Armenia: from the most predictable and ‘safe’ election to slap in the face for ruling regime

The outcome was predictable. Incumbent president won. Well, “officially”. Armenia's ruling regime would never voluntarily *ok* 2nd round of election as this would be = defeat for them. Only the revolt of the masses could possibly force such transformation.

The predictability of Armenian elections is becoming a painful sign to the extent that at times I wonder: why bother following the news if you can simply use material from previous years, copy paste and change the date. From the process of voting to the outcome and international observers’ (OSCE/ODIHR) verdict. Same old, same old. 

As soon as polling stations closed, the results of regime-sponsored 'exit poll' were announced, giving incumbent president 58%, and Raffi 32%. To remind, exit polls in Armenia are conducted by fake Gallup with the help of discredited Armenian Sociological Association. Basically, a double fake.

The only reason Armenia authorities started using fake Gallup is to provide sense of legitimacy for their f*-ed up election, a kind of PR coup for both internal [psychological intervention to prepare for pictured percentages] and external consumption [‘hey, here we are, we commissioned ‘exit polls’, with the “Gallup” name on it’ - a successful tactic, as this gets subsequently cited by international media, without any checking of the real source of such ‘exit poll’]. 


And... surprise-surprise: With all polling stations cast, the preliminary official results are 58.6% for incumbent vs 36.7% for Raffi.

Numerous images of intentionally invalidated ballot papers (as a sign of protest) could be found on Facebook or media reports. Ironically, this helped incumbent to increase his %.



The most sensational result of the night, however, was a crushing defeat of incumbent in Armenia’s second city Gyumri, with Raffi getting a massive 70% (!)

Even with official numbers (36.7%) I do not trust, this protest vote for Raffi is more than I expected. And here is hoping, after all.

This is no less than a big slap in the face for incumbent president. Plus, as ‏@Akhtamar89 added: "@unzippedblog Good! It might also be a slap in the face for all those who withheld their votes or gave into bribes thinking they've no voice
".

While I sympathise Raffi and endorsed him for the election, he is not necessarily your typical fighter figure for mass mobilisation. Unless people took to the streets and make Raffi fight for his votes, it’s difficult to imagine any changes in election results.

Nevertheless, a sheer volume of protest votes will act as a signal for the authorities that they are getting too close to the boiling point (if not reached already), and the reforms are inevitable. Armenia will change as a result of this election.
***
And in case you were wondering, a predictable verdict of international observers: election was "in line..." and a "step forward". [From friend’s FB status : ODIHR. Oh, dear.]

Their attitude was summed up perfectly by this hilarious Twitter account @OSCEIntObserver: "We don't understand what all the fuss is about. Isn't #Armenia just a Russian exclave? Like Kaliningrad? #armvote13"

Another classic from ‏@OSCEIntObserver (in response to my tweet that I started working on election related blog post): "@unzippedblog You should do what we do. Our report was written long before election day. #armvote13 #Armenia"


And the video of the day. How activists stole the show at international observers’ press conference. 




P.S. For more updates and insight on #armvote13 and more, see my Twitter page @unzippedblog


OSCE observers will not monitor municipal (aka mayoral) election in Yerevan. Do we care?

Well, I do not. In past, I considered their presence an important tool for monitoring elections and thus contributing to the democratisation of Armenia. Now, looking back at the work of OSCE observers over the years if not decades, I am convinced that their presence did absolutely nothing for improvements of the election process. They have been monitoring all the main elections in Armenia. Have we noticed any improvements as a result? No. Quite the contrary. Their presence and preliminary ‘conclusions’ legitimised all sorts of electoral misconduct.

What we need are internal mechanisms and understandings that we have to conduct elections right. Otherwise, we will get one flawed election after another, even if invite European monitors for every single electoral district out there.

This news inspired my post.

Empty words: Karabakh talks in Moscow

OK, the only fact of negotiations (not war) taking place is positive, indeed. Armenian and Azeri sides reiterated their readiness to “continue” negotiations, and to continue it under the OSCE Minsk group mediations and according to those (not so) mysterious Madrid principles, full details of which are yet to be disclosed.

Full text of the “Declaration” (in Russian)

I am afraid I do not share excitement of number of news agencies which specifically mention that for the first time in 14-15 years, Armenian and Azeri presidents signed under the “Declaration”. So what? There were always meetings and discussions on various levels, including presidents, over the past decade but nothing came out of the negotiations, for real. The only reason that today Armenian and Azeri presidents signed under the “Declaration” is because this was a meeting initiated by Russia, and (taking into account current geopolitical situation in the region) Russia had to show that it achieved some kind of ‘breakthrough’ even if there is none.

Disclosed: Madrid principles of Karabakh conflict settlement (updated!)

UPDATE (27 October 2008): Thanks to Ruben Muradyan who pointed out in the comments section below that the principles of Karabakh conflict settlement posted in this blog (with the reference to The Karabakh Deal blog) are in fact recommendations by the International Crisis Group. As I mentioned in comments section, they sounded very similar to what is allegedly referred to "Madrid principles". Also, Ter-Petrosyan's outline of "Madrid principles" during the rally which I copied an extract from in this post, was in line with that outline.

