HEARINGS ON N-K OPEN NEW SPACE FOR PUBLIC DEBATE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 YEREVAN 000583 SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/CACEN, EUR/SNEC E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/04/2015 TAGS: PREL PBTS AJ TU AM SUBJECT: HEARINGS ON N-K OPEN NEW SPACE FOR PUBLIC DEBATE REF: YEREVAN 553 Classified By: Ambassador John M. Evans for reasons 1.5 (b,d). -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (C) Public hearings on Nagorno-Karabakh hosted by Armenia's National Assembly March 29-30 continue to dominate local political discussions and appear to have opened a new space for public debate on the issue. Reports by Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, Defense Minister Serzh Sargsian and pro-government and opposition MPs revealed common themes: 1) Armenian policymakers are worried by a perceived increase in "bellicose" rhetoric coming out of Baku; 2) legislators and NGOs want more access to discussions and documents related to resolution of the conflict; and 3) none of the "acceptable" scenarios presented by the speakers include an N-K that is subject in any way to Azerbaijan. The idea that resolution of the conflict will involve concessions was floated by various speakers during the meetings, most notably by the traditional hard-liner Sargsian. The inevitable public posturing wove its way in and out of the sessions, but the fact that Sargsian and others are now openly talking about concessions suggest the GOAM could be ready to engage the public on more realistic approaches to resolution of the conflict. While we should not join the GOAM as it congratulates itself for hosting a "mature" public discussion of the issue, we can acknowledge the role that such productive discussions will play in forming public opinion that will help foster a resolution. End Summary. -------------- STANDING-ROOM-ONLY HEARINGS A FIRST -------------- ¶2. (C) The National Assembly's Standing Committee on Foreign Relations hosted public hearings on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict March 29-30. The full range of civil society, press and diplomatic corps representatives attended the meeting. These hearings represent the most extensive widely publicized official forum that the GOAM has hosted to date on the issue. The meetings offer a clearer picture of where public officials and private officials stand on the N-K issue. Post will forward a full set of meeting notes to EUR/SNEC and EUR/CACEN via classified e-mail. On April 1, local newspapers began printing sections of their notes from select speeches, but National Assembly representatives told us not to expect the release of the official meeting transcript until "July or August at the earliest." -------------- -------------- "BELLICOSE RHETORIC FROM BAKU" TOPS LIST OF THEMES -------------- -------------- ¶3. (C) Three themes were present in almost all of the presentations. The Foreign Minister, Defense Minister and party politicians cited concerns about a perceived increase in "bellicose" rhetoric coming out of Baku. Legislators and NGOs called for more access to discussions and documents related to resolution of the conflict (with a particular emphasis on details surrounding the Key West talks). None of the "acceptable" scenarios presented by the speakers included an N-K that is subject in any way to Azerbaijan. This view, while not unexpected, is widely-held, with opposition figures commenting, "Even we can agree with the government on this." -------------- -- OSKANIAN: EVERYTHING BUT THE WORD "REFERENDUM" -------------- -- ¶4. (C) Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian's comments drew heavily from earlier speeches but included a long justification of why conflict should not be discussed in other international fora (such as the United Nations) or "handed over" to groups like the Council of Europe. He said that Azerbaijan's attempt to take discussion of N-K beyond the Minsk Group was a move to highlight the issue over territorial integrity while muting other issues that "should be part of the dialogue." His speech did not fully follow the text that the MFA posted on the web while he was talking, putting even greater emphasis on his opinion that the issue of self-determination was key to finding a mutually acceptable compromise. Oskanian, in an unprecedented move, remained in the National Assembly chamber for the duration of the discussions (to the surprise of the organizers as well as his personal staff). During the Q and A session Oskanian commented, "If you ask me, Vartan Oskanian, private Armenian citizen...of course I would vote for an N-K that is part of the Armenian state...but that is just my personal opinion and in no way affects my treatment of the subject as FM." (The irony of this remark elicited laughter from the audience.) Oskanian continued to underline what he termed "the vital role of self-determination" during the Q and A. MFA Senior Advisor Salpi Ghazarian (Amcit) told us after the session, "He tried to say 'referendum' every way possible today without actually using the word -- and it looks like he did it." Oskanian responded to a question regarding the effectiveness of the Minsk Group Co-chairs and the possibility of adding a British Co-Chair by responding, "It would be useless to add more Co-chairs at this point." (Note: On March 28, Oskanian passed us a letter to Secretary Rice (reftel) regarding the N-K conflict. The letter raised concerns about the possibility of the issue of settlements in the occupied territories being reintroduced at the U.N., the recent clashes on the Line of Contact, and the perceived danger of a renewed conflict. While Oskanian did not specifically address the letter during his speech, he did touch on similar themes. End Note.) -------------- SARGSIAN TALKS ABOUT "CONCESSIONS" -------------- ¶5. (C) Defense Minister Serzh Sargsian surprised the audience by using the word "concessions" and outlining possible areas where the Armenians may have to change their expectations. Journalists and diplomats in the audience noted that he used the word three times. He said that Armenia was willing to make the following concessions: 1) the GOAM is willing to withhold de jure recognition of N-K's independence -- even though de facto it has already given it; 2) the GOAM would agree on a referendum within N-K on its future status; and 3) the GOAM would be willing to engage in negotiations regarding the "buffer zones" (referring to the occupied territories). Sargsian said that these concessions would be contingent upon international guarantees for the security of N-K and Armenia as part of those negotiations. Sargsian spoke of Turkey's role in the process more than any of the other speakers during the hearings. He said that Turkey's influence on Azerbaijan's role in the negotiations was at times overlooked and should be carefully considered by the co-chairs and international community. He painted a