Tweet
SILENCE ON ARMENIA, BY LEVON TER-PETROSSIAN
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2008/03/04/AR2008030402329.html
March 5 2008
United States
YEREVAN, Armenia -- In Armenia's presidential election last month,
I stood as the main opposition candidate against incumbent Prime
Minister Serzh Sarkissian. The election followed a sadly familiar
script: The regime harassed the opposition's representatives, bribed
and intimidated voters, stuffed ballot boxes, and systematically
miscounted votes. Indeed, the rigging of the outcome did not begin on
Feb. 19. For the duration of the campaign the country's main medium
of communication, television, which is tightly controlled by the
regime, churned out propaganda that would have made Brezhnev-era
Soviet propagandists blush in shame.
We in the opposition were angered by all of this but not surprised.
What surprised and dismayed us was the deafening silence from the
West. What dismayed us even more was the technical report of the
observer mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe, which rubber-stamped Sarkissian's farcical claim of victory.
The people of Armenia, unlike the OSCE monitors, chose to see
what happened at the polling stations. Naturally, they discounted
Sarkissian's claim and gathered to demand annulment of the results.
They staged a continuous protest at Opera Square that became the most
wonderful celebration of freedom and one that should be studied as
an example of nonviolent, lawful resistance against illegitimate rule.
Deeply concerned that the ranks of protesters were swelling by the
day, the regime decided early Saturday to resort to force. Riot police
were ordered to disperse the crowd, detain the opposition leaders and
put me under house arrest. After several hours, citizens reassembled
at another site, demanding to see their leaders, but instead they
encountered more riot police, later reinforced by units of the Armenian
army, which was ordered to crush the protest. At least eight people
were killed this weekend, and emergency rule has been declared.
How did we come to this? Why did the regime headed by outgoing
President Robert Kocharian and "president-elect" Sarkissian think it
could get away with using force against its own people? Surely the two
men had their reasons, but the West's signal, even if unintentional,
that they did not have to worry about a strong international reaction
was the most important one.
We in Armenia have been trying to understand the roots of such
indifference to the rape of our democracy by the Kocharian-Sarkissian
regime. The available evidence suggests two explanations: First,
some influential organizations and actors in the West, and in
Europe in particular, are naively wedded to the notion of positive
reinforcement. They seem to think that praising small improvements,
instead of criticizing major flaws, creates an incentive for good
behavior. Anyone who has studied this regime closely, however,
understands the absurdity of such an approach.
Second, and perhaps more important, is the oft-stated claim that
the only people able to settle Armenia's long-standing conflict over
the Nagorno-Karabakh region will be leaders who are themselves from
Nagorno-Karabakh -- as Kocharian and Sarkissian are -- and who are
perceived domestically as hard-liners. This is analogous to the
"only Nixon could go to China" logic. The problem is that despite
being in power for the past 10 years, Kocharian and Sarkissian have
done little to move the negotiating process forward. More important,
any leader who must make consequential and difficult choices must have
the trust of his people. Sarkissian does not have that trust. After
what he and Kocharian did on March 1, he will not be able to govern
here, let alone make difficult choices.
So what should be done? What do the people of Armenia expect from
the West, and the United States in particular? At the very least,
we expect a strong and unequivocal condemnation of the violence
that occurred March 1 and a recognition that the government, not the
opposition, bears responsibility. This condemnation should accompany
a stern warning against continued persecution of the opposition and
its leaders -- mistreatment that is reaching unprecedented levels --
as well as a demand to lift the restrictions on the media and restore
the people's rights to free assembly and unbiased information. We
also expect a reassessment of the conduct of the election. Any serious
reassessment will inevitably lead to the conclusion that a new election
must be held.
If these steps are not taken, Armenians will draw two very undesirable
conclusions: that peaceful and lawful means of political struggle are
ineffective and pointless, and that the West cares about democracy
only when it is politically expedient to do so. The West must do
everything possible to dissuade Armenia's citizens from reaching
those conclusions.
