|
The Revolution Has Begun
It’s
true. The Armenian revolution has begun. And I’m not even talking
about the May 6 parliamentary election or its outcome. The revolution
is being led by twenty and thirty year olds who are committed to
bringing change. Everyone wants change. You’ve heard that before. This
particular situation is revolutionary because these young people – the
independence generation – has understood that change for change’s
sake, is insufficient. It must be legal and institutional to be fair
and long-lasting.
They demonstrated that they understand this when the President of the Republic appeared at Mashtots Park, just days before the election, and within a quarter of an hour, gave the environmental activists what they wanted. He told the Mayor to remove the structures from the center of the green space that were to become retail stores.
That’s when the revolution began. Although the activists considered the outcome good, they distinguished between outcome and process and publicly invited those who govern the country to bring legitimacy and transparency to the decision-making process. I’m sure all those who made the last-minute decision to go ‘put an end to the young people’s demands’ were surprised by the thoughtful, strategic, politically mature response.
That’s the revolution. It’s a revolution in thinking. The election on May 6 can be Chapter 2 in the revolution. Will everyone involved – the powers that be as well as those seeking power – will they trust the people to make their decision? Will they let the numbers stand? Will these be the elections that begin to allow trust between voters and their representatives?
These are the questions that CivilNet.am staff and guests will be answering throughout the day and evening of May 6 – in Armenian and in English. Watch the reports, post questions, comments, thoughts – we’ll be referring to those as well. And, in the week following the election, on Thursday May 10, Civilitas will hold the fifth weekly election debate. The guests will be representatives of the nine parties running for office. The topic – Assessing the Election. Join us at the Ani Plaza Hotel at 2 pm. Don’t miss the day or the week. This is historic.
They demonstrated that they understand this when the President of the Republic appeared at Mashtots Park, just days before the election, and within a quarter of an hour, gave the environmental activists what they wanted. He told the Mayor to remove the structures from the center of the green space that were to become retail stores.
That’s when the revolution began. Although the activists considered the outcome good, they distinguished between outcome and process and publicly invited those who govern the country to bring legitimacy and transparency to the decision-making process. I’m sure all those who made the last-minute decision to go ‘put an end to the young people’s demands’ were surprised by the thoughtful, strategic, politically mature response.
That’s the revolution. It’s a revolution in thinking. The election on May 6 can be Chapter 2 in the revolution. Will everyone involved – the powers that be as well as those seeking power – will they trust the people to make their decision? Will they let the numbers stand? Will these be the elections that begin to allow trust between voters and their representatives?
These are the questions that CivilNet.am staff and guests will be answering throughout the day and evening of May 6 – in Armenian and in English. Watch the reports, post questions, comments, thoughts – we’ll be referring to those as well. And, in the week following the election, on Thursday May 10, Civilitas will hold the fifth weekly election debate. The guests will be representatives of the nine parties running for office. The topic – Assessing the Election. Join us at the Ani Plaza Hotel at 2 pm. Don’t miss the day or the week. This is historic.
A Defeatist Nation
With
the Armenian National Assembly elections slated for May 6, I am
obliged to reflect upon the political situation of the last four years
and contemplate where Armenia is headed. These elections will be the
most important in this republic’s brief history as a test for the
functioning of democracy, yet most people don’t realize it. Nearly
everyone has told me the same thing: The laws don’t work or there are
no laws, and the judicial system is corrupted. They are desperate,
hopeless, and dwell in a self-imposed realm of defeatism, each playing
the role of the eternal victim.
Whenever I meet someone for the first time in Armenia, a minute doesn’t pass before politics comes up. For the last seven or eight years, I have heard countless people express their disgust in the Armenian government and authorities, that the country is not a country, there is no justice, the oligarchs do whatever they want and take advantage, and so forth. Indeed, not once have I met anyone who has told me that they approve of the regime in power—either backed (in Robert Kocharian’s case) or fully controlled by the Republican Party (along with its coalition partner parties).
They expect governmental reform without having to work for it, as if the authorities will one day magically realize that they should no longer lie to and cheat their citizens. They want justice and good governance, but no one can agree on how it will be achieved or who will lead that reform movement. Meanwhile, the Armenian Diaspora remains silent, continuing to turn a blind eye to the lack of democracy and governmental irresponsibility.
Given the negative mindset in the motherland, one should come to the logical conclusion that the Republican Party will win less votes than it has in the past—despite election fraud that is bound to occur—making way for a new National Assembly controlled by a union of parties, albeit fragile, that have been in opposition. This ideal union would likely be comprised of the Armenian National Congress, ARF-Dashnaktsutyun, the Heritage Party, and Free Democrats alliance, and the Prosperous Armenia Party, which has been keen to distance itself from the authorities in recent weeks, although it refuses to officially break away from the pro-government coalition. This fresh National Assembly will also signal a new era in government, one where the demands of the people will conceivably be met and, as Raffi Hovannisian put it in his interview with me, emigration is reversed so that a wave of immigration displaces it. Nevertheless, the Republican Party’s notorious pre-election terror campaign of intimidation and harassment that has already been unleashed is bound to coerce many voters to cast ballots in their favor. The authorities are also counting on disenchanted citizens to sell them their votes for 20 bucks apiece.
The issues plaguing Armenia are too numerous to list. But the most relevant points to tackle, in random order, are the following: a reformed, competent, and properly trained police force; an independent judicial system; a substantial increase in funding for social services, including doubling the minimum wage and pensions (which all contending opposition parties are pushing); the renovation of schools and hospitals nationwide, starting with the most remote areas first; the reconstruction of roads and infrastructure, again with the most remote villages a priority; encouragement for civil society to flourish; the break up of the trade monopolies, especially on staple foodstuffs, to promote competition in the marketplace; incentives for small- and medium-sized business ventures to start up; a four-fold increase in efforts to encourage foreign investment in the thriving Armenian IT sector; additional investments in the tourism industry; and the immediate cancellation of long-term environmentally devastating mining projects that would only benefit foreign investors (the local economy would not be positively affected by any means). The list can go on and on, but tacking the aforementioned issues is a good start to getting things on track in Armenia and reversing the trends of narcissism and greed that have been strangling this country for far too long.
Some argue that it will take decades and several generations to pass before the aforementioned issues even begin to be properly addressed. Unfortunately, we don’t have that long to wait. It’s been nearly 21 years since Armenia declared independence, and most citizens are no better off than they were then. Unofficial population estimates in Armenia are between 2-2.5 million. Entire villages have picked up and moved to remote parts of Russia where they have been provided housing and employment as part of a rural colonization scheme. The talented, technology-savvy youth are leaving for the U.S., Canada, and elsewhere (I personally know five software engineers who have emigrated during the last three years). And Artsakh is continuously being emptied of its populace: Only around 2,700 people are left in Shushi alone.
The new wealth and economic growth that is noticeable to foreigners and Armenians from the Diaspora is concentrated in central Yerevan—it is a mirage, a smokescreen obscuring what things are really like here. The sooner the diaspora comprehends this and puts pressure on the Armenian government to get its act together, the more secure and, yes, entrepreneurial Armenian citizens will become. But that reshaping cannot happen on its own. It needs stimulus. It requires motivation and dedicated hard work. It is dependent upon foresight and ingenuity. And it has to start right now.
Source: http://asbarez.com/102724/a-defeatist-nation/
Breaking the Grip of the Oligarchs
How a tragic twist of fate is fueling a revolt against Armenia’s overweening tycoons
The
public outrage was unprecedented. It isn't uncommon for the employees of
business tycoons to engage in violence. But this was the first time that
someone like Avetyan -- a married father of two whose job involved caring for
Armenia's highly respected armed forces -- had inadvertently felt their wrath,
and paid for it with his life.
The
death of Avetyan at the hands of bodyguards employed by Hayrapetyan has become
a catalyzing event. Shocked Armenians mobilized in large numbers throughout the
summer. The frustrations with a culture of bodyguards whose brutish behavior
had become notoriously violent over the years spilled onto the streets and
social networks. Legislation to regulate the private use of bodyguards has been
introduced
in parliament: The draft law stipulates that private security personnel will be
required to don uniforms, to apply for weapons permits, and to register their
weapons with law enforcement.
The
ongoing trial of those involved in Avetyan's murder has opened a window onto
the excesses of a tiny ruling class that until now has felt largely untouched
by the law. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Armenians -- like
many other inhabitants of the old USSR -- have watched as the lion's share of
the country's wealth has fallen under the control of a privileged elite. The
leading Armenian oligarchs, a group numbering around 40, dominate industries
ranging from banking to mining, and that economic edge has translated into
privileged political status as well. Just as in Russia and Ukraine, tycoons
here have parlayed their wealth into public office -- to an extent that it's
often hard to tell where business ends and politics begins.
Though
political apathy is widespread in Armenia, the Avetyan case has fueled
resentment and anger towards the men who have accumulated vast wealth and
influence while much of the country's population remains in dire poverty. But
now, thanks to the criminal case surrounding the death of the army doctor,
something seems to be changing. After months of public pressure, Hayrapetyan
finally submitted
his resignation from the legislature in early September, ending his foray into
politics. Six of his bodyguards have been arrested in connection with the
murder.
After
two postponements, the trial formally got underway last month. The defendants,
who initially faced lesser charges, have been formally accused on three counts
of assault that could result in lengthier prison sentences than the five to ten
years of imprisonment they previously faced. Hayrapetyan, known by the nickname
"Nemets Rubo," has repeatedly denied responsibility for the actions of his
employees. Calls for Hayrapetyan to face trial in the case have gone nowhere.
Armenia's
search for stability and democracy since the collapse of the Soviet Union has
been difficult. The country achieved its independence just three years after a
1988 earthquake
that left upwards of 25,000 dead. No sooner had Armenians embarked upon
statehood than they found themselves locked in a debilitating war with
neighboring Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. That war resulted in
the closing of the country's borders with Azerbaijan and Turkey, cutting
Armenia off from normal trade. These straitened circumstances brought hardship
to most Armenians, but to those sufficiently ruthless and well-connected to
take advantage, the war economy meant a path toward instant riches. It was then
that many of today's tycoons began to build their fortunes.
The
culture of oligarch immunity is certainly nothing new. The Avetyan murder has
struck a sensitive chord owing to its chilling resemblance to the 2001 incident
in which a bodyguard of then-President Robert Kocharyan attacked and killed a
man in a bathroom for making a disrespectful remark to the leader. But even
then, most Armenians -- whether too apathetic, too scared, or too willing to
emigrate -- refrained from mounting an open challenge to the tycoon
establishment.
