Articles following UN Karabagh Resolution‏

ARMENIA WILL NOT RECOGNIZE KARABAKH IN FORESEEABLE FUTURE - ...

Armenian Prime Minister and president-elect Serzh Sargsyan has not
ruled out that Yerevan might recognize the independence of Kosovo,
adding that this situation cannot be a precedent in resolving the
Karabakh problem.

"From the legal point of view, Nagorno-Karabakh is different from all
other conflicts, and Armenia has no right to equalize or mix it [the
Karabakh conflict] with any other conflict," Sargsyan said at a
meeting with students from the Armenian State Economic University.

"Kosovo cannot be a precedent in a sense that in the foreseeable
future Armenia is not going to recognize the independence of Nagorno
Karabakh. But since we have always supported nations' rights to self-
determination, from this point of view we do welcome the independence
of Kosovo," he added.

At the same time, Sargsyan has denied that by recognizing Kosovo's
independence Armenia will spoil its relations with Russia.

"Our countries will always have friendly relations, however this does
not mean that Armenia should ignore its interests for the sake of
Russia's," the Armenian president-elect said.

"If we are friends, their interests must be dear to us, and if we
ever recognize Kosovo's independence, I do not think this could spoil
Armenian-Russian relations," Sargsyan said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

EXPLANATION OF VOTE BY AMBASSADOR ALEJANDRO D. WOLFF, U.S. DEPUTY
PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE, ON DRAFT RESOLUTION: SITUATION IN OCCUPIED
TERRITORIES OF AZERBAIJAN, TO GENERAL ASSEMBLY
New York

The following information was released by the U.S. Mission to the
United Nations:

The political-level representatives of France, the Russian
Federation, and the United States, as Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk
Group dealing with the Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict-- jointly
proposed a set of basic principles for the peaceful settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict to the sides in November 2007 on the
margins of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Madrid. These basic
principles are founded on the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act,
including those related to refraining from the threat or use of
force, the territorial integrity of states, and the equal rights and
self-determination of peoples. The proposal transmitted to the sides
in Madrid comprises a balanced package of principles that are
currently under negotiation. The sides have agreed that no single
element is agreed until all elements are agreed by the parties.

Unfortunately, this draft resolution selectively propagates only
certain of these principles to the exclusion of others, without
considering the Co-Chairs a proposal in its balanced entirety.

Because of this selective approach, the three OSCE Minsk Group
Co-Chair countries must oppose this unilateral draft resolution. They
reiterate that a peaceful, equitable, and lasting settlement of the
NK conflict will require unavoidable compromises among the parties
that reflect the principles of territorial integrity, non-use of
force, and equal rights of peoples, as well as other principles of
international law.

While the three Minsk Group Co-Chair countries will vote against this
unilateral draft resolution, which threatens to undermine the peace
process, they reaffirm their support for the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan, and thus do not recognize the independence of NK.

At a time when serious clashes have occurred along the Line of
Contact with loss of life, both sides must refrain from unilateral
and maximalist actions either at the negotiating table or in the
field.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interfax News Agency, Russia
March 15 2008


Moscow views UN resolution on N. Karabakh as serving only
Azerbaijan's interests
MOSCOW


Moscow views the resolution of the UN General Assembly on the
situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan passed on Friday
as a move that serves only the interests of Baku.

"The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen mediating in the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict voted against this document. In a joint
statement explaining the motives for this voting, they qualified this
step on the part of Azerbaijan as one-sided, untimely, and counter-
productive. It has been informed about this position repeatedly and
at different levels," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a
statement on Saturday.

"In particular, the draft resolution includes only some of the basic
settlement principles meeting only Azerbaijan's interests, without
mentioning, for example, the ultimate need to determine Nagorno-
Karabakh's status through holding a plebiscite for its population so
that it could express its will truly freely," it said.

"This approach has made the draft resolution unacceptable to Armenia
and worsened prospects for the soonest possible resumption of
top-level Armenian-Azeri talks on the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement
following the inauguration of the new Armenian president," it said.