So here we are again. We still need to get access to the original document on "Madrid principles", which Serj Sargsyan said is available in Internet but which is impossible to find a genuine copy of.


OSCE Minsk Group Karabakh Conflict Report - Madrid

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan:

1. Agree before the 2008 elections on a document of basic principles making provision for:

(a) security guarantees and the deployment of international peacekeepers;

(b) withdrawal of Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh forces from all occupied territories adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh, with special modalities for Kelbajar and Lachin;

(c) return of displaced persons;

(d) Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status to be determined eventually by a vote, with an interim status to be settled on until that time; and

(e) reopening of all transport and trade routes.

More... (source: The Karabakh Deal)

Below is the extract from Armenia’s opposition leader, former president Levon Ter-Petrosyan speech during the latest rally listing the basic principles of the proposed Karabakh settlement.

“Thus, it is perfectly obvious that we are standing on the brink of a resolution to the Karabagh conflict. It is also beyond doubt that the Madrid proposal, which the Minsk Group gave to the parties in December, 2007, and which is based on the idea of reconciling two principles of international law – the right to national self-determination and the principle of inviolability of territorial integrity – will be the basis of the new proposal. As for the essence of the resolution or the specific program, it will consist of approximately the following points:

1. Withdrawal of Armenian forces from the Azerbaijani regions surrounding Nagorno-Karabagh;
2. Resettlement of these regions with Azerbaijani refugees;
3. Return of Azerbaijani refugees to the territory of Nagorno-Karabagh itself;
4. Provision of an overland link connecting Nagorno-Karabagh to Armenia through the Lachin corridor;
5. Deployment of peace-keeping forces on across the borders of Nagorno-Karabagh;
6. Demilitarization of the territories that have been returned to Azerbaijan;
7. Lifting of the blockade of Armenia’s and Karabagh’s external communications, and reopening of the Armenian-Turkish border;
8. Definition of an interim status for Nagorno-Karabagh Republic;
9. Conduct of a referendum on the final status of Nagorno-Karabagh in some undefined, future date;
10. Provision of international financial aid for the restoration of the conflict zone.”

As I said before, these principles (November/December 2007) look very similar to the phased version (September 1997) of the conflict settlement (except added Karabakh referendum part) over which Ter-Petrosyan was forced to resign in February 1998. Although many concerned about the lack of clarity related to the principles and the principles themselves, RFE/RL notes that Ter-Petrosyan “did not specify whether he thinks Yerevan should go along with them. He said only that the Armenian side should have the mediators clarify when proposed referendum would take place and who would administer it. Ter-Petrosian had earlier described those principles as largely acceptable and stressed the fact that they are similar to a peace plan which he had strongly advocated while in power.”

Armenian authorities: defeat after defeat on the foreign policy front

With illusive 'victories' (= self-deception) on domestic front, Armenian authorities suffer defeat after defeat on the foreign policy front.

Are we witnessing a complete failure of Armenian Ministry of Foreign Affairs? Do we still have one? Or is this a failure of authorities who lack trust and support of their people?

Russia, Armenia's strategic ally

Only few days after Armenia's incumbent president Serj Sargsyan visit to Moscow and meeting with his Russian counterpart Medvedev...

Guardian (3 July 2008): Medvedev used his meeting with Aliyev to make an unusually explicit statement of support for Azerbaijan in its dispute with its neighbour, Armenia, over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. [...] "The two sides underlined the importance of a speedy resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the basis of respect for ... sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of a state's borders," said a joint statement after the talks. Commenting after the talks on that statement, Aliyev said: "We are grateful to Russia for this position."

OSCE

PanARMENIAN.Net (3 July 2008): During its latest session in Astana, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) adopted Turkey’s motion which says that past events like genocide should be recognized only after historians carried out a detailed research in all kinds of archives, independent French journalist Jean Eckian told PanARMENIAN.Net. “Adoption of the Turkish thesis by the OSCE is a significant achievement against the Armenian allegations. Also, the Turkish thesis regarding the events of 1915 was adopted for the first time on an international platform. Armenia was the only among 56 OSCE member states to vote against the motion," said Alaattin Buyukkaya, head of the Turkish delegation to the OSCE PA."The motion says that the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly encourages formation of joint commission of historians and experts from the third countries in case of a research into political and military archives to scientifically and impartially enlighten a disputed period in history in an effort to serve transparency and common understanding among the member states," Buyukkaya added.

No surprises, especially after Armenia's incumbent president Serj Sargsyan's infamous remarks in Moscow (23 June 2008, via president.am): "The second issue I would like to speak about refers to Armenian-Turkish relations. Our position on the matter is distinct: there should be no closed borders between neighbor countries in the 21st century. Regional cooperation can be the best means for establishing stability. The Turkish side suggests forming a commission that would study the historic facts. We do not mind establishing that commission, but only when the border between our countries is opened. Otherwise, it can become a means of protracting the solution of the issue for many years. In the future I intend to undertake new steps to further the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. Most probably, I will invite Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul to Yerevan to watch the match between the national football teams of Armenia and Turkey."

