An orange revolution scenario in Armenia: final countdown
4 March 08
Andrei Areshev
On Saturday evening, March 1, on the eve of presidential election in
Russia, Armenia’s Yerevan witnessed the mount of tension after the
February 19 presidential election, when the country’s opposition leader
Levon Ter-Petrosian lost to Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian. The climax
of political crisis in Armenia, Russia’s strategic ally in
Transcaucasus region, will by all means have serious consequences both
for Armenia and Russian foreign policy in the region. Mass riots took
place in Yerevan on 1-2 March, when `peace marchers’ destroyed
everything they found on their way and attacked the police officers.
The crowd of protesters gathered near the city administration building
at night. They set a few cars on fire, including some police cars, and
destroyed a few bookstalls and `The Moscow House’ shop built in 2007.
As a result of clashes between the police and the opposition, 8
officers received bullet wounds and were taken to a hospital, some of
them in critical condition. Witnesses reported all rioters were young.
There was a moment when the authorities let the situation go out of
control. Thus, Armenia’s President Robert Kocharian had to declare a
state of emergency Saturday night, which, he said, could last until
March 20. The decree was later approved at the parliament’s
extraordinary session. It was decided that troops and armored vehicles
would patrol the streets to bring order to the city.
On Saturday morning the police dispersed an unofficial rally of the
members of radical opposition who gathered on the Opera (or Freedom)
Square after the February 19 presidential election. Two weeks before
the election, the opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian announced he
would not recognize any other results of the election except his
victory over Sarkisian.
An `open-ended’ rally in Yerevan and the `orange revolution’ in Kiev in
2004 look very much alike with its loud music, tents, chants, mobile
ring tones, mentally unbalanced public speakers and other traditional
for such kind of `revolutions’ methods, including Levon Ter-Petrosian`s
`Satanic dance’. It is remarkable that many of the `defenders of
democracy’, who had traveled from the nearby districts specially for
taking part in the riots, were very aggressive towards anyone who did
not share their views. The `messiah’ Ter-Petrosian even called
Sarkisian supporters `the dregs of society’. As their hopes to split
the authorities, and- first of all- the defense and law enforcement
agencies- became weaker, some of the rioters attempted to distribute
drugs among the people. A group of armed people called on the
opposition members to seize control over Yerevan`s key objects,
including the TV tower.
The Armenian authorities should be praised for being reserved enough to
avert clashes between the civilians, especially in view of the 20th
anniversary of the Sumgait Uprising (Michael Saakashvili suppressed a
more peaceful rally of the opposition in a shorter period of time and
by using even tougher methods). However, the rally could not last
forever as the crowd of aggressive people would have certainly affected
the work of civil and state institutions. On March 1 the rioters were
ousted from the Opera Square. They moved towards the French Embassy and
then divided into several groups not to let the police approach closer
and started raising barricades in the center of Yerevan. The organizers
of the riots found shelter behind the backs of women and children. Some
of the drunken protesters had bottles of benzene, stones and guns. `The
worst thing is that they start shooting when dozens of unarmed people
could be injured. A gunman suddenly appears, makes a few shots and then
hides again. The police cannot return fire as innocent people can be
wounded. It seems that the rioters deliberately started shooting to
cause numerous victims’- Robert Kocharian said. To bring order to the
city the authorities asked the army to patrol the streets in Yerevan.
Experts had long been talking about an orange revolution scenario in
Armenia. Now the moment has come. Of course, Armenia lived through
harder times, but the current situation may cause a serious
confrontation between the Armenian people. Turkey and Azerbaijan are
keeping a close eye on the tensions in Yerevan. It seems that the
outgoing President Robert Kocharian and his handpicked successor
Sarkisian would manage to resume control over the situation. However,
the country’s international prestige was shattered. And that was the
main task of the opposition forces. Ter-Petrosian and his allies relied
on the support from the West- the method widely used in Georgia,
Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.
These `western missions’ have already demonstrated their interest in
the recent uprising in Armenia. On March 1 some ambassadors from the
EU, the OSCE and the UN held talks at the German Embassy with the
opposition activists. After the meeting, street riots in Yerevan only
mounted. The European delegates made a few cynical statements as they
condemned the Armenian police and the authorities for the lack of
`humane attitude’ towards the protesters. The west has again
demonstrated its adherence to a double standard policy. At first, the
observers praised the February 19 voting but now they think it is the
right time to change their views and accuse the government of vote
fraud. `We must be ready to become even more critical if it is demanded
by our (U.S-Aresehev) national interests,- a former co-chairman of the
OSCE Minsk Group, Special Negotiator for the Nagorno-Karabakh and
Eurasian Conflicts, Steven Mann, used to say. `We have already taken
some measures to escalate chaos in the countries where we would like to
see democratic regimes and market reforms, and we also provide
financial support for the development of private mass media sector’.
`Measures to escalate chaos’ in Armenia, which were taken exactly ahead
of the presidential election in Russia, mean nothing but an attempt to
break off Yerevan`s political and military cooperation with Moscow. As
a result of these western geopolitical games, Armenia and the
Nagorno-Karabakh region may face very serious threats.
Of course, it is too early to make a through analysis of the recent
protests in Yerevan but some conclusions can be easily drawn already.
1) The authorities need wide support from the population and should act
in advance. `Levon Ter-Petrosian and his supporters were very upset to
know that all candidates for presidency accepted Sarkisian`s proposal
of cooperation’, Robert Kocharian said. Indeed, after the Republican
Party, `The Prosperous Armenia’ and the `Orinats Yerkir (Country of
Law) Party reached a coalition agreement, the opposition had no chances
to legally carry out their policies. But they had to work off the
sponsorship money. In the long run, Ter-Petrosian called on his
supporters to end riots for a while, until the state of emergency
expires on March 20. But it is very likely that at the end of March
Levon and his supporters will continue their protest campaign, stirring
up separatist sentiments among the Armenians.
2) The presidential decree on the state of emergency in Yerevan says
that the supporters of Ter-Petrosian, being unable to recognize the
defeat, undertook illegal steps, including the delivery of arms and
explosives to the places of mass gathering, and organized unlawful
meetings and marches. The authorities are obliged to nip such
activities in the bud despite any statements made by various
non-governmental organisation or international observers. When a member
of a foreign diplomatic mission, its headquarters in the country of
residence looking more like a fortress, summons the officers of the law
enforcement agencies to rebuke them, such country will no longer be
treated as a sovereign state. Sooner of later, Armenia’s defence and
law enforcement agencies will be forced to hand power to these `orange
plunderers’.
3) In the world ruled by a `global hegemon’, any state needs clear-cut
landmarks to carry out successful foreign policy. A well-conceived
state ideology would also be a plus. Once Levon Ter-Petrosian was the
first to say the country could easily do without national ideology. He
imposed a set of `human liberal values’ on the society, and, amid the
ongoing political confrontation, Armenia took a path of destruction.
The situation serves the purposes of criminals and instigators. If,
after suppressing the riots, the Armenian authorities continue to lull
people into a sense of stability and security by reporting annual
economic growth, the recent `orange’ campaigns in Yerevan could mark
the decline of the Armenian statehood.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
