Category: Southern Caucasus

  • Turkish Military Against Armenia Border Opening

    Turkish Military Against Armenia Border Opening

    4E68AAE7 7B42 43AA B912 345D046D971F w203 s

    30.04.2009

    Emil Danielyan

    Turkey’s powerful military has spoken out against normalizing relations with Armenia before a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, raising more questions about a U.S.-brokered agreement announced by Ankara and Yerevan last week.

    General Ilker Basbug, chief of the Turkish General Staff, was reported to endorse late Wednesday Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s statements linking the reopening of the Turkish-Armenian border with the liberation of Armenian-occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

    “The prime minister has clearly said the border opening will take place at the time when Armenian troops are withdrawn,” Basbug told a news conference, according to Turkish media. “We completely agree with this.”

    Erdogan repeatedly made that linkage earlier this month, pouring cold water on hopes that the fence-mending negotiations between Turkey and Armenia will yield tangible results soon. Still, the Turkish and Armenian foreign ministries announced in a joint statement on April 22 that the two governments have agreed on a “roadmap” on normalizing bilateral ties.

    It remained unclear, however, when they plan to establish diplomatic relations and reopen the border. Neither government has officially disclosed the framework yet.

    Reports in the Turkish press have said that the United States was closely involved in the drawing up of the Turkish-Armenian statement. According to “Hurriyet Daily News,” Erdogan agreed to sign it only after Washington threatened to recognize the 1915 mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire as genocide. U.S. President Barack Obama refrained from using the word in his April 24 statement that commemorated the 94th anniversary of the massacres.

    Meanwhile, diplomatic sources in Yerevan said on Thursday that Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian will fly to Washington this weekend for talks with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Turkish-Armenian relations will be high on their agenda.

    Clinton and Nalbandian already discussed the issue over the phone on Monday. According to the Armenian Foreign Ministry, Clinton described the “roadmap” agreement as “historic.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1619312.html

  • TURKEY: ANKARA-YEREVAN RAPPROCHEMENT INITIATIVE FACES PUBLIC SKEPTICISM

    TURKEY: ANKARA-YEREVAN RAPPROCHEMENT INITIATIVE FACES PUBLIC SKEPTICISM

    Yigal Schleifer 4/28/09

    Turkey and Armenia have announced they are close to reaching an agreement to restore ties and reopen their borders. But observers caution that getting to a final deal will require both Turkey and Armenia to navigate through difficult domestic and external challenges.

    “There’s no going back now, that’s for sure. Everybody wants to solve this problem now. Both countries are very committed and being very careful,” said Noyan Soyak, the Istanbul-based vice-chairman of the Turkish-Armenian Business Development Council, referring to the April 22 joint announcement that Ankara and Yerevan had agreed on a “road map” to normalize relations.

    “Now it’s a question of timing and the implementation and how it’s going to be presented to the public. That’s very important,” Soyak added.

    Turkey severed ties and closed its border with Armenia in 1993, in protest of Yerevan’s war with Turkish ally Azerbaijan in the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. In recent years, diplomatic and civil society traffic between Turkey and Armenia has increased, capped off by last September’s visit to Yerevan by Turkish president Abdullah Gul to watch a football game between the two countries’ national teams. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    In their April 22 communiqué, Armenian and Turkish leaders said that, with the help of Swiss mediation, “the two parties have achieved tangible progress and mutual understanding in this process and they have agreed on a comprehensive framework for the normalization of their bilateral relations in a mutually satisfactory manner. In this context, a road map has been identified.” The brief, 95-word statement was released only two days before Armenian commemoration of the mass slaughter of 1915 that Yerevan is striving to gain international recognition as genocide.

    Although the statement was thin on details, observers familiar with the negotiations said the basic parameters of the deal involve establishing diplomatic relations, opening borders and creating a bilateral commission that will have subcommittees that address the two countries’ outstanding issues, including historical matters.

    Both countries hope that opening their borders and engaging in a dialogue will boost trade, improve regional stability and help them move beyond the genocide debate.

    Sorting out the differences between Turkey and Armenia might be the easy part, experts say. It’s the other actors involved in the issue that may prove to be difficult, says Semih Idiz, a foreign affairs columnist with Milliyet, a Turkish daily. “There are more factors that are lining up to spoil this than to bolster this. These factors have to play themselves out in the coming weeks and months and we’ll see where we go,” said Idiz.

