Raffi Hovannisian's
"political platform" is totally devoid of
any meaningful solutions to Armenia's many pressing
problems. What's more, as we shall see in the commentary below, some of
the items on Raffi's political wish list may in fact be suicidal for
Armenia. As with all the other Captain Americas and "rights"
activists in Armenia today, Raffi only knows how to attack, complain and
of course play on the people's emotions. There is absolutely nothing about Raffi, his followers or his political platform that even remotely suggests that they would benefit Armenia in any way. Moreover,
looking at the kind of people he surrounds himself with, it
is very clear that Raffi and company are in absolutely no shape to run
anything, let alone a country.
In all seriousness, what has been happening in Armenia lately looks and feels like a nasty joke. Had Washington-led mercenaries like Raffi and his ilk not been tinkering with Armenia's very existence as a nation-state, their nonsense would have indeed been somewhat amusing. Unfortunately, what men like Raffi are doing today is playing with Armenia's very future. Although many of Raffi's politically illiterate, emotionally handicapped and intellectually deficient supporters emphatically claim that he is not pursuing a Western political agenda inside Armenia, Raffi's associations, statements and actions clearly suggests otherwise. See a sampling of articles about Raffi and his political party below this commentary and consider the following.
In all seriousness, what has been happening in Armenia lately looks and feels like a nasty joke. Had Washington-led mercenaries like Raffi and his ilk not been tinkering with Armenia's very existence as a nation-state, their nonsense would have indeed been somewhat amusing. Unfortunately, what men like Raffi are doing today is playing with Armenia's very future. Although many of Raffi's politically illiterate, emotionally handicapped and intellectually deficient supporters emphatically claim that he is not pursuing a Western political agenda inside Armenia, Raffi's associations, statements and actions clearly suggests otherwise. See a sampling of articles about Raffi and his political party below this commentary and consider the following.
Raffi shows Putin who's boss!
Putting aside the well known fact that Raffi has always maintained close connections with the US embassy in Armenia and may have at times even collaborated with them, according to public statements on record, Armenia's newest "democratizer" to take to the streets in Yerevan, wants Moscow to start paying rent for their use of military bases in Armenia; wants to bring Armenia's membership in CSTO under scrutiny; wants Moscow to stop providing Armenians with work opportunities in Russia; wants Armenia to reject the Moscow-led Eurasian Union; wants Moscow to treat Yerevan as an equal; wants Moscow to stop providing weapons to Azerbaijan; wants to reveal the identities of all former KGB agents in Armenia; wants Putin to recognize him as president of Armenia; and finally, wants Yerevan to officially recognize Artsakh's (Nagorno Karabakh's) independence.
As you can see, Raffi is attempting to show Vladimir Putin who is the boss. There are signs that his movement is even beginning to take on a "color". Similar to how there are politically illiterate Armenians that are trying to board a sinking ship (i.e. European Union), there are politically illiterate Armenians that are also continuing their dangerous experiments with "color revolutions" - even though every single color revolution in Eurasia has been reversed and their time has all but passed. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Raffi represents Western interests in Armenia. Let's also not forget that Raffi is closely connected to other Western operatives like the American agent Richard Giragosian and Vartan Oskanian.
Raffi's American scripted nonsense about Russian-Armenian relations has been so obvious that even rural folk in Armenia have begun noticing it. Please watch the following Washington-funded "Azatutyun Radio" video report for a recent example of how country folk in Armenia have begun confronting Raffi about Russian-Armenian relations (the segment in question starts at 18:00 minutes) -
Րաֆֆի Հովհաննիսյանը մարտի 9-ին այցելել էր Գեղարքունիք: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIC9Z2WSzT4
Although
Armenians in general may be like naive children when it comes to political
matters, Armenian survival instincts on the other hand have been
fine-tuned to perfection during the past one thousand years. Therefore,
regardless of the volume and intensity of the anti-Russian propaganda assault carried-out by Western operatives in and out of Armenia, large numbers of Armenians (especially
those living in rural areas outside of Yerevan) will almost instinctually
recognize Russia's extreme importance for Armenia. The Armenian street continues to be overwhelmingly Russia-friendly. The following poll results from European sources several years ago reveals overwhelming pro-Russian sentiments prevailing in Armenia and Artsakh -
And here a Gallup poll result from Armenia reveals something even more interesting -
But none of this is any reason to be complacent for national preferences - even instincts - can be made to change over time.
Although the average person in Armenia and Artsakh continues to be overwhelmingly pro-Russian today, pro-Western sentiments in Armenia continue to be particularly strong within Yerevan; among those working for Western organizations and NGOs; within the nation's political opposition and among rights activists; even among some serving officials. Therefore, although the average Armenian in Armenia and Artsakh recognizes the strategic importance of Russian-Armenian relations, pro-Western sentiments are proliferating within important circles in the country. As a result, there is today a clear and present danger. I raised the alarm about this very important topic with the following commentary two years ago -
85% of Armenians in Artsakh trust Russia: http://www.aysor.am/en/news/2010/11/25/karabakh-russia/
80% of Armenians in Armenia view Russia as extremely important for Armenia: http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/politics/news/57180/Russia_widely_viewed_as_extremely_important_for_Armenia
80% of Armenians want good relations with Russia even if it will hurt relations with US: http://www.gallup.com/poll/127334/Kyrgyzstanis-Favor-Russia.aspx
Although the average person in Armenia and Artsakh continues to be overwhelmingly pro-Russian today, pro-Western sentiments in Armenia continue to be particularly strong within Yerevan; among those working for Western organizations and NGOs; within the nation's political opposition and among rights activists; even among some serving officials. Therefore, although the average Armenian in Armenia and Artsakh recognizes the strategic importance of Russian-Armenian relations, pro-Western sentiments are proliferating within important circles in the country. As a result, there is today a clear and present danger. I raised the alarm about this very important topic with the following commentary two years ago -
Russian expert: U.S. ousting Russia from Armenia: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2011/10/russian-expert-us-ousting-russia-from.html
There has been an active agenda within Armenia to drive a wedge between Yerevan and Moscow. They want to sever Armenia from Russia's political orbit and men like Raffi represent this Western agenda. Now, a few words about Raffi's "political platform".
Derailing the Eurasian Union
Raffi has made it quite clear that he does not want Yerevan joining the Moscow-led Eurasian Union. I personally believe that his latest public relations stunt in Armenia may be at least in part a Western effort to put pressure on Yerevan to reject membership in the economic pact in question. Please revisit the following blog commentaries for more insight on this topic -
As Eurasian Union nears Armenia, West goes into panic mode: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2012/12/as-eurasian-union-nears-west-is-going_15.html
Vladimir Putin Wants Eurasian Economic Union: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2011/11/putin-sets-sights-on-eurasian-economic.html
Western
officials realize that luring Armenia away from the Moscow-led Eurasian
Union will ultimately serve to drive a wedge between Moscow and Yerevan
and keep Armenia politically torn and economically stagnant. Western officials realize that once Yerevan enters Moscow's economic zone, they will eventually enter Moscow's financial zone as well. Western officials do not want to lose their last remaining lever (i.e financial) over Armenia. As a result, Western officials have not concealed their strong desire to stop Armenia from moving closer to Russia; they have even resorted to publicly "warning" Yerevan -
I thought it was Putin's Moscow that was in the business of warning Armenians about looking Westward. Nevertheless, joining the bankrupt European Union is a silly fairytale, especially for a remote and landlocked nation stuck in the middle of the south Caucasus. Nevertheless, Western officials are hoping that Yerevan will begin pursuing membership knowing perfectly well that Armenia will never get there, not much unlike genocide recognition efforts of Armenians in the US. Therefore, no, despite our EUrotic dreams, the European Union is not coming to the Caucasus. In fact, the European Union is falling apart and many European nations today are showing us that being in the union in question does not guarantee anything. Since most of us know the sad plight of European Union members Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and now Cyprus, I'd like to bring to your attention a recent news report describing socioeconomic problems faced by yet another European Union member -
As Yerevan gets closer to joining the Eurasian Union expect more-and-more of Armenia's Western operatives to begin crawling out of their holes. Stopping Yerevan's membership in the union is increasingly looking like the West's last and most important battle in Armenia. Ultimately, for Western officials, it's not so much about the speck on the map called Armenia, it's about stopping Russia from consolidating its assets and reimposing itself in areas that are considered to be its spheres of influence. Due to its vast territory that connects Europe to Asia, its immense natural wealth and its nuclear weapons armed military, Western policymakers see Russia as a serious potential competitor on the global stage. A traditional cornerstone of Western foreign policy has in fact been to prevent the rise of a powerful Russia.
Sharmazanov replies to Brussels lawmaker on Customs Union ‘warning’: http://www.armenianow.com/news/44543/armenia_european_eurasian_union_sharmazanov
The last thing Armenia needs today is membership in an overgrown, artificially inflated and a has-been organization fraught with corruption and plagued with bankruptcy. Geographically, culturally and genetically, Armenia is a Eurasian nation. We need to put aside our EUrotic fantasies and recognize that Armenia's natural place is within the Moscow-led Eurasian Union. I remain confident that Yerevan will be there as soon as existing problems between Moscow and Tbilisi are settled, something that is currently being worked on.Bulgaria economy, poorest in EU, struggles with minimal growth: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/06/bulgaria-government-gdp-idUSL6N0BY41M20130306
As Yerevan gets closer to joining the Eurasian Union expect more-and-more of Armenia's Western operatives to begin crawling out of their holes. Stopping Yerevan's membership in the union is increasingly looking like the West's last and most important battle in Armenia. Ultimately, for Western officials, it's not so much about the speck on the map called Armenia, it's about stopping Russia from consolidating its assets and reimposing itself in areas that are considered to be its spheres of influence. Due to its vast territory that connects Europe to Asia, its immense natural wealth and its nuclear weapons armed military, Western policymakers see Russia as a serious potential competitor on the global stage. A traditional cornerstone of Western foreign policy has in fact been to prevent the rise of a powerful Russia.
"Keep Germany down, Russia out and America in" was a formula that worked wonders for the Western alliance for much of the 20th century.
Similarly, the only way the West will be able to maintain its hegemony over global finance, commerce and the commodities exchange within the 21st century is if it continues to undermine the rise of major global competitors like the Russian Federation and China. Therefore, it's all a part of the political West's long-term assets management. It would be wise to look at Raffi's actions in Armenia within this geostrategic context.
Demanding rent money from Moscow?
When Raffi's bosses in Washington begin treating their very numerous slaves around the world "equally", I'll begin looking into whether or not Moscow has been treating Armenia unfairly. As of this writing, with hundreds-of-thousands of military personnel and a thousand military bases around the world, Raffi's bosses in Washington are sucking the lifeblood of many nations around the world. It's absolutely outrageous and down right treasonous that Raffi is questioning Armenia's crucially important membership in the CSTO and asking for "rent money" from Moscow.
The amount of free and discounted modern weaponry that Armenia regularly receives from the Russian Federation as a result of its membership in the CSTO costs many billions of US dollars. The monetary figure in question may in fact be more than the actual cost of all of Armenia's military bases put together. Moreover, and more importantly, the military protection that Russia provides our small, impoverished, landlocked, remote and blockaded nation surrounded by hostile neighbors in the volatile south Caucasus is in fact PRICELESS!
Turks, their Jewish supporters and their Western backers recognize the urgent need to expel Russian troops out of Armenia. I ask you to please revisit my 2010 commentary about this very important topic -
Let's be wise enough to silence the "Qaj Nazar" living in us and recognize that the only reason why Turks and Azeris continue to remain on their side of the border is their primordial fear of the Russian Bear, and not because of America, Europe, Iran, Armenia's tiny military and definitely not because of the big talking Armenian Diaspora. It would be wise to look at Raffi's actions in Armenia within this geostrategic context.Keep Armenia isolated, George Friedman: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2010/11/arye-gut-israeli-jewish-expert-in.html
Recognition of Artsakh's independence
Our latest "Qaj Nazar" to take to the streets in Yerevan is demanding that Yerevan officially recognize Artsakh's independence. Raffi is seen here again using Artsakh's troubles to exploit the people's political illiteracy and play on their emotions. Raffi is again acting grossly irresponsible. Raffi's rhetoric is again empty. Unilateral recognition of Artsakh's independence by Yerevan will almost certainly solicit a military response by Baku, as well as massive international condemnation - even by Raffi's bosses in Washington. It should be clear to us all that Armenia cannot afford yet another war - despite the fact that its armed forces is more than capable of defeating the Azeri military in any confrontation. Recognition of Artsakh's independence by Yerevan is fraught with serious dangers. In its current state of being, Yerevan cannot afford to take such risks.
Regardless of what political provocateurs like Raffi want us to think, and despite what Diasporan nutjobs in Lebanon, France or US are demanding, Yerevan needs to continue the current political process with regards to Stepanakert. Not officially recognizing Artsakh's independence is in fact a diplomatic asset and bargaining chip for Yerevan. We cannot expect Yerevan to engage in this kind of political adventurism or risk politically volatile Diasporan experiments. When the shit-hits-the-fan in Artsakh, it wont be Armenia's Captain Americas or Diasporan nutjobs rushing to the battlefront. Having said that, if Baku makes a Saakashvilian error and resumes hostilities with Armenia by invading Artsakh, Yerevan will have no choice but to recognize Artsakh's independence, perhaps even liberate more territories. President Sargsyan has made this very clear. Even here the Russian factor again plays a very big role, for Baku is afraid that it will face Russian forces once it invades Artsakh -
At the end of the day, thanks to the current leadership in Armenia (as well as covert Russian support) Artsakh is de-facto an independent state that is deeply integrated with Armenia. Everything else is of secondary importance.Azerbaijan says will face Russian soldiers in Karabakh in case of war: http://www.news.az/articles/politics/77445
Chasing Cold War phantoms
Raffi's political party has been trying to force the Armenian government to open the country's Soviet era archives to reveal the identities of all former KGB operatives currently holding government positions in Armenia. The only thing I have to say about this silliness is this: It's very ironic that those who want to reveal the identity of KGB agents in Armenia tend to be currently working (in varying capacities) for the CIA and the Anglo-American-Zionist alliance. In any case, I'll take the KGB over the CIA any day. At the very least, our KGB operatives ensured the survival of Armenia in a very hostile and unforgiving environment.
Russian arms sales to Azerbaijan
I have heard a lot of silly nonsense being spoken about Russian arms sales to Azerbaijan. Please do me this favor; those
of you who do not have military experience; those of you who do not
understand military matters; and those of you who do not understand the
complexities of regional geopolitics - please shut up! These kinds of topics (things that the average person simply does not understand) are being exploited and utilized as part of an organized information war against Moscow. Before I go on, a few words about the information war against Russian Federation.
