Category: Harut Sassounian

The new Diaspora Minister Mkhitar Hayrapetyan, appointed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on May 11, announced that a second legislative body would be created in Armenia to represent Diaspora Armenians.

This is a fascinating concept, but not a novelty. Interestingly, former Diaspora Minister Hranush Hakobyan, during her visit to Los Angeles on January 30, 2011, made a similar announcement, proposing the creation of a Senate in Armenia in addition to the existing Parliament that would partially include Diaspora Armenians.

I wrote an editorial in 2011, a few days after Minister Hakobyan’s announcement, and raised several questions which also apply to the proposal made by the new Diaspora Minister earlier this month.

The most important issue is that the creation of a second legislative chamber requires amending Armenian’s constitution — not an easy task! Without such an amendment, the structure of the Armenian government cannot be altered. Interestingly, the new Diaspora Minister did not mention that his proposal would require constitutional changes. This is a serious issue as the constitution was last revised in 2015 and it is neither likely nor desirable that it be altered so soon. Even the newly-appointed Prime Minister acknowledged that it is not a good idea to tamper with the constitution every so often. It is also important to note that despite the former Diaspora Minister’s 2011 announcement, when Armenia’s constitution was eventually amended in 2015, the concept of a second legislative chamber for the Diaspora was not included in it.

Since the new Diaspora Minister asked for input from Armenians overseas about his new proposal, I would like to raise a number of questions:

1)    Is the Armenian Government willing to amend the constitution to create a second legislative chamber? An alternative option, that may not require a change of the constitution, would be to include Armenians from the Diaspora in the present Parliament. Several countries have adopted such a mechanism. A thorough study should be made of how other countries have resolved the participation of their diaspora representatives in their legislative bodies.

2)    What exactly would be the mandate of the new chamber? Would it only discuss pan-Armenian issues such as the Armenian Genocide, demands from Turkey, the Artsakh conflict, and matters related to Diaspora Armenians or would it be also deal with Armenia’s internal problems? Minister Hayrapetyan, in one of his interviews, stated that the new chamber would be a consultative, not a decision-making body. This would raise all sorts of questions both in Armenia and the Diaspora. Would Diaspora Armenians be content to go to the trouble of electing representatives from their communities and spending their time in endless hours of meetings in Yerevan merely to give advice to the Armenian Government that may not be listened to? Would Diaspora representatives after a while lose their interest and stop attending the meetings of such a consultative body? On the opposite side, would residents of Armenia welcome decisions or even advice from Armenians who do not live in Armenia?

3)    How would the representatives of the new legislative body be chosen? Would they be elected by their communities around the world or would they be appointed by the Armenian Government? In my opinion, Diaspora representatives should be elected by their community members, no matter how difficult it would be to organize such elections throughout the world. The Armenian Government should not be involved in elections to be held in the Diaspora. Representatives appointed by the Armenian Government or selected from Armenian organizations would not be able to claim that they truly represent the Armenians of the Diaspora, since the public-at-large has not elected them. The leaders of Diaspora organizations represent only their own members, not the majority of Armenians in the Diaspora, since most Armenians are not members of any organization. It is also not a good idea to have two legislative chambers in Armenia, one of which is elected by the citizens of Armenia (the present Parliament) and the second one is composed of appointed, not elected members.

4)    What would be the criteria for candidates and voters for the Diaspora chamber? Would it be acceptable that the candidates be Armenians who are citizens of foreign countries or should they be asked to acquire at least dual citizenship? Otherwise, it would be odd to have a group of foreign citizens, albeit Armenians, sitting in Yerevan and making decisions or giving advice that would affect Armenia’s population.

5)    Would Diaspora representatives of the new legislative body move to Armenia to participate in year-round sessions or simply come to Armenia for brief periods to attend meetings dealing with pan-Armenian issues?

Certainly, there should be no rush to form a second legislative body. As Minister Hayrapetyan suggested, extensive consultations should be held in Armenia and the Diaspora to find a solution that is in the best interest of all Armenians.

The recent events in Armenia surprised and impressed both Armenians and non-Armenians worldwide because a leader thought to be irreplaceable by his supporters was replaced by a newcomer without any violence or bloodshed. Furthermore, what is taking place in Armenia is much more than unseating a particular leader. A regime entrenched for two decades was overthrown almost overnight!

To understand what took place in the last few weeks in Armenia we need to go back to 1991, the date of Armenia’s independence from the Soviet Union. Since then, Armenia has had three presidents, none of whom cared about the people and ruled the nation democratically. Power was concentrated in their hands as well as the military leadership and oligarchic clans.

While a handful of autocrats sat at the top of the pyramid of power, the overwhelming majority of the people were deprived of the basic necessities of survival, such as food, clothing, medicine, and of course, money. In the past quarter of a century, over a million Armenians left the homeland and resettled wherever they could find a job and feed their families. Many of those who could not leave, barely survived on funds sent by relatives and friends overseas.