PACE

While Armenian authorities were celebrating a 'victory' having avoided PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) sanctions till at least January 2009...

RFE/RL (25 June 2008): The resolution adopted on Tuesday [Unzipped - 24 June 2008] expressed serious concern at the “deteriorating” human rights situation in Azerbaijan and spelled out a “road-map” of urgent measures which the PACE believes should be taken ahead of the forthcoming Azerbaijani presidential election. The resolution linked the problem with the unresolved Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, saying that “sustainable democratic development will be extremely difficult in Azerbaijan as long as the country’s territorial integrity has not been restored.” The PACE also said it “takes note” of a recent UN General Assembly resolution that upheld Azerbaijani sovereignty over Karabakh and demanded an unconditional and immediate liberation of Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territories. Armenian members of the PACE strongly opposed these provisions and tried unsuccessfully to remove them from the text.

PACE: Extended deadline for Armenian authorities - January 2009

Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will approve tomorrow the Resolution extending a deadline for the Armenian authorities till January 2009 to fully comply with the PACE demands and Armenia’s European obligations. I personally consider this deadline way too long to meet 4 key demands: freedom of assembly; independent inquiry into 1 March events; release of political prisoners; and dialogue with the opposition. However, the wording of this document is pretty unpleasant for the Armenian authorities, and makes it clear that PACE will not get fooled by the imitation of reforms, or will it? Time will tell...

Regardless of PACE demands, what is clear is that there is urgent need for radical reforms and democracy in Armenia. I just cannot see any other alternative to it. And the urgency of releasing all political prisoners is as imminent as ever. Sooner the Armenian authorities will understand this, the better it will be for the country, and for the authorities themselves. I do not think a prospect of becoming a second 'Lukashenko' in Europe is particularly attractive for Serj Sargsyan administration.

Below is a summary of the Resolution, along with the selected excerpts on implementation of key European demands by the Armenian authorities. /emphasis mine/

Full text of the draft Resolution is available here

Summary
In Resolution 1609 (2008) on the functioning of democratic institutions in Armenia, the Parliamentary Assembly set out four concrete requirements for the resolution of the political crisis that ensued after the presidential election in Armenia and resolved to consider the possibility of suspending the voting rights of the Armenian delegation to the Assembly at the opening of the June 2008 part-session, if no considerable progress on the requirements was made by then.

In the present report, the Monitoring Committee welcomes the progress achieved by the Armenian authorities in addressing the Assembly demands but notes that, despite the political will expressed by the authorities, this progress is at present insufficient to meet the requirements outlined in Resolution 1609.

While regretting the delay in implementing the concrete measures to comply with the Assembly demands, the Monitoring Committee acknowledges that the time given to the Armenian authorities was short. It therefore proposes to the Assembly to review at its January 2009 part-session the extent of Armenia’s compliance with the requirements made in Resolution 1609.

If the requirements mentioned in Resolution 1609, as well as those set in the present draft resolution are not met by then, the Monitoring Committee proposes that the Assembly considers the possibility of suspending the voting rights of the Armenian delegation to the Assembly at the opening of its January 2009 part-session.
* * *

Freedom of assembly
The requirement that the 17 March amendments to the Law on Conducting Meetings, Assemblies, Rallies and Demonstrations be revoked in line with Venice Commission recommendations has therefore been met by the authorities. However, in article 8.4 of Resolution 1609, the Assembly demanded that freedom of assembly be guaranteed in both law and practice. The implementation of the law and the willingness of the authorities to allow opposition rallies without undue restrictions placed on them are therefore crucial to assessing Armenia’s compliance with this requirement of the Assembly.

Independent inquiry into 1 March events
The suggestion made in our previous report that this inquiry could be conducted under the aegis of the Human Rights Defender was, regrettably, not acceptable to the authorities. In our opinion, this is related to the Ad Hoc Report on the Presidential Elections and Post-Electoral developments which was published by the Human Rights Defender on 25 April 2008. In this report, he raises questions about the official version of the events of 1 March 2008 and he is highly critical of the response of the authorities towards the protests that ensued after the presidential election. [...]

The fact that 4 out of the 5 factions represented in parliament belong to the ruling coalition raises questions with regard to the possibility of the committee [Unzipped - newly established parliamentary committee for an inquiry into 1 March events] to conduct its inquiry independently and impartially. Opposition representatives raised concerns that, in practice, votes in the committee would be dominated by the ruling factions. Proposals by the opposition that the committee should be composed on the basis of parity between opposition and pro-government forces or, failing that, that the decisions in the committee should be taken on the basis of consensus, were rejected.

Invitations to provide experts to participate in the work of the inquiry committee were sent, inter alia, to the Council of Europe, the OSCE/ODIHR and the European Commission. We consider the participation of international experts essential to ensure the credibility of the inquiry. However, it is equally clear that international experts will only be willing to participate if the independence and impartiality of the inquiry committee is guaranteed.

Release of political prisoners
While we welcome the recent progress in meeting this requirement of the Assembly, we cannot consider that it has so far been satisfactorily met. The cases still under investigation should be either closed or transmitted to the courts with immediate effect. The cases against those principally accused of crimes under Articles 300 and 225 should be dropped unless there is strong evidence that these persons have personally committed acts of violence. In addition, it should be clear that a verdict based solely on a single police testimony, without corroborating evidence or independent witnesses’ testimonies, cannot be acceptable.