Anti-Russian propaganda has been an old practice for the Western alliance. The effort goes back to the 19th century when a "Christian" Europe (primarily Britain and France) united with the Ottoman Turks to fight the Russian Empire. They finally succeeded in destroying the Russian Empire via Bolshevism during the First World War. Then when Soviet Union became too powerful, they began attacking it. Western propaganda reached its climax during the Cold War when anti-Russian hysteria under the guise of fighting communism was being spread worldwide. Their propaganda somewhat subsided after the Soviet Union collapsed and when a lackey of theirs, Yeltsin the Drunk, was in charge in Moscow. Needless to say, their information war resumed when Vladimir Putin began seeking independence from the West starting about ten years ago. Interestingly, the anti-Russian propaganda in the Western world is again reaching Cold War heights. Ever since the manhandling Georgia got in 2008, not a single week passes now without any one of the major "news" publications in the United States and Britain (sometimes all of them in unison) featuring some nasty story about Russia or its leadership. Don't believe me(?), start monitoring news publications such as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Washington Post or the Boston Globe in the US and the Independent, Guardian and The Sun in Britain and see for yourselves. The aforementioned Western propaganda outlets regularly paint Russia in very stark colors and Russia's leadership is always described in condescending terms. Their intention is to create a hostile mindset within the western world towards anything Russian. This is simply a part of their psychological warfare operations against a nation that is thought to be a potential competitor on the global stage. The following article from Washington-funded EurasiaNet is a fairly recent example of how Western propaganda outlets try to bait Armenians with Russophobia -
Anti-Russian propaganda has been an old practice for the Western alliance. The effort goes back to the 19th century when a "Christian" Europe (primarily Britain and France) united with the Ottoman Turks to fight the Russian Empire. They finally succeeded in destroying the Russian Empire via Bolshevism during the First World War. Then when Soviet Union became too powerful, they began attacking it. Western propaganda reached its climax during the Cold War when anti-Russian hysteria under the guise of fighting communism was being spread worldwide. Their propaganda somewhat subsided after the Soviet Union collapsed and when a lackey of theirs, Yeltsin the Drunk, was in charge in Moscow. Needless to say, their information war resumed when Vladimir Putin began seeking independence from the West starting about ten years ago. Interestingly, the anti-Russian propaganda in the Western world is again reaching Cold War heights. Ever since the manhandling Georgia got in 2008, not a single week passes now without any one of the major "news" publications in the United States and Britain (sometimes all of them in unison) featuring some nasty story about Russia or its leadership. Don't believe me(?), start monitoring news publications such as the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Washington Post or the Boston Globe in the US and the Independent, Guardian and The Sun in Britain and see for yourselves. The aforementioned Western propaganda outlets regularly paint Russia in very stark colors and Russia's leadership is always described in condescending terms. Their intention is to create a hostile mindset within the western world towards anything Russian. This is simply a part of their psychological warfare operations against a nation that is thought to be a potential competitor on the global stage. The following article from Washington-funded EurasiaNet is a fairly recent example of how Western propaganda outlets try to bait Armenians with Russophobia -
Russia's Credibility And Its Military Sales To Azerbaijan: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/64085
Knowing that there is a well-organized effort to spread anti-Russian hysteria throughout Eurasia, it should therefore not come as a surprise that Washingtonian operatives like Raffi would be raising the issue of "Russian arms to Azeris" to scare the Armenian sheeple about presumed Russian treachery. Being
aware of the support American/Western entities have been providing Baku
for the past twenty years, has Raffi ever taken a flight to his
American homeland and complained to his bosses in Washington about this
matter? In fact, as an American, has Raffi ever lobbied for Armenia within Washington in recent years?
Now, let us use our God given brains and perceptive abilities to look past their psy-ops and begin looking at things in a clearer, more objective light. None of the arms that Moscow has sold to Azerbaijan tips the balance-of-power in the region in Baku's favor. In fact, seeing oil rich Baku's exorbitant military expenditures, Moscow is desperately trying to keep the balance-of-power intact in the region by providing an impoverished Yerevan with free and discounted modern weaponry. This military support by Moscow is the only reason why Yerevan has been able to hold its own against a big spending Baku. Moscow has made sure that for every kind of tank Azerbaijan possesses in its armed forces, Armenia has ample anti-tank weapons systems that can effectively counter it. Moscow has made sure that for every type of aircraft Azerbaijan possesses in its armed forces, Armenia has ample anti-aircraft weapons systems that can effectively counter it.
Now, let us use our God given brains and perceptive abilities to look past their psy-ops and begin looking at things in a clearer, more objective light. None of the arms that Moscow has sold to Azerbaijan tips the balance-of-power in the region in Baku's favor. In fact, seeing oil rich Baku's exorbitant military expenditures, Moscow is desperately trying to keep the balance-of-power intact in the region by providing an impoverished Yerevan with free and discounted modern weaponry. This military support by Moscow is the only reason why Yerevan has been able to hold its own against a big spending Baku. Moscow has made sure that for every kind of tank Azerbaijan possesses in its armed forces, Armenia has ample anti-tank weapons systems that can effectively counter it. Moscow has made sure that for every type of aircraft Azerbaijan possesses in its armed forces, Armenia has ample anti-aircraft weapons systems that can effectively counter it.
What's more, Baku's recently acquired Russian-made S-300 (a highly capable and costly surface-to-air missile system which Armenia also operates) is designed to be effective against militaries of developed nations that maintain formidable air forces - not against a nation like Armenia who's air force has less than two dozen antiquated aircraft. If Baku has the hundreds of millions of dollars to waste on weapons systems that will do them no good against Armenia, they can go right ahead and waste their money. To put this matter into better perspective, I'd like to share with the reader a little story from the past. A Western official (I think British) was once asked by journalists (I'm paraphrasing):
Why are we selling arms to our enemy? The official replied: If we don't sell them arms someone else will; we rather make the money. Besides, we know best what are the capabilities of the arms we are selling them, we can use this knowledge to defeat them if we had to.
Russian officials will sell military hardware to Azerbaijan simply because, as noted above, if they do not someone else will. In fact, Turkey, Ukraine, Israel,
certain European countries and the US have been selling more weapons to Baku
than the Russian Federation. Moreover, by staying engaged with Baku, Moscow also does not loose all its leverage over Azerbaijan. It's in Armenia's interest to have Moscow obtain some leverage over Baku.
Moscow does not want to totally alienate Baku, especially at a time when Moscow has had a series of political successes in the region. After all, there is no hostility between Moscow and Baku. It would be utterly foolish of Moscow to alienated or antagonized Baku any further than they have already been doing for the past twenty somewhat years. It's bad enough that Moscow and Yerevan are in a strategic embrace; it's bad enough that Artsakh is off-limits to Baku; to add insult to injury by not having any dealings with Baku would make no political sense. Moreover, Russian officials and political experts have spared no efforts in sternly warning Baku that Moscow would not tolerate any attempt by Azeri forces to resume military hostilities against Armenia. Moscow has even gone as far as recently massing troops along Azerbaijan's northern borders to make Baku understand that it is very serious about militarily protecting Armenia. The following are blog commentaries that addresses this matter -
Moscow does not want to totally alienate Baku, especially at a time when Moscow has had a series of political successes in the region. After all, there is no hostility between Moscow and Baku. It would be utterly foolish of Moscow to alienated or antagonized Baku any further than they have already been doing for the past twenty somewhat years. It's bad enough that Moscow and Yerevan are in a strategic embrace; it's bad enough that Artsakh is off-limits to Baku; to add insult to injury by not having any dealings with Baku would make no political sense. Moreover, Russian officials and political experts have spared no efforts in sternly warning Baku that Moscow would not tolerate any attempt by Azeri forces to resume military hostilities against Armenia. Moscow has even gone as far as recently massing troops along Azerbaijan's northern borders to make Baku understand that it is very serious about militarily protecting Armenia. The following are blog commentaries that addresses this matter -
Russia hints at intervention in Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2012/07/russia-hints-at-intervention-in-armenia.html
Unprecedented Russia-led CSTO war games in Armenia: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2012/09/unprecedented-russia-led-war-games_20.html
Incidentally, what have Raffi's bosses in Washington been doing to ensure that Baku does not resume hostilities against Armenia? The answer is, not much. Western interests have in fact been working quite closely with Baku -Can Armenia exploit Russian actions in the Caucasus? http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2012/04/can-armenia-exploit-russias-action-plan.html
Warming of relations between Moscow and Baku is not going to diminish Armenia's strategic value for policymakers in the Kremlin. Oil or gas purchases from Baku will never be a factor for Moscow simply because Russia is the world's largest energy producer and because Russian officials realize that Armenia/Artsakh is a protective sledgehammer hanging over Turkish heads in the region. Better relations between Moscow and Baku is in fact beneficial for Armenia for it ensures that Baku will not resort to hostilities. What's more, we hear Russophobes like Raffi also constantly complaining about Moscow providing Armenians with long-term work opportunities within the Russian Federation, yet we hear total silence from them when it comes to the matter of American Green Cards. More on this topic -US working to strengthen relations with Turks and Azeris: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2012/11/us-working-to-strengthen-relations-with.html
New Western led Opposition Slogan in Armenia: "Russia wants Armenia without Armenians!": http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2011/10/russia-wants-armenia-without-armenians.html
If
Armenians have to leave Armenia for financial or employment reasons, I would
much
rather they leave for the Russian Federation where they will remain
relatively close to their homeland. The Western world, the US in particular, is a
graveyard for Armenians. In fact, the only thing the American-Armenian
diaspora has been good for in recent years have been whores (i.e. Kardashians) and Western mercenaries (i.e. Richard Giragosian, Vartan Oskanian, Raffi Hovannisan, Ara Manoogian, ect). I don't know about Moscow treating Yerevan as its "equal", but being Armenia's largest trading partner, leading energy provider, leading investor and steadfast military ally,
Moscow has actually been
treating Armenia with white gloves for the past twenty years. I'm actually surprised as to how tolerant Moscow has been in allowing Yerevan to deal freely with the West. But I guess Armenians are too blinded by their arrogance, political ignorance and Amerophilia to realize any of this.
Of course there are sound geostrategic reasons as to why Russia's support for Armenia has been so steadfast. Historically, Kremlin officials have recognized that Armenians of the south Caucasus are reliable allies in a very unstable region within their sphere of interests. Russian officials realize that Armenia's existence protects Russia's vulnerable yet strategic underbelly - the Caucasus - from Turkic, Islamic and Western expansion. Therefore, as long such threats exist in the region, Armenia will continue playing a vital geostrategic role for the Kremlin. Now ask yourselves this question: What role does Armenia play for Western interests?
Of course there are sound geostrategic reasons as to why Russia's support for Armenia has been so steadfast. Historically, Kremlin officials have recognized that Armenians of the south Caucasus are reliable allies in a very unstable region within their sphere of interests. Russian officials realize that Armenia's existence protects Russia's vulnerable yet strategic underbelly - the Caucasus - from Turkic, Islamic and Western expansion. Therefore, as long such threats exist in the region, Armenia will continue playing a vital geostrategic role for the Kremlin. Now ask yourselves this question: What role does Armenia play for Western interests?
Due it its problems with the region's Turks and Azeris and due to its friendship with Russians and Iranians, Armenia will always be looked upon as an obstacle to Western geopolitical and energy interests in the south Caucasus. In other words, Armenians is allied to a vastly wealthy and powerful regional superpower. The Russian Federation is seriously interested in Armenia's survival as a viable nation-state in the south Caucasus. The following recent news releases are an indicator of the high degree of friendship that currently exists between Moscow and Yerevan -
Putin and Sarkisian Meet in Moscow: http://asbarez.com/108742/putin-and-sarkisian-meet-in-moscow/
Experts: Armenia, Russia mutually indispensable as regional allies: http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/148419/
Russia approves military cooperation deal with Armenia: http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/150682/Russia_approves_military_cooperation_deal_with_Armenia
Armenian-Russian trade turnover hit $1.2 bln in 2012: Russia’s economy ministry: http://arka.am/en/news/economy/armenian_russian_trade_turnover_hit_1_2_bln_in_2012
Within the world of diplomacy nothing is left to chance and every spoken word has serious implications and significance. Thus, when Russian President Vladimir Putin describes Russia's strategic relations with Armenia as "special", it has to be taken very seriously. Although most of our EUrotic idiots are too deaf, dumb and/or blind to see it, Russia is Armenia's security guarantee in the Caucasus and Russian-Armenian relations have never been better. This is the historic opportunity that I am constantly referring to. This is the once in a thousand years opportunity that needs to be exploited to its fullest potential.
Nevertheless, we should all at this point readily be recognizing that Yerevan remains Russo-centric in political matters essentially because Moscow serves Armenia's geostrategic interests. Having said that, has anyone seriously thought about what repercussions will Armenia be made to suffer if Armenians begin working against Moscow's geostrategic interests in Armenia? Have Armenia's Captain Americas really stopped and given this topic any thought?
Does Armenia need independence from Russia?
Instead of recognizing Russia's alliance with Armenia as a historic opportunity and collectively jumping at it to exploit its potential for Armenia's benefit, significant numbers of Armenians today, as well as Raffi, are fear-mongering about Armenia's "dependence" on Russia. Their slogan is - "Armenia needs to rely on no one but Armenians." Well, Armenia relying on Armenians sounds very nice indeed: I really hope to see it become reality one day before I die. However, in the harsh realities of the world we live in today and with the quality of Armenians we have today, Armenia will not be able to rely on Armenians anytime soon. More specifically, Armenia cannot rely on the Armenian Diasporas of the western world and the Middle East (with the exception of the Iranian-Armenian community). The following is a little yet telling example of how Armenia cannot in all seriousness take Diasporan Armenians seriously -
We cannot in all seriousness expect Armenian officials to waste their time expecting much from the thoroughly Westernized, Arabized or Turkified Diaspora. Let's put aside the silly notion that Armenia can survive by solely relying on the "collective prowess" of Armenians. Let's also realize that there are literally only a handful of nations in the world today that are truly independent. A vast majority of nations today (nations even with much-much better qualifications than Armenia) are dependent on larger powers for survival. Being that Armenia is a small, landlocked, remote, poor and blockaded nation surrounded by enemies in the violent south Caucasus; being that the Armenian Diaspora has proven to be worthless - Armenia's natural partner and security guarantee has been, is and will continue being the Russian Federation.«Կիլիկյան վարժարանում ջնջվում է հայությունը»: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7ELZpiGnT_Q
It's that simple folks.
Armenians today are not ready to hear this but Armenia can survive without the Armenian Diaspora but it can't survive without Russia. There are many fools in our society that preach independence from Russia without ever stopping to realize the serious implications of such a thing. If Yerevan somehow cut its umbilical cord with Moscow (a wish on the minds of many Armenians today) Armenia would by-default fall under the mercy of its larger and more powerful neighbors.