The writer was president of Armenia from 1991 to 1998 and was the main
opposition candidate for president this year. He is under house arrest.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ article/2008/03/04/AR2008030402329.html
March 5 2008
United States
YEREVAN, Armenia -- In Armenia's presidential election last month,
I stood as the main opposition candidate against incumbent Prime
Minister Serzh Sarkissian. The election followed a sadly familiar
script: The regime harassed the opposition's representatives, bribed
and intimidated voters, stuffed ballot boxes, and systematically
miscounted votes. Indeed, the rigging of the outcome did not begin on
Feb. 19. For the duration of the campaign the country's main medium
of communication, television, which is tightly controlled by the
regime, churned out propaganda that would have made Brezhnev-era
Soviet propagandists blush in shame.
We in the opposition were angered by all of this but not surprised.
What surprised and dismayed us was the deafening silence from the
West. What dismayed us even more was the technical report of the
observer mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe, which rubber-stamped Sarkissian's farcical claim of victory.
The people of Armenia, unlike the OSCE monitors, chose to see
what happened at the polling stations. Naturally, they discounted
Sarkissian's claim and gathered to demand annulment of the results.
They staged a continuous protest at Opera Square that became the most
wonderful celebration of freedom and one that should be studied as
an example of nonviolent, lawful resistance against illegitimate rule.
Deeply concerned that the ranks of protesters were swelling by the
day, the regime decided early Saturday to resort to force. Riot police
were ordered to disperse the crowd, detain the opposition leaders and
put me under house arrest. After several hours, citizens reassembled
at another site, demanding to see their leaders, but instead they
encountered more riot police, later reinforced by units of the Armenian
army, which was ordered to crush the protest. At least eight people
were killed this weekend, and emergency rule has been declared.
How did we come to this? Why did the regime headed by outgoing
President Robert Kocharian and "president-elect" Sarkissian think it
could get away with using force against its own people? Surely the two
men had their reasons, but the West's signal, even if unintentional,
that they did not have to worry about a strong international reaction
was the most important one.
We in Armenia have been trying to understand the roots of such
indifference to the rape of our democracy by the Kocharian-Sarkissian
regime. The available evidence suggests two explanations: First,
some influential organizations and actors in the West, and in
Europe in particular, are naively wedded to the notion of positive
reinforcement. They seem to think that praising small improvements,
instead of criticizing major flaws, creates an incentive for good
behavior. Anyone who has studied this regime closely, however,
understands the absurdity of such an approach.
Second, and perhaps more important, is the oft-stated claim that
the only people able to settle Armenia's long-standing conflict over
the Nagorno-Karabakh region will be leaders who are themselves from
Nagorno-Karabakh -- as Kocharian and Sarkissian are -- and who are
perceived domestically as hard-liners. This is analogous to the
"only Nixon could go to China" logic. The problem is that despite
being in power for the past 10 years, Kocharian and Sarkissian have
done little to move the negotiating process forward. More important,
any leader who must make consequential and difficult choices must have
the trust of his people. Sarkissian does not have that trust. After
what he and Kocharian did on March 1, he will not be able to govern
here, let alone make difficult choices.
So what should be done? What do the people of Armenia expect from
the West, and the United States in particular? At the very least,
we expect a strong and unequivocal condemnation of the violence
that occurred March 1 and a recognition that the government, not the
opposition, bears responsibility. This condemnation should accompany
a stern warning against continued persecution of the opposition and
its leaders -- mistreatment that is reaching unprecedented levels --
as well as a demand to lift the restrictions on the media and restore
the people's rights to free assembly and unbiased information. We
also expect a reassessment of the conduct of the election. Any serious
reassessment will inevitably lead to the conclusion that a new election
must be held.
If these steps are not taken, Armenians will draw two very undesirable
conclusions: that peaceful and lawful means of political struggle are
ineffective and pointless, and that the West cares about democracy
only when it is politically expedient to do so. The West must do
everything possible to dissuade Armenia's citizens from reaching
those conclusions.
The writer was president of Armenia from 1991 to 1998 and was the main
opposition candidate for president this year. He is under house arrest.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress