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