Now,
in dramatic contrast, broad swathes of society have shown the will to stand up
and resist. In the months following Avetyan's murder, the anti-oligarch
protests began to attract attendance from regular citizens who are rarely seen
at demonstrations. A candlelight vigil honoring the late doctor saw over 600
people surround the restaurant, which has come to symbolize the broad web of
impunity shared by Armenia's tycoons. Police cordoned off the restaurant and clashed
with protestors, breaking up demonstrations by force. "I only had one bruise, but some people were beaten," said Tsovinar Nazaryan, an activist and
journalist who attended the rally.
But
the demonstrators kept coming back. They marched to the Prosecutor's General
Office after Avetyan's funeral, chanting "Nemets is a murderer" and "I am Vahe
Avetyan." Then a montage of video clips from two press conferences Hayrapetyan
gave last year surfaced on YouTube
(with English subtitles), showing the tycoon threatening reporters, claiming
responsibility for beatings, and confessing to tampering with ballots in an
election. "I wouldn't advise people to try to punish me," he says at one point
in the video. "Whoever tried it, something terrible happened to them."
Anti-oligarch
activism spread outside the country's borders, where the far-flung Armenian
diaspora held protests in front of consulates. Online
petitions were organized. Street art
around the capital demanded that Hayrapetyan be tried in court.
"Many
people are sick and tired of their power," said activist Nazaryan. "You can see
how violent they are, in their business, in their everyday actions. They're
violent to our journalists. They're really dangerous. They don't care. They
know they won't be punished, and this is the problem."
This
latest series of events represents the first small challenges to the seemingly
impregnable edifice of oligarch power that has dominated this country since the
collapse of the USSR. Functioning like early twentieth-century robber barons,
Armenia's tycoons prefer to be called "businessmen" (though most Armenians tend
to refer to them with cartoonish nicknames). The oligarchs drive fleets of
flashy vehicles; their Hummers and Rolls Royce's are fitted with custom license
plate numbers to simultaneously identify their families and close associates
and deter harassment from traffic police.
Their
ostentatious mansions multiply, and their business assets grow as they hold the
Armenian economy hostage by eliminating competitive markets for everything from
mineral water and asphalt to soft drinks. The economic elite flex their power
in the political sphere despite a constitutional ban on members of parliament
being involved in owning or running businesses. The political parties that have
dominated recent elections
in the country are closely associated with leading oligarchs who enjoy
parliamentary immunity and remain virtually untouchable. According to a recent report
by the International Crisis Group, for example, the ruling Republican Party had
two dozen wealthy businessmen elected
to the ranks of parliament in 2007. The same report notes that oligarchs
routinely use
their charitable foundations to sponsor concerts or hand out free potatoes in
order to secure voter support, though the businessmen deny using charity for
the purposes of political leverage.
Take
Samvel "Lfik Samo" Aleksanyan, a millionaire with strong ties to the
government. A 2003 U.S. State Department cable referred
to him as a "semi-criminal" oligarch who "maintains an army of bodyguards" and
controls the import of sugar, wheat, and butter into the country.
Dubbed
"the Sugar Baron" in local media, Aleksanyan's domination of the industry and
ownership in a chain of supermarkets has created the conditions for a series of
sugar crises in which prices unpredictably skyrocket. Aleksanyan recently
bought and partially destroyed the famed, almost century-old bazaar-style
indoor market and national treasure, "Pak
Shuka," amid widespread speculation that he intends to turn it
into part of his supermarket empire.
Other oligarchs
play prominent roles in the lucrative mining industry. Armenia is rich in
molybdenum and gold, and that has led to considerable competition among the
oligarchs to grab their shares of the resulting profits. National Assembly
Chairman Hovik Abrahamyan and member of parliament Tigran Arzakantsyan are both
shareholders in one leading mining company. One of the most prominent tycoons
linked with mining is former Minister of Environmental Protection Vardan
Ayvazyan, who was in charge of regulating large parts of the industry during
his stint in government. In September, a U.S. court ordered
Ayvazyan to pay $37.5 million in damages to a U.S. mining company that
accuses him of corruption relating to his own business interest in the sector.
(Ayvazyan has denied
all the allegations and rejects the American court's jurisdiction over him.)
Oligarchs
are also accused of tampering with elections. Armenian elections have long been
plagued by irregularities,
reportedly ranging from intimidation to ballot stuffing. Garo Yegnukian, an
executive board member at Policy Forum Armenia, a U.S.-based think tank, says
that oligarchs play an outsized role in elections: "They're the ones who
distribute election bribes, who intimidate, who break people's knees, if they
have to."
A
U.S. embassy cable leaked in 2009 described
business elites as "deeply intertwined with political power and vice versa,"
each having an incentive to preserve the status quo out of the fear that a
regime change could mean an economic redistribution at the "expense of today's
oligarchs."
Reports
have linked
oligarchs to assaults and murders. But their activities have other pernicious
effects as well. The International Crisis Group report pinpointed oligarch
benefits from tax and customs advantages as a reason why the government
collects only about 19.3 percent of GDP in taxes, compared to a 40 percent
average in the European Union. A 2007 International Monetary Fund study reflected this, arguing that despite double digit growth
since the beginning of the millennium, Armenia's tax to GDP ratio remains very
low.
Prime
Minister Tigran Sarsgyan who has previously criticized several ministries
within the government for corruption, recently announced that he will head an
anti-corruption council, and extended a rare invitation to opposition parties
to participate.
"We are not satisfied with the state of the fight against
corruption," Sargsyan said, according
to local press reports. But graft in Armenia doesn't seem to have seen any
significant decline. Over the last five years, Armenia has sharply
fallen on Transparency International's Corruption Index for
Armenia by 30 places, from a ranking of 99 in 2007 to 129 in 2011.
Analysts predict that the path to economic success in Armenia means
eliminating monopolies and minimizing the interference of oligarchs in
policymaking; poverty and a high emigration rate (some 70,000 people leave the
country every year) compound the problem. As the fallout from the death of an
innocent army doctor continues, the Armenian government faces critical choices
when it comes to its future and how it chooses to act, if at all, toward those
enjoying immunity from the law. But it's clear that, even in the best of cases,
reducing the power of the country's tycoons will be a long and arduous process.
Source: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/05/breaking_the_grip_of_the_oligarchs?page=full
Winds of Change
Many thought this could never happen. Yet we all WANTED this to happen. The winds of change are finally blowing in Armenia.
The pre-independence years and the initial following years saw an
Armenian people energized by statehood, excited by independence, and
full of hope for a better future. And a lot was achieved, including
winning a war against all odds. Anyone who had the opportunity of
visiting Armenia in those early days of independence will remember that
despite very dire economic conditions, there was “something” in the air,
there was energy, hope, and excitement. Unfortunately, the
picture has changed since. The colors have faded. Despair has replaced
hope.
Our record in recent years is less than satisfactory when it comes
to governance, transparency, democracy, environment, equal opportunity,
and civic rights. These concerns, along with an exponential growth of
corruption, and the lack of hope for change are the main causes for an
unprecedented number of Armenians leaving their ancestral land,
emigrating mainly to Russia, the Americas and Western Europe for a
better life. If it continues at this rate, this hemorrhage will
potentially pose an existential question for Armenia because
demographics are such a fundamental sine qua non factor of statehood.
Even Azerbaijan president Ilham Aliyev alluded recently to this catastrophe, as reported by Naira Hayrumian in Lragir.am. Armenia is losing its citizens to emigration to the tune of over 100,000/year!
However, alongside this bleak picture, there seems to emerge a new
glimmer of hope. We are witnessing the birth of a call for a “New
Order”. A significant number of Armenian citizens from all walks of life
are starting to voice their refusal of the status quo.
Several
grass-root movements are emerging to reclaim their hope, their dignity,
and their national and individual aspirations. Ecological, cultural,
heritage, political reform (e.g. the Sardarapat Movement), civic rights,
several groups are getting organized at the grass-root level with the
stated objective of creating a more equitable, more harmonious, and more
transparent society. These various groups, also known as
“activists”, or “civic rights movements” have been registering small
victories, one small battle at a time. Their most recent success stories
include the salvaging of the Trchkan waterfall from the construction of
a power plant at that site, the preservation of green space in downtown
Yerevan known as Mashtots purak, and the resignation of Member of
Parliament Ruben Hairapetyan following the murder of an innocent man,
Vahe Avetyan, in Hairapetyan's Harsnakar restaurant.
Likewise, their
sustained efforts have succeeded in creating a high-profile media
exposure for the plight of the Teghout wild forest and surrounding
villages facing extinction because of a proposed mega copper-mining
project. The audience of these "civic movements “ is growing steadily,
and their voices are getting louder. Their collective actions have the
potential of initiating a real metamorphosis of the Armenian psyche, and
possibly nothing short of a real Renaissance of the Armenian
society.
These collective concerns, as well as the emerging new voices with
their accompanying hopes and demands of a civil society, belong to the
whole Armenian Nation, in the Diaspora as well as in Armenia and
Artsakh.
If we truly believe in the “One Nation” concept, we cannot stay
on the sidelines of these proposed reforms. While it is true that
change can occur only from within (Armenia), it is also true that the
Diaspora can play a crucial role in the search for more transparency,
justice, and accountability. This is the time for the Diaspora
to stand-up with our people, this is the time for the Diaspora to
reflect and return to the very fundamentals that guided the creation of
all our political parties, churches, benevolent groups, and other
institutions.
This is the time to refrain from political manoeuvering,
influence-peddling and power struggles that have misdirected our
Diaspora’s actions in recent years, thus becoming part of the problem.
This is the time to think of new and more principled strategies to try
and become part of the solution. This is the time to stop playing “small
p” politics and to defend the principles for which all our institutions
were created. As much as these civic movements need the
Diaspora, the Diaspora equally needs this metamorphosis. It is a
symbiotic relationship.
The Diaspora can only benefit. It will be
re-energized and will become stronger, and certainly more credible as it
embraces more transparency, more accountability, and more
principle-guided policies. The alternative to this path can only lead to
dire consequences for the Armenian Nation, within Armenia, and in the
Diaspora. This is the time to heed the call of the People. This is the
time to stand on the right side of history. The winds of change may
not blow again soon if we miss this opportunity.