Therefore, get this through your heads: For Armenia, independence from Russia is automatic dependence on Turkey.Therefore, it could be said that Armenia's dependence on Turkey is what individuals like Raffi Hovannisian, Ara Papyan, Richard Giragosian and Paruyr Hayrikian (to name only a few) are propagating today. Therefore, it could be said that the obsessive desire to get Russians out of Armenia is one of the things that Turks and Armenia's so-called "political opposition" have in common. We know why Turks and Anglo-American-Zionist interests want to see Armenia without Russian troops... but can anyone please try explaining to me why Armenians want to see Armenia without Russian troops?
Our Captain Americas and our nationalist nutjobs should be careful about what they wish for. At the end of the day, for Armenia there is no alternative to Russia.
Please remember that I'm saying all this as a Diasporan Armenian who was born in the Middle East and raised in the US. For those of us who have a healthy understanding of international relations, history, the nature of the south Caucasus and the character of the political West, the formula is rather a simple one: without a Russian presence in Armenia there wont be an Armenian presence in the south Caucasus. While this situation may scare some, it however gives me hope. The Russian Federation is an opportunity that an independent Armenia has not had in well over one thousand years. This opportunity needs to be fully recognize and appreciated. This opportunity needs to be fully exploited. Armenians need to stop wasting time and money trying to get reptilians in Washington to say the "G" word and begin concentrating on promoting better and deeper Russian-Armenian ties.
Russia is the big, powerful and wealthy friend, little and poor Armenia desperately needs in a very tough and unforgiving neighborhood. No one is saying that this friendship will be flawless. However, the friendship in question holds great potential. Therefore, organized and persistent lobbying efforts within the walls of the Kremlin should be Armenia's - number one - strategic priority. It's time to stop admiring Jews and start acting like them. It's difficult to imagine that someone like Raffi, educated in a prestigious institution within the very epicenter of the American empire and working in Armenia under various capacities for well over twenty years does not realize what he is doing. Of course he knows what he is doing. If we only had a normal political landscape...
Armenia's barren political landscape
The troubling part in all this is that Armenia's political landscape today is a barren desert: Chobans-in-Armani-suits on one side and sweet-talking-foreign-intelligence-operatives and psychologically-disturbed-rights-activists on the other side. Thus, faced with the prospect of Western whores and/or nutjobs gaining power in Armenia, self-respecting Armenians with political pragmatism will choose to stick with the devil they know (i.e. Armenia's wealthy chobans). In other words, faced with slow progress (i.e. supporting the status quo) and reckless political adventurism (i.e. supporting the nation's political opposition), we'll pick slow progress. It's all very unfortunate, but these are the only choices we have been provided.
My greatest criticism of President Sargsyan is that he does not fully understand the serious dangers of Globalism (an Anglo-American-Zionist effort to enslave the world) and the serious dangers of dealing with Western institutions such as the EU, IMF and the USAID. Moreover, the president does not yet seem to fully appreciate the power of television, radio and print media as a means of combating the hopelessness and desperation being sown inside Armenian society by the country's political opposition and Western propaganda organs.
More importantly, I personally think that President Sargsyan's balancing act between Moscow and the West is in large part a self-serving measure to preserve his power and to secure some Western aid. In other words, he is yielding to some Western demands for short-term gains. This shortsighted approach is serving to prolong Armenia's pain by keeping it within the center of geopolitical contention. While President Sargsyan's policy of balancing his dealings with Russia, West and Iran is indeed a major political achievement for his administration from a diplomatic perspective, such an approach is also keeping Armenia motionless in the very center of a tug-of-war taking place between Moscow and the West. His flirtations with the West is also providing Western organizations and institutions with an opportunity to sow the nation with some of their more destructive "values".
Yerevan needs to end its indecisiveness. Yerevan needs to get its act in order by plotting a Eurasian course and make a concerted effort to get there. Not doing so will keep the nation indefinitely stagnant economically and unstable politically.
In conclusion, anyone that is pushing a political platform similar to that of Raffi's in Armenia today is ultimately laying the foundations of the nation's eventual destruction. These types of people, regardless of their stated intentions or lofty rhetoric, are more dangerous to Armenia than the standing armies of Azerbaijan and Turkey - for these people are cancer cells within our national body. Cancers can only be fought by resorting to drastic measures and by doing so early. Therefore, if Raffi's protests get out of hand and the political situation in Armenia begins to spiral out of control, I expect law enforcement bodies in Yerevan to crush their movement. If protecting the Armenian state requires the breaking of some heads in Yerevan again, then so be it.
Arevordi
March, 2013
***
The two ring circus called the American presidential elections: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-two-ring-circus-called-american.htmlArmenia on the eve of its presidential elections: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2013/02/armenia-on-eve-of-its-presidential.htmlRaffilution begins!!! Raffi Hovannisian’s turn to lead Armenia’s self-destructive peasantry: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2013/02/raffilution-begins-raffi-hovannisians.html
Fifth anniversary of Levon Petrosian's coup d'etat: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/2013/03/fifth-anniversary-of-levon-petrosians.html
***
Armenia's California Dream
The scenario seems all too familiar for a former Soviet republic: An incumbent uses machine politics to secure reelection, Western observers
cautiously praise progress but note shortcomings to be fixed in the
future, and the opposition campaign gathers supporters to protest the
outcome. Welcome to Armenia, where on Feb. 18, incumbent Serzh Sargsyan
officially secured nearly 59 percent of the vote to the main runner-up's
37 percent.
But what makes Armenia different is the challenger, Raffi
Hovannisian -- or just Raffi, as he is known to nearly everyone in
Armenia. This American-born Georgetown Law graduate has shaken up the
politics of his adopted homeland. Defying widespread expectations that
he was too foreign to rally support in Armenian elections, the
53-year-old Hovannisian won more votes than any presidential challenger
since independence. His success has thrown Armenia into a fresh
political tumult. Tens of thousands continue to protest daily within the
country and throughout the Armenian diaspora, with another protest held
by Diaspora Armenians in Los Angeles this past weekend.
Some observers have pointed to the correlation between higher turnout
and more votes for Sargsyan, but that more likely reflects local vote
mobilization by the ruling party than clear evidence of fraud.
Nonetheless, Hovannisian filed an official challenge of the election results in the country's Constitutional Court on March 4.
Although Armenians have widely contested the electoral outcome, U.S. President Barack Obama and leaders of the European Union, Russia, and even Turkey have all congratulated Sargsyan, citing positive reviews by international observers.
They "can say whatever they want," Hovannisian shot back.
"I'm telling them, 'I respect you, but don't you dare to breach [our
citizens'] rights.… I won't allow you to. And let nobody teach me
lessons of American, Western, or Russian democracy and law because the
Armenian citizens are the masters of our country."
Rallying his supporters after the election, Hovannisian said he will seek to overturn the official results and indefinitely continue peaceful street demonstrations throughout Armenia. Small groups of protesters have also shown up at Armenian diplomatic missions in Los Angeles and New York.
"This popular struggle will not die down. We will achieve victory," Hovannisian repeatedly promised. Despite nearly half the population favoring a change of government, it remains unclear how such a victory could be achieved.
Graduating from Georgetown University's law school in 1985, Hovannisian
began what appeared a typical path for an international corporate
lawyer. The white-shoe firms of Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Whitman
& Ransom, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, and Coudert Brothers
all appear on his résumé.
But Hovannisian's life took an atypical turn after the devastating earthquake that struck Armenia in December 1988. Unable
to cope with tens of thousands dead and hundreds of thousands homeless,
the Soviet Union opened up to international aid, driven in significant
part by diaspora Armenian communities in the United States.
Armenia had always been part of Hovannisian's life. His father, Richard,
is an authority on Armenian history who recently retired from the
University of California/Los Angeles. His grandparents are both
survivors of that all-engrossing Armenian experience of genocide in
Turkey. He grew up learning the Armenian language and stories of the
country's tragedies and perseverance. And with Armenia suddenly
accessible and in peril, Hovannisian, then 30, quit law and moved his
young family from California to Yerevan, the Armenian capital, where he
went to work for the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA) as its in-country relief coordinator.
"Hovannisian was one of the early diaspora pioneers returning to serve
and live in the homeland," remembers Ross Vartian, Hovannisian's boss
and the AAA's director from the 1970s to early 2000s. "He was one of the
Armenian Assembly's most talented, informed, and dedicated staff
members." The AAA soon became a key link between Armenia and the world,
organizing and funding first visits by leaders of the newly independent
Armenia to the United States. In Armenia's first few years, the
country's embassy in the United States operated out of the AAA's
Washington headquarters, and the AAA's Yerevan office for a time hosted
Armenia's only fax machine.
In effect, the AAA was serving as the country's de facto foreign
ministry, so it wasn't too surprising following independence in 1991
when President Levon Ter-Petrosyan made things official and invited
Hovannisian to become Armenia's foreign minister -- a remarkable
appointment given that he wasn't even an Armenian citizen at the time.
The stint proved relatively brief, as Hovannisian's popularity as an
activist diplomat soon began to overshadow the increasingly withdrawn
Ter-Petrosyan, who was seen as unable to deal with an ever-expanding
economic crisis exacerbated by the ongoing conflict with Azerbaijan over
Nagorno-Karabakh and fighting in Georgia that cut off landlocked
Armenia's routes to the world.
In October 1992, after Hovannisian raised the extremely controversial
subject of the genocide on a trip to Turkey (at a time when Armenia was
facing famine and when other officials were begging their counterparts
in Ankara to sell them grain), he was let go. Rather than return to the life of a well-to-do Los Angeles lawyer, Hovannisian stayed put, establishing the Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS), the country's first think tank. His wife founded a charity for homeless children.
For a while, Hovannisian could not take part in Armenian politics, as
first Ter-Petrosyan and then his successor, Robert Kocharyan, declined
to grant him citizenship. This dragged on until 2001, when finally after
much cajoling and many court appeals, Kocharyan relented and
Hovannisian officially became an Armenian citizen, surrendering his U.S.
passport. But the caveat was that he would be ineligible to run for
president until after 2011, well past Kocharyan's second and final term.
That didn't stop Hovannisian from entering politics. He roared back into
Armenia's political life during the 2007 parliamentary elections, after
which his newly established Heritage party -- composed of local
lawyers, human rights activists, educators, and ACNIS researchers --
formed what a WikiLeaked U.S. Embassy cable called a "true oppositional force in parliament" with a "moderate, reformist political agenda."
Heritage didn't do as well in the May 2012 parliamentary vote,
and it was eclipsed by an alliance led by former President
Ter-Petrosyan as well as by a new faction, led by
businessman-turned-philanthropist Gagik Tsarukyan, that sapped away
Hovannisian's support from Armenians who had come to see the government
as too powerful and unaccountable. Even after both Tsarukyan and
Ter-Petrosyan bowed out of this year's presidential campaign, most local
and foreign observers dismissed Hovannisian's chances and claimed that
Sargsyan's reelection was a foregone conclusion. Remarkably, one of the
main Western-observer criticisms of the election -- presumably written
well before vote results -- was the alleged "lack of competition."
Armenian political parties tend to be focused more on individuals than
ideologies -- though Heritage has promised more taxes on the wealthy and
anti-corruption initiatives. Other than a minority of die-hard
patriots, most local Armenians always looked on Hovannisian with either
incredulity or suspicion. About a million Armenians left the country
during and since the crises of the 1990s; Hovannisian's repatriation
made no sense to most of those who stayed. Why would anyone leave a good
life in America to come to the ravages of Armenia? Only a few hundred
Armenian-Americans have done so since independence.
In a 1992 profile, the Los Angeles Times
quoted an Armenian photographer who (in typical post-Soviet
conspiratorial speak) claimed, "The CIA would have paid $100 million to
control Armenian foreign policy, but they got it for free" with
Hovannisian as foreign minister. Those views may have shifted more to the margins of Armenian political
discourse, but they were echoed in this year's campaign as well. One commentator
noted Hovannisian's past employment with the AAA as evidence of
"closeness to the [U.S.] State Department," while a nutty minor
candidate in the race opined that Hovannisian was an agent of a "Masonic conspiracy."
"I respect everyone," Hovannisian said in a pre-election interview,
"including all my opponents, as well as their right to express their
viewpoints, but I do not respond to lies." Hovannisian is not unaware of
his otherness, however. In the last four years, he has gone through a
tremendous physical transformation, shaving off his dramatic mustache
and losing some 40 pounds to look more like a mainstream Armenian
politician. In campaign videos, you could frequently hear Hovannisian
dropping words in Russian -- a practice common in Armenia, but not among
Armenians in the West.
But when it came to running his presidential campaign, Hovannisian broke
all the local rules of politicking -- practiced by both the government
and opposition figures -- which favor set-piece events with screened
participants at which candidates launch into personal attacks and
threats against their competitors. His speeches tended to avoid
personalized attacks, focusing on government corruption more broadly. His message was universal: Let's take our country back from the corrupt hacks in government.
"The struggle [is] fought between the ordinary citizens of Armenia and
their candidate on the one side and the ruling authorities on the
other," he explained
before the election. "Armenia is but one, and we must decide what it is
going to be like -- a free and open Armenia, or a shadow Armenia,
whether it will belong to the ordinary citizen or it will cringe before
the authorities."
Wearing his trademark turtleneck and jeans, he rode public buses and the
metro, toured nearly every town and many villages, helped with house
and car repairs, got his hair cut at a small barbershop, and got his
lunch from a roadside kiosk.
A pre-election survey found that 7 percent of respondents around the country reported to have talked with Hovannisian or his representatives during the campaign, hearing his message of wealth redistribution and transparent government. This is remarkable given his shoestring budget and lack of institutional support. (His most prominent endorsers were an aging singer-songwriter and a reggae band that performs a song called "Spoonful of Love" at his events.)
This outpouring of love and attention may have been exactly what many Armenians (who, according to a Gallup poll,
are the world's most love-deprived people) needed. More than half a
million, according to official reports, voted for Hovannisian.
Pro-government political machines crumbled. He swept Armenia's
second-largest city by more than a 40 percentage-point margin, and he
won in the third-, fourth-, sixth-, and seventh-largest towns as well.
But of course, Armenia does not have normal elections. The presidents or
their designated successors have never been defeated by voters in more
than 20 years of independence. Incumbents always win, and frustration
and cynicism about the political process persist and solidify.
None of the losing candidates in Armenia has ever conceded defeat, not even in 1991 when Ter-Petrosyan won by more than a 70 percentage-point margin. The 1996, 2003, and 2008 elections sparked opposition protests and government crackdowns; the 1996 and 2008 crises were particularly violent, and the military was brought into Yerevan to maintain order.
Widespread public distrust of the system and enough cases of electoral
deviations -- such as intimidation and inducement of voters and widely
suspected but rarely proven fraud -- muddy the process and raise
questions about voting results. The oppositionists can't really prove
that they won, but neither can incumbents credibly claim the opposite.
