Translation of Ter-Petrosyan Address to 2nd Congress, May 2, 2008, Yerevan, Armenia

ADDRESS
TO THE SECOND CONGRESS
OF THE POPULAR MOVEMENT
Levon Ter-Petrossian
May 2, 2008 Yerevan

Dear Compatriots and comrades-in-arms,

The second Congress of the Popular Movement of Armenia is taking place under extremely difficult circumstances. The difficulty, in this case is not only situational, but also epistemological since society is faced with the necessity to
understand and give new meaning to the recent violent events. The innumerable questions which have accumulated can only be answered after a thorough and detailed investigation of the events which have occurred. Leaving that issue to the future, I will be content in addressing a few urgent topics in this speech.

Clash or Slaughter?

The propaganda machine of the Kocharian-Serzh regime is trying to portray the events of March 1, 2008 as a clash between the protesters and the police forces provoked by the opposition. To that end, the criminal government is using all weapons in its armory of lies, falsehoods, calumnies and distortions, while law enforcement bodies—the police, prosecutors and courts--have devoted themselves to the illicit task of securing legal foundations to this “hypothesis.” They are being asked to prove the improvable, to turn the victim into the executioner and the executioner into a victim, problems which they will certainly resolve in case public pressure is absent and the international community indifferent.

The author of this hypothesis, the conductor if you will, is naturally, none other than the leader of the regime, the infamous Robert Kocharian. To be convinced of that, one only need to read carefully his last three press conferences (March 1, 4, and 20), which are crying out with contradictions and exceptionally awkward attempts at covering up the truth. Incidentally, Kocharian’s signature has not changed at all during the past ten years; in his assessment of the events of March 1, in essence he has manifested the same dishonest behavior which we witnessed with his cover-up of the traces of the criminal acts of October 27, 1999. So as to avoid playing the role of the messenger with an outstretched neck, let us examine, one by one, Kocharian’s aforementioned statements for obvious lies, factual errors and logical contradictions, which not only fully reveal the moral character of said individual, but also his unhidden goal to escape accountability for the March 1st crimes.

At a March 1 press conference, speaking about the events that took place that same morning at Freedom Square, Kocharian stated,

For nine continuous days, illegal demonstrations were held in
Yerevan, and the content and style of those demonstrations were
such that they eventually culminated in clashes with the police.
They resisted the lawful demands of the police, and those demands,
all told, were for a search, as there was credible information
regarding weapons and ammunition.

This is a complete falsehood. The police did not present an order to search to the demonstrators who had stayed overnight at Freedom Square; they did not even give an order to disperse. When, at around 6:40 AM the police forces surrounded Freedom Square armed with rubber batons, electroshock devices and shields, I went to the platform and addressing those present with a megaphone, said the following, literally

Dear people, I ask you to show restraint, to stay calm, and not to
have any interaction or contact with the police. Maybe they have
something to say to us, let’s wait and see what they want from us.
I am also cautioning the police, to be aware that there are also women
and children in the square. And I again ask the demonstrators to
be calm, and to take five or six steps back from the police.

When the people did what I had asked and took five or six steps back from the
police, the police, without any forewarning, suddenly attacked the demonstrators,
with ruthless strikes of the batons to their heads, and making frequent use of
electroshock devices. Many people quickly moved away from the square. Some tried
to defend themselves with support rods of the tents or with firewood, but under pressure from the police, they too soon left the square. In ten to fifteen minutes, the square was completely empty of demonstrators, and the police were in complete control, destroyed the microphones and those tents that had remained standing. This is the entire truth, to which about 3,000 demonstrators who witnessed these events can attest.

Regarding Kocharian’s lie-ridden assertions, there are two circumstances that raise doubt on these allegations to which we must turn our attention. First, if the police truly had presented the demonstrators with orders for searches or for dispersion, isn’t it obvious, that the government would already have broadcasted that scene hundreds of times on their television stations? And second, there has not been a case in any country in the world where law-enforcement bodies needed three to four thousand policemen to perform a search.

