This Article in Armenian

This
Article in Russian

The very first day after lifting in Armenia the state of emergency
demonstrated that nothing much has changed in the country. Although the
opposition press was permitted to work in a normal regime, the amendments to the
law on meetings and demonstrations made by the National Assembly on the eve of
lifting the state of emergency, was another trick to preserve the present
situation unchanging.

This de-facto continued ban on meetings and demonstrations along with the
continued arrests and detentions of the opposition supporters has only raised a
new wave of confrontation between the protesting citizens and law-enforcement
bodies. It revealed already on March 21, when the police encountered with the
participants of the mourning action in the central part of Yerevan. The city
downtown once again was filled with policemen armed with batons and shields, and
many participants of the action ended up in police departments.

Appearance of numerous publications on March 1 events and further repressions
towards oppositionists and demonstrators (according to opposition data, hundreds
of citizens are being interrogated and fined) has only stirred up the protest
moods in the society. Their contribution to it brought also the pro-ruling
TV-channels, continuing their informational baiting of the opposition and
demonstrators.

Undoubtedly, the authorities of the country notice all the mentioned trends in
the society. It is noticeable that most of all they are concerned with the
situation in regions, where activity of the citizens takes on peculiar forms. An
example of this can be the mass action of support to Gala TV channel in Gyumri,
where the population during the last days organized a fundraising campaign for
preventing authorities to close down this obstinate info-structure. A
TV-marathon organized with this purpose has actually turned into an action of
mass protest against the authorities. It became clear that citizens are not
intended to become reconciled with the post-election repressions.

It should be expected that Armenian authorities, not intended to enter into
dialogue with the opposition, will follow the path of searching additional
resources for their support. It became apparent in two most important political
acts. First, on March 21 has been urgently formed a new ruling coalition
consisting of four parliament parties (Republicans, Prosperous Armenia, Orinats
Yerkir and Dashnaktsutyun ). Undoubtedly, the acting and newly elected
presidents needed political support within the country, a support in regulation
of continued domestic crisis. Noting new was invented in this sense – they
offered sharing out power with all interested.

Secondly, the Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan paid his first post-election visit
to Russian leaders. No doubt that the most important here was also to enlist the
support of Russia. This became evident already from the statements made by Serzh
Sargsyan in Moscow that Armenia “is in need of the further development of
relations with Russia.” “We always noted your assistance, in the pre-election
process as well.”

How ethical and appropriate was this statement, it’s hard to say. However, the
words of the acting Russian president Vladimir Putin made it clear that Russia
would prefer not to share responsibility for the latest domestic events in
Armenia: “I know that domestic political processes are rather complicated.
However, we count that whatever direction would the domestic processes in
Armenia take on, everything that had been earned during all the previous years
will be preserved and developed in future.” Even an unaided eye would see that
Russian leaders suggested their Armenian colleague to clear up at home on their
own.

Nothing else could be expected taking into account the situation arising around
Armenia on the international scene. Russia hardly takes serious the extent of
inner support to Sezh Sargsyan within Armenia. The political weight of the new
coalition is rather questionable, taking into account that three of the four
parties supporting the prime minister on the latest presidential elections
gained their votes owing to the oppositional slogans. Moreover, the ex-president
of Armenia who happened to become the only oppositional leader does not
demonstrate any signs of resignation to the current developments.

Taking into consideration the fact that the western society, and first of all,
the US continues to toughen its position towards Armenia, not forgetting at that
the sphere of the Russian-Armenian relations, hardly Russia will go headlong to
the open confrontation with the world community for the sake of problems of
Armenian leadership. All the more that Russia does not need confrontation with
the Armenian society as well. Especially, that Russian silent support to the
authorities has recently already adversely affected the sympathy of Armenian
public toward the “elder brother”.

Somehow, the same external conditions created different problems and different
resources for the authorities and opposition of Armenia. As a result, each side
uses these conditions in their own way. The common in their intentions is only
the fact that external factors are used first of all for the mobilization of
supporters within the country. Though, the external problems themselves are
rather heavy and have a potential to exceed the domestic ones. Undoubtedly, the
domestic problems of Armenia acquire serious international significance. And
maybe first time the Russian factor looks secondary in Armenia – so principal
and all-embracing is the position of the western states.

That the USA is very serious about the perspectives of its relations with
Armenia is evident not only from the fact there were no congratulations
addressed to Serzh Sargsyan, but because of the becoming more frequent talks
about the possibility of sanctions against Armenia. At that, claims are being
presented to the whole complex of political problems in Armenia. Even if let
aside already expressed official warnings of the American officials, the ideas
spread on March 18 by the well-known Stratfor centre, are a serious symptom of
the earnestness of their intentions. The given opinion is notable first of all
from the perspective of their thread with Russian-Armenian relations.

We can be convinced in that, having familiarized ourselves at least with the
following passage: « ... In the current situation Russia is interested in the
escalation of the situation (in Nagorno-Karabakh). Moscow understands that the
West, and particularly the US, does not want the recommencement of the
hostilities between Azerbaijan and Armenia… The US, in its turn, used all
possible means for not allowing the escalation. They can apply sanctions, even
resort to political pressure.The USA has several instruments for that.
…Aggravation of the domestic situation in Armenia and the fact that both sides
started to think about war, brought back to the agenda the question of the
sanctions against Yerevan.

According to Washington, the use of sanctions against Armenia, taking into
account that it is much poorer than neighboring Azerbaijan, is an argument that
can have a serious affect on it… The White House is especially concerned with
the transition of the region under Russia’s control and wants to bring back
Armenia by giving more money to it… Americans are waiting how the events will
develop. After that they will either apply sanctions by cutting down aid, or, on
the contrary, will increase it. Everything will depend on the answer they
receive from the Armenian state, stopping aggression against Azerbaijan and
pro-western orientation of the country.”

The leadership of Armenia facing the problem of investigation of the March 1
events is required to reckon the abovementioned external political factors.
Within the country, the opposition of Armenia demands the international
investigation, as well, as annulling the results of the elections, whereas the
international community actually suspects the authorities of recommencing the
hostilities with Azerbaijan with the purpose of distracting attention from the
domestic situation.

The situation is grave, indeed. The continued course of the Armenian authorities
on suppression of the oppositional movement only aggravates the situation. So
far it’s hard to believe that the authorities can rethink their approaches
toward the regulation of this total crisis. At least there are no signs for such
appraisals. Perhaps, there are hopes on the effectiveness of the new coalition.
Though, the fate of this new ruling coalition seems ambiguous: too much
different are the approaches of the constituent forces, and too ambiguous are
the opinions of the members of the parties. But one thing is clear: the
leadership of Armenia would hardly revise their course.