Under these pitiful circumstances, the anger and resentment of the population against the authorities, particularly the head of state, kept on rising. In addition to abject poverty, people suffered because of corruption, fraudulent elections, unfair courts, unemployment, censorship and periodic police brutality. While those who had the means to get a visa and purchase airline tickets emigrated from Armenia, the rest were forced to keep their mouth shut and put up with the difficult conditions.

Every now and then there were public protests either challenging fraudulent elections or unbearable living conditions, but the police were able to quell the unrest by beating and arresting the demonstrators. The most violent incident took place in April 2008 when 10 people were shot and killed for challenging the election of Pres. Serzh Sargsyan.

While Pres. Sargsyan and his predecessor, Pres. Robert Kocharyan, remained oblivious to the deplorable conditions of the public, their dissatisfaction, resentment and anger against the authorities kept growing. These heads of state, surrounded by aides who kept heaping praise on them and reassuring them that everything was marvelous in the country, remained unaware of the public’s miserable situation.

Over the past 27 years, during hundreds of hours I spent privately in meetings with the three successive Presidents of Armenia, I brought to their attention the various problems existing in the country, from corrupt aides and government ministers to unfair court judgments based on bribery, fraudulent elections, etc. These Presidents told me that they were hearing about these issues for the first time. Very few people had the courage to bring them to their attention.

I dared to tell Pres. Kocharyan to his face that Armenia’s population hated him. He disagreed with me, but I insisted, challenging him to stand one night in a street corner disguised in a hat and overcoat and ask passers by what they thought of the President. I warned him that he would hear very abusive comments.

I also recall telling Pres. Sargsyan on the eve of his first election not to ignore the common people and not to appear on TV at weddings of wealthy oligarchs and the ribbon-cutting of their businesses. I suggested that he make a surprise visit once a month to the home of a poor family without his aides and bodyguards, and inquire about the family’s employment, income, and health; to show that he cared about the poor people who were the majority of the country. Unfortunately, he did not once make such a visit.

I also told Pres. Sargsyan that he should appoint an independent group of advisers from wise and experienced individuals who were not government employees. They would be able to give him their honest advice without any fear of getting fired. Regrettably, this suggestion was also ignored!

To make matters worse, the public never forgot or forgave Pres. Sargsyan for the killing by the Police of 10 protesters in 2008, and with each fraudulent election and continuing economic misery, their frustration increased. When the constitution was being modified in 2015, Pres. Sargsyan reassured the people that he had no intention of staying in power in 2018 when his second term of presidency would be over. Most people did not believe him and suspected that he would remain in office, switching from the ceremonial President’s chair to become the all-powerful Prime Minister, under the new constitution. During a private meeting in 2016, I remember asking Pres. Sargsyan if he planned to go home at the end of his term, as he had promised. I was alarmed when he said that he would make a decision based on the results of the 2017 parliamentary elections.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of the people, despite their suspicions, were counting the days and hours for the end of Pres. Sargsyan’s term in office. When the Republican Party’s majority in Parliament elected him to become the new Prime Minister last month, the citizens could no longer control their anger. Tens of thousands of people came out in the streets, led by opposition Parliament member Nikol Pashinyan to vent their frustration.

Fortunately, the massive outpouring of anger was kept in check by Pashinyan’s constant exhortation not to commit any violence and to respect the Police forces. A series of blunders by Prime Minister Sargsyan and his Republican Party members in Parliament followed, when Sargsyan met with Pashinyan and walked out after three minutes. In a few hours, despite his Parliamentary immunity, Pashinyan was arrested and kept in an undisclosed location by the Police, turning him into a greater hero. Due to escalating protests, Pashinyan was released from incarceration, and unexpectedly, Prime Minister Sargsyan announced his resignation, confessing: “I was wrong, Nikol was right.”

On May 1, the Parliament met to elect a new Prime Minister. After a lengthy deliberation, the Republican Party majority almost unanimously voted against Pashinyan’s candidacy. On May 2, the crowds blocked all major streets, highways, and paralyzed the trains, subways and the road to and from the Yerevan airport. The following day, the Republican Party officially announced that it will not block Pashinyan’s planned election on May 8 as Prime Minister. At the time of writing this column on May 7, barring any surprising developments, Pashinyan is expected to be elected Prime Minister by the Parliament.

Pashinyan’s election probably would not resolve Armenia’s multiple problems. In the following 15 days, he will select his Cabinet of Ministers and present his government’s agenda to the Parliament for approval. There will be then a lengthy debate on amending the election laws, followed by new Parliamentary elections in several months. Despite the transformation in leadership, Armenia will continue to suffer from blockades by Turkey and Azerbaijan and the military conflict involving Artsakh.