Referring to the events that developed in the second half of March 1 near the French Embassy, Kocharian, in the same press conference announced that “the police force was not armed with firearms.” Remember that this was said at the same time the State of Emergency was announced, that is, around 10:30 in the evening, when supposedly the army had not yet been brought out, and when blood had been shed claiming a number of victims and injuries. To avoid a misunderstanding, let us quote that section of Kocharian’s press conference in its entirety:

There are eight injured from the ranks of the police... In the present situation,
when weapons are used against the police who are not armed with firearms, this
means that we are forced to avail ourselves of the possibilities the army offers
in order to establish law and order. Until these injuries occurred we were
refraining from taking such steps, but firearms were being used, and, of course,
we are required to secure the safety of our citizens.

However, unfortunately for Kocharian, the following question arises here: if until that point the army had not been put to use and the police did not have firearms, then how is it that by the time the State of Emergency was called seven citizens had died from firearms and tens of others had received firearm related injuries? As surprising as it is, Kocharian himself answers the question, when he carelessly betrays himself in the next segment of the press conference:

The shootings occurred in a situation when behind the [demonstrator] who was firing, there were also unarmed demonstrators. The shooter would emerge from behind the car, would fire at the soldiers, and then hide. But shooting in his direction also meant victims among those who were unarmed.

Kocharian doesn’t even notice how he has fallen in his own trap. If the police were not armed with firearms, as he insists, then how could they have fired on such unmanly demonstrators? Once again, he betrays himself in his March 20 press conference, when he states:

There were a lot of questions both in the press and in conversations about who gave the orders to shoot, were there orders, or not. In no country of the world do the police need special orders. The law regarding the police anticipates…when and how the police can use guns.

As we see, without realizing it, Kocharian finally unwillingly confesses that the police were nevertheless armed with firearms. Otherwise, one would have to assume that the army was put to use before the declaration of the State of Emergency, which would have been a gross violation of the Constitution and would have been a crime against the state, perpetrated by the Commander in Chief.

As we observed, Kocharian based the necessity to declare the State of Emergency on the argument that many of the demonstrators of March 1 carried firearms and used them against the police. That insistence, by the way, he repeated many times during his three conferences. But how surprising that of the thousands of videos made by the authorities and the opposition, even two months after the events, no citizen bearing and using firearms has been discovered. The evidence is surprising especially in the sense that the visual evidence relating to policemen using firearms is in great abundance. More, when by Kocharian’s own insistence about 800 people have been taken into custody and more than 100 citizens have been arrested (March 20 conference), strangely enough none have been charged with the crime of bearing and using firearms. After all this, is there need for further proof to refute this cheapest myth woven by Kocharian?

Besides the obvious fact of cynically and impudently disguising the evidence, which can be explained by the motive to escape the responsibility of the crimes of March 1, the person occupying the high office of President of Armenia isn’t repelled by commonplace lies. In this connection a large section of his March 5 conference is especially noteworthy. Replying to the question of “Is it true that Levon Ter-Petrosyan has stated during an interview given to a Russian news agency that he was ready to enter a dialogue, that he wanted to come and join the rally, but did not have that possibility?”, Kocharian states:

I am familiar with that interview, and, mildly put, that thesis does not
correspond to the facts. First, what does it mean “I did not have the means”?
Who stopped him? He could easily have gone. Nobody was in his way.

The problem is here: his bodyguards, consisting of officers, had told him that
they could not participate in unlawful activities, but that Ter-Petrosyan was free
to go without his bodyguards….His intentions were different. In fact, in the
evening, through the head of the Security Service for State Officials, Grigor
Sargsyan, he sent a message to me that he [Ter-Petrosyan] would like to go and
calm down the people. We said, yes, we only welcome it, go and calm them down.
He said, no, I have conditions. The conditions were the following: He goes there
and leads those people to Theater Square, they continue the rally, after which the
rally would be guaranteed for another 15 days. But when he made that offer, the
situation in front of the municipality was out of control. The crowd was armed
with wooden sticks, metal pipes, there were already 30 torched vehicles and
barricades were being put up, some policemen had been beaten. …He was told that
it is already late for that proposal, but you are free, no one will stop you, go,
calm them down where they are or take them away, to the square by the Dynamo
arena. He refused. This is how it happened.