"Russia, together with the U.S. and France, are willing to continue
the Minsk Group co-chairmen's active mediation to complete the
coordination of the basic settlement principles, which would make it
possible to return stability and calm to that region of the South
Caucasus," it said.

It was reported earlier that the delegates to the 62nd UN General
Assembly session passed a resolution proposed by Azerbaijan on the
situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan by 39 votes, with
seven votes against and 100 abstentions on Friday.

[for the record, those countries that voted on the UN Resolution were:

In favor: Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Comoros, Djibouti, Gambia, Georgia, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Moldova, Morocco, Myanmar, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Turkey, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Yemen.

Against: Angola, Armenia, France, India, Russian Federation, United States, Vanuatu.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Interfax News Agency, Russia
March 15 2008
AZERBAIJAN TO RECONSIDER TIES WITH RUSSIA, US, FRANCE - OFFICIAL

Azerbaijan will reconsider its relations with the countries
co-chairing the OSCE Minks Group, Interfax quoted thecountry's Deputy
Foreign Minister Araz Azimov as saying on 15 March.

Azimov voiced perplexity with the fact that the three co-chairs - the
USA, France and Russia - voted against theAzerbaijan-backed
resolution on Nagornyy Karabakh at the UN General Assembly.
"Azerbaijan will reconsider and make changes to its relations with
the co-chair countries within the Minsk process," Azimov said.

He welcomed the adoption of the resolution by the UN General
Assembly. "We are satisfied with the adoption of the resolution. That
will help clarify the situation. Azerbaijan has no intention of
moving in the dark any longer. Itshould be clear to everyone that the
only solution acceptable to Azerbaijan is a solution based on the
principle ofterritorial integrity," Azimov said.

He added that the adoption of the resolution did not mean
Azerbaijan's intention to change the format of theKarabakh peace
talks, the agency reported.

Azeri official dismisses Armenian attacks on UN resolution
BAKU

An aide to Azerbaijan's president has dismissed Armenian attacks on
an Azeri-introduced UN General Assembly resolution of March 14, that
demands immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces from Azeri
territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh.

"The statements of the Armenian officials are no more than propaganda
efforts to play down this resolution and divert the attention of the
Armenian public from the domestic political crisis. Any of the
attempts at comparative quantitative analysis cannot stand up to any
criticism, not even from the point of view of Armenian propaganda
itself. It would be enough to mention the recent widely advertised
celebrations of the 20th anniversary of the recognition by the
European Parliament of the so-called anti-Armenian genocide of 1915,"
Fuad Akhundov, head of a section in the presidential executive
service, told Interfax on Saturday.

Akhundov was referring to massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire in 1915.

"I have in mind not the essence of the matter but the comparative
analysis of numerical indicators that Armenia is making in an attempt
to play down the resolution of the UN General Assembly," Akhundov
said.

The European Parliament's 1987 document declaring the 1915 massacres
an act of anti-Armenian genocide received the support of only 60 of
the legislature's 500 members. Those who voted in favor represented
France and Greece alone.

The other 10 countries that took part in the poll voted against the
document, and that meant just 10 fewer votes, Akhundov said.

The majority of European Parliament members abstained.

Friday's UN resolution was backed by 37 votes, with only seven states
voting against, Akhundov pointed out.

"It is also worth noting that in the European Parliament the genocide
motion received the support of deputies who did not have to express
the official position of their countries, whereas voting in the
General Assembly reflects the point of view not of deputies but of
states. So, if from the point of view of Armenian propaganda the
recognition of the genocide of Armenians by the European Parliament
is an important event on the European scale, yesterday's vote of the
General Assembly is much more important on the global scale. So it is
not worth trying to delude the public in their own country once
again," Akhundov said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ARMENIAN MINISTER CRITICAL OF AZERI-SPONSORED UN RESOLUTION

Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan has criticized the
Azerbaijan-sponsored UN General Assembly resolution onthe Nagornyy
Karabakh conflict, Armenian Public TV has reported.