And foreign observers are seen to be politically biased in favor of one
side or another.
The latest election appears to be following a similar pattern. Thousands
of Hovannisian's supporters have been demonstrating every day since the
election. They are claiming that the election was rigged and that their
candidate is the rightful winner. There is much excitement in the
streets of Armenia. Students have joined the strikes. Hovannisian has
embarked on a "victory tour" through smaller towns, many of which he
won. But the pressure of events is also beginning to expose
Hovannisian's less-appealing qualities.
His speeches are filled with platitudes and contradictions. Rather than
announcing plans, he is asking the crowd: What do you want to do? Stay
for an hour or longer? He says he will stand and wait until the
"outgoing" President Sargsyan comes and "recognizes the peoples'
victory." The next day, however, he walks to the president's office for a
closed-door meeting with the incumbent.
"Many consider Hovannisian too volatile and impulsive to be president,"
says Asbed Bedrossian, founder and publisher of the Los Angeles-based "Groong" Armenian News Network and a longtime watcher of Armenian politics. "He seems to have problems calculating a few steps down the line."
Still, with all his shortcomings, Hovannisian today is seen by many as
the country's best hope for change, if not as president, then as part of
a governing coalition. A number of government figures, including the
influential parliament speaker, have said
that a coalition with Hovannisian is possible as long as he recognizes
the official results. (Armenia does have some experience of coalitions,
but for the most part this meant government's co-optation of the
opposition.)
The very fact that Hovannisian and Sargsyan met and shook hands is a
first in Armenia's post-electoral political world. A decent rapport
between Sargsyan and Hovannisian may be an indication that there will be
no violent incidents this time around. The police have been unusually
accommodating to protesters. For now, Hovannisian plans to hold more
protests and file an appeal with the Constitutional Court to try to
annul some or all of the election results; at the same time, he hasn't
dismissed a possible coalition with Sargsyan. Hovannisian has already
made Armenian electoral history with his unprecedented campaign. The
coming weeks and months will show whether the American-Armenian
political contender is able to convert his electoral popularity into real-world gains for his constituents.
Source: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/04/armenia_s_california_dream_politics_elections?print=yes&hidecomments=yes&page=full
Why the Diaspora Should Join Armenia’s Barevolution
Raffi Hovannisian was asked by a reporter recently, “What would you
like to say to the diaspora?” His response, “You’re asking me the wrong
question. You should ask the diaspora what they want to say, and I will
listen. Do they want to be part of building a more Democratic Armenia?
If so, I will listen.
During previous elections, the diaspora has, for the most part, remained silent. Today, with the Internet, social media, and live coverage of the election and its aftermath, information has become more widely available, allowing the diaspora to not only be more informed and connected, but more involved. However, in the current state and projected future of the country, the diaspora must utilize this critical opportunity to get involved in a deeper way if it cares about the survival and prosperity of the country.
What role can the diaspora play? Do they have any power? Does it
matter to the locals if the diaspora gets involved? The diaspora already
does its part in other spheres; do they have any business getting
involved in daily politics if they don’t live in Armenia? To answer some
of these questions, I turned to local activists who were at the time
writing letters to Serj Tankian asking him to come to Armenia. When
asked why they wanted him to come, they responded with confidence that
if Tankian were to come to Liberty Square, he would have a vital role to
play in Barevolution. After all, in his written exchange with
Tankian, Sarkisian replied to more questions posed by a diasporan
expressing concerns about the election than he has to the thousands of
citizens protesting outside the presidential palace. One might argue
that Serj Tankian may have no business in Armenia’s local politics, but
he is still able to make an impact.
Why is it vital that the diaspora join the movement? Since the last
presidential election, roughly 180,000-250,000 people have left Armenia,
mostly right after the election. Political instability, loss of
hope in the system, monopolization of the country’s resources, poverty
and unemployment are all to blame. Studies on population and emigration
trends show that at the current high rate of emigration and low birth
rate, there will only be one person left in Armenia by 2048. The
diaspora has been fighting for years for the survival of the Armenian
state, carrying out the mission of Hye Tahd (Armenian Cause). Surely, Armenia’s depopulation and domestic plight should become part of this mission.
Since regaining independence two decades ago, Armenia has faced no
shortage of regional and internal challenges. It has endured a
devastating earthquake, a war with neighboring Azerbaijan for
Nagorno-Karabakh, and a blockade from two of its four neighboring
countries. This prompted the diaspora to focus on aid to Armenia—and
rightly so. Armenia needed first-responders such as charities.
Diasporans sent food and clothing, or wrote a check to a trusted charity
and felt good about doing their part. Now, more than twenty years
later, the diaspora’s approach towards Armenia must shift, as Armenia
has reached another phase in the effort to build a stable republic.
Today’s ailments and key threats to the nation’s survival include
widespread emigration, human rights injustices, environmental
degradation, regional hostility, and the suppression of pluralism and
diversity of opinion in the private and public sectors. Oligarchs and
mafia, all of whom are widely believed to have ties to the sitting
president, currently monopolize the country’s thin resources, neglecting
investment in economic development and in a viable middle class.
Therefore, today’s Armenia needs partners, activists, and human-rights
defenders. The Gyumretsi of yesterday needed emergency earthquake
relief, but today she needs a partner in justice, making sure her voice
is heard and her rights and resources are protected.
One does not need to be a rock star in order to play a role in
changing Armenia’s future. Diasporan efforts can play a major role in
providing moral support, resources, or pressuring both the Armenian and
foreign governments to not legitimize fraudulent elections. To sustain
claims of legitimacy, the Sarkisian camp has relied on congratulations
from not only foreign heads of state but diaspora Armenian
organizations. The initial OSCE assessment of the Presidential election
was favorable, which most foreign leaders then echoed. After local
activists intensely protested OSCE’s findings, OSCE altered their final
report to state, “The analysis of official results shows a correlation
between very high turnout and the number of votes for the incumbent.
This raises concerns regarding the confidence over the integrity of the
electoral process.” Unfortunately, the damage was done, as the
preliminary report had already informed the decisions of several foreign
governments to congratulate Sarkisian. The local effort by activists
could have been bolstered by diasporan efforts abroad to pressure
foreign governments to follow suit and reassess their conclusions about
the election. American Armenians certainly have the power to write to
their congressional leaders in such issues, as do their European
counterparts.
There are many examples of diasporans who have physically joined the
effort. Inspiring stories are being told around town of people quitting
their prestigious jobs to fly to Yerevan to support the wave of change.
Although this kind of commitment is not possible for everyone, drastic
measures are not necessary; moral support can also go a long way. When
local activists were asked what value diasporan support would offer
them, and what kind of support they would like to see, they stated that,
“The homeland is not only for the locals. It is the homeland of all
Armenians. In the last 20 years we have reached out to the diaspora
asking for aid through charities, we cannot tell them now to not get
involved. We shouldn’t have two agendas and split our resources. The
diaspora should be involved in this process bringing its resources and
connections towards concrete actions for Armenia.” Recently, the board
of the Armenian Law Student’s Association at Southwestern Law School
wrote a letter to Amnesty International, urging the launch of a
supporter mobilization campaign to assist in collective efforts towards a
more democratic Armenia.
Barevoltion is a nationwide movement joined by different groups working towards the goal of a more democratic, citizen driven republic. Like every movement in history, change will not come overnight. It will require a committed group united in the struggle willing to defy the status quo fighting for the mission of a better tomorrow. The involvement of the diaspora in Armenia has always been a controversial topic, but I decided to address it in this article because the alarm is ringing loud. Armenians in foreign lands needs to hear it before it is too late, because today the diaspora needs Armenia as much as Armenia needs the diaspora. The injustices in Armenia are making our nation ill, and they call for an emergency departure from the status quo. The diaspora has the resources, the far reaching network, and the ability to organize and lobby a cause. Armenia is looking for partners, investors, and activists to make the average citizen’s voice heard. Our parents’ generation fought to see an independent Armenia. This generation will be tested to see if they are able to create a stable, democratic republic for all—including the diaspora.
Tania Sahakian has worked with numerous Armenian organizations
over the last decade. She moved to Armenia two years ago. Tania served
as a monitor during the 2012 parliamentary elections and the 2013
presidential election in Armenia. She has experience working in
elections in the U.S. and Europe as well, including the U.S.
presidential campaign in 2008 and several senatorial and local
elections. This is her first opinion piece for the Armenian Weekly.
Source: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2013/03/23/why-the-diaspora-should-join-armenias-barevolution/
A Look at Raffi Hovannisian through U.S. Embassy Cables
The U.S. Embassy cables released by WikiLeaks provide invaluable
information and insight on how American diplomats assess the inner
workings of Armenia’s politics in general, and key players like Raffi
Hovannisian in particular. As embassy officials grappled to absorb the
day-to-day politics of the country, time and again they voiced their agreement
with Hovannisian’s assessment of the political landscape in the
country. They often judged him—the leader of the often sole opposition
faction in parliament—to be a politician of a different breed, the
exception among the “traditional” opposition politicians. However, they
generally frowned upon his foreign policy views, which they attributed
to his diaspora background.
Hovannisian is a product of the West, in that his democratic
reform-oriented politics aspire to create an Armenia governed by the
rule of law, divorced from a “Russia-centered” foreign policy. The
cables reveal that Hovannisian repeatedly urged U.S. diplomats to
balance their geopolitical objectives with support for democratic
reforms. And so in 2005, Hovannisian joined forces with two other
opposition figures—Aram Sargsyan and Hovhannes Hovhannisian—to create a
“Western-leaning” union that would replace President Robert Kocharian’s
government. Then-U.S. Ambassador John Evans informed
Washington of these developments, under the subhead, “Three (Somewhat)
Big Fish Join Forces.” Evans wrote that the alliance could be “viable” if managed
right, though he doubted that it could pose a real threat to
Kocharian’s regime. Evans added, “Given Raffi Hovannisian’s track record
of joining and then departing coalitions,” it was yet to be seen if he
would be the “poster child” of the new alliance.
Perhaps it was this
move of Hovannisian’s that raised suspicions among some—including
members of the ruling Republican Party—that Hovannisian could be an
agent of the West. In one cable, U.S. Chargé d’Affaires Joseph
Pennington wrote
that a member of the Republican Party’s top executive council Samvel
Nikoyan “shared his (completely mistaken) belief that Heritage Party
leader and former AmCit [American citizen] Raffi Hovhannissian takes
political instructions from the U.S. Government.” Less than a year
later, Evans wrote of a “weakened” and “demoralized” opposition.
Harassment and blacklisting
Hovannisian has had a difficult task at hand, struggling to make his
torch visible in a political environment that muffles voices of dissent.
In 2006, Heritage Party officials notified the U.S. Embassy that the
party was being subjected to harassment. In a confidential cable dated Aug. 8, 2006,
Evans said his office did not rule out that President Kocharian was
behind the attacks on opposition parties. Heritage Party members alleged
the harassment began after Hovannisian publicly and harshly criticized
Kocharian at a rally in November 2005. Referring to a letter Hovannisian
had addressed to Kocharian, which included 21 “pointed” questions,
Evans wrote, “Hovannisian was emboldened in his perceived mandate after
he learned that, according to the results of a May 2006 Gallup poll…he
was the most popular Armenian politician, with an approval rating of 74
percent.”
In a separate cable,
Evans relayed how, according to media representatives, the president’s
office had circulated a blacklist of politicians—including
Hovannisian—who could not appear on television shows. U.S. Chargé
d’Affaires Anthony Godfrey confirmed
the claim in a subsequent cable, and raised concerns about the fairness
of the upcoming 2007 parliamentary elections. By March 2007, ahead of
the said elections, the situation had improved, according to Godfrey, and opposition figures like Hovannisian had begun to appear on TV in interviews.
The 2007 elections
Once again, Raffi Hovannisian was enjoying “high favorability ratings” in U.S. funded polls, wrote
Godfrey on May 4, 2007, in a cable discussing the upcoming May 12
parliamentary elections. Godfrey however, doubted Hovannisian’s
electability. “[He] may be seen as too much of a ‘nice guy’ for Armenian
voters to believe he could succeed in the shark-filled political
waters,” wrote Godfrey, adding, “[He] also has practically no
organizational base or natural constituency, although his American-style
campaign methods look as professional as any in the race.” In a
separate cable, Godfrey highlighted
instances of intimidation employed by the authorities to scare off
potential Hovannisian supporters, as witnessed by OSCE observers.
Despite having secured only six percent of the vote, and gaining
seven parliamentary seats, Rudolf V. Perina, the U.S. chargé
d’affaires ad interim, believed
Hovannisian’s campaign was a success. The title of his cable said it
all: “Survey Shows Heritage Party the Big Winner of the May 12
Elections.” Perina was referring to a USAID-funded poll that had
determined that “Raffi Hovannisian and his Heritage party gained the
greatest increase in recognition and popularity following the May 12
Armenian Parliamentary elections… No party came close to achieving such
an increase in both recognition and favorability,” wrote Perina. “The
poll revealed that at 29 percent, the Heritage Party has the lowest
unfavorability (negative opinion) rating in the country.” What was more
interesting, the poll found that in a hypothetical presidential race
that included then-Prime Minister Serge Sarkisian and Hovannisian, the
two would outpoll all other candidates.
Furthermore, the highest number
of respondents—36 percent—said they would vote for Hovannisian, compared
to 30 percent for Sarkisian. Perina thought Hovannisian’s pre-election
campaign was “brilliant,” that he was successful in converting his high
favorability ratings into ballots cast, and that his party “proved
itself,” meaning that more voters would feel confident to support him in
the future.
Setting himself apart
In a subsequent cable dated Aug. 24, 2007, Perina reported
that Hovannisian had changed his campaign tactics leading up to the
Aug. 26 race in District 15 for a majoritarian parliamentary seat.
Instead of driving around in a colorful bus—U.S.-style—Hovannisian was
now campaigning door-to-door. “[He] has been seen speaking to farmers in
fields and helping women carry water from wells,” wrote Perina.
“Hovannisian is in the race to build on his and his party’s burgeoning
popularity and, in his own words, ‘to reclaim step-by-step, day-by-day,
those votes stolen from us.’ It will be interesting to see if the
Heritage Party chairman’s strategy of bringing his national following to
this small backwater of rural Armenia helps boost his presidential
aspirations.”
Perina attributed
the “failures” of “traditional” opposition figures in Armenia to their
desire to “mobilize the elite.” The U.S. diplomat saw one exception:
“There seems to be only one politician in Armenia who can grasp the
importance of reaching out directly to the voters themselves, and that
is the American-born-and-bred Raffi Hovannisian, who also seems to us
the clear public-opinion winner of the May [2007 parliamentary]
election.” Perina saw Hovannisian as former President Levon Ter
Petrosian’s “most credible rival” in leading the opposition.
“Hovannisian now seems the biggest ‘X’ factor in the presidential race.
