NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ADDRESSES PROCEDURAL ISSUES ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 000106 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/25/2020 TAGS: PREL PGOV TU AZ AM SUBJECT: NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ADDRESSES PROCEDURAL ISSUES ON ARMENIA-TURKEY, MULLS STATEMENT ON NK Classified By: DCM Joseph Pennington, reasons 1.4 (b,d). -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) The Armenian National Assembly (NA) overwhelmingly approved on February 25 an amendment to the Law on International Treaties articulating mechanisms for withdrawal from agreements for which instruments of ratification have not been exchanged. This week the body also received from the executive the Armenia-Turkey normalization protocols for possible ratification, and began to clarify procedures for deliberation. The NA also took up, then shelved, a draft parliamentary statement which condemns the war rhetoric of Azeri officials, but which also contains problematic wording that could be easily misinterpreted as a recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) independence. END SUMMARY. -------------- -- AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON INTERNATIONAL TREATIES -------------- -- ¶2. (SBU) During its February 19 session, the Committee on Foreign Affairs approved the draft amendment to the Law on International Treaties initiated by the Government, articulating the procedures through which Armenia could exit from international agreements before they enter into force. The Government had requested that Parliament discuss the draft on an expedited basis, and on February 25 the National Assembly overwhelmingly adopted the amendments. ¶3. (SBU) Most observers interpreted the amendments as a simple signal to Turkey that Armenia will not wait indefinitely for Turkish ratification of the protocols, pointing out that the articulated mechanisms for withdrawal are already available to the GOAM, if not explicit in legislation. However, some local analysts noted with interest that the amendments clarify procedures for withdrawal from an agreement post-ratification but before the agreement enters into force. Some observers suggested to us that this could indicate that the GOAM is considering ratifying the protocols before Turkey in order to maximize pressure on the Turks to follow suit, while still allowing itself an out should the Turkish parliament fail to take action in a timely way. Moreover, the NA made one small change to the Government's draft, adding language clarifying that, even in the event of suspension, the process could be subsequently resumed -- an unnecessary legislative provision, but perhaps included as a softening signal that even closed doors can be re-opened. ¶4. (SBU) In addition to the mixed messages within the amendments, we have received mixed signals from Armenian officials regarding the prospects for early Armenian ratification. Before the amendments reached Parliament, Deputy Speaker Samvel Nikoyan (a leader of the ruling party faction) said during a media interview that he thought Armenia should ratify first, only to clarify the following day that he was only expressing a personal opinion. Subsequently, a less prominent Republican, Rafik Petrosian, echoed Nikoyan's forward-leaning rhetoric on early ratification: "I think the protraction of the process is not necessary. I believe Armenia should hold the initiative till the end. It's my personal opinion and the opinion of the majority of Republicans. The Republican faction is always ready to consider the protocols in the National Assembly and ratify those. The more we drag on the process, the worse." Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakossian told DCM some time ago that he personally was advocating early ratification during MFA deliberations. ¶5. (C) On the margins of the Foreign Relations Committee meeting on February 19, Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharian, present to field questions from the MPs, offered more evidence that early Armenian ratification might be under consideration. During a break in the discussions and away from the crowd, in response to our own questioning about the purpose in pushing through amendments that really only clarify options already available, Kocharian focused on the language allowing for withdrawal after NA ratification but before entry into force. "Why is that language included?" he asked rhetorically, then answering his own question, saying that President Sargsian "is considering early ratification." Kocharian's, Kirakossian's, Nikoyan's, and Petrosian's comments, however, remain at odds with the public and most of the private statements from other officials that Turkey must ratify first. YEREVAN 00000106 002 OF 002 -------------- PROTOCOLS -------------- ¶6. (SBU) On February 19 the Foreign Affairs Committee made two procedural decisions regarding the Armenia-Turkey protocols. First, the Committee applied to the Speaker of the National Assembly with a written request that he not exercise his right to bring the protocols onto the NA agenda before the Committee fully deliberates and reaches its conclusion. Secondly, the Committee designated a working group of its members to come up with suggestions on how to proceed with Committee deliberations, to include recommendations regarding possible public hearings. There was no discussion of timing. -------------- STATEMENT ON NK -------------- ¶7. (SBU) During the same session, the Committee on Foreign Affairs gave a positive conclusion to a draft statement that condemns threats of war by Azeri officials. In the preambular language, there is wording that could be misinterpreted to suggest Armenian recognition of NK independence: --"Underlining that the Nagorno-Karabakh's declaration of independence and establishment process is completely in line with international law and the USSR legislation of that period, --Stressing the establishment of two equally legal independent states - Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan Republic -on the territory of the former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan after the collapse of the Soviet Union ..." ¶8. (SBU) Although the draft statement was initiated by the nationalist ARF Dashnaktutiun, it was subsequently endorsed by the Cabinet on December 3, 2009. Dashnak MPs Artsvik Minasian and Armen Rustamian, as well as Deputy Speaker of Parliament Samvel Nikoyan, separately confirmed to us that the text of the draft statement was a result of a consensus reached between the National Assembly and the Government. With the positive conclusion from the Committee of Foreign Affairs, the draft statement entered the agenda of the February 22-25 session of the National Assembly. ¶9. (C) However, during a meeting with the Ambassador, the President's Deputy Chief of Staff, Vigen Sargsian, expressed surprise that the statement had made it onto the NA agenda saying, "That wasn't supposed to go anywhere." He assured the Ambassador that it would not proceed any further. After one week, the statement has not resurfaced for further consideration, as the Speaker did not use his prerogative to introduce it for discussion, automatically postponing consideration until the next four-day session starting on March 15. Bills in the National Assembly can be postponed in this manner indefinitely. YOVANOVITCH