Tweet
TER-PETROSYAN'S OBJECTIVE: INTERNATIONAL INQUIRY INTO THE MARCH 1 EVENTS IN ARMENIA
Armen Ayvazyan
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1266
10.03.2008
The in-depth analysis of the recent events in Armenia is still to
come; nevertheless, we can draw certain conclusions. First of all,
we would like to touch upon one of the extremist statements made by
former Armenian presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrosyan. During
the Constitutional Court hearing on March 5, 2008, the ex-President
demanded that "an international inquiry into the March 1 events"
be launched1.
Let us try to understand what an "international inquiry into the
March 1 events" could mean.
We are already accustomed to seeing the first President of Armenia
use terms and concepts quite readily without defining their legal
content. We should keep in mind that the "international inquiry"
of any event has quite specific contents and regulated procedures
of implementation.
First, this means that the UN Security Council, which gives permission
for such kind of "international inquiries", has to admit that the event
constitutes a violation of the international commitments of the given
state and creates security threats on the regional and global level.
Second, it is necessary to set up a special investigative body -
a commission - under the auspices of the United Nations, that is to
say, a committee vested with emergency powers in a sovereign state.
Third, the activity of such investigative team, first of all, envisages
granting it unlimited authority for conducting a thorough study of all
the materials of the "March 1" case. This would-be commission could
carry out the interrogation of any citizen of Armenia, including
the officials, the officers of the Police, the National Security
Service and the Armed Forces, as well as the highest leaders of the
state. Incidentally, these people could not refuse to give testimony.
Fourth, as international experience has demonstrated time and
again, the specialists of a multinational investigative team (the
investigators, prosecutors, criminologists, intelligence officers,
translators, etc.), first and foremost, represent and protect the
interests of their own states, in spite of the mandate vested in
them. That is to say, they comply with the political agenda of their
states. As a matter of fact, such commissions are set up with that
particular purpose. As a rule, their work is prolonged for as long as
required for accomplishing the political objectives of their respective
states. Let's just recall how, in the period between 1991 and 1998,
UNSCOM (The United Nations Special Commission) was engaged in the
perpetual search for non-existent nuclear weapons in Iraq and how
the entire process of its activities was used to impose all kinds
of pressures and introduce ever newer sanctions restricting the
sovereignty and undermining the state machinery of that Iraq.
Of course, proposing to launch such an international inquiry into
"the March 1 events", the first President of Armenia might have been
unaware of these basic truths, which are the subject of study for the
experts in international law and national security. But then we have
the right to conclude that Ter-Petrosyan is unaware and ignorant of
the issues about which he makes public statements. However, if he is
aware of the subject matter and nonetheless continues to insist on
his proposal, the strongest doubts emerge whether he believes in the
very idea of an Independent Armenia. No special mental efforts are
required for imagining what statements Ter-Petrosyan's proponents
will make in response to our judgments: "The authorities are afraid
of an international inquiry, and this proves the righteousness of
the opposition" etc. But let's refrain from hysteria and examine the
essence and possible consequences of implementing the proposal by
the former Armenian President.
It is not a secret that the United States and its allies play first
fiddle in many international organizations, under the auspices of
which the international investigative commissions are set up. If we,
for a moment, conditionally imagine that a similar commission has
been set up with the purpose of investigating the March 1 events, it
won't be hard to guess that the predominant role in the international
investigative team will belong to the representatives of those Western
countries which have specific geopolitical interests and tasks in
our region. The members of the investigative group will be granted
legal immunity throughout the territory of Armenia, in accordance
with the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations. In the meantime, they will be actively engaged in espionage,
as did, for instance, the UNSCOM leaders and members who later made
public statements about their activity. Thus, citing anonymous sources,
the Washington Post and Boston Globe reported that Richard Butler had
known of and cooperated with a US electronic eavesdropping operation
that allowed intelligence agents to monitor military communications in
Iraq. This was confirmed by UNSCOM insider Rod Barton on Australian
television in February 2005. This intelligence was used to target US
air attacks on Iraq.
