Tweet
CRITICAL JUNCTURE
(The Speech of Levon Ter-Petrosyan at the Rally of 1 May, 2009)
Dear Compatriots:
First, I would like to congratulate you and our entire nation on the
International Day of Worker's Solidarity, the relevance of which has
particularly increased with the sad reality Armenia currently finds
itself in.
Exactly two months have passed since the rally on 1 March,
which is not a long period, but it has been one filled with many
significant processes and events, the following four of which I want to
bring to your attention:
The deterioration of the socio-economic situation;
The wrecking of the `case of seven';
The deepening of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue;
Preparations for the elections of the mayor of Erevan.
What I will do below is attempt to present the positions of the
Armenian National Congress regarding each of them in as brief a space
as possible.
The Socio-Economic Situation
As we had predicted during the 1 March rally, great trials
awaited the country's economy, especially as a result of the impending
danger that the dram would be devaluated. In particular, I had
mentioned in my speech: `Very soon the government will have to abandon
the policy of the artificial preservation of the fixed rate of the
dram. Meanwhile, the dram will be depreciated not=2
0gradually, as it
happened with the Russian ruble, but, simply, as a result of a
galloping drop.' The plunge happened two days after the rally, i.e. on
3 March, revealing the bankrupt, if not criminal, nature of the policy
pursued by the government and the Central Bank. Up to that point the
authorities were assuring the public that the dram had a floating,
rather than a fixed exchange rate, which proved to be a complete lie,
since a currency with a floating exchange rate does not lose 30% of its
value in one day. It became clear also that the $800 million from the
reserves of the Central Bank had been spent not so much for shoring up
the dram's exchange rate, but for a completely different purpose. That
sum, as well as the hard currency that has been collected as the public
was exchanging it for the local currency, has wound up in the accounts
of bankers, high officials and oligarchs, which cannot be characterized
as anything but a plunder of our national wealth in broad daylight.
The authorities are now expressing their satisfaction that
following the plunge on 3 March, the exchange rate of the dram has
stabilized. But it is not clear why they are forgetting that as a
result of the drop in the dram's exchange rate and the subsequent hike
in the prices caused by it, there has been an approximately 30%
decrease in the population's living standards.
Relying on the
iron-tight logic of the government, we can even consider the
stabilization perfect if we take into account the very significant
facts that in the first quarter of this year there was a negative
growth of 6.1%, while the tax revenue has constituted only 40% of the
number envisioned by the budget. One more stabilization like that and
people will find themselves in the grip of total poverty. Although now
the dram indeed has a floating exchange rate, it is also not clear why
it is floating in one direction only ` toward increasing and continuing
loss of value. That can only mean that no economic stabilization can be
achieved in the near future. We should not forget that the banks have
found themselves in an extremely difficult situation because of the
losses they have incurred for loans in drams, and because of the
difficulties that have arisen in the repayments of the loans in
dollars. Inevitably, these problems are going to bankrupt some of the
banks, and as a result of that, the dram is going to lose much more of
its value.
As a result of the devaluation of the dram and the increase
in prices the Armenian economy is confronted with yet another alarming
problem, which is the shrinking of the volume of trade and the
resultant sharp decrease in the tax revenue. The budget has become
nothing more than a piece of paper, and the government is operating
on
the basis of the most elementary bookkeeping instead of that law, which
means that on any given day it spends as much as it collects, barely
being able to cover the operational expenses of the government and to
pay the salaries of its employees. The catastrophic decrease in the tax
revenue has forced the authorities to tighten the administration of tax
collection, to encourage arbitrariness on the part of the tax and duty
collection agencies, using also the courts as an instrument for the
same purpose. As in the past, the tax burden thus continues to fall
disproportionately on the shoulders of the small and medium size
businesses, which are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy even without
that problem. Serge Sargsyan himself confessed during his last
press-conference that the big business continues to evade taxes. If it
was a sincere confession, it would have given hope that the situation
would improve. But as long as Sargsyan occupies the post of the
president, the big business will continue to evade taxes, because the
latter is the most reliable base of his kleptocratic regime and the
source of his personal enrichment.
Expressions of social discontent particularly in the ranks
of taxi drivers, employees of open-air and retail markets have
sharpened significantly in the period after the 1 March rally. Soon
they may be joined by the unemployed and employees, whose salaries are
paid from the state budget. These expressions are so far spontaneous
and unorganized, but if their problems are not solved satisfactorily,
they threaten to cause serious turmoil. The authorities are myopically
trying to suppress these expressions of social discontent by
intimidation and police operations, which is a very dangerous and
counterproductive approach. Meanwhile, it was their duty to do the
exact opposite, i.e. instead of strangling that discontent in its
embryonic stage, hoping that it will not spread; they should have made
an effort to solve the problems that have afflicted the owners of small
and medium size businesses and the salaried employees. The state cannot
wash its hands off the relations between the employers and the
employees, between holders and renters of property. It is its duty to
intervene actively and to monitor those relations. One could object
that the laws are sufficient for managing those relations. But the
whole problem is that conflicts arise because of violations of those
laws, because of the arbitrariness of the officials, and because of the
all-consuming corruption. If the state refrains from taking up that
responsibility, tomorrow it will be done by unions, which, as a result
of the state's passivity will form, then gain in strength, because
there is no other way of protecting the workers' interests. Taking into
account the importance of this issue and the imperative of avoiding
social
turmoil, the Armenian National Congress is ready to extend
consulting and legal support for the formation of independent trade
unions. We have declared many times that the creation of civil society
in Armenia is the main goal of the Congress, and trade unions are one
of the most important components of it.
