Rosbalt, 14/03/2004, 11:03

Armenia Edges Away

The redrawing of the geopolitical map, now going on quite openly in the Southern Caucasus after Georgia's 'revolution of roses,' has largely bypassed Armenia, so far. Current indications suggest, however, that Armenia will soon take its place at the center of the rivalry raging between Washington, Teheran and Moscow.

Exporting Revolution-US Style The United States has, for the most part quietly, stepped up its activity in Armenia. The mere fact that Washington has decided to make the new consulate that it plans to build in Erevan its largest in the world speaks for itself. The official explanations offered by US Ambassador John Ordway about the need for a large consulate to deal with the multitude of US programs are hard to credit in view of Armenia's size. There is some information suggesting that the consulate could serve in the future as a staging area for the movement of US troops through the region. It's obvious that the philanthropic projects of a consulate hardly need nine hectares of land on the main road to Erevan's airport in a building with independent energy sources and its own reservoir.

Recently, the Armenian media have been carrying stories about the Democratic Institute (which is run by the not unknown Madeleine Albright) stepping up its work in Armenia. They are saying that Chad Rodgers, who heads political programs for the institute, has been trying to get pro-Russian-leaning Armenian parties to make some false and self-destructive steps. In any case, it is a fact that on January 20 Rodgers, during a meeting with Artur Bagdasarian, speaker of Armenia's parliament, declared that the Democratic Institute had altered its priorities in Armenia. While the institute had heretofore concentrated on seeing that Armenia's elections were conducted democratically, he said, the new stress will be on working with political parties to help them realize their political and social potentials. Exactly what he means by potential is not clear as yet. However, there have been reports of an increase in money from Western sources going to Armenia's opposition parties.

In turn, official Washington had an especially 'nice gift' for the Armenian government. The State Department's yearly report on human rights was particularly harsh toward Armenia. Particular stress was put on violations during the parliamentary and presidential elections of last year. Consider, however: The Council of Europe also found fault with the elections but expressed appreciation for government attempts last fall to rectify the situation and was generally optimistic about Armenia and offered it further opportunity to deal with its problems. The American report suggested that Washington was preparing for a possible quick change of power in Armenia.

One immediately thinks of what George Bush said to Mikhail Saakashvili when Saakashvili visit the US recently: 'The way power changed hands in Georgia may be an inspiring example for others. The president and I have discussed the significance of the 'revolution of roses' for other parts of the planet. The potential of people to take responsibility for their own lives and transform their society by peaceful means -- that is a powerful example for the peoples of the world, who thirst for freedom and want honest government.' In the wake of the State Department report and this statement by Bush, Robert Kocharian may be wondering if he will be among the victims of the next 'revolution of flowers.' Especially against a background of heightened activity by an opposition that talks of its readiness to bring down an 'illegitimate' government, even by unconstitutional means.

Kremlin Miscalculations In the resulting circumstances, with Washington ever more covetously eyeing another piece of the strategically important South Caucasus, Moscow's behavior toward Armenia looks very odd. Russia's unqualified support for the elections of 2003, especially when violations were so obvious that only the blind couldn't see them, itself put Armenian society on guard. The later turning over of 80% of Armenia's energy sector to Russia was seen as payback by the government for Russian support during the tough election fight.

Even that wouldn't have stirred much dissatisfaction, if the Russian companies hadn't immediately tried to raise prices. In consequence, the Armenian government last fall had to give the Russian-controlled energy companies significant tax breaks to keep them from raising prices that were already too much for most of the population. And the threat of an increase in prices still hangs over the country like a sword of Damocles.

At the same time, ArmRosGazprom (Gazprom owns 45% and Itera owns 10%, since January 2004, Gazprom supplies Armenia with all its gas) pushed through higher prices. There had not been an increase in gas prices in Armenia since 1997. Why Russian companies took such unpopular steps just when, after Georgia's 'revolution,' the Armenian political situation was so exacerbated is hard to fathom. The result was not long in coming.

As recently as the middle of last year, talk of anti-Russian swings of opinion in Armenia was nonsensical. Not only were attitudes toward Russia positive in Armenian society generally, but that was true of the government and of the most powerful opposition groups as well. As late as July 2003, Stepan Demirchian, leader of the opposition bloc Justice and Kocharian's principal opponent in the election, declared that 'strategic union with Russia is one of the main priorities of our foreign policy.' Then in November, Viktor Dallakian, the bloc's secretary, told Rosbalt that Kocharian has become a puppet of Moscow. He said the Armenian president had made unprecedented concessions to Russia only 'in order to keep his position.'

The opposition was even aggrieved by recent agreements about Russia's Military Base 102, about which hitherto one had either spoken well or said nothing. 'The world has seen nothing like these agreements about Russia's military base. The Russian side is not only given the land under the base, but the government has taken it upon itself to pay for public services. The opposite is how it's done elsewhere. Countries supplement their budgets from a foreign military presence,' Dallakian declared.

November 2003 was, in a sense, the turning point. Armenia's opposition politicians 'exploded,' as it were, and took an explicitly anti-Russian position. As if in concert, opposition figures began characterizing Russian policy toward Armenia and throughout the Southern Caucasus as neo-imperialistic, based on force and totalitarian. In the camp of the opposition, the view began to harden that Armenia was isolating itself by tying its foreign policy and its economy to Russia. There was increasing talk about the need to intensify the country's ties to the United States and NATO.

Moreover, these tirades against the Kremlin began to be heard on television, something entirely new for Armenia. On February 16, at the founding convention of the newly created Liberal-Progressive Party, its leader, Ovaness Ovannisian, spoke out explicitly in favor of Armenia's joining NATO so that it would not find itself on the dividing line in the South Caucasus. He said Russia did not wish to see democracy established in Armenia and that Russian influence had reached the point where the Kremlin could dictate who would or would not be president of Armenia.

The Iranian Factor It is clear that if a Russian-US conflict flares up over whose influence prevails in Armenia, Iran -- which shares a border with Armenia -- cannot stand aside. Washington having control of Armenia would be a serious blow to Teheran. Iran simply cannot allow that to develop on its northern borders. Very likely, this was what lay behind the unexpected visit by Iran of its special services chief, Information Minister Ali Unesi, to Erevan on February 25-26, who met with Armenia's top leaders, including His Holiness Garegin II, and then was gone.

Competing forces are building up in Armenia, and it is uncertain which will prevail. It is clear that Russia won't back down to Armenia. Meanwhile, within Armenia itself partisans of strategic cooperation with Russia outnumber their opponents. For the time being. We should not forget that opposition leader Stepan Demirchian officially received about 33% of the votes in the presidential election. And the tilting of the opposition in the anti-Russia direction, with practically no countereffort by Moscow, is capable of creating all the fundamentals for Russia's losing Armenia.

Samvel Martirosian, Rosbalt, Erevan Translated by Howard Goldfinger

http://www.rosbaltnews.com/2004/03/17/65991.html