VZCZCXRO1586
RR RUEHDBU RUEHLN RUEHSK RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHYE #0186/01 0761252
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 171252Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY YEREVAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8822
INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 YEREVAN 000186 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/PPD, EUR/CARC 
 
E.O. 12958; N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV PREL KPAO KMDR KDEM AM
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: HRR REPORT LARGELY MISUNDERSTOOD 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  Armenian media devoted considerable coverage to the Department's 
Human Rights Report.  Most of the articles focused on the angry 
reaction of pro-government politicians.  Editorial comment was 
scarcer, and some came much later.  The nature of the editorials had 
mostly to do with the publication's political position.  Much of the 
criticism implied, or explicitly stated, that the report selectively 
chose its "facts" and was simply echoing the complaints of the 
political opposition.  Other criticism focused on a perceived 
"pro-Azeri" characterization of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. 
The opposition press, which praised the report, tended to choose 
selective quotes to reinforce its own criticisms of the government. 
From the reasoning in several of the pieces and comments heard by 
the PAO, one might conclude that many Armenians believe that the 
tougher criticism in the report is unconnected to an objective 
worsening of the human rights situation, but rather the result of 
decisions made in Washington with respect to where the 
administration wants to take the bilateral relationship.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
GOVERNING PARTY CALLS HRR "ONE-SIDED AND SUBJECTIVE" 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶2.  Shortly after the release of the Human Rights Report, the 
respected daily Aravot published an interview with Republican Party 
spokesman Eduard Sharmazanov, in which he called the Report 
"one-sided and subjective" and not reflecting Armenia's actual 
situation.  "The report claims that the authorities did not allow 
citizens to fully exercise their right to change power.  I would 
like to remind our American colleagues, in case they have forgotten 
so quickly, that in our country people and the society change power 
through elections and our elections complied with all accepted 
international standards.  I would also like to remind them that, 
after the election, many ballot boxes were reopened and ballots were 
recounted at the request of the opposition, which did not add votes 
to LTP.  The report mentions that the police beat citizens, but 
fails to mention that policemen were beaten, too." 
 
¶3.  Sharmazanov disagreed with the HRR's assertion that the media 
was biased.  "I would advise them, (authors of the report), to 
review objectively the Armenian media at that time and see that the 
opposition had the opportunity to criticize via the media as much as 
they wanted.  I would like to mention that our colleagues who 
prepared the report contradict themselves.  In particular, during 
her meeting with Serzh Sargsian, former U.S. Secretary of State 
Condoleezza Rice noted that Armenia has embarked on the road to 
political reforms." 
 
-------------------------- 
BIASED ON NAGORNO-KARABAKH 
-------------------------- 
 
¶4.  A week later, Aravot published a front page editorial indicating 
that the parts of the HRR regarding elections, freedom of speech and 
the March 1, 2008 protests and violent aftermath were objective and 
fair. However, the paper's editor maintains that the same report 
carries pro-Azeri assessments when it comes to Nagorno-Karabakh. 
Without being explicit, he seems to be referring to the HRR's 
characterization of the situation there which is the same as in the 
2007 HRR, that is, "Armenia continues to occupy the Azerbaijani 
territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani 
territories."  In what is probably more a criticism of the 
government than the report, the editorial concludes by expressing 
concern that Armenia's weaknesses regarding human rights issues are 
being used to pressure Armenia on the Karabakh issue. 
 
¶5.  On the same day, the generally pro-government, Russian-language 
Golos Armenii specified that it too objected to the language 
characterizing the situation in Karabakh and criticized the Ministry 
of Foreign Affairs for not protesting publicly.  However, in a 
muddled editorial that mixed in comments by EUR DAS Bryza and author 
Tom de Waal, the paper never makes exactly clear what it is about 
the language that it objects to.  And like Aravot, Golos offers no 
alternative language or example of how it would describe the current 
circumstances in Nagorno-Karabakh. 
 
---------------------------------- 
A "DOWN PAYMENT" TO THE OPPOSITION 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  Pro-Government Hayots Ashkhar criticizes the HRR for being 
subjective and characterizing the February 19 elections and the 
March events in terms taken directly from the opposition.  "The 
HRR's statements contradict the western assessments regarding the 
elections and political prisoners.  In many cases, the authors of 
the report crudely 'copied' the 'facts' on the presidential 
elections presented by the opposition and did not even check with 
 
YEREVAN 00000186  002 OF 003 
 
 
the official assessment provided by the mission of international 
observers. 
 
