Tweet
"IT IS VERY GOOD TO MOVE CAUTIOUSLY AND ONLY TO TAKE UP POINTS THAT WE HAVE SEEN OURSELVES, OR THAT WE HAVE SEEN PROOFS"
Mediamax
February 5, 2008
Exclusive Interview of the Head of the Long-Term Observation Mission
of OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)
in Armenia, Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens to Mediamax Agency
- Mr. Ambassador, I know that you have great work experience in the
former Yugoslavia and the Balkans. In fall of 2004, you headed the
OSCE Observation Mission during the elections in Ukraine. Would you,
please, tell us whether you see any trends, related to elections,
which are characteristic of the states of the former Soviet camp?
- What I see is a certain difference between Yugoslavia on one side and
the former Soviet Union on the other. Somehow in Yugoslavia development
has gone relatively far. I was a Head of the observation mission in
Serbia a year ago and there we could say that the elections met OSCE
commitments, which is a very positive statement. On the other hand,
on the side of the former Soviet Union there were also countries that
have made great progress, for example, the Baltic States. I have not
been in these states myself, but I know that the situation there is
quite good.
I always hesitate a little bit in comparing different countries too
closely, because each country has a different set of conditions, under
which it conducts the elections. And that is also true for Armenia. I
mean if you look at the external situation, you have four neighbors,
with one there is a ceasefire line, with another one there is a closed
border, then there is Georgia and Iran. And you are certainly very
interested in coming out of these elections with a good reputation
that Armenia was able to conduct good election that meets the OSCE
commitments. And I think internally this would also be very important.
The Armenian government and the President and everyone from the
officials have given assurances that this will happen, but of course,
we will have to measure the factual development up against the OSCE
commitments, what we have seen so far is in the interim report, much as
a first report, that is always highly descriptive, but I would rather
look at Armenia as a case just for Armenia, and not as a typical case
of the port-soviet developments, because you really have differences.
You mentioned Ukraine in 2004, it was a totally different situation,
and also a very different country, because of this strong East-West
difference inside one country, which you do not have here.
- On January 30, the first interim report of your Mission was
published. How righteous is the impression that the basic concern of
the Mission is related to the non-balanced coverage of the candidates
by broadcast media before the start of the official campaign?
- I would not say that this is the basic concern, but this is one
concern, which we could express on the basis of facts, which we have
established ourselves and with the head of our media monitoring
unit, so that we were able there to base our statement on what we
had seen ourselves.
I will not hide from you that there is also quite a big concern on
election day and the night after the election counting, tabulation,
but not in a sense that I now expect irregularities, I cannot predict
anything, but normally the election day and the day after the election
is half the election, and we will see how that will develop. And we
have of course mentioned that there were quite a few stories which we
hear about certain beliefs and a very low degree of confidence in the
elections, so that I have in my talks with the government and also
election administration structures said that one might do a little
bit more particularly as regards the protection of the secrecy of the
vote. It seemed to me quite a few people in this country believe that
somehow others can control how they vote.
- During your first news conference in Yerevan you said that "media
sometimes play a decisive role in securing democratic elections". How
applicable that notion is for today's Armenia?
- Well, this again is country specific. I would say that in countries,
like my own Germany, the role of the media cannot be overestimated. It
is very great. Here in Armenia it is still very important, but
maybe not so decisive, at least that is what some of the candidates
themselves have told us. They did not think that the media situation
is their greatest concern in the election campaign.
- What is your assessment of how responsible the Armenian presidential
candidates carry out the campaign? What is your assessment of the
statement of one of the candidates, according to which in case the
given candidate is elected, Armenia will choose the "salvation path",
and in case another candidate wins the elections - the "path to
inevitable catastrophe"?
- In the West, when you have election campaigns, you hear a lot of
things, and campaign is campaign, that goes sometimes very far, so
that I think a high degree of tolerance in principle is necessary. Of
course, we do observe also the conduct of the elections by the election
headquarters of the different candidates, but will certainly not
now give any notes to how the candidates have so far conducted the
campaigns, but of course, there are certain rules that should not
be overlooked.
- How sincere are the authorities in their statements on the striving
to hold free and democratic elections? The opposition argues that
the authorities have already started using administrative resource
to secure the victory of their candidate in the first very round.
- I mean you have now defined the whole task. And we are working on
it. It is too early to say something about it. I just told you that
the government made these assurances and they have an interest in
good elections, on the other hand we hear a lot of criticism from
candidates to different degrees, some candidates more than others,
but this is now our task to measure the elections up to the OSCE
commitments and see how far one or the other is right.