The Inglorious End of the Case of Seven
Even though the Armenian National Congress has issued a special
statement regarding this problem on 2 April of this year, I do not
think it is unnecessary to explicate the importance of that significant
event once again in front of this large audience. To understand the
essence of the so-called `case of seven' (in reality in should be `case
of eleven'), we should first try to understand why the case had been
initiated. There can be no doubt that the goal was to prove to the
world that the opposition was trying to take over with the use of
violence, which then would justify the authorities' response, which
included opening fire on peaceful protesters, murdering ten people, and
the declaration of the state of emergency. Accordingly, the court had
been instructed to wrap up the case quickly and to render the
stipulated verdict, which would confirm the official version of the
events of 1 March. However, because of the perseverance of the popular
movement, the courageous stance of the political prisoners, the
competent strategy of the defense lawyers, as well as the intervention
of the international organizations, that goal was stillborn. To save
face, the authorities were forced to make serious changes in the
criminal code, then to reformulate the charges on the bases of those
changes and to dissolve the case into several cases.
With that, and particularly with the revoking of the charge
under Article 300 of the Criminal Code, the authorities in effect
confessed that the `case of seven' was fabricated from the start and
that there has been no usurpation or even an attempt at usurpation of
power by the opposition. Separating the case of the murders, meanwhile,
amounts to a confession that the opposition's actions had nothing to do
with them. Thus the official version of the events of 1 March has
finally gone up in smoke, and what we are left with is the blood
chilling crime committed by the authorities themselves, every detail of
which is going to be revealed sooner or later.
A question then arises as to what motivated the inadequate,
or actually barbaric, behavior of the authorities on 1 March. Perhaps
the mass disturbances organized by the opposition, which is what the
reformulated charge against the aforementioned seven individuals is?
Not only the fact of charging seven individuals as separate organizers
of the same mass disturbance is a legal ignorance or downright absurd,
there can be no doubt that these separated cases are going to have the
same fate as the `mother case,' because no representative of the
opposition has so far been charged with committing violent acts,
burning cars or looting shops personally. Even if the court succeeds in
issuing verdicts violating the law, these cases are going to go up in
smoke in the European court.
As for who organized the mass disturbances, the burning of
cars, and the looting of shops, I have spoken about it in front of a
smaller audience during the first convention of the Armenian National
Congress on 21 December 2008, stating in particular the following:
`Based on information from reliable sources, we have determined that
the burning of cars, the looting of shops, and other provocations on 1
March have been carried out by certain gangs, which have had 950
members between them. These gangs were formed, equipped, and put under
the command of a center that was coordinating their activities by five
high-ranking officials and four oligarchs.... The central office of the
Armenian National Congress has made all the evidence about that
available to the Fact-finding Group, to the Commissioner on Human
Rights of the Council of Europe Thomas Hammarberg, and several foreign
ambassadors stationed in Armenia.' The credibility of this information
is confirmed by the fact that the Armenian authorities have
categorically forbidden the Fact-finding Group to conduct an inspection
at a Defense Ministry warehouse, which has provided the clothing to the
aforementioned gangs. Respecting the confidentiality of the work of the
Fact-finding Group, we will refrain from making the names of the
leaders of those gangs public for now. These people are still holding
high offices and influential economic positions. There should be no
doubt that the day will come when we will make those names public, and
everybody is going to see the sort of despicable criminals, who are
holding the fate of Armenia and the Armenian nation in their hands.
Armenian-Turkish Relations
The unprecedented shifts in the Armenian-Turkish relations that we see
today deserve a special assessment since they concern one of the most
vital issues of the development of the Armenian statehood. I should
stress immediately that with the exception of one of its
member-organizations, the Armenian National Congress is in favor of a
speedy normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations, and is ready to
support all the positive steps of the Armenian authorities with regard
to this issue. We only object to the creation of a special commission
of Armenian and Turkish historians to study the Genocide, which we
think can only mean denial of the Armenian Genocide.
Now let us see how the aforementioned shifts are manifested. It is
clear that as a result of the contacts between Armenian and Turkish
diplomats a working document has been created, which contains the
following items:
- The establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and
Turkey;
- Mutual recognition of borders;
- Opening of the Armenian-Turkish border;
- Creation of a commission consisting of Armenian and Turkish
historians.