long picture of the history of the conflict, saying that the causes of the conflict should be left to the historians, but that they will conclude that N-K's actions were legally justified. Sargsian claimed that, even though movements by Azeri troops had taken place within the territory already controlled by Azerbaijan, these movements did not result in a significant advantage for the Azeris. He warned, however, that the troops were now too close to one another (claiming a distance of just 30 meters at some spots) and that the situation could de-stabilize quickly given this proximity. He closed his speech saying that Armenia wants a "two-state, one people solution" and qualified the statement saying, "We want a settlement like the one that exists with Azerbaijan and Turkey...two states, one people." -------------- -------------- DASHNAKS: N-K AS AN ACTOR IN THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS -------------- -------------- ¶6. (C) National Assembly Deputy Speaker Vahan Hovhanissyan (an influential Dashnak party leader and traditional hard-liner on N-K issues) praised the hearings as "evidence to the mediators that we in Armenia are willing to engage on the issue with civil society -- unlike Baku." He agreed with elements of Oskanian's speech, claiming the National Assembly -- almost without exception -- viewed the attempt by Azeris to take the conflict to other international bodies as a "dangerous move." He said the Azeris had correctly identified the United Nations as a forum that would be sympathetic to their cause because the organization focused on "consequences more than causes." Hovhanissyan said that anything beyond "proven methods of negotiation, including the Minsk Group" would complicate the dialogue. Hovhanissyan predicted that April 2005 would be the next major turning point in the conflict settlement because of the EU's pending decision on the Action Plan for Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia as part of the new neighborhood initiative. Hovhanissyan claimed that the Azeris are willing to sacrifice a closer relationship with Europe over possibly making concessions on N-K. He predicted that, unless the international community intervened all three countries would miss the chance to move closer to Europe since the Europeans want all of them to enter at the same time. He said that he was not as "enamored" of the package concept as were others in Armenia. He said the step-by-step approach, if it first addressed the status issue, would bring the greatest amount of progress the fastest. ¶7. (C) National Assembly Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Armen Rustamyan (one of the three most prominent Dashnaks in parliament) painted a less positive picture of the N-K situation but was upbeat about the hearings in general. The official moderator for the meetings, Rustamyan became the most fervent cheerleader of the sessions during his speeches and during press availability. He characterized his reaction to public dialogue on N-K as "nothing short of delight." (Note: Rustamyan's reactions to the sessions, if sincere, indicate a completely new attitude toward public discussion of the N-K issue. End Note.) Regarding the status of negotiations, Rustamyan was adamant about the need for N-K to be an actor in the process and said the GOAM should be expected to react commensurably to the actions ("aggressions") of Azerbaijan, both in the press or on the lines of conflict. Rustamyan called for new structures within the GOAM that would coordinate the flow of information about the N-K negotiation process between the MFA, National Assembly and civil society. -------------- KAZIMIROV'S DICEY CRITICISM STEALS THE SHOW -------------- ¶8. (C) Former Russian Minsk Group Co-Chair Vladimir Kazimirov's speech contained the most frank discussion of the conflict and almost took on the tone of an independent consultant's report to a client. He slammed the Armenians for using the "irrelevant" phrase of "liberated territories" and pretending to be the only possible guarantor of security for N-K. He counseled the GOAM to dismiss both the package and step-by-step approach to settlement of the conflict, favoring instead his "alternate back-up plan" for settlement consisting of four distinct areas (settlement, status, disposition of the occupied territories and human rights/civil society concerns) that mediators should address at the same time. He said the Armenians should be concerned about the Azeris' "threats to apply force" over the last 18 months and suggested that the Azeris had been the only party to breach the conditions of the cease-fire by their troop movements. (Comment: Kazimirov's speech was the most talked about intervention by a non-GOAM figure. Some within the diplomatic corps and GOAM independently suggested to us following the meeting that Kazimirov was, by his colorful remarks, angling for a seat at the table. An MFA advisor predicted that he was likely offering similar counsel to the Azeri side in hopes of enhancing his profile as an N-K expert. End Comment.) -------------- OPPOSITION LEADERS BREAK THE BOYCOTT TO SPEAK -------------- ¶9. (C) Opposition MPs including Albert Bazeyan, Shavarsh Kocharyan and Stepan Zakaryan broke their long-standing boycott of the National Assembly for the hearings and gave impassioned speeches about the need to share information on the negotiation process and called on government leaders to devise a more "consistent approach" to the N-K issue. In contrast to opposition MP Viktor Dalakian's filibustering attempt at the beginning of the sessions, other opposition MPs welcomed the event and remained in the chambers for most of the proceedings. A common theme in the opposition's presentations was the need to engage N-K as an actor in the negotiations and the legality of N-K's secession. Shavarsh Kocharyan spoke at length about how Armenia might gain "legitimacy" in the N-K negotiations were it to make a seious effort in moving toward Europe (in fora such as the Council of Europe). While predictably the most politically charged presentations, the opposition MPs' remarks were not as ill-informed or counter-productive as we expected. The MPs displayed an awareness of Armenia's reputation within certain circles as the aggressor in the N-K conflict and talked more than other speakers about the need to counter this perception. -------------- COMMENT: OPENING A SPACE FOR DIALOGUE -------------- ¶10. (C) While the inevitable public posturing wove its way in and out of the sessions, the fact that Sargsian and others are now openly talking about concessions suggests the GOAM could be ready to engage the public on more realistic approaches to resolution of the conflict. While the GOAM is congratulating itself for hosting a "mature" public discussion of the issue, we intend to underscore with our interlocutors the role that such discussions will play in forming public opinion as part of any future resolution. EVANS