- Head of pre-election staff of presidential candidate Artur
Baghdasarian stated that she regularly hands over to your Mission
facts of violation of the electoral legislation. Would you be able
to share with us information on some of those facts?
- I have met Mr. Baghdasarian yesterday [January 31, 2008] and we
had a very interesting conversation and we have asked him if he has
also criticism against the conduct of the elections, that he should,
please, let us know, and what we always need is evidence. We cannot
act on just some stories or rumors or sometimes we are being told
not necessarily by Mr. Baghdasarian, also from others that the people
are not prepared to give evidence, because they are afraid to do so.
But this makes for us difficult and I indeed have asked
Mr. Baghdasarian to provide us with evidence cases, if there are any,
but right now I could not give you any such cases, because we are
just in contact about this. He mentioned certain things, but the
point for us is that we have to verify them.
- Some of the candidates crossly react to the data of the polls,
which are carried out regularly by Gallup on the order of USAID. What
is your attitude towards those surveys? Do they contribute to
the process of holding free and fair elections, or maybe they are
creating an atmosphere of additional mistrust between the society
and the candidates, and among the very candidates?
- This has to do with the attitude of the individual voter towards
the elections, for example, in my own country, of I see in an opinion
poll certain percentages for certain parties, I would not change my
decision anyway. And then, there is of course always this possibility
of the accusation that such opinion polls might be manipulated, or
very often, exit polls, are being criticized and such points of view,
I myself am not in a position to assess the scientific reliability
of the opinion poll you might refer to, but at least I would advise
every voter in this country to make his decision independently of
such opinion polls, because voting is a question of conviction and I
would not change my conviction if I hear that another candidate has
more to expect than one of his competitors.
- Does the OSCE Observation Mission follow the law observance only by
the authorities, or by all the candidates? What is reaction in cases,
when the actions of a certain candidate violate the law? For instance,
the supporters of one candidate a few days ago held an unapproved
car-rally with the participation of over 100 cars in the center of
Yerevan and they refused to obey the orders of the policemen.
- In such cases we also first try to establish the facts. I was
today [February 1] received by the Mayor of Yerevan and I asked him
a few questions about this. Particularly whether there had been an
application for this sort of procession, when you go with cars, and
he said that there was no such application. I am a lawyer myself,
and there is a famous principle for lawyers - always to hear the
other side. I have not yet talked with Mr.
Ter-Petrosian's headquarters about this rally. But of course there are
certain rules, by which also candidates have to play, and I cannot say
on the base of what I know now whether they have been violated or not.
- Mr. Ambassador, despite the good assessments of the past
parliamentary elections, in fall of 2007 Armenia joined the initiative
of Russia, the essence of which was the proposal on reducing the
authority of OSCE/ODIHR observers. There is an opinion that this fact
may somehow influence your assessment of the upcoming elections. How
righteous is this opinion?
- No, it will certainly not. First of all, I myself am not an employee
of ODIHR, because I am one on the list of specialists, should I say
diplomats, who could be called upon to lead such a mission like this
one, and it is up to ODIHR to call upon us and I can say yes or no. I
am a retired German Ambassador and my career is anyway over and I
am very independent. I am personally convinced of the principles,
correctness of the ODIHR approach and the ODIHR methodology for
election observation. One thing is clear, you have to have a long-term
observation. You cannot just come three days before the election
and then pass a judgment. That would not be serious. And secondly,
you have to have a number of observers that somehow corresponds to
the size of the country. And I mean, here in Armenia, we have 1923
polling stations and we will have probably 250 short-term observers,
plus ourselves, so that it makes altogether maybe 300 or something
like that. This would of course by far not cover everything, but we
can at least go to certain spots, and try to find out beforehand,
where it would be particularly appropriate to go and see certain
areas which have a certain reputation that they might need some more
observation than others. And I think this is necessary.
And there is one more point: the first assessment given the day
after the elections. I think it is necessary, because otherwise
you would have a cacophony of many different voices. We try to come
and we always came to a unified statement by this mission, and the
three parliamentary delegations from the Council of Europe, OSCE
and the European Parliament, which would then give a preliminary
assessment. But this is of course a preliminary statement.
