ARMENIA: OSCE POST-ELECTION WORKING GROUP MEETING

UNCLAS YEREVAN 000197

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EUR/CARC

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL KDEM AM
SUBJECT: ARMENIA: OSCE POST-ELECTION WORKING GROUP MEETING


1. (SBU) On March 3, 2008 embassy officers attended the
first OSCE Post-Election Working Group (PEWG) meeting hosted
by OSCE Deputy Head of Mission Mark Bojanic. Present were
representatives of the European Commission, several
diplomatic missions, and a number of NGOs and civil society
groups. No representatives from the OSCE/ODIHR Election
Observation Mission (EOM) attended. Bojanic opened the floor
with a request for comments as to how the international
community in partnership with NGOs could forge ahead with a
common strategy to alleviate the current political impasse
between the Armenian government and opposition forces
supporting former President Levon Ter-Petrossian.


2. (SBU) Most of the working group participants expressed
dissatisfaction with the overall performance of ODIHR's EOM
and in particular with ODIHR's preliminary election statement
February 20. (NOTE: Technically, this was the statement of
the combined International Election Observation Mission --
ODIHR, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe (PACE),and the European Parliament --
but this subtlety was lost on the working group, as indeed it
has been lost on the Armenian public. END NOTE). The primary
point of contention was the report's use of the words "mostly
in line" to describe Armenia's adherence to democratic
election standards. Many of the participants also pointed
out that issuing a report that relegated serious election
concerns to the end of the report sent the wrong message to
the Armenian government and perhaps undermined international
efforts to promote democracy in the country. As evidence of
this, one participant pointed out that the Armenian
government had for the first time publicly embraced the ODIHR
report instead of the usually more positive CIS observer
mission report issued in past elections.


3. (SBU) In response, Bojanic acknowledged that the language
used in the ODIHR report was perhaps more diplomatic than
necessary. He also pointed out, however, he also pointed out
that it reflected the legitimate observations of election
observers present at the time. In addition, Bojanic cited
the difficulty of composing a joint (PACE/OSCE PA/European
Parliament/ODIHR) press statement with such little turnaround
time as a reason for the somewhat ambiguous, flat
presentation to the press. Bojanic and other OSCE
representatives noted that the report and subsequent press
statement were a result of the consensus opinion of the OSCE
member countries, some of whom would not like to see ODIHR
involved in election observing at all. (NOTE: We have
indications privately from the ODIHR EOM that they had pushed
for the statement to read "partly in line" with standards,
but the parliamentary delegations pushed for the more
positive "mostly in line" statement. END NOTE).


4. (SBU) Participants were concerned that the current state
of emergency could turn into a witch-hunt, in which President
Kocharian and Prime Minister Sargsian would arrest their
political opponent. On the issue of a common post-election
strategy, general consensus was reached on the need to apply
pressure on the government to reestablish freedom of press
and respect for human rights. General agreement was also
expressed on urging the Armenian government to fully
investigate all reports of violence and excessive use of
force, including full disclosure of the alleged discovery of
a weapons cache at Opera Square on the morning of March 1.
PENNINGTON