Source: http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/society/view/27964
Lists of Agents
From
time to time our media raise the issue of lustration of the Soviet
KGB agents. A lot of former socialist republics, the Baltic states have
resolved this issue. Let us say nothing about Russia where the
government has been invaded by the KGB but in Armenia, Azerbaijan and
other countries the proposal to disclose those lists has been
consistently refused. Lustration has not led to disasters in any
country where it was carried out but the fact did not affect us either.
November 5 is the Intelligence Day. In a TV report Armen Martirosyan of
the Heritage Party was for lustration, Gurgen Yeghiazaryan of the ANC,
the deputy head of the National Security Service in the 1990s, was
against.
The opponents of disclosure of agents usually refer to two things: a. Lustration will split the society, a lot of people will be disappointed with their ancestors, b. The network of agents is one of the pillars of the state security and intelligence.
The opponents of disclosure of agents usually refer to two things: a. Lustration will split the society, a lot of people will be disappointed with their ancestors, b. The network of agents is one of the pillars of the state security and intelligence.
First, let us introduce a correction – let us avoid misinterpretation. Lustration is not meant for the COUNTERintelligence, the network of the Soviet agents abroad but those who cooperated with the KGB (State Security Committee). In the USSR the KGB was something like a political police and the agents reported what negative things their neighbors, colleagues, FRIENDS said about the government, what kinds of JOKES they told. For this they received money, positions, goods which were to be given to others by the defined rules of fair distribution of those times. Now tell me why the names of those people should not be declassified.
Why should their heirs not know how their ancestors ensured their wellbeing? Why should they not know that it is bad, it is not advisable to do, it is condemned by the society and the state? The most realistic scenario is that the “agents” taught their children and grandchildren act as they acted, isn’t it?
As to state or national security, they only did harm because they betrayed independent people with an independent, critical mind who are the pillars of the civil society, the system of values of the civilization. By the way, the victory in Artsakh war has been successfully privatized, and the boasting mob that evokes it from time to time should also evoke that the first volunteers and commanders of squads were targeted by the KGB. Tolerance to informers is one of the causes of today’s plight. Electoral fraud, vote buying, corruption has affected all the spheres, taxes which somehow get to the state budget are later robbed through kickbacks.
In the meantime, the number of members of ruling parties keeps growing. People who join parties know what is happening but they nevertheless join because THEY WILL GET MONEY, POSITIONS, GOODS for that or at least guarantees for their personal security. Those who are greedier than others attack people with an independent, critical mind, who are the pillars of the civil society, the system of values of the civilization, and will be at the front line… And God forbid war starts tomorrow.
Finally, what is the reason for not publishing the names of agents of the Soviet years if the lists of agents are known? Those are the lists of the ruling party (parties). The number of members of the Republican Party is several hundreds of thousands, to say nothing of the Rule of Law Party which adds another one hundred thousand. And the other parties which formed government when it was clear that the system is fully contaminated – hundreds of thousands. This is not a comforting picture but over one million has not “joined” despite pressure. From the Soviet years through our days everyone undergoes the trial of becoming an “agent”, of being recruited. There is nobody or there are extremely few people who have ever recoiled before the threat or temptation (including me). It is important not to justify but condemn oneself for what happened.
In our country fight is going on between the government and the society. And everyone must remember and understand what an “agent” means. And refuse participation. And refuse this institution.
Source: http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/society/view/27973
Was Armenia’s Parliamentary Election A Step Backward?
Over the past year, Armenia’s President Serzh Sarkisian repeatedly affirmed that he was intent on ensuring that the May 6 parliamentary ballot would be the most democratic in Armenia’s post-Soviet history. Armenia’s foreign partners wholeheartedly supported that intention. U.S. Ambassador John Heffern told RFE/RL’s Armenian Service last fall that Washington was working with Yerevan to ensure that the 2012 parliamentary ballot and the presidential election in 2013 would be "the best elections ever and fully consistent with international standards."
The May 6 parliamentary ballot failed, however, to measure up to those expectations. Indeed, in two key respects it appears to have been more seriously flawed than the previous parliamentary election in 2007. True, all eight parties and one bloc that sought to register succeeded in doing so, and were able to campaign freely. But, as the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) noted in a press release on May 7, pressure on voters by local officials from Sarkisian’s Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) and election commissions’ dismissal of many appeals and complaints "created an unequal playing field."
There were numerous reports of vote-buying by the HHK. Purportedly charitable activities by its coalition partner Prosperous Armenia (BH), including the distribution of some 500 tractors in rural areas by a company owned by BH chairman Gagik Tsarukian, were seen by international election monitors as incompatible with the new electoral code.
The May 6 parliamentary ballot failed, however, to measure up to those expectations. Indeed, in two key respects it appears to have been more seriously flawed than the previous parliamentary election in 2007. True, all eight parties and one bloc that sought to register succeeded in doing so, and were able to campaign freely. But, as the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM) noted in a press release on May 7, pressure on voters by local officials from Sarkisian’s Republican Party of Armenia (HHK) and election commissions’ dismissal of many appeals and complaints "created an unequal playing field."
There were numerous reports of vote-buying by the HHK. Purportedly charitable activities by its coalition partner Prosperous Armenia (BH), including the distribution of some 500 tractors in rural areas by a company owned by BH chairman Gagik Tsarukian, were seen by international election monitors as incompatible with the new electoral code.
Inaccurate Electoral Rolls
In addition, continued problems arising from inaccurate electoral rolls compounded voters' lack of trust in the fairness of the election process. On behalf of the Inter-Party Center for Public Oversight of the Elections established by BH, the opposition Armenian National Congress (HAK), and the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (HHD), 28 members of the outgoing parliament appealed late last month to Armenia’s Constitutional Court to lift the ban on publishing lists after the elections of those voters who cast ballots.
Numerous procedural violations and glitches were reported on polling-day, including overcrowding at polling stations and what one international monitor described as "less than productive" attempts by domestic observers or proxies from the various opposition parties to assume duties that are the prerogative of precinct commission personnel.
At one polling station in Kotayk province, a precinct official invalidated ballot papers filled out by persons he suspected of voting for a party other than the HHK by placing them in the wrong ballot box. (Each voter was required to complete one ballot paper for the majoritarian candidate in his constituency and one for the nationwide party-list vote. They were to be deposited in separate ballot boxes.)
Numerous procedural violations and glitches were reported on polling-day, including overcrowding at polling stations and what one international monitor described as "less than productive" attempts by domestic observers or proxies from the various opposition parties to assume duties that are the prerogative of precinct commission personnel.
At one polling station in Kotayk province, a precinct official invalidated ballot papers filled out by persons he suspected of voting for a party other than the HHK by placing them in the wrong ballot box. (Each voter was required to complete one ballot paper for the majoritarian candidate in his constituency and one for the nationwide party-list vote. They were to be deposited in separate ballot boxes.)
Disappearing Ink
The most publicized and potentially the most damaging glitch was the use of ink that faded within minutes to mark voters' passports to preclude multiple voting; it was supposed to disappear only after 12 hours. (Polling stations were open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.). Central Election Commission Chairman Tigran Mukuchian's explanation that the ink faded only because the bottle had not been shaken vigorously before use was immediately shown to be spurious.
These problems with marking passports led the Inter-Party Center for Public Oversight of the Elections to release a statement while voting was still going on; saying that the legality of the poll was under threat. The preliminary assessment by the IEOM was equivocal. It acknowledged the "open and peaceful campaign," but added that "several stakeholders" failed to comply with the revamped election law. Specifically, it noted "organizational problems, undue interference in the process and cases of significant violations … in a significant number of polling stations visited."
Observers from the IEOM visited almost 1,000 polling stations in the course of the day, and gave a negative assessment of the voting that took place at 10 percent of them. By contrast, in 2007, the IEOM described voting as "good or very good" at 94 percent of polling stations visited. The vote count too was also assessed negatively this time in "almost one fifth" of the 102 polling stations where observers were present, compared with 17 percent in 2007.
These problems with marking passports led the Inter-Party Center for Public Oversight of the Elections to release a statement while voting was still going on; saying that the legality of the poll was under threat. The preliminary assessment by the IEOM was equivocal. It acknowledged the "open and peaceful campaign," but added that "several stakeholders" failed to comply with the revamped election law. Specifically, it noted "organizational problems, undue interference in the process and cases of significant violations … in a significant number of polling stations visited."
Observers from the IEOM visited almost 1,000 polling stations in the course of the day, and gave a negative assessment of the voting that took place at 10 percent of them. By contrast, in 2007, the IEOM described voting as "good or very good" at 94 percent of polling stations visited. The vote count too was also assessed negatively this time in "almost one fifth" of the 102 polling stations where observers were present, compared with 17 percent in 2007.
Positive Spin
HHK spokesman Eduard Sharmazanov sought to put a positive spin on the observers' evaluation. He told RFE/RL's Armenian Service that the negative assessment of the voting in 10 percent of the polling stations visited means that the vote was "flawless" in 90 percent of the 1,982 polling stations. Preliminary results of the vote suggest that the HHK has increased its share of the parliament mandates, even though the three coalition members had signed a formal pledge in February 2011 not to seek to do so at each others' expense.
The HHK had 62 of the 131 mandates in the outgoing parliament. It has reportedly won in 32 of the 41 single-mandate constituencies, in addition to garnering 44.05 percent of the proportional vote. That translates into at least 40 of the 90 mandates allocated under the party-list system, giving a total of at least 72. BH, which has 22 mandates in the outgoing parliament, is in second place with 30 percent of the proportional vote plus seven single-mandate constituencies.
The opposition HAK polled 7.07 percent of the proportional vote, winning parliamentary representation for the first time. The opposition Heritage party garnered 5.75 percent; the HHD received 5.69 percent; and the Law-Based State part, the third member of the ruling coalition, got 5.49 percent. All three were represented in the outgoing parliament. The Communist Party of Armenia, the Democratic Party of Armenia and the United Armenians Party failed to get the minimum 5 percent of the proportional vote to qualify for parliamentary representation.
Voter turnout was measured at 62.2 percent, 10 percent higher than in 2007. The Inter-Party Center for Public Oversight of the Elections has still not commented on the election outcome, possibly because the Central Election Commission has not yet made public the final results. But senior HAK member Levon Zurabian branded the ballot "disgraceful," accusing the authorities of "resorting to the full range of falsifications" to remain in power.