We have to wait and see whom Pashinyan will appoint to key ministerial posts as Foreign and Defense Ministers. What kind of compromises will be made between Pashinyan’s minority members and the Republican Party’s majority in the Parliament while changing the election laws? Only then new parliamentary elections will be held. Assuming the new elections will be fair and properly supervised by the new government, it remains to be seen if Pashinyan’s party and his supporting parties will gain the majority in Parliament. The good news is that all of these developments have been taking place in line with the constitution, under pressure from the newly-awakened Armenian public-at-large.

Finally, the most important issue now is that the thousands of newly-empowered young people, who came out to the streets demanding a more democratic state with a great degree of enthusiasm and emotion, should not be disappointed. Armenia cannot afford to lose its youth which are the future of the country!

Everyone in Armenia and the Diaspora should do everything in their power to ensure stability, peace and prosperity in Armenia under its new leadership.

While the Azerbaijani army was showcasing its weapons on a promotional video during exercises on Sept. 18-22, 2017, observers noticed Czech-made military hardware, including DANA howitzer artillery pieces (11-mile range) and Rm-70 rocket launchers (12-mile range).

Initially, it was not known how these weapons arrived in Baku, given the fact that the Czech Republic had not issued any permits to its manufacturers to sell such hardware to Azerbaijan. Under the laws of the Czech Republic, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Interior have to approve requests for weapon sales proposed by the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Also, the European Union (EU) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had recommended that their member states not supply arms to Azerbaijan and Armenia due to the Artsakh conflict.

In addition, weapon sales to Azerbaijan would violate United Nations Security Council Resolution 853, adopted on July 29, 1993, which urged member states “to refrain from the supply of any weapons and munitions which might lead to the intensification of the [Karabagh] conflict or the continued occupation of territory.” Already several countries had violated this Security Council resolution, including Israel, Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, and Pakistan.

In response, Jan Pejsek, the Czech Defense Ministry spokesman stated that the “Ministry had not approved any military exports to Azerbaijan.” Meanwhile, Irena Valentova, spokeswoman for the Czech Foreign Ministry, told the Prague Daily Monitor that “no permits were issued for export of military materiel to Azerbaijan, while some licenses for the export of modernized self-propelled gun howitzers Dana-M1 and rocket launchers RM-70 were rejected in 2016-2017 and the EU partner countries were notified of the rejection.”

In 2016, “Azerbaijan purchased non-lethal weapons worth over one million euros from the Czech Republic, which is three times less than three years ago,” the Hospodarske Noviny reported.

In the past, when Azerbaijan had tried to import weapons from the Czech Republic, it was refused a permit for such military shipments.

The Prague Daily Monitor reported that the “Czech authorities and secret services are investigating how Czech arms … reached the Caucasus.”

In the meantime, The Slovak Spectator revealed on April 17, 2018 that “Bratislava [capital of Slovakia] airport is used as a transit point for smuggling Czech rocket launchers and howitzers to Azerbaijan…. The weapons are reportedly produced by the Czechoslovak Group Holding, owned by Czech Jaroslav Strnad, according to Czech Television…. An employee of the Slovak arms factory MSM spoke up and described how the old weapons are rebuilt in the Trenčín-based company and are then transported via Israel to Azerbaijan, the TASR newswire reported.”

The MSM employee further described to the reporters of the Czech Television, as quoted by TASR, according to The Slovak Spectator: “The whole process starts with bringing the old DANA howitzer that is disassembled directly in the company…. The new facilities, including navigation, camera and communication systems were sent from Israel, the employee added. He also revealed that they signed a contract for distributing 18 howitzers and 15 rocket launchers this year, and the same amount next year, as reported by TASR…. The company confirmed the delivery of DANA-M1 and RM-70 systems to Israel.”

The Slovak Spectator “even recorded one such transport on camera” confirming the delivery of the weapons to Israel and from there smuggled to Azerbaijan. “The transport of one rocket launcher started on December 27, 2017, and was carried by a truck from Trenčín to the Bratislava airport, where it was moved to the plane owned by Azerbaijani airlines, Silk Way. It then flew to Tel Aviv in Israel, where the company Elbit, which was described as the end customer, is located. The data then revealed that the plane continued to Baku in Azerbaijan. Nothing is unloaded in Israel; there is only a stop to make sure the papers are correct,” the employee of MSM told the Czech Television. “The plane flies directly from the Israeli airport to Azerbaijan,” The Slovak Spectator wrote.

I suggest that Armenian officials immediately file protests with the governments of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Israel for circumventing their export provisions and violating the bans recommended by the EU, OSCE and the UN Security Council regarding the sale of weapons to Azerbaijan.

If such complaints are not filed, these three countries and several others will be encouraged to ship more lethal weapons to Azerbaijan which will be used to kill and injure Armenian soldiers and civilians.