It is rare when France, the Russian Federation and the United States are part of a small group that vote the same way in the United Nations.

But today they joined the states of Angola, Armenia, India, and Vanuatu in voting against a General Assembly resolution by the Republic of Azerbaijan that calls on Armenian forces to withdraw from the Armenian indigenous region of Nagorno Karabakh – a de facto but internationally unrecognized republic in the ex-Soviet world.

According to Reuters:

The U.N. General Assembly on Friday demanded [on March 14, 2008] that Armenian forces withdraw from all occupied territories in Azerbaijan, but key mediators in the Azeri-Armenia dispute rejected the non-binding resolution.

[…]
There were 100 abstentions and many other countries chose not to participate in the vote, which Western diplomats said was a reflection of the fact that most people felt the Azeri resolution was not a balanced picture of the problem.

“This resolution was not helpful,” said a diplomat from one of the three co-chairs of the Minsk Group — Russia, the United States and France.

The Minsk Group is a committee of countries working to bring about a peaceful resolution of the disagreement over Nagorno-Karabakh, the disputed Caucasus mountain enclave. The group was established by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in 1992.

A U.S. statement on the resolution said the three Minsk Group co-chairs all voted against the resolution because they agreed it represented a “unilateral” view of the dispute.

[…]

Last week Azeri President Ilham Aliyev said Kosovo’s newly declared independence from Serbia had emboldened Armenian separatists in Azerbaijan’s mountainous enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have accused each other of stoking the recent violence there.

The resolution passed by 39 countries voting in favor of Azerbaijan’s ‘territorial integrity,’ while 100 states chose to abstain or not show up at all. The Azerbaijani resolution, which calls for “the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan,” was largely voted for by Muslim countries including Armenia’s historic enemy Turkey (where the indigenous Armenian population was eliminated during WWI), Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Iraq, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and others. Among others, the ex-Soviet states of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – all in somewhat similar situation like Azerbaijan with breakaway regions – supported the resolution. From other former Soviet “Turkic” countries only Uzbekistan supported the resolution while the rest of Central Asian countries voted abstain or were not present. Serbia, which is still protesting the U.S.-backed breakaway of Kosovo, joined Azerbaijan in defending the latter’s “territorial integrity.”

Announcing support for the resolution on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), Pakistan’s representative quoted Azerbaijani allegations of “destruction of Azerbaijan’s cultural and historical heritage, including Islamic monuments.” Ironically, Azerbaijan has continuously denied the European Parliament investigation of material heritage destruction in the South Caucasus – raising questions of its sincerity in protecting heritage. And needless to say, Azerbaijan’s rhetoric of “Armenian vandalism” only started in late December of 2005 – after an eyewitness videotape from the Iranian-Azerbaijani border showed servicemen of Azerbaijan’s army reducing the world’s largest Armenian medieval cemetery to dust.

According to the official United Nations website, Armenia’s representative argued that the Azeri-drafted resolution would undermine the peace process and contribute to Azerbaijan’s militant position in dealing with the indigenous population of Nagorno Karabakh:

The representative of Armenia said it was unprecedented for a draft resolution to be put to the vote without there having been any consultations on it, in cynical disregard of the foundation of the United Nations and every other organization.  The purpose of the drafters had never been to encourage or facilitate discussion.  It was simply a way for Azerbaijan to list its wishes on a piece of paper.  If the intention had truly been to contribute to the success of ongoing negotiations, Azerbaijan would have put its energy into the existing Minsk Group negotiation format.

He said that, after Azerbaijan had militarized the conflict 20 years ago, there had been a full-scale war between Armenians of Nagorno Karabagh and Azerbaijan.  The result was thousands dead, nearly 1 million refugees and lost territories on both sides.  Today, there was a self-maintained ceasefire and negotiations under the auspices of the Minsk Group.  Despite that and attempts by Azerbaijan to divert from the peace process, the talks were indeed moving forward.  There was now a negotiating document on the table that addressed all fundamental issues, security being foremost among them.  The Minsk Group co-chairs had presented the latest version to the two sides at the OSCE Ministerial Meeting in Madrid.

Yet, Azerbaijan risked sabotaging that process by presenting a draft that ignored fundamental international norms and the real issues, which must be addressed, he continued.  In short, the draft was counterproductive.  It called for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of armed forces, while ignoring the security vacuum that would result.  Who would be responsible for the security of the population of Nagorno Karabagh, which was already vulnerable, in the absence of “international cover” safeguarded by those very armed forces?

The draft also called for self-governance within Azerbaijan, he noted.  That had become impossible 20 years ago and was not possible today, when the security of the Armenian minority was clearly endangered.  The international community had demonstrated that it understood that, in various conflicts around the world.  The Government of Azerbaijan had forfeited its right to govern people it considered its own citizens when it had unleashed a war against them 20 years ago.  Armenians would not return to such a situation.  Just as victims of domestic violence were not forced back into the custody of the abuser, the people of Nagorno Karabagh would not be forced back into the custody of a Government that sanctioned pogroms against them, and later sent its army against them.

Noting that the draft also asked for commitment by the parties to humanitarian law, he questioned their commitment to the non-use of force, the peaceful resolution of disputes and all the other provisions of the Helsinki Final Act.  The draft talked about territories and refugees, but not how the consequences of the conflict would be resolved if the original cause was not addressed.  Refugees and territories had been created by an Azerbaijan that had “unleashed a savage war against people it claims to be its own citizens”.  Only when the initial cause was resolved would the fate of all the territories and refugees in question be put right.

The draft was a “wasted attempt” to predetermine the outcome of the peace talks, he said.  That was not how responsible members of the international community conducted the difficult but rewarding mission of bringing peace and stability to peoples and regions.  The co-chairs had found that today’s text did not help the peace talks.  Armenia also knew it would undermine the peace process and asked other delegations not to support it.

From the European Parliament website:

Human rights: Armenia, Russia, Afghan journalist and Iranian homosexual

Human rights – 13-03-2008 – 17:11

In four human rights resolutions adopted at the end of this week’s Strasbourg session, MEPs deplored the violence used by the authorities against opposition demonstrators following presidential elections in both Armenia and Russia, and demanded reprieves for a journalist condemned to death in Afghanistan and for a gay Iranian who could be in grave danger if forced to return to his home country.

Violence following the elections in Armenia
 
In the wake of the presidential elections in Armenia on 19 February, a police crackdown against opposition supporters who were peacefully contesting the results left eight dead and dozens injured. A state of emergency was declared on 1 March and media freedom has been restricted.  Parliament’s resolution, adopted by 60 votes to 1 with 2 abstentions, deplores the loss of life, urges all parties to act responsibly and calls on the authorities to investigate the violence and take other measures.
 
The International Election Observation Mission stated that the elections were “administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards” but also identified a number of concerns, in particular concerning the media’s commitment to providing impartial information.
 
In the resolution, Parliament “expresses its concern at recent developments in Armenia” and “calls on all parties to show openness and restraint, to tone down statements and to engage in a constructive and fruitful dialogue aimed at supporting and consolidating the country’s democratic institutions”.
 
Call for inquiry, with punishment for perpetrators of violence
 
It also calls “for a prompt, thorough, transparent, independent and impartial investigation of the events of 1 March” and “for all those responsible to be brought to justice and punished for misconduct and criminal acts of violence”.  The Council and Commission should offer EU assistance to help with the investigation.
 
The Armenian authorities are asked to lift the state of emergency, restore media freedom and take all measures necessary to ensure a return to normalcy. In addition, they are urged “to release citizens detained for exercising their right of peaceful assembly”.
 
EU support for Armenia to improve democracy and rule of law
 
Parliament points out that the EU’s Action Plan with Armenia under the European Neighbourhood Policy covers the strengthening of democratic structures and the rule of law. In this context, it urges the Commission “to focus its assistance to Armenia on the independence of the judiciary and the training of police and security forces” and calls on the Armenian authorities “to implement swiftly all the remaining recommendations made by the International Election Observation Mission”.
 
MEPs urge the Armenian authorities “to cooperate fully with the international community on finding an agreed solution” and they express support for the EU Special Representative to the South Caucasus and the OSCE’s Special Envoy.
 
Turning to Armenia’s conflict with neighbouring Azerbaijan over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, the resolution “deplores the recent loss of life on the ‘line of control’ during fighting between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces” and “calls on all sides to refrain from further violence and to return to the negotiating table”.
 
Lastly, MEPs reiterate “the clear EU commitment to building closer ties with Armenia and the South Caucasus countries” but emphasise that “closer cooperation with the European Union must be based on real and tangible progress and reforms and a full commitment to democracy and the rule of law”.

[…]

Armenia has apparently lifted the YouTube.com ban. Blogging does help.

It seems that YouTube.com has been blocked in Armenia adding the ex-Soviet country to a list that often includes Armenia’s historical enemy Turkey.