The HHK had 62 of the 131 mandates in the outgoing parliament. It has reportedly won in 32 of the 41 single-mandate constituencies, in addition to garnering 44.05 percent of the proportional vote. That translates into at least 40 of the 90 mandates allocated under the party-list system, giving a total of at least 72. BH, which has 22 mandates in the outgoing parliament, is in second place with 30 percent of the proportional vote plus seven single-mandate constituencies.
The opposition HAK polled 7.07 percent of the proportional vote, winning parliamentary representation for the first time. The opposition Heritage party garnered 5.75 percent; the HHD received 5.69 percent; and the Law-Based State part, the third member of the ruling coalition, got 5.49 percent. All three were represented in the outgoing parliament. The Communist Party of Armenia, the Democratic Party of Armenia and the United Armenians Party failed to get the minimum 5 percent of the proportional vote to qualify for parliamentary representation.
Voter turnout was measured at 62.2 percent, 10 percent higher than in 2007. The Inter-Party Center for Public Oversight of the Elections has still not commented on the election outcome, possibly because the Central Election Commission has not yet made public the final results. But senior HAK member Levon Zurabian branded the ballot "disgraceful," accusing the authorities of "resorting to the full range of falsifications" to remain in power.
Source: http://www.rferl.org/content/armenia_elections_step_backward/24574517.html
After May 6, is a presidential election redundant?
The Republican Party of Armenia has walked away with the country after yesterday, apparently gaining 69 seats in the next National Assembly. RPA 69. Everybody Else 62. It is a stunning development, coming about per a turnout of 62 percent of voters. The conclusion defies real-world pattern. Following five years of economic decline, the Armenian public turned out en masse to re-elect leadership that didn’t manage to progress beyond survival, while from Britain’s Gordon Brown to France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, heads are being lopped in other elections on the world-economic-crisis landscape.
Why? What makes Armenia different? The effectiveness of widespread vote-buying may be one answer. The absence of believable alternatives to the current regime may be another. How this happened will be dissected by scientists in coming May 6 postmortems. The effect of what has happened will become clear in the gestation period for next winter’s presidential campaign, which begins now.RPA no longer needs a coalition. Not even, as a former Minister of Foreign Affairs and current sidekick to Prosperous Armenia Party boss Gagik Tsurakyan says is “one of a formal nature”.
If RPA was obliged to play well with others in the tinder-box aftermath of Armenia’s 2008 election, the party now owns the playground, the toys and the lock to the gates. The party of President Serzh Sargsyan owns the portfolio on every ministerial position, and with what is likely to be a 3-over-majority grip on the National Assembly, why would other parties even bother to show up to vote on any act of legislature the Prime Minister would bring to the floor?If what existed before Sunday of anti-RPA sentiment could have been called “opposition” it can now simply and finally be defined as irrelevant. Its leader, Levon Ter-Petrosyan, went from being the voice crying in the wilderness, to being the tree that fell in the forest and nobody heard it. Ter-Petrosyan’s 14-party bloc, the ANC, barely made it onto the upcoming parliament roster. It gained seven percent of the vote. Half a percent per party – 10 times per party weaker than Heritage, whose leader Ter-Petrosyan dissed as being mis-directed a year ago.
Going into Sunday, it was widely believed that this would be a vote in which PAP would cut into RPA's dominance. Rather, just the opposite has happened and now, what do you do if you are Tsarukyan? Even the strongest man in Armenia – figuratively and, once, literally – has to know his place against a political machine that cannot be arm-wrestled into submission.And what of Tsarukyan’s political godfather, former president Robert Kocharyan? He emerged in a rare interview a few days before the election, to tantalize analysts’ palates. Will he run for office in 2013? What place would Vartan Oskanian have on a Kocharyan ticket? Whatever decisions might have gone into answering those questions, probably became more gnarly when the Central Election Commission shut the doors and opened the boxes Sunday night.
Was Sunday’s election a referendum on public approval for Serzh Sargsyan? With a government in his pocket, apathy on his side, and party members willing to persuade voters $25 at a time, does approval matter?
Panel discussions on Sept. 29 will include the 21-year trajectory of Armenia’s statehood, economy, and society; rule of law, corruption, and elections; development of civil society; Armenian-Turkish relations; foreign policy; and natural resources policy. Speakers for this year’s gathering, co-sponsored by the Armenian Society of Columbia University and the ARF Western Region, will be announced shortly. Past conferences have featured Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, and Tariq Ali. “The Armenians and Progressive Politics” conference is not simply an academic forum,” said Dikran Kaligian, chairman of the organizing committee. “Our goal is to bring together like-minded activists, intellectuals, and community members to foster critical engagement with Armenian issues and society.” The conference will travel to Los Angeles on Oct. 6 and 7. Details about both the East and West Coast sessions will follow. For information on past “Armenians and Progressive Politics” conferences, visit www.armenianprogressive.com.
Source: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/04/19/armenians-and-progressive-politics-conference-returns/
Payaslian to Speak on ‘Political Economy of Human Rights in Armenia’
On Thurs., May 10, Prof. Simon Payaslian, the Charles K. and Elisabeth M. Kenosian Chair in Modern Armenian History and Literature at Boston University, will give a lecture entitled “The Political Economy of Human Rights in Armenia” at the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR) Center in Belmont. The lecture is co-sponsored by the Zoryan Institute for Contemporary Armenian Research and Documentation and NAASR. Since its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Armenia has experienced a reversal from its earlier efforts to establish a democratic system to an authoritarian regime, continuing the repressive Soviet approaches to human rights. Payaslian will juxtapose Armenian history with the evolution of international human rights standards and survey Armenian history from the 19th century under Ottoman and Russian rule to the current situation in the post-Soviet republic. He will examine political, civil, social, and economic rights while highlighting the clash between sovereignty and human rights.
Source: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/04/21/payaslian-to-speak-on-political-economy-of-human-rights-in-armenia/
Elections in Armenia: An Interview with Antranig Kasbarian
The Armenian Weekly and the Hairenik Weekly conducted an interview with the chairman of the ARF Central Committee of the Eastern US on the upcoming elections in Armenia this weekend. Below is the English translation of the interview.
What can be expected from the May 6 elections in Armenia? Do you anticipate any differences from previous elections?
There will, of course, be differences between these elections and previous ones, but unfortunately they will not be profound ones. For example, bribes are rampant and the ruling elites are “buying” votes in this pre-election period. There will also be irregularities on Election Day, but over the years, vote rigging on Election Day has decreased, giving the not-so-accurate impression that the political situation in the country is improving. There are also other differences compared to previous years. This time, the most heated battle is between the two ruling parties, the Republican Party and the Prosperous Armenia Party, while the opposition forces, even the Armenian National Congress, appear weak and vulnerable.
What can you say in this context about the specific case of the ARF
There are certain differences here too. When the ARF was still part of the government—when it had ministers and local governors—means to impact the overall election process were available. Also, the ARF received some support from the ruling elite—such support is almost certainly precluded today. Therefore, more than ever, the ARF has to now rely on its own abilities, continuing to strengthen its ties with citizens from all walks of life. This requires relentless efforts in the spheres of communications, outreach, finances, etc.
The ARF has prepared an election platform that stands out. Do you think it will attract a significant number of voters?
Yes, the ARF has prepared a truly comprehensive pre-election program that reflects our broad platform. It covers the important bases—the political, economic, social, and foreign policy dimensions—objectively presenting the current state of affairs and suggesting possible solutions. The ARF leadership in Armenia has invested a significant amount of time on this effort, and has been presenting its election platform at campaign events and rallies across the country.
Unfortunately, the pre-election atmosphere and culture in the country has deteriorated in recent years. Election platforms and programs, which should have a profound impact on the voter, fail to do so. Instead, finances have the greatest impact on the voter. Unfortunately, election money speaks louder and more convincingly than comprehensive election platforms. I cannot blame the people entirely, though, because many are under profound financial duress and are looking for means to improve their lot. Regardless, the ARF is steadfast on the conviction that the people deserve fair, transparent elections, based on political debate and a healthy discourse. We are hopeful that this will be realized in the coming days.
The platform itself is a very extensive document, which includes all the reforms that we consider to be imperative. In the economic sphere, for examples, it envisions laws that secure a competitive economy, and one which encourages exports. In the social sphere, it proposes laws to guarantee freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Laws are also proposed to secure the independence of the judiciary, to reform the electoral system, etc. For more details, go to www.arf2012.am.
We often hear that the ARF has not succeeded in galvanizing a broad base, why is this the case? Moving ahead, do you see this changing?
It is difficult to give a definitive answer to this question. On the one hand, it is a fact that the current ruling elite—the Republicans and Prosperous Armenia in particular—are doing their utmost to maintain the status quo. Against this onslaught, the task of the opposition parties has become considerably difficult. The ARF, the Heritage Party, and the Armenian National Congress and others are all trying to secure a broad base of support. While the people closely follow the political developments, the press conferences, and election campaigns, it is important to note that to follow developments is one thing, to go out and vote is another. I have often witnessed certain political leaders and candidates receiving enthusiastic support in villages and towns during election campaigns, but the election results have not reflected this enthusiasm.
The ruling elite continuously stresses that the election will be free and transparent. Do you share that optimism?
To be fair, in recent years, Election Day in Armenia has been much more peaceful and calm than before. The means of the past—beatings, threats, switching ballot boxes, etc.—are still employed, but much less frequently than before. The reasons for this improvement are many: the influence of foreign observers, international pressure, etc. But the general state of affairs, in essence, remains the same. Now the means are different; Armenia’s oligarchs secure their positions through bribes, maneuvers, and “legal” means. Thus the process is increasingly becoming more comparable to the kinds of corruption that we encounter in “civilized” countries. Of course the majority of the people notices this, which is why they have become so cynical.
What are the chances of the ARF in these elections?
I think the ARF can clear the five percent mark required for political parties to secure seats in parliament. I believe that the ARF will gain the confidence of the people, especially for the seats allocated through proportional representation. The party also has a core constituency of loyal voters, who vote for the ARF because they admire its stance on national issues. But today, due to the dire circumstances in the country, social and economic issues take precedence over national issues for the voters.
Source: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2012/05/04/the-elections-in-armenia-an-interview-with-antranig-kasbarian/
Giragosian to Diaspora - Stop Regarding Armenia as Disneyland
Richard Giragosian, who heads the Regional Studies Center think-tank in Yerevan, declared it was high time for the diaspora to stop viewing Armenia as a “Disneyland”. Giragosian, a transplanted diaspora Armenian, stated Armenia must become the center of the universe for Armenian worldwide, where issues of human rights, democracy and economic development assume equal importance with genocide recognition. The analyst said that the Armenian government should be doing much more to facilitate conditions leading to more from the diapora moving to Armenia. Giragosian has been living in Armenia for the past seven years. He stated that both for those living in Armenia and diaspora-Armenians, there are two basic challenges – a lack of possibilities and the oligarch dominated economy.
