This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 YEREVAN 001961 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/SNEC, EUR/CACEN 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/17/2015 
TAGS: PREL PGOV AJ AM RU
SUBJECT: GOAM HAS NO MANDATE TO RESOLVE N-K, ARMENIAN CIVIL 
SOCIETY TELLS A/S FRIED AND AMB. MANN 
 
REF: YEREVAN 1842 
 
Classified By: Amb. J.M. Evans for reasons 1.4 (b,d) 
 
-------- 
SUMMARY: 
-------- 
 
¶1. (C) During an October 18 breakfast with EUR A/S Fried and 
Ambassadors Mann and Evans, representatives of Armenian civil 
society were extremely skeptical about the implementation of 
a Nagorno-Karabakh (N-K) peace agreement.  While there was 
some divergence of opinion, the majority of the 
representatives argued that any agreement on N-K would lack 
public legitimacy because the GOAM is "illegitimate."  The 
group also expressed concern about corruption and censorship 
in Armenia and said that democracy in the country is 
deteriorating.  A/S Fried emphasized the USG's strong support 
for democratic reforms, but argued that dismissing a possible 
solution on N-K achieved by the Kocharian government "does 
not make sense." 
 
Participants: 
 
EUR Assistant Secretary Fried 
Ambassador John Evans 
Ambassador Steven Mann 
EUR/SNEC Deputy Director Elizabeth Rood 
Yerevan Pol/Econ notetaker 
 
Avetik Ishkhanian, Helsinki Committee 
Tigran Ter-Yesayan, International Union of Advocates 
Artak Kirakossian, Civil Society Institute 
Gagik Avakyan, Caucasus Forum NGO 
Harutyun Hambardzumian, It's Your Choice NGO 
Amalia Kostanian, Transparency International 
Larisa Minasian, Open Society Institute 
 
End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
CIVIL SOCIETY:  ILLEGITIMATE GOAM HAS NO MANDATE TO RESOLVE 
N-K 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶2. (C) Ambassador Mann began the October 18 meeting by asking 
how prepared the Armenian public is for a post-conflict 
society.  He provided an overview of current N-K 
negotiations, saying that "considerable progress" had been 
made and that the negotiations are "headed in the right 
direction."  Mann told the group he had come to the point 
where he believed a deal is possible, but that "the odds are 
always against agreement."  He said there is a "qualitative 
difference between the spring of 2004 and fall of 2005." 
 
¶3. (C) The Helsinki Committee's Avetik Ishkhanian said the 
Armenian people are "tired of the conflict," but still care 
about the N-K issue.  He told Ambassador Mann "the Armenian 
people would like to have the conflict resolved as soon as 
possible so long as the resolution does not hurt their 
dignity."  He outlined two possible ways to implement a peace 
agreement.  First, if the government is a tyranny, it can 
force the people to accept the agreement.  Second, if the 
government is a democracy with the full support of the 
people, then the public will accept the peace agreement. 
Armenia, Ishkhanian said, is neither a tyranny nor a 
democracy.  Therefore, any solution to the N-K conflict will 
mean the "end of the government."  He said when Armenians 
talk about democratic development and free elections, they 
are talking about steps that would lead towards the second, 
democratic option, whereby the government would have a 
mandate to solve the N-K issue. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
NO SOLUTION UNTIL AFTER 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶4. (C) International Union of Advocates Head Tigran 
Ter-Yesayan agreed with Ishkhanian's assessment and said the 
situation in N-K will not be solved until after the 2008 
Presidential election.  He described the GOAM as a "hybrid 
government, while one person has the power, there are other 
influences that he does not control."  He explained that the 
oligarchs who control the GOAM do not have the confidence of 
the country and, therefore, the GOAM "cannot solve an issue 
as important as N-K." 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
MANN EXPLAINS THE TIMELINE AND EMPHASIZES IMPLEMENTATION 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
¶5. (C) Ambassador Mann described the timeline for the 
negotiations as "very tough."  He said that if there is "no 
serious progress in 2006 it won't happen until 2009,  because 
of the 2007 Parliamentary elections in Armenia and the 2008 
Presidential elections in both countries."  Citing the 
co-chairs, he said "time is not on anyone's side."  Mann 
explained when he talks with Azeris he tells them "the longer 
you wait, the more Armenia literally and figuratively digs 
in."   The Armenians develop infrastructure in N-K and 
international attention will drift, as it has in Kashmir, 
Mann said.  Mann said he also argues that "stalemate breeds 
radicalism."  Ambassador Mann said Azeri President Aliyev is 
a "fundamentally reasonable person.  He can be tough in his 
negotiating positions, but is still a reasonable person.  If 
there is no progress in the next ten to fifteen years, we do 
not know what kind of leadership there will be in 
Azerbaijan."  He explained that in the coming year Azerbaijan 
plans to double its defense budget and he expects this trend 
to continue.  While a military solution will not bring the 
situation back to pre-1998, Mann said, these types of defense 
budget increases "can cause a lot of trouble."  He clarified, 
"this is not going to be a situation where people sign a 
paper and then all is perfect.  Implementation is going to be 
a critical issue." 
 
