. The Russia-West tension will involve Crimea in
the near future. To continue to enjoy Turkey’s friendly stance Russia
has to content with Turkey’s expressed intent of having continuance
of Russia’s change of stance and intrusion in matters related to
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Unfortunately, on many occasions Armenians have paid too high a
price for Russian interests in the region, eventually rendering
Armenia weaker and more dependent on Russia. On the other hand, the
US administration, while being pressured by its domestic Armenian
Diaspora, can impose some conditions over the Republic of Armenia if
it decides to recognize the Genocide.
The thrust over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh comes from not only
Turkey and Russia. The West requires secure transfer routes for energy
resources from Azerbaijan and Central Asia bypassing Russia. In that
pursuit, it tries to please oil-rich Azerbaijan. A quick resolution
of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict makes it possible to realize such
a goal, provided Armenia makes significant concessions. Accordingly,
the co-chairs of the Minsk group upheld the principle of territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan. The principle of self-determination has gone
out of the door despite the involved countries’ recent recognition
of independence of separatist formations: Kosovo by USA and France,
South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Russia.
Armenia is experiencing pressure on yet another level. In its December
meeting in Paris, the European Council Parliamentary Assembly’s Human
Rights Monitoring Commission – PACE – proposed an extremely drastic
measure to punish Armenia through suspending its voting power in
the European Council. The decision was made on grounds that human
rights conditions in Armenia were not acceptable. It was related to
the continuance of imprisonment of opposition members regarded as
political prisoners. While the Armenian democrats should welcome the
airing of such concerns it is impossible not to notice a concurrence in
timing of the Commission’s decision with concerted efforts of several
parties to exercise pressure over Armenia during the Nagorno-Karabakh
negotiations.
Hypocrisy of the West
It is ironic that the European Council recognized the results of
the presidential election in Armenia as legitimate, and went on
even further by appreciating " the progress in the election process"
over the previous years. Yet the very same Council declares the same
country to be in violation of Human Rights because of the presence
of political prisoners.
Is not recognizing the results of the presidential election, later
turning around and talking about Human Rights violations at a crucial
time of negotiations a well planned means to exert pressure over
Armenia? Is the suspension of a mere 6.8 million dollars designated
for Millennium Ventures program planned for 2009 on the same grounds
of human rights violations just a coincidence? Meanwhile the West
approves 4.5 billion dollars to Georgia without mentioning the same
unacceptable Human Rights conditions, grants in France political asylum
to Irakli Okruashvili – the former Defense Minister of Georgia, and
is mum about the massive attacks on South Ossetian civilian population.
The same European Council endures dynastic transfer of power in
Azerbaijan.
On March 18, 2009, Azerbaijan will conduct a referendum. It is
proposed to remove the clause from the Constitution that bans the same
person being elected President of the country more than twice. If
the referendum is successful it will effectively make Ilham Aliyev
a life long President.
While this proposal has nothing at all in common with the European
standards of democracy, the European Council remains silent. The
reaction of the European Council regarding to the expected massive
forgeries in the referendum will be another measure to evaluate the
true mission of that organization in the region.
Democracy and Pan-Armenian Strategy
Bearing in mind the potentially disastrous outcomes of the above
developments, Armenians everywhere, in the Armenian Diaspora and
the Republic of Armenia, need to work out a clearly defined joint
strategy and an action plan. While external factors are out of our
control, building a humanistic oriented democratic Armenia depends
only on Armenians. This will not only lay grounds for repatriations
in future, but also combat current external pressures on Armenia in
Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations. Our history, values, rich cultural
heritage, an established Armenian Diaspora in the Western countries
are all significant factors and ideal internal resources for building
democracy in our country. Notwithstanding, we currently face huge
political pressures within our society, and it is expected to get
worse with the damaging effects of the world economic crisis on
Armenian economy.
Ironically, while Armenia promotes the democratic principle of
the right to self-determination and counters calls for territorial
integrity regarding Nagorno-Karabakh, it exercises the undemocratic
practice of having political prisoners at home. Releasing the political
prisoners, initiating an immediate political dialogue between the
Armenian authorities and the opposition, and diffusing the tense
political atmosphere are vitally importan t for a country involved
in its future-defining negotiations.
It is high time that we coordinate our efforts to circumvent
manipulations hatched up by major geopolitical forces that today,
once more, are playing the Genocide card to the tune of their interests
and to the detriment of Armenians and Armenia. A pan-Armenian strategy
would provide the means to neutralize such efforts.
Without a pan-Armenian strategy, external influences will significantly
increase the pressure on Armenia in these historic critical times, and
could lead to unacceptable concessions, for both Nagorno-Karabakh and
the process of the recognition of the Genocide by the international
community. We have to realize that Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations
will decide not only the future of it but also Armenia’s existence
as a whole.
There are at least two pre-conditions involved in achieving a
pan-Armenian strategy. The ruling party and the elite in Armenia
need to show sincere efforts to democratize the system, and fight
corruption. They must convince that the national interests are ahead
of personal gains and the desire to hold political power. They should
stop using the presence of external threats as an excuse to create
an oppressive atmosphere in the country. They need to be responsive
to the opinions and positions of the Diasporans.
Likewise, the political opposition, the intelligentsia, the various
interest groups, and the Diaspora need to recognize t hat unity
is crucial, and look beyond immediate limited interests. Armenian
democrats, inside and outside of Armenia, need to recognize those
external threats, and hold the survival of Armenia uppermost in
their minds.
The measures outlined above will define our collective responsibility
as a nation towards future generations; and as a nation looking to
the future we have no right to fail in these momentous times.