    One significant hurdle to the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement is Azerbaijan, which insists that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem must be resolved before Ankara restores its ties with Yerevan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The Azeris have reacted angrily to the April 22 announcement, signaling that if Turkey proceeds unilaterally, then Baku may respond by strengthening ties with Moscow. The clear implication is that Azerbaijan may be willing to reorient its energy focus, and make Russia, not Turkey its main energy-export option.

    “I don’t think Turkey expected the strong Azeri reaction. At the moment there is anger on both sides,” Idiz says. “Turkey is not going to lose Azerbaijan — there are pipelines and trade that connect the countries, whether they like it or not — but it will cool relations for a while.”

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other officials have tried to placate Baku by saying no final deal with be signed with Armenia until there is an agreement on Karabakh. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been engaged in slow moving negotiations over the territory’s fate as part of the Minsk Group process, which is overseen by the United States, Russia and France. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

    Hugh Pope, a Turkey analyst with the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, says linking the opening of the Turkish-Armenian border with the fate of the Karabakh issue is a mistake. “Ankara would be ill-advised to hold up rapprochement with Yerevan because of protests from its ally, Azerbaijan,” Pope said. “In fact, normalizing relations with Armenia is the best way for Turkey to help its ethnic and linguistic Azerbaijani cousins. It would make Armenia feel more secure, making it perhaps also more open to a compromise over Nagorno-Karabakh.”

    “The way the Azeris are dealing with it now is that they are telling their people that they didn’t lose the war and they are talking about military reconquest and that’s completely unrealistic,” Pope continued. “Turkey obviously has a lot of work to do to convince the Azeris that their current concept is not working and that your only way to get their land back is through the Minsk Group process.”

    Turkish and Armenian leaders, meanwhile, are also facing rising domestic anger about the possibility of a deal. In Armenia, the hard-line nationalist Armenian Revolutionary Federation Party on April 27 quit the country’s governing coalition. In Turkey, the opposition Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and the Republican People’s Party (CHP) have criticized the government for its overtures to Armenia, claiming it has sold out Azerbaijan.

    “This demonstrates the fragility of the agreement, in that neither Turkey, nor Armenia nor Azerbaijan has done anything to prepare their societies or shape public opinion to prepare for an agreement,” said Richard Giragosian, director of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies, a Yerevan-based think tank.

    “The same can be said for Nagorno-Karabakh, where neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan has done anything to prepare society for an agreement,” Giragosian added. “I would also stress that right now we are only talking about normalization. Normalization infers open borders and even historical commissions. But the second step is reconciliation and for that to happen we need civil society and public opinion involved, especially for reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia, because that means dealing with the genocide issue.”

    “If the public isn’t on board, we can’t sustain normalization or transform it into a deeper reconciliation,” Giragosian emphasized.

     

    Editor’s Note: Yigal Schleifer is a freelance journalist based in Istanbul.

  • The Obama Administration’s Emerging Caucasus Policy

    The Obama Administration’s Emerging Caucasus Policy

    CAUCASUS UPDATE

    In this new section, we publish the weekly analysis of the major events taking place in the Caucasus. The Caucasus Update is written by our Editorial Assistant Alexander Jackson.

     

    On April 20 the US State Department announced that Richard J. Morningstar had been appointed special envoy on Eurasian energy issues to Secretary Clinton (State Department, April 20). Morningstar will “provide the Secretary with strategic advice on policy issues relating to development, transit, and distribution of energy resources in Eurasia”. He is certainly well qualified for the job – he served as special advisor on Caspian basin energy diplomacy in 1998-1999, prior to which he served as a special advisor on assistance to the former Soviet Union.

    The appointment of the special envoy suggests that the Obama Administration’s policy on the Caspian region is finally beginning to take shape. This should come as no surprise – the area does, after all, lie between two of President Obama’s biggest foreign-policy challenges, Russia and Iran, as well as Turkey, which has been highlighted as a key US ally in the drive to rebuild America’s image in the Muslim world.

    But even in these critical areas the delay in appointing officials – which is so clear elsewhere in the US government, particularly the Treasury – is also visible. As of April 23, the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Russia, Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine was still vacant. Although most of the headline-grabbing policies towards Moscow so far have been initiated by President Obama or Secretary Clinton, the lack of a dedicated high-level official for Russia is alarming.