This extensive explanation on the part of Kocharian, to put it mildly, in his own words, does not correspond to the facts. First of all, on March 1, I negotiated with Kocharian, through Grigor Sargsyan, not once and not only in the evening, but three times, beginning around 2 PM in the afternoon. The idea behind my offer was to allow me to go near the French Embassy and convince the demonstrators to stop the rally. But, realizing that this would be impossible without offering the people an alternative, yes, I insisted, that the rally be moved to Liberty Square or to the Matenadaran with the promise that we receive permission to hold rallies for the next few days. Through the general, Kocharian offered to take the people to the Dynamo arena or to the square near the train station. I refused, concerned that away from the embassies and from the center of the city, the authorities could wield new brutalities against the demonstrators and insisted that the rally be moved to the Matenadaran. The second time, Sargsyan told me in Kocharian’s name, to wait a little while longer, and, the third time, already late in the evening, the president announced that there could be no compromise. Incidentally, I also conducted the same negotiations with Kocharian through the embassies of the European Union functioning in Armenia, and all three times the same answers were given to the ambassadors from the presidential palace.

Once more, to put it mildly, the facts don’t correspond to Kocharian’s insistence that Ter-Petrossian’s bodyguards, consisting of officers, told him that they could not engage in any unlawful event, but that Ter-Petrosyan was free to go without his bodyguards. My bodyguards did not say anything of the kind, nor could they have, since by law, they are not authorized to do so, and their only duty is to ensure my safety.

During the same press conference Kocharian commits a more obvious transgression against the truth, insisting on the following:

It is being stated falsely that Ter-Petrossian is under house arrest and can not
go to the Constitutional Court. But there is nothing of the kind. He can go
whenever he wishes to. There was never a house arrest and we do not have such a
legal regime in the Republic of Armenia.

And in this way, while all international documents relating to the events in Armenia have registered that Ter-Petrosyan is de facto under house arrest, Kocharian announces that there is nothing of the kind. From March 1 to March 25, the two gates of my residence were guarded by about 30 officers and soldiers in the service headed by Grigor Sargsyan, and they searched all cars coming in and out, and logged in the names of all those who visited me, including those of scores of diplomats and representatives of international organizations. That which pertains to my appearance at the Constitutional Court, I was allowed to do so only after a corresponding arrangement of the Court and the written guarantee of A. Tamazyan, Deputy Chief Prosecutor, and in the company of four officers armed with machine guns serving under Sargsyan. In that case, however, the question arises as to how the limitations of my free movements imposed by General Grigor Sargsyan should be described. Kidnapping, perhaps? But that is an issue for future legal assessment.

The analysis of Kocharian’s press conferences under discussion lead us to the conclusion that what matters to him, under conditions where state authorities enjoy absolute monopoly in the sphere of information, is the spreading of as many lies as possible; when repeated often enough (in the Goebbelsian sense), Kocharian hopes, such lies will serve the important task of discrediting the opposition and will produce hard-cast, fixed notions that will require a long time for people to shed. This style of work is obviously aimed at the specific purpose of directing any future investigation of the events, as evidenced, particularly, by the many official declarations and communications by the Office of the Prosecutor, which repeat the many contradictions, cover-ups and suspicious assertions found in Kocharian’s press conferences. But this is a subject for a separate discussion, to which, perhaps, we will refer at another time. But the main and obvious goal of the Kocharian-Serzh propaganda machine, as already mentioned, is to avoid responsibility for the horrendous crime, a crime thoroughly preplanned and perpetrated by the authorities against peaceful demonstrators. In other words, if the authorities are lying, that can mean one thing: that is, that they have something to hide. Otherwise, they did not have to resort to such disgraceful methods.

