Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Speech of Levon Ter-Petrosyan at the Rally of 1 May, 2009

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Speech of Levon Ter-Petrosyan at the Rally of 1 May, 2009

    CRITICAL JUNCTURE

    (The Speech of Levon Ter-Petrosyan at the Rally of 1 May, 2009)

    Dear Compatriots:

    First, I would like to congratulate you and our entire nation on the
    International Day of Worker's Solidarity, the relevance of which has
    particularly increased with the sad reality Armenia currently finds
    itself in.

    Exactly two months have passed since the rally on 1 March,
    which is not a long period, but it has been one filled with many
    significant processes and events, the following four of which I want to
    bring to your attention:

    The deterioration of the socio-economic situation;
    The wrecking of the `case of seven';
    The deepening of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue;
    Preparations for the elections of the mayor of Erevan.
    What I will do below is attempt to present the positions of the
    Armenian National Congress regarding each of them in as brief a space
    as possible.


    The Socio-Economic Situation


    As we had predicted during the 1 March rally, great trials
    awaited the country's economy, especially as a result of the impending
    danger that the dram would be devaluated. In particular, I had
    mentioned in my speech: `Very soon the government will have to abandon
    the policy of the artificial preservation of the fixed rate of the
    dram. Meanwhile, the dram will be depreciated not=2
    0gradually, as it
    happened with the Russian ruble, but, simply, as a result of a
    galloping drop.' The plunge happened two days after the rally, i.e. on
    3 March, revealing the bankrupt, if not criminal, nature of the policy
    pursued by the government and the Central Bank. Up to that point the
    authorities were assuring the public that the dram had a floating,
    rather than a fixed exchange rate, which proved to be a complete lie,
    since a currency with a floating exchange rate does not lose 30% of its
    value in one day. It became clear also that the $800 million from the
    reserves of the Central Bank had been spent not so much for shoring up
    the dram's exchange rate, but for a completely different purpose. That
    sum, as well as the hard currency that has been collected as the public
    was exchanging it for the local currency, has wound up in the accounts
    of bankers, high officials and oligarchs, which cannot be characterized
    as anything but a plunder of our national wealth in broad daylight.

    The authorities are now expressing their satisfaction that
    following the plunge on 3 March, the exchange rate of the dram has
    stabilized. But it is not clear why they are forgetting that as a
    result of the drop in the dram's exchange rate and the subsequent hike
    in the prices caused by it, there has been an approximately 30%
    decrease in the population's living standards.
    Relying on the
    iron-tight logic of the government, we can even consider the
    stabilization perfect if we take into account the very significant
    facts that in the first quarter of this year there was a negative
    growth of 6.1%, while the tax revenue has constituted only 40% of the
    number envisioned by the budget. One more stabilization like that and
    people will find themselves in the grip of total poverty. Although now
    the dram indeed has a floating exchange rate, it is also not clear why
    it is floating in one direction only ` toward increasing and continuing
    loss of value. That can only mean that no economic stabilization can be
    achieved in the near future. We should not forget that the banks have
    found themselves in an extremely difficult situation because of the
    losses they have incurred for loans in drams, and because of the
    difficulties that have arisen in the repayments of the loans in
    dollars. Inevitably, these problems are going to bankrupt some of the
    banks, and as a result of that, the dram is going to lose much more of
    its value.

    As a result of the devaluation of the dram and the increase
    in prices the Armenian economy is confronted with yet another alarming
    problem, which is the shrinking of the volume of trade and the
    resultant sharp decrease in the tax revenue. The budget has become
    nothing more than a piece of paper, and the government is operating
    on
    the basis of the most elementary bookkeeping instead of that law, which
    means that on any given day it spends as much as it collects, barely
    being able to cover the operational expenses of the government and to
    pay the salaries of its employees. The catastrophic decrease in the tax
    revenue has forced the authorities to tighten the administration of tax
    collection, to encourage arbitrariness on the part of the tax and duty
    collection agencies, using also the courts as an instrument for the
    same purpose. As in the past, the tax burden thus continues to fall
    disproportionately on the shoulders of the small and medium size
    businesses, which are teetering on the brink of bankruptcy even without
    that problem. Serge Sargsyan himself confessed during his last
    press-conference that the big business continues to evade taxes. If it
    was a sincere confession, it would have given hope that the situation
    would improve. But as long as Sargsyan occupies the post of the
    president, the big business will continue to evade taxes, because the
    latter is the most reliable base of his kleptocratic regime and the
    source of his personal enrichment.

