Tweet
ARMENIA: IS A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP IN PROGRESS?
EurasiaNet
March 3 2008
NY
In the center of the Armenian capital Yerevan, the debris left by
the March 1 violent clash between opposition protesters and security
forces is being carted away. Outside of the country, meanwhile,
political analysts and human rights activists are wondering whether
Robert Kocharian's administration is also striving to cleanse the
narrative of the March 1 events. With the government controlling all
channels of information, it is difficult to determine the extent of
the brutality. However, the initial impression of some observers is
that state security forces used excessive force.
Officially, the death toll from the March 1 confrontation is eight.
However, eyewitness accounts provided before the imposition of
government restrictions on the dissemination of news from non-official
sources suggest that the body count is actually much higher. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
"It's hard to say if there's a cover-up. ... What's evident is the
need for a full, independent investigation," said Rachel Denber,
the deputy director of HRW's Europe and Central Asia division.
Denber declined to comment on whether Human Rights Watch deemed the
government's official death toll of eight as reliable, or whether
the number of dead was probably higher. She would only describe the
March 1 events as a "very chaotic and violent situation." Denber added
that Armenia, as a member of the Council of Europe, was "obligated"
to abide by internationally recognized standards for the investigation
of government actions.
In written statements released March 2, HRW questioned whether the use
of force by Armenian security troops on March 1 was disproportionate
to the threat to public order. "Armenian police used excessive force
and violence to disperse demonstrators protesting peacefully against
recent election results," said one HRW statement.
"A political crisis doesn't give the government carte blanche in how
it responds to demonstrators," the statement went on to quote Holly
Cartner, HRW's Europe and Central Asia director as saying.
Under the state of emergency imposed by the Kocharian administration,
the ability to get at the facts is greatly impaired. It is illegal
for Armenian journalists and mass media outlets to disseminate any
information, other than that coming from official sources. Likewise,
a foreign correspondent reportedly faces immediate expulsion from
the country, if he or she is deemed to have violated "the regime of
the state of emergency."
State of emergency regulations also provide for the suspension of
non-governmental organization activities that "impede the elimination
of circumstances causing the emergency situation."
At least one Armenian web news outlet, A1+, is being blocked. Others
are complying with the government restrictions under protest.
"We fully support all legitimate efforts to stabilize conditions
following the tragic events of March 1," said a statement posted on
the news website ArmeniaNow.
"We do not accept that silencing non-state media is a legitimate
means of maintaining order," the statement continued. "Rather, we
fear that the restrictions, even for the short period announced,
could lead to the sort of propagandized media that re-unites Armenia
with its Soviet past, while doing nothing to resolve the problems it
faces in the present."
Government news communiques "present only a partial picture of present
conditions," the ArmeniaNow statement added.
Amid the news vacuum, international reaction to the March 1 events has
been circumspect, tending to avoid addressing directly the Kocharian
administration's tactics. Governments and multilateral organizations
thus far have limited their comments to calls for restraint. OSCE
chairman-in-office Ilka Kanerva, for example, called for Kocharian and
opposition to engage in dialogue. An OSCE diplomatic trouble-shooter,
Heikki Talvitie, traveled to Yerevan on March 2 to try to hasten the
reconciliation process.
Political divisions arising out of the controversial February
19 presidential election were the root cause of the March 1
confrontation. Levon Ter-Petrosian, the second place finisher,
has asserted that the electoral process featured widespread fraud,
in order to ensure that the government's favored candidate, Prime
Minister Serzh Sarkisian, would emerge as the winner. [For background
see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Amid the use of force against anti-government protesters,
authorities appeared to place Ter-Petrosian under house arrest,
although administration officials portrayed him as being under state
protection. The restrictions on Ter-Petrosian's freedom of movement
drew criticism from Terry Davis, the secretary general of the Council
of Europe, who indicated that the limitations placed on the opposition
leader constituted arbitrary action on the government's part.
Some of the most vocal criticism of the government's conduct has come
from Armenia's neighbors. In Georgia, where Mikhail Saakashvili's
administration and opposition parties have been, as in Armenia,
wrangling over election results, comments on the Yerevan events seemed
largely divided along partisan lines. [For background see the Eurasia
Insight archive]. On March 2, Saakashvili discussed the situation
with Kocharian, conveying "his support to the people of Armenia and
its authorities," the official Armenpress news agency quoted Viktor
Soghomonian, an Armenian presidential aide, as saying.
A statement issued March 3 by the opposition Republican Party of
Georgia, however, assailed the Kocharian administration for resorting
to force before "having exhausted resources for dialogue." Other
opposition parties in Georgia also denounced the Kocharian
administration's handling of events.
Officials in Azerbaijan, which is still grappling with Armenia over
the fate of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory, used the tumult in Yerevan
as an opportunity to try to score public relations points.
[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. For example,
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev attributed the outbreak of
violence in Yerevan to "the ill-considered policies of the [Armenian]
government."
In Yerevan, regular army troops are now charged with maintaining
public order. Late on March 2, the armed forces chief, Col. Gen.
Seyran Ohanian, cautioned in a televised address that the terms of
the state of emergency would be strictly enforced. In particular,
he warned that troops would respond quickly and forcefully to the
"slightest" sign of any non-sanctioned public gathering. "I am asking
you to refrain from attempting to assemble in Yerevan even in small
groups," said Ohanian.