¶7.  "The question arises as to who 'provided' the facts that became 
the basis for serious accusations?  Who are those 'anonymous 
observers' whose information was publicized by the most powerful 
state?  If no source is mentioned, one can only assume that the 
accusations are based on statements made by the opposition during 
its rallies.  What is the motivation behind such a 'revisionist 
approach?'... We think that since the old administration's position 
was different, theoretically the new administration's position 
should have been reflected only in the 2009 HRR. 
 
¶8.  "This means that the new administration, with this report, is 
making a down payment to the radical opposition (which is losing 
popularity) to give them wings for future actions like March 1, 
(2008) which in turn, will give the international community new 
reasons to exert international pressure on Armenia." 
 
-------------------------------- 
ACTIONS THAT AMOUNT TO "TREASON" 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶9.   In its February 27 issue, oppositional Haykakan Zhamanak says: 
"This report is the harshest and the most 'disgraceful' among all 
the reports published since last February's elections."  "We think 
that servants of the anti-democratic processes that have taken place 
in Armenia during the last year do not begin to understand that this 
[the report] is the result of their actions that amount to treason." 
 In its February 28 issue the newspaper writes, "It is worth 
mentioning that both Human Rights Watch and the State Department 
report mention that a clash between law enforcement authorities and 
demonstrators resulted in "at least" 10 deaths.  Thus, the State 
Department also questions the number of victims. 
 
¶10.  "The 54-page Report of the State Department represents the 
disgraceful situation of Armenia in such detail, that it even 
touches upon the morals and manners established in the army and the 
abuse of power by the authorities such as the governor of Syunik 
region who broke the jaw of a 16 year-old boy because the latter had 
a clash with his son.  In one word, there is no single positive 
thing about Armenia in the 54 page report." 
 
--------------------- 
NO MISTAKES BY POLICE 
--------------------- 
 
¶11.  As is often the case in Armenia, many newspapers refrained from 
editorial comment and chose to make their point by quoting others. 
Virtually all newspapers covered the press conference held by Police 
Chief Alik Sargsian.  Asked to comment on the State Department Human 
Rights Report, in particular, his part in last year's March 1 
clashes and the actions of the police, Sargsian disagreed with the 
assessments of the police actions reflected in the report saying: 
"The law enforcement bodies probably were slow to respond but no 
mistakes were made. They (the authors of the report) should not 
target the police.  They should look at what is going on in their 
own country." Coming back to the March 1 events, he said: "The 
police were probably a little slow to react, and if it could have 
controlled the situation sooner it would have been possible to avoid 
March 1. This slowness could even be considered a crime, as it 
resulted in victims among policemen." 
 
-------------------------------- 
NOT THE WAY TO INFLUENCE ARMENIA 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶12.  Official daily HAYASTANI HANRAPETUTIUN reported Republican 
Party parliamentary leader Galust Sahakian saying "there are various 
problems associated with human rights issues and democratic 
processes in Armenia.  We will try to find solutions to those issues 
in our political programs.  However, countries which try to have an 
influence on Armenia should not start by calling it undemocratic." 
Prosperous Armenia MP Aram Safarian stated, "The issues in the 
report are already known to us and reflect our reality.  The goal of 
the political forces in Armenia is to take steps to overcome post 
March 1 developments."   He was quick to add that the report by the 
State Department reflects that country's [United States] interests 
and foreign policy.  He recommended that Armenian authorities become 
acquainted with the document to know the issues that might affect 
Armenia-U.S. relations. 
 
¶13.  Deputy parliament speaker Hrayr Karapetian, of the Armenian 
Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) party, said that it would 
be wrong to assume that the U.S. has formulated its final opinion on 
Armenia's democracy, since democratic reforms are ongoing.  The 
parliamentary leader of the Orinats Yerkir Party said the report 
contains some truths, but noted that the Armenian authorities and 
the parliament want to change the situation by implementing serious 
judicial reforms. 
 
 
YEREVAN 00000186  003 OF 003 
 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶14.  A conversation with a well-known political analyst from the 
most widely-watched television station, Public TV, probably gives an 
indication of the continuing incomprehension of many Armenians 
concerning the purpose and inspiration for the Human Rights Report. 
This reporter, returned just a year ago from the U.S. after 
receiving a Masters Degree in journalism, seriously asked the PAO 
why the Human Rights Report was so much "tougher" on Armenia this 
year and was surprised to learn that the report was drafted in the 
Embassy.  From the conversation that ensued, it was clear that even 
this western-educated reporter worked under the assumption that the 
Report is a product of, rather than an input to, the policymaking 
process in Washington.  He clearly believed that, for reasons 
totally unconnected to the objective human rights situation in 
Armenia, Washington had decided to downgrade the bilateral 
relationship with Armenia, and the "tougher" HRR was a result of 
that decision. 
 
Yovanovitch