The necessity to hide things arises from the simple fact that the authorities had cold-heartedly developed the plan to use violence against the peaceful demonstrators and to crush the opposition a week before the events of March 1. On February 23 Robert Kocharian characterized the protests rallies as “an illegal attempt to take over the government,” while raining threats against the opposition. (Incidentally, this fact had attracted John Prescott’s attention in his April 14 Report to the Summit of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, PACE.) The next day, February 24, obeying Kocharian’s order, Colonel M. Marukyan, the senior examiner of the National Security Agency (NSA), instituted a criminal case with the following basis:

I, Colonel M. Marukyan, the senior examiner of the Division of Examinations in the
NSA of the Government of Armenia, having examined the documents provided by the
NSA Main Division on the Preservation of the Constitutional Order and the Fight
against Terrorism, have determined the following: That Nikol Pashinian, Sasun
Mikayelian, Hakob Hakobian, Myasnik Malkhasian, Petros Makeyan and others, and
presidential candidate Levon Ter-Petrossian, having been informed that according
to preliminary results [their candidate] had been defeated, receiving a total of
21.5% of the votes cast, undertook actions to create an atmosphere of mistrust
toward the authorities in the country; they have undertaken actions aimed at the
usurpation of power in violation of the Constitution and to forcefully overthrow
the constitutional order of the Republic of Armenia by paralyzing the normal
functioning of businesses/institutions and organizations as well as by calls for
the organization of armed bands for the purpose of using them in subsequent
phases. Based on the above and governed by articles 27, 175, 176, 181, 182 and 192
of the Criminal Code, I decided to (1) institute a criminal case against Levon
Ter-Petrosyan and a group of individuals and in consonance with the fact of their
usurpation of power to initiate criminal case 58200608 with all the attributes
derived from Part 1 of Article 300 of the Criminal Code and to accept that article
as a guide and initiate a preliminary investigation; (2) To forward a copy of this
decision to the Prosecutor-General.

In this masterpiece of legal illiteracy, one should pay special attention to the term “others” and, particularly to the formulation that presents as a proven fact “the usurpation of power by Levon Ter-Petrosyan and a group of individuals.” But that is not the most important problem. Rather, of importance is the simple fact that with this document the authorities had already charted all the details of their subsequent actions by February 24, long before the bloodshed on March 1, the looting of stores, the imprisonment of the leaders of the opposition, etc. From a political point of view, the purpose of this monstrous plan was clear: the institution of a State of Emergency. The authorities were horrified by the thought that under conditions of massive rallies and a free press the Constitutional Court might have rendered a decision unfavorable to them. The authorities had no option, then, but to crush the manifestations of public discontent that had arisen as a result of the fraudulent elections through violence and bloodshed and to blame the opposition for their own actions.

A thorough analysis of the evidence indicates, therefore, that what happened on March 1 could not be described as a clash between the protesters and the police; what happened, rather, was a real massacre of the people, organized by the authorities, a massacre the responsibility of which falls mainly on Robert Kocharian. He was the only person with the legal authority to order the use of violence and fire at peaceful demonstrators, since all power institutions—army, police, the NSA, and the Security Service of Official persons—were under his direct command.

As for Serzh Sargsyan, who in a formal sense is not tied to the command system, as presumed president-elect, he had an obligation not to allow Kocharian to resort to these extreme methods. At any rate, the degree of his responsibility will depend on the position he takes on the process of securing the non-partisan examination of the crimes committed on March 1. He has no more convenient and beneficial way to prove his innocence in those events than to fully support the review of these events by an international, independent body. Otherwise, even a thousand years from now he will be seen as guilty of the March 1 bloodshed as Robert Kocharian.



The position of the West with regard to the elections in Armenia and the events of March 1

By using the term “West” I have in mind, primarily European organizations: The Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), of which Armenia has been a member and, as such, assumed certain obligations. However, before I tackle the main issue, it is necessary to offer the following clarification. Logic tells us that if Armenia has undertaken obligations toward these organizations, then it should also be obvious that these organizations have assumed certain obligations with regard to our people, i.e., to guarantee its security, its democratic liberties and its civil rights. Unfortunately, experience shows that these organizations have failed both in establishing an effective supervision of the obligations assumed by the authorities in Armenia and, especially, in dispensing their obligations toward our people. To demonstrate this point it is sufficient to indicate their utter impotence in the cases of the re-licensing of the A1+ and “Noyan Tapan” TV stations and the fact that to date Stepan Demirjyan’s appeal to the European Court regarding the review of the results of the 2003 presidential elections remains unanswered.