OSCE/ODIHR publishes final assessment on Armenia's presidential election

WARSAW, 30 May 2008 - The pre-election and voting period of Armenia's presidential election was conducted in a manner that mostly met OSCE commitments, but problems arose, notably after the vote, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) said in a final report on the February election, released today.

"While the 2008 presidential election mostly met OSCE commitments and international standards in the pre-election period and during voting hours, serious challenges to some commitments did emerge, especially after election day," the report says.

"This displayed an insufficient regard for standards essential to democratic elections and devalued the overall election process. In particular, the vote count demonstrated deficiencies of accountability and transparency, and complaints and appeals procedures were not fully effective."

The ODIHR monitored the February presidential election with 44 long-term and 250 short-term observers from over 40 OSCE participating States. The report assesses the electoral process for compliance with OSCE commitments, other international standards and national legislation.

"There is a sound legal basis for holding democratic elections in Armenia - the deficiencies noted in our report resulted primarily from a lack of determination to apply existing laws and rules effectively and impartially," said Ambassador Christian Strohal, Director of the ODIHR.

"Improving Armenia's electoral framework does not require so much further technical or legal changes, but rather a genuine commitment by the authorities at all levels, as well as all other political stakeholders, to a democratic electoral process free of undue State interference and in line with OSCE standards."

The report makes concrete recommendations on how to improve Armenia's election framework. These include measures to address the lack of public confidence in the electoral process, to ensure that all citizens are able to cast their votes free of coercion or intimidation, and to establish a clear separation between State structures and the ruling party.

*source: OSCE/ODHIR press release; /emphasis mine/

Armenian presidential election - the biggest scandal in the Council of Europe

Russian Kommersant daily reports:

Yesterday the PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) spring session opened in Strasbourg. First the delegates discussed the recent Russian presidential election, unanimously acknowledging it unfair and unjust, and even tried to find measures to be taken against Russia. Nonetheless one shouldn’t rule out the possibility of taking measures against Armenia before it comes to Russia: Yesterday the presidential election in that country caused a big scandal in the PACE.

Row over Armenia

The biggest yesterday’s scandal concerned discussing the situation in Armenia. During the morning session, Britain’s John Prescott, ex-Deputy Prime Minister in Tony Blair’s government, delivered his report on the recent presidential election in Armenia, which was even less critical than that on Russia’s election. Mr Prescott stated that it complied with the standards of the Council of Europe. The lack of criticism about Armenia though roused the indignation of several delegates.

Hungary’s Zsolt Németh reminded that the Armenian election resulted in civil unrest, with 9 people killed. “The Council of Europe legitimizes the anti-democratic policy of the Armenian government! If we are unable to influence or change anything, let’s give up the practice of sending observers there! We need a thorough evaluation of the monitor missions,” claimed the excited Mr Németh.

Sweden’s Marietta Purbe-Lundin, member of the PACE mission to Armenia, described emotionally that in her presence vote fraud took place. “Hundreds of ballots for Levon Ter-Petrosyan were rendered to be for Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan. The members of the electoral commission were aware of what they were doing and that I saw it, but they were far from embarrassed. There were Mr Sargsyan’s observers at the polling station, who so much threatened everyone there – my interpreter begged me not to make any remarks to them. I was so frustrated that couldn’t get a wink of sleep that night,” the parliamentarian complained.

Azerbaijan’s Samad Seidov was even more critical of Armenia, “Mr Prescott says that the Armenian election complies with the standards of the Council of Europe. What does he mean? Have murders become the standards of the Council of Europe? Here 9 people killed were mentioned, but no one recollected those died in jail, or thousands of political prisoners, including the members of the Armenian Parliament. Why is the world so closely watching the situation in Tibet, paying no attention to the arbitrariness in Armenia?”

Nevertheless, John Prescott and several other observers stated that the critics of Armenia’s election were too emotional and biased, whereas there were no shocking facts of electoral fraud registered.

All in all, the dispute is sure to continue. It was decided in the morning that ad hoc debates on Armenia be held Thursday, which means that the majority of the delegates rather disagree with the positive conclusions of Mr Prescott. More to the point, Russia’s representatives told Kommersant that the question of overhauling and confirming the credentials of the Armenian delegation might be raised during one of the forthcoming PACE sessions.