And I would try to make this very clear, because, as I said, half
of the way is the election day and the night after the election,
and reports are coming in all night. So, maybe certain developments
have not yet been observed, when we come up with the preliminary
statement. So, I have a certain tendency of making very clear that it
is preliminary, not doing it to early in the day and also be cautious,
because one might have to adapt it to later findings and we always
have the possibility of having another report before we do two months
after the elections the final report, which is a possibility, but I
would prefer to avoid that and come up with something that can stand
beyond the day after the elections.
- Despite all the differences, it is obvious that the recent elections
in Georgia, which were far from being ideal, will be considered a
precedent for Armenia. The authorities, for example, may state that, as
opposed to Georgia, in Armenia TV-Companies were not closed. Besides,
Saakashvili's victory with minimal advantage in the first round will
also be used as a precedent. Maybe the international community should
have reacted to the violations during the elections in Georgia more
strictly to rule out the establishment of such a precedent?
- What I just told you about what my ideas are about our preliminary
statement the day after the elections. It also takes into consideration
certain developments that might have taken place in Georgia. I was not
in Georgia, I have not observed these elections. But I think it would
be wrong to look too much to that one election in Georgia. I myself
have observed two elections in Azerbaijan and one in Georgia, more than
a year ago, that was the local elections, when already a little bit you
could see certain developments, but I would certainly not be influenced
in assessment of these Armenian elections by Georgian events.
My method is that I have always tried to be careful not to forget
that the first statement is preliminary, not to go over the top by
saying something.
I think we should not look too much to Georgia and one would also
have to see how these different statements came about.
- You have been here for already 20 days, a little more than 2 weeks
are left before the start of elections. I assume that you came to
this country with positive expectations. So, not, if you compare
those expectations with the ones you have now, do you see any change
in your moods regarding the quality of the elections?
- Not really. What I see very positively is, first of all, the team,
which we have here, and the Armenian colleagues, whom we have here,
they are all very good and they understand what this mission is
about. This is not something which goes by itself. It shows a high
degree of awareness also.
This is one point. The second point is that our working conditions are
good, so that you feel that you are being accepted as a mission. It is
of course clear, that all of those players have certain expectations,
and the government would only be too happy if the we come up with
a report that says there was rather progress, and some opposition
figures might be very angry if we overlook certain things that may
have indeed happened. And this puts a heavy responsibility on us,
and that is why I think it is very good to move cautiously and only
to take up points that we have seen ourselves, or that we have seen
proofs, but that we will do when we do well our job.
Mediamax
February 5, 2008
Exclusive Interview of the Head of the Long-Term Observation Mission
of OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR)
in Armenia, Ambassador Geert-Hinrich Ahrens to Mediamax Agency
- Mr. Ambassador, I know that you have great work experience in the
former Yugoslavia and the Balkans. In fall of 2004, you headed the
OSCE Observation Mission during the elections in Ukraine. Would you,
please, tell us whether you see any trends, related to elections,
which are characteristic of the states of the former Soviet camp?
- What I see is a certain difference between Yugoslavia on one side and
the former Soviet Union on the other. Somehow in Yugoslavia development
has gone relatively far. I was a Head of the observation mission in
Serbia a year ago and there we could say that the elections met OSCE
commitments, which is a very positive statement. On the other hand,
on the side of the former Soviet Union there were also countries that
have made great progress, for example, the Baltic States. I have not
been in these states myself, but I know that the situation there is
quite good.
I always hesitate a little bit in comparing different countries too
closely, because each country has a different set of conditions, under
which it conducts the elections. And that is also true for Armenia. I
mean if you look at the external situation, you have four neighbors,
with one there is a ceasefire line, with another one there is a closed
border, then there is Georgia and Iran. And you are certainly very
interested in coming out of these elections with a good reputation
that Armenia was able to conduct good election that meets the OSCE
commitments. And I think internally this would also be very important.
The Armenian government and the President and everyone from the
officials have given assurances that this will happen, but of course,
we will have to measure the factual development up against the OSCE
commitments, what we have seen so far is in the interim report, much as
a first report, that is always highly descriptive, but I would rather
look at Armenia as a case just for Armenia, and not as a typical case
of the port-soviet developments, because you really have differences.
You mentioned Ukraine in 2004, it was a totally different situation,
and also a very different country, because of this strong East-West
difference inside one country, which you do not have here.
- On January 30, the first interim report of your Mission was
published. How righteous is the impression that the basic concern of
the Mission is related to the non-balanced coverage of the candidates
by broadcast media before the start of the official campaign?