I think that equally if not more telling, is the unprincipled position manifested by these organizations with regard to the recent presidential elections in Armenia and the tragic events of March 1. To be objective, I will limit my comments only to a few official documents released by these organizations. These are the two reports (February 20 and March 3) by Geert Ahrens, the head of the monitoring mission of the OSCE Office of Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR); The Report (April 14) by John Prescott, head of the monitoring mission of PACE; the joint Report presented to the PACE Summit (April 15) by Ambassador Georges Colombier and John Prescott; the resolution of the PACE Summit ( April 17); and the Report of the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammamberg, on the events of March 1, a report that distinguishes itself from the others by its objectivity.

The irresponsible attitude of the monitoring missions was clearly manifest in their first report. That report was issued even before the legal deadline for the review of challenges to the election and recount of votes in challenged precincts had been reached, and before even the official announcement of the summary of the election results. That report included the following formulation: “The February 19 presidential election in the Republic of Armenia was administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards.” Now, this and subsequent reports by the monitoring missions register in detail hundreds of cases of violations of the Electoral Code, unequal opportunities for campaigning, ballot box stuffing, bribing of voters, multiple vote casting, violence used by the authorities, fraud committed during counting of the ballots, obstruction of the work of campaign representatives, and abuse of administrative resources by the authorities. These, however, in the “authoritative” opinion of the observers, did not affect the outcome of the election. When you ask them how it could be that these blaring proofs do not affect the results of the election, or, if they did not, then what was the purpose of recording all the infractions, these monitors remain silent. When you ask if elections with such massive violations could be tolerated in any European country, they are even offended, unwittingly betraying their position which is based on double standards.

The quality of work performed by the monitoring missions is betrayed by the numerous factual errors found in these reports. I would invite your attention to the following two examples. In Geert Ahrens’s Report of February 20, we read the following:

Controversy arose about Serzh Sargsyan actively campaigning
while continuing to serve as Prime Minister. The Central Election Commission
clarified that the Prime minister could campaign without resigning.
Mr. Sargsyan gained additional publicity ad campaign advantages
through his official position.

Using Geert Ahrens’s report but going even further, John Prescott states the following in his April 14 Report:

A main point of controversy in the campaign was the decision of
Mr. Serzh Sargsyan to maintain his position as Prime minister, while
running as a candidate in these elections. Although he was allowed
to do so by law, his decision gave him an unfair campaign advantage
and blurred the line between State and party functions.

It is unfortunate that the respectable leaders of the delegation of observers “neglected to read article 78.1 of the Electoral Code of the Republic of Armenia, which clearly states that the Prime Minister, once a registered candidate, can continue his formal duties in only one circumstance; that is, if he has the status of acting president. And the next clumsy mistake can be found in the April 15 joint Report of George Colombier and John Prescott, in which it is noted that the Constitutional court supposedly “rejected Levon Ter-Petrossian’s argument”, that the Constitutional Court did not have the authority to convene and to make decisions in times when a State of Emergency is declared. The authors of that Report are apparently not aware that the Constitutional Court, rather than reject my argument, shunned its responsibilities and completely ignored it.

All of these criticisms, however, have no value compared to the ill-fated formulation that travels from one document to the other, according to which “The February 19 presidential election in the Republic of Armenia was administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards”. In fact, with this single, reckless sentence, the OSCE’s ODIHR mission immediately and without any reservations legitimized the disgraceful elections that took place in Armenia. Enthused by that, the authorities in Armenia not only aborted the legal procedures of recounting votes and hearings on election frauds, but also by qualifying the peaceful demonstrations as “unlawful attempts to usurp power,” finally orchestrated the bloody scheme of March 1.