    The profile of the Administration’s other Eurasia specialists suggests that the Obama Administration does not intend to make a radical break with the Bush era. Heading the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs as a replacement to Daniel Fried will be Philip H. Gordon, a Europe and Turkey specialist (Joshua Kucera over at Eurasianet wrote an excellent profile of Gordon on March 18). However, Gordon’s confirmation has been held up in the Senate by John Ensign, a Republican with links to the Armenian lobby. Ensign has allegedly blocked the confirmation in response to Gordon’s refusal, in a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to classify the tragic events of 1915 in the Ottoman Empire as ‘genocide’. This is not something new. Similar “refusals” prevented several other key appointments in the past including the appointment of an ambassador to Armenia for a couple of years up until 2008.

    Gordon’s argument, which appears to be echoed by President Obama, is that use of the term would inflame Turkish public opinion and embolden hardliners, ruining the new Administration’s attempts to rebuild ties with Ankara. This suggests a new emphasis on pragmatism, a trend also clearly visible in efforts to rebuild relations with Russia even if this means toning down support for Georgia. 

    However, a change in tone does not reflect a wholesale change in policy. This is to be expected. The parameters of US involvement in the Caspian region – energy, counter-terrorism, peaceful conflict resolution, containing Iran and providing a bridgehead for operational support in Central Asia, are not likely to change. It was therefore logical that Matthew Bryza, the State Department’s top official for the South Caucasus and co-chair from the US in the OSCE Minsk Group, remained at his post. He has built up a solid reputation in the region and possesses extensive experience of its problems.

    As noted above, any shifts in the new Administration’s policy towards the Caspian and the South Caucasus are likely to come through changing policies towards Russia, Iran, or Turkey. President Obama’s desire to reset relations with Russia has had mixed results so far, with agreements, for instance on strategic arms reductions, alternating with aggressive rhetoric against continued cooperation between NATO and Georgia (BBC News, April 16). The US so far has shown rhetorical restraint, and has made little fuss about the retrial of the ex-Yukos boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

    This pragmatism is also visible in the Caucasus: the Obama Administration has held back from the unequivocal declarations of support for Georgia’s President Saakashvili that he received during the Bush Administration. Seeing him replaced with someone less bombastic towards Russia would probably be a quiet relief for Washington. As for Georgia’s NATO aspirations, the Obama administration will probably stick to the line agreed at the December 2008 summit – Georgia will be a member of NATO, but not yet.

    There are three big questions with regard to Georgia. Firstly, how much military assistance is the US willing to offer to rebuild the country’s shattered armed forces? The cost of irritating Russia is likely to outweigh the benefits of re-equipping the Georgian military with American kit. Secondly, how would the US treat a revolution in Georgia? Its reaction to 2003’s Rose Revolution was generally supportive: it strongly criticised the falsified election which triggered the protests and was quick to congratulate President Saakashvili. His replacement by a Russia hawk would provoke grave concern in Washington. Thirdly, what would the new Administration do in a new Russia-Georgia war? Speculating on such a chaotic event is of course fanciful, but the US would certainly not go any further than the Bush Administration did in last August’s war. If John McCain – a noted Russia hawk and supporter of President Saakashvili – had won the election, things might be different.

    The second big issue is Nagorno-Karabakh. Matters are largely out of Washington’s hands here. Although it co-chairs the OSCE Minsk Group tasked with resolving the conflict, Russia is far more dominant in this framework and the US has been increasingly hedged out of the peace process by Moscow and, to an extent, Ankara. Turkey’s Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform, which is apparently already operating despite a lack of fanfare (RFE/RL, April 20), was specifically designed to minimise the impact of outside powers on the Karabakh process.

    Nonetheless, Ankara remains Washington’s main way of leveraging the conflict, partly through its rapprochement with Armenia. President Obama’s high-profile visit to Turkey in March was an explicit attempt to enlist the assistance of Washington’s main Muslim partner in Eurasia and a key NATO member to improve the US’s standing in the Islamic world. The appointment of Gordon indicates the new importance of Turkey, as well as a clear-headed desire to solve the Armenian issue.

    Finally, Caspian energy, Morningstar’s new portfolio. His appointment suggests that the Obama Administration is hoping for the Nabucco project to be a repeat of the successful BTC pipeline, whose inception was overseen by Morningstar in 1999. This is optimistic, but there are few people with a better chance. His European expertise (he was ambassador to the EU 1999-2001) may help to nudge Europe into more active support of Nabucco, but once again there is only so much that Washington can do here. At an energy conference in Bulgaria on April 25, Morningstar bluntly stated that Nabucco is not a panacea for Europe’s energy problems.

