Obama proposes budget, new reports on Armenian politics and Karabakh

First published in February 28, 2009 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Obama proposes 2010 budget, as Congress funds 2009

President Barack Obama made his first budget proposal since taking office, calling for an overall increase in funding for the State Department and other international programs to $51.7 billion, or $4.5 billion more than the Fiscal Year 2009 spending estimate, the White House announced on February 26.

Country-by-country breakdowns, including that for Armenia, were not available at press time. But the overall increase may help reverse the trend of recent years with U.S. aid programs for post-Soviet states declining from $452 million in 2007 to an estimated $346 million in 2009.

Meanwhile, on February 25, Congress passed the Omnibus spending bill for Fiscal Year 2009. According to the Democratic Party managers' report accompanying the legislation and made available to the Armenian Reporter, the legislation set aside $48 million in aid to Armenia and $8 million to Nagorno-Karabakh. There was also $3 million in foreign military financing for Armenia and Azerbaijan, each.

Overall, Armenia aid program remains one of the largest in Europe with only Kosovo ($120.9 million), Ukraine ($71.5 million), Russia ($60 million), and Georgia ($52 million) receiving more funding. Aid to Azerbaijan was set at $18.5 million.

The legislation mirrored closely the spending levels proposed by the House Foreign Operations Subcommittee last summer. (See this page in the Armenian Reporter for July 17, 2008.)

There is also substantial cut in Millennium Challenge Corporation programs, set at $875 million, down from $1.35 billion requested by the Bush administration.

Reports review Armenia’s post-election crisis

Allegations of misconduct by Armenia's law-enforcement agencies during post-electoral collisions last year should be thoroughly investigated, the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged as part of a detailed study released on February 25. The watchdog also called on the United States and the European Union to make their engagement with Armenia contingent on such an investigation.

The 64-page HRW report, "Democracy on Rocky Ground: Armenia's Disputed 2008 Presidential Election, Post-Election Violence, and the One-Sided Pursuit of Accountability," is perhaps the most comprehensive available account of Armenia's latest post-election crisis.

The study is based on interviews with 80 witnesses, participants, and victims of the March 1-2 clashes in Yerevan, conducted in March and April last year.

Also released on February 25 was the State Department's annual study of human rights practices worldwide. Its Armenia chapter, in addition to compiling human rights issues throughout 2008, retained a controversial reference to the Armenian republic of Nagorno-Karabakh as a "region of Azerbaijan."

There were community and congressional complaints when the reference was first introduced into the report in 2006. State Department officials claimed at the time the reference did not signal a change in U.S. policy. There was no public reaction when the reference was repeated last year.

Expert recommends change of rhetoric on Karabakh

"Both internationally and locally, the language used about the [Karabakh] dispute needs to change for progress to be made" in the peace process, the leading Western expert on the conflict Thomas de Waal argued in a paper for the Conciliation Resources, a British charity.

The 20-page paper titled, "The Karabakh Trap: Dangers and dilemmas of the Nagorny Karabakh conflict," released online on February 24, provides a review of the status quo in the Armenian-Azerbaijani standoff and outlines potential future scenarios.

As immediate steps, Mr. de Waal recommends "less use by international officials of formulas about ‘territorial integrity' and "self-determination' which obscure more than they reveal" about the conflict; he also urges "an end to the talk of war" by Azerbaijan and a distinction between the rights of Karabakh Armenians and Armenian-controlled former Azerbaijani-populated areas.

"On both sides, [there is a need for] mention of regret for the shared tragedy of war, of the deep common culture and of the necessity and value of living together as neighbours and partners in the future," the expert concludes.

Mr. de Waal is author of Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, the only thorough study of the conflict available in English, released as a book in 2003.

Polls note Muslim suspicion of U.S., worldwide religiosity

Most Muslims oppose terrorist attacks against civilians but are also suspicious of the United States and endorse the al Qaida objective of removing American military bases from the Middle East, according to surveys conducted last year and released on February 25.

The World Public Opinion poll found that a significant number of respondents in eight Muslim countries studied support attacks on U.S. military forces deployed in the Middle East. While majorities hold a negative view of Osama bin Laden and al Qaida, they also believe that Islamist groups should be allowed to participate in the political process.

In Turkey, 87 percent of respondents believed the United States intends to "weaken and divide" Muslims and 77 percent thought the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf was a "bad idea." Turks were split on attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq, with 40 percent disapproving and 39 percent approving of such attacks.

In Azerbaijan, 67 percent of respondents believed the U.S. goal was to undermine Muslims and 66 percent called U.S. military presence a "bad idea." Nevertheless, fully 76 percent of Azerbaijanis also opposed attacks on U.S.-led forces in Iraq. (Azerbaijan was the only country included in the survey to have had a contingent in Iraq until last year.)

In a separate Gallup poll of worldwide religiosity released on February 9, Azerbaijan was determined to be the least religious majority-Muslim country in the world. Only 21 percent of Azerbaijanis surveyed responded affirmatively when asked if religion was an important part of their life.

By contrast, 75 percent of Georgians and 70 percent of Armenians said they were religious. In the United States two-thirds of respondents described themselves as religious. Egypt, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, topped the ranks of the most religious countries worldwide.

Briefly: Biden on Armenia & Georgia, Caucasians in Denver, Georgians ask for $1-2bn, Azeris in California

First published in August 30, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Sen. Obama’s running mate pick strong on Armenian issues

Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) chose Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as his running mate last week, and the Democratic National Convention in Denver confirmed him as the party’s vice presidential nominee.

The selection was welcomed by Armenian-American organizations since Mr. Biden has a long track record of supporting Armenian-American concerns throughout his more than 35 years in the Senate.

That record includes support for U.S. affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, including the Senate resolution championed by the Senate Republican Party leader Bob Dole in 1990, supporting all Armenian Genocide resolutions introduced in the Senate since, and pushing for a change in the Bush Administration policy as part of the confirmation process for the U.S. ambassador to Armenia since 2006 and until earlier this summer.

During the July 29 Foreign Relations Committee meeting that confirmed Marie Yovanovitch as U.S. ambassador to Armenia, Mr. Biden noted, “Recognition by the United States of the Armenian Genocide is not the final goal. The real goal is the recognition of Turkey – of the Turkish Government – of the Armenian Genocide and the establishment of a common Turkish-Armenian understanding of the events and tragedy that took place.”

Mr. Biden also supported Karabakh’s right to self-determination and the 1993 U.S. sanctions against Azerbaijan over its aggression against Armenia and Karabakh.

He introduced the 2007 resolution honoring the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink assassinated by Turkish nationalists.

Earlier this year, Mr. Obama himself issued a statement in which he promised to recognize the Armenian Genocide as president and support a Karabakh settlement “that is agreeable to all parties, and based upon America’s founding commitment to the principles of democracy and self determination.”

The Republican Party’s presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain (R.- Ariz.) has promised no changes in U.S. policies on Armenian issues; he has also yet to select a running mate.

Last year, Mr. Biden also advocated for a robust U.S. response to the humanitarian crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region, and was willing to “commit U.S. troops on the ground.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Biden supports U.S. leadership in Armenia’s region and checking Russia’s influence there. In a joint letter with his committee colleague Sen. Dick Lugar (R.-Ind.) last October, Sen. Biden argued that the United States has a “long-term interest in preventing Russian domination of energy [development and transportation] in the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia.”