This resolution is hypocritical, will not benefit Azerbaijan and will
confuse the international community, Public TV quoted him as saying.

At the same time, he said that the UN resolution is a message aimed
at making Azerbaijan understand the moods of the international
community. It shows that the international community supports the
package that is currently on the negotiating table and prioritizes the
principle of self-determination and the territorial integrity of
states, the television quoted him as saying.

The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs - the USA, France and Russia - voted
against the resolution on the situation on theoccupied Azerbaijani
territories at the UN General Assembly in New York. Over 100
countries abstained from voting, 34countries voted for and seven
against the resolution. None of the member countries of the EU backed
the resolution,Armenian Public TV said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Trend News Agency, Azerbaijan
March 16 2008
New UN Resolution is Next Victory of Azerbaijan's Diplomacy:
Department Head of Azerbaijani Presidential Administration
16.03.08 17:08

Azerbaijan, Baku, 16 March / Trend News / Official Baku assesses the
UN General Assembly's adoption of the Resolution on Situation in
Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan as strengthening of Azerbaijan's
position in the international arena, said the Head of the Foreign
Relations Department of Azerbaijani Presidential Administration,
Novruz Mammadov, in his interview with AzTV channel. He described the
new UN Resolution as Azerbaijan's victory.

According to Mammadov, the Resolution will positively affect the
negotiations process as well. He considers that the issue that some
39 UN member-countries supported Baku's position means that
Azerbaijan may strengthen its position on this issue in the future as
well.

According to Mammadov, the Resolution will bring Armenia into a
desperate situation. `If to compare this Resolution with the previous
decisions on Azerbaijan, their difference is clearly seen. The
document helps strengthen Azerbaijan's position, expand its
influence, as well as is a factor of influence on the negotiations
process,' Mammadov said. In addition, he said that after UN General
Assembly's adoption of a new Resolution, the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-Chairmen should demonstrate a concrete position on the conflict
settlement because the document says that the Co-Chairmen should
conduct their activities based on the norms and principles of the
international law and principles of territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan. Mammadov said that it is a serious message to them.

Mammadov considers that the position of Armenia and the forces
supporting it weaken. `Armenian Armed Forces occupied Azerbaijani
lands and the UN Resolution requires their withdrawal from the
occupied Azerbaijani lands. The Armenian government should correctly
understand this message and demonstrate a constructive position and
take steps directed towards settling the conflict,' he said.

According to Mammadov, the Resolution will strengthen the internal
tension in Armenia and will not allow the country to continue its
unconstructive position for long.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Armenian News - PM Election

SARKISIAN RULES OUT JOB SWAP WITH KOCHARIAN
Radio Liberty
March 14 2008
Czech Republic

President Robert Kocharian will not after all become Armenia's prime
minister after completing his second and final term in office early
next month, Prime Minister and President-elect Serzh Sarkisian said
late Thursday.

Kocharian's political future has for months been the subject of
speculation, with most local observers expecting him seek to retain
a key role in government affairs after resigning as head of state. He
has been specifically linked with the post of prime minister.

Kocharian seemingly boosted his chances of landing the job by playing
a crucial role in the suppression of opposition protests against the
official results of last month's disputed presidential election that
gave victory to Sarkisian.

Sarkisian quashed that speculation as he spent more than two hours
answering questions from Armenians on national television. He said
that had he and Kocharian really agreed to swap their positions they
would have informed the nation about that in advance of the February
19 election. "If such a scenario had been possible, we would have
announced this before the election the way Russian President Vladimir
Putin and [President-elect] Dmitry Medvedev did," he said.