    Expressions of social discontent particularly in the ranks
    of taxi drivers, employees of open-air and retail markets have
    sharpened significantly in the period after the 1 March rally. Soon
    they may be joined by the unemployed and employees, whose salaries are
    paid from the state budget. These expressions are so far spontaneous
    and unorganized, but if their problems are not solved satisfactorily,
    they threaten to cause serious turmoil. The authorities are myopically
    trying to suppress these expressions of social discontent by
    intimidation and police operations, which is a very dangerous and
    counterproductive approach. Meanwhile, it was their duty to do the
    exact opposite, i.e. instead of strangling that discontent in its
    embryonic stage, hoping that it will not spread; they should have made
    an effort to solve the problems that have afflicted the owners of small
    and medium size businesses and the salaried employees. The state cannot
    wash its hands off the relations between the employers and the
    employees, between holders and renters of property. It is its duty to
    intervene actively and to monitor those relations. One could object
    that the laws are sufficient for managing those relations. But the
    whole problem is that conflicts arise because of violations of those
    laws, because of the arbitrariness of the officials, and because of the
    all-consuming corruption. If the state refrains from taking up that
    responsibility, tomorrow it will be done by unions, which, as a result
    of the state's passivity will form, then gain in strength, because
    there is no other way of protecting the workers' interests. Taking into
    account the importance of this issue and the imperative of avoiding
    social
    turmoil, the Armenian National Congress is ready to extend
    consulting and legal support for the formation of independent trade
    unions. We have declared many times that the creation of civil society
    in Armenia is the main goal of the Congress, and trade unions are one
    of the most important components of it.


    The Inglorious End of the Case of Seven


    Even though the Armenian National Congress has issued a special
    statement regarding this problem on 2 April of this year, I do not
    think it is unnecessary to explicate the importance of that significant
    event once again in front of this large audience. To understand the
    essence of the so-called `case of seven' (in reality in should be `case
    of eleven'), we should first try to understand why the case had been
    initiated. There can be no doubt that the goal was to prove to the
    world that the opposition was trying to take over with the use of
    violence, which then would justify the authorities' response, which
    included opening fire on peaceful protesters, murdering ten people, and
    the declaration of the state of emergency. Accordingly, the court had
    been instructed to wrap up the case quickly and to render the
    stipulated verdict, which would confirm the official version of the
    events of 1 March. However, because of the perseverance of the popular
    movement, the courageous stance of the political prisoners, the
    competent strategy of the defense lawyers, as well as the intervention
    of the international organizations, that goal was stillborn. To save
    face, the authorities were forced to make serious changes in the
    criminal code, then to reformulate the charges on the bases of those
    changes and to dissolve the case into several cases.

    With that, and particularly with the revoking of the charge
    under Article 300 of the Criminal Code, the authorities in effect
    confessed that the `case of seven' was fabricated from the start and
    that there has been no usurpation or even an attempt at usurpation of
    power by the opposition. Separating the case of the murders, meanwhile,
    amounts to a confession that the opposition's actions had nothing to do
    with them. Thus the official version of the events of 1 March has
    finally gone up in smoke, and what we are left with is the blood
    chilling crime committed by the authorities themselves, every detail of
    which is going to be revealed sooner or later.

    A question then arises as to what motivated the inadequate,
    or actually barbaric, behavior of the authorities on 1 March. Perhaps
    the mass disturbances organized by the opposition, which is what the
    reformulated charge against the aforementioned seven individuals is?
    Not only the fact of charging seven individuals as separate organizers
    of the same mass disturbance is a legal ignorance or downright absurd,
    there can be no doubt that these separated cases are going to have the
    same fate as the `mother case,' because no representative of the
    opposition has so far been charged with committing violent acts,
    burning cars or looting shops personally. Even if the court succeeds in
    issuing verdicts violating the law, these cases are going to go up in
    smoke in the European court.