Other senior foreign policy advisors to Mr. Obama include President Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, 80, a strong advocate of containing Russia, as well as the Clinton Administration’s National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, 69, and former State Department policy planning director Gregory Craig, 63, both of whom are strong proponents of NATO expansion.

Politicians from Armenia, elsewhere in Denver for Democratic National Convention events

Some 500 foreign officials from about 100 countries were in Denver this week for the International Leaders’ Forum organized by the National Democratic Institute (NDI) to coincide with the Democratic National Convention. NDI has organized the event during every convention since 1984 to provide a forum for foreign leaders and the Democratic Party’s foreign policy team.

According to the Armenian Reporter’s information, former Prime Minister Vazgen Manukian of the National Democratic Union and former national security service director David Shahnazarian, a political ally and in-law of ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian, were expected to attend.

During the Democratic Party’s national convention held in July 2004 in Boston, Armenia was represented by Amb. Arman Kirakossian and Stepan Demirchian of the opposition People’s Party.

This year, Amb. Tatoul Markarian is in Yerevan for the annual gathering of Armenian diplomats and is unable to attend.

Azerbaijan was represented by the presidential administration’s propaganda director Ali Hassanov.

As in years past, perennial government opponents Isa Gamberov and Ali Kerimov were also invited, although it was unclear if either one was attending.

Also in attendance were Georgian Parliament Speaker David Bakradze and Minister for European Integration Georgi Baramidze, who actively lobbied for a tougher U.S. policy on Russia.

Other visitors from Georgia included former Parliament Speaker Nino Bourjanadze and leader of the opposition Republican Party David Usupashvili.

Georgia seeks “1 to 2 billion” dollars in foreign aid

The Georgian government is seeking $1 to $2 billion in aid to repair and develop infrastructure after the war with Russia, USAID Administrator Henrietta Fore said on August 22, www.civil.ge reported citing Reuters news agency.

“Georgia has given us rather a long list of things they would like to see – communications is certainly part of it, hydro-electric dams... That’s really reconstruction, it’s for infrastructure. It’s not just because of hostilities. It’s for development,” Ms. Fore said, adding that “it does not all need to be done by the United States. It can be done by international organizations as well as other bilateral organizations.”

Writing in the Wall Street Journal on August 26, Senators Joe Lieberman (I.-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R.-S.C.), who recently visited Georgia on behalf of presumptive Republican presidential candidate John McCain, supported U.S. provision of weapons to Georgia to be able to “deter” Russian forces.

The U.S. Congress is expected to approve a significant aid package to Georgia when it returns from holidays next month, said House of Representatives’ Foreign Relations Committee Chair Rep. Howard Berman (D.-Calif.) and Democratic Policy Committee chair Rep. George Miller (D.-Calif.) who also went to Georgia on August 22.

Georgia has received close to $2 billion in U.S. assistance in the decade and a half since independence.

Azerbaijani officials on propaganda tour of California

The California State Assembly hosted a group of four Azerbaijani officials earlier this month, one of the delegation members Azerbaijani Milli Majlis member Asim Mollazade told Day.az on August 21.

The group visited the two chambers of California’s legislature in Sacramento, Rep. Berman, who represents a Los Angeles–area district, the San Francisco City Council, and the local World Affairs Council.

Mr. Mollazade said he and his colleagues used the opportunity to talk up Azerbaijan’s importance to the world, threats posed by “imperial” Russia, as well as “true reasons” behind the conflict with Armenia.

He singled out the importance of raising the Azerbaijani flag in the California legislature as a significant event.

In September 2007 Azerbaijan hosted a California delegation that included State Senator Sheila Kuehl, State Assembly members Julia Brownley, Betty Karnette, and Lori Saldaña, as well as assistant director of the California State Senate international relations office Shannon Shellenberg.

Europeans give Armenia more time for reforms

First published in June 28, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

European body extends deadline for Armenia reforms
Gives Armenian president a boost
Maintains pressure for compliance
by Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON – The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) gave Armenia an additional six months to implement the body’s recommendations originally made in April, RFE/RL and Arminfo reported from Strasbourg.

The move came in a new resolution unanimously passed by PACE over protests from the Armenian opposition. It was a significant boost to President Serge Sargsian’s administration.

The body that includes parliament members from 47 European countries previously threatened to suspend the Armenian delegation’s voting rights at PACE unless its recommendations were implemented before the current session.

Those recommendations included calls for the urgent release of individuals held for political reasons, restoration of the freedom of assembly, an independent investigation of the March 1 violence, as well as government-opposition dialogue and the opposition’s recognition of the presidential election results.

PACE’s co-rapporteurs on Armenia John Prescott (United Kingdom) and Georges Colombier (France) visited Yerevan last week and determined that progress made on PACE recommendations was “insufficient,” but decided that Armenia needed more time rather than censure.

“While regretting the delay in implementing the concrete measures to comply with the Assembly demands, the Monitoring Committee acknowledges that the time given to the Armenian authorities was short,” said the PACE Monitoring Committee report later endorsed by the full Assembly.

“It therefore proposes to the Assembly to review at its January 2009 part-session the extent of Armenia’s compliance with the requirements made in Resolution 1609.”

During the PACE debate, Mr. Prescott, a former deputy prime minister of Great Britain, argued that “Armenia is going in the right direction, and changes are being made,” but more time was needed.

The Armenian delegation to PACE, led by lawmaker and former Justice Minister David Harutiunian (of the ruling Republican party) was instrumental in securing removal from the text of the new resolution passages calling for granting a television frequency to an antigovernment news agency and release of several dozen opposition members currently charged under certain Criminal Code articles.

The new resolution also said that PACE “regrets that not all opposition forces have recognized the Constitutional Court’s decision, which confirmed the results of elections as announced by the Central Electoral Commission.”

In protest over these developments, former foreign minister Raffi Hovannisian, the sole opposition member of the Armenian delegation to PACE, stormed out of the session after declaring that he was revoking his own right to vote until Armenia meets Europe’s – and his own – standards.

Azerbaijan resolution includes anti-Armenia passages

Also in its summer session PACE passed a resolution on the “deteriorating” human rights situation in Azerbaijan. The resolution adopted on June 24 contained Baku-inspired passages that blamed the lack of democratic progress in the country to the unresolved nature of the Karabakh conflict.

The resolution also “takes note” of the United Nations’ nonbinding General Assembly resolution passed last March that endorsed Azerbaijan’s claims to Karabakh.

That resolution was opposed by the United States, France, and Russia as biased; nearly all European countries abstained from voting on it.

The Armenian delegation to PACE protested and tried unsuccessfully to prevent the inclusion of these and other anti-Armenian passages into a resolution ostensibly dealing with Azerbaijan’s domestic political problems.

In a commentary this week on the resolution, Kenan Aliyev and Khadija Ismaylova of the RFE/RL Azerbaijan Service complained that Council of Europe membership has done very little for democracy promotion in Azerbaijan and the country “is backsliding into authoritarianism.”

On several occasions since Azerbaijan joined the organization, PACE, citing issues with political prisoners, threatened to suspend Azerbaijan’s voting right, but never did.