To have a more complete picture as to what powers are vested with
such investigative bodies, let's quote several paragraphs from the UN
Security Council Resolution 1595 which led to the creation of the "UN
international independent investigation Commission based in Lebanon to
assist the Lebanese authorities in their investigation of all aspects
of this terrorist act (i.e. the assassination of former Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri), including help to identify its perpetrators, sponsors,
organizers and accomplices":
[UN Security Council] Decides that, to ensure the Commission's
effectiveness in the discharge of its duties, the Commission shall:
- Enjoy the full cooperation of the Lebanese authorities, including
full access to all documentary, testimonial and physical information
and evidence in their possession that the Commission deems relevant
to the inquiry;
- Have the authority to collect any additional information and
evidence, both documentary and physical, pertaining to this terrorist
act, as well as to interview all officials and other persons in
Lebanon, that the Commission deems relevant to the inquiry;
- Enjoy freedom of movement throughout the Lebanese territory,
including access to all sites and facilities that the Commission
deems relevant to the inquiry;
- Be provided with the facilities necessary to perform its functions,
and be granted, as well as its premises, staff and equipment,
the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled under the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
In February 2006, a decision was made for setting up a Special Tribunal
for Lebanon, and in December 2007 the Netherlands agreed to host the
tribunal in The Hague.
Now, a couple of words about the inevitable consequences of the
implementation of Ter-Petrosyan's proposal.
The very process of setting up such body - i.e. including the proposal
in the agenda of the UN Security Council, discussing and voicing
Armenia's internal problem in that tribunal, disputing the mandate etc.
- will be a powerful blow to Armenia's sovereignty and international
reputation.
The activity of such a would-be team in Armenia will, in its turn,
undermine the country's fledgling national security system which,
as shown by the recent events, has serious flaws and is in its
formative stage. Actually, the ex-President proposes to hand over a
most important component of Armenia's sovereignty, its justice system,
under the control of the international forces which are absolutely
not interested in the strengthening of Armenian statehood. If we take
into consideration the factor of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict
which may, at any moment, revert into a new aggression against
Armenia, independent Armenian statehood will "sing its swan song"
as a result of the formation of such a committee. Perhaps, during
the rally of February 22, 2008, Ter-Petrosyan had a good reason to
inspire his audience with the following thought, "freedom is a value
higher than independence, higher than all the victories, higher than
statehood itself. Who needs such a state, such authorities and such
independence that do not bestow freedom to the individual."
Comparing this anarchist doctrine by Ter-Petrosyan with his obsessive
idea of handing over Armenia's liberated territory to Azerbaijan
and deploying international "peacekeepers" there, his continuous
calls directed to the West for intervening in the internal affairs
of Armenia2 as well as his most recent proposal on launching an
"international inquiry into the March 1 events", it is possible to
conclude that the ex-President of Armenia presents and lobbies the
interests of certain authors of the international political system,
entities which have demonstrated no support for the interests of
Armenian statehood and the Armenian people. It is likely that the
principal thesis of Ter-Petrosyan's pre- and post-election program was
precisely the international investigation of the events in Armenia,
as declared in his March 5 speech; this is why the disorders of March
1 were provoked.
The implementation of the programs authored by such virtual and at
the same time recognizable actors are clearly obvious in Iraq where
the loss of statehood and the collapse of the country are just a
matter of time, as many analysts believe. It is also necessary to
admit that the events which took place in Iraq were predetermined
by the activity of the above-mentioned UN Special Commission. But
if Saddam Hussein's regime was really criminal and deserved the
condemnation of the international community, the matter in our case
is different as it deals with the ambitions and harmful activities of
the first RA President who is trying to strike an equally undermining
blow to the re-established Armenian-statehood which, in the course
of less than 20 years of its history, faced a war of existence and
an economic blockade; a country which is even now subject to most
powerful informational and psychological attacks and the threat
of a new Turkish-Azerbaijani invasion. It is also interesting
to underline that during his tenure, Ter-Petrosyan never raised a
question for launching an "international inquiry" in connection with
the slaughters and massacres of Armenians, organized by the Azerbaijani
authorities in Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad, Getashen, Maragha and other
Armenian-populated areas.
What's described above are just some of the possible consequences
of Ter-Petrosyan's demand for conducting an "international inquiry
into the March 1 events", and we hope that they will never come true
as far as Armenia is concerned; the Armenian people will never allow
anything of the kind to happen.
Nevertheless, the Armenian authorities have to admit that along
with many other mistakes and shortcomings (social and human resource
policies, the inability to hear the voice of the public, etc.) they
also committed a strategic mistake: with their acquiescence - and
sometimes even support - and through foreign assistance, a powerful
fifth column, headed by Ter-Petrosyan and the Armenian Pan-National
Movement, has struck roots and organized itself in Armenia.
To cure this disease without pain is, alas, no longer possible;
that time has now passed. But removal of the malignant tumor is,
nonetheless, mandatory.
Armen AYVAZYAN - Doctor of Political Science, Director of the "Ararat"
Center for Strategic Research.