Levon Ter-Petrosyan: Europe's double standards

*English version

(in Armenian, via Zhamanak)

Լեւոն Տեր-Պետրոսյան. Եվրոպայի երկակի չափորոշիչները

Նախագահության նախկին թեկնածու Լեւոն Տեր-Պետրոսյանը դժգոհություն է հայտնել եվրոպացի դիտորդների պահվածքից: «Կոմերսանտ» թերթին տված հարցազրույցում նա պնդել է, թե եվրոպացիները իրենց երկրներում չէին հանդուրժի նույնը, ինչ հանդուրժում են Հայաստանում: «Մի պարզ հարց տամ՝ եթե ձերբակալվեին տիկին Քլինթոնի 50 կողմնակիցներ կամ պարոն Սարկոզիի 50 կողմնակիցներ, ի՞նչ կկատարվեր Միացյալ Նահանգներում եւ Ֆրանսիայում: Այնտեղ դա անթույլատրելի է: Իսկ այստեղ կարելի է: Այնտեղ եվրոպացիները նման բան թույլ չեն տա: Իսկ այստեղ թույլ են տալիս: Եթե գոյություն ունեն չափանիշներ, ապա դրանք գոյություն ունեն բոլորի համար: Այն, ինչ չի հանդուրժվում Եվրոպայում, չպետք է հանդուրժվի նաեւ այստեղ: Այդ պատճառով էլ մենք դժգոհ ենք դիտորդների դիրքորոշումից», - ասել է Լեւոն Տեր-Պետրոսյանը: «Ստացվում է այսպես՝ ժամանում են եվրոպացիները եւ օրինականացնում են անօրինական ընտրությունները: ԵԱՀԿ-ն եւ Եվրախորհուրդը՝ մեր կազմակերպություններն են, մենք դրանց լիիրավ անդամն ենք: Մեր կառավարությունները դրանց նկատմամբ պարտավորություններ ունեն, բայց այդ կազմակերպություններն էլ մեր ժողովուրդների նկատմամբ պարտավորություններ ունեն: Եվ մենք պահանջում ենք, որ դրանք կատարվեն», - փաստել է Հայաստանի առաջին նախագահը: «Կոմերսանտ»-ի թղթակցի հարցին, թե ի՞նչ կլիներ, եթե մարտի 1-ին Լեւոն Տեր-Պետրոսյանը չմնար իր առանձնատանը եւ գնար ֆրանսիական դեսպանատան մոտ հավաքված ցուցարարների մոտ, նախագահության նախկին թեկնածուն պատասխանել է. «Ի՞նչ կլիներ: Կսպանեին: Նրանց հենց դա էլ պետք էր: Հետո դա կվերագրեին ինչ-որ խուլիգանների: Կասեին, թե մի քանի հոգի, որոնք ինձանից դժգոհ էին, սպանեցին ինձ: Եվ դա ավելի շատ կապակայունացներ իրադրությունը», - եզրափակել է Լեւոն Տեր-Պետրոսյանը:

OSCE Post-Election Interim Report on the 19 February 2008 Presidential Election in Armenia

This report has just been released. It does not contain any assessment on conduct or results of the election (leaving it perhaps for the final report) but rather focuses on recording events and reported irregularities during the monitored period (20 February - 3 March). However, it does state that "the final assessment of the election depends, in part, on the conduct of the remaining stages of the election process, including the tabulation and announcement of final results and the handling of possible post-election day complaints or appeals."

OSCE/ODIHR election observation mission report covering the period 20 February - 3 March 2008

On 20 February, the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), comprising the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA), the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the European Parliament (EP), issued a joint Statement of Preliminary Findings and Conclusions. This statement reported that the 19 February presidential election “was administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards. The high-State authorities made genuine efforts to address shortcomings noted in previous elections, including the legal framework, and repeatedly stated their intention to conduct democratic elections. However, further improvements and commensurate political will are required to address remaining challenges such as: the absence of a clear separation between State and party functions, the lack of public confidence in the electoral process and ensuring equal treatment of election contestants. The conduct of the count did not contribute to reducing an existing suspicion amongst election stakeholders.”

The statement signalled that the final assessment of the election depends, in part, on the conduct of the remaining stages of the election process, including the tabulation and announcement of final results and the handling of possible post-election day complaints or appeals. From 20 February, the OSCE/ODIHR Election Observation Mission (EOM) has continued its observation of the post-election process.

This interim report should be read in conjunction with pre-election interim reports, as well as the statement of preliminary findings and conclusions. The OSCE/ODIHR will issue a comprehensive final report, including recommendations, approximately two months after full completion of the election process.

I. SUMMARY
• On 20 February, the Central Election Commission (CEC) announced preliminary results indicating that Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan had won the election. The second placed candidate, Levon Ter-Petrossian, made accusations of widespread election falsification and claimed that he had won the election.

• Demonstrations against the conduct of the election were held repeatedly and remained peaceful until 1 March when police dispersed the demonstrators. Subsequent clashes between demonstrators and the police and military turned violent resulting in fatalities and injuries, and President Kocharian declared a state of emergency. On 26 February, Serzh Sargsyan offered to collaborate with the other presidential candidates.

• Results from 135 Precinct Election Commissions (PECs) were recounted by Territorial Election Commissions (TECs). OSCE/ODIHR observers noted shortcomings in the recount process, including discrepancies and mistakes, some of which raise questions over the impartiality of the PECs and TECs concerned.

• On 24 February, the CEC declared that Mr. Sargsyan had won the election with 52.8 per cent of the vote; Mr. Ter-Petrossian received 21.5 per cent and Arthur Baghdasaryan 16.7 per cent. Two of the eight CEC members did not sign the official protocol of results.