Subsequently this document was branded a `roadmap,' and some of its
details were made public. Whatever its name, it seems that we are
dealing with a serious intention to normalize the relations between the
two states, especially when we take into account the impression that
Turkey seems to have relinquished its unconstructive policy of making
the resolution of the Karabakh conflict a precondition for the
normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. But there are two issues
that are casting a dark shadow over that impression. The idea of a
commission of Armenian and Turkish historians was obviously going to
create certain difficulties for the Armenian side, so in the end it has
succeeded in renaming the commission as intergovernmental. But that is
only a way of pulling a veil over the issue and using a euphemism that
intends to placate the Armenian people, because the intergovernmental
commission is also going to have a unit of historians, which leaves the
essence of the problem unchanged. The Turkish side also cannot ignore
the pressure from the Azerbaijani public and its own opposition, and
therefore it is going to have to return to its prior position. In other
words, despite the optimistic predictions, the relations between
Armenia and Turkey are not going to get normalized and the
Armenian-Turkish border is not going to be opened as long as tangible
progress has been made in the efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict.
We have to wonder then what the purpose of all this noise was.
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is going to have a bitter
taste for the Armenian people. The whole problem is that aside from the
general disposition to normalize the relations, Turkey had another
minimal and specific aim, which was to prevent the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide by the US President Barak Obama and the American
Congress at any cost. Turkey has reached its goal, Armenia has been
left empty-handed, and the Diaspora has been disillusioned. The first
half of the football diplomacy has ended with a score of 1:0 in
Turkey's favor.
Turkish leaders presented Barak Obama with the aforementioned document
worked out by Armenian and Turkish diplomats, and as could be expected,
easily convinced him that serious process has been launched to
normalize the Armenian-Turkish relations. With praiseworthy candor
Obama declared that he has not changed his view on the Armenian
Genocide, but as is fitting to a statesman, explained that he is not
going to impede that process, implying that the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide is being pulled out of the US agenda for now.
Is it appropriate to accuse Turkey and the US in hypocrisy? Not at all.
Turkey achieved its main goal at this stage, displaying enviable
diplomatic dexterity. And the president of the USA acted as any
responsible leader would have acted in the circumstances. If there is
any need to look for targets for our accusations, the Armenian
authorities of the last 11 years represented by Robert Kocharian,
Vardan Oskanyan, Serge Sargsyan, and Edward Nalbandian should be those
targets, since they are the ones who have desecrated the sacred memory
of the Genocide turning it into an object of political auction and
bargaining. And they did that not in the name of some lofty national
goal or in order to strengthen our state, but exclusively for the
pitiful purpose of gaining Diaspora's favor and earning certain
dividends in our internal politics.
In this regard it is quite interesting to trace the evolution of their
utterly bankrupt and harmful policy:
- The first thing the Kocharian administration did was to
declare as treasonous the previous administration's policy of
establishing normal relations with Turkey without any preconditions.
- The international recognition of the Genocide was declared as
the c
ornerstone of Armenia's foreign policy, which was also boastfully
submitted to Turkey as a rational basis for normalizing the relations.
- When after resisting for a long time they realized that the
road they chose led to a deadlock, they returned to the same policy of
establishing normal relations with Turkey without preconditions, which
they had declared treasonous, inadvertently exposing Armenia's weakness
and giving Turkey an opportunity to harden its position.
- Both as a result of this objective reason, and in order to
solve the problem of his legitimacy, Serge Sargsyan went to an even
more dangerous extreme of agreeing to an almost forgotten proposal made
by Recep Erdogan years ago about establishing a commission of Armenian
and Turkish historians to study the Genocide.
It is this string of political wanderings, myopic steps, and
irresponsible actions that produced the results of Obama's visit to
Turkey. Of course, one cannot insist that had it not been for the
aforementioned process launched to normalize the Armenian-Turkish
relations, Obama already as president of the USA would have uttered the
word `genocide' in his 24 April address, or that the American Congress
would have passed a resolution recognizing the Genocide. Situations
like this have existed in the past, but things never got to that point.
But the situation is substantially different this time, because unlike
in the past, this time the formal excuse is Serge Sargsyan's ill-fated
initiative to have a rapprochement with Turkey at any cost, including
the cost of renunciation of the Genocide. Thus without a shred of
exaggeration we have to conclude: In order to keep his hold on power,
Serge Sargsyan has literally sold the Genocide. Without a doubt his
next step is going to be to sell Karabakh, after which naturally he
will be the first Armenian to be awarded the Nobel Prize.
I am being kind. I am sure Sargsyan's behavior is going to attract much
more ruthless assessments from the radical circles in Armenia, and
especially in the Diaspora. Justice demands, however, that we apportion
at least part of the blame to the chiefs of the Diaspora, who not only
never warned the Armenian authorities about the dangers and harmfulness
of putting the issue of the international recognition of Genocide on
the state's official agenda, but encouraged the latter's efforts and
praised their `heroics' in the end getting what they got. The enormous
effort and financial resources invested by the Diaspora for the cause
of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide thus were wasted in one
day. It is difficult to imagine how the situation can be remedied and
the loss recovered.
