VZCZCXRO4380
RR RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHNP RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSR
DE RUEHYE #0106/01 0571438
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 261438Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY YEREVAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0091
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC

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