• Results data published for all PECs on the CEC website revealed some anomalies at specific PECs, including implausibly high voter turnout; results for Mr. Sargsyan in excess of 99 per cent of the vote; and a very high incidence of invalid ballots in some PECs, especially in Yerevan.

• The OSCE/ODIHR EOM received information that complaints had not been accepted by PECs on election day. In the post election period, the CEC received several complaints; its handling of these did not provide complainants with an effective remedy and raises concern about its commitment to ensure the protection of citizens’ electoral rights.

• During the post-election period, the main broadcast media, including public television and radio, provided extensive coverage of the views of the authorities but rarely aired the views of those who raised concerns regarding the conduct of the 19 February poll.

Full report is available here

John Prescott's "peacemaking mission" in Armenia

When I told someone in London that John Prescott, UK former deputy prime minister, is coming to Yerevan (as a member of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly) to mediate “peace” and defuse Armenia’s political crisis, the answer was quick and straightforward: “You’d rather not want him coming to Armenia”, implying that it is not a good sign that he is chosen to lead “peacemaking mission” and he would most probably fail if not mess up the situation. Do not forget that he was heading PACE’s observation mission in Armenia for presidential election.

And here is how one of Britain’s satirical publications reacted to this news with the headline - John Prescott Wields His Peacemaker In Armenia – and photo (below) of “John Prescott using his peacemaker”.


*see also here

International observer’s first hand account on vote fraud and cover-up in Armenia

Frank Lavoie became an observer under the umbrella of the OSCE observer mission via US embassy in Yerevan. It was 10 years ago, in 1998, for incumbent president Robert Kocharyan’s first election. This report (below) is a very candid and detailed account of state level election fraud machine in Armenia. 10 years on - nothing has changed. Actually, thing did change, indeed. They became more violent, and as Frank Lavoie points out, “the election fraud is covered up better”. Read it, you won’t regret it. You will get a miniature and less violent picture of what happened in polling stations on 19 February 2008, during Armenia’s presidential ‘election’ which eventually resulted in bloodshed.

“It is impossible to find out what has actually transpired in Armenia since the crackdown began because Kocharian has created a complete news black out by suspending all freedom of the press and blocking outside news media.

However, the issue that started the conflict has been overlooked: the fraudulent election. I believe that the election was indeed faked. I base this on my first hand account of being an election observer for Kocharian's first election back in 1998, when he was Prime Minister and the government candidate. I am sure things have not changed much since then, except that each year the election fraud is covered up better.” More....

I also posted it in full under the comments section below.

Ban on independent news coverage in Armenia is contrary to OSCE commitments, says OSCE media freedom representative

VIENNA, 4 March 2008 - The OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Miklos Haraszti, called on Armenian authorities today to lift restrictions on independent news reporting that have been in place since the state of emergency was declared on 1 March.

"The state of emergency should not be used by the government to take away the public's right to news from diverse sources. Pluralistic reporting helps ensure transparency of governmental action even in dire times," said Haraszti.

He was referring to Armenian President Robert Kocharian's state of emergency decree of 1 March, under which the media may cite only official sources when reporting on national politics. As a result, the public is presented with one view of events only.

The non-state broadcast media has been limited to re-airing official news and programmes. Several independent and opposition websites have been blocked, and foreign radio and television coverage on Armenia has been restricted.

In protest against the restrictions, some major Armenian newspapers did not publish editions today.

"Notwithstanding the wave of unsanctioned demonstrations and even violence, independent reporting on the events is the legitimate right of the media, to which Armenia has commited itself in the OSCE," said Haraszti.

"The existing legal provisions against incitement to violence should be sufficient to tackle any potential misuse of speech rights, and should not be replaced by pre-emptive censorship."

*source

EU diplomacy not working so far, OSCE will issue "far more critical" interim report over Armenian elections

Heikki Talvitie, a special envoy for the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), flew into Yerevan on Sunday night and met Kocharyan and Sarksyan for talks that resumed on Monday.

[...] Neither side has shown any willingness to back down, with opposition leader and former president Levon Ter-Petrosyan pledging to continue protests and Sarksyan promising to punish trouble makers.

"Organisers of disturbances will answer before the law, history and generations," Sarksyan said in a statement after meeting Talvitie.

[...] But a Western diplomat said another OSCE report on the election this week would be far more critical.

"Since the election there has been a lot more information coming out of stuffing ballot boxes and bribery," he said.

*source - Reuters

Levon Ter-Petrosyan: Ruling regime went for violent crackdown of opposition movement in Armenia to prevent Constitutional Court decision over election

According to Russia’s Kommersant newspaper reporter who was present at his press conference, Armenia’s first president Levon Ter-Petrosyan harshly criticised European election monitoring missions (OSCE/ODHIR) for their initial ‘mainly positive’ assessment of presidential elections in Armenia, despite evidence of blatant fraud, violence and irregularities. Levon Ter-Petrosyan consider current political situation in Armenia as continuation of post-election process, and European observers’ initial positive assessment of elections was instrumental in current dramatic escalation of events.

Levon Ter-Petrosyan believes that ruling regime went for violent crackdown of opposition movement in Armenia in order to prevent very possible Constitutional Court ruling to annul Central Election Commission decision over presidential election (which grants victory to prime minister Serj Sargsyan).