Free and fair elections, Giragosian argued, would not only create an opportunity to improve the life of Armenian citizens, but would also improve the lot of diasporans residing in Armenia. The analyst pointed to the near total absence of any talk regarding Armenia-Turkish relations and the Genocide issue in the parliamentary campaign as indicative of the very low level of political discourse in Armenia. He labelled this politics of individuals and not serious debate. Issues of prime importance – Armenian-Turkish relations, Armenian-Russian relations, Artsakh – are infrequently discussed. He said there must be more debate on these issues so that the public gets a better grasp of the positions of the various parties.
Giragosian argued that the Armenian Genocide shouldn’t be the only issue on the diaspora’s agenda, arguing that battling the oligarchy in Armenia is also very vital given that it poses a huge threat to the state itself. The oligarchs, said Giragosian, thwart both democratic and economic development. He found it appalling that many are to be re-elected to the country’s parliament.
Free and fair elections, Giragosian argued, would not only create an opportunity to improve the life of Armenian citizens, but would also improve the lot of diasporans residing in Armenia. The analyst pointed to the near total absence of any talk regarding Armenia-Turkish relations and the Genocide issue in the parliamentary campaign as indicative of the very low level of political discourse in Armenia. He labelled this politics of individuals and not serious debate. Issues of prime importance – Armenian-Turkish relations, Armenian-Russian relations, Artsakh – are infrequently discussed. He said there must be more debate on these issues so that the public gets a better grasp of the positions of the various parties.
Giragosian argued that the Armenian Genocide shouldn’t be the only issue on the diaspora’s agenda, arguing that battling the oligarchy in Armenia is also very vital given that it poses a huge threat to the state itself. The oligarchs, said Giragosian, thwart both democratic and economic development. He found it appalling that many are to be re-elected to the country’s parliament.
Azerbaijani Film Festival With A Political Tinge
At the beginning of April, director of the Caucasus Center of Peacemaking Initiatives Georgi Vanyan announced on his Facebook profile that the Azerbaijani Film Festival ”STOP” would be held on 12 April in Gyumri. However, the citizens of the city, including the Mayor Vartan Ghukasyan (a member of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia) organised numerous protests against the event. The festival could not be held in any of the local screening rooms. ”Asparez” club, where the festival was to take place, was closed. The citizens picketed the club, holding banners “No to the Azerbaijani Film Festival!”
In the afternoon of 12 April, Vanyan announced that the Festival had been cancelled and he left Gyumri. On his Facebook profile, he wrote: “Attention! Azerbaijani Film Festival in Armenia has been disrupted once again. I would like to apologise to our audience and assure you that we are consistent in holding the festival and creating the space of freedom of speech and direct communication in Armenia, despite the propaganda and terror, which grow in strength because of deterioration of humanistic ideas and rejection of reason.”
Such a response was expected, for it was already in 2010 that Vanyan failed to organise the festival in Yerevan. As it turned out, the owners of 10 screening rooms in Yerevan refused him renting them for the festival, even though the Ambassadors of the United States of America and the United Kingdom were to attend it. However, in 2010 there was no report of the authorities’ contribution to the situation. The activity of the local authorities of Gyumri is a litmus test of the pre-election atmosphere in Armenia.
Festival on the road
Despite the pressure and unfavourable conditions, the festival was held in a roadside tavern on the way between Gyumri and Yerevan. Four films were screened – one documentary and three feature films, all shot in Azerbaijan between 2007 and 2008. There were 26 viewers, 24 of whom are to determine the winner of the Audience Award. Another screening will be held on 17 April in Vanadzor, in the Helsinki Assembly office. The festival is funded by the embassies of the United States of America and the United Kingdom. In 2010, when the event was cancelled for the first time, no one interfered or even suggested a room for the screenings, though the embassies had suitable room capabilities.
Are Turkish films better than Azerbaijani films?
It is no news that the main cause of Armenian aversion to Azerbaijani films is the mutual hostility of both nations and the unsettled Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But Armenia has another enemy – Turkey, which in solidarity with Azerbaijan closed the border crossing with Armenia in 1993. Yerevan has demanded for years that Ankara acknowledges the Turkish genocide of Armenians during the World War I. Turkey denies this claim and speaks only of deportation. However, for years the screenings of Turkish films during the “Golden Apricot” Festival have been held in Armenia. Besides, in 2010, when the Azerbaijani Film Festival was cancelled, Georgi Vanyan organised the Turkish Film Festival funded by the Embassy of Great Britain. No one interfered with the event at that time. It is worth mentioning that, in contrast to Azerbaijan, there have been attempts at normalising the relations with Turkey.
Political issues?
Taking into consideration the situation, one can say that the taste of Armenians depends not only on the trends in film and culture but also the political stand of the authorities. It is possible that in case of introducing policy of improvement the Azerbaijan-Armenia relations, Armenians will no longer be against the Azerbaijani Film Festival and local authorities will not become the leaders of demonstrations against the festival.
In the afternoon of 12 April, Vanyan announced that the Festival had been cancelled and he left Gyumri. On his Facebook profile, he wrote: “Attention! Azerbaijani Film Festival in Armenia has been disrupted once again. I would like to apologise to our audience and assure you that we are consistent in holding the festival and creating the space of freedom of speech and direct communication in Armenia, despite the propaganda and terror, which grow in strength because of deterioration of humanistic ideas and rejection of reason.”
Such a response was expected, for it was already in 2010 that Vanyan failed to organise the festival in Yerevan. As it turned out, the owners of 10 screening rooms in Yerevan refused him renting them for the festival, even though the Ambassadors of the United States of America and the United Kingdom were to attend it. However, in 2010 there was no report of the authorities’ contribution to the situation. The activity of the local authorities of Gyumri is a litmus test of the pre-election atmosphere in Armenia.
Festival on the road
Despite the pressure and unfavourable conditions, the festival was held in a roadside tavern on the way between Gyumri and Yerevan. Four films were screened – one documentary and three feature films, all shot in Azerbaijan between 2007 and 2008. There were 26 viewers, 24 of whom are to determine the winner of the Audience Award. Another screening will be held on 17 April in Vanadzor, in the Helsinki Assembly office. The festival is funded by the embassies of the United States of America and the United Kingdom. In 2010, when the event was cancelled for the first time, no one interfered or even suggested a room for the screenings, though the embassies had suitable room capabilities.
Are Turkish films better than Azerbaijani films?
It is no news that the main cause of Armenian aversion to Azerbaijani films is the mutual hostility of both nations and the unsettled Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But Armenia has another enemy – Turkey, which in solidarity with Azerbaijan closed the border crossing with Armenia in 1993. Yerevan has demanded for years that Ankara acknowledges the Turkish genocide of Armenians during the World War I. Turkey denies this claim and speaks only of deportation. However, for years the screenings of Turkish films during the “Golden Apricot” Festival have been held in Armenia. Besides, in 2010, when the Azerbaijani Film Festival was cancelled, Georgi Vanyan organised the Turkish Film Festival funded by the Embassy of Great Britain. No one interfered with the event at that time. It is worth mentioning that, in contrast to Azerbaijan, there have been attempts at normalising the relations with Turkey.
Political issues?
Taking into consideration the situation, one can say that the taste of Armenians depends not only on the trends in film and culture but also the political stand of the authorities. It is possible that in case of introducing policy of improvement the Azerbaijan-Armenia relations, Armenians will no longer be against the Azerbaijani Film Festival and local authorities will not become the leaders of demonstrations against the festival.
Source: http://eastbook.eu/en/2012/04/material-en/news-en/armenia-azerbaijani-film-festival-with-a-political-tinge/
Armenia: Diversity Marchers Attacked by Ultranationalists
A march to mark tolerance and diversity held in Yerevan on Monday was
severely disrupted by ultra nationalists who attacked activists, tore
posters and hurled insults at the crowd, while they marched through
downtown with police escorts. Signs that read “No to Perversion” were held by around a 100 counter
protesters, mostly young men, many of whom equated themselves as
protecting Armenian values and the marchers with corrupting them.
“Shame” and “Gays go to Baku” were chants regularly employed in an
effort to intimidate the activists.
Organized by Public in Need of Information and Knowledge and the
Womens’ Resource Center, the Diversity March was planned to mark the
United Nation’s World Day of Cultural Diversity. The march and its
counter protest came at a time when the socially conservative South
Caucasus country is locked in a national debate after the firebombing of alternative and gay-friendly bar, DIY and subsequent support of the arsonist’s actions by elected officials, who praised the two men, Iranian-Armenian brothers, for protecting Armenia from homosexuality, which they considered a moral ill.
The counter protesters enveloped and outnumbered the organizers and
activists, pushing into them and grabbing at signs as the crowd made its
way Northern Avenue, according to a source who was present at the march
and spoke to ianyanmag via email on the condition of anonymity. Once both crowds arrived at Northern Avenue, the situation became
elevated as police quelled scuffles that erupted while the march moved
on and ended up in the lobby of the Golden Tulip hotel.
“It took the forcible removal by the police to clear the way for our
entrance,” the source said. “We were literally walking through a
gauntlet of screaming angry young men, escorted by police into the
building. As soon as I entered my fear again escalated.”
The men, who called the diversity marchers “Turks,” also exhibited
Hitler-like salutes and told them to go back to “Baku,” a dig at
Armenia’s longstanding “frozen conflict” with neighboring Azerbaijan
stemming from the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Nora Kayserian, a ianyan contributor who was at the march said she felt disgusted and uneasy about the confrontation.
“This was the first march I’ve ever attended in Yerevan and the first
march I’ve been to where there was a counter protest,” she said. “The
hatred and anger in the eyes of the ultra nationalists was frightening. I
could see it growing worse.”
Maro Matosian from the Women’s Support Center was also at the march
and said the inexperience of the police in dealing with opposite view
points and mobs was apparent. “There was no barrier between us and them,” she said in an email
interview with ianyanmag from Armenia. “Finally I asked the police to
separate us and we walked ahead…Thank God the police cordoned us as
there were several attempts to attack the peaceful protesters.”
Our anonymous source agreed.
