Armen Kharazian: Armenia’s Democratic Development is a Priority

13:59 Yerevan | 9:59 GMT | Saturday 3 May 2008

Armen Kharazian was the Director of Research and Analysis for the Armenian Assembly of America in 2005-2008. He holds an MA degree (2003) from Georgetown University School of Foreign Service.

Zhamanak: Following the presidential election in Armenia, a number of senior Armenian diplomats issued a statement criticizing the election fraud and crackdown, and offering indirect support for the popular movement. These diplomats were immediately fired from the Foreign Service. It is our understanding that your employment too was terminated recently by the Washington office of the Armenian Assembly of America. Do you see a link between the events in Yerevan and Washington? Do you believe your termination was related to the recent meeting in Yerevan between acting President Serge Sargsyan and AAA Chairman Hirair Hovnanian, in town to attend Sargsyan’s swearing-in ceremony? Was it retaliation for your active role in organizing the Helsinki Commission hearings in the U.S. Congress?

Kharazian: I think similar mindset and culture underlie both decisions. The difference is that while the authority firing the diplomats was a government known for committing election fraud and using force against its own people, I was fired by an Armenian-American NGO that declares support for democracy in Armenia as one of its key goals. I would rather not observe a closer connection between my case and that of my Foreign Service colleagues, but I was forced to leave after having expressed disagreement over the Assembly’s position on the events in Armenia, and having further urged the Assembly to consider taking a more principled, conscientious and impartial position on the matter. Obviously, the Assembly not only discourages, but also punishes such behavior. Strangely enough, although quite deservedly, the Assembly promotes esteemed Ambassador Evans for his public dissent with the U.S. Government’s formal position on the Armenian Genocide. At the same time, however, disagreements borne out of concerns for democracy and human rights in Armenia are confronted with an opposite reaction. As for the Helsinki Commission hearing, it was a Congressional initiative, designed to better understand the situation in Armenia, and have an opportunity to listen to all parties concerned.

Zhamanak: There has been a long standing perception among many that unlike the ANCA/ARF, the Armenian Assembly of America, while principally focused on genocide affirmation, also advocates for a variety of U.S. Government assistance programs supporting democracy in Armenia. Following the tragic events of March 1, when democracy in Armenia was suppressed and confronted with military force, AAA, together with ANCA and the leadership of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America issued a joint statement absolving, essentially, the Armenian authorities of their crime on March 1, and of the ensuing political crackdown and abuse. Do you have a comment on that?

Kharazian: For its 35-year history, the Armenian Assembly has been a most successful example of political activism by Armenian-Americans, in its adherence to the principles of political pragmatism, moderation, tolerance and professional advocacy in support of the community and Armenia. The joint statement by Armenian-American institutions, unfortunately, was an aberration from the objectives and values of the organization. Consensus on that statement was not achieved easily: there were serious disagreements among and within the organizations involved, including the Assembly. In the end, positions held by a few institutions with more direct interest and role in Armenia’s political and social life prevailed. Furthermore, the notion of form prevailed over the notion of substance, as the task of building consensus overwhelmed its purpose, resulting in a decision that has puzzled and offended many, boomeranging into a serious challenge for the Armenian American community’s traditional institutions.

Zhamanak: Jirair Haratunian, former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Armenian Assembly, claimed in a recent article that Armenia’s post-election developments will most certainly affect the Armenian-American lobbying effort. As a diplomat and now a former AAA employee, how do you see that situation? How does the harsh U.S. reaction to events in Armenia affect Armenian-American advocacy?

Kharazian: The question whether Armenia’s post-election developments affect Armenian-American advocacy has a certain internal tension to it. While the situation is not the easiest, some believe that the page must be turned over, the election results recognized, the post-election reality accepted, and business as usual resumed, so our organized advocacy could regain normalcy. From another perspective, however, that objective can only be achieved by ending the crackdown in Armenia, restoring the freedoms, resuming the political and constitutional process, and overcoming thereby the obstacles that hinder our lobbying effort.