EurasiaNet
March 3 2008
NY
In the center of the Armenian capital Yerevan, the debris left by
the March 1 violent clash between opposition protesters and security
forces is being carted away. Outside of the country, meanwhile,
political analysts and human rights activists are wondering whether
Robert Kocharian's administration is also striving to cleanse the
narrative of the March 1 events. With the government controlling all
channels of information, it is difficult to determine the extent of
the brutality. However, the initial impression of some observers is
that state security forces used excessive force.
Officially, the death toll from the March 1 confrontation is eight.
However, eyewitness accounts provided before the imposition of
government restrictions on the dissemination of news from non-official
sources suggest that the body count is actually much higher. [For
background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
"It's hard to say if there's a cover-up. ... What's evident is the
need for a full, independent investigation," said Rachel Denber,
the deputy director of HRW's Europe and Central Asia division.
Denber declined to comment on whether Human Rights Watch deemed the
government's official death toll of eight as reliable, or whether
the number of dead was probably higher. She would only describe the
March 1 events as a "very chaotic and violent situation." Denber added
that Armenia, as a member of the Council of Europe, was "obligated"
to abide by internationally recognized standards for the investigation
of government actions.
In written statements released March 2, HRW questioned whether the use
of force by Armenian security troops on March 1 was disproportionate
to the threat to public order. "Armenian police used excessive force
and violence to disperse demonstrators protesting peacefully against
recent election results," said one HRW statement.
"A political crisis doesn't give the government carte blanche in how
it responds to demonstrators," the statement went on to quote Holly
Cartner, HRW's Europe and Central Asia director as saying.
Under the state of emergency imposed by the Kocharian administration,
the ability to get at the facts is greatly impaired. It is illegal
for Armenian journalists and mass media outlets to disseminate any
information, other than that coming from official sources. Likewise,
a foreign correspondent reportedly faces immediate expulsion from
the country, if he or she is deemed to have violated "the regime of
the state of emergency."
State of emergency regulations also provide for the suspension of
non-governmental organization activities that "impede the elimination
of circumstances causing the emergency situation."
At least one Armenian web news outlet, A1+, is being blocked. Others
are complying with the government restrictions under protest.
"We fully support all legitimate efforts to stabilize conditions
following the tragic events of March 1," said a statement posted on
the news website ArmeniaNow.
"We do not accept that silencing non-state media is a legitimate
means of maintaining order," the statement continued. "Rather, we
fear that the restrictions, even for the short period announced,
could lead to the sort of propagandized media that re-unites Armenia
with its Soviet past, while doing nothing to resolve the problems it
faces in the present."
Government news communiques "present only a partial picture of present
conditions," the ArmeniaNow statement added.
Amid the news vacuum, international reaction to the March 1 events has
been circumspect, tending to avoid addressing directly the Kocharian
administration's tactics. Governments and multilateral organizations
thus far have limited their comments to calls for restraint. OSCE
chairman-in-office Ilka Kanerva, for example, called for Kocharian and
opposition to engage in dialogue. An OSCE diplomatic trouble-shooter,
Heikki Talvitie, traveled to Yerevan on March 2 to try to hasten the
reconciliation process.
Political divisions arising out of the controversial February
19 presidential election were the root cause of the March 1
confrontation. Levon Ter-Petrosian, the second place finisher,
has asserted that the electoral process featured widespread fraud,
in order to ensure that the government's favored candidate, Prime
Minister Serzh Sarkisian, would emerge as the winner. [For background
see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Amid the use of force against anti-government protesters,
authorities appeared to place Ter-Petrosian under house arrest,
although administration officials portrayed him as being under state
protection. The restrictions on Ter-Petrosian's freedom of movement
drew criticism from Terry Davis, the secretary general of the Council
of Europe, who indicated that the limitations placed on the opposition
leader constituted arbitrary action on the government's part.
Some of the most vocal criticism of the government's conduct has come
from Armenia's neighbors. In Georgia, where Mikhail Saakashvili's
administration and opposition parties have been, as in Armenia,
wrangling over election results, comments on the Yerevan events seemed
largely divided along partisan lines. [For background see the Eurasia
Insight archive]. On March 2, Saakashvili discussed the situation
with Kocharian, conveying "his support to the people of Armenia and
its authorities," the official Armenpress news agency quoted Viktor
Soghomonian, an Armenian presidential aide, as saying.
A statement issued March 3 by the opposition Republican Party of
Georgia, however, assailed the Kocharian administration for resorting
to force before "having exhausted resources for dialogue." Other
opposition parties in Georgia also denounced the Kocharian
administration's handling of events.
Officials in Azerbaijan, which is still grappling with Armenia over
the fate of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory, used the tumult in Yerevan
as an opportunity to try to score public relations points.
[For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. For example,
Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev attributed the outbreak of
violence in Yerevan to "the ill-considered policies of the [Armenian]
government."
In Yerevan, regular army troops are now charged with maintaining
public order. Late on March 2, the armed forces chief, Col. Gen.
Seyran Ohanian, cautioned in a televised address that the terms of
the state of emergency would be strictly enforced. In particular,
he warned that troops would respond quickly and forcefully to the
"slightest" sign of any non-sanctioned public gathering. "I am asking
you to refrain from attempting to assemble in Yerevan even in small
groups," said Ohanian.