Briefly: U.S. on Armenia-Turkey relations, NK talks and Armenia's politics; Senate on Ambassador to Armenia nominee

First published in the June 28, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan and Yelena Osipova

U.S. official: Pres. Sargsian brings new optimism to conflict resolution efforts

Armenian president Serge Sargsian stated intention to invite his Turkish counterpart to Armenia is “an amazing development that seemed impossible a few months ago,” U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza said during the annual Turgut Ozal memorial lecture hosted by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on June 24.

While on an official visit to Russia earlier this week, Pres. Sargsian said he would look for ways to improve relations with Turkey, including by inviting its President Abdullah Gül to watch the Armenia-Turkey World Cup qualification game in Yerevan this September.

Mr. Bryza reiterated the U.S. position urging Turkey to restore diplomatic relations and open its border with Armenia. But he also endorsed Turkey’s demand for Armenia to recognize the existing border between the two countries.

The official, who is also the lead U.S. envoy to the Karabakh peace process, said he hopes to set a framework for agreement over the conflict by the end of this year.

“It’s not all sweetness and light, but [after the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia met in Russia earlier this month], it seemed these are two leaders that think in a much more similar way than was the case with Sargsian’s predecessor [Robert Kocharian],” he said.

“Both leaders [of Armenia and Azerbaijan] now seem to be pragmatic, practical and ready to explore each side’s needs when it comes to Nagorno-Karabakh settlement,” the official claimed.

Mr. Bryza focused most of his remarks on the importance of U.S.-Turkish relations, from security to energy, while also pointing to his deep personal attachment to Turkey.

Turning to Turkey’s troubled domestic politics, Mr. Bryza recalled President George Bush’s 2005 inaugural address, in which he said that “democracy, by definition, [needs] to be different in every country depending on cultural and historical circumstances.”

“So, things will happen in Turkey that may not accord with the way we structure our democracy, but we are confident that the Turkish democratic system is strong enough to work this out,” he added.

State Department’s democracy bureau head tours Caucasus

David Kramer, appointed last month as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for democracy, human rights, and labor, visited Armenia on June 24–25.

In meetings with Prime Minister Tigran Sarkisian, other officials, opposition representatives and a subsequent press conference, Mr. Kramer repeated and seemingly sharpened U.S. criticism of the Armenian government’s handling of the post-election protests and calls for Armenia to “get back on a democratic path.”

In remarks akin to those made by Sen. Ben Cardin (D.-Md.) last week (see this page in the June 21 Armenian Reporter), Mr. Kramer appeared to question the credibility of the official probe into March 1 violence in Yerevan that left 10 dead and hundreds, many of them police, injured.

Prior to his current appointment, Mr. Kramer served on the U.S. Helsinki Commission, which Sen. Cardin co-chairs.

From Yerevan, Mr. Kramer proceeded to Tbilisi and Baku.

Senator delays consideration of nominee for Armenia Ambassador

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, requested a onemonth delay in the committee’s consideration of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch’s nomination as U.S. envoy to Armenia in order to ensure that there is sufficient time for the State Department to respond to senators’ written questions, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) reported on June 24.

The Senate committee held a formal hearing on the nomination on June 19, in which committee member Sen. Robert Menendez (D.-N.J.) pressed Ms. Yovanovitch on the Bush administration’s refusal to affirm the U.S. government’s own record on the Armenian Genocide.

The committee then scheduled a vote on the nomination for its June 24 business meeting, which Sen. Boxer’s request now delays to until after the July 4 recess.

In 2006 and again in 2007, Sen. Menendez blocked the previous nominee for the position, Amb. Richard Hoagland, after the administration cut short the ambassadorial term of John M. Evans over his public remarks affirming the Armenian Genocide.

While no senator has yet indicated an intention to block Amb. Yovanovitch’s nomination, Sens. Menendez and Boxer, as well as the committee chair, Sen. Joe Biden (D.-Del.), Sens. Robert Casey (D.-Penn.), Norm Coleman (R.-Minn.), Russ Feingold (D.-Wis.), John Kerry (D.-Mass.), and Barack Obama (D.-Ill.) submitted written questions to the nominee that have not yet been answered.

Turkish, Azerbaijani interests lobby House Committee over Caucasus hearing

In written statements earlier this month, the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA) and the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA) sought to influence House Foreign Affairs Committee members on matters related to Armenia ahead of its rare hearing on the Caucasus region held on June 18.

In a letter dated June 11 and containing numerous factual flaws, ATAA tried to deny the very fact that Turkey was blockading Armenia, even suggesting that the recent football game between Armenian and Turkish youth teams in an international competition was a “good example of the access Armenia enjoys to the west via Turkey” and that “to the extent permitted by Russian forces, Turkey facilitates transit trade between the west and Armenia.”

Still, ATAA went on to justify Turkey’s unease with Armenia with reference to “Armenia’s occupation of Azerbaijan.”

Writing from presumably “occupied” Azerbaijan, the ruling New Azerbaijan Party, which is still formally led by the deceased president Heydar Aliyev, sent a letter protesting the views expressed during the hearing by “U.S. congressmen Mr Horwad Berman, Joe Clenberg, Brad Shermon, Adim Shiph and Frank Pellon,” the Trend News Agency reported on June 23.

Report notes link between petro-dollars, oppression

The 2008 Nations in Transit report, which studies the democratic development of the former Soviet and socialist states, noted a significant across-the-board regression in most of those states.

The report’s main co-authors Christopher Walker of Freedom House and Robert Orttung of the Jefferson Institute, spoke at the June 24 report launch hosted by Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in Washington.

They expressed a particular concern with states having vast inflows of capital due to rapidly growing energy exports, such as Russia, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan, and not demonstrating improvements in terms of democratic governance. Mr. Orttung argued that while accumulated oil wealth did not cause the downturn in democracy, it is helping to entrench and sometimes deepen it.

The report’s Armenia chapter authored by Anna Walker of the Economist Intelligence Unit covered developments throughout 2007 and noted no major changes in that period other than relative improvements associated with the May 2007 Parliamentary elections.

Overall, Slovenia and Slovakia have received the best scores from the authors, with perennial outliers Belarus and Turkmenistan scoring the worst.

Connect: www.freedomhouse.org.

Millennium Challenge Corp. discusses Armenia Compact

First published in June 21, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Millennium Challenge Corp. watching Armenia developments
$235 million in aid over five years at stake
by Yelena Osipova and Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON – The Board of Directors of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) is taking an active interest in the political situation in Armenia and discussed it at its meeting on June 17, MCC Chief Executive Officer Ambassador John Danilovich said at the public outreach briefing the same day.

There was concern ahead of the meeting that the MCC board may suspend or cancel its $235 million five-year assistance program in Armenia.

The terms of MCC grants require recipient countries to maintain standards of ruling justly, investing in people, and maintaining economic freedom.

While no decision was taken on the suspension of MCC-funded programs in Armenia, Mr. Danilovich indicated that the board has been “encouraged” by Armenia’s most recent steps and will continue to watch developments to see whether Armenia remains eligible for aid.

Mr. Danilovich said he communicated the MCC’s concerns to the government of Armenia following the March board meeting in a warning letter to then-President Robert Kocharian and more recently through communications with President Serge Sargsian.