Even with all this, even with the sad result with which the
current process of normalizing the Armenian-Turkish relations has
ended, it is not at all devoid of positive elements. Turkey's natural
interest in the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations on the
one hand, and the linking of that normalization to expected shifts in
the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, on the other, creates a certain
impetus for pushing the process settling the Karabakh conflict forward.
The fact that the circumstances have forced President Obama to assume
moral responsibility is also a positive development, which obligates
the country he governs to get more actively and impartially involved
both in the process of normalizing the Armenian-Turkish relations and
in the process of finding a resolution to the Karabakh conflict. Barak
Obama is an idealist in the best sense of the word. It is well known
that although the world is usually governed by pragmatic and cynical
people, civilization moves forward thanks to the occasionally appearing
idealists. And by idealist I do not mean ideologues, but rather the
rare statesmen, who have firm principles of morality, honor, and
justice.
The Elections of Erevan's Mayor
When the Armenian National Congress announced that it is going to
participate in the elections of Erevan's mayor under my leadership, the
first reaction from the governing camp was that the Congress is
politicizing the elections, implying that a crime is being committed
that has no parallels in world history. The politicization of any
question is equivalent to a plague for people who react in that manner
and something people should escape in a mad rush. First, by doing this
the forces that comprise the coalition are putting themselves in a
ridiculous situation, because they themselves have politicized it to
the extreme by adopting a 100% proportional system for the elections of
the mayor of Erevan. Second, with such a reaction they are giving away
their criminal nature, because the alternative to politicization is
nothing other than criminalization.
It is high time to realize that they are no issues in a
state that are apolitical, because the essence of a state is politics.
If it was not so, what would the meaning of concepts like economic
policy, social policy, agrarian policy, educational policy, cultural
policy, health care policy, and other similar concepts be? Even the
concepts `state' and `politics' have common origins, if we take into
account the fact that the world `politics' has originated from the
Greek word `polis' (city-state). This was understood even in the middle
ages, which is evidenced by the fact that the 13th century Armenian
thinker Hovannes Yerznkatsi uses the word `city' to mean state.
In addition to accusing the Congress of politicizing the
elections, the official propaganda is trying to put the Congress in an
uncomfortable position with another ridiculous trick, namely by
endowing the mayor only with the lowly authority of garbage collector
as it understands the position. First, who said that collecting garbage
is not an important job? And secondly, if garbage collecting is the
mayor's only job, why is only a single line dedicated to it in the
60-page long law on Yerevan, whereas the rest is dedicated to politics?
If after this explanation opinions are voiced again that the Congress
is politicizing the elections, the Congress should only be thanked for
it, because by doing so it is trying to prevent the criminalization of
the elections.
Today I have no intention of engaging in election
campaigning. That we will do during our upcoming rallies. But I cannot
fail to draw your attention to one last very important question having
to do with the elections. What would have happened if the Armenian
National Congress were to decide not to participate in the elections?
Undoubtedly, the same thing would happen as did during the
parliamentary elections of 2007. The appearance would have been that of
a free and fair election, the representative of the authorities would
win convincingly, and the international observers would assess the
elections as yet another significant step on the path of democratizing
the country. Serge Sargsyan would turn the result of that election into
a banner, would be able to legitimize the rigged presidential elections
of 2008 to some degree, and would earn enormous credit in the eyes of
the international community.
If Sargsyan is really concerned about the reputation of his
country, he has the opportu - nity to achieve that goal even today. He
can conduct legitimate elections, which will earn both the
international observers' and our society's praise. He should realize
finally that not just the authorities', but even the opposition's
victory in legitimate elections strengthens the state and shields it
from international pressures. Otherwise, he will never earn the right
to be called a statesman. But if acting narrow-mindedly, Sargsyan does
the same thing as he did during the presidential elections, not
refraining not only from blatant falsification, but also from using
vio - lence, he will inflict another heavy blow on our state, which may
be unable to recover from it this time. Making sure that the mayor's
elections are conducted properly is Serge Sargsyan's last chance to
earn some credibility in the eyes of the Armenian society and the
international community. He can fail to exploit that opportunity only
at the expense of the Armenian state's interests.
Thus beginning tomorrow we are entering a new phase in the
campaign, which is significantly different from the presidential
campaign in one essential feature ` the unity of the opposition ` and
which is going to reduce greatly the authorities' opportunity to
falsify the results of these elections. We regret that the effort to
participate in the elections with a joint list of the Armenian National
Congress and the Heritage Party did not succeed. We appreciate at the
same time the decision of the Heritage Party not to participate with a
separate list in order not to split the oppositional vote. We are also
convinced that the Heritage Party will do everything to support the
opposition in the upcoming elections.
Our next rally, which will already be a campaign rally,
will take place on 15 May. We are planning to hold rallies and meetings
with the voters in Erevan's districts as well. I want to inform you in
addition that in all of the offices of the Armenian National Congress
there will be special units accepting your written proposals about the
problems of the city, which will be meticulously examined and taken
into account in our future work. And now let us go on to the march, the
path and the procedure for which will be introduced to you by the
coordinator of the central office of the Armenian National Congress
Levon Zourabian.