“The police saved lives,” he said. “There is not a single doubt in my
mind that left without police protection, there would have been death
at the hands of the angry young men. The police were professional in
every way. These were the same guys I would see out at Mashtots Park.”
Many marchers, frightening by the counter attack, abandoned and left the crowd. After the dispersal of both groups, there were reports that many of the men
left to go to DIY to vandalize it once again. Messages specifically
directed to the bar’s owner, Tsomak Oganesova were written on the walls,
including one that said “Tsomak, we won’t let you breathe.”
The attacks on the bar have been tied to organized ultranationalist,
neo- nazi groups, including one named “Dark Ravens Armenia,” said to be
responsible behind the bombing and subsequent vandalisms. The
preparation of the counter protesters was a clue that the attack at the
march was from more than a group of rowdy men, said Matosian.
“All their signs were uniform thus the thought that were were not
random people, but an organized, backed up mass and financed as well.”
The diversity’s marchers signs were hand written, she said, adding
that in one instance when she arrived at a police station after three
young people were caught vandalizing DIY after the initial attack, the
parents of the attackers attested that their sons belonged to
neo-fascists groups.
“We got very worried because we understood that there is a force and groups behind this vandalism.”
While the young men perceived the march as a ‘gay parade,’ activists insist it was to celebrate diversity and tolerance. “It was not a gay parade. It was not a march for homosexual rights,” Matosian said. Yelena Osipova, who blogs at Global Chaos was also at the march and
posted a full account, including video, of what she saw in a post
titled, “Diversity March in Yerevan Hijacked by Ultranationalists.”
“The Armenian Constitution does ensure human rights and equality
before law of all its citizens (Articles 14 and 14.1),” she wrote.
“Despite that, however, it is clear that the majority of the public does
not care about the law and still believes in the superiority of the
its conservative and rigid social values in this case.”
Priests also showed up at the march, praising “patriotic youth” “who
had gathered there to demonstrate their devotion to God and their
nation,” she continued. Nareg Seferian, writing in the Armenian Weekly in an article titled, “A Good Day for Homophobia in Yerevan,” noted a young man who exclaimed his disdain for rule of law by saying he “spit on the constitution.”
While activists in the country attempt to make headway, the support
of arson attacks by authority figures and distortion in local media,
many of whom focused on the counter protesters and mislabeled the event as a gay parade, makes their work difficult.
“One thing must be done at government level and professional level
–dispell the ignorance and condemn prejudice, discrimination, punish
hate crimes,” Matosian said. “We should not here or read commentary from
sexologists and other so called experts that homosexuality is a disease
that can be spread, and people get contaminated just b y listening to
the topic. Or that gays can influence the sexual orientation of young
people, and that gays do propaganda to recruit people.”
Kayserian said she hopes the confrontation does not deter activists
from their goals. “We cannot afford to lose progressives in this
country,” she said. “We have to think of more strategies of dealing with
these issues and we have to be patient.” Our anonymous source echoed the sentiments.
“I continue to believe that the fascists are in the minority in this
country, or I would leave Armenia,” he said. “Like the U.S., Armenia has
its share of fanatics. I have many friends here that do not like
homosexuality but would never resort to violence or intimidation to
oppose it.”
Today, Armenia’s Human Rights Defender Karen Andreasyan condemned
[in Armenian] the violence against the country’s LGBT community as well
as the public statements from officials in support of the attack. The
Gay and Lesbian Armenian Society of Los Angeles also released a
statement condemning the attacks, calling them “clear examples of
discrimination and oppression based solely on a person’s sexual
orientation.”
They also called on the reprimanding and dismissal of the supporting
officials.”Let not those who have faced the reality of intolerance and
hatred inflict it upon others, no matter what the ‘context of our
societal and national ideals,’” they said.
Source: http://www.ianyanmag.com/2012/05/23/armenia-diversity-marchers-attacked-by-ultranationalists
Representatives of the Armenian and Turkish civil society to come together
at a conference in Istanbul
On
October 22-23, 2012, more than 50 representatives of the Armenian and
Turkish civil society and expert communities will come together at a
conference in Istanbul to discuss the role of non-state actors in
promoting Armenia-Turkey relations. The conference is organized as part of the “Support to Armenia-Turkey
Rapprochement” (SATR) project, funded by the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), and implemented by the Eurasia
Partnership Foundation, Yerevan Press Club, International Center for
Human Development, and Union of Manufacturers and Businessmen
(Employers) of Armenia.
Key Turkish partners for the project include the Global Political Trends Center, the Turkish-Armenian the Business Development Council, Anadolu Kültür, the GAYA Research Institute, the Media and Communications Department of Izmir University of Economics, Toplum Gönüllüleri Vakfi, the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, and the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey.
Key Turkish partners for the project include the Global Political Trends Center, the Turkish-Armenian the Business Development Council, Anadolu Kültür, the GAYA Research Institute, the Media and Communications Department of Izmir University of Economics, Toplum Gönüllüleri Vakfi, the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, and the Economic Policy Research Foundation of Turkey.
The conference will summarize the outputs, achievements, and lessons learned during the two years of the Support to Armenia-Turkey Rapprochement Project implementation, as well as present an opportunity to discuss strategies for the road ahead for non-state actors in promoting Armenia-Turkey relations.
USAID and its partner organizations support Armenia-Turkey rapprochement by facilitating engagement between civil society groups, establishment and development of business partnerships and regional professional networks, and enhanced understanding between the people, for peace and economic integration in the region.
Source: http://www.armradio.am/en/2012/10/19/representatives-of-the-armenian-and-turkish-civil-society-to-come-together-at-a-conference-in-istanbul/
‘Vagina Monologues’ to Debut in Armenia
“My Vagina Speaks Many Languages”—a title so shocking that it is bound
to echo throughout the tiny former Soviet states of Armenia, Georgia,
and Azerbaijan. That’s precisely what some women’s rights organizations
are aiming for by dubbing their cross-border project—featuring the
powerful play, “The Vagina Monologues”—just that. Their aim is to stop
violence against girls and women and to propel regional and domestic
discussions on the issue, a topic that’s often deemed too taboo for
public acknowledgement.
The Women’s Resource Center in Yerevan has been spearheading the
national debate on domestic and sexual violence in Armenia. This year,
they will launch the first ever Armenian performance of Eve Ensler’s
“The Vagina Monologues.”
For those unfamiliar with it, the play tells the stories of various
women, covering topics such as sexual violence—battery, rape, incest,
female genital mutilation, and trafficking of women—and love, sex,
menstruation, childbirth, and masturbation. It has been performed in
over 140 countries, and in over 48 languages.
“I first thought, years ago, to translate it into Armenian—just to
distribute—so women here can read it and get inspired. Then, one of our
partner organizations in Tbilisi, Georgia, suggested translating it to
their language. We had a discussion with them to do it regionally, and
[to] also include Azerbaijan—[through] another partner organization we
knew there,” said Lara Aharonian, the founder and director of the
Women’s Resource Center, in her statements to the Armenian Weekly.
To support anti-violence organizations across the globe, Ensler
founded the V-Day organization. In an effort to raise awareness about
injustices against women, and to impact women’s lives in a positive way,
V-Day allows local groups to produce a select number of monologues,
under strict guidelines and as a fundraising and advocacy tool for
organizations fighting violence against women.
Audiences in Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan will soon have the
opportunity to absorb the play in their native tongues, and even
dialects. “‘The Vagina Monologues’ is being translated into three
languages,” noted Aharonian. “Until now, we [have] translated five
monologues into Eastern Armenian and one into Western Armenian. We will
do one in a Barskahay [Armenian-Iranian] dialect, and will try to find other accents also (Gyumri, Kapan…).”
The organizers are hoping to hold the opening of the play in Tbilisi
by the end of February, under the headline, “My Vagina Speaks Many
Languages.” From Tbilisi, the production will travel to Yerevan and a few
regional cities in Armenia, where it will be performed solely in
Armenian. “If everything goes well, we will do it every year as a
tradition, and [will] also include local monologues,” said Aharonian,
who hopes to reach larger audiences in the future.
In order to produce the play, an organization must be a registered
member of V-Day. Although there are over 200 monologues, the production
must last about 90 minutes, limiting the number of featured monologues.
“The monologues are already chosen by the official V-Day organizers in
the US. We officially registered with them and they are very excited
with helping us, since it is the first time for the region and in
Armenian. We will also send them the Armenian version for their
archive,” she explained.
Aharonian ‘s encounter with Ensler’s work goes back to her college
years. “I was first introduced to ‘The Vagina Monologues’ performance by
Rada Rovic, who is a professor of women’s studies in Zagreb, Croatia,”
said Aharonian. “[I] learned from her how they used [the play] as a way
of voicing women’s life, hard topics like sexual violence and other
related issues in a very artistic and direct way… This way, they could
touch many women’s lives and get them to speak about things that they
would find very hard to do so otherwise.”
Years later, as the director of the Women’s Resource Center,
Aharonian decided the play would be an effective tool in discussing
topics that are often avoided or suppressed. “I found that this is a
good way for the women in Armenia as well to voice their issues, talk
about things that are very difficult to talk about, the body, the
violence, [and] women’s lives,” she said.
Chilling, powerful, and often graphic, the monologues can draw strong
emotional responses from audience members. “My Vagina Was My Village,”
for instance, draws from the testimonies of Bosnian women who survived
the rape camps, and is a harrowing rendition of their accounts. The center held a casting session on Jan. 20 and now has a group of
six women ready to work on the production. Maral Bakavan, the project
coordinator, will supervise the performance.
“The performers are regular women from different ages and
backgrounds. [They] will practice with Maral for the next weeks,” said
Aharonian. “For the Yerevan opening, we are thinking to do it somewhere
at the end of March—during women’s month in Armenia—in a small theater,
and donate the raised amount to the sexual assault crisis center.”
V-Day requires that profits be donated to an organization fighting to
end violence against women and girls. Ten percent of that must be
donated to the organization’s yearly project spotlight. This year, the
focus is on Haiti, where violence against women and girls is high—at 74
percent prior to the January 2010 earthquake, according to V-Day, and
increasing ever since. On Feb. 4, the organization is opening its
all-female village in the Congo, a country devastated by war and where
rape is systematically used to destroy communities. The village, called
“The City of Joy,” will be a place for rape victims to recover from
their psychological and physical traumas.