Sarkisian again asserted that he has still not decided whom to name
prime minister after being sworn in as Armenia's president on April
9. Meeting with university students in Yerevan earlier this week,
the outgoing premier said his new cabinet will be radically different
from the existing one. It is expected to comprise representatives of
Sarkisian's Republican Party, the pro-Kocharian Prosperous Armenia
Party, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation and the hitherto
opposition Orinats Yerkir Party of former parliament speaker Artur
Baghdasarian.

In his televised remarks, Sarkisian indicated that he is ready
to engage in dialogue with his main election challenger, former
President Levon Ter-Petrosian, only if the latter recognizes his
election victory. "If Levon Ter-Petrosian continues to claim that he
was elected president with 65 percent of the vote, reject the decision
of the Constitutional Court and call me a bandit and Mongol-Tatar,
what kind of a dialogue can we have?" he said.

Sarkisian further defended the Armenian authorities' tough response
to Ter-Petrosian's post-election demonstrations in Yerevan, saying
that they did "everything possible" to avoid the loss of life on
March 1. He claimed that security forces never intended to disperse
more than 2,000 Ter-Petrosian supporters camped in the city's Liberty
Square and only wanted to search for weapons allegedly hoarded there.

He said they used force only after meeting fierce resistance from
the protesters.

The break-up of the Liberty Square sit-in led tens of thousands of
opposition supporters to re-assemble and barricade themselves in
another location in the city center later on March 1. At least seven
of them were killed in ensued clashes with riot police armed with
shields, truncheons, stun grenades and automatic weapons.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ARMENIAN MEDIA BAN STILL IN FORCE
Radio Liberty
March 14 2008
Czech Republic

Armenia's leading newspapers critical of the government were unable to
resume publication on Friday despite a softening of the controversial
government ban on independent news reporting announced by President
Robert Kocharian.

The Armenian authorities also failed to unblock access to the websites
of RFE/RL's Armenian service and local online news services.

Under the 20-day state of emergency declared by Kocharian on March 1,
the Armenian media could only cite the government and law-enforcement
bodies when covering national politics. More than a dozen independent
and opposition publications suspended or were forced to suspend their
operations as a result. In a decree signed on Thursday, Kocharian said
they can resume their work so long as they do not publish "obviously
false or destabilizing information."

The editors of seven newspapers affected by the severe restrictions
said censors from the National Security Service (NSS), the Armenian
successor to the Soviet KGB, ordered the printers not to publish
their Friday editions after examining their content. Only one of the
papers, "Aravot," was said to have been given an explanation of the
publication ban.

"There was a KGB censor at the Tigran Mets printing company who locked
himself in a room and made phone calls to his superiors," the "Aravot"
editor, Aram Abrahamian, told RFE/RL. "He then told my deputy that
[a newspaper article about opposition leader] Levon Ter-Petrosian's
news conference contains obviously false information and that the
newspaper can therefore not be printed."

"I suppose the authorities did not want to see balanced information
containing their views along with those of the opposition," said
Abrahamian. "They want to make sure that only their opinion, their
version of events is made public."

"Nothing has changed. NSS employees continue to sit at printing
shops and check the newspaper content," agreed Hayk Gevorgian, acting
editor of "Haykakan Zhamanak," Armenia's best-selling daily staunchly
supportive of Ter-Petrosian.

Local online publications not controlled by the government are
similarly unable to resume their work. Haykazn Ghahriyan, editor
of Lragir.am, said Internet service providers told him that the NSS
has not yet allowed them to revise the list of news websites blocked
following the imposition of emergency rule.

The chief executive of Armenia's largest Internet firm, Arminco,
confirmed this. "I am looking for [NSS] officials with whom I can
discuss the problem," Andranik Aleksanian told RFE/RL. "Maybe they
just forgot to drop the restrictions."

An NSS spokesman refused to comment on the situation, referring
all inquiries to Kocharian's press service. Victor Soghomonian, the
presidential press secretary, confirmed that the former KGB is tasked
with enforcing the media restrictions. He suggested that the newspapers
in questions were prevented from publishing because they violated
conditions spelled out in the presidential decree. It was signed by
Kocharian amid mounting international pressure on Armenian government
to lift the state of emergency and the resulting restrictions.