If he is able to run, he might have a real shot,” Perina wrote. However,
as both Ter Petrosian and Kocharian had denied Hovannisian Armenian
citizenship, the latter only became a citizen in 2001, after Kocharian
yielded; as presidential candidates are required to have been a citizen
of Armenia for at least 10 years, this meant Hovannisian could not run
for the highest office until 2011.
Hovannisian was untraditional both in building a support base and in
his exchanges with foreign diplomats, traits that often set him apart
from his political rivals. Reporting on meetings between Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza and various opposition figures in August 2007, Perina dwelled on Bryza’s exchange with Hovannisian. “In
sharp contrast to most oppositionists meeting U.S. officials,
Hovannisian wanted to talk not just about party politics, but also about
a wide range of foreign policy issues. He highlighted Turkey…and
commented that the most important ingredient to success in negotiations
with either Turkey or Azerbaijan would be to have a president and a
government with unquestionable democratic legitimacy, which he felt no
Armenian government has had since the early years of President Levon Ter
Petrosian. He felt that Armenian leaders with real popular legitimacy
would have much greater standing to negotiate tough issues, including
staking out a more independent position from Russia. Hovannisian thought
Armenia should naturally align with the Euro-Atlantic community, and
break the ‘vertical power’ of the Russia-Armenia relationship. He felt
that Russia had already been given far too many Armenian assets, and
that this would be a burden on future governments for years to come.”
Raffi ‘unhelpful’
Not all of Hovannisian’s political maneuvers were perceived favorably
by U.S. diplomats. In fact, often—or as often as he discussed foreign
policy—his approach was deemed to counter U.S. or western-supported
objectives. For instance, Hovannisian introduced a bill in parliament
calling for the recognition of Nagorno-Karabagh. “The move has little
chance of being enacted or signed by the president, but makes for clever
politics. The populist ploy will put the government and ruling party in
the position of having to block an initiative that would be very
popular among average Armenians, if enacted,” wrote Perina,
adding, “Of course, the move is extremely unhelpful from the
perspective of Minsk Group negotiations and efforts to resolve the
conflict.”
When Turkey and Russia upped their attempts to broker peace between
Armenia and Azerbaijan, then-U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch sent a cable,
dated Nov. 17, 2008, with an overview of official and public
perceptions in Armenia. In it, she spotlighted Hovannisian’s position:
“[He] highlighted ‘genocide’ recognition as a high priority, and hinted
at a view we have detected elsewhere that Armenia should make no
decisive moves on Turkey or NK until the next U.S. Administration takes
office.” Hovannisian along with many others hoped that the Obama
Administration would “open a new century” in U.S.-Armenia relations,
beginning with recognition of the Armenian Genocide to a change in the
U.S. position on Nagorno-Karabagh. Yovanovitch characterized that
approach as “worrying,” because she believed it could thwart “major
progress toward transforming the regional reality for the better.”
Dinner and a personality profile
In May 2009, Raffi Hovannisian accepted Yovanovitch’s invitation to
dinner. The ambassador was as much interested in Hovannisian’s views on
the recent election for Yerevan mayor as she was on his thoughts on
Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. The dinner produced two detailed
accounts of Hovannisian’s politics, one on his take on domestic politics,
and another on his foreign policy. In the first, Yovanovitch gave the
following testimony on her impressions of Hovannisian: “An
Armenian-American émigré to Armenia who renounced his U.S. citizenship
in the 1990’s to position himself for a run at Armenia’s presidency,
Hovannisian is an aberration in the rough-and-tumble politics of
post-Soviet Armenia. While Armenian-born politicians run fast and dirty,
Hovannisian has remained faithful to his decades-long goal of
transforming Armenia’s deformed political culture. Barred from running
for president last year on an immigration technicality, it is widely
assumed that the authorities will never permit the reformist Hovannisian
a chance at the country’s top posts. One gets the impression in
speaking with him that Hovannisian realizes his boat has sailed, and
that he is now focused on grooming young, reform-minded, local
politicians to overturn the paradigm that has bedeviled his ancestral
homeland.”
Yovanovitch’s second cable
focused on Hovannisian’s support of rapprochement without
preconditions, something all three presidential administrations had
advocated for since independence. However, he said Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s provocative statements—especially
regarding Karabagh—and his use of “emotive vocabulary” were “fraying
Armenia’s nerves.” He considered the response from the Armenian side
inadequate. He noted that the timing of the roadmap to
normalization—just before newly elected President Obama’s April 24
address—was being met with suspicion and fear that the Armenian
government had sold out. Yovanovitch, in turn, stressed that the present
opportunity to normalize relations with Turkey was “truly rare,” and
that “trust on both sides, particularly between President Sarkisian and
PM Erdogan was critical, lest the opportunity be lost.” According to the
cable, “Hovannisian then griped that ‘a border opening’ should not even
be part of Turkish-Armenian negotiations to normalize relations. He
called the 1993 border closing by Turkey a ‘hostile act,’ and said that
years after ‘Turkey unilaterally closed its border with Armenia,’ it now
seeks ‘additional chits’ to re-open it. Hovannisian fumed that the
current Turkish approach amounted to ‘puerile diplomacy.’”
In her concluding remarks summarizing her impressions on
Hovannisian’s foreign policy, Yovanovitch wrote, “The grandson of a
‘genocide’ survivor who was dismissed as foreign minister after issuing
heated remarks on an official visit to Turkey in the early 1990’s, Raffi
Hovannisian obviously has strong views on the way Armenia should handle
rapprochement with Turkey. The authorities have a long way to go to
prepare their public on rapprochement if they have yet to convince a
respected opinion maker like Hovannisian of the merits of their
approach. If properly informed and consulted, Hovannisian could be a
powerful advocate of rapprochement—if not, he could become yet another
opponent on a long and growing list.”
Hopeful and resolute
On June 18, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State for European and
Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon met with Hovannisian. During the meeting,
Hovannisian criticized the elections for Yerevan mayor and City Council
as a “failed post-Soviet election” that revealed the challenges ahead
in the establishment of the rule of law, as well as a transparent
electoral system. He expressed his hopes that the ARF, which had
recently defected from the ruling coalition, would turn into a real
opposition party. “He expressed hope that the ARF-Dashnaktsutiun Party,
which recently broke with the governing coalition over its
reconciliation efforts with Turkey, will become a genuine opposition
party and will not focus just on the single issue of genocide
recognition. He hopes it will support rule of law and democratic reform,
which he claims to be at the heart of Heritage’s agenda,” wrote
Yovanovitch. Hovannisian spoke about the sophistication in election
fraud, about how there was essentially a one-party rule in the country,
as the Republican Party always ensured its candidates would have the
necessary votes to win by using administrative resources. He said the
Armenian authorities knew how to “play” Europe well—by hinting at
reforms just before the quarterly meetings of the Parliamentary Assembly
of the Council of Europe (PACE), but rarely coming through.
Gordon also became familiar with Hovannisian’s views on Turkey. He
“insisted” that Turkey come to terms with its past, as real
normalization would not be possible without Turkey acknowledging the
genocide. He rejected the notion of a historical commission that would
place the genocide at its center. He also argued that recognition of
Nagorno-Karabagh, like recognition of Kosovo or South Ossetia, was a
political act; and that, like the latter two, Karabagh should enjoy it
as well.
In her comments,
Yovanovitch said Hovannisian’s positions are “generally well-crafted”
and “based on sound legal argument, even in cases where they may not be
politically viable.” As to his involvement in politics, she believed
that he is “unwilling to invest himself fully in the political process
at home at the risk of a major failure.”
Protocols tip the scale
About two months later, on Aug. 31, 2009, Yovanovitch was relaying back to Washington
news that the opposition—comprised of “the ultra-nationalist” ARF, the
Armenian National Congress (ANC), and Heritage—had joined forces to
oppose Sarkisian and his handling of the Turkey-Armenia rapprochement
negotiations. They were calling on the president to pull out of the
talks and “denounce alleged Armenian concessions on N-K.” Yovanovitch
conveyed that following the ARF’s “raucous two-day conference” in
Stepanakert, the other opposition parties had quickly joined forces. She
noted that “the loudest and most strident criticism of Armenian policy
on Turkey and N-K” was coming from the ARF.
“Armenia’s failure to achieve real progress toward normalization and a
border opening with Turkey by the time of the Turkey-Armenia soccer
match in October would create a clear danger point for Sarkisian and his
government, though most of our interlocutors downplay scenarios that
could lead to the President’s removal,” warned Yovanovitch,
“Fortuitously for Sarkisian, personal rivalries and differing
perspectives among the three opposition groups will likely hinder their
ability to form and maintain a united front. The rising and increasingly
vocal criticism of the President’s foreign policies, however, make
significant, near-term concessions on N-K very unlikely, and ensure that
Sarkisian will stay away from the Turkey-Armenia soccer match in
October in the absence of visible progress toward a deal,” she added,
but reassured Washington that “the long-term agendas and personal
rivalries” among the opposition groups would pose a challenge to their
unified front against Sarkisian.
As for Raffi Hovannisian, Yovanovitch would attribute his stance to
his diaspora roots, faintly implying that the oddball politician was a
hybrid, the child of two different worlds, and that, in this case, one
side was dominating: “As a diaspora Armenian himself, Hovannisian’s
personal convictions on issues like Turkey and N-K are in some respects
similar to Dashnak views. But the Heritage agenda—which lays heavy
emphasis on political reform, rule of law, human rights, and
democratization—is significantly broader than the Dashnaks’,” she wrote.
About a week later, Hovannisian resigned from the National Assembly,
leaving many, including Pennington, dumbfounded. Heritage leader Armen
Martirosian told embassy officials
that Hovannisian had said his reasons were “personal and related to
crucial national issues.” Martirosian seemed as stunned as Pennington.
“I know [Hovannisian’s explanation] doesn’t mean much to you, and it
doesn’t to me either, but that’s what he told us,” he said, while
Heritage Party Secretary Stepan Safarian said, “Raffi is a combination
of an Armenian and American politician, so maybe you’ll [Pennington]
understand him better than I do.”
Some believed Hovannisian’s decision was linked to his disapproval of
the Armenia-Turkey rapprochement protocols. Others suspected he was
“saving” himself for the 2013 presidential elections. “Rectifying the
historic injustices committed against the Armenian population in early
20th century Turkey (what he refers to as ‘the great dispossession’) has
been Hovannisian’s cause celebre throughout his professional career—as
independent Armenia’s first Foreign Minister, as founder and director of
a prominent think tank, and then as political party founder and
aspirant for the Armenian presidency. A sharp critic of the GOAM’s
[government of Armenia] rapprochement policy that he thought was selling
out ‘the cause,’ it appears that Hovannisian could not stomach the
recently signed Turkish-Armenian protocols,” wrote Pennington, adding,
“A principled resignation to protest a policy would make sense if one
were a member of the ruling party. In Hovannisian’s case, however, it
isn’t yet clear what statement he hopes to make in resigning from the
sole—and miniscule—opposition faction in Parliament. The idea that
Hovannisian is ‘saving’ himself for a presidential run seems farfetched.
By opting out of one of the most important debates in Armenia’s
political history, it seems more likely that Hovannisian is taking a
step toward political irrelevance.”
“The reformist” Hovannisian reemergence
Hovannisian is in fact a hybrid politician. He is persistent in his
efforts to connect to voters, whether by driving to the countryside in a
brightly colored bus or by giving a helping hand to a potential voter.
All the while, he has continued to craft an image of himself as “the
people’s man.” Even his populist campaign slogan—“It is possible!”—is
reminiscent of U.S. President Barack Obama’s “Yes We Can!” catchphrase,
which was successful in capitalizing on the idea of hope—a commodity
many Armenian voters thirst for. U.S. diplomats have recognized
Hovannisian’s ability and will to appeal to and bond with common folk, a
strength other opposition leaders, like the “deeply disliked” opposition leader Ter Petrosian, have failed to hone.
Hovannisian has also long been on the record with his demands for
democratic reforms, another bonus that sits well with the multitude of
disgruntled citizens. He believes democratization should be supported
and prioritized by American diplomats, and it has been his mission to
drive this message home. There is very little room for questioning U.S.
policies towards Armenia. What the cables demonstrate is that
geopolitical considerations are at the forefront of U.S. concerns in the
Caucasus. Some might even think it naïve of the former foreign minister
to hope otherwise, given the U.S. foreign policy track record. But
Hovannisian has adopted a different angle to sell to American diplomats:
Forget about democratization for its own sake, support democratic
reforms for the sake of regional solutions that are supported by a
legitimate government—and by extension, the people. After all, we all
witnessed the pitiful ending to the Armenia-Turkey rapprochement
protocols, and so did the American diplomats.
But U.S. Embassy officials have also learned that in Armenia, given
enough time (sometime as little as days) the opposition begins butting
heads. U.S. envoys have watched as opposition coalitions formed and
dissolved, marked by personal grudges, rivalries, and “clashes of egos.” The opposition, it seemed, just couldn’t maintain alliances long enough to mount successful and unified campaigns.
As part of the tapestry that is the opposition, Hovannisian, too, has
proved to have—in Ambassador Evans’ words—a “track record of joining
and then departing coalitions.” Sometimes, those within his party circle
have been unaware or unsure of his political maneuvers. And so,
Hovannisian has remained an enigma for both his Armenian compatriots and
his American observers. Time and again he has appeared to be on the
brink of “irrelevance,” only to resurface, undaunted. A hybrid
politician, Hovannisian is both unconventional and unpredictable—and
that is his edge.
An Armenian spring?
A
landscape exuding hopelessness and catastrophe surrounds the city of
Vanadzor in Armenia. As we neared the end of the three-hour drive from
Tbilisi last week, my companions and I passed orchards reduced to
stubble, farms that could barely be called subsistence, inhabited homes
whose roofs
had long since caved in, and—bleakest of all—a sprawling wasteland of
concrete rubble from the earthquake that devastated this region in
1988. Vanadzor itself, Armenia’s third-largest city, reminded me of
Russian provincial cities in the 1990s: depressing, impoverished, grey.
Yerevan, the capital and home to a third of the country’s three
million people, shows a façade of modern prosperity. The buildings are
grand, gaudy, and intact, though many of the high-end apartments stand empty. But I was told that until a few weeks ago, a common hopelessness seemed to hang over both Yerevan and Vanadzor.
The reasons for the hopelessness were clear. President Serzh Sargsyan
presides over a corrupt and sometimes thuggish government. A small
number of oligarchs rule the economy
and control its markets. Violent repression of protests following
Sargsyan’s election in 2008, combined with the devastating impact of the
global financial crisis on Armenia, the sporadic war with Azerbaijan,
and the failed border talks with Turkey, have steadily deepened
cynicism, poverty, and despair, while propelling emigration.