    As for who organized the mass disturbances, the burning of
    cars, and the looting of shops, I have spoken about it in front of a
    smaller audience during the first convention of the Armenian National
    Congress on 21 December 2008, stating in particular the following:
    `Based on information from reliable sources, we have determined that
    the burning of cars, the looting of shops, and other provocations on 1
    March have been carried out by certain gangs, which have had 950
    members between them. These gangs were formed, equipped, and put under
    the command of a center that was coordinating their activities by five
    high-ranking officials and four oligarchs.... The central office of the
    Armenian National Congress has made all the evidence about that
    available to the Fact-finding Group, to the Commissioner on Human
    Rights of the Council of Europe Thomas Hammarberg, and several foreign
    ambassadors stationed in Armenia.' The credibility of this information
    is confirmed by the fact that the Armenian authorities have
    categorically forbidden the Fact-finding Group to conduct an inspection
    at a Defense Ministry warehouse, which has provided the clothing to the
    aforementioned gangs. Respecting the confidentiality of the work of the
    Fact-finding Group, we will refrain from making the names of the
    leaders of those gangs public for now. These people are still holding
    high offices and influential economic positions. There should be no
    doubt that the day will come when we will make those names public, and
    everybody is going to see the sort of despicable criminals, who are
    holding the fate of Armenia and the Armenian nation in their hands.


    Armenian-Turkish Relations


    The unprecedented shifts in the Armenian-Turkish relations that we see
    today deserve a special assessment since they concern one of the most
    vital issues of the development of the Armenian statehood. I should
    stress immediately that with the exception of one of its
    member-organizations, the Armenian National Congress is in favor of a
    speedy normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations, and is ready to
    support all the positive steps of the Armenian authorities with regard
    to this issue. We only object to the creation of a special commission
    of Armenian and Turkish historians to study the Genocide, which we
    think can only mean denial of the Armenian Genocide.

    Now let us see how the aforementioned shifts are manifested. It is
    clear that as a result of the contacts between Armenian and Turkish
    diplomats a working document has been created, which contains the
    following items:

    - The establishment of diplomatic relations between Armenia and
    Turkey;

    - Mutual recognition of borders;

    - Opening of the Armenian-Turkish border;

    - Creation of a commission consisting of Armenian and Turkish
    historians.

    Subsequently this document was branded a `roadmap,' and some of its
    details were made public. Whatever its name, it seems that we are
    dealing with a serious intention to normalize the relations between the
    two states, especially when we take into account the impression that
    Turkey seems to have relinquished its unconstructive policy of making
    the resolution of the Karabakh conflict a precondition for the
    normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations. But there are two issues
    that are casting a dark shadow over that impression. The idea of a
    commission of Armenian and Turkish historians was obviously going to
    create certain difficulties for the Armenian side, so in the end it has
    succeeded in renaming the commission as intergovernmental. But that is
    only a way of pulling a veil over the issue and using a euphemism that
    intends to placate the Armenian people, because the intergovernmental
    commission is also going to have a unit of historians, which leaves the
    essence of the problem unchanged. The Turkish side also cannot ignore
    the pressure from the Azerbaijani public and its own opposition, and
    therefore it is going to have to return to its prior position. In other
    words, despite the optimistic predictions, the relations between
    Armenia and Turkey are not going to get normalized and the
    Armenian-Turkish border is not going to be opened as long as tangible
    progress has been made in the efforts to resolve the Karabakh conflict.

    We have to wonder then what the purpose of all this noise was.
    Unfortunately, the answer to that question is going to have a bitter
    taste for the Armenian people. The whole problem is that aside from the
    general disposition to normalize the relations, Turkey had another
    minimal and specific aim, which was to prevent the recognition of the
    Armenian Genocide by the US President Barak Obama and the American
    Congress at any cost. Turkey has reached its goal, Armenia has been
    left empty-handed, and the Diaspora has been disillusioned. The first
    half of the football diplomacy has ended with a score of 1:0 in
    Turkey's favor.

    Turkish leaders presented Barak Obama with the aforementioned document
    worked out by Armenian and Turkish diplomats, and as could be expected,
    easily convinced him that serious process has been launched to
    normalize the Armenian-Turkish relations. With praiseworthy candor
    Obama declared that he has not changed his view on the Armenian
    Genocide, but as is fitting to a statesman, explained that he is not
    going to impede that process, implying that the recognition of the
    Armenian Genocide is being pulled out of the US agenda for now.

