TENDER ILLUSIONS

Recently, Armenia has gone through a change of power. The Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), the main consolidating force of the notorious Karabakh Clan steering the country for the past 20 years, has been forced to transfer the power to the ‘popular candidate’ Nikol Pashinian, who reached the top of Armenian politics on the wave of protest movement.

Is it possible that the new officials in Armenian leadership make real changes in the country that has been suffering from a hopeless crisis since the declaration of independence due to its aggressive policy against Azerbaijan? Yet the term ‘independence’ has a somewhat vague and conditional connotation given Armenia’s over-dependence on external military support and foreign creditors.

End of the Karabakh Clan

RPA has tried its best to resist the seizure of power by Pashinian. The Make a Step movement initiated by Pashinian and protesting under the slogan Reject Serzh initially did not seem a threat to the totalitarian rule of RPA. After all, as a leader of a small parliamentary faction Elk, Pashinian has never been considered a significant and influential politician. However, the former President and Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan has soon realised that he had to make a choice amidst the growing wave of protests: to resign or to suppress the popular masses dissatisfied with his policies.

It would be naive to believe that Sargsyan, who has a considerable experience in the extermination of civilians including the mass murder of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh and the ruthless suppression of the Armenian protest movement on March 1, 2008, was conscious enough to refuse a new bloodshed. Sargsyan most likely realised that another punitive operation against fellow citizens would be inefficient to retain his power. Therefore, he decided to resign expecting that Pashinian would not be able to get access to the helm of the country anyway.

Indeed, during the first parliamentary ballot, RPA seriously prevented Pashinian from becoming a prime minister by securing 53 votes of the deputies. But on the same day, the danger of creating a power vacuum, which could provoke a “public revenge” against RPA, forced the Sargsyan regime to step back by declaring that they would vote for Pashinian in the next ballot. The withdrawal of the Dashnaktsutyun party from the power coalition also helped to soften RPA's position. Therefore, according to Armenian media, RPA remained alone against the people.

A week later, on May 8, Pashinian received 58 parliamentary votes and became the new leader of Armenia. According to the new Armenian Constitution, Prime Minister Pashinian is not only the head of the executive power, but also the state. Thus, Sargsyan's cunningly developed plan to preserve his own power turned into a failure. The former Armenian president, who had dreamed of extending his power, fell into the trap that he was preparing for his political rivals. The constitutional reform to transform Armenia from a parliamentary to presidential republic and invented by Sargsyan to change the presidential seat to the one of the prime minister was a complete failure.

Even the shadow of his former boss, the second Armenian president Robert Kocharian, who has long been considered the head of the Karabakh Clan, could not help Sargsyan. It was the end of both of these notorious veterans of the Karabakh war known for the extermination of Azerbaijani civilians; tough and cruel politicians ready to commit any crimes for the sake of achieving their goals. But they will most likely monitor the political process in Armenia vigilantly trying to take advantage of any mistake made by the ‘street leader’ Pashinian. Especially since Pashinian's access to power gives rise to more questions than answers.

How is the “popular leader” going to save the people?

One of the main questions associated with the so-called “velvet revolution” in Armenia is the role of external forces that could provide explicit and implicit support to it. Before the protests, Pashinian has been known as an openly anti-Russian politician urging Armenia to withdraw from the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO). He has also called for the withdrawal of the Russian military base from Armenia. However, Pashinian’s anti-Russian rhetoric has significantly softened in the course of the “revolution”: now he admits the urgency of maintaining the Russian military base in terms of ensuring Armenian security. Nor does he object to Armenia's membership in EAEU emphasising that Yerevan must reconsider the quality of its relations with Moscow.

But Pashinian has remained silent about the qualitative nature of these relations given the existing situation in Armenia when the country is actually run by Russian businesses and the military. According to many Russian experts however, the absence of anti-Russian statements in Pashinian’s rhetoric during the “velvet revolution” was just an attempt to prevent Moscow's interference in the process of changing the Armenian government; a trick of the “popular leader” to disguise his true goals designed to withdraw Armenia from Russian influence.