The messages sent to the Armenian government are part of an MCC policy process that governs potential suspension or termination of assistance. Mr. Danilovich said that the board wanted to make it clear to President Sargsian that Armenia now has the opportunity “to make the reforms that are necessary with regards to the rights to public assembly, the creation of an ad hoc bipartisan commission to investigate the election, to take certain action with regard to political prisoners and to continue in other areas of reform to take Armenia on the path of democracy.”

Similar recommendations to Armenia were made by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in April.

Mr. Danilovich welcomed the reforms already enacted and signed into law over the past several weeks. The “MCC board is expecting that the Armenian government will continue to make the appropriate reforms so that our cooperation on the poverty-reduction programs can continue as fruitfully as it has [so far],” Mr. Danilovich added.

MCC board member and International Republican Institute (IRI) president Lorne Craner said the reform efforts are “a measure of importance that the Armenian government attaches to MCC.” He said the board will continue to closely monitor the process and the other ways in which the Armenian government will improve on democracy and human rights.

“I am confident that at least at the next few meetings we are going to get reports on how Armenia is doing in respect to these issues,” he said. Mr. Craner stressed, however, that board meetings are not required for the MCC to take action on the Armenia compact, should events warrant a more immediate response.

Compact moves forward despite “hold” on one project

Mr. Danilovich said that the program’s implementation in Armenia is continuing and that the MCC is “very pleased” with many parts of it.

However, when asked by the Armenian Reporter, Mr. Danilovich confirmed that about a month ago the corporation had put on hold the commencement of negotiations on a package of road projects in order to send a clear message to the Armenian government about its concerns.

“We are considering our position on that as we go forward and we will be making some decisions on that regard in the coming weeks,” Mr. Danilovich added.

Although on March 12 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a congressional hearing that the 20-day state of emergency in Yerevan declared on March 1 had “made it necessary to suspend” some of U.S. assistance programs, other officials denied that any “suspension” occurred.

In a March 20 interview with the Armenian Reporter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza said that any MCC suspension decisions would be based on a “subjective judgment” on whether a country has made “large amount of backtracking” from democratic standards.

Economic performance and MCC eligibility

In addition to such subjective criteria, Armenia’s annual eligibility for the MCC program is determined based on its democracy, economic freedoms, and social spending ratings when compared against countries in similar economic condition.

Because of Armenia’s improved economic performance, it has graduated from the lower-income to the lower-middle income category. As a result, starting this year its indicators are judged relative to less poor countries.

Asked by the Armenian Reporter whether this would have an impact on Armenia’s eligibility, Mr. Craner responded in the negative.

“This is not the issue in Armenia,” Mr. Craner said. “The issue in Armenia is [about] the election” and its aftermath.

Mr. Danilovich said the MCC has a certain level of “fluidity” about the indicators, as the corporation recognizes that they are not perfect: the indicators may suffer from a time-lag or inaccurate information.

However, he said, the MCC has a special Policy Improvement Program to find out ways to target various aspects of institutional functioning and improve that performance
on an annual basis, in case a country has “started to slip” in its indicative performance, which initially had allowed it to join the MCC.

Inside-the-beltway struggle underway for MCC funds

The board meeting came at a difficult time for the four-year-old corporation. Sen. Judd Gregg (R.-N.H.) offered an amendment last month seeking to strip the MCC of more than half a billion dollars in unspent funds in Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009, to be used for humanitarian aid around the world. (See the May 24 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)

According to a June 16 posting on the Center for Global Development’s blog, “the rumor has it that the original $525 million rescission of FY08 funding to the MCC [proposed by Sen. Gregg] has been reduced in conference [to reconcile Senate and House versions of the spending bill] to around $60 million.”

Mr. Danilovich argued that the effort to rescind the funds arose in part from a misunderstanding of the way MCC operates. It takes time to determine eligibility and carry out negotiations with eligible states, and multiyear contracts require committed funds upfront.

“The notion that we are sitting on money is wrong,” he said, adding that programs that have been launched are already bringing benefits to farmers from Honduras to Armenia.

Further, Mr. Danilovich said that the campaigns of presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama have both pledged to support the program. The MCC was initiated by President George W. Bush at a time when conventional foreign aid programs, administered through U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), have been cut.

Mr. Danilovich said he expects the corporation’s total financial disbursements in the field to rise from $500 million currently to close to $1 billion before the end of 2008. At its June 17 meeting, the MCC board approved a fiveyear $480 million compact with Burkino Faso, the seventeenth country worldwide slated to receive MCC funds.

connect: http://mcc.gov/countries/armenia

Briefly: Senate to consider Ambassadors for Armenia, Turkey; U.S.' 1951 doc. on Armenian Genocide

First published in June 14, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

Senate Committee to consider nominee for Ambassador to Armenia…

The Bush Administration’s nominee for the next U.S. ambassador to Armenia, Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, will meet members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for a formal hearing on June 19. The committee’s approval and that of the full Senate is necessary for ambassadorial appointments.

The post of the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia has remained vacant since the controversial recall in September 1996 of Ambassador John Evans after his remarks on the Armenian Genocide angered the Turkish government. The recall, in turn, angered the Armenian community.

Nominated to replace Mr. Evans in 2006, Ambassador Richard Hoagland found his candidacy blocked by Sen. John Menendez (D.-N.J.) following Mr. Hoagland’s remarks in the process of his nomination hearings questioning the veracity of the Genocide.

In a congressional commemoration on April 24, Sen. Menendez promised to “ask the same questions of the new nominee and would not hesitate to place a hold” on her candidacy if he was dissatisfied with her responses.

The new nomination comes at a difficult period in U.S.-Armenian relations stemming from U.S. criticism of the Armenian government’s handling of the February 2008 election and its aftermath.

Senior Armenian officials have said that they would like to see the new U.S. ambassador approved as soon as possible. In a commentary published in the Armenian Reporter on May 24, 2008, Armenia’s ambassador to the United States, Tatoul Markarian, reiterated the “hope that the nominee will be confirmed successfully and arrive in Armenia shortly.”

The nominee is a 22-year veteran of the Foreign Service who just concluded a three year assignment as U.S. ambassador to Kyrgyzstan. Ms. Yovanovitch’s service has been marked by tensions over the current President Kurmanbek Bakiyev’s policies, particularly with regard to the status of the U.S. air base in the country.

Prior to that appointment, from August 2004 to May 2005 Ms. Yovanovitch was senior advisor to the then–Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman.

From August 2001 to June 2004, Ms. Yovanovitch was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine. Her term there coincided with souring of U.S. relations with the then–President Leonid Kuchma, particularly over allegations of Ukrainian arms sales to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

From May 1998 to May 2000, Ms. Yovanovitch was deputy director of the State Department’s Russia Desk and had been posted with embassies in Canada, Russia, United Kingdom, and Somalia.

Her educational background includes a bachelor’s degree in history and Russian studies from Princeton University in 1980 and a master’s from the National War College in 2001.

Born in Canada to parents of Serbian and Russian descent, she grew up in Connecticut and is fluent in Russian and French.

…and to Turkey

On June 5, President Bush nominated one his aides for national security affairs, James Jeffrey, to be the next U.S. ambassador to Turkey. The Turkish Daily News first reported the intention to nominate Mr. Jeffrey last November.