(The Speech of Levon Ter-Petrosyan at the Rally of 1 May, 2009)
Dear Compatriots:
First, I would like to congratulate you and our entire nation on the
International Day of Worker's Solidarity, the relevance of which has
particularly increased with the sad reality Armenia currently finds
itself in.
Exactly two months have passed since the rally on 1 March,
which is not a long period, but it has been one filled with many
significant processes and events, the following four of which I want to
bring to your attention:
The deterioration of the socio-economic situation;
The wrecking of the `case of seven';
The deepening of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue;
Preparations for the elections of the mayor of Erevan.
What I will do below is attempt to present the positions of the
Armenian National Congress regarding each of them in as brief a space
as possible.
The Socio-Economic Situation
As we had predicted during the 1 March rally, great trials
awaited the country's economy, especially as a result of the impending
danger that the dram would be devaluated. In particular, I had
mentioned in my speech: `Very soon the government will have to abandon
the policy of the artificial preservation of the fixed rate of the
dram. Meanwhile, the dram will be depreciated not=2
0gradually, as it
happened with the Russian ruble, but, simply, as a result of a
galloping drop.' The plunge happened two days after the rally, i.e. on
3 March, revealing the bankrupt, if not criminal, nature of the policy
pursued by the government and the Central Bank. Up to that point the
authorities were assuring the public that the dram had a floating,
rather than a fixed exchange rate, which proved to be a complete lie,
since a currency with a floating exchange rate does not lose 30% of its
value in one day. It became clear also that the $800 million from the
reserves of the Central Bank had been spent not so much for shoring up
the dram's exchange rate, but for a completely different purpose. That
sum, as well as the hard currency that has been collected as the public
was exchanging it for the local currency, has wound up in the accounts
of bankers, high officials and oligarchs, which cannot be characterized
as anything but a plunder of our national wealth in broad daylight.
The authorities are now expressing their satisfaction that
following the plunge on 3 March, the exchange rate of the dram has
stabilized. But it is not clear why they are forgetting that as a
result of the drop in the dram's exchange rate and the subsequent hike
in the prices caused by it, there has been an approximately 30%
decrease in the population's living standards.
Relying on the
iron-tight logic of the government, we can even consider the
stabilization perfect if we take into account the very significant
facts that in the first quarter of this year there was a negative
growth of 6.1%, while the tax revenue has constituted only 40% of the
number envisioned by the budget. One more stabilization like that and
people will find themselves in the grip of total poverty. Although now
the dram indeed has a floating exchange rate, it is also not clear why
it is floating in one direction only ` toward increasing and continuing
loss of value. That can only mean that no economic stabilization can be
achieved in the near future. We should not forget that the banks have
found themselves in an extremely difficult situation because of the
losses they have incurred for loans in drams, and because of the
difficulties that have arisen in the repayments of the loans in
dollars. Inevitably, these problems are going to bankrupt some of the
banks, and as a result of that, the dram is going to lose much more of
its value.
As a result of the devaluation of the dram and the increase
in prices the Armenian economy is confronted with yet another alarming
problem, which is the shrinking of the volume of trade and the
resultant sharp decrease in the tax revenue. The budget has become
nothing more than a piece of paper, and the government is operating
on
the basis of the most elementary bookkeeping instead of that law, which
means that on any given day it spends as much as it collects, barely
being able to cover the operational expenses of the government and to
pay the salaries of its employees. The catastrophic decrease in the tax
revenue has forced the authorities to tighten the administration of tax
collection, to encourage arbitrariness on the part of the tax and duty
collection agencies, using also the courts as an instrument for the
same purpose. As in the past, the tax burden thus continues to fall
disproportionately on the shoulders of the small and medium size
businesses, which are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy even without
that problem. Serge Sargsyan himself confessed during his last
press-conference that the big business continues to evade taxes. If it
was a sincere confession, it would have given hope that the situation
would improve. But as long as Sargsyan occupies the post of the
president, the big business will continue to evade taxes, because the
latter is the most reliable base of his kleptocratic regime and the
source of his personal enrichment.
Expressions of social discontent particularly in the ranks
of taxi drivers, employees of open-air and retail markets have
sharpened significantly in the period after the 1 March rally. Soon
they may be joined by the unemployed and employees, whose salaries are
paid from the state budget. These expressions are so far spontaneous
and unorganized, but if their problems are not solved satisfactorily,
they threaten to cause serious turmoil. The authorities are myopically
trying to suppress these expressions of social discontent by
intimidation and police operations, which is a very dangerous and
counterproductive approach. Meanwhile, it was their duty to do the
exact opposite, i.e. instead of strangling that discontent in its
embryonic stage, hoping that it will not spread; they should have made
an effort to solve the problems that have afflicted the owners of small
and medium size businesses and the salaried employees. The state cannot
wash its hands off the relations between the employers and the
employees, between holders and renters of property. It is its duty to
intervene actively and to monitor those relations. One could object
that the laws are sufficient for managing those relations. But the
whole problem is that conflicts arise because of violations of those
laws, because of the arbitrariness of the officials, and because of the
all-consuming corruption. If the state refrains from taking up that
responsibility, tomorrow it will be done by unions, which, as a result
of the state's passivity will form, then gain in strength, because
there is no other way of protecting the workers' interests. Taking into
account the importance of this issue and the imperative of avoiding
social
turmoil, the Armenian National Congress is ready to extend
consulting and legal support for the formation of independent trade
unions. We have declared many times that the creation of civil society
in Armenia is the main goal of the Congress, and trade unions are one
of the most important components of it.