Armen Ayvazyan
http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1266
10.03.2008
The in-depth analysis of the recent events in Armenia is still to
come; nevertheless, we can draw certain conclusions. First of all,
we would like to touch upon one of the extremist statements made by
former Armenian presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrosyan. During
the Constitutional Court hearing on March 5, 2008, the ex-President
demanded that "an international inquiry into the March 1 events"
be launched1.
Let us try to understand what an "international inquiry into the
March 1 events" could mean.
We are already accustomed to seeing the first President of Armenia
use terms and concepts quite readily without defining their legal
content. We should keep in mind that the "international inquiry"
of any event has quite specific contents and regulated procedures
of implementation.
First, this means that the UN Security Council, which gives permission
for such kind of "international inquiries", has to admit that the event
constitutes a violation of the international commitments of the given
state and creates security threats on the regional and global level.
Second, it is necessary to set up a special investigative body -
a commission - under the auspices of the United Nations, that is to
say, a committee vested with emergency powers in a sovereign state.
Third, the activity of such investigative team, first of all, envisages
granting it unlimited authority for conducting a thorough study of all
the materials of the "March 1" case. This would-be commission could
carry out the interrogation of any citizen of Armenia, including
the officials, the officers of the Police, the National Security
Service and the Armed Forces, as well as the highest leaders of the
state. Incidentally, these people could not refuse to give testimony.
Fourth, as international experience has demonstrated time and
again, the specialists of a multinational investigative team (the
investigators, prosecutors, criminologists, intelligence officers,
translators, etc.), first and foremost, represent and protect the
interests of their own states, in spite of the mandate vested in
them. That is to say, they comply with the political agenda of their
states. As a matter of fact, such commissions are set up with that
particular purpose. As a rule, their work is prolonged for as long as
required for accomplishing the political objectives of their respective
states. Let's just recall how, in the period between 1991 and 1998,
UNSCOM (The United Nations Special Commission) was engaged in the
perpetual search for non-existent nuclear weapons in Iraq and how
the entire process of its activities was used to impose all kinds
of pressures and introduce ever newer sanctions restricting the
sovereignty and undermining the state machinery of that Iraq.
Of course, proposing to launch such an international inquiry into
"the March 1 events", the first President of Armenia might have been
unaware of these basic truths, which are the subject of study for the
experts in international law and national security. But then we have
the right to conclude that Ter-Petrosyan is unaware and ignorant of
the issues about which he makes public statements. However, if he is
aware of the subject matter and nonetheless continues to insist on
his proposal, the strongest doubts emerge whether he believes in the
very idea of an Independent Armenia. No special mental efforts are
required for imagining what statements Ter-Petrosyan's proponents
will make in response to our judgments: "The authorities are afraid
of an international inquiry, and this proves the righteousness of
the opposition" etc. But let's refrain from hysteria and examine the
essence and possible consequences of implementing the proposal by
the former Armenian President.
It is not a secret that the United States and its allies play first
fiddle in many international organizations, under the auspices of
which the international investigative commissions are set up. If we,
for a moment, conditionally imagine that a similar commission has
been set up with the purpose of investigating the March 1 events, it
won't be hard to guess that the predominant role in the international
investigative team will belong to the representatives of those Western
countries which have specific geopolitical interests and tasks in
our region. The members of the investigative group will be granted
legal immunity throughout the territory of Armenia, in accordance
with the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United
Nations. In the meantime, they will be actively engaged in espionage,
as did, for instance, the UNSCOM leaders and members who later made
public statements about their activity. Thus, citing anonymous sources,
the Washington Post and Boston Globe reported that Richard Butler had
known of and cooperated with a US electronic eavesdropping operation
that allowed intelligence agents to monitor military communications in
Iraq. This was confirmed by UNSCOM insider Rod Barton on Australian
television in February 2005. This intelligence was used to target US
air attacks on Iraq.
To have a more complete picture as to what powers are vested with
such investigative bodies, let's quote several paragraphs from the UN
Security Council Resolution 1595 which led to the creation of the "UN
international independent investigation Commission based in Lebanon to
assist the Lebanese authorities in their investigation of all aspects
of this terrorist act (i.e. the assassination of former Prime Minister
Rafik Hariri), including help to identify its perpetrators, sponsors,
organizers and accomplices":
[UN Security Council] Decides that, to ensure the Commission's
effectiveness in the discharge of its duties, the Commission shall:
- Enjoy the full cooperation of the Lebanese authorities, including
full access to all documentary, testimonial and physical information
and evidence in their possession that the Commission deems relevant
to the inquiry;
- Have the authority to collect any additional information and
evidence, both documentary and physical, pertaining to this terrorist
act, as well as to interview all officials and other persons in
Lebanon, that the Commission deems relevant to the inquiry;
- Enjoy freedom of movement throughout the Lebanese territory,
including access to all sites and facilities that the Commission
deems relevant to the inquiry;
- Be provided with the facilities necessary to perform its functions,
and be granted, as well as its premises, staff and equipment,
the privileges and immunities to which they are entitled under the
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.