In relation to overnight violence in Yerevan, Ter-Petrosyan said that it would not have happened if they allowed him to join the rally and speak to people. He would have suggested thousands of spontaneous protesters to start marching and take people to other place, which would calm things down. Not only Armenian authorities did not release him from his ‘house arrest’ but they also used “agent provocateurs” to escalate the situation and provoke clashes and other provocations (looting etc.)

*based on Radio Liberty broadcast

Full-blown credibility crisis for OSCE/ODIHR observers over election monitoring in Armenia

Election observers from OSCE/ODIHR played an instrumental role in mounting political crisis in Armenia as tools in hands of ruling regime to obtain much needed international legitimacy not due to fair elections but by positive headline of OSCE/ODIHR statement issued shortly after the preliminary results were announced. Armenian civil society and ordinary people were shocked and outraged by discrepancies between what they’ve witnessed and reported during ‘elections’ and what observers stated in their headline message of “mainly in line.” What I think about their shameful ‘mission’ – here, here and here.

It seems now that huge mass protests in Armenia’s capital Yerevan lead to a “full-blown credibility crisis” for OSCE/ODIHR election monitoring mission, as reported by Jean-Christophe Peuch of EurasiaNet:

"A controversial election-monitoring mission in Armenia has plunged the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights into a full-blown credibility crisis. Already under attack from member states that are hostile to ODIHR’s democratization mandate, the Warsaw-based office is now facing harsh criticism from civil society advocates.

[…] ODIHR is also coming under attack from opposition groupings in former Soviet states, which condemn the Warsaw office for failing to publicly expose election fraud, thus contributing to the consolidation of what they describe as authoritarian or semi-authoritarian regimes. In addition, recent monitoring reports that have glossed over instances of blatant fraud have also stoked a sense of chagrin among international civil society activists.

Recent elections in the Southern Caucasus region encapsulate ODIHR’s problems.

On January 5, Georgia’s incumbent leader Mikheil Saakashvili won a second five-year term with 53.5 percent of the vote. On February 19, Armenia’s Prime Minister and government candidate Serzh Sarkisian was elected president with nearly 53 percent of the vote. By obtaining just over 50 percent of the vote, Saakashvili and Sarkisian both avoided presidential run-offs against the second-place finishers in the respective elections.

Election observers from ODIHR, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the European Parliament concluded in a joint statement that both ballots were “mostly in line with international commitments” made by the respective governments of Georgia and Armenia, but that “significant challenges” needed to be urgently addressed.

Opposition candidates in both countries denounced the elections results were fraudulent and called upon their supporters to take to the streets. Thousands of antigovernment protesters have been demonstrating in Yerevan over the past week, while in Georgia, a lackluster popular response prompted the opposition to temporarily shelve plans for a nationwide hunger strike.

On February 20, Armenia’s leading opposition candidate Levon Ter-Petrosian said he was holding international observers partially responsible for the falsification he claimed took place on Election Day.

Recounts of selected electoral districts in Armenia found some cases of gross instances of fraud that either election monitors missed, or, for whatever reason, did not report on.

Finnish Foreign Minister Ilkka Kanerva, who currently holds the rotating chairmanship of the OSCE, held talks with Armenian officials in Yerevan on February 26. An OSCE statement issued after the meetings quoted Kanerva as calling upon the government and the opposition to solve their dispute through dialog, but made no mention of the arrests of political figures who have declared their support for Ter-Petrosian.

[…] Kanerva expressed particular concern about the situation in Yerevan, where protests calling for the annulment of the February 19 election results were in the eighth day. “After discussions with [Armenian] politicians … I’m not totally convinced about the future,” Kanerva said. “The most important thing is for peace and that there will be no violence.” […] "

Armenian NGOs condemn

STATEMENT

We, the undersigned civil society organizations, express our deep concern with the pre-election period, the election campaign and the post-election processes in the country. The assessment of international observers, even though portrayed in a positive light by the government and the government controlled media, was critical. However, the apparent discrepancy between the actual findings of the assessment with the formative first two sentences of the report resulted in the government only referring to this paragraph in the international observers’ assessment in order to legitimize the results of the election. Meanwhile, in the report, international observers pointed out to media censorship, intimidation of voters, vote buying, etc. and called vote count ‘bad’ or ‘very bad’ in 16 percent of polling stations visited. Qualifying such practices as a “step forward” and in line with the commitments to hold free and fair elections discredits the notion of democracy and further lowers the standards of democratic reforms.

A number of undersigned organizations observed the elections during the voting day as well as the process prior and post February 19. The instances of violations are numerous and are documented in our reports.

We are particularly concerned with the Freedom of Media/Access to Media, Violence, Corruption and Use of Administrative Resources, Arrests of Public Figures.

One of the main points that the OSCE/ODHIR observation mission made in its interim report concerned the need to establish public trust in the electoral process. Deep rooted mistrust and often-referred-to public apathy is nothing else but self-preservation reaction of the Armenian people vs. the atmosphere of impunity for those who perpetrated electoral fraud in all past elections. The processes taking place after the elections are alarming and will definitely deepen the public distrust.