In this way, the West was satisfied with externally harsh but effectively empty and irresponsible announcements with regard to the events in Armenia, wittingly or unwittingly contributing to the reproduction of the criminal authorities. The European organizations, guided by political considerations and double standards, sided with the illegitimate regime rather than with the new civil society of Armenia inspired by the ideas of democracy, freedom and of a state based on the rule of law. On the surface, concerned with securing stability, but secretly aiming at weakening the position of Armenia in the negotiations on Nagorno Karabagh, the West preferred to have in our country a dictatorship blessed with vulnerable legitimacy, rather than dignified authorities that enjoyed the trust of the people.

With much grief, but also with a cold heart, we must record that the European organizations tolerated the disgraceful elections in Armenia, and to some extent, contributed to the disgracefulness of those elections. The European organizations in some sense also tolerated the bloodbath of March 1, considering it not the result of savage force, but the result of clashes between the opposition and police. If those organizations also end up accepting that the investigations of those unforgivable crimes be led by the authorities that bear the responsibility for them, there can be no doubt that they will lose their prestige in Armenia irrevocably. Even a partial restoration of the trust of the Armenian people in European organizations will depend on the degree of firmness and systematic follow through with which the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will pursue its demands formulated in its resolution of April 17.

Polarization of the public, or unification?

International organizations, political circles and many reporters express deep concerns over a public polarization in post-election Armenia, and suggest constructive political dialogue between the forces as the most effective prescription for healing it. At first glance, the offer for a dialogue seems rational because, as they say, politics is the art of compromise. But a question rises: is the point of departure, that the Armenian public is polarized, accurate? If we were to judge the results of the elections through official data, then, it seems, the answer can only be positive because the winning candidate has received 53%, while the opposition candidates received 47%. However, simple mathematics is one thing, but the truth that lies under it something entirely different.

The paradox is that not only the representatives of the Popular Movement disagree with the theory of popular polarization, but so do also the forces rallied around the authorities. The conviction of the authorities is built on basic accounting. According to them, because the candidates who received 18% and 6% of the votes have joined the ruling collation, that indicates that they represent 77% of the population, and therefore only have issues with an unyielding opposition that represents a total of 21.5% , the annihilation of which through political persecutions and aggressive propaganda should not be considered a serious obstacle. Now, it’s another matter to what extent this seemingly convincing logic corresponds to the facts. The two individuals, Vahan Hovannisyan and the Secretary of the Security Council (henceforth SSC) entered the elections as opposition candidates, which means that the citizens who voted for them never assumed that they had given their voices to Serzh Sargsyan, although we had earlier warned them on that issue. Vahan Hovannisyan, as well as SSC, announced on the day after the elections that the elections were fraudulent, and therefore they did not accept the results of the elections. More, as a sign of protest, Hovannisyan resigned from his position of Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, and the comrade-in-arms of SSC, Heghine Bisharyan made an address full of anger at the rally organized by the Popular Movement.

What followed next is related not to the political, but to the moral sphere. But because I abhor moralizing (I emphasize—not morality, but moralization), I therefore stay away from assessing people’s behavior, being content with simply recording the facts. Now, Vahan Hovannisyan and SSC, first accepted that the elections were fraudulent, but later joined Serzh Sargsyan. However, this may not necessarily mean that they were joined, I their support of Serzh Sargsyan, by their constituency. On the contrary, observations indicate that citizens, who voted for Vahan Hovannisyan and especially SSC, were disappointed by the unseemly stance of their leaders, and are today more hostile to Serzh Sargsyan than even during the elections. And if we add to this the fact that following the bloodbath of March 1 Serzh Sargsyan has become more despicable for even his own constituency, then the claim for representing 77% of the population on the part of the authorities dissipates into thin air.
It is difficult for the authorities in Armenia to accept and for the international community to comprehend that the people of Armenia have never been as united as at the present since the Karabakh Movement of 1988 and the independence referendum of 1991. If, nonetheless, it is impossible to avoid the term polarization, they have to agree that the polarization is not within society but between the ruling regime and the public. In reality, that cannot even be labeled as polarization; it is a horrendous abyss between the majority of the people and a small group of individuals who have usurped power through fraud and bloodshed. The unity of the public is manifest in the complete rejection of the current regime and the determination to free itself from it speedily. This is a new civil society, a society that loves freedom and is intolerant of injustice, a society fully conscious of its rights. A civil society whose visualization of the state, of the national interests, of the well being of the people and of a value system, in general, differs so markedly from the visualizations of those in power.

