WHO CHOOSES?

The presidential race has got under way in Armenia. But unlike other countries, where political parties present the electorate with campaign platforms and their political and economic vision of the country's future, Armenian voters traditionally witness a dirty war of compromising dossiers between the political forces and provocative statements and actions by the authorities. And it is quite reasonable.

When the wave of social and economic problems is growing in the country and when, according to Armenian politicians themselves, the sovereignty of Armenia is rather symbolic and exists only on paper, there is nothing left but to knock opponents out of the game, using the controlled judicial system. A striking example is the so-called "Oskanyan case".

For example, at the request of the prosecutor general, the deputy from the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP) and former foreign minister, Vardan Oskanyan, was stripped of his parliamentary immunity on 2 October this year. According to the request, the founder of the Civilitas Foundation, Vardan Oskanyan, misappropriated a large amount of funds transferred to the foundation for charity purposes and then took various steps to legalize them. Oskanyan was later summoned to the National Security Service of Armenia for interrogation and was formally charged.

The fact that the former foreign minister was stripped of parliamentary immunity and a criminal case was opened against him cause a lot of questions and versions. The political implications of the case are clear. Ahead of the presidential elections in Armenia, an attempt to neutralize one of the leaders of the opposition party, the second man on the party list for the parliament, cannot be characterized as an ordinary criminal case, of course. According to a deputy from the ANC faction and chairman of the Armenian Pan-National Movement, Aram Manukyan, the police possessed information on the transfer of money for charity two years ago, but opened the case much later when the former minister returned to politics, joining the PAP. Emotions ran high especially after Oskanyan's resignation from the post of minister when he lashed out against the current government.

The political scandal surrounding the criminal case against Oskanyan reflects the real essence of the domestic political landscape in Armenia, for the actions of Oskanyan's associates in the PAP and its leader, as well as the statements and behaviour of various political forces around the recent events help to catch sometimes very subtle intrigues on the eve of the presidential election.

During the parliamentary debate on the motion, the opposition parties or the parties that present themselves as opposition simply chose to boycott the session. It looked strange, for the PAP could at least use the rostrum of the parliament to defend its associate and one of its leaders - Oskanyan. Many were surprised by this reaction from the opposition, especially the prolonged silence of PAP leader Gagik Tsarukyan, who still has not spoken out in favour of Oskanyan. As for the statement of the second president of Armenia and shady patron of the PAP, Robert Kocharyan, who criticized the criminal case against the former foreign minister, it could be, according to experts, more radical. It turns out that attempts to neutralize Oskanyan are of benefit not only to the Armenian authorities.

The thing is that during the presidential election, the struggle will be between a representative of the authorities and ... a representative of the authorities. If it is between the RPA and PAP, the system will still win, which does not promise anything good. For Prosperous Armenia has not been able to establish itself as a real opposition force either domestically or abroad. Realizing this, the authorities are trying to show that the current leadership is pro-Western and the opposition is pro-Russian. No matter how absurd it appears, the authorities are trying to present Sargsyan as an independent politician intending to integrate the country into the Western and European community, as opposed to the Kocharyan-Tsarukyan tandem, so-called "vassals of Moscow". However, this attempt, which analysts consider ridiculous, would have failed, if the opposition was represented by Oskanyan in the elections. For it is Oskanyan, as a pro-Western politician with connections in the US, that could be a real competitor for Sargsyan. Oskanyan's statements about his readiness to run for the presidency in Armenia increase the likelihood of this assumption.

Serzh Sargsyan would not be able to compete with an Oskanyan-type politician and go to the second round of the elections.

Neither friend nor foe...

On the other hand, a "blow" to Oskanyan can be beneficial to PAP leader Tsarukyan, who has been unable to turn from an oligarch with a suspicious reputation into a charismatic politician. It transpires that Tsarukyan is jealous of Oskanyan, whose authority in the PPA may rise amid recent events and who may have a greater social ranking than Tsarukyan himself.

Obviously, Sargsyan, who came to power on the blood of his own citizens, has quite clearly "explained" to Tsarukyan all the benefits of friendship with him and an actual break with his patron. As a result, Tsarukyan did not stand up for Oskanyan.

Recent events prove that Sargsyan has enough leverage on Tsarukyan. Thus, online media reported that working in the police in the 1980's, Tsarukyan received a prison sentence for rape and served time in the Nizhniy Tagil criminal prison, from which he was released on parole "for good behaviour". But he received complete acquittal from the Supreme Court of Armenia only under President Robert Kocharyan. Online media sources add that "the motion for Gagik Tsarukyan's acquittal in court was presented by a prominent political figure, who has now defected to the opposition and whom we do not consider appropriate to name".

The criminal case against Oskanyan also may play into the hands of Kocharyan, no matter how he defends his associate. Because, being a pro-Western candidate, Oskanyan repeatedly accused the Armenian authorities of being, as he said, too pro-Russian, which harms Armenia's sovereignty. Such a position could not please Russia and Russian lobbyists like Kocharyan. It is no coincidence that in the case against Oskanyan and his foundation Civilitas, there is a clear "Western trace". For example, Jon Huntsman (American politician, a Republican, a Mormon and presidential candidate, who withdrew from the presidential race on16 January 2012 and urged his supporters to back Mitt Romney - also a Mormon and Huntsman's distant relative) figures in this scandal. Since 1988, Huntsman and his company Huntsman International have invested more than $ 20 million in Armenia. In 2010, when his company left Armenia, the remaining funds were transferred to the Civilitas Foundation.

In this context, it is no coincidence that the first reactions and negative comments about the criminal case came from diplomatic representatives of Western countries. In particular, the German ambassador to Armenia, Reiner Morell, said his country is closely following the criminal case against the former foreign minister of Armenia. Almost a similar statement was issued by the US embassy in Armenia.

Covering the events surrounding the notorious "Oskanyan case", The Washington Post presented the information in a negative light for the Armenian