Each year a new monologue is added to the list. Ensler wrote this
year’s monologue in memory of Myriam Merlet, a woman’s rights activist
and writer, who died in the Haiti earthquake. In Armenia, reactions to the play have been varied. Given its title,
some are expecting a much different, R-rated production. “The media is
very interested to know more here—but more for sensational reasons. They
never heard about this, and they think it is an erotic show that we
will be doing, so they call us, inquire,” said Aharonian.
Others have voiced criticism or disapproval. “Of course, some
nationalist youth are starting to criticize, mock, and demean us on
their blogs, but we are getting used to this kind of reaction,” said
Aharonian. “We are taking our precautions. That is why for the first
year we will aim more at a smaller audience and build it up gradually.”
In a Dec. 2010 op-ed published in the Guardian, Ensler wrote, “Vagina
is the most terrifying word, the most threatening word, in any language
of any country I have ever been to. Even when the vagina is worshipped
in theory, as the yoni is in India, it is denigrated in
practice. It is more reviled and feared than words like plutonium,
genocide, and starvation. In many countries the word for female
genitalia is so derogative or disgusting, it cannot be spoken of in
public. In a few places, there is no word in the language for vagina at
all.”
Misunderstandings or fears aside, awareness of women’s issues is
rising in Armenia. In recent months, the Coalition to Stop Violence
against Women in Armenia was formed, and planned and executed the “16
Days of Activism to Stop Violence against Women” dedicated to the memory
of a 20-year-old mother—Zaruhi Petrosyan—whose brutal murder sent
shockwaves throughout Armenia. The Women’s Resource Center has been at
the forefront of these efforts, pushing the envelope. And like it or
not, “The Vagina Monologues” will encourage an undaunted discussion of
women’s concerns and rights in Armenia.
Source: http://www.armenianweekly.com/2011/01/29/vagina-monologues-to-debut-in-armenia/
The Armenian Diaspora We Don’t Know
Approximately 90,000 Armenians migrated from a number of other countries to Armenia during what we could call a “second wave,” between 1946 and 1948. What happened during this great wave, the way Armenia treated these people, the failure for many years to consider them as equals of the local Armenians, discriminating against them and mistreating them, have been major factors in the relations between the diaspora and Armenia. Subsequent to the independence of Armenia, “openings” were initiated for the diaspora. In 1988, a specialized unit for relations with the diaspora was established at the Foreign Ministry; the Committee on Relations with the Diaspora, founded in April 2008, was renamed the Diaspora Ministry in October 2008. Before analyzing the diaspora policy of Armenia and the institutions and projects devised to implement this policy, for a better understanding of the subject matter and of the meaning of Armenia for the diaspora, it is necessary to understand the initial contact between the diaspora and the homeland, how the diaspora Armenians were treated and the relevant phases; only this perspective would help us understand the diaspora better.
Re-emerging dream for homeland
Re-emerging dream for homeland
People who were once expelled from their homes, whose families were shattered and their assets gone, became hopeful again that they could go back to their homeland. The Armenians, dispersed all around the world, were influenced by the Soviet propaganda and took a journey to the unknown, changing everything in the countries where they were settled; they were convinced that in their new home, they would have great opportunities for housing, employment and social benefits. With the exception of the newspapers and magazines affiliated with the Dashnak Party, almost the entire media of the Armenian diaspora did their best to call the Armenians back to their homeland; conferences were held to accelerate the process. Back then, the most popular discussion among Armenians was migration to Armenia. Disapproving of the migration was treated as treason within the Armenian community.
But even before arrival in Soviet Armenia, the migrants realized that something was wrong with this dream. Upon the arrival of the ships and trains carrying the Armenians to Baku, Batumi and other border cities, they were asked whether they had previously served in the military or had ties with a political party (particularly the Dashnak Party), and what sort of publications they had with them. The Armenians who did not understand the point of this practice were hoping that things would change once they arrived at their homes, but this did not happen. Life was not as depicted by the Soviet diplomats. There was a shortage in stores of bread after the war; food scarcity was a big problem. There were no clothing stores or chocolate stores in Armenia like the Armenians were used to in their previous homes. There were also limited housing opportunities; with few exceptions, no one was given a house. The people were given empty lands and told to build their own houses. Some loans were provided; however, it was impossible for the newly arrived Armenians to create a new homeland. The promises of employment also failed. The immigrants had to do something to make a living.
Diaspora fooled
They were fooled. It did not take long for them to realize this. A few of them remained calm vis-à-vis what had happened; they were aware that it was a post-war period and for this reason, they would do their best to contribute to their country. But they changed their minds after they realized they were being treated as second-class citizens; when they noticed that no matter what they did, they would remain apart from the locals and suspect in their eyes, a visible schism emerged between the diaspora Armenians and Armenia. The nationalist Armenians were flagged as anti-regime and opponents of the system, and were exiled to Siberia; in addition, the Armenians who were members of the Communist Party in their previous countries were not treated as true communists in Armenia. The newcomers were treated as newly admitted members to the party. According to the Soviets, it was not wise to trust the party members coming from capitalist countries; however, the primary reason these people migrated to Soviet Armenia was to live under the type of government they had been fighting for in their previous states for many years.
Alexan Kirakosyan, who had held top positions in Soviet Armenia, including deputy prime minister, also served as the head of the “migration and issues department” for many years; for this reason, he was someone who best knew what the Armenians from abroad had to deal with. In his book, “Before Sunset,” which he refers to as a memoir, painful as it was to write, he says: “These people had dexterity; they were great masters, and for this reason, they became famous within a short period of time. The Armenian people learned a lot from them in terms of craftsmanship. We failed to settle them, and we failed to ensure that they blended in with the local people; they were excluded. They built their own houses in the empty lands they were given, and they named these places after the homelands they had lost: Arapgir, Zeytun, Maraş… Once, I had a letter penned by one of these people; his son, a student in high school, participated in a school trip to a factory. His son was told that he could not be admitted into the facility because it was part of a defense industrial zone, and he was the son of a family from abroad. I got angry; that much discrimination was just unacceptable. First thing in the morning, I went to talk to the manager of the factory; he was also upset. But he told me that he was complying with orders from outside Armenia.”
Being treated differently, being suspected, humiliated and condescended to was no longer bearable for the people from abroad who were dubbed “newcomers.” There was a huge difference of perception between them and the local people. For the “newcomers,” trade was a major tool with which to make a living, and they did not understand why it was seen by the Soviet people as an embarrassment. Trade was an offense akin to thievery in this system. The language barrier between the “newcomers,” who were accused of spreading bourgeois ways, and the local people was a whole different problem. These people spoke Western Armenian, only a few of them went to college, they were unaware of Marxism and Leninism and they were not like the Soviet peoples. They called each other “akhbar,” a popular reference to “yeghbayr” (brother). The locals started calling them by this name after awhile; they became akhbars, but nobody liked this word because of the condescending meaning it bore.
Akhbars who made coffee, baloney and kadayıf popular
Avik Isahakyan, a local writer from Yerevan, in an article titled “Our Akhbars,” where he praises the diaspora Armenians, says: “Men shaved all the time. They were elegantly dressed. The women were like ladies and the men like gentlemen. They wore sunglasses in summer. They did not eat anything on the streets like we did, and they did not drink consecutive tanks of beer. They were polite. We learned from them of baklava, imam bayıldı, kadayıf and Turkish delight. And most importantly, when you went to their homes as guests, they served coffee in small cups. And how about the baloney that the İstanbulites made, that was on the black market, and only those who had good connections could purchase it. We offended them; we called them akhbars, and we belittled them. However, they were the best shoemakers, the best tailors, cooks and mechanics. They introduced many things to our lives.” The diaspora Armenians tried to adapt; they learned how to hide their religious orientation and Christian objects, how to get married without a religious ceremony and how to bury their loved ones without reciting a prayer. They were compelled to learn how to pay bribes in order to sell their products on the black markets, and they partly succeeded, but most of them failed to feel like they belonged to Armenia. They looked for any way to escape; some of them did actually find out how to leave the country.
Paris, our home
Amid growing poverty, discrimination and other inhumane treatment, it was necessary to escape. The “newcomers” who gathered at the park where the Shahumyan statue is erected today in Yerevan chatted there about their issues. All of them were affiliated with a committee, and when they were done with their meetings, they came to the park to discuss their issues. They named the park “Garden of Wailing” because this is where they told each other their stories about what they were experiencing and how they were suffering from discrimination. The image they had had in mind in respect to the homeland was completely undermined, particularly when they were exiled to Siberia as political prisoners. Even though this was not a practice peculiar to the newcomers, it hurt them. They were unable to understand where their homeland was. They were aliens in Europe, but how about in Armenia? What were they now? And they got confused; in the early 1960s, they started discussing whether leaving was the best option. Initially, some of them migrated to France; diaspora members raised their voices during an official trip by the French foreign minister in 1962 to Yerevan and said they would like to go home, to Paris; Christian Pineau realized the gravity of the issue and subsequently, he contacted Moscow to ask for the relocation of 7,000 Armenians to France between 1962 and 1964. These relocations, which commenced with France, continued with the United States. An Armenian who applied to migrate to the US explains this in his memoirs: “The officer said: ‘You want to go to the US -- do you have any relatives over there?’ I replied calmly, ‘Did you ask whether I had relatives when you sent me to Siberia in 1949 in exile?’”
As of the 1970s, the akhbars started to leave Armenia; the diaspora Armenians have had to deal with difficulties and hardships in other countries. This time, the Armenians -- who were not welcomed in Armenia -- were treated by the diaspora Armenians as Armenians from Armenia; they were once again discriminated against. It should be acknowledged that the project of returning to the homeland, a plan devised by Stalin, did not pave the way for the reunion of Armenians and construction of a new homeland for them; on the contrary, this wave of migration moved Armenians, who did not know one another, away from their homelands. Bad memories created fears, and the fears generated prejudices. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the children of those who left the country failed to internalize the independence of Armenia. They could not get rid of this prejudice held against them in Armenia, where they visited as tourists; and in return, like they were once treated, they began to belittle the people of Armenia, trying to teach them rather than understand them. Even as late as the 1990s and 2000s, the diaspora and the Armenian people were unable to get rid of the stereotypes they had developed regarding each other.
Source: http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=276686
US should work to strengthen relations with Azerbaijan
The violence plaguing the Arab world should move U.S. policy
makers, decision makers and experts to consider how and why the U.S.
should strengthen stable, pro-American governments in Muslim countries
against internal or external threats. Azerbaijan exemplifies such
states. Though it is still an emerging democracy, born from the shadows
of the Soviet Union, it has stood squarely with the U.S. against
terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Central Asia and throughout the world,
all at considerable risk to itself.