    Although it is still early days, the outlines of Obama’s Caucasus policy are becoming clear. A renewed partnership with Turkey and a willingness to work with Russia are the core elements. The Armenian diaspora in the US will be a clear loser from this, but Washington’s support of the Turkish-Armenian thaw will certainly benefit Armenia itself. Georgia, or more specifically President Saakashvili, may also lose out. Azerbaijan may gain if the Administration invests more energy in the Karabakh conflict, notwithstanding its limited influence there. In any case, the big question mark remains the new period of détente with Russia: if ‘pressing the reset button’ fails, the Bush-era cycle of confrontation in the Caucasus could easily resume.

  • Azerbaijan wants to know what happens

    Azerbaijan wants to know what happens

    [ 28 Apr 2009 21:58 ] Brussels. Victoria Dementyeva – APA. On Tuesday, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev held joint press conference with President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso and answered the questions of journalists.

    Head of the President’s Press Service Azer Gasimov informed about it. The Head of State also answered the questions regarding the discussions he had conducted with José Manuel Barroso about Turkey-Armenia rapprochement: “I have discussed a number of issues, including regional development and cooperation issues with the President of the European Commission. Of, course while talking about the regional cooperation, we could not leave aside of the latest developments in the region you have mentioned about. We have expressed our position on this issue many times. The position is that we never intervene in the affairs of other states and the relations between the two sovereign countries. This is the decision what Turkey and Armenia can make. It’s their choice how to continue their relations. But while touching on some comments about the historical roots of this issue, I want to remind that the border between Turkey and Armenia was closed in 1993 as a result of occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories by Armenia. This occupation is still continuing today. Today, Armenia still continues keeping the internationally-recognized territories of Azerbaijan under its occupation.

    I reiterate that we do not have such a position to create obstacle for further development of relations between these two countries or prevent it. I want to mention that we also have a right to form our policy according to the new realities in the region and we will use this right. We receive different information from different sources. According to him, one source says that “Road Map” was accepted in certain circumstances, but another source says no circumstances have been determined yet. This is a kind of word game. I think the world, region and Azerbaijani People have a right to know what happens. Is Nagorno Karabakh problem left aside of Turkey-Armenia rapprochement? This is a very simple question and we need a very simple answer”.

  • Et Tu Obama?

    Et Tu Obama?

    Letter from a Former Admirer

    sassun-2

    [[email protected]]

    Mr. President, how could you!

    Your candidacy was a breath of fresh air. You stood for change. You made wonderful promises and the Armenian-American community put its trust in you.

    We are now terribly disappointed because you acted not much differently than your predecessors on the Armenian Genocide issue. Your April 24 statement fell far short of your solemn pledge to recognize the Genocide.

    As a Senator and presidential candidate, you left no doubt about your intentions on this issue. You spoke about it eloquently and passionately.

    Yet, when the time came to issue your April 24 statement, we were surprised to find out that “genocide” had been replaced by “Meds Yeghern,” a clever ploy, no doubt suggested by one of your ingenious aides.

    You may want to know that “Meds Yeghern” does not mean genocide; it means “Great Calamity.” Armenians used that term before the word “genocide” was coined by Raphael Lemkin in the 1940’s. “Genocide” in Armenian is “Tseghasbanoutyoun,” which is a much more precise term than “Meds Yeghern,” in case you decide to use it in the future.

    Not only did your aides come up with the wrong Armenian word, but they failed to provide its English translation, so that non-Armenians could understand its meaning. What was, after all, the point of using an Armenian word in an English text? Did your staff run out of English euphemisms for genocide?

    Just in case your resourceful advisors think that they were the first to devise the clever ploy of replacing “genocide” with “Meds Yeghern,” let me inform you that several previous leaders have employed that same trick. Pope John Paul II used that term in 2001 during his visit to Armenia. The BBC observed that the Pontiff had said “Meds Yeghern” in order not to offend Turkey. Your immediate predecessor, Pres. George W. Bush, used the English translation of that same tricky word in his April 24, 2005 statement — “This terrible event is what many Armenian people have come to call the ‘Great Calamity.’”