A former Army officer and diplomat, Mr. Jeffrey is fluent in Turkish, having served in the country on three occasions in the past. He was deputy chief of mission at the Embassy in Turkey between 1999 and 2002 under ambassadors Mark Parris and Robert Pearson; and previously served at the Embassy in Ankara between 1985 and 1987 and earlier at the U.S. Consulate in Adana.

Before becoming President Bush’s assistant and deputy national security advisor last August, Mr. Jeffrey was a principal deputy assistant secretary of state for the Near East, heading the Iran Policy Team since 2006. From 2004 to 2006, he was one of the senior coordinators of the U.S. Iraq policy.

Report: U.S. recognized Armenian Genocide in 1951

According to a 1951 U.S. document recently discovered and made public by an Irish researcher, the U.S. government had at the time no qualms about using the term genocide shortly after it was coined by Raphael Lemkin to describe the Armenian experience in the early 20th century Ottoman Empire.

On June 4, Professor William Schabas of the Irish Center for Human Rights blogged about stumbling upon a statement filed by the U.S. government at the International Court of Justice, in 1951. It said in part “The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.”

The blog entry was further made public by the Armenian Assembly of America on June 6. The document is available online http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/12/11767.pdf

Armenia democracy activists visit Europe, U.S.

A delegation of three representatives of the Armenian nongovernmental sector was in Washington on June 10–11 as a part of tour that also included stops in Strasbourg and Brussels. The aim was raising awareness of challenges to democracy in Armenia.

Larisa Minasyan of the Open Society Institute (OSI)’s Armenia affiliate told the Armenian Reporter in a conversation on June 11 that they are on a mission to provide full and complete information from the viewpoint of the Armenian public and share their assessment of the post-election situation with their foreign colleagues and European and U.S. officials.

Amalia Kostanyan of Transparency International Armenia, suggested “at least half” of the foreign aid to Armenia is ineffective, as “it did not save the country from a deep crisis” following the February election. She commended the Armenian government’s willingness to resolve the ensuing problems, adding, however, that current actions are inadequate and will not yield the intended results.

Ms. Kostanyan said that they were advocating for a comprehensive fulfillment of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)’s resolution on Armenia passed in April.

President of the Gyumri-based Asparez Journalists’ Club Levon Barseghyan said that “democracy is a resource for better life [and …] a system for national security” and should be a shared concerned for Armenians in homeland and diaspora.

He said Armenia was not successful in achieving this goal since independence, and called on the diaspora to have a more active role in this process.

U.S. diplomat to discuss Armenia, Caucasus in House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing

The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee will on June 18 hear the testimony of the Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasia Daniel Fried titled “The Caucasus: Frozen Conflicts and Closed Borders.”

The testimony is expected to focus on U.S. efforts to address the Karabakh conflict and resolve outstanding issues between Armenia and Turkey. The committee’s Subcommittee for Europe previously held a hearing focusing on the region in October 2001.

—Yelena Osipova contributed to this week’s briefing.

Matt Bryza sees return of "democratic momentum" in Armenia

This was first published in March 22, 2008 Armenian Reporter

U.S. official sees return of democratic momentum
Expects specific OSCE proposals to strengthen Karabakh cease-fire

WASHINGTON – Deputy Assistant Secretary Matthew Bryza has been the U.S. State Department’s point man for relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, and Turkey since 2005; from 2001 to 2005 he held a similar portfolio at the National Security Council. He is also the U.S. co-chair for the Karabakh mediation effort under the aegis of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

On March 20 Mr. Bryza discussed the most recent developments in Armenia with the Armenian Reporter’s Washington editor Emil Sanamyan.

“Fair and balanced” Karabakh deal within reach

Reporter: On March 19 Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian was reported by RFE/RL as saying that Azerbaijan is “trying to start, through the OSCE Secretariat, a process of the dissolution of the Minsk Group,” which has led international mediation in Karabakh since 1992. Can you confirm that such an effort is underway?

Bryza: I know there has been an inquiry from the Azerbaijani mission to the OSCE about what would be the procedures were any country to wish to withdraw from the Minsk Group. But I do not know about anything that went beyond an inquiry.

So when I read Mr. Oskanian’s statement it was news to me, and I have not seen confirmation that the Azerbaijani effort had in fact moved that far.

Reporter: We have also heard from the Azerbaijani ambassador Vilayat Guliyev that the Minsk Group that you co-chair with the French and the Russians has been “useless” and its approach to the conflict “tendentious and one-sided,” as day.az reported on March 19.

Overall, there seems to be an effort by Azerbaijan to pressure the co-chair countries in the wake of the United Nations General Assembly (UN GA) vote on March 14(see story on page A3). What is happening there?

Bryza: Ambassador Guliyev, with all due respect, is not participating in negotiations under the Minsk Group and I would presume is not aware of the details of what is on the table.

And what is on the table is a fair and balanced compromise that includes elements that are attractive to Azerbaijan, an interpretation of which was cited in the UN GA resolution, but there are also many elements that are very attractive to Armenia that were not cited in that resolution.

So I do not think that any of the people that are out there criticizing the Minsk Group proposals are aware of what is really in the proposal.

Reporter: The Minsk Group statement on March 19 suggested resuming presidential-level negotiations as soon as possible. Do you expect a meeting between Armenia’s president-elect Serge Sargsian and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev during the upcoming NATO summit in Romania, which both plan to attend? What would be the agenda for such a meeting?

Bryza: What we said is that it would be useful for there to be a meeting between the presidents as soon as they are ready to meet. I do not know when that is going to happen. It could be [at the NATO summit] or just after that.

The calendar is a bit complicated in that President-elect Sargsian will not be inaugurated until April 9, and the summit in Romania is from April 2 to 4. So Prime Minister Sargsian will not yet be the president. So, there is a protocol problem, which could lead to a delay, but it is up to them if they get together there. And if they don’t, they would be able to meet shortly thereafter.

[In terms of agenda], it is clear now that the president-elect of Armenia is in favor of continuing on the basis of the proposal on the table [as it was presented at the OSCE ministerial meeting in Madrid last November].

Reporter: On a related issue, former Nagorno-Karabakh deputy foreign minister Massis Mayilian proposed several measures for strengthening of the cease-fire, in particular expansion of Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk’s monitoring group and tactical disengagement of forces along the Line of Contact (see the March 15 issue of the Armenian Reporter.) Are those issues on the Minsk Group agenda?

Bryza: Yes they are. And we rely heavily on Ambassador Kasprzyk’s expertise and advice on what specific measures could be taken. It would probably be useful to increase the distance of separation between the forces along the Line of Contact, but specific ways to implement those sorts of improvements to the cease-fire regime require consultation and analysis of Ambassador Kasprzyk’s group. So when [the Minsk Group co-chairs] do get together in Romania next month, we will be able to come up with some specific proposals.

Reporter: The February 4, 1995, document, called an “Arrangement on strengthening the ceasefire in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict” was referenced in one of the recent Minsk Group statements. Is there an effort to make sure that it is implemented? Not in the least since it is really the only agreement signed by the parties in addition to the May 1994 cease-fire agreement?

Bryza: Of course we expect that the sides fully implement pre existing agreements. But which aspects have not been implemented? You know [that] the cease-fire is more or less respected. Are there elements in particular you have in mind?

