ARMENIAN STUDENTS DISCUSS GEORGIA, POLITICS,

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 002903

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

DEPT FOR EUR/CACEN, EUR/PPD, EUR/ACE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL AM
SUBJECT: ARMENIAN STUDENTS DISCUSS GEORGIA, POLITICS,
FOREIGN AFFAIRS


1. (U) Sensitive but unclassified. Please protect
accordingly.

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


2. (U) PAS invited 11 students from the political
science department of Yerevan State University to the
Embassy November 26 to discuss their perceptions of the
'velvet revolution' in neighboring Georgia with poloff
and econoff. The students provided an interesting
commentary not just on events in Georgia, but also on
the Armenian political opposition, Armenia's relations
with the rest of world, and generational gaps in
political consciousness. The students generally
favored stability over striking political change, and
argued that Armenia's future would necessarily be
linked to Russia's. End Summary.

-------------- --------------
THE STUDENTS: REPRESENTING A SMALL BUT DISTINCT GROUP
-------------- --------------


3. (U) We invited 11 undergraduate students majoring in
political science at Yerevan State University to the
Embassy November 26 for a roundtable discussion on the
recent events in Georgia. The students were all
proficient English speakers, and 10 had spent some time
in the United States (the other had lived and studied
in Moscow for seven years),eight in the FSA-funded
FLEX program (for high school students) and two in the
Undergraduate Program. They described their parents as
educated, and agreed that their families belonged to
the emerging Armenian middle class. They asserted that
their foreign language skills and time spent abroad did
not separate them from the majority of other students
studying similar coursework at Yerevan State. On all
the issues discussed, from the political opposition in
Armenia to relations with Turkey, the students held
generally uniform views that they claimed were
representative of their peers at the university.

-------------- --------------
GOOD FOR THE GEORGIANS, BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR ECONOMY?
-------------- --------------


4. (U) The students' initial comments about the
situation in Georgia focused on its strategic impact on
Armenia. The students pointed out that any sustained
period of instability in Georgia could have
"catastrophic" consequences for the Armenian economy.
They argued that even a short-lived crisis could have a
dramatic impact on Armenia's supplies of everything
from power to consumer goods. Some students
hypothesized that if Georgia were to descend into
chaos, the United States would be forced to place
substantial pressure on Turkey to open its border with
Armenia to avert a humanitarian crisis. When pressed,
the students addressed their perceptions of the "velvet
revolution" in Tbilisi. They all agreed that they were
"proud" and "glad for" the Georgians, who, they felt,
were living in an incredibly corrupt and "failed"
state. One student observed that "all the
preconditions for revolution" were in place in Georgia.

--------------
WHY NOT HERE?
--------------


5. (SBU) The students also agreed that the situation in
Armenia after the presidential and parliamentary
elections earlier in the year was completely different
than that in Georgia. While the students acknowledged
that there were clearly some falsifications in the
Armenian elections, they believed the outcomes were not
seriously altered. Unlike Georgia, Armenia had
registered substantial improvements in the standard of
living over the past four to five years, and the
students argued that most people did not see the need
for the government to deviate greatly from its current
policies. Most important, however, was the lack of a
viable opposition. The students stated that aside from
not having an effective agenda, the opposition in
Armenia did not have effective leaders. The students
could point to no one, in politics or not, who they
found either inspiring or a worthy challenger to the
current political elite. The students concurred with
one of their colleague's statement that "Stepan
Demirchian (head of the opposition Justice Bloc in the
National Assembly, and failed candidate for president)
would be no one if he didn't look like his father"
(former National Assembly Speaker Karen Demirchian
assassinated in 1999, who remains a hero in the hearts
and minds of the opposition).

--------------
GENERATIONAL SPLIT
--------------


6. (U) The students stated that they and their friends
in the university felt Armenia was generally on the
right track, and by definition they were "pro-
stability" and not active in politics. All but one of
the eleven students voted for incumbent President
Kocharian in the March 2003 run-off election, and they
laughed when the one dissenter declared she voted for
Demirchian because "he wasn't as corrupt." (Note: The
student who voted for Demirchian said that she did not
attend any opposition rallies, as those were for the
"unemployed." End Note.) They agreed that their views
were generally representative of their classmates, but
diverged from those of educated Armenians 10-15 years
older. Armenians in their thirties, whose formative
experiences included the break-up of the Soviet Union
and the difficult early transition years, were more
likely to be active in the political process and have a
more reformist outlook than students currently studying
in the university, they maintained. The students felt
that the mentality of the slightly older educated
generation remained shaped by the political idealism of
the late 1980's and early 1990's.

--------------
"RUSSIA IS A TRUE FRIEND"
--------------


7. (SBU) The students agreed that Russia was Armenia's
"best friend." When asked what it meant to be "pro-
Russian", one student stated that it was a recognition
of the cultural ties between Russians and Armenians and
the "strategic reality" of Armenia's geography and
current political isolation. They said that most
professors in the university espoused this philosophy,
which was reinforced by parents at home. The students
hoped that Russia would move ideologically "westward"
and consequently help pull Armenia into Europe, but
claimed that Armenia could not independently decide
upon that path. The students voiced substantial
resentment of Turkey owing to the economic hardships
imposed by the Turkish blockade rather than the events
of 1915. They viewed the United States as guilty by
association, having chosen to align itself with Turkey,
and therefore having decided not push too hard for the
opening of the border. While the students seemed to
respect American ideals, they felt a much closer bond
with Russia and Russians who had shown unwavering
support for Armenia.

--------------
COMMENT
--------------


8. (SBU) The roundtable discussion with the students
exposed two interesting, and perhaps surprising,
characteristics that they claimed were also
representative of their peers at the university.
First, the students were politically conservative.
They generally approved of the current state of affairs
in Armenia and stressed the importance of continued
stability in the country. Instead of noting that the
Armenian opposition had legitimate concerns over the
conduct of the 2003 elections, the students expressed
relief that demonstrations and protests were short-
lived and not destabilizing. Even more significant,
despite their experiences in the United States, the
students described themselves as "pro-Russian." They
did not feel that the strategic need to be strongly
aligned with Russia had any notable negative effect on
Armenia, nor did it contradict with integration into
Euro-Atlantic structures. These two opinions, if
widely held, indicate that Armenians who will be
expected to fill leadership positions in 15-20 years do
not hold views on domestic or foreign policy that
differ significantly from those of the current
political leadership.

ORDWAY