We believe that as long as electoral fraud goes uninvestigated and unpunished, there will be no trust in the process and in the legal and judicial system.

We believe that only through open and widely inclusive public discussion over the above stated problems and violations it is possible to foster the atmosphere of trust and public confidence.

In view of the above, we state that this election was not held in correspondence with our understanding of democratic values and practices.

We believe that the way the authorities handle the fraud will be indicative of the honest determination to abide by the rules of democratic free and fair elections.

We call upon the international community to see through the commitment of the Armenian government to comply with the procedure and to require documentation of proper investigation and due punishment of those who violated the law.

We call upon the Armenian government to stop politically motivated detentions. These are not calls for impunity, but a call for the government to set the example for the Armenian people and to act within the law.

We call upon the international community to make objective conclusions based on their own findings and not to discredit the notion of democracy, democratic standards and principles, as well as the international organizations carrying out an observation mission.

Signatories

Committee to Protect Freedom of Expression
Helsinki Committee of Armenia
Helsinki Citizens Assembly Vanadzor Branch
“Asparez” Journalists’ Club
“Internews-Armenia” Media Support NGO
Media Diversity Institute
Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation-Armenia
Transparency International Anti-corruption Center
Yerevan Press Club

*source

Carte blanche to Armenian authorities?

I feel very weird today. I have this feeling that the authorities will violently break down people’s protests, very soon. They will ‘create’ provocations whether from inside or outside the opposition movement, and then will come to ‘restore order’ or something like that.

Now that the international community in face of EU and previously hesitated US “congratulated” Armenian people for ‘elections’, they (EU/US) effectively gave carte blanche to authorities to act, suggesting that they will put blind eye on their actions. It is obvious that EU/US have so many ‘more important’ issues and disagreements with Russia, that they won’t like to be involved in Armenian affairs too, thus upsetting Russia even more. International community proved once more that they too, if it is within their interests, can be happy with “virtual reality” (just like our Public TV). They do not give a s**t about democracy, human rights…

If we witness bloodshed or violence in Armenia, there will be blood on EU’s and US’s hands too.

U.S. expresses concern over Armenia's presidential vote count

In what could be considered a significant change of tone from that of OSCE observers' press conference, US sends a signal of serious discontent with the conduct of Armenian presidential elections. Ironically, as a basis of their "concerns", they pointed out evidence from OSCE initial report. It's becoming kind of a 'norm' for OSCE monitoring missions: they detail serious irregularities within the report, but as a headline statement deliver somewhat 'positive message' of "mostly in line with international standards". However, it must be noted that even OSCE stopped short of calling Armenian elections "free and fair."

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 (Xinhua) - The United States expressed concern on Wednesday over alleged report of problems in the vote count in Armenia's presidential election.

A report by election observers led by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) called the election "mostly in line with international standards," according to State Department official Edgar Vazquez.

However, "We are concerned by some elements of the report, including a description of the vote-count as 'bad' or 'very bad' in 15 percent of the polling stations observed by the OSCE-led overseers," Vazquez said.

Vazquez also called on all parties in the country to remain peaceful and refrain from violence.

Vazquez made the comments after the Central Electoral Commission (CEC) of Armenia announced Wednesday that Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan won the presidential election by securing 52.86 percent of ballots in preliminary results from all 1923 polling stations.

Election monitors, like polls: Do we trust them?

International election observers, particularly those from various European structures, used to be considered by people living in countries which struggle with the establishment of democratic institutions as an important tool to limit potential electoral fraud and to grant legitimacy to those who got elected, be that President or MP.

However, recent developments in the region and particularly Georgia, cast serious doubts on political motivations of observers’ decisions. Well, there was always a suspicion of it, but what happened in Georgia was so blatant that could lead to serious breach of credibility towards the whole system.

Immediately after the Georgian presidential elections, they declared that the elections ‘generally met standards’, thus giving so much desired legitimacy to Georgian president Saakashvili. Then, soon after they published a report detailing serious irregularities, which under any other circumstances should have cast serious doubts on the conduct of election. And now a senior US representative in the region Matthew Bryza, who previously endorsed the elections, warns that Georgian elections could not be considered as a good example for others. So why did not they shout about before? Why now, when their “concerns” do not worth a penny? Was it because of Saakashvili’s “pro-Western” status? Rhetorical question, indeed.

We are just 2 weeks away from presidential elections in Armenia. What happened in Georgia has already seriously damaged observers’ reputation. In order for observers to regain it, they have to behave like proper independent observers, regardless of vague “pro-Russian” or “pro-Western” labels. Their preliminary conclusion, which is normally made the day after the election, should not differ substantially from final one. If they are not sure, they’d rather wait few more days and then declare their findings which are very important in terms of acceptance and legitimacy of the results. Otherwise, they risk equalling their reputation to that of polls in Armenia. Nothing could be more damaging.

P.S. On a kind of bizarre note, via Reporter_arm, below is a clip with John Prescott, head of PACE observation mission in Armenia for upcoming presidential election. During his own election campaign in Britain back in 2001, he (then deputy prime minister) actually punched one protester who threw eggs towards him.