- I would not say that this is the basic concern, but this is one
concern, which we could express on the basis of facts, which we have
established ourselves and with the head of our media monitoring
unit, so that we were able there to base our statement on what we
had seen ourselves.
I will not hide from you that there is also quite a big concern on
election day and the night after the election counting, tabulation,
but not in a sense that I now expect irregularities, I cannot predict
anything, but normally the election day and the day after the election
is half the election, and we will see how that will develop. And we
have of course mentioned that there were quite a few stories which we
hear about certain beliefs and a very low degree of confidence in the
elections, so that I have in my talks with the government and also
election administration structures said that one might do a little
bit more particularly as regards the protection of the secrecy of the
vote. It seemed to me quite a few people in this country believe that
somehow others can control how they vote.
- During your first news conference in Yerevan you said that "media
sometimes play a decisive role in securing democratic elections". How
applicable that notion is for today's Armenia?
- Well, this again is country specific. I would say that in countries,
like my own Germany, the role of the media cannot be overestimated. It
is very great. Here in Armenia it is still very important, but
maybe not so decisive, at least that is what some of the candidates
themselves have told us. They did not think that the media situation
is their greatest concern in the election campaign.
- What is your assessment of how responsible the Armenian presidential
candidates carry out the campaign? What is your assessment of the
statement of one of the candidates, according to which in case the
given candidate is elected, Armenia will choose the "salvation path",
and in case another candidate wins the elections - the "path to
inevitable catastrophe"?
- In the West, when you have election campaigns, you hear a lot of
things, and campaign is campaign, that goes sometimes very far, so
that I think a high degree of tolerance in principle is necessary. Of
course, we do observe also the conduct of the elections by the election
headquarters of the different candidates, but will certainly not
now give any notes to how the candidates have so far conducted the
campaigns, but of course, there are certain rules that should not
be overlooked.
- How sincere are the authorities in their statements on the striving
to hold free and democratic elections? The opposition argues that
the authorities have already started using administrative resource
to secure the victory of their candidate in the first very round.
- I mean you have now defined the whole task. And we are working on
it. It is too early to say something about it. I just told you that
the government made these assurances and they have an interest in
good elections, on the other hand we hear a lot of criticism from
candidates to different degrees, some candidates more than others,
but this is now our task to measure the elections up to the OSCE
commitments and see how far one or the other is right.
- Head of pre-election staff of presidential candidate Artur
Baghdasarian stated that she regularly hands over to your Mission
facts of violation of the electoral legislation. Would you be able
to share with us information on some of those facts?
- I have met Mr. Baghdasarian yesterday [January 31, 2008] and we
had a very interesting conversation and we have asked him if he has
also criticism against the conduct of the elections, that he should,
please, let us know, and what we always need is evidence. We cannot
act on just some stories or rumors or sometimes we are being told
not necessarily by Mr. Baghdasarian, also from others that the people
are not prepared to give evidence, because they are afraid to do so.
But this makes for us difficult and I indeed have asked
Mr. Baghdasarian to provide us with evidence cases, if there are any,
but right now I could not give you any such cases, because we are
just in contact about this. He mentioned certain things, but the
point for us is that we have to verify them.
- Some of the candidates crossly react to the data of the polls,
which are carried out regularly by Gallup on the order of USAID. What
is your attitude towards those surveys? Do they contribute to
the process of holding free and fair elections, or maybe they are
creating an atmosphere of additional mistrust between the society
and the candidates, and among the very candidates?
- This has to do with the attitude of the individual voter towards
the elections, for example, in my own country, of I see in an opinion
poll certain percentages for certain parties, I would not change my
decision anyway. And then, there is of course always this possibility
of the accusation that such opinion polls might be manipulated, or
very often, exit polls, are being criticized and such points of view,
I myself am not in a position to assess the scientific reliability
of the opinion poll you might refer to, but at least I would advise
every voter in this country to make his decision independently of
such opinion polls, because voting is a question of conviction and I
would not change my conviction if I hear that another candidate has
more to expect than one of his competitors.
- Does the OSCE Observation Mission follow the law observance only by
the authorities, or by all the candidates? What is reaction in cases,
when the actions of a certain candidate violate the law? For instance,
the supporters of one candidate a few days ago held an unapproved
car-rally with the participation of over 100 cars in the center of
Yerevan and they refused to obey the orders of the policemen.
- In such cases we also first try to establish the facts. I was
today [February 1] received by the Mayor of Yerevan and I asked him
a few questions about this. Particularly whether there had been an
application for this sort of procession, when you go with cars, and
he said that there was no such application. I am a lawyer myself,
and there is a famous principle for lawyers - always to hear the
other side. I have not yet talked with Mr.
