CDA PAYS INTRODUCTORY CALL ON NEW FOREIGN MINISTER

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 000384 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/08/2018 TAGS: PREL PGOV EAID KDEM GG RU TU AJ AM SUBJECT: CDA PAYS INTRODUCTORY CALL ON NEW FOREIGN MINISTER Classified By: CDA Joseph Pennington, reasons 1.4 (b,d) ¶1. (C) CDA and FM Nalbandian reviewed U.S. relations, Armenia's neighbors, and democratic reforms during an April 29 introductory call. On Turkey he afirmed readiness to talk, but nitpicked FM Babacan's congratulatory letter. On NK, he again expressed firm commitment to negotiate, but complained about Azerbaijani statements and questioned Baku's negotiating commitment. He emphasized his desire to boost U.S.-Armenian relations, and hoped for a speedy confirmation for the new ambassador. He blamed Saakashvili for the Georgian-Russian flareup. Nalbandian highlighted that the government will to improve democracy, but opined that ex-Soviet states cannot be compared with the West. END COMMENT ¶2. (C) A CORDIAL MEETING: The new foreign minister received CDA and Pol/Econ chief warmly April 29, praising the high levels of U.S.-Armenian cooperation and of U.S. assistance, while proclaiming his desire for us to do better still. He declared that the U.S. relationship is his top priority. He pronounced his wish to call on Secretary Rice in Washington at her earliest convenience, and said he would accommodate himself to her calendar. While praising CDA's stewardship, Nalbandian expressed dismay that Armenia had been so long without an American Ambassador, and that this deficiency in the bilateral relationship should be promptly remedied. He pointed out that Armenia had given an exceptionally speedy agrement to the ambassador-designate's nomination. He offered to help in any way we thought useful toward Ambassador-designate Yovanovich's confirmation process. ¶3. (C) TURKISH RELATIONS: The foreign minister commented that his first act as minister had been to respond to FM Babacan's congratulatory message by signalling Armenia's readiness for serious negotions to get bilateral relations on track. He said there were "no obstacles to normal relations." Nalbandian reported that as ambassador in Paris he had invited the Turkish ambassador to participate in an April 24 remembrance ceremony, which he characterized as an act of political courage for an Armenian ambassador. (NOTE: He did not specify whether his Turkish counterpart chose to attend the "genocide" commemoration, but we strongly suspect that the Turkish envoy would have declined. END NOTE) Nalbandian praised Turkey for the warm, prompt congratulations letters from the president, prime minister, and foreign minister to their new Yerevan counterparts. However, he quibbled over a phrase apparently used in FM Babacan's letter, in which it had been said that Turkey was "ready, as before" to engage with Armenia. Nalbandian commented that Armenia's experience of Turkey's past readiness had been disappointing, and he hoped Turkey was ready instead to undertake "new approaches" rather than leaving things "as before." He indicated impatience with Turkey's alleged unwillingness to meet bilaterally with the GOAM and address all the difficulties in the relationship directly. He downplayed the value of any third-party mediation to aid the two countries in moving forward. CDA reaffirmed U.S. commitment to fostering the goal of Turkish-Armenian reconciliaton as a top priority, however we may be of help. ¶4. (C) AZERBAIJAN AND NAGORNO-KARABAKH: Similarly, Nalbandian affirmed his government's commitment to the Minsk Group process and to reaching a negotiated solution over Nagorno Karabakh (NK). He criticized Azerbaijan for its recent UN General Assembly resolution on NK, as well as for its letter to the OSCE questioning the continued role for the Minsk Group in mediating the NK conflict. CDA reminded that the U.S. and other Minsk Group co-chair countries had all voted against Azerbaijan's mischievous UNGA resolution, because the resolution pre-judged the outcome of key negotiating points. Nalbandian complained about Azerbaijan's bellicose rhetoric, and official Baku's increasing trumpeting of its rising military budget. He said that the GOAJ claims its rapidly accelerating defense spending is a matter of "internal affairs," but Nalbandian commented that the military is not an instrument of internal affairs. He expressed doubt that Azerbaijan is truly serious about negotiating a peaceful solution to the NK conflict, while noting the upcoming elections in