In February 2006, a decision was made for setting up a Special Tribunal
for Lebanon, and in December 2007 the Netherlands agreed to host the
tribunal in The Hague.
Now, a couple of words about the inevitable consequences of the
implementation of Ter-Petrosyan's proposal.
The very process of setting up such body - i.e. including the proposal
in the agenda of the UN Security Council, discussing and voicing
Armenia's internal problem in that tribunal, disputing the mandate etc.
- will be a powerful blow to Armenia's sovereignty and international
reputation.
The activity of such a would-be team in Armenia will, in its turn,
undermine the country's fledgling national security system which,
as shown by the recent events, has serious flaws and is in its
formative stage. Actually, the ex-President proposes to hand over a
most important component of Armenia's sovereignty, its justice system,
under the control of the international forces which are absolutely
not interested in the strengthening of Armenian statehood. If we take
into consideration the factor of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict
which may, at any moment, revert into a new aggression against
Armenia, independent Armenian statehood will "sing its swan song"
as a result of the formation of such a committee. Perhaps, during
the rally of February 22, 2008, Ter-Petrosyan had a good reason to
inspire his audience with the following thought, "freedom is a value
higher than independence, higher than all the victories, higher than
statehood itself. Who needs such a state, such authorities and such
independence that do not bestow freedom to the individual."
Comparing this anarchist doctrine by Ter-Petrosyan with his obsessive
idea of handing over Armenia's liberated territory to Azerbaijan
and deploying international "peacekeepers" there, his continuous
calls directed to the West for intervening in the internal affairs
of Armenia2 as well as his most recent proposal on launching an
"international inquiry into the March 1 events", it is possible to
conclude that the ex-President of Armenia presents and lobbies the
interests of certain authors of the international political system,
entities which have demonstrated no support for the interests of
Armenian statehood and the Armenian people. It is likely that the
principal thesis of Ter-Petrosyan's pre- and post-election program was
precisely the international investigation of the events in Armenia,
as declared in his March 5 speech; this is why the disorders of March
1 were provoked.
The implementation of the programs authored by such virtual and at
the same time recognizable actors are clearly obvious in Iraq where
the loss of statehood and the collapse of the country are just a
matter of time, as many analysts believe. It is also necessary to
admit that the events which took place in Iraq were predetermined
by the activity of the above-mentioned UN Special Commission. But
if Saddam Hussein's regime was really criminal and deserved the
condemnation of the international community, the matter in our case
is different as it deals with the ambitions and harmful activities of
the first RA President who is trying to strike an equally undermining
blow to the re-established Armenian-statehood which, in the course
of less than 20 years of its history, faced a war of existence and
an economic blockade; a country which is even now subject to most
powerful informational and psychological attacks and the threat
of a new Turkish-Azerbaijani invasion. It is also interesting
to underline that during his tenure, Ter-Petrosyan never raised a
question for launching an "international inquiry" in connection with
the slaughters and massacres of Armenians, organized by the Azerbaijani
authorities in Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad, Getashen, Maragha and other
Armenian-populated areas.
What's described above are just some of the possible consequences
of Ter-Petrosyan's demand for conducting an "international inquiry
into the March 1 events", and we hope that they will never come true
as far as Armenia is concerned; the Armenian people will never allow
anything of the kind to happen.
Nevertheless, the Armenian authorities have to admit that along
with many other mistakes and shortcomings (social and human resource
policies, the inability to hear the voice of the public, etc.) they
also committed a strategic mistake: with their acquiescence - and
sometimes even support - and through foreign assistance, a powerful
fifth column, headed by Ter-Petrosyan and the Armenian Pan-National
Movement, has struck roots and organized itself in Armenia.
To cure this disease without pain is, alas, no longer possible;
that time has now passed. But removal of the malignant tumor is,
nonetheless, mandatory.
Armen AYVAZYAN - Doctor of Political Science, Director of the "Ararat"
Center for Strategic Research.