Incidentally, both the United States and the European Union have highly appreciated the transfer of power in the poorest country of the South Caucasus to “a fighter for the people's cause.” But considering that the West has always been verifying the “deeds” of other nations against Euro-Atlantic standards, it is no wonder that the U.S. and EU will expect Pashinian to take real steps towards “Armenia's approach to democracy”, which would mean Armenia’s movement in the western direction and getting rid of Russian control. They are ready to provide the new Armenian government with relevant financial support, as already indicated by concrete promises of the interested American and European authorities.

Questions: how far will Pashinian go in his alleged anti-Russianness and what measures will Moscow take if the new Armenian government somehow refuses any Russian support?

Apparently, Pashinian understands that sharp movements against Russian interests can weaken Russia’s role as the “guarantor of Armenian security”. Therefore, in the near future, he will not request the withdrawal of Armenia from the CSTO or the closure of the Russian military base in Armenia. He may however start stalling the Russian business. By the way, some Russian businessmen already hinted about the likelihood of forced closure of activities in Armenia. The question is how realistic the replacement of Russian business by European or American business is when Armenia is in fact isolated from regional economic processes.

In general, Pashinian talks a lot about the beginning of a new era in Armenia but remains silent about its economic development. In fact, Armenia demonstrates poor economic indicators amidst mass unemployment, poverty of at least one third of the population, as well as the insanely high amount of the state debt (over $7 billion). What resources does Pashinian have to correct the situation, pull the Armenian economy out of crisis, increase salaries, pensions, and other social allowances? How does he intend to prevent a further outflow of Armenian population from the country, which is a direct consequence of economic crisis and the disbelief of Armenian citizens in the perspective of development?

Pashinian’s illusions

Certainly, the revolutionary euphoria will die away soon, and it will become clear that Armenia is unable to solve any significant problems even under the “national leader” Pashinian. Nor will it be able to find solutions for acute economic problems, to stop the existing demographic crisis, to overcome its fears associated with the possible resumption of large-scale military operations in Karabakh.

All these problems inevitably force any Armenian government to establish relations with Azerbaijan, engage in cooperation, which can guarantee Armenia the solution of its “chronic diseases”, join the regional integration processes, and enter a qualitatively new level of development. But this prospect is still closed for Armenia, which continues the occupation of Azerbaijani territories. Apparently, Pashinian does not intend to abandon this policy either. During his pre-election speech in the parliament regarding his vision of the Karabakh settlement, Pashinian said that “the unity of Armenians will stop the illusions of Azerbaijan to solve the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh by military means”. While it is much more reasonable for him and anyone else who is trying to save the Armenian state from total collapse, it would be recognized that only Yerevan's refusal to occupy Azerbaijani territories can prevent a big war in the region. All other talks are nothing more than deceiving own people in order to seize or retain power, which had been proved by Sargsyan and his men earlier.

Pashinian has failed to convince anyone that he was not going to follow the same hopeless path. Immediately after his election as a prime minister, Pashinian visited Nagorno-Karabakh to take part in ceremonies dedicated to the 26^th anniversary of the occupation of Shusha, and made a number of destructive statements. In particular, he said that Armenia would make concessions only after Azerbaijan recognises “the right of Nagorno-Karabakh to self-determination”. In other words, Pashinian appeals to Baku to reconcile itself with the occupation of Azerbaijani territories, and the exile of million Azerbaijanis from Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjoining territories.

Anyways, Pashinian leaves no choice either for Azerbaijan, which is ready to liberate its lands by any means, or for Armenia, doomed to a complete decline unless it normalises relations with Azerbaijan. Let us hope that common sense prevails in Pashinian. The Armenian prime minister is left critically short time to come to his senses. The countdown has started...