Azerbaijan as a political constraint there. However, he looked forward to his May 6 meeting with Azerbaijani FM Mammadyarov in France. ¶5. (C) GEORGIA AND RUSSIA: CDA solicited Nalbandian's views of the growing tension between Georgia and Russia over the separatist province of Abkhazia. Nalbandian reported that Armenia would do its best to stay out of this dispute, and hoped that it would calm down soon. He commented that it was YEREVAN 00000384 002 OF 002 potentially a very dangerous and worrisome situation for Armenia. He then interjected that "speaking very frankly" he considered the crisis to be mostly the fault of Georgian President Saakashvili, whom he accused of stoking the flare-up as a means of rallying Georgian nationalist feeling in the lead-up to Georgia's parliamentary elections. He confided that he was not personally greatly worried about the crisis. He expressed serene confidence that wiser heads in Moscow were keeping a close eye on the situation, were aware that Russia's interests would not be served by a major showdown with Georgia, and would prevent events from getting out of control in Abkhazia. ¶6. (C) DEMOCRATIC REFORMS: CDA raised U.S. concerns about the status of democracy in Armenia, in light of recent events. He reminded of EUR DAS Bryza's comments that the nature of the U.S. relationship with Armenia would be substantially influenced by Armenia's ability to get back on track with democratic reforms. CDA noted that the flagship Millennium Challenge program was at risk, as were other less prominent, but nonetheless significant forms of U.S. engagement, such as USAID programs and defense cooperation. Nalbandian stated categorically that " Democracy is the choice of the Armenian people and leadership" and "there is no other choice." He noted that the president had appointed a working group to study the recent resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE),with an eye toward implementing reforms. The minister said that "March 1 happened" and was a difficult problem to manage, and there is anyway nothing that can be done now to change the past. He argued that the only thing to be done is to move on -- we "can't just stop." He was unapologetic for the Armenian government's action to "prevent a minority from imposing itself against the wishes of the majority." He said that he liked Levon Ter-Petrossian personally, but "some lines can't be crossed." Nalbandian says that "as a citizen" he could not accept Ter-Petrossian's "revolutionary" agenda. CDA observed that we do not support Ter-Petrossian or his agenda, but we must stand up for basic political rights, for Radio Liberty, for freedom of assembly, for media freedom, and for the government's duty to meet the Armenian people's rightful expections that their political voice will be heard and respected. Nalbandian agreed and reaffirmed that "we will do it." He noted that the government had invited all political parties except Ter-Petrossian into the governing coalition, and the president had spoken of the need for reconciliation. He commented that Armenia has "real opposition forces" unlike many other post-Soviet states. He opined that, setting aside the Baltic countries, no post-Soviet state could be compared with the West on matters of democracy, and suggested that this was not a fair comparision. (NOTE: Nor was it a comparison we had made. END NOTE) The foreign minister asserted that Armenia is the best of the non-Baltic, post-Soviet states in its democratic progress, and we must accept that it has not yet reached the standards of the wider world. ¶7. (C) COMMENT: While Nalbandian mostly delivered the right messages across the range of issues, we were struck by his consistent quibbling on each issue, deflecting Armenian blame while subtly -- or unsubtly -- casting blame elsehwere. This seemed particularly gratuitous, though mild, on Turkey, for which there seemed no reason to be anything but positive in light of Ankara's very forthcoming public statements and warm letters of congratulations. Also striking was the way he spoke of the post-election violence of March 1-2 almost as though it had been a freak weather event beyond any human control. In reality, guilt for instigating the violence lies very clearly with the Armenian authorities, and their deliberate choice to employ force to clear the demonstrators from Freedom Square. While Nalbandian was charming and effusive in avowing positive goals -- and his English is excellent -- on first impression the new minister came across more as a fast talker than a frank one. PENNINGTON