    Is it appropriate to accuse Turkey and the US in hypocrisy? Not at all.
    Turkey achieved its main goal at this stage, displaying enviable
    diplomatic dexterity. And the president of the USA acted as any
    responsible leader would have acted in the circumstances. If there is
    any need to look for targets for our accusations, the Armenian
    authorities of the last 11 years represented by Robert Kocharian,
    Vardan Oskanyan, Serge Sargsyan, and Edward Nalbandian should be those
    targets, since they are the ones who have desecrated the sacred memory
    of the Genocide turning it into an object of political auction and
    bargaining. And they did that not in the name of some lofty national
    goal or in order to strengthen our state, but exclusively for the
    pitiful purpose of gaining Diaspora's favor and earning certain
    dividends in our internal politics.

    In this regard it is quite interesting to trace the evolution of their
    utterly bankrupt and harmful policy:

    - The first thing the Kocharian administration did was to
    declare as treasonous the previous administration's policy of
    establishing normal relations with Turkey without any preconditions.

    - The international recognition of the Genocide was declared as
    the c
    ornerstone of Armenia's foreign policy, which was also boastfully
    submitted to Turkey as a rational basis for normalizing the relations.

    - When after resisting for a long time they realized that the
    road they chose led to a deadlock, they returned to the same policy of
    establishing normal relations with Turkey without preconditions, which
    they had declared treasonous, inadvertently exposing Armenia's weakness
    and giving Turkey an opportunity to harden its position.

    - Both as a result of this objective reason, and in order to
    solve the problem of his legitimacy, Serge Sargsyan went to an even
    more dangerous extreme of agreeing to an almost forgotten proposal made
    by Recep Erdogan years ago about establishing a commission of Armenian
    and Turkish historians to study the Genocide.

    It is this string of political wanderings, myopic steps, and
    irresponsible actions that produced the results of Obama's visit to
    Turkey. Of course, one cannot insist that had it not been for the
    aforementioned process launched to normalize the Armenian-Turkish
    relations, Obama already as president of the USA would have uttered the
    word `genocide' in his 24 April address, or that the American Congress
    would have passed a resolution recognizing the Genocide. Situations
    like this have existed in the past, but things never got to that point.
    But the situation is substantially different this time, because unlike
    in the past, this time the formal excuse is Serge Sargsyan's ill-fated
    initiative to have a rapprochement with Turkey at any cost, including
    the cost of renunciation of the Genocide. Thus without a shred of
    exaggeration we have to conclude: In order to keep his hold on power,
    Serge Sargsyan has literally sold the Genocide. Without a doubt his
    next step is going to be to sell Karabakh, after which naturally he
    will be the first Armenian to be awarded the Nobel Prize.

    I am being kind. I am sure Sargsyan's behavior is going to attract much
    more ruthless assessments from the radical circles in Armenia, and
    especially in the Diaspora. Justice demands, however, that we apportion
    at least part of the blame to the chiefs of the Diaspora, who not only
    never warned the Armenian authorities about the dangers and harmfulness
    of putting the issue of the international recognition of Genocide on
    the state's official agenda, but encouraged the latter's efforts and
    praised their `heroics' in the end getting what they got. The enormous
    effort and financial resources invested by the Diaspora for the cause
    of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide thus were wasted in one
    day. It is difficult to imagine how the situation can be remedied and
    the loss recovered.

    Even with all this, even with the sad result with which the
    current process of normalizing the Armenian-Turkish relations has
    ended, it is not at all devoid of positive elements. Turkey's natural
    interest in the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations on the
    one hand, and the linking of that normalization to expected shifts in
    the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations, on the other, creates a certain
    impetus for pushing the process settling the Karabakh conflict forward.
    The fact that the circumstances have forced President Obama to assume
    moral responsibility is also a positive development, which obligates
    the country he governs to get more actively and impartially involved
    both in the process of normalizing the Armenian-Turkish relations and
    in the process of finding a resolution to the Karabakh conflict. Barak
    Obama is an idealist in the best sense of the word. It is well known
    that although the world is usually governed by pragmatic and cynical
    people, civilization moves forward thanks to the occasionally appearing
    idealists. And by idealist I do not mean ideologues, but rather the
    rare statesmen, who have firm principles of morality, honor, and
    justice.