In a joint statement, the seven newspapers and three online
publications brushed aside Kocharian's decree as a "wretched attempt
to mislead the international community and the Armenian public."

"With such provincial tricks, it is impossible to create a semblance of
democracy and thereby counter authoritative international structures'
legitimate demands to ensure freedom of speech and end illegal
restrictions and bans," they said. "We regard the actions of the
Armenian authorities, ostensibly aimed at restoring internal stability,
as an attempt to maintain dictatorship."

In a Thursday interview with RFE/RL, Justice Minister Gevorg Danielian
admitted that the notion of "obviously false information" can be
open to "differing interpretations." Still, he came up with his own
explanation of the term not defined by Armenian law. "It is when you
have clear-cut official information from several sources, know what
a particular fact is, but then get different information which is
not only unconfirmed but does not correspond to the existing facts
in any way," he said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dim Prospects for Sarkissian after Armenia's Post-election Violence
Blanka Hancilova

The violent suppression of the opposition rally on 1-2 March has opened up a gaping schism in the Armenian body politic. Following the deaths of at least several dozen protesters, the Kocharyan-Sarkissian duo is bound to lose some supporters, while some neutral voters may chose to join the opposition. The battle for power may be drawn out, and its conclusion is far from certain but, so far, it is evident that the foundations of the ruling regime have been profoundly shaken.

BACKGROUND: The 19 February 2008 presidential election in Armenia was expected to see a smooth transfer of power from the current president, Robert Kocharyan, to his long-time ally and current prime minister, Serzh Sarkissian. But Armenia’s first president turned opposition leader after a long absence from the political scene, Levon Ter-Petrossian, turned it into a bitter contest, drawing his supporters to the streets in record numbers, a sight unseen in Yerevan since the 1990s. According to official results, Serzh Sarkissian won the election in the first round, securing 52.8 per cent of the cast, while Ter-Petrossian trailed behind with 21.5 per cent.

The opposition alleges that mass fraud had taken place. Although independent information is hard to come by, Human Rights Watch documented the bullying and intimidation of opposition observers. On election day, numerous violent incidents and irregularities were reported such as vote buying, ‘carousel’ voting (where the same people vote repeatedly), irregularities in the military’s voting and, crucially, in vote counting.

Nevertheless, according to the preliminary findings of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights election observation mission, the election “was administered mostly in line with OSCE and Council of Europe commitments and standards.” Despite this finding, opposition parties heavily criticized the conduct of the elections.

The opposition contested the results and hit the streets for 11 days of non-stop protests. Many other opposition leaders rallied behind Ter-Petrossian. At the same time, a number of opposition politicians were detained and some senior foreign ministry officials and prosecutors, who publicly backed the opposition, were dismissed.

As the government felt increasingly insecure, it offered to set up a coalition government and managed to co-opt one of the most influential figures – former National Assembly Speaker and Chair of the “Orinats Yerkir” party, 40 year-old Arthur Baghdasarian. Following this success, in the early hours of 1 March, the police dispersed a rally at Yerevan’s Liberty Square and Ter-Petrossian was placed under de facto house arrest.

Yerevan ViolenceNotwithstanding the events earlier in the morning, later in the day protesters gathered in Miasniakian square, in the vicinity of the City Administration Hall and the embassies of France, Italy and Russia. During the day, there were possibly several hundred thousand people waiting for Ter-Petrossian, but also a strong police, interior forces and army presence.
By the evening, the atmosphere had become extremely tense and a violent standoff was widely expected. At the same time, the opposition leaders that had organized the rally disavowed and condemned incidents of violence, blaming them on government provocateurs. Small-scale violent incidents started to take place, and the looting of shops in downtown Yerevan also began. In the evening, about 10,000 protesters were still present at the square, burning cars and engaged in running battles with the security forces.