As last month’s presidential elections approached, virtually all
observers expected the incumbent Sargsyan to return to power with an
overwhelming majority, especially since the main opposition party
announced it would not even field a candidate. “We saw the same pattern
as in previous elections: the same bribes, the same misuse of the
government apparatus,” an election monitor said about the weeks before
the election. One relatively obscure former minister ,
Raffi Hovannisian, chose to challenge the president. The result seemed
easily predictable. Estimates of the president’s likely majority at the
polls reached as high as 90 percent. “I expected this to be the most
boring election of the four I have observed,” the monitor recalls.
Instead, everything changed. The February 18 elections sent
shockwaves through the country as unexpected as those of the earthquake a
generation earlier…but these were waves of hope. Thousands of the
ballots cast were spoiled or blank. With the spoiled ballots put aside
in the official tally, Hovannisian won 37 percent of the vote. Even
more remarkably, the official tally acknowledged that the president lost
in Vanadzor as well as in Gyrmri, the second largest city. People had
happily accepted the bribes, but voted against Sargsyan anyway. The
president was quickly declared the winner and his election acknowledged
by both Putin and Obama. But many Armenians are convinced he was
defeated.
The political energy
released since then is palpable. Large protests have taken place
across the country, and for the first time they have attracted thousands
of young people unaffiliated with any political party. Hovannisian,
having lost an appeal to the Constitutional Court alleging election
fraud, ended a hunger strike on Easter Sunday, but the protests have
become a weekly event in Yerevan. Student activism has surged. A
grassroots women’s movement seems to be supplying most of the new, young
leadership in the protests. Longtime human rights activists are
comparing the mood to the days in which the Soviet state lost its
legitimacy.
Inauguration Day for the president is April 9. Sargsyan is planning a
modest, private ceremony. On the same day, a shadow inauguration is
planned in a public square for Hovannisian, whom some call the “truly
elected president.” How many people will attend the shadow inaugural? I
asked one human rights veteran. “I signed a letter pledging to be in
the square that day, and maybe others will come too,” he replied.
“Maybe we will have the largest inauguration in history.”
The Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation of Armenia is
equally energized. Larisa Minasyan, the veteran executive director,
told me that she has never seen the staff so excited. The head of the
women’s program exudes enthusiasm in every conversation; others
creatively debate how to connect their policy agendas for more a open
society to the new energy of the social movements filling the streets.
At lunch with six of the most respected human rights leaders in the
country last week, I asked those at the table to consider three possible
scenarios. In the first, the enthusiasm of the past few weeks runs its
course, the president remains in power, and, in a few months, the
status quo reestablishes itself. In the second, the energy of these
weeks grows stronger and profound change comes to the Armenian state and
society. In the third, the protests grow but are met with a state of
emergency and violently repressed. Which is most likely? The table was
unanimous in its choice of the second scenario: real transformation.
No one thought the first was even a possibility, but they disagreed
about the probability of a crackdown.
Far from Armenia, all of this may seem the mild delusions of
optimistic activists. Surely the first scenario, a return to the status
quo, is the most likely, at least judging by the world’s press. The
parliamentary representative from Vanadzor tells me the same thing: the
election was a big surprise, but the post-election situation has already
returned to the status quo. When I put this question to a lawyer
working in Vanadzor, she shook her head, and tried to help me
understand. “It wasn’t just election day,” she explained. “In our
office in Vanadzor there is a box, and every day people come to the
office to deposit letters in it. The letters are to President Sargsyan,
and they all say the same thing: ‘I don’t believe you won the election.
Please have the political courage to resign.’ We will deliver the
letters one day soon, and who knows? Everything has changed. There is
hope.”
Source: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/armenian-spring
Armenian Diaspora in USA plans on South Caucasus
On Tuesday Vladimit Putin met his Armenian colleague. Serge
Sargsyan’s official visit to Russia is the first foreign visit of
Armenian President after the elections. There are very few details on
the summit.
Recent events in Armenia have caused close attention to be paid to the internal political situation in the republic: the leader of Heritage Raffi Hovannisyan, who was thought to be an outsider of the election campaign, suddenly won 37% in the presidential elections and refused admission of Sargsyan’s victory. The attention appeared among administrations of leaders of the USA, the UK, and France. All of them encouraged Sargsyan to break the status quo over Karabakh and register the success in the Armenian-Turkish process. The recognition of the elections’ results by the West and Russia means that foreign players can connect their interests in the region with prudent Serge Sargsyan.
President of the USA Barack Obama told his Armenian colleague in his congratulatory message that Washington intends to contribute to the peacemaking process of settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. American President directly hinted at the necessity “of making a valuable step toward settlement, which will provide long-term peace and security.” According to him, the USA want to continue working on the possible normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations.
Some aggressive circles in Armenia and the environment of Raffi Hovannisyan have already characterized Obama’s message as a demand “to leave the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.” The opposition criticized the State Secretary Kerry for proposing one-sided concessions for Armenia in the Karabakh settlement because there can be no other interpretation of the phrase “to change status quo.” The opposition is sure that considering Turkey’s demands and Armenia’s interests, the USA expect a change to the status quo from Armenia, i.e. withdrawal from the territories. This is a price for the US congratulations and perspective support.
This suggestion is quite possible because the initiative president of Armenia has many times demonstrated readiness to concessions. The readiness was shown after the initiation of the Armenian-Turkish process was based on failed protocols. However, Serge Sargsyan played his role to the West and it has enabled him to receive dubious congratulations after very dubious presidential elections.
According to the head of the Armenian Center on National and Strategic Studies (ACSNI) Manvel Sarkisyan, the “pro-Russian attitude of Serge Sargsyan and pro-Western attitude of Raffi Hovannisyan are based on fairytales which were imagined by Armenian politicians who are far from political analysis; and it has nothing in common with the current reality.” In international politics absolutely other factors are important. The interests of almost all superpowers are being implemented in Armenia today, and these interests often do not contradict each other.
However, the deputy chairman of Heritage Armen Martirosyan doesn’t agree with the expert’s view. According to Martirosyan, Hovannisyan would never yield in ethnic issues, that is why many countries support Sargsyan. The main reason for this support is the position of the President on several important foreign political issues. “Sargsyan accepts the Madrid Principles of the Karabakh settlement and shameful Armenian-Turkish protocols. Hovannisayn does not. That is why they congratulate Sargsyan with the victory,” Martirosyan is sure.
Recently the US ambassador in Armenia John Heffern said in his video-blog that the US’s goal toward Armenia is shifting Yerevan’s views toward the West because “no country can depend on only one partner.” The most interesting fragment of the ambassador’s speech was the story on his visit of Armenian-populated towns of the USA in December, where he met representatives of Armenian Diaspora. The ambassador stated that Armenians from Diaspora “were interesting in Armenia’s problems and were ready to contribute to changes in the republic.” Actually Heffern hinted that the American policy in favor of Armenian society and diaspora could make the Armenian authorities – either new or old – take certain steps.
Recent events in Armenia have caused close attention to be paid to the internal political situation in the republic: the leader of Heritage Raffi Hovannisyan, who was thought to be an outsider of the election campaign, suddenly won 37% in the presidential elections and refused admission of Sargsyan’s victory. The attention appeared among administrations of leaders of the USA, the UK, and France. All of them encouraged Sargsyan to break the status quo over Karabakh and register the success in the Armenian-Turkish process. The recognition of the elections’ results by the West and Russia means that foreign players can connect their interests in the region with prudent Serge Sargsyan.
President of the USA Barack Obama told his Armenian colleague in his congratulatory message that Washington intends to contribute to the peacemaking process of settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. American President directly hinted at the necessity “of making a valuable step toward settlement, which will provide long-term peace and security.” According to him, the USA want to continue working on the possible normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations.
Some aggressive circles in Armenia and the environment of Raffi Hovannisyan have already characterized Obama’s message as a demand “to leave the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.” The opposition criticized the State Secretary Kerry for proposing one-sided concessions for Armenia in the Karabakh settlement because there can be no other interpretation of the phrase “to change status quo.” The opposition is sure that considering Turkey’s demands and Armenia’s interests, the USA expect a change to the status quo from Armenia, i.e. withdrawal from the territories. This is a price for the US congratulations and perspective support.
This suggestion is quite possible because the initiative president of Armenia has many times demonstrated readiness to concessions. The readiness was shown after the initiation of the Armenian-Turkish process was based on failed protocols. However, Serge Sargsyan played his role to the West and it has enabled him to receive dubious congratulations after very dubious presidential elections.
According to the head of the Armenian Center on National and Strategic Studies (ACSNI) Manvel Sarkisyan, the “pro-Russian attitude of Serge Sargsyan and pro-Western attitude of Raffi Hovannisyan are based on fairytales which were imagined by Armenian politicians who are far from political analysis; and it has nothing in common with the current reality.” In international politics absolutely other factors are important. The interests of almost all superpowers are being implemented in Armenia today, and these interests often do not contradict each other.
However, the deputy chairman of Heritage Armen Martirosyan doesn’t agree with the expert’s view. According to Martirosyan, Hovannisyan would never yield in ethnic issues, that is why many countries support Sargsyan. The main reason for this support is the position of the President on several important foreign political issues. “Sargsyan accepts the Madrid Principles of the Karabakh settlement and shameful Armenian-Turkish protocols. Hovannisayn does not. That is why they congratulate Sargsyan with the victory,” Martirosyan is sure.
Recently the US ambassador in Armenia John Heffern said in his video-blog that the US’s goal toward Armenia is shifting Yerevan’s views toward the West because “no country can depend on only one partner.” The most interesting fragment of the ambassador’s speech was the story on his visit of Armenian-populated towns of the USA in December, where he met representatives of Armenian Diaspora. The ambassador stated that Armenians from Diaspora “were interesting in Armenia’s problems and were ready to contribute to changes in the republic.” Actually Heffern hinted that the American policy in favor of Armenian society and diaspora could make the Armenian authorities – either new or old – take certain steps.
The most important in this situation is a price for
American readiness to encourage the development. Speaking about
the US Armenians, the diplomat presented them as a guarantor that
Armenia would have to pay for American support by concessions in a
strategic issue. It is well-known that Armenian Diaspora in the US has a
tough position on national-strategic problems, unlike the state policy
of Armenia. Hovannisyan, who has come from California and doesn’t
recognize Sargsyan’s power, is the best provider of such a policy
directed against Russian presence in the region.
Source: http://vestnikkavkaza.net/analysis/politics/38055.html
Russian President must
reconsider his hasty decision and must stand by the Armenian people
Russian President Vladimir Putin must be among the first to reconsider
his hasty decision to congratulate Serzh Sargsyan on reelected as
President of Armenia and must stand by the Armenian people, the leader
of Heritage Party Raffi Hovannisian said at Liberty Square on Monday. He
said that he believes in strategic partnership with democratic Russia
but to make this possible, Russia must become democratic and must stop
acting against the Armenian people. According to Hovannisian, the United
States and France have also broken their democratic commitments and
must also review their attitudes. On Tuesday Serzh Sargsyan is starting
an official visit to Moscow. Putin was among the first to congratulate
Sargsyan on his victory in the Feb 18 presidential election. The
official results say that Sargsyan secured 58.64% of the votes, but
Hovannisian is refusing to accept this figure and is holding rallies all
over Armenia.
Source: http://www.arminfo.info/index.cfm?objectid=E7162A30-8A5C-11E2-A879F6327207157C
Armenia should not join Eurasian Union, opposition says
The opposition Heritage Party's Secretary General, Stephan Saparyan,
thinks that entering into the Eurasian Union will not be beneficial for
Armenia and it just has to preserve its good relations with Russia.
Saparyan says that Russia’s influence in central Asian countries is
being challenged by China while from the West; the EU Eastern
partnership program is challenging Russia. According to him, the Eastern
Partnership is already a realistic perspective, whereas Eurasian Union
so far exists only on paper. Saparyan’s opinion is based on the reality
that Armenia does not have direct borders with Eurasian countries.
Despite not having common borders with the EU, Armenia could exercise
such contact via Georgia, thinks Armenian opposition member.
Source: http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/2740_november_20_2012/2740_econ_two.html
Whither CSTO: Russian Power, Armenian Sovereignty, and a Region at Risk
The
second anniversary of blitzkrieg between Russia and Georgia underscores
the unresolved geopolitical undercurrents in this region among the
seas. Landlocked by the forces of history from the Caspian, the Black
and the Mediterranean, Armenia ’s pivotal position remains encircled by a
neighborhood in strategic turmoil. The inherent jeopardy flowing from Turkey ’s now obviously disingenuous engagement of Armenia , the challenges posed by Azerbaijan ’s graduation from its threatening language of war to its launch of a deadly attack in June, and the general
escalation of tension across the Caucasus have combined to define the
greater region as one at immediate risk of deepening instability.
Against this backdrop of system-wide insecurity, Armenia is now facing a dangerous alignment of outside interests and internal shortcomings. While
Yerevan ’s “strategic” relationship with Moscow continues to serve as the bedrock for regional peace and security, the nature of the Armenian-Russian
embrace is unduly lopsided. The asymmetry of the Russian-Armenian
relationship is most manifest in the fundamental lack of equal and
mutually respectful cooperation.
After
all, Armenia ’s hosting of the only Russian military base in the area
is no simple act of kindness, and must be anchored in a shared regard
for each other’s interests. What is more, the Russian base is the only
such facility outside of the Russian Federation where the host country
receives neither rent nor reimbursement. Armenia pays for the totality
of its costs and expenses. Such a mortgaging of Armenian national
security is unacceptable and demands immediate redress. In the new era,
Armenian-Russian partnership, in order to be strategic without quotation
marks, must be sincere, really reciprocal and based on horizontal
respect, despite the differences in size and experience between the two
nations.
A
case in point is the information recently leaked by the Russian media
and reactively confirmed by official Yerevan that the two states, either
bilaterally or under the auspices of the CollectiveSecurity Treaty
Organization (CSTO), intend to extend up to 49 years the treaty
arrangement for the Russian base and the deployment of forces there.
Matters of dignity aside, this flies in the face ofArmenian sovereignty,
foreign policy independence, and vital national interests. It also
flouts the unlimited future potential of an actually strategic
partnership between us.
This
holds especially true in view of the fact that the existing base
agreement does not expire until 2020 and can, if necessary, be extended
upon expiration for five or even ten years. Of further consternation is
the Kremlin’s military rapport with and sales to Ankara , which stands
in occupation of the historic Armenian patrimony, has imposed a
modern-day blockade of the Republic of Armenia tantamount to an act of
war, and continues to deny and shirk responsibility for the Genocide and
GreatArmenian Dispossession of 1915.