The Inglorious End of the Case of Seven
Even though the Armenian National Congress has issued a special
statement regarding this problem on 2 April of this year, I do not
think it is unnecessary to explicate the importance of that significant
event once again in front of this large audience. To understand the
essence of the so-called `case of seven' (in reality in should be `case
of eleven'), we should first try to understand why the case had been
initiated. There can be no doubt that the goal was to prove to the
world that the opposition was trying to take over with the use of
violence, which then would justify the authorities' response, which
included opening fire on peaceful protesters, murdering ten people, and
the declaration of the state of emergency. Accordingly, the court had
been instructed to wrap up the case quickly and to render the
stipulated verdict, which would confirm the official version of the
events of 1 March. However, because of the perseverance of the popular
movement, the courageous stance of the political prisoners, the
competent strategy of the defense lawyers, as well as the intervention
of the international organizations, that goal was stillborn. To save
face, the authorities were forced to make serious changes in the
criminal code, then to reformulate the charges on the bases of those
changes and to dissolve the case into several cases.
With that, and particularly with the revoking of the charge
under Article 300 of the Criminal Code, the authorities in effect
confessed that the `case of seven' was fabricated from the start and
that there has been no usurpation or even an attempt at usurpation of
power by the opposition. Separating the case of the murders, meanwhile,
amounts to a confession that the opposition's actions had nothing to do
with them. Thus the official version of the events of 1 March has
finally gone up in smoke, and what we are left with is the blood
chilling crime committed by the authorities themselves, every detail of
which is going to be revealed sooner or later.
A question then arises as to what motivated the inadequate,
or actually barbaric, behavior of the authorities on 1 March. Perhaps
the mass disturbances organized by the opposition, which is what the
reformulated charge against the aforementioned seven individuals is?
Not only the fact of charging seven individuals as separate organizers
of the same mass disturbance is a legal ignorance or downright absurd,
there can be no doubt that these separated cases are going to have the
same fate as the `mother case,' because no representative of the
opposition has so far been charged with committing violent acts,
burning cars or looting shops personally. Even if the court succeeds in
issuing verdicts violating the law, these cases are going to go up in
smoke in the European court.
As for who organized the mass disturbances, the burning of
cars, and the looting of shops, I have spoken about it in front of a
smaller audience during the first convention of the Armenian National
Congress on 21 December 2008, stating in particular the following:
`Based on information from reliable sources, we have determined that
the burning of cars, the looting of shops, and other provocations on 1
March have been carried out by certain gangs, which have had 950
members between them. These gangs were formed, equipped, and put under
the command of a center that was coordinating their activities by five
high-ranking officials and four oligarchs.... The central office of the
Armenian National Congress has made all the evidence about that
available to the Fact-finding Group, to the Commissioner on Human
Rights of the Council of Europe Thomas Hammarberg, and several foreign
ambassadors stationed in Armenia.' The credibility of this information
is confirmed by the fact that the Armenian authorities have
categorically forbidden the Fact-finding Group to conduct an inspection
at a Defense Ministry warehouse, which has provided the clothing to the
aforementioned gangs. Respecting the confidentiality of the work of the
Fact-finding Group, we will refrain from making the names of the
leaders of those gangs public for now. These people are still holding
high offices and influential economic positions. There should be no
doubt that the day will come when we will make those names public, and
everybody is going to see the sort of despicable criminals, who are
holding the fate of Armenia and the Armenian nation in their hands.
Armenian-Turkish Relations
The unprecedented shifts in the Armenian-Turkish relations that we see
today deserve a special assessment since they concern one of the most
vital issues of the development of the Armenian statehood. I should
stress immediately that with the exception of one of its
member-organizations, the Armenian National Congress is in favor of a
speedy normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations, and is ready to
support all the positive steps of the Armenian authorities with regard
to this issue. We only object to the creation of a special commission
of Armenian and Turkish historians to study the Genocide, which we
think can only mean denial of the Armenian Genocide.
Now let us see how the aforementioned shifts are manifested. It is
clear that as a result of the contacts between Armenian and Turkish
diplomats a working document has been created, which contains the
following items:
- The establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and
Turkey;
- Mutual recognition of borders;
- Opening of the Armenian-Turkish border;
- Creation of a commission consisting of Armenian and Turkish
historians.