Reporter: As the former Russian mediator Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov described this arrangement [to the Armenian Reporter, see the January 26, 2008, issue] it sets out the complaint and investigation procedure regarding cease-fire violations as well as direct contact between commanders in the field. It does not appear that any of that has been implemented in the 13 years since the time the arrangement was signed.

Bryza: Yes, one of the issues we need to explore is to improve communication between commanders along the Line of Contact. Right now I cannot assess how far that agreement has or has not been implemented; that requires real experts from [Ambassador Kasprzyk’s] group.

The short answer is yes, we want all aspects of that agreement to be implemented.

Reporter: Following the UN GA vote initiated by Azerbaijan, there has been talk in Armenia that perhaps it is time to recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

There is a proposal by the opposition Heritage Party in parliament to recognize NKR. Considering the postelection situation in Yerevan, such a step may even serve as a basis for establishing cooperation between the governing parties and the opposition.

What consequences do you foresee should the Armenian parliament move on this issue?

Bryza: I think any move that prejudges the outcome of the negotiations that are underway and that are achieving some real results in terms of moving closer to finalizing the basic principles would be unhelpful.

And we looked at the UN GA resolution of Azerbaijan in that very light: that it was a one-sided resolution that did not reflect the fair and balanced nature of the proposal on the table.

Similarly, if the Armenian side were to move unilaterally and prejudge the outcome of the negotiations by recognizing Nagorno Karabakh, that would be something that is very seriously undermining the peace process.

I think that would be a highly asymmetric response [to Azerbaijan’s move at the UN GA] and potentially a highly destabilizing move. [It would mean] to decide that this is the end of the negotiating process and we have unilaterally declared that the conflict is resolved in this way.

I do not know how that would leave space for the continuation of negotiations. We need to maintain the give and take that aims to achieve this fair and balanced compromise which is absolutely within reach right now and requires a little bit more work to reach a compromise.

U.S. aid to Armenia won’t be affected if positive trends continue

Reporter: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told members of Congress in a March 12 hearing that the state of emergency in Armenia had “made it necessary to suspend” some of U.S. assistance programs. Which programs was Dr. Rice referring to?

Bryza: What I thought the secretary said is that we are looking into suspending or beginning to implement limitations to some of our programs.

One thing that you saw was that letter that came from [Millennium Challenge Corporation CEO] Ambassador John Danilovich that talked about the need to reconsider the MCC program in the current circumstances. We were also in the process of possibly limiting certain other flows of assistance money if the state of emergency was not lifted and if the freedoms in Armenia were not restored.

But it sounds as perhaps those positive steps have been taken [in terms of the lifting of the state of emergency] and since the positive steps have been taken then there is no need for us to take negative steps on our side.

I hope very much that lifting of the state of emergency moves tensions in Armenia to a new phase, in which freedoms and democratic momentum in Armenia are restored and we get back on track with all of the items on our important agenda.

Reporter: Are there clear guidelines on what could cause MCC suspension or termination? The MCC letter spoke of “policy reversals” and you mention “momentum,” but outside of the lifting of the state of emergency, which has now happened, what specific steps can provide for such a momentum?

And what are, as Turks like to put it, the “red lines”?

Bryza: I would rather not speculate about a specific “red line,”
because MCC has a much broader scope [to determine eligibility for aid]. The MCC is a program that President George W. Bush has developed, and he is very proud of it. It aims to provide assistance in response to performance and reform.

If the impression in Washington is that a country has wandered far away from democratic reforms, then by definition there needs to be some ratcheting back of the MCC program. That is the phase we have been in: trying to assess how much backtracking there may have been in Armenia.

So, there is no specific red line, but a subjective judgment that one has to make on whether or not there has been a large amount of backtracking. And I would rather not get into a speculative discussion about what might be too much, because I hope we have moved out of that whole set of problems.

It seems that perhaps right now we are seeing the restoration of all the freedoms and now that question of suspending assistance could become moot, I hope. But it all depends on how fully the freedoms are restored.

Reporter: Following your visit to Armenia on March 6–7 and interview with The Associated Press, where you appeared to say that the government actions on March 1 were too harsh, there seemed to be a bit of back and forth, including what sounded like an annoyed reaction from Foreign Ministry spokesperson Tigran Balayan. Have those matters been resolved or is there still an argument going on?

Bryza: Well, the Foreign Ministry spokesman made his remarks and you did not hear any retort or rejoinder from me so I do not think there is any argument at all. And I do think I need to follow-up on that at all. I think that we are looking forward and hoping to see all of the freedoms restored and then we do not have to worry.

Reporter: While you were in Armenia, the government press office publicized a couple of your remarks where you praised the leadership of Prime Minister Sargsian. Certainly Mr. Sargsian had sounded open to dialogue both before and after the March 1 events, although with the caveat that people with whom he engages in dialogue recognize his election victory. In your own words, what is your assessment of the now president-elect Sargsian and his role in this crisis?

Bryza: Prime Minister Sargsian is preparing for his inauguration and to make sure that he gets off on the right foot he seems to believe that it is important to restore media freedoms and freedom of assembly that were restricted under the state of emergency. And if he thought differently, he would not
be involved in lifting those restrictions – so that is positive and a very good sign.

I have found Mr. Sargsian to be a constructive partner diplomatically and in security matters who has a clear vision of where he wants Armenia to evolve, in terms of having complementary relations both with Russia and the Euro-Atlantic community. [Mr. Sargsian has been] open-minded in terms of listening and analyzing and synthesizing ideas and trying to come up with a way forward that is in a mutual benefit of both of our countries.

And that is all really good.

In terms of the events that just transpired – all I can say is that they were a tragedy for all of the Armenian people and the important thing is to make sure that
these tragic events do not end up slowing down the evolution of the Armenian democracy and do not end up somehow undercutting shared values that are at the core of the U.S.-Armenian relationship.

Again, the momentum is being restored and we will see where things go from here.

Reporter: There seems to be a fine line that the government needs to follow in terms of its pledge to prosecute people behind the violent postelection unrest in Yerevan and working toward reconciliation.

What is your sense on how such a balance can be struck?

Bryza: In general, what we would like to see is restoration of the confidence of all of the Armenian voters in their government, as well as the restoration of the positive progress in U.S.-Armenia relations.

Of course it is very important that all those who committed violence unlawfully, whether they are in opposition or in the government, be prosecuted. Anybody who violated the election laws, either in the campaign period, or the voting, or the tabulation of votes also should be investigated and prosecuted.

It is important that journalists have the right to speak freely, but also it is important that the journalists maintain professional and ethical standards. A cooperative evolution needs to take place between journalists and the government, as well as opposition leaders, to make sure they focus on things that really matter to Armenia, which is building democratic institutions.

Peaceful and lawful demonstrations are an important part of any democracy. But again, I stress, peaceful and lawful, so there is mutual responsibility.

That said, in our Euro-Atlantic world, whether it is fair or unfair – it is just the way our culture is structured both Europe and U.S. – when serious violence ensues
between the government and the population, we often blame the government first.

In Washington, D.C., for example, if there is a clash between the protestors and the police, the police are going to be blamed for brutality even if they were provoked. And that is what happened in Armenia as well. Perhaps some in Armenia may think this is unfair, but that is just a reality that the governments are seen bearing primary responsibility when violence ensues.