Ter-Petrosian's headquarters about this rally. But of course there are
certain rules, by which also candidates have to play, and I cannot say
on the base of what I know now whether they have been violated or not.
- Mr. Ambassador, despite the good assessments of the past
parliamentary elections, in fall of 2007 Armenia joined the initiative
of Russia, the essence of which was the proposal on reducing the
authority of OSCE/ODIHR observers. There is an opinion that this fact
may somehow influence your assessment of the upcoming elections. How
righteous is this opinion?
- No, it will certainly not. First of all, I myself am not an employee
of ODIHR, because I am one on the list of specialists, should I say
diplomats, who could be called upon to lead such a mission like this
one, and it is up to ODIHR to call upon us and I can say yes or no. I
am a retired German Ambassador and my career is anyway over and I
am very independent. I am personally convinced of the principles,
correctness of the ODIHR approach and the ODIHR methodology for
election observation. One thing is clear, you have to have a long-term
observation. You cannot just come three days before the election
and then pass a judgment. That would not be serious. And secondly,
you have to have a number of observers that somehow corresponds to
the size of the country. And I mean, here in Armenia, we have 1923
polling stations and we will have probably 250 short-term observers,
plus ourselves, so that it makes altogether maybe 300 or something
like that. This would of course by far not cover everything, but we
can at least go to certain spots, and try to find out beforehand,
where it would be particularly appropriate to go and see certain
areas which have a certain reputation that they might need some more
observation than others. And I think this is necessary.
And there is one more point: the first assessment given the day
after the elections. I think it is necessary, because otherwise
you would have a cacophony of many different voices. We try to come
and we always came to a unified statement by this mission, and the
three parliamentary delegations from the Council of Europe, OSCE
and the European Parliament, which would then give a preliminary
assessment. But this is of course a preliminary statement.
And I would try to make this very clear, because, as I said, half
of the way is the election day and the night after the election,
and reports are coming in all night. So, maybe certain developments
have not yet been observed, when we come up with the preliminary
statement. So, I have a certain tendency of making very clear that it
is preliminary, not doing it to early in the day and also be cautious,
because one might have to adapt it to later findings and we always
have the possibility of having another report before we do two months
after the elections the final report, which is a possibility, but I
would prefer to avoid that and come up with something that can stand
beyond the day after the elections.
- Despite all the differences, it is obvious that the recent elections
in Georgia, which were far from being ideal, will be considered a
precedent for Armenia. The authorities, for example, may state that, as
opposed to Georgia, in Armenia TV-Companies were not closed. Besides,
Saakashvili's victory with minimal advantage in the first round will
also be used as a precedent. Maybe the international community should
have reacted to the violations during the elections in Georgia more
strictly to rule out the establishment of such a precedent?
- What I just told you about what my ideas are about our preliminary
statement the day after the elections. It also takes into consideration
certain developments that might have taken place in Georgia. I was not
in Georgia, I have not observed these elections. But I think it would
be wrong to look too much to that one election in Georgia. I myself
have observed two elections in Azerbaijan and one in Georgia, more than
a year ago, that was the local elections, when already a little bit you
could see certain developments, but I would certainly not be influenced
in assessment of these Armenian elections by Georgian events.
My method is that I have always tried to be careful not to forget
that the first statement is preliminary, not to go over the top by
saying something.
I think we should not look too much to Georgia and one would also
have to see how these different statements came about.
- You have been here for already 20 days, a little more than 2 weeks
are left before the start of elections. I assume that you came to
this country with positive expectations. So, not, if you compare
those expectations with the ones you have now, do you see any change
in your moods regarding the quality of the elections?
- Not really. What I see very positively is, first of all, the team,
which we have here, and the Armenian colleagues, whom we have here,
they are all very good and they understand what this mission is
about. This is not something which goes by itself. It shows a high
degree of awareness also.
This is one point. The second point is that our working conditions are
good, so that you feel that you are being accepted as a mission. It is
of course clear, that all of those players have certain expectations,
and the government would only be too happy if the we come up with
a report that says there was rather progress, and some opposition
figures might be very angry if we overlook certain things that may
have indeed happened. And this puts a heavy responsibility on us,
and that is why I think it is very good to move cautiously and only
to take up points that we have seen ourselves, or that we have seen
proofs, but that we will do when we do well our job.