While the suspected YouTube.com blockade in Armenia is most likely invalid under the constitutional clause of restricted media during state of emergency, it sure talks of the fact that Armenia’s population is overwhelmingly using the Internet as a source of information. During the March 1, 2008, protests, for example, it was often impossible to open Armenian websites such as www.hetq.am because of the high value of visitors.

And even my blog, that usually receives a handful of daily readers from Armenia, now receives much of its readership from there. While in April of 2007 (a month when Armenians are active in the Internet because of the genocide commemoration) users from Armenia were 18th in the list of countries, currently Blogian readers from Armenia are among the top three countries.

A video, sent to me by a supporter of Armenian opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosyan, shows riot police shooting from long distance toward post-election protesters on March 1, 2008 in Yerevan. The edited and dramatized footage also features a clip from an official announcement where a government spokesperson claims that the authorities have not used firearms against the protesters. Nonetheless, a police chief in Armenia has not denied that the police fired. The chief claims it was after the first shot was fired by the protesters that the servicemen were armed .

At least nine of my relatives, friends and acquaintances in Armenia are pregnant and the list keeps growing almost every week (and my extended family is quite small).  Most of the babies are due in the summer of 2008. The majority of them are already mothers – two of them have two children.

This is undoubtedly a baby boom for Armenia. I don’t recall any point in my life when so many people I knew were expecting children. This also means that I am getting old 🙂 but actually most of these new mothers have been married for at least four years and are older than me.

I need to buy lots of gifts for my next trip to Armenia for sure – to over a dozen children including the to-be-born ones. This also means that I may be asked to become godfather again.  Donations are accepted. 🙂

With Armenia’s ongoing depopulation this baby boom is, indeed, very important and promising. There is hope. But we need to seriously start thinking about global warming and pollution to make sure these babies are healthy.

Since Armenia’s government has not declared State of Mourning for the nine people who died as a result of March 1, 2008 post-election unrest in Yerevan, a group of Internet activists suggest declaring March 7, 8 and 9 a STATE of MOURNING in the Internet. 
Blogian joins them and won’t comment on Armenia’s politics for the next few days during this solemn time and invites its readers to reflect on democracy and mutual respect.

1. Even from the pre-electoral campaign period, the public activities of different political bodies resulted in the atmosphere of intolerance in our society. Unfortunately the calls for tolerance, made both by competent international organizations and by the Human Rights Defender  were  ignored. Even more, the atmosphere of intolerance turned into mutual hatred after the tragic events on the March 1.  

2. The events of March 1 started from the forced dispersal of the demonstrators in the Azatutyun square early in the morning. It was officially announced that there was an accumulation of  weapons in the place of demonstration, and Police officers simply tried to inspect the area but faced tough resistance. 
The Human Rights Defender’s position is that the authorities should clarify some issues.  Notably, who, when and under what circumstances there was made a decision to disperse peaceful demonstration by using force early in the morning of March 1, whether the demonstrators were presented an official warning of corresponding searching and whether the participants refused or resisted, and whether the use of force was adequate to the situation.  
 

The aforementioned issues are conditioned by the announcement of the demonstrators  that early in the morning without any warning, they were attacked and severely beaten. It is difficult for us to reveal the truth but there is an unanswered question.   What was the reason that the police imposed restrictions on     the activities of journalists, for us to get full impartial information. The fact of such  prevention  was officially confirmed by  “Erkir  media” and “ALM” television broadcasters. 

3. People near the French Embassy are a part of our society, they are not burglars or hooligans. They were convinced that they were citizens of Republic of Armenia who illegally suffered violence from law enforcement   bodies.  

The Police suggested  to make a procession  and hold a demonstration near Matenadaran. What was the reason that the people who could lead the demonstrators, did not do that, but at the last moment announced that the demonstrators did not obey them. Еventually what was the reason that demonstrators disagreed with both  law enforcement bodies and with the representatives of Levon Ter-Petrosyan’s electoral headquarter. Perhaps, the reason was the early morning events? Perhaps so many wounded and 8 dead persons were the result of this disagreement? The Defender deeply condoles with the relatives of the victims.  

4.  Current activities of some mass media, mainly TV broadcasters directed to the increase of the tension in atmosphere is at least doubtful. Particularly, it is continuously broadcasted the announcements of high level officials stating to punish or call to trial only those who participated in March 1 demonstrations. 
Why the issue of possible illegal actions and corresponding responsibilities of  law enforcement bodies are not discussed.  
        