    The Elections of Erevan's Mayor


    When the Armenian National Congress announced that it is going to
    participate in the elections of Erevan's mayor under my leadership, the
    first reaction from the governing camp was that the Congress is
    politicizing the elections, implying that a crime is being committed
    that has no parallels in world history. The politicization of any
    question is equivalent to a plague for people who react in that manner
    and something people should escape in a mad rush. First, by doing this
    the forces that comprise the coalition are putting themselves in a
    ridiculous situation, because they themselves have politicized it to
    the extreme by adopting a 100% proportional system for the elections of
    the mayor of Erevan. Second, with such a reaction they are giving away
    their criminal nature, because the alternative to politicization is
    nothing other than criminalization.

    It is high time to realize that they are no issues in a
    state that are apolitical, because the essence of a state is politics.
    If it was not so, what would the meaning of concepts like economic
    policy, social policy, agrarian policy, educational policy, cultural
    policy, health care policy, and other similar concepts be? Even the
    concepts `state' and `politics' have common origins, if we take into
    account the fact that the world `politics' has originated from the
    Greek word `polis' (city-state). This was understood even in the middle
    ages, which is evidenced by the fact that the 13th century Armenian
    thinker Hovannes Yerznkatsi uses the word `city' to mean state.

    In addition to accusing the Congress of politicizing the
    elections, the official propaganda is trying to put the Congress in an
    uncomfortable position with another ridiculous trick, namely by
    endowing the mayor only with the lowly authority of garbage collector
    as it understands the position. First, who said that collecting garbage
    is not an important job? And secondly, if garbage collecting is the
    mayor's only job, why is only a single line dedicated to it in the
    60-page long law on Yerevan, whereas the rest is dedicated to politics?
    If after this explanation opinions are voiced again that the Congress
    is politicizing the elections, the Congress should only be thanked for
    it, because by doing so it is trying to prevent the criminalization of
    the elections.

    Today I have no intention of engaging in election
    campaigning. That we will do during our upcoming rallies. But I cannot
    fail to draw your attention to one last very important question having
    to do with the elections. What would have happened if the Armenian
    National Congress were to decide not to participate in the elections?
    Undoubtedly, the same thing would happen as did during the
    parliamentary elections of 2007. The appearance would have been that of
    a free and fair election, the representative of the authorities would
    win convincingly, and the international observers would assess the
    elections as yet another significant step on the path of democratizing
    the country. Serge Sargsyan would turn the result of that election into
    a banner, would be able to legitimize the rigged presidential elections
    of 2008 to some degree, and would earn enormous credit in the eyes of
    the international community.

    If Sargsyan is really concerned about the reputation of his
    country, he has the opportu - nity to achieve that goal even today. He
    can conduct legitimate elections, which will earn both the
    international observers' and our society's praise. He should realize
    finally that not just the authorities', but even the opposition's
    victory in legitimate elections strengthens the state and shields it
    from international pressures. Otherwise, he will never earn the right
    to be called a statesman. But if acting narrow-mindedly, Sargsyan does
    the same thing as he did during the presidential elections, not
    refraining not only from blatant falsification, but also from using
    vio - lence, he will inflict another heavy blow on our state, which may
    be unable to recover from it this time. Making sure that the mayor's
    elections are conducted properly is Serge Sargsyan's last chance to
    earn some credibility in the eyes of the Armenian society and the
    international community. He can fail to exploit that opportunity only
    at the expense of the Armenian state's interests.

    Thus beginning tomorrow we are entering a new phase in the
    campaign, which is significantly different from the presidential

    campaign in one essential feature ` the unity of the opposition ` and
    which is going to reduce greatly the authorities' opportunity to
    falsify the results of these elections. We regret that the effort to
    participate in the elections with a joint list of the Armenian National
    Congress and the Heritage Party did not succeed. We appreciate at the
    same time the decision of the Heritage Party not to participate with a
    separate list in order not to split the oppositional vote. We are also
    convinced that the Heritage Party will do everything to support the
    opposition in the upcoming elections.

    Our next rally, which will already be a campaign rally,
    will take place on 15 May. We are planning to hold rallies and meetings
    with the voters in Erevan's districts as well. I want to inform you in
    addition that in all of the offices of the Armenian National Congress
    there will be special units accepting your written proposals about the
    problems of the city, which will be meticulously examined and taken
    into account in our future work. And now let us go on to the march, the
    path and the procedure for which will be introduced to you by the
    coordinator of the central office of the Armenian National Congress
    Levon Zourabian.
Working...
X