Our society is ready and has the will to build a free and democratic state based on the rule of law and to face the challenges of

1. Providing equal opportunities to all citizens
2. Securing free competition
3. Guaranteeing the inviolability of private property
4. Dissolving the system of corruption
5. Distributing the tax burden with fairness
6. Abolishing the system of granting monopolies
7. Ending the system of fabricating statistics
8. Clarifying the principles underlying foreign policy
9. Taking steps to end the political and economic isolation of the country
10. Displaying political will to resolve the Karabakh conflict
11. Living in peace with all neighbors, etc.

If the present authorities of Armenia and the international community do not recognize the real potential and yearnings of this society, they may make monumental mistakes and endanger the stability of the country.

Clearly, the only means to diffuse the dangerous tension between society and the authorities is to call for new presidential and parliamentary elections. Cognizant of the fact that the current authorities of Armenia and the European organizations are not yet ready at the present to undertake such measures and realizing that these ideas require some time to mature, we, the representatives of the Popular Movement, must clarify our next steps and to present to our people a thoroughly developed plan of action.

In the next section I will try to invite the attention of this Congress to some proposals related to these issues.


The primary issues facing the Popular Movement

The starting point of the activities of the Popular Movement in the post-election period is the formation of the new relationship of political forces in Armenia. Since the independence of the Republic, the political field has never been as clear in Armenia as it is today. On one side we have the group heading the current regime that has usurped power illegally and the small number of political parties supporting it; on the other side is the Popular Movement that enjoys the sympathy and support of the majority of the public. In essence there is no other opposition which brings us honor but also places responsibilities on us.

The Popular Movement had emerged, nonetheless, because of one concrete problem, as a pre-election alliance; its existence may be seen as inertial or anachronistic. We are therefore facing the challenge of injecting new substance into that Movement. I think it is altogether obvious that the new substance must be the channeling of the aspirations and mindset of the public that refuses to accept the current state of affairs in Armenia. I also believe that it is important to endow the Movement with a new organizational format and a new name.

Since for so many of us the term “congress” had recently become so engaging, it seems to me that the renaming of the Movement as “Armenian National Congress” (ANC) will serve our purposes. This, in view of the glorious traditions of national-liberation movements in world history that have used the same terminology as well as of their special characteristic of encompassing representatives of diverse ideological and social forces. As for the organizational format of the Armenian National Congress, it seems to me that we for the present, we could preserve the current structure and format of the Popular Movement, with its Political Council and the Executive Committee. Therefore, the creation of the “Congress’ does not signal the integration of the member-parties of the Movement. These parties will preserve their autonomy and structures as well as the right to develop independent political action. On the other hand, this diversity does not mean that we are dealing with an artificial, disparate organization since we are all united behind a majestic idea, the idea of building a free, democratic, prosperous state under the rule of law. Of course one cannot exclude the possibility that in the process of such close collaboration and ideological rapprochement the “Congress” may evolve into a more centralized political party with a tight structure. One can also not exclude the possibility that such a party may function through a shadow government, the benefits of which have been obvious in the civilized world.

The idea of creating an “Armenian National Congress” is, naturally, a surprise for many of you. But I urge you to accept it as a preliminary proposal and subject to subsequent discussion. It may be worthwhile to return to this idea and discuss it thoroughly at our next gathering, the details of which will be communicated in due time. Regardless of any changes in our current structure and name, it is obvious that the Popular Movement will have a permanent and decisive role to play in all future political processes in Armenia due to the wide ranging public support it has received. That includes the possibility of jointly presenting candidates or sharing candidates’ lists in forthcoming elections at all levels.