It has also fended off constant Russian and Iranian threats due to its
pro-American, pro-Western and pro-Israeli policies and confronts serious
problems and local threats. Not the least of these threats is the
possibility of a renewed war in Nagorno-Karabakh, one of the world's
most implacable and dangerous frozen conflicts.
If
war resumed between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Armenia’s recent military
and diplomatic exercises have served notice that no doubt with Moscow’s
and Tehran’s encouragement and help, that it would attack Azeri
pipelines that carry much-needed oil and gas to America’s European
allies. Azerbaijan’s domestic policies, while not perfect, are also
under attack from Iran. In 2012 alone, three separate Iranian plots
involving incitement through religious agitation to terrorism, gun
running and plots to assassinate Israelis in Azerbaijan were uncovered
and thwarted. Iran also regularly calls Azerbaijan’s religious policies
anti-Islamic and regularly threatens to attack Azerbaijan if it hosted a
U.S. base. Thus, Iran presents Azerbaijan with a constant and genuine
threat.
Moreover, Syria’s civil war and Iran’s deteriorating
situation will probably increase Azerbaijan’s strategic importance to
the West. Also, Syria’s civil war is putting enormous pressure on Turkey
to intervene. Numerous incidents between Turkey and Syria have already
occurred while this war has also spurred the deterioration of Turkey’s
partnership with Russia. Should Turkey intervene, Russia could
conceivably block gas sales to Turkey since Turkey receives 2/3 of its
gas from Russia. Azerbaijan, thanks to its recently improved ties with
Turkey and the 2011 bilateral decision to build a gas pipeline from
Azerbaijan through Turkey to Europe (the Trans-Anatolian or TANAP
pipeine), could offer Turkey and Europe alternative gas sources to
resist Russian threats and blackmail.
Since 2010, if not
earlier, Russia has steadily deployed large numbers of combined forces
in the Caucasus, allegedly to defend against a projected Iranian counter
offensive against the Caucasus should the U.S. or Israel attack Iran
due to its nuclear program. This argument sounds illogical, for why
should Iran add to its enemies if it is attacked? But it represents a
plausible pretext for threatening both Azerbaijan and Georgia while
entrenching Russia’s military there as Russia strives to resubordinate
the Caucasus to its dictates. Meanwhile, Russia arms Armenia and
continually pressures Azerbaijan to deflect it from its pro-Western
trajectory.
Under these circumstances, what should
be done? In general, the U.S. should make clear to Azerbaijan that it
has its back. First,
in the domestic sphere, we should encourage Baku to undertake the
necessary liberalizing political, social, and economic reforms that
would strengthen its internal defenses against subversion under the
guise of religious agitation and increase the government’s legitimacy
and U.S. support for it.
Second, we must make clear to
Moscow and Tehran that if they launch a new aggressive conflict in the
Caucasus, the costs they incur thereby will be much more tangible and
greater than in 2008. Since Russian President Putin has admitted that
the 2008 war with Georgia, widely billed as an act of self-defense, was
actually a preplanned war of aggression from 2006 on, mere verbal
warnings to Russia do not suffice to deter further mischief here.
Third,
the U.S. must inspire the EU to intensify its quest for a dedicated
pipeline to bring gas from the Caspian basin and Central Asia to Europe
and counter Moscow’s widely documented efforts to use the gas weapon to
subvert European unity, democracy, and the independence of post-Soviet
states. Whether it is the EU’s projected Nabucco pipeline, the TANAP, or
another worthwhile alternative there is no time to lose.
Fourth,
Washington should simultaneously give unstinting support to the
Azeri-Turkish rapprochement, both for its own sake and because of its
implications for the Middle East and the Caucasus. This support must, as
a fifth point, coincides with a new, coordinated, and truly vigorous
effort to bring Armenia and Azerbaijan into a genuine negotiation
leading to an acceptable resolution of all the issues growing out of the
Nagorno-Karabakh war. All the interested parties could guarantee this
accord to reinforce regional stability. This process, if successful,
would stabilize the Caucasus, defuse Iranian intrigues and Russian
threats, open up Armenia to theworld and give it an option beyond
Russia, while preventing hotheads from inadvertently or deliberately
inciting a war to impose their vision of a resolution of
Nagorno-Karabakah’s many issues.
The administration has
hitherto treated the South Caucasus as an afterthought or as an
overflight issue on the road to Afghanistan. Such neglect is dangerous
and misconceived. The mounting threats in the Middle East, Iran, and the
Caucasus show how vital it is that the U.S. strengthen pro-Western
regimes like Azerbaijan. For if we continue to neglect the Caucasus,
this neglect will quickly become malign. And malign neglect invariably
generates not only instability but also protracted violence.
Blank is a professor and head of the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute at the Carlisle Barracks, PA
Source:http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/265427-us-should-work-to-strengthen-relations-with-azerbaija
Will the US punish Armenia?
The warped State Department-hatched Turkey-Armenia Protocols did not
yield the necessary results for the US, nor have efforts to strong-arm
Armenia into making dangerous concessions on the Karabakh front, so the
US has renewed an old “concern” by alleging that Iran is using Armenia
to for financial transactions that might violate international sanctions
on Tehran over its nuclear program.
An exclusive report by Reuters Tuesday,
citing a nebulous “Western intelligence report” and quoting anonymous
diplomatic sources, claimed that Iran is seeking financial alternatives
“in countries that do not work according to the dictates of the West” is
looking to expand its banking foothold in Armenia to allegedly deceive
Western governments that have been attempting to curtail Iranian banking
activities worldwide to thwart Iran’s nuclear program.
The so-called “Western intelligence report,” according to Reuters,
has singled out the Yerevan-based ACBA Credit Agricole Bank, one of the
largest in Armenia, as one of Iran’s principal targets. Reuters also
spoke to an anonymous Western UN diplomat who confirmed that ACBA was “a
bank that has come up in connection with Iran.” He declined to provide
details of any potentially illicit ACBA transactions linked to Iran,
said Reuters.
This fracas has prompted the Armenian Central Bank to issue a blunt
denial, echoing earlier statements by ACBA officials, who in the Reuters
report, vehemently denied the allegations that the financial
institution is being used by Iran for illicit activities.
“The Central Bank of Armenia obligates all banks and financial
institutions in the Republic of Armenia to scrutinize their
transactions, in order to avoid any possible involvement in transactions
considered unacceptable by the international community,” said a
statement issued by the CBA.
“We don’t have any relationship with Iran,” The ACBA chief executive
Stepan Gishian told Reuters. “We never have, we don’t now and
furthermore we don’t plan on becoming a channel for financing Iran. What
you’re saying is complete nonsense.”
Furthermore, recent news reports indicate that Armenia has been
following the mandates set forth by the sanctions imposed both on Iran
and Syria, since Syrian and Iranian nationals of Armenian descent have
experienced difficulty opening bank accounts in Armenia, because of
their citizenship. This is especially disheartening to Armenians who are
leaving Syria due to the crisis there and are experiencing hurdles in
establishing themselves in Armenia.
The Reuters reports does state that Turkey and the United Arab
Emirates remain Iran’s largest banking connections, but claims that due
to US pressure, especially the government of Turkey has become more
vigilant in its business with Iran. Reportedly, President Serzh Sarkisian was cautioned by Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton during her visit in June to Armenia about US
concerns over the Iran’s interests in Armenia.
Iran remains one of Armenia’s largest trading partners with a
reported $1 billion in trade. Asbarez has extensively reported about the
intense desire by Armenia and Iran to strengthen their strategic
partnership through varied projects, including the construction of an
oil pipeline and a highway that would connect Iran’s port of Bandar
Abbas with Batumi in Georgia, thus providing a direct link for Armenia
to a seaport.
Evidently, this organic neighborly and centuries-old relationship
between Armenia and Iran does not sit well with the US and its Western
allies, who are keen on tightening the noose around Iran’s neck because
of concerns over its nuclear program and be damned whatever stands in
their way.
However justified those concerns might be, Armenia should not be
penalized by the US, which in its efforts to police the world, is
bullying nations to conform to its standards. If the US scrutinized its own domestic financial system as
meticulously as it does other nations’ perhaps the loopholes that
allowed for the collapse of the banking system and wide-spread
corruption in this country would have been avoided.
Moreover, if the US went as far as to caution Armenia, it has not
lifted a finger to force Turkey and Azerbaijan to lift their blockade of
Armenia, which has been in place since 1993 and in international legal
circles is considered an act of aggression or war. Instead the US has
concocted convoluted schemes—the Protocols and policy on Karabakh—that
abets Turkey to continue its denial of the Genocide and face history and
diminishes the sacred principle of self-determination.
The Reuter report is a harbinger of things to come. The failed
approaches by the US to address concerns in the South Caucasus have now
taken on a worrisome tone. How far will the US go to force its misplaced
policies on other nations, especially Armenia?
Source: asbarez.com/104894/will-the-us-punish-armenia/
Armenian “civil defenders” as weapon of Azeri propaganda
Over
the last week, 2 more Armenian soldiers were killed at contact line
over Azeri ceasefire violation. Tragic incidents prove the war is not
over, with the enemy waiting for a chance to strike. As it turns out,
some of our compatriots are waging their own “war”, ready to sacrifice
their motherland in pursuit of their own ambitions. Yesterday, Nov 21,
as reported by Armenian TV, a certain Armenian human rights advocate
accused official Yerevan of “violating the Treaty on Conventional
Armed Forces in Europe (CFE)” at Brussels-hosted NATO session. As
PanARMENIAN.Net discovered, the person in question was identified as
Helsinki Citizens' Assembly - Vanadzor Office NGO president Artur
Sakunts. Even the fact that Azeri propaganda already excelled in
vilifying Armenia, conveniently forgetting of Baku-initiated “arms race”
and provocations at contact line was unable to stop Mr. Sakunts’
unfounded accusations. So far, no international mission was able to
accuse Armenia of CFE violation for one clear reason: the country does
not violate the Treaty. Sakunts, however, wasn’t in the least
perturbed by an indignant response of other members of Armenian
delegation, who were clearly unaware of “good intentions” of the human
rights advocate. One might ask himself, how is such a “defender of
human rights”, the rights of Armenians, better that the threesome
recently charged with state treason over spying for Azerbaijan?
Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/84550/