5. The presidential decree of 01.03.2008 introducing a state of emergency imposes restrictions on civil and constitutional rights.  Thus, according to  subpoint 4 of the 4th point of the decree, mass media reports on domestic political matters may include only official information. Whereas, according to the information, received by the Defender, the activities of «A1plus», «Lragir» informational internet portals have been suspended.     In connection with it, the head of the National Security told the Defender that the reason for such extreme measures is that the internet providers of the corresponding sites are located abroad. According to the head of the National Security  the latter were warned about the restrictions  prescribed by the decree, but they refused to stand to them justifying that they act within the legislation of their own state.  
         

The  subpoint 3 of point 4 of the aforementioned presidential decree provides that law enforcing bodies have the right to restrict the free movement of people, means of transport and execute searching. The complaints received by the Defender indicate that in a result of broad interpretation of the mentioned subpoint the right of people to enter Yerevan city is inadequately eliminated.  

 Besides, the defender receives complaints concerning mass arrestments which is аcompanied by, according to applicants, violations of criminal procedural norms.  As for this question the Defender had a telephone conversation with the RA Prosecutor-General, who eagerly offered to present the list of all arrested people to the office of the Defender. 
Nevertheless, some representatives of law enforcing bodies tried to prevent the Defender from executing his powers. Such case happened at the RA Police Yerevan department Qanaqer-Zeytun police station.

6.We think that the present situation is conditioned by rough governing system, over-centralization of power,  artificial essence of system of checks and balances, social and economic polarization, combination of business and authorities,  absence of public control over authorities, deficiency of civil liberties. So it is the situation which has been continuously mentioned by me as the Human Rights Defender of RA, that we have systematic problems in the sphere of the protection of human rights in Republic of Armenia. All these results in the fact, that one big part of our society feels apart from the administration, has a total distrust towards public institutes, electoral mechanisms, justice and mass media. 

A certain part of political bodies tried to make use of the situation for its narrow political interests following not the way of dialogue, but the one of confrontation. Of course, the authorities have their part of responsibility in the current situation.  
There are two ways to solve the situation: illegal, that is leading to deadlock and legal. The deadlock would be the situation when  the political arena becomes deserted and a total feeling of fear would be formed. The other way must be based on  real democratic mechanisms, human rights must be considered  as a highest value or a headstone, and the way of dialogue and cooperation must be followed up.   

It is reassuring that this way is preferred by the newly elected president. It shows that the coming government tries to follow the legal way. It is characteristic that a proposal of cooperation is made by a  political leader, whose political party, forms the majority in the Parliament.   
I’m sure that even in this situation the possibility of dialogue and political way of peaceful solution of the existing disagreements is not exhausted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07fri2.html

March 7, 2008

Editorial

Dark Days in Armenia

The democracy that Armenians dreamed of during their long decades under Moscow’s yoke is slipping away. After opponents challenged last month’s flawed presidential election, the government imposed a brutal state of emergency. At least eight people are now dead, independent news outlets throttled and all protests silenced. President Bush and other Western leaders need to make clear to Armenia’s government that such behavior is unacceptable and will jeopardize future relations. Compared to post-Soviet tyrannies like Belarus or Uzbekistan, Armenia may not look so bad. That is why it is so important to halt this slide into authoritarianism before it is too late.

Official election results handed an overwhelming victory to the ruling party candidate, Serge Sargsyan. International monitors declared that while the overall outcome appeared fair, there were serious problems with the vote count. The protests that followed only turned violent after police began beating demonstrators.

Witnesses told our colleague, Sabrina Tavernise, that government authorities planted guns and grenades among the sleeping protestors last Saturday morning. Then, claiming that they were thwarting an attempted coup, police attacked the opposition camp. The next day, the outgoing president sent tanks into the streets, banned demonstrations and ordered Armenian news organizations to relay only information provided by his government. Local stations can no longer use the Armenian language programs produced by foreign broadcasters including the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

That drew an admirably strong protest from Washington’s Broadcasting Board of Governors, the independent federal agency that supervises these stations, while the State Department has expressed its concern over the death toll. Their words would carry more weight if President Bush added his voice. Armenia, embroiled in a lengthy standoff with neighboring Azerbaijan, is relatively isolated in its own region and especially values its good relations with the United States.

This is not a case of pure democratic virtue against pure authoritarian evil. The defeated opposition leader, Levon Ter-Petrossian, is a former president who in the 1990s sent armored cars into the streets to crush demonstrators protesting his electoral manipulations.