----------------------------------------- 
FROM SELF DETERMINATION TO TERRITORIALITY 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (C) Civil Society Institute's Artak Kirakossian said the 
Armenian perspective on the conflict had changed, 
particularly in terms of the "security zone" around N-K. 
According to Kirakossian, previously Armenians viewed the N-K 
conflict in terms of self-determination.  Now, as a result of 
the Azeri focus on territorial integrity, Armenians view the 
conflict as a territorial issue.  Kirakossian also said 
Armenians were not accustomed to win/win solutions and NGOs 
needed to help the public understand that idea.  He said 
money cannot impact the resolution of the conflict, "even 
billions of dollars may not contribute to a solution because 
this issue is an issue of dignity."  He speculated that 
financial support for the peace process might also increase 
corruption. 
 
¶7. (C) Mann said he covers three other conflicts, South 
Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transnistria, and when he goes to Baku 
he is asked why he is a such a strong defender of territorial 
integrity for Georgia and Moldova, but is willing to talk 
about "giving Azeri land to Armenians."  Mann summarized the 
U.S. position as being support for territorial integrity, 
while taking into account the wishes of the people of the 
region. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
THE GOAM USING N-K TO GAIN POLITICAL ADVANTAGE 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶8. (C) Larisa Minasian from the Open Society Institute (OSI) 
cautioned that the N-K issue is "the most manipulated in the 
public mind."  She suggested that it would be useful to have 
more "public discourse or discussion about what is at stake." 
 She recalled a speech given at an OSI conference in Key West 
in 2000 where the question was "how to sell the peace to the 
public."  She noted "we are again at the same point," and 
suggested that the international community needs to learn 
what went wrong in 2000 so as to avoid repeating the same 
mistakes. 
 
¶9. (C) The Caucasus Forum's Gagik Avakyan said "if the 
government, in 2006, gives back the occupied territories this 
may guarantee them another term in office, but it will cause 
mass violence in Armenia."  (Note: The implication of his 
remark was that the GOAM will make concessions to the 
international community on N-K in exchange for assurances 
that current authorities will remain in power.  End Note.) 
 
¶10. (C) At the close of the meeting Ambassador Mann said 
without progress or an agreement on N-K "things will get 
worse and you have to ask if you are prepared to fight 
another war."  He asked the participants if an agreement does 
emerge, that they judge the agreement on its terms, not on 
the basis of which government signed the agreement.  A/S 
Fried pointed out the inconsistency in the participants' 
remarks, saying "it does not make sense to argue that a 
possible solution lacks legitimacy if a non-democratic regime 
supports it, and at the same time, argue that the conflict 
prevents the establishment of a democratic regime." 
---------------------------- 
A/S FRIED'S OVERVIEW REMARKS 
---------------------------- 
 
¶11. (C) EUR Assistant Secretary Fried, Ambassador Evans and 
Elizabeth Rood joined the meeting in progress.  A/S Fried 
said Secretary Rice asked him to come to Armenia because 
"Washington has the sense that history is accelerating in 
this part of the world, hopefully for the good, but not 
necessarily."  He said "reformist forces and democratic 
forces are growing and strengthening, and so too, perhaps, 
are anti-reformist forces."  Fried continued, saying "maybe 
too much is made of the so-called colored revolutions. 
America does not believe in revolution, although we do 
believe in democracy."  Fried mentioned the Constitutional 
Referendum and said he wanted to listen to the group's 
opinions about where Armenia is headed and what he ought to 
know before meeting with President Kocharian. 
 
--------------------------- 
A MOVE TOWARDS REGIONALISM? 
--------------------------- 
 
¶12. (C) The Caucasus Forum's Avakyan said "we cannot expect 
any progress (on N-K) until 2008-2009 because that is when 
Armenia will have a legitimate government."  He described the 
period between today and a possible resolution of the N-K 
conflict in 2009 as a "lost period," and suggested that 
during the intervening years, the parties should focus on 
regional integration within the South Caucasus including 
South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  He said he believes the 
conflicts in N-K, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia will be 
resolved at the same time.  He added he was glad to hear that 
the U.S. does not believe in colored revolutions because he 
has not seen big changes as a result of such revolutions. 
 