A
more contemporary source of outrage is Moscow’s military support for
Azerbaijan, which having launched a failed war of aggression against
Mountainous Karabagh and Armenia is today threatening renewed
hostilities, completing its occupation of theArmenian heartlands of
Shahumian, Getashen, Artsvashen, and Nakhichevan, and continuing with
impunity to destroy and desecrate the Armenian cultural heritage at
Jugha and elsewhere. In this connection, in the event that Russia indeed
carries through with the reported sale of its S-300 weapon systems or
other equivalent armaments to the aggressive, belligerent, and
revisionist regime of Azerbaijan, Armenia should withdraw forthwith from
the CSTO, of which it is the sole member from the region, or at the
very least require full fair-market rent for the Russian base together
with reimbursement for water, electricity and other relevant expenses.
And
finally, the ultimate achievement of Partnership between Russia and
Armenia , and between Russia and the West, will necessarily entail an
actual application of the Rule of Law—not only domestic but also
international—and hence the recognition of the Republic of Mountainous
Karabagh within its constitutional frontiers, as well as of Kosovo and
Abkhazia. Anything else is partisan politics, petty political gain and sui generis
dissimulation, all of which might make sense for some and for the
moment but at bottom run counter to the aims of peace, security, justice
and democratic values for the critical landmass amid the seas.
Source:http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/08/13/russian-power-armenian-sovereignty-and-a-region-at-risk/
Heritage submits draft on ousting KGB snitches still in power
Heritage parliamentary faction submitted to the National Assembly of
Armenia a new legislative initiative with a number of suggested
additions to the fundamental provisions regulating the country’s
national security. The new package provides for citizens’ protection
from individuals affiliated with intelligence services of former USSR
and foreign countries, from their influence, blackmail and enrollment,
as well as implication in illegal activities.
The package of draft laws on additions to the Criminal Code of Armenia, as well as a number of laws has been submitted to the parliament and is being considered by a number of standing committees before it can be put on the agenda of discussions. The purpose of the legislative initiative is to purge individuals who had openly or secretly cooperated or worked with the former USSR State Security Committee (KGB), intelligence, counter-intelligence, intelligence task-force services, by September 21,1991, Referendum of Independence.
Heritage faction members are convinced that the package approval would enable release of duties of individuals holding leading or other positions at Armenia’s judicial, executive, legislative, public administration bodies, and local governments, if these individuals openly or secretly cooperated with intelligence services. The draft provides for granting a right to (voluntary) resignation if individuals holding or aspiring to hold posts subject to purge have either been disclosed or confessed cooperation with intelligence services.
The package of draft laws on additions to the Criminal Code of Armenia, as well as a number of laws has been submitted to the parliament and is being considered by a number of standing committees before it can be put on the agenda of discussions. The purpose of the legislative initiative is to purge individuals who had openly or secretly cooperated or worked with the former USSR State Security Committee (KGB), intelligence, counter-intelligence, intelligence task-force services, by September 21,1991, Referendum of Independence.
Heritage faction members are convinced that the package approval would enable release of duties of individuals holding leading or other positions at Armenia’s judicial, executive, legislative, public administration bodies, and local governments, if these individuals openly or secretly cooperated with intelligence services. The draft provides for granting a right to (voluntary) resignation if individuals holding or aspiring to hold posts subject to purge have either been disclosed or confessed cooperation with intelligence services.
Source: http://www.armenianow.com/news/33244/armenia_draft_law_kgb_agents
Related information:
Appo Jabarian: Does Failed Presidential Candidate Raffi Hovannisian Seek Armenia’s Destabilization?
Armenia’s
northern neighbor, former Soviet Republic of Georgia recently
aborted its so called ‘orange revolution’ and reverted back to a foreign
policy that fosters balanced ties with the Western bloc (Europe and
United States) as well as the Eastern bloc (mainly Russia). It is
against this backdrop that Armenia’s main opposition, presidential
candidate Raffi Hovannisian hoped to win Armenia’s Feb. 19 presidential
election effectively pulling off an ‘apricot revolution.’
He failed. But will he concede defeat?
Despite the fact that there are no solid indications that he ‘won,’ Mr. Hovannisian boasted early this week that he is the president-elect. He even went further to introduce his wife as the “new First Lady.” He also demanded that Pres. Serge Sargsyan submit his resignation (Mr. Sargsyan was declared the winner of the election with 58.64 percent of the vote, against Hovannisian’s 36.75 percent. The remaining 4 percent of the votes was spread among several other candidates).
Mr. Hovannisian also called for continuous demonstration at the Liberty Square located in Yerevan, capital of Armenia. Additionally, he expressed his intention to stage a new demonstration countering a demonstration in support of Pres. Sargsyan organized by the Republican Party of Armenia. Both demonstrations will be held at the same location. One can envision the great civil unrest and turmoil triggered by this confrontation ultimately destabilizing Armenia.
In March 2008, Armenia went through a post-election turmoil when innocent Armenian citizens lost their lives because of instigations by then failed presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrossyan’s backers. Mr. Hovannisian was a supporter of Mr. Ter-Petrossyan. While President Sargsyan’s administration has been criticized for many political mistakes, Mr. Hovannisian’s track record as an Armenian parliamentarian is vividly remembered when he compromised on the issue of Armenian Genocide in his infamous August 2007 letter to Turkey’s newly elected President Abdullah Gul.
Mr, Hovannisian had faced widespread criticism and condemnation by many Armenian media outlets for pandering to Turkey as a result of his usage of a highly insulting term “Great Armenian Dispossession” in lieu of the words “The Armenian Genocide.” If as a mere parliamentarian Mr. Hovannisian was willing to sell out on the Armenian Genocide and justice for his people, what would he do as President?
Would he be any different than his former boss Pres. Ter-Petrossyan and another operative – Vartan Oskanyan then Deputy Foreign Minister and later Foreign Minister under Pres. Kocharyan — who were all too willing to return strategic lands in liberated Armenian territory of Artsakh (Karabagh) back to Azeri yoke?
I must clarify that I have absolutely no intention to offer blind support to his main opponent Pres. Sargsyan either. Pres. Sargsyan’s administration has been red-flagged for a number of critical issues – corruption; catering to Armenia’s oligarchs that continue to monopolize Armenia’s economy; intending to ratify the infamous Turkish-imposed protocols that are detrimental to Armenia’s present and future. Patriotic Armenians in Armenia and Diaspora are sandwiched between Armenia’s oligarchs on the left and Armenian neo-Cons on the right.
They are wary of their future being hijacked by either of the two fringe groups – oligarchs and their clans, Armenian political careerists, materialists, and seekers of fame and fortune at all cost who are backed by their neo-Con masters in Washington and elsewhere. For how much longer the patriotic forces both in the Homeland and Diaspora will continue to feel squeezed? Will they stand up anytime soon to ‘invite’ both destructive forces to curb their appetite for power at-all-cost; and to put the Armenian state and its Diaspora on the right track?
Time will tell.
On Feb. 19, Armenia staged its sixth presidential election ever since it became independent in 1991. Reportedly, this presidential election was marred by widespread bribes, irregularities, bullying and corruption. Despite the emergence of a new generation of Armenians who are endeavoring to distance themselves from the old Soviet corrupt ways of doing ‘business’ practiced by their parents’ and grandparents’ generations, Armenia’s society as a whole still hasn’t freed itself from ‘giving and receiving gifts.’
Many compatriots live in abject poverty. The 21-yearl old newly independent former Soviet republic failed in rebuilding an economy capable of providing employment and healthy economic opportunity for all. Even though Mr. Hovannisian presented a great-sounding campaign platform promising to create massive employment, his campaign rallies failed to attract sizable turnouts in many localities and cities of Armenia. Many considered his promise as coming a little too late. They lamented Mr. Hovannisian’s close association with the highly corrupt administration of Armenia’s First President Levon Ter-Petrossyan. Hovannisian served as the First Foreign Minister of Armenia, while his boss and other associates looted Armenia and dismantled the country’s industrial base.
For over two decades, succeeding Armenian presidential administrations as well as the Armenian Diaspora failed to bring to Armenia 1) Institutionalized democracy; 2) Comprehensive reform on all levels of government and in all segments of civil society; and 3) Massive employment and economic prosperity.
The blame and responsibility for the current situation rest on the shoulders of both the Homeland and the Diaspora. But the lion’s share of the responsibility specifically belongs to the oligarchs, major political parties in Armenia; and all major organizations and structures in the Diaspora. Despite Armenians’ collective desire, the politically mature citizens in Armenia have yet to constitute the majority of the electorate. The number of politically alert and economically self-sufficient Armenians barely hovers around 15-20% of the total populace. That’s hardly sufficient to engender better government; independent judiciary; and prosperous economy.
So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that weeks before the election many independent observers anticipated that Armenia would ‘reelect’ incumbent Pres. Sagsyan for another five years. Some even went further in underlining the fact that the outcome should not come as a shock to anyone, lamenting
1) lack of democracy;
2) absence of free and fair elections;
3) apathetic and unengaged electorate;
4) politically immature populace;
5) weak, disorganized and fragmented opposition;
6) lack of Armenia-centered political orientation that can serve as the basis for the country’s foreign and domestic policy doctrine.
All these
and other factors have combined in predetermining the outcome of the
presidential election. The seemingly insurmountable internal problems of Armenia are after all manageable.
During the course of 21-years of independence, Armenia and Armenian society could not achieve massive transformational changes. The qualitative changes have not permeated all aspects of life in Armenia. The bulk of the population that was already over the age of 18 and indoctrinated by former soviet corrupt values continues to make up the overwhelming majority of Armenia’s electorate. So it would be unrealistic to anticipate an expedited transition to a new Armenia that’s comparable to Denmark or Switzerland. That task requires serious and sustainable commitment.
A battle has been lost but not the war.
However, in order to avoid facing another quarter century of lost opportunities for world Armenians, the ‘Powers That Be’ in Armenia must foster genuine partnership with the Diaspora; and stop treating it like a cash cow. As for the Diaspora, it must reinvent itself and become a better organized entity both for its sake and the sake of Armenia. It must adopt a hands-on approach in helping build Armenia’s economy and in helping shape a progressive civil society. Qualitative and quantitative repatriation needs to be further developed. Thinking outside the box may pave the way to overhaul the modus operandi both in Armenia and Diaspora.
Source: http://www.armenianlife.com/2013/02/21/does-failed-presidential-candidate-raffi-hovannisian-seek-armenia%E2%80%99s-destabilization/
Activist Ara K. Manoogian to Obama: "Why did you congratulate Sargsyan?"
I would like to express my concern about your congratulatory message
to Serzh Sargsyan, the acting President of the Republic of Armenia, on
his re-election. Your message came 12 days after the Presidential Election, which was
marred with considerable election fraud. What I would like to ask you
is: what changed between February 18 and March 2, to convince you that
the official election results are reliable?
Your note of congratulation came amid numerous reports on election
fraud, including ballot stuffing, voter bribing, voting on behalf of
émigrés and deceased individuals, and multiple voting. The public outcry
over these falsified official election results has escalated, with
massive rallies held throughout Armenia and in other Armenian
communities all around the world.
Receipt of your congratulatory note also coincided with the day that
OSCE/ODIHR revised its initial, generally positive assessment of the
election, acknowledging the sensibility of public distrust in the
official election results, and indicating facts that amount to election
tampering. (For more details on the February 18, 2013 election fraud,
please visit http://www.osce.org/odihr/elections/99931, http://raffi4president.am/en/violations and http://www.pf-armenia.org/sites/default/files/2013%20Election%20Statement-3.pdf)
I have always had respect for your adherence to democratic values and
rule of law. However, I believe that your congratulatory message to
Serzh Sargsyan on March 2, 2013, was a disappointing departure from your
core principles. Congratulations from such significant world powers as the United
States simply legitimize election fraud and are being used by Serzh
Sargsyan and the ruling elite to cement the travesty of their
re-election as acceptable.
On March 4, 2013, U.S.-born Raffi Hovannisian, the presidential
runner-up according to the official election results, filed a petition
with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia, seeking to
annul the official results of the February 18 presidential election and
certify Raffi Hovannisian as President-elect. He declared a hunger strike on March 10, 2013, until either the
Constitutional Court admits that the official election results were
skewed in favor of Serzh Sargsyan or the latter admits to election fraud
and steps down. Raffi Hovannisian has also declared he would concede to
a runoff to confirm the validity of the outcome.
Lack of response or refusal to withdraw your congratulations will
result in my declaration of a hunger strike. I would humbly ask that you
respect the vote and the will of the Armenian people and the
independence of our Constitutional Court by retracting your untimely
congratulations until the Armenian citizens themselves resolve the
current political crisis.
Source: http://hetq.am/eng/news/24407/human-rights-activist-ara-k-manoogian-to-obama-why-did-you-congratulate-sargsyan?.html
Tentative ‘Shadow Cabinet’ proposed to opposition leader
The first so-called civil forum held in Yerevan’s Liberty Square has
produced a list a candidates for the ‘shadow cabinet’ of an
ex-opposition candidate who claims to be the rightful winner of last
month’s presidential election.
Supporters of Heritage Party leader Raffi Hovannisian, who has been on a hunger strike in the venue since March 10, urging the official winner of the vote, incumbent President Serzh Sargsyan, to resign until his planned inauguration for the second presidential term on April 9, are expected to be gathering in the square during then next two weeks or so to discuss various matters of interest and concern to the public.
One of the key speakers at the first in the series of such events held on Sunday was opposition lawmaker Nikol Pashinyan. He said a list of 70 people whose services would be appreciated and used by the new “government” to be formed by Hovannisian had been drafted.
Among those mentioned during the event were former presidential candidates Hrant Bagratyan and Andrias Ghukasyan, leader of the People’s Party of Armenia Stepan Demirchyan, human rights champions and civil society activists, such as chairman of the Gyumri-based Asparez Club Levon Barseghyan, head of the Shirak center Vahan Tumasyan, owner of the GALA television Vahan Khachatryan, chairman of the Yerevan Press Club Boris Navasardyan, head of the Vanadzor office of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Artur Sakunts and others.
Pashinyan made it clear that the list had been drafted without the knowledge of the people mentioned in it. He said it would be up to Hovannisian to choose from the nominated persons in forming his “government”.
Hovannisian, who officially polled close to 37 percent of the vote in the February 18 presidential election, claims its outcome was rigged in favor of Sargsyan, whose official election tally was put by the Central Election Commission (CEC) at nearly 59 percent.
International observers gave a mainly positive assessment of the election in their preliminary reports on the basis of which the leaders of major world powers have congratulated the incumbent Armenian leader on his reelection amid protests from Hovannisian.
The Constitutional Court last week upheld the CEC decision certifying Sargsyan as president-elect, after which the opposition movement announced its intention to form an “alternative” government in Armenia that it said would be the only legitimate government as opposed to the “de facto” administration of Sargsyan.
Supporters of Heritage Party leader Raffi Hovannisian, who has been on a hunger strike in the venue since March 10, urging the official winner of the vote, incumbent President Serzh Sargsyan, to resign until his planned inauguration for the second presidential term on April 9, are expected to be gathering in the square during then next two weeks or so to discuss various matters of interest and concern to the public.