He insists, without credible evidence, that he won this election. And once government forces set off last weekend’s violence, some of those who turned out in Mr. Ter-Petrossian’s behalf seemed more interested in looting nearby shops. The main responsibility lies with Armenia’s government leaders, and it is to them that the White House must address its protests.

Armenian opposition leader and former president Levon Ter-Petrosyan has written a column in the Washington Post charging the west with conformity and non-action in regards to alleged violations in the February 19, 2008, presidential vote in Armenia. The criticism of the west comes in the face of some claims that Petrosyan is sponsored by the United States for his “moderate” views.

At the end of the column the former president suggests that if the West doesn’t criticize Armenia’s authorities then the opposite of “peaceful and lawful means of political struggle” is inevitable.

Whether Ter-Petrosyan’s column is a violation of Armenia’s state of emergency that forbids political activity by the opposition and restrictions on the media will likely be asked.

Here is the entire column:

In Armenia‘s presidential election last month, I stood as the main opposition candidate against incumbent Prime Minister Serzh Sarkissian. The election followed a sadly familiar script: The regime harassed the opposition’s representatives, bribed and intimidated voters, stuffed ballot boxes, and systematically miscounted votes. Indeed, the rigging of the outcome did not begin on Feb. 19. For the duration of the campaign the country’s main medium of communication, television, which is tightly controlled by the regime, churned out propaganda that would have made Brezhnev-era Soviet propagandists blush in shame.

We in the opposition were angered by all of this but not surprised. What surprised and dismayed us was the deafening silence from the West. What dismayed us even more was the technical report of the observer mission from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which rubber-stamped Sarkissian’s farcical claim of victory.

The people of Armenia, unlike the OSCE monitors, chose to see what happened at the polling stations. Naturally, they discounted Sarkissian’s claim and gathered to demand annulment of the results. They staged a continuous protest at Opera Square that became the most wonderful celebration of freedom and one that should be studied as an example of nonviolent, lawful resistance against illegitimate rule.

Deeply concerned that the ranks of protesters were swelling by the day, the regime decided early Saturday to resort to force. Riot police were ordered to disperse the crowd, detain the opposition leaders and put me under house arrest. After several hours, citizens reassembled at another site, demanding to see their leaders, but instead they encountered more riot police, later reinforced by units of the Armenian army, which was ordered to crush the protest. At least eight people were killed this weekend, and emergency rule has been declared.

How did we come to this? Why did the regime headed by outgoing President Robert Kocharianand “president-elect” Sarkissian think it could get away with using force against its own people? Surely the two men had their reasons, but the West’s signal, even if unintentional, that they did not have to worry about a strong international reaction was the most important one.

We in Armenia have been trying to understand the roots of such indifference to the rape of our democracy by the Kocharian-Sarkissian regime. The available evidence suggests two explanations: First, some influential organizations and actors in the West, and in Europe in particular, are naively wedded to the notion of positive reinforcement. They seem to think that praising small improvements, instead of criticizing major flaws, creates an incentive for good behavior. Anyone who has studied this regime closely, however, understands the absurdity of such an approach.

Second, and perhaps more important, is the oft-stated claim that the only people able to settle Armenia’s long-standing conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh region will be leaders who are themselves from Nagorno-Karabakh — as Kocharian and Sarkissian are — and who are perceived domestically as hard-liners. This is analogous to the “only Nixon could go to China” logic. The problem is that despite being in power for the past 10 years, Kocharian and Sarkissian have done little to move the negotiating process forward. More important, any leader who must make consequential and difficult choices must have the trust of his people. Sarkissian does not have that trust. After what he and Kocharian did on March 1, he will not be able to govern here, let alone make difficult choices.

So what should be done? What do the people of Armenia expect from the West, and the United States in particular? At the very least, we expect a strong and unequivocal condemnation of the violence that occurred March 1 and a recognition that the government, not the opposition, bears responsibility. This condemnation should accompany a stern warning against continued persecution of the opposition and its leaders — mistreatment that is reaching unprecedented levels — as well as a demand to lift the restrictions on the media and restore the people’s rights to free assembly and unbiased information. We also expect a reassessment of the conduct of the election. Any serious reassessment will inevitably lead to the conclusion that a new election must be held.

If these steps are not taken, Armenians will draw two very undesirable conclusions: that peaceful and lawful means of political struggle are ineffective and pointless, and that the West cares about democracy only when it is politically expedient to do so. The West must do everything possible to dissuade Armenia’s citizens from reaching those conclusions.