In any event, the success of pro-Armenia advocacy hinges on the reputation and competitiveness of Armenia as a country committed to a stable, prosperous and democratic future. Unfortunately, Armenia’s post-election developments -- election fraud, use of force, mass crackdown and persecution of the opposition, restrictions on freedoms, and suspension of the normal constitutional and political process in the country – open a different horizon, which complicates our advocacy. Methodologically, in addition to Genocide affirmation, pro-Armenia advocacy has two objectives – utilize and develop opportunities inherent in the U.S.-Armenia relationship, and overcome obstacles and disagreements as such may occur. Armenia’s post-election developments are precisely such an obstacle. Overcoming it shall require considerable effort and resource that could otherwise be directed toward a more development-oriented agenda. At the same time, one must acknowledge what is positive: modern Armenian society has attained a measure of civic maturity and integrity that makes it a regional leader -- an important factor in our advocacy, albeit one, to utilize which successfully, it would need to be outfitted with an entirely new set a values and objectives.

There is another factor as well: the events in Armenia have brought forth a stronger understanding among many Armenian-Americans of the need to attach greater attention to the question of democracy in Armenia. Our organized advocacy, meanwhile, continues to overlook it.

Zhamanak: U.S. Foreign Operations budget request for 2009 suggests a mere $24 million in assistance to Armenia – the lowest level of assistance since Armenia’s independence. Earlier this year, at a Congressional hearing on foreign operations appropriations, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice explained that decrease by the $235 million aid package available for Armenia under the U.S. Millennium Challenge Account. In the aftermath of the events in Armenia, the U.S. has threatened to terminate that program. What are your comments on the existing situation? What about the latest statements by the Armenian authorities concerning U.S. assistance?

Kharazian: $24 million is an unprecedentedly modest amount, although in recent years, U.S. assistance to all Eurasian countries – not just Armenia -- has declined consistently. Instead, the amount of assistance to countries in the Middle East has increased. This is a reflection of existing U.S. regional priorities. On the other hand, following March 1 events, the United States officially alerted the Armenian government on the possibility of suspending assistance under the Millennium Challenge Account if Armenia fails to undertake dramatic measures towards normalization of the situation. These measures, as noted on numerous occasions, include: ending the crackdown on the opposition; release of all political prisoners; restoring fundamental freedoms, including those of speech, media, and assembly; conducting an independent international investigation of the events of March 1; and resuming the normal political and constitutional process in the country, to pave the way for political dialogue. Eligibility criteria for assistance under the Millennium Challenge Account include recipient country’s compliance with standards in civil rights, political freedoms, and the rule of law. In the aftermath of March 1, it is hard to believe that Armenia may succeed in maintaining eligibility for the program without taking dramatic action to address the situation. As for Robert Kocharyan’s recent comment about U.S. assistance, it certainly did little to advance Armenia’s reputation or standing. Such manifestations of ignorance do occur: they have their causes, but they seldom bring any value.

Zhamanak: How may such an unprecedented decline in Armenia’s international standing affect the resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict? At a time when official Washington views democracy in Armenia as a matter of high priority, how important it is to continue to place Genocide affirmation on the top of the list of priorities?

Kharazian: International standing is an attribute of national power, and it does of course have an impact on our ability to conduct international business, including pursuing a resolution to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Lack of electoral legitimacy results in a weakened immunity against external pressure, and undermines the authority’s mandate to govern. These are serious challenges, handicapping Armenia’s ability to formulate a policy on Nagorno Karabakh driven by the national interest, and ensure its consistent implementation.

International affirmation of the Armenian Genocide is extremely important for the Diaspora, as it is for the majority of the Armenian people. That is a fact. The question is not about revisiting the prominence of Genocide affirmation on our list of priorities. The question is whether democracy in Armenia deserves as high a priority on that list. There is a formative role for notion of Genocide in how Diaspora self-identifies, and connects to the rest of the world. Democracy in Armenia has a similar formative role and value for the Armenian society’s self-identification. To understand and accept that relationship is a challenge for the Diaspora, which, unlike Armenia, is a communal, rather than a societal paradigm, whereas democracy is a societal category. These differences can be overcome, as the Diaspora develops its own sense of “social ownership” of the notion and reality of the Armenian statehood. That process, no matter how complex, appears to have already started.

Monday, 6 September 2010

Armen Kharazian: Armenia’s Democratic Development is a Priority

13:59 Yerevan | 9:59 GMT | Saturday 3 May 2008

Search

Editor’s Choice

Analysis and Comment

David Shahnazaryan. “Armenia has serious opportunity to gain weight and influence in the region”

Politics

Empty Promises about Democracy

World

Turkey & Armenia : Promise amid discord

Archive