Reporter: When you met with ex-President Levon Ter-Petrossian, what was your message to him? In your assessment, is he ready for a constructive dialogue to help bring the country back to normalcy?

Bryza: I hope so. I would rather not divulge the specifics of the private discussions that I had, but when you talk to Mr. Ter-Petrossian you hear a very calm and seemingly a very reasonable approach.

I can only say that [I hope that] as he exercises his democratic rights of the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, he would do so in a way that strengthens Armenia’s democratic institutions.

I have no way to predict in which way he is going to behave. I can just express my hope.

Reporter: It has been two weeks since the Constitutional Court turned down Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s challenge, letting the election results stand. The state of emergency has also now been lifted. How is the decision taken for President Bush to send a letter to the president-elect, in this case Mr. Sargsian, and when? Are the elections over, as far as you are concerned?

Bryza: It is a decision that the President of the United States has to make as to when he offers his recognition or congratulations to any foreign leader on an election.

I would presume that in a situation of the state of emergency it is quite difficult for any U.S. president to reach out and congratulate.

I hope that we are seeing today that Armenia is moving into a new phase when freedoms are restored.

And I presume that our president will have a different set of facts in his mind as he considers when and how to acknowledge and congratulate Prime Minister Sargsian on this last election.

Briefly: U.S. unhappy with Armenia SoE; Congressmen want cut on aid to Azer.; State Dept. HR and Brookings "state weakness" reports

This was first published in March 15, 2008 Armenian Reporter

Washington Briefing
by Emil Sanamyan

U.S. says Armenia state of emergency “jeopardizes” aid programs, continues to call for dialogue

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a congressional panel on March 12 that the state of emergency in Armenia has “made it necessary to suspend” some of U.S. assistance programs. In comments before the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations she also warned that the state of emergency “is jeopardizing” Armenia’s eligibility for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) aid.

President Robert Kocharian introduced a 20-day state of emergency after March 1–2 clashes between rioters and police in Yerevan turned deadly. The measure brought calm but also temporarily curtailed freedom of assembly and speech. This week, the president, citing a relative return to stability, lifted some of the restrictions related to political parties and media.

On March 11, MCC chief executive officer Ambassador John Danilovich sent a letter to Mr. Kocharian officially warning that “MCC has the right to suspend or terminate” the program “when serious policy reversals occur” and that “recent events could have negative effects on Armenia’s eligibility for MCC funding.”

On March 13, Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian acknowledged the warning, adding that “it all depends on how the United States evaluates things, on how quickly we can get out of this situation.

“Right now we are facing a dilemma: the country’s stability and the people’s security versus democratic values, liberties, civil rights,” Mr. Oskanian said. “The president of the republic is facing this dilemma. The situation is not clear-cut. He has to balance things, and that’s not an easy task.”

Armenia has so far received $11.3 million in MCC funding and a second tranche in the same amount has been expected in the next few months.

In a March 12 interview with RFE/RL, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matt Bryza, who visited Armenia last week, said a way out of the Armenia crisis was to “launch a nationwide roundtable – including all major political parties – to chart the course forward to strengthen Armenia’s democracy” and “to restore the democratic momentum that had characterized Armenia’s political development until the period just after this last election.”

Before such an initiative could be launched, Mr. Bryza said, the government has to restore media freedoms and lift the state of emergency as soon as possible, adding that he has “a feeling that in the government of Armenia, people are thinking through how to do that, and so we can only urge them to [do that] as quickly as possible.

Mr. Bryza called on the government “to cease arrests of political leaders.” The Armenian government has charged some of these political leaders with illegal activities and said they would face prosecution.

He acknowledged that “brutality occurred on both sides” and that there is a need for “prosecuting people who used violence unlawfully or who were violating election law,” but stressed the need to look forward.

Date for congressional Armenian Genocide commemoration set

The U.S. Congress will host an annual commemoration of the Armenian Genocide on April 23 from 6 P.M. in the House Ways and Means Committee Room, co-chairs of the Armenian Caucus, Reps. Joe Knollenberg and Frank Pallone, announced in a March 11 news release.

On March 12–14, the Armenian National Committee of America together with the Genocide Intervention Network (GI-Net) brought together activists from more than a dozen states to advocate with members of Congress “in support of practical legislative initiatives to stop the genocide in Darfur and end Turkey’s ongoing denial of the Armenian Genocide.”

Members of Congress question continued U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan

Members of the House Subcommittee on Foreign Operations questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a March 12 hearing about the rationale for U.S. military assistance to Azerbaijan while it continues to threaten war against Armenia.

Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R.- Mich.) in particular suggested to “take away [U.S.]military funding [for Azerbaijan] or at least threaten it – because they are threatening Armenia.” Mr. Knollenberg specifically pointed to the deadly border skirmish initiated by Azerbaijan on March 4.

In her response, Dr. Rice argued that in order to achieve a peaceful settlement in Karabakh “the best approach is to continue to try to get both sides to act responsibly, to keep our aid programs in place to the degree that we can.” But Dr. Rice also agreed that a peace deal was not in sight “in the immediate future.”

Another subcommittee member, Rep. Adam Schiff (D.-Calif.), also reiterated congressional concerns over administration’s proposal for higher military aid levels to Azerbaijan than to Armenia.

Mr. Knollenberg and fellow cochair of the Armenian Caucus Rep. Frank Pallone (D.-N.J.) issued a statement on March 12 regarding the March 4 skirmish: “As the Co- Chairs of the Armenian Caucus, we are deeply disturbed by the preventable loss of life along the Line of Contact between Nagorno-Karabakh and Azerbaijan that took place on March 4th.

“It is troubling that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has acted on his history of warmongering rhetoric. While Armenia recovers from the last week’s turmoil, President
Aliyev attempted to cause further instability in the South Caucasus region.

“Despite President Aliyev’s initiation of the conflict, we urge all parties to uphold the ceasefire provisions agreed to after the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict of February 4, 1995. We continue to support Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence and commitment to the values of freedom, democracy, and respect for human rights. We ask that all parties reject further military action and seek a peaceful solution.”

State Department revises controversial language in human rights report

The latest annual State Department Report on Human Rights Practices, released on March 11, revised its controversial passage which last year caused protests from Armenia and Azerbaijan. (See the April 28, 2007 issue of the Armenian Reporter.)

Last year, the report suggested that Armenia “continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories” – language more akin to Azerbaijan’s official position than that of the United States.

The revised language this year states that “ethnic Armenian separatists, with Armenia’s support, continued to control most of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories.”

While the United States recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, U.S. officials also typically clarify that “Karabakh’s status is a matter negotiations” and do not charge Armenia with “occupation.”

No immediate reaction to the new language was available from either Armenia or Azerbaijan.

Study measures state “weakness” around the world

The Washington-based Brookings Institution and the Center for Global Development issued a report measuring relative state weakness of countries around the world.

The report, “Index of State Weakness in the Developing World,” issued on March 7, measured 141 developing countries “on their performance in fulfilling the four core
functions of statehood: providing security; maintaining legitimate political institutions; fostering equitable economic growth; and meeting their people’s human needs.”

As in similar studies in the past, Armenia was rated favorably in comparison to its neighbors and was only second to Ukraine in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The Central Asian states of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan received the worst ratings in CIS.