Subsequently this document was branded a `roadmap,' and some of its
details were made public. Whatever its name, it seems that we are
dealing with a serious intention to normalize the relations between the
two states, especially when we take into account the impression that
Turkey seems to have relinquished its unconstructive policy of making
the resolution of the Karabakh conflict a precondition for the
normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. But there are two issues
that are casting a dark shadow over that impression. The idea of a
commission of Armenian and Turkish historians was obviously going to
create certain difficulties for the Armenian side, so in the end it has
succeeded in renaming the commission as intergovernmental. But that is
only a way of pulling a veil over the issue and using a euphemism that
intends to placate the Armenian people, because the intergovernmental
commission is also going to have a unit of historians, which leaves the
essence of the problem unchanged. The Turkish side also cannot ignore
the pressure from the Azerbaijani public and its own opposition, and
therefore it is going to have to return to its prior position. In other
words, despite the optimistic predictions, the relations between
Armenia and Turkey are not going to get normalized and the
Armenian-Turkish border is not going to be opened as long as tangible
progress has been made in the efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict.
We have to wonder then what the purpose of all this noise was.
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is going to have a bitter
taste for the Armenian people. The whole problem is that aside from the
general disposition to normalize the relations, Turkey had another
minimal and specific aim, which was to prevent the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide by the US President Barak Obama and the American
Congress at any cost. Turkey has reached its goal, Armenia has been
left empty-handed, and the Diaspora has been disillusioned. The first
half of the football diplomacy has ended with a score of 1:0 in
Turkey's favor.
Turkish leaders presented Barak Obama with the aforementioned document
worked out by Armenian and Turkish diplomats, and as could be expected,
easily convinced him that serious process has been launched to
normalize the Armenian-Turkish relations. With praiseworthy candor
Obama declared that he has not changed his view on the Armenian
Genocide, but as is fitting to a statesman, explained that he is not
going to impede that process, implying that the recognition of the
Armenian Genocide is being pulled out of the US agenda for now.
Is it appropriate to accuse Turkey and the US in hypocrisy? Not at all.
Turkey achieved its main goal at this stage, displaying enviable
diplomatic dexterity. And the president of the USA acted as any
responsible leader would have acted in the circumstances. If there is
any need to look for targets for our accusations, the Armenian
authorities of the last 11 years represented by Robert Kocharian,
Vardan Oskanyan, Serge Sargsyan, and Edward Nalbandian should be those
targets, since they are the ones who have desecrated the sacred memory
of the Genocide turning it into an object of political auction and
bargaining. And they did that not in the name of some lofty national
goal or in order to strengthen our state, but exclusively for the
pitiful purpose of gaining Diaspora's favor and earning certain
dividends in our internal politics.
In this regard it is quite interesting to trace the evolution of their
utterly bankrupt and harmful policy:
- The first thing the Kocharian administration did was to
declare as treasonous the previous administration's policy of
establishing normal relations with Turkey without any preconditions.
- The international recognition of the Genocide was declared as
the c
ornerstone of Armenia's foreign policy, which was also boastfully
submitted to Turkey as a rational basis for normalizing the relations.
- When after resisting for a long time they realized that the
road they chose led to a deadlock, they returned to the same policy of
establishing normal relations with Turkey without preconditions, which
they had declared treasonous, inadvertently exposing Armenia's weakness
and giving Turkey an opportunity to harden its position.
- Both as a result of this objective reason, and in order to
solve the problem of his legitimacy, Serge Sargsyan went to an even
more dangerous extreme of agreeing to an almost forgotten proposal made
by Recep Erdogan years ago about establishing a commission of Armenian
and Turkish historians to study the Genocide.
It is this string of political wanderings, myopic steps, and
irresponsible actions that produced the results of Obama's visit to
Turkey. Of course, one cannot insist that had it not been for the
aforementioned process launched to normalize the Armenian-Turkish
relations, Obama already as president of the USA would have uttered the
word `genocide' in his 24 April address, or that the American Congress
would have passed a resolution recognizing the Genocide. Situations
like this have existed in the past, but things never got to that point.
But the situation is substantially different this time, because unlike
in the past, this time the formal excuse is Serge Sargsyan's ill-fated
initiative to have a rapprochement with Turkey at any cost, including
the cost of renunciation of the Genocide. Thus without a shred of
exaggeration we have to conclude: In order to keep his hold on power,
Serge Sargsyan has literally sold the Genocide. Without a doubt his
next step is going to be to sell Karabakh, after which naturally he
will be the first Armenian to be awarded the Nobel Prize.
I am being kind. I am sure Sargsyan's behavior is going to attract much
more ruthless assessments from the radical circles in Armenia, and
especially in the Diaspora. Justice demands, however, that we apportion
at least part of the blame to the chiefs of the Diaspora, who not only
never warned the Armenian authorities about the dangers and harmfulness
of putting the issue of the international recognition of Genocide on
the state's official agenda, but encouraged the latter's efforts and
praised their `heroics' in the end getting what they got. The enormous
effort and financial resources invested by the Diaspora for the cause
of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide thus were wasted in one
day. It is difficult to imagine how the situation can be remedied and
the loss recovered.