Before I discuss the current problems facing the Movement, I would like to stress the following: We have always been guided and will always be guided in the future, by the accepted rules of political struggle; we have in the past and will in the future work exclusively within the perimeters of the law. We will respect the law, in contradistinction to the ruling band that has systematically countered these rules and political behavior with limitations on democratic freedoms, aggressive counter-propaganda campaigns, administrative-economic pressures, massive imprisonment and, at the end, physical violence that culminated in the bloodshed of March 1.

While rejecting the legitimacy of a regime that usurped power through such brutal methods, we nonetheless take into consideration the reality of its position in the political arena and are ready to begin a dialogue with the regime. Such a dialogue, however, cannot be started with the purpose of bringing one of the sides to its knees. Rather, the purpose must be an opportunity to bring about real reforms in the country and to create a normal field for political activities. And that means that first and foremost the government of Armenia fulfills all the requirements formulated in the April 17 resolution (Number 1609) of the PACE Summit as preconditions for the dialogue:

1. The independent, transparent, and reliable investigation of the events of
March 1;
2. The immediate release of individuals imprisoned for political motives;
3. The repeal of amendments passed recently by the National Assembly to the law
of the Republic on “the holding of meetings, rallies, marches and
demonstrations” in accord with the proposals made by the Venice Commission.

The PACE Summit resolution also adds:

Unless these conditions are met and an open dialogue on the reforms
mentioned in paragraph 8 above is seriously engaged between the
political forces in Armenia, the credibility of Armenia as a member
of the Council of Europe is put into doubt. The assembly should
therefore consider the possibility of suspending the voting rights of
the Armenian delegation to the Assembly at the opening of its June
2008 part-session, if no considerable progress has been made on these
requirements by then.

As we can see, the PACE Summit has moved from words to action and has threatened to punish the authorities of Armenia, which is a welcome development. Nonetheless, while political moves that may be taken against the regime are welcome, we are deeply concerned about statements made regarding possible economic sanctions against Armenia, because the first to suffer from such sanctions would be our people and not the regime. Therefore, in the name of the Popular Movement, I am appealing to the government of the United States and the administration of the Millennium Challenge Fund that they desist from any intention to reduce or end the aid being provided to Armenia.

This is important for us considering, particularly, the social tensions increasing in the country, in addition to the political ones. These social tensions are the result of the sharp increase in the price of consumer goods and the practice of piling the tax burden mainly on small and medium size businesses. As a genuine Popular Movement we must channel not only the political but also the social grievances of our people, in order, on the one hand, to remove their root causes and, on the other, to avert the danger of a social explosion.

While continuing our principled and determined struggle against the anti-democratic authorities in Armenia, we are at the same time obligated to do everything possible to avoid domestic upheavals and developments that may threaten the stability of our country, having in mind, above all, dispositions being expressed in Azerbaijan to benefit from such developments. Azerbaijan must understand that regardless of the domestic situation in Armenia, it is all the same: Any military action against Karabakh will meet with the united resistance of our people. And at the front lines of that resistance no doubt will stand our comrades who are now in prison. In the event of a military danger, I myself will ask the participants of our Movement to suspend all political activities temporarily and to engage themselves in the noble cause of the defense of the fatherland.

All of this does not mean, however, that the Popular Movement agrees with or accepts the appalling policy conducted by this administration with regard to the Karabakh conflict during the last decade. The result of that policy has been the complete isolation of Armenia and the absence of the prospect of economic development as well as the infamous resolution adopted by the general Assembly of the UN. We are therefore demanding that the authorities in Armenia display the necessary political will and to engage, as soon as possible, in a real process that will lead to the peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict.

Because of the constraints of time, I focused on just a few of the problems facing the Popular Movement, those that I consider the most important. We will discuss the others through our regular channels and during public gatherings. The most burning issue today is, undoubtedly, the immediate release of all political prisoners, without any distinction. There can be no dialogue or any talk of reconciliation without the release of the political prisoners.

It is clear and beyond any doubt that as a general principle of our strategy we will avail ourselves of all legal means to free ourselves from this criminal governing band and to reinstate the constitutional order of the country.

One thing must be clear for these authorities and the international community: The victorious march of the dignified people that tasted freedom during the last ten days of February is unstoppable.

Thank you for your attention.