Late on 1 March, outgoing President Kocharyan introduced a state of emergency for 20 days, which was upheld by the parliament. Media freedoms, freedom of assembly and political activity remain suspended.

Shortly after emergency rule was declared, security forces advanced towards the protesters and, according to official information, a violent standoff occurred which left at least eight people dead and about two hundred injured. Unofficial sources speak of at least 20 dead, and possibly up to 50.

Subsequent international reactions criticized the government for use of excessive force and violence to disperse demonstrators.

IMPLICATIONS: Ter-Petrossian’s success in running a popular campaign has shaken the governing Kocharyan-Sarkissian duo which, after ten years in power, seems to have grossly underestimated the extent of public dissatisfaction with the regime. The authorities clearly did not expect Ter-Petrossian to be capable of mustering a wave of popular protests, particularly given that he remains unpopular amongst many Armenians who remember the economic hardships that plagued his presidency in 1990s, while many disapprove of his position on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. However, not only did he manage to attract people to the streets, but he has also managed to coalesce the fractious opposition political forces around him and, moreover, against the ruling regime. All of this occurred without Ter-Petrossian offering any specific program of change apart from a change of regime from the Kocharyan-Sarkissian “kleptocracy”. Especially worrying for Kocharyan and Sarkissian, who both come from Nagorno-Karabakh, were the signs of defections from the Yerevan elite in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the prosecutor’s office.

The electoral success, even if contested by the opposition, could have given Sarkissian a chance to re-assert control by playing on the opposition’s lack of internal coherence and a united program. Co-opting Arthur Baghdasarian was an important step in this regard. On the other hand, it is not clear how much power Baghdasarian now commands. Ter-Petrossian has been claiming for some time now that Baghdasarian’s supporters are joining him and Baghdasarian’s u-turn is unlikely to fare well with his voters.

On the other hand, the external situation played in the regime’s hands. The lack of foreign media attention to Armenia, the largely benevolent and superficial reports of international observers, and the keen interest of all neighbors and major powers to prevent any new hotspot from emerging made it easier for the government to quell the opposition tide. However, the death of protesters is a watershed which has made Armenia’s political future all too uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS: It is too early to tell how the political situation in Armenia will develop. However, several observations can be offered. To begin with, the options of the incumbent regime seem to be very limited. It is likely to try to run things ‘as usual’, put the blame for post-electoral violence on the opposition led by Ter-Petrossian and, step-by-step, isolate him. Co-opting Baghdasarian was one of the first steps in this direction. It remains to be seen whether Baghdasarian will be able to recover his credibility with his electorate and whether he will emerge as a serious contender for high-level political posts in the future.

But even if Sarkissian succeeds in calming the situation down, and keeps himself in power, his credibility has been severely undermined. Even many of his current supporters are likely to blame him for the events of 1-2 March for years to come. It is possible that the whole institution of the presidency could be weakened as a result, and that power will increasingly gravitate to the National Assembly.

The outgoing president, Robert Kocharyan, has not announced his future plans, but it is widely believed that he will implement the ‘Russian scenario’ and replace Sarkissian as prime minister. By doing so, he will be able to contribute to the consolidation of his and Sarkissian’s power.

As for Ter-Petrossian, it remains to be seen whether his supporters will be able to sustain a protracted public protest when the state of emergency lifts. Should he be unsuccessful, he may have lost possibly his last chance to re-enter Armenian politics. So far, many of his supporters have been imprisoned, and some charged with attempting a coup d’état. Many went into hiding, fearing reprisals from the authorities.

In the short term, Armenia is likely to remain volatile, and the possibility of renewed violence is present. In the mid-term, two scenarios can be envisaged: stabilization with a broad coalition government with simmering discontent and pressures to ‘re-open’ the political and media space; or increasingly hard authoritarianism, essentially military rule, keeping the opposition in jail.

AUTHOR’S BIO: Dr. Blanka Hancilova is analyst of international relations with a focus on the CIS and the co-founder of Apreco Consulting Group.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~