Balkanalysis.com, AZ
Nov 10 2004
Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict, Infighting Dominate Political Agenda (Part
2)
Posted on Sunday, February 29 @ 09:00:00 EST by balkanalysis
CDeliso writes “Political infighting between Armenian coalition
parties have intensified during the past month, as have threats from
the opposition, just as talks for a final solution over
Nagorno-Karabakh broke down on Friday in Geneva (see part 1 of our
Armenia special report).
As usual, corruption charges have proven the easiest ‘in’ for the
politically disenfranchised. Pro-establishment vehicles such as
RFE/RL have spilled plenty of ink on championing the issue.
Two weeks ago, opposition parties demanded the resignation of
President Robert Kocharian, making the ridiculously derivative
prediction of a ‘revolution of white carnations.’ This florid prose
alludes directly to Georgia’s recent ‘revolution of roses,’ a
Soros-backed adventure which saw the mysterious importing of
thousands of roses for publicity’s sake, during a season when they
could not possibly be grown locally. So much for the spontaneous
uprising of the people. The Armenian opposition had better wait ’til
spring- or hope that FTD can deliver.
The flower power pronouncement came from Aram Karapetian, leader of
the ‘New Times’ oppositionist party on 12 February. Karapetian’s
party, together with the National Unity Party are boycotting
parliament. The speaker was, however, a little on the vague side,
prophesying that “…the president will announce his resignation on
television. The change of power could take place within the next few
days or in a year from now.”
Not only that, reports Eurasianet.org, but Kocharian’s own coalition
partners are accusing his party of “massive vote fraud” in last
summer’s parliamentary elections. According to the article, the
broadside was fired by Hrant Markarian, a leader of the Armenian
Revolutionary Federation (ARF, or Dashnaktsutiun) at a party
conference:
“…In his speech, repeatedly interrupted by rapturous applause from
delegates, Markarian also expressed dissatisfaction with the
Kocharian administration’s record, pointing to rampant corruption and
the ‘deepening social polarization’ of Armenia’s population. He went
on to accuse Kocharian of having ‘tolerated the triumph of corruption
and injustice,’ adding that the president lacked the will to rein in
business tycoons and ‘other apolitical elements.'”
The chief targets of this criticism- Prime Minister Andranik
Markarian’s Republican Party (HHK) and Parliament Speaker Artur
Baghdasarian’s Orinats Yerkir (Country of Law) Party- made no
official responses right away, but augured retaliation. Said HHK
parliamentary leader Galust Sahakian in a newspaper interview:
“…If it turns out that the accusations contained in Hrant Markarian’s
speech are the official opinion of Dashnaktsutiun, then that opinion
could lead to quite serious consequences.”
The report suggests that, corruption and fraud aside, more
fundamental differences lay behind Dashnaktsutiun’s frustration.
Unlike this historically nationalist party, the president “…does not
subscribe to the ARF leader’s calls for neighboring Georgia to grant
autonomous status to its Armenian-populated Javakheti region.” And,
unlike the ARF, Kocharian is in favor of normalizing relations with
traditional foe Turkey. While the nationalists demand Turkey must
first officially recognize the 1915 killings of 1.5 million Armenians
by the Ottomans as genocide, Kocharian and his party do not. They are
aware that winning such a symbolic concession from Turkey is
extremely unlikely, to say the least, and hope that a formal
rapprochement will re-open borders shut by Turkey in 1993. The Turks
blockaded the border after the 1992-1994 war broke out between Muslim
ally Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, in the opinion of Eurasinet.org’s Emil Danielyan, the
initially cautious reaction from Kocharian to Markarian’s accusation
“…indicates that he is reluctant to turn against one of the country’s
oldest parties and one of his chief pillars of political support
during his presidency.” Dashnaktsutiun enjoys a venerable legacy of
being the upholder of Armenian nationalism since the 19th century,
and has taken a strong stance against Turkey and especially
Azerbaijan since then.
According to the analysis, despite its belly-achings the ARF will
probably not give up its share of power. However, it may prove an
obstacle to negotiations with Turkey, which has renewed its
dedication to dialogue. Speaking in Russia on Friday, Turkish Foreign
Minister Abdullah Gul lamented that “…Turkey-Armenia relations are
far away from the desired level.” According to TurkishPress.com, Gul
blamed the Armenian diaspora especially for stymieing progress, by
fueling the ARF’s position on genocide-recognition:
“…those who are living a comfortable life outside Armenia do not
contribute to improvement of relations between Turkey and Armenia
with their attitude. Historians should deal with events of the past.
The Ottoman Empire had never perpetrated any massacre or assimilation
intentionally.”
Gul no doubt raises an apt point, but his inclusion of the word
‘intentionally’ is sure to only provoke Armenians who feel that
Turkey is conscious of the crime, but refuses to admit it.
In any case, diaspora influence or not, the historical issue is less
an impediment than Turkey’s insistence that rapprochement involve the
return of up to 1 million displaced Azerbaijanis to Karabakh- an
unappealing sell for any Armenian politician.
;file=article&sid=275
–Boundary_(ID_wXVGqiSyLjG+NWBpUiK/sg)–