Even with all this, even with the sad result with which the
current process of normalizing the Armenian-Turkish relations has
ended, it is not at all devoid of positive elements. Turkey's natural
interest in the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations on the
one hand, and the linking of that normalization to expected shifts in
the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, on the other, creates a certain
impetus for pushing the process settling the Karabakh conflict forward.
The fact that the circumstances have forced President Obama to assume
moral responsibility is also a positive development, which obligates
the country he governs to get more actively and impartially involved
both in the process of normalizing the Armenian-Turkish relations and
in the process of finding a resolution to the Karabakh conflict. Barak
Obama is an idealist in the best sense of the word. It is well known
that although the world is usually governed by pragmatic and cynical
people, civilization moves forward thanks to the occasionally appearing
idealists. And by idealist I do not mean ideologues, but rather the
rare statesmen, who have firm principles of morality, honor, and
justice.
The Elections of Erevan's Mayor
When the Armenian National Congress announced that it is going to
participate in the elections of Erevan's mayor under my leadership, the
first reaction from the governing camp was that the Congress is
politicizing the elections, implying that a crime is being committed
that has no parallels in world history. The politicization of any
question is equivalent to a plague for people who react in that manner
and something people should escape in a mad rush. First, by doing this
the forces that comprise the coalition are putting themselves in a
ridiculous situation, because they themselves have politicized it to
the extreme by adopting a 100% proportional system for the elections of
the mayor of Erevan. Second, with such a reaction they are giving away
their criminal nature, because the alternative to politicization is
nothing other than criminalization.
It is high time to realize that they are no issues in a
state that are apolitical, because the essence of a state is politics.
If it was not so, what would the meaning of concepts like economic
policy, social policy, agrarian policy, educational policy, cultural
policy, health care policy, and other similar concepts be? Even the
concepts `state' and `politics' have common origins, if we take into
account the fact that the world `politics' has originated from the
Greek word `polis' (city-state). This was understood even in the middle
ages, which is evidenced by the fact that the 13th century Armenian
thinker Hovannes Yerznkatsi uses the word `city' to mean state.
In addition to accusing the Congress of politicizing the
elections, the official propaganda is trying to put the Congress in an
uncomfortable position with another ridiculous trick, namely by
endowing the mayor only with the lowly authority of garbage collector
as it understands the position. First, who said that collecting garbage
is not an important job? And secondly, if garbage collecting is the
mayor's only job, why is only a single line dedicated to it in the
60-page long law on Yerevan, whereas the rest is dedicated to politics?
If after this explanation opinions are voiced again that the Congress
is politicizing the elections, the Congress should only be thanked for
it, because by doing so it is trying to prevent the criminalization of
the elections.
Today I have no intention of engaging in election
campaigning. That we will do during our upcoming rallies. But I cannot
fail to draw your attention to one last very important question having
to do with the elections. What would have happened if the Armenian
National Congress were to decide not to participate in the elections?
Undoubtedly, the same thing would happen as did during the
parliamentary elections of 2007. The appearance would have been that of
a free and fair election, the representative of the authorities would
win convincingly, and the international observers would assess the
elections as yet another significant step on the path of democratizing
the country. Serge Sargsyan would turn the result of that election into
a banner, would be able to legitimize the rigged presidential elections
of 2008 to some degree, and would earn enormous credit in the eyes of
the international community.
If Sargsyan is really concerned about the reputation of his
country, he has the opportu - nity to achieve that goal even today. He
can conduct legitimate elections, which will earn both the
international observers' and our society's praise. He should realize
finally that not just the authorities', but even the opposition's
victory in legitimate elections strengthens the state and shields it
from international pressures. Otherwise, he will never earn the right
to be called a statesman. But if acting narrow-mindedly, Sargsyan does
the same thing as he did during the presidential elections, not
refraining not only from blatant falsification, but also from using
vio - lence, he will inflict another heavy blow on our state, which may
be unable to recover from it this time. Making sure that the mayor's
elections are conducted properly is Serge Sargsyan's last chance to
earn some credibility in the eyes of the Armenian society and the
international community. He can fail to exploit that opportunity only
at the expense of the Armenian state's interests.
Thus beginning tomorrow we are entering a new phase in the
campaign, which is significantly different from the presidential
campaign in one essential feature ` the unity of the opposition ` and
which is going to reduce greatly the authorities' opportunity to
falsify the results of these elections. We regret that the effort to
participate in the elections with a joint list of the Armenian National
Congress and the Heritage Party did not succeed. We appreciate at the
same time the decision of the Heritage Party not to participate with a
separate list in order not to split the oppositional vote. We are also
convinced that the Heritage Party will do everything to support the
opposition in the upcoming elections.
Our next rally, which will already be a campaign rally,
will take place on 15 May. We are planning to hold rallies and meetings
with the voters in Erevan's districts as well. I want to inform you in
addition that in all of the offices of the Armenian National Congress
there will be special units accepting your written proposals about the
problems of the city, which will be meticulously examined and taken
into account in our future work. And now let us go on to the march, the
path and the procedure for which will be introduced to you by the
coordinator of the central office of the Armenian National Congress
Levon Zourabian.