“Given the role that weak states can play as incubators and breeding grounds for transnational security threats, building state capacity . . . should be a higher priority for U.S. policy,” the report argued.

Armenia elections: Polls point to Sargsian victory

This was first published in the February 16, 2008 Armenian Reporter.

Armenia elections: Polls point to Sargsian victory
Ter-Petrossian’s campaign adds intrigue
[Post-election crisis likely]
News Analysis by Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON - Armenia appears headed toward a contentious election on February 19, pitting Prime Minister Serge Sargsian against his main challenger, ex-President Levon
Ter-Petrossian.

Public opinion surveys, including those commissioned by an opposition-leaning newspaper, have consistently shown Mr. Sargsian, who also has the most organizational and financial strength, with a substantial advantage in public support.

But over the past two weeks Mr. Ter-Petrossian appears to have made inroads into the Armenian political establishment, gaining enough momentum to make the outcome of the upcoming vote less predictable.

Campaigning and organizational strength

While formally there are nine contenders in the upcoming elections, only four have run full-fledged national campaigns. In addition to Mr. Sargsian and Mr. Ter-Petrossian, the others in this field are former Parliament Speaker Artur Baghdasarian, and current Deputy Speaker Vahan Hovhannesian.

All four candidates have held massive rallies around Armenia, although the support and organizational strength for the candidates appears uneven in different parts of the country.

Benefiting from his de facto incumbency, Mr. Sargsian commands the strongest political machine comprised of the Republican (RPA) and Prosperous Armenia (PAP) parties, which hold a majority in parliament and have national outreach. RPA, PAP, as well as the United Labor and several smaller parties that support Mr. Sargsian cumulatively won nearly 53 percent of the vote in the May 2007 parliamentary elections.

Mr. Ter-Petrossian in turn is also benefiting from his past incumbency, with his campaign run primarily by former government officials who retain political and economic influence around Armenia. He has also attracted the support of a number of small political parties that cumulatively won more than 14 percent of the vote last May.

Mr. Hovhannisian and Mr. Baghdasarian are backed by their respective political parties – the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which won 13 percent of the vote in May 2007, and the Country of Laws party, which secured 7 percent.

The votes won by political parties last May can serve only as rough indicators of the starting organizational strength of the individual candidates. While Mr. Sargsian and Mr. Ter-Petrossian have polled at near the levels of the past combined performance of the parties now backing them (respectively 53 and 14 percent), Mr. Baghdasarian has been polling better than Mr. Hovannisian.

Polls and public support

Armenian opposition parties have criticized the integrity of the public opinion polls that all give Mr. Sargsian a strong lead. But they have not published any alternative polls that could contradict such findings. And polls are sufficiently consistent to provide a general picture of the relative popularity of individual candidates, more so than turnout at campaign rallies.

Although certain opinion polls, such as those commissioned by Mr. Sargsian’s campaign
(through Sociometer) as well as by media entities favoring Mr. Sargsian, may raise legitimate concerns about accuracy, it is harder to allege a pro-government bias in polling funded respectively by the U.S. government and Aravot newspaper, which editorially supports Mr. Ter-Petrossian.

The nationwide polls since January have placed Mr. Sargsian’s popularity anywhere between 43 (U.S.-funded) to 50 (Armenian Public TV-funded) to 67 (Sargsian campaign-funded) percent, with more recent polls showing an increase in support.

These findings are generally backed by the polling commissioned by Aravot, and conducted in Yerevan only. Based on six opinion polls involving 663 respondents each, conducted at monthly intervals since last September, Aravot’s polling (see table at http://www.reporter.am/pdfs/A0216.pdf p. A11) puts Mr. Sargsian well ahead even among the capital’s voters – who, unlike voters in most of the provinces, have traditionally favored challengers over incumbents.

According to this survey, while many voters in Yerevan would not state their preferences, the ex-president enjoys the highest “anti”-rating: that is, when voters were asked to name the candidate “whom they would never vote for” about 30 percent named Mr. Ter-Petrossian, and less than 10 percent Mr. Sargsian. According to these findings, Mr. Ter-Petrossian would also do worse than two other main challengers would against Mr. Sargsian in a potential run-off election should none of the candidates win over half of all votes cast on February 19.

Overall, Mr. Sargsian appears to be polling somewhat better than President Robert Kocharian was on the eve of 2003 election, in which Mr. Kocharian won just under 50 percent in the first round and more than two-thirds of the vote in the run-off.

Mr. Ter-Petrossian in turn is polling substantially worse than the main opposition challenger, Stepan Demirchian, did in January-February 2003.

Uncertainty of outcome, and certainty of crisis

Mr. Sargsian is continuing to enjoy advantages in organizational resources and popular support. Throughout his campaign, he has exuded confidence and offered only a restrained reaction to the daily barrage of accusations and insults coming from the opposition candidates, particularly from Mr. Ter-Petrossian, who has in turn been targeted heavily by pro-government media.

However, over the last week the ex-president’s campaign has gained momentum and has to a large degree succeeded in turning the election into a two-man race. Mr. Ter- Petrossian appears to be attracting voters who see him as an only candidate capable of mounting a strong challenge against Mr. Sargsian.

He won the endorsement of Raffi Hovannisian’s Heritage Party (which won 6 percent of the vote last May), as well as two parliament members previously allied with HHK, the prime minister’s party. Mr. Ter-Petrossian has also been backed by Aram Karapetian, a maverick politician who claims to be close to the Russian government and whose party won 3 percent of the vote last May.

Mr. Ter-Petrossian has thus largely reconstituted the 2003 opposition alliance, at the time led by Mr. Demirchian. The only change is that parties supporting former Prime Minister Vazgen Manukian, who is running separately, have been replaced by Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s loyalists from the former ruling Armenian Pan National Movement (ANM).

Last Monday, Armenia’s ex-president went to Moscow and reportedly assured a pro- Kremlin pundit of his loyalty to Russian interests. While Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s television ads claimed that he met with senior members of the Russian government, those claims remained unconfirmed by Russian officials.

At the same time, the ex-president’s campaign pressured Mr. Baghdasarian, who has been coming second or third in most recent polls, to drop out of the race. Earlier this week, Mr. Ter-Petrossian said he was certain of Mr. Baghdasarian’s endorsement.

But on Thursday Mr. Baghdasarian refused to back the ex-president. Support for Mr. Ter-Petrossian from other candidates in the race, particularly Mr. Hovhannesian of ARF, is believed to be highly unlikely.

For months, Mr. Ter-Petrossian has also tried to woo away major players in Armenia’s establishment who have supported Mr. Sargsian – particularly PAP leader and businessman Gagik Tsarukian, with little success so far.

Last Wednesday, the ex-president claimed support from unidentified figures in the republic’s Police and the National Security Service, but those claims remained unsubstantiated as of press time.

The outcome of the electoral race, which has increasingly focused on Mr. Ter-Petrossian, Mr. Sargsian, and to an extent Mr. Baghdasarian, remains hard to predict.

Although Mr. Sargsian remains a favorite, the two major opposition campaigns also claim the inevitability of their victory and are unlikely to accept defeat without street protests and legal appeals to overturn the results.

While only one of the candidates can win, the balance of forces arrayed and the visible polarization of recent weeks make a postelection crisis likely, no matter the actual outcome of the vote.