------------------------------------ 
CORRUPTION REMAINS A SERIOUS PROBLEM 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶13. (C) Amalia Kostanian from Transparency International (TI) 
noted that the TI corruption perception index for 2005 was 
scheduled to be launched later that day.  She said that the 
South Caucasus and CIS countries were ranked poorly, and 
"even countries which had experienced colored revolutions 
have not made visible progress."  She questioned whether the 
GOAM would be interested in peace if "conflicts are a good 
excuse for suppressing freedom of speech and keeping the 
state machinery non-transparent."  Responding to Fried's 
mentioning of the Constitutional Referendum, she said the 
GOAM, under pressure from the international community, had to 
make amendments to the constitution but, even if the 
amendments lead to improved checks and balances within 
government, the process was poor.  She said that the 
amendment process was "driven by the authorities not the 
public."  Given that the current local elections are 
"absolutely corrupt," she doubted that the electoral system 
could be improved before the Referendum vote on November 27. 
She did not agree conditions for peace in N-K would be more 
favorable in 2009.  "Who can guarantee that in 2009 we will 
have a more legitimate government?" she asked.  She stated 
"we do not see progress," and observed "the President in 
Georgia came to power with an anti-corruption program but 
also with nationalistic ideas and so there has been no 
progress under that regime." 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY PLAYING FAVORITES? 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
¶14. (C) Kostanian said public opinion would be against any 
solution in N-K because the public perception was that the 
international community favors the "other side."  She claimed 
the public believes the international community is favoring 
Azerbaijan because of its oil and gas reserves and Georgia 
because of its poor relationship with Russia. 
 
¶15. (C) At the close of the meeting, A/S Fried said he is 
"glad that Armenia has historically good relations with 
Russia."  The Armenian example, according to A/S Fried  shows 
that good relations with the West and with Russia do not 
necessarily conflict. 
 
-------------------------- 
DEMOCRACY IS DETERIORATING 
-------------------------- 
 
¶16. (C) Ter-Yesayan said that N-K is not the main problem; 
the problem is "that a system of values is being ignored by 
people trying to get power.  We live in a centralized, 
corrupt country where the judiciary, local government and the 
media are all censored," he said.  According to Ter-Yesayan, 
this corruption endures because Armenia is a small country 
and because powerful countries provide support for the 
existing structure.  He cited the support Russia and France 
gave to Kocharian following the 2003 Presidential election as 
an example.  He said the public is tired and, "since the 
events of 2004, also scared.  If the population is 2.5 
million and three to four thousand are detained, that is a 
big proportion, particularly if another ten thousand are 
being told you will be next." 
¶17. (C) Larisa Minasian added that over the past four to five 
years the quality of democracy in Armenia has "deteriorated," 
despite progress in "the written documents."  She said the 
GOAM is learning "how to make a pretense of reform and that 
the international community, including the Council of Europe, 
is indirectly a part of this process.  The government is 
manipulating and getting away with it, so they have come to 
learn that you can cheat during the reform process." 
 
¶18. (C) Ishkhanian said there was no possibility of 
evolutionary development in Armenia.  He mentioned a case 
where a mayor killed someone and no one appeared to care 
(reftel).  He suggested that A/S Fried discuss freedom of 
speech with Kocharian and encourage Kocharian to reopen the 
local media station, A1-plus. 
 
---------------------------------- 
A/S FRIED:  "DON'T KNOCK PRETENSE" 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶19. (C) Fried said he does not believe in revolution because 
revolutions are an indication of failure.  He continued, 
"sometimes when there is a failure, like Georgia or Ukraine, 
it can lead to democracy, but it can also move the other way. 
 We much prefer reform led by a government, even if it is not 
fully democratic yet."  He added, "I will say this for 
colored revolutions, they have frightened every 
non-democratic government in the region and they also seem to 
have frightened Russia."  Citing the example of President 
Mubarak in Egypt, A/S Fried said "don't knock pretense.  If 
the government has to pretend, sometimes the pretense gets 
out of control."  He clarified that the U.S. does not believe 
in revolution, we believe in democracy.   A/S Fried said "we 
do not believe in supporting dictators who promise 
stability," and gave the example of the recent setback in 
U.S. relations with Uzbekistan's President Karimov as 
evidence of that position. 
 
¶20. (C) In conclusion, A/S Fried said "if history is 
accelerating that gives you an opportunity for change.  My 
sense, as an outsider, is that populations do not want to 
live under corrupt regimes.  This may mean that even if the 
situation is deteriorating, the language may be turning in 
your favor, giving you an opportunity to push a democratic 
agenda."  Ishkhanian thanked Fried for consulting civil 
society and Fried replied "civil society is less irrelevant 
than its members may think.  Solidarity (in Poland) used to 
be thought of as the people who had dinner at the 
Ambassador's Residence." 
 
¶21. (U) EUR/FO has cleared this message. 
EVANS