    Mr. President, last year when you were seeking votes and financial support from Armenian-Americans, you did not promise them to recognize the “Meds Yeghern!” You actually told them: “As President, I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.” Moreover, you did not state that your acknowledgment of the Genocide is contingent upon Armenian-Turkish negotiations, opening Armenia’s border, war in Iraq or anything else. You made a flat out promise, with no ifs or buts.

    There are also two sets of serious contradictions in the words you used before and after your election to the presidency. In your April 24, 2009 statement, you said: “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed.” Yet, on January 19, 2008, as a presidential candidate, you had said: “The Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view.” Furthermore, on April 24, 2009 you stated: “My interest remains the achievement of a full, frank and just acknowledgment of the facts.” Yet, as a candidate, you stated that the Armenian Genocide is “a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable.”

    Mr. President, twice in one month, both in Ankara and Washington, you made a reference to your past statements on the genocide, in order to avoid using that word as president. This is an old trick that was also utilized by Pres. George H. W. Bush (Senior). In his presidential message of April 20, 1990, Bush stated: “My comments of June 1988 represent the depth of my feeling for the Armenian people and the sufferings they have endured.” In order to avoid saying genocide, Pres. Bush, like you, made an indirect reference to that word, by mentioning his earlier remarks as Vice President and presidential candidate: “The United States must acknowledge the attempted genocide of the Armenian People in the last years of the Ottoman Empire, based on the testimony of survivors, scholars, and indeed our own representatives at the time, if we are to ensure that such horrors are not repeated.”

    Dear Mr. President, there was no need for your staff to waste their valuable time trying to come up with such ploys and verbal gymnastics. If you did not want to say genocide, you did not have to say anything at all. The Armenian Genocide has already been acknowledged by another U.S. president, Ronald Reagan, who signed a Presidential Proclamation on April 22, 1981, in which he referred to “the genocide of the Armenians.”

    Armenians actually gain nothing by having one more U.S. president reiterate what has been said before. As you know, presidential statements, just as congressional resolutions, have no legal consequence. Pres. Reagan’s proclamation and the adoption of two House resolutions on the Armenian Genocide in 1975 and 1984 have brought nothing tangible to Armenians in terms of seeking reparations for their immense losses in lives and property.

    By not keeping your word on April 24, however, you have only succeeded in undermining your own credibility in front of the American people and world public opinion. Already, the Obameter website (politifact.com) has labeled your April 24 statement as “a broken promise.” This week, as you complete the first 100 days in office, major TV networks and the press are widely reporting your broken promise on the Armenian Genocide, thus undermining the trust of the American public in your other promises.

    Finally, Mr. President, it was improper for you to exploit Turkey’s “make- believe” negotiations with Armenia by using it as a pretext for avoiding the “genocide” word in your April 24 statement. Given your high position, you must know that the Turkish government’s intent all along has been to create the false impression that its discussions with Armenia are proceeding smoothly, making everyone believe that the border would be opened shortly. Turkish leaders have been dangling that carrot in front of Armenia for many years. The fact is that, once you were elected president, Turkish officials took seriously your campaign pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide and were told by your close aides that unless Ankara made a friendly gesture towards Armenia, you could well carry out your promise to the Armenian-American community.

    While Turkish officials, with their fake diplomatic initiatives, managed to deceive the rest of the world, including Armenia’s relatively inexperienced leaders, you, Mr. President, knew better. You went along with Turkey’s false gestures knowingly, thus bartering away your principled stand on the Armenian Genocide in order to secure Turkish participation in the Afghan war, and carry out its U.S. assigned role with respect to Iraq, Iran, and Israel.

    You must have also known that Turkey would not open its border with Armenia in the foreseeable future, unless the Karabagh conflict was resolved to Azerbaijan’s satisfaction. Using various carrots and sticks, with the connivance of Russia, which pursues its own economic and political interests in Turkey and Azerbaijan, U.S. officials succeeded in pressuring Armenia into agreeing to issue a joint declaration with Turkey and Switzerland as mediator on the eve of April 24. This declaration was a convenient cover for you to duck the genocide issue in order to appease Turkey.

    Mr. President, by compelling Armenia to sign such a declaration, you have managed to pit the Armenian Diaspora, as well as the people in Armenia against the government in Yerevan. As a direct result of that action, the ARF, one of Armenia’s influential political parties, quit the ruling coalition this week. The ARF did not wish to associate itself with a government, still reeling from last year’s contentious presidential elections, which is negotiating an agreement with Turkey that could compromise the country’s national interests and historic rights. The ARF also vehemently opposes Armenia’s announced intention to participate in a bilateral historical commission that Turkey would use to question the facts of the Armenian Genocide.