One of the key speakers at the first in the series of such events held on Sunday was opposition lawmaker Nikol Pashinyan. He said a list of 70 people whose services would be appreciated and used by the new “government” to be formed by Hovannisian had been drafted.
Among those mentioned during the event were former presidential candidates Hrant Bagratyan and Andrias Ghukasyan, leader of the People’s Party of Armenia Stepan Demirchyan, human rights champions and civil society activists, such as chairman of the Gyumri-based Asparez Club Levon Barseghyan, head of the Shirak center Vahan Tumasyan, owner of the GALA television Vahan Khachatryan, chairman of the Yerevan Press Club Boris Navasardyan, head of the Vanadzor office of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly Artur Sakunts and others.
Pashinyan made it clear that the list had been drafted without the knowledge of the people mentioned in it. He said it would be up to Hovannisian to choose from the nominated persons in forming his “government”.
Hovannisian, who officially polled close to 37 percent of the vote in the February 18 presidential election, claims its outcome was rigged in favor of Sargsyan, whose official election tally was put by the Central Election Commission (CEC) at nearly 59 percent.
International observers gave a mainly positive assessment of the election in their preliminary reports on the basis of which the leaders of major world powers have congratulated the incumbent Armenian leader on his reelection amid protests from Hovannisian.
The Constitutional Court last week upheld the CEC decision certifying Sargsyan as president-elect, after which the opposition movement announced its intention to form an “alternative” government in Armenia that it said would be the only legitimate government as opposed to the “de facto” administration of Sargsyan.
Source: http://armenianow.com/vote_2013/44511/armvote13_raffi_hovannisian_shadow_cabinet_nikol_pashinyan
EurasiaNet: Yerevan Keen to Opt Out of New Russian-Led Bloc
Despite its long-standing close ties with and strong dependence on
Russia, Armenia looks set to avoid joining a new Russian-led union of
former Soviet republics. Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, who won a second term in a disputed election
in February, has successfully navigated apparent Russian pressures and
moved his country closer to the West – the European Union, in particular
– while maintaining, and even deepening, Armenia’s military alliance
with Russia. After a meeting with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin on
March 12, Sargsyan gave no indication that his administration’s
multi-vector policy will change.
The press services of the two leaders announced in early March that
the talks at Putin’s Novo-Ogaryovo residence near Moscow would touch
upon “integration processes” in the former Soviet Union. It was a clear
reference to Armenia’s possible accession
to the Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. But the talks
themselves did not appear to produce a breakthrough on the issue.
Putin makes no secret of his hopes
to turn this trade bloc eventually into a closely-knit Eurasian Union
of loyal ex-Soviet states, a grouping that Kremlin critics regard as an
attempt to partially recreate the USSR. The Kremlin-linked speakers of
both houses of Russia’s parliament promoted the idea during separate
visits to Yerevan in July last year.
Putin and Sargsyan reportedly discussed the possibility of Armenian
membership in the Customs Union during their three meetings in 2012.
Armenian leaders gave no such promises in their public statements made
after those talks. Armenian media commentators speculate that Putin
wants a final answer from Yerevan soon.
Official Russian and Armenian sources did not report or hint at any agreements on the matter after the Novo-Ogaryovo meeting. Putin and Sargsyan similarly did not mention it in their televised opening remarks. Putin merely praised Russia’s “special relations” with Armenia,saying they are “successfully developing” in both economic and political areas. “We have big, promising, good joint investment plans,” he said.
Official Russian and Armenian sources did not report or hint at any agreements on the matter after the Novo-Ogaryovo meeting. Putin and Sargsyan similarly did not mention it in their televised opening remarks. Putin merely praised Russia’s “special relations” with Armenia,saying they are “successfully developing” in both economic and political areas. “We have big, promising, good joint investment plans,” he said.
“If there were even tentative agreements on the Customs Union, they would have probably been reflected in the official press releases on the meeting,” commented Alexander Markarov, a political scientist heading the Armenian branch of the Moscow-based Commonwealth of Independent States Institute.“In all likelihood, there were no major changes in the two sides’ positions on this issue and Serzh Sargsyan again succeeded in at least winning time,” the Yerevan-based news service 1in.am agreed in a commentary.
Over the past year, Armenian leaders have publicly objected to joining the Customs Union, arguing that their landlocked country has no common borders with Russia, Kazakhstan or Belarus. Citing Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave, Viktor Khristenko, the Russian head of the Customs Union’s executive body, has questioned this line of reasoning.
In a February interview with the Russian daily Moskovskie Novosti, Armenian Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan came up with another argument against Customs Union membership – that Armenia has a more liberal trade regime than any of the union’s three member states and lacks vast natural resources.
Yerevan is reluctant to acknowledge publicly another, arguably more important reason: joining the Russian-led union would essentially preclude the signing of a comprehensive Association Agreement between Armenia and the European Union. A key element of that agreement is the creation of a “deep and comprehensive free trade area,” which envisages not only the lifting of all trade barriers, but also harmonization of Armenian and EU economic laws and regulations. A spokesperson for Catherine Ashton, the EU’s foreign and security policy chief, told RFE/RL in December 2012 that Armenian entry into the Moscow-led Customs Union “would not be compatible” with the Association Agreement.
The Armenian government has since continued to express strong interest in concluding its association talks with the EU in time for a planned November 2013 summit in Vilnius on the EU’s Eastern Partnership program for six ex-Soviet states. Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian discussed preparations for the summit at a March 7 meeting with Philippe Lefort, the EU’s special envoy for the South Caucasus.
The Armenian push for integration with the EU reflects President Sargsyan’s broader strategy of complementing the alliance with Russia with closer partnership with the West.
During his first term, Sargsyan earned plaudits in Western capitals for stepping up cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and embarking on a US-backed rapprochement with Turkey. Analysts believe this is one reason why US President Barack Obama and other Western leaders congratulated him on his disputed reelection.
Remarkably, there have been few indications of Russian discontent
with this policy. Russian policy-makers might be safe in the knowledge
that, with no solution
to the conflict with Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh in sight, Armenia
will remain heavily reliant on military ties with Russia in the
foreseeable future. Sargsyan was instrumental in securing a 2010 deal that extended the
presence of Russian troops in Armenia until 2044, and Putin has
responded accordingly.
In January, he authorized his government to sign a new
Russian-Armenian defense accord that calls for joint arms manufacturing.
Russia’s defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, and chief of the General
Staff, Colonel General Valery Gerasimov, discussed the planned deal
during subsequent trips to Armenia. Sargsyan thanked Putin on March 12
for “good progress” in defense cooperation.
But appearances can be deceiving, cautioned analyst Markarov. “Armenia has been trying to circumvent the Customs Union, while
favoring other, bilateral formats of cooperation with Russia,” he said.
“It has to listen to Russia more than any other foreign power. But
listening doesn’t mean always obeying.”
Source: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66688
Opposition media: Putin Blackmails Armenia by CSTO troops
On March 12 Serzh Sargsyan will visit Moscow instead of Prime Minister
Tigran Sargsyan. Apparently, the earlier agenda with economic issues to
be discussed at the level of prime ministers has been replaced by global
political problems. The relations between Armenia and Russia
have changed considerably over the past two or three years.
First, the government of Armenia has refused Russia’s insistent invitation to join the Eurasian Union and the Customs Union. Second, Armenia is going to sign the Association Agreement with the EU in November. Most importantly, 37% votes for Raffi Hovannisian were described by Russian experts as votes for the Western bias of Armenia.
Russia will now deploy a full kit of instruments to return Armenia. One of them is gas, and Moscow wants to boost its price, and the more obedient Serzh Sargsyan is, the less the price will grow. Furthermore, Russia threatens to use its new instrument. It is the CSTO quick reaction forces which may be deployed in Armenia to handle crisis. In fact, Moscow blackmails Armenia by airborne landing.
However, the threat is mostly addressed to Serzh Sargsyan. It is a hint that the troops may be deployed without informing him but officially his request for deployment will be referred to. This is a possible option, considering that such a step may corner Serzh Sargsyan to make him accept any proposal that Russia will make. Experts warned that Armenia should not have signed the agreement on CSTO quick reaction forces and its mandate of intervention in domestic affairs of member states.
Once the forces are set up, their creators will be impatient to try them out. Armenia may be the first in line. The Russian press has already published opinions of experts that the CSTO forces will protect Armenia from Azerbaijan and Turkey. What does this have to do with domestic affairs? In Armenia there are no signs of a violent revolution, a peaceful civic struggle is underway, and the CSTO forces have nothing to do here.
As to Turkey and Azerbaijan, it is already the business of the Armenian army. What will Serzh Sargsyan discuss with Moscow at CSTO’s gun point? In his last visit to Moscow he bluntly criticized Russia for supplying weapon to Azerbaijan. Will he state this time that Russia has no right to blackmail Armenia by deployment of CSTO forces?
First, the government of Armenia has refused Russia’s insistent invitation to join the Eurasian Union and the Customs Union. Second, Armenia is going to sign the Association Agreement with the EU in November. Most importantly, 37% votes for Raffi Hovannisian were described by Russian experts as votes for the Western bias of Armenia.
Russia will now deploy a full kit of instruments to return Armenia. One of them is gas, and Moscow wants to boost its price, and the more obedient Serzh Sargsyan is, the less the price will grow. Furthermore, Russia threatens to use its new instrument. It is the CSTO quick reaction forces which may be deployed in Armenia to handle crisis. In fact, Moscow blackmails Armenia by airborne landing.
However, the threat is mostly addressed to Serzh Sargsyan. It is a hint that the troops may be deployed without informing him but officially his request for deployment will be referred to. This is a possible option, considering that such a step may corner Serzh Sargsyan to make him accept any proposal that Russia will make. Experts warned that Armenia should not have signed the agreement on CSTO quick reaction forces and its mandate of intervention in domestic affairs of member states.
Once the forces are set up, their creators will be impatient to try them out. Armenia may be the first in line. The Russian press has already published opinions of experts that the CSTO forces will protect Armenia from Azerbaijan and Turkey. What does this have to do with domestic affairs? In Armenia there are no signs of a violent revolution, a peaceful civic struggle is underway, and the CSTO forces have nothing to do here.
As to Turkey and Azerbaijan, it is already the business of the Armenian army. What will Serzh Sargsyan discuss with Moscow at CSTO’s gun point? In his last visit to Moscow he bluntly criticized Russia for supplying weapon to Azerbaijan. Will he state this time that Russia has no right to blackmail Armenia by deployment of CSTO forces?
Source: http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/country/view/29150
Which Way Will Armenia Tilt?
On February 18, Armenians will cast their ballots for president. Although eight candidates have registered, victory and a new five-year term for incumbent Serzh Sargsyan are a foregone conclusion. Still, this election is not meaningless. The conduct of this poll is important, as will be Sargsyan’s choices after the poll. If the international community gives the election a clean bill of health, it will increase Sargsyan’s legitimacy. He will have the opportunity to enact much needed reforms in order to move closer to the West or, perhaps as likely, avoid tough reforms and move Armenia – already broadly sympathetic to Russia – further into Moscow.
Upon first winning the presidency in February 2008, Sargsyan faced a
legitimacy crisis. Some have claimed that he has used his position and
connections – he was sitting prime minister and had served previously as
secretary of the national security council and defense minister – to rig the election against Levon Ter-Petrossian, a former president. At least ten died in the ensuing protests.
This year, Sargsyan faces little
resistance, with Sargsyan’s slide towards authoritarianism and Armenia’s
lack of democratic institutions leaving the opposition fractured and
divided. His most formidable opponents – Ter-Petrossian and wealthy
businessman Gagik Tsarukyan, chief of the Prosperous Armenia party –
both declined to run.
That Sargsyan effectively gets a free pass does a disservice to
Armenia, which faces formidable obstacles to its development. When
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili inherited a corrupt and
inefficient state in 2004, he stamped out government corruption and
reformed Georgia into a Western-leaning economy. On January 31, 2013,
the World Bank issued a report, “Fighting
Corruption in Public Services: Chronicling Georgia's Reforms,” praising
Georgia for tackling corruption and noting that Georgia can serve as an
example for other countries facing similar challenges.
Armenia will find no such praise. Its government remains corrupt and
inefficient. The country was among the worst hit during the 2008-2009
economic crisis, with GDP shrinking by 14 percent in 2009, according to
the IMF. Since then, Armenian GDP has grown slowly – at an average
annual rate of approximately 3.5 percent between 2010-2012. In contrast,
Georgia grew by an average annual 6.6 percent in the same three years.
In 2010, according to official statistics, 35.8 percent of Armenia’s
population was living below the poverty line – an increase from 27.6
percent in 2008. And, while neighboring Georgia and Azerbaijan welcome
foreign investors, organized crime keeps most foreign investors out of
Armenia. The Armenian Diaspora – who care deeply about Armenia’s success
– have long ago concluded that investing in their homeland is a
thankless task that will pay dividends neither individually nor for
Armenia.
Hundreds of thousands of Armenians now flee the country for better
prospects. Younger, more educated Armenians head to the West, while
their older, blue-collar compatriots head north to Russia. The Russian
government has welcomed these migrants, and has helped place them in
areas of Russia facing population decline. While Russia might use these
Armenians to mitigate its own demographic problem, the same migration
merely exacerbates Armenia’s.
Last April, the European Commission estimated that one-third of
Armenia’s population had emigrated since Armenia’s independence in 1991.
Visiting Armenia in December 2012, one young Armenian told me that if
she or her peers had even small hope that the economy would improve,
they would stay. But few see such hope. Meanwhile, a full sprint into Russia’s embrace may compound Armenia’s
problems. In recent years, Armenia has become Russia’s primary foothold
in the South Caucasus. Russia’s influence in Armenia is vast not only
political and economic, but also military and cultural. Armenia depends
on Russia for gas; Russia owns Armenia’s communication and railway
networks, and has extended a lease for a Military Base in Gyumri until
2044.
The Kremlin also hopes to bring Armenia into a Russia-led Customs
Union – a precursor to the so-called Eurasian Union, which Russian
president Vladimir Putin hopes will be a counterweight to the European
Union.
With aid, however, the West has leverage.
Since 1992, the United States has provided Armenia with approximately
$2 billion in development and humanitarian assistance, the highest aid
per capita among the former Soviet states. Although the U.S. reduced
funding in 2011, when the Millennium Challenge Corporation penalized
Armenia for failing to enact political reforms, the European Union
compensated with an augmented aid package and is currently negotiating a
free trade accord. It is now up to Armenia to choose which direction it wishes to go:
Will it join the West and a community of democracies and liberal
economies, or will Sargsyan tilt Armenia more toward a Kremlin-led
community of increasingly autocratic former Soviet states.
Source: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/15/which-way-will-armenia-tilt/#comment-363487