    Mr. President, in the coming days, as your administration invites Armenia’s leaders to Washington in order to squeeze more concessions from them, please realize that they can only be pressured so much before they lose their authority. As was the case with Armenia’s first president, crossing the red lines on the Genocide and Karabagh issues could well jeopardize the tenuous hold on power of the remaining ruling coalition, regardless of how many promises are made and carrots extended to them by Washington.

  • Armenian Government ‘Lacking Mandate’ To Mend Ties With Turkey

    Armenian Government ‘Lacking Mandate’ To Mend Ties With Turkey

    DF2EF380 90E5 48CE 979B 3F0F1B335C62 w203 s

    Levon Zurabian, a leader of the opposition Armenian National Congress.

    28.04.2009
    Ruben Meloyan

    Armenia’s government will fail to sell any ground-breaking agreements with Turkey to the domestic public as long as it holds dozens of “political prisoners” and refuses to engage in dialogue with its political opponents, the main opposition Armenian National Congress (HAK) said on Tuesday.

    “It is impossible to carry out a process of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, which requires serious public support, without a process of internal Armenian reconciliation,” said Levon Zurabian, a top HAK representative. “Today any consideration of the Turkish-Armenian roadmap is meaningless. One must first consider a roadmap for internal national reconciliation.”

    Zurabian referred to the April 22 statement by the Armenian and Turkish foreign ministries on a gradual normalization of strained relations between the two neighboring states. Both the HAK and another major opposition force, the Zharangutyun party, have demanded the immediate disclosure of the “roadmap” announced by the two ministries. The Armenian authorities have so far refused to do that.

    According to Zurabian, although the HAK does not trust government assurances that the announced framework is good for Armenia, it will reserve final judgment on the deal until it is made public. In any case, he said, the authorities lack the popular mandate to normalize ties with Turkey and accept a compromise solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict because of their continuing crackdown on the opposition stemming from the troubled presidential election of February 2008.

    Zurabian pointed to the continuing imprisonment of 55 opposition members arrested in the wake of the vote and “police repressions” against other HAK activists. “The authorities do not realize that until the domestic political crisis is resolved progress in any process fateful for the Armenian people will not be possible,” he told journalists.

    Echoing statements by the HAK’s top leader, former President Levon Ter-Petrosian, Zurabian suggested that the authorities are exploiting the ongoing rapprochement with Turkey and the Karabakh peace process to get the West to “turn a blind eye” to their poor human rights record. “We have serious reason to suspect that the processes of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation and Karabakh settlement are used by Serzh Sarkisian for securing the international community’s support or consent for crushing the opposition,” he said.

    The Turkish-Armenian dialogue and Karabakh talks were on the agenda of Zurabian’s meeting late on Monday with the visiting U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza and Marie Yovanovitch, the U.S. ambassador to Armenia. Yovanovitch held a separate meeting with Ter-Petrosian on April 22, in a further sign that Washington finds opposition support important for the success of the Turkish-Armenian and Armenian-Azerbaijani talks.

    “It’s a time when Armenia needs unity,” Bryza told RFE/RL on Monday. “I hope that the entire country will remain unified or will become unified in supporting an agreement that will improve everyone’s life,” he said.

    Chances of such unity decreased further on Monday as the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) announced its decision to leave Armenia’s governing coalition in protest against President Sarkisian’s conciliatory policy on Turkey. Leaders of the nationalist party believe that the year-long dialogue with Ankara has produced no tangible results for Yerevan and has only complicated greater international recognition of the 1915 Armenian genocide.

    Zurabian described Dashnaktsutyun’s exit as a “first sign that this regime is not viable” and will show deeper cracks in the coming months. He said the HAK will be ready to cooperate with Dashnaktsutyun only if it acts like “real opposition.” “They need to earn the right to be a real opposition,” he said.

    Dashnaktsutyun leaders, who had been in strong opposition to the Ter-Petrosian administration in 1991-1998, have sounded even more skeptical about chances of such cooperation. The influential party unequivocally endorsed the government crackdown on the opposition and, in particular, the bloody suppression of Ter-Petrosian’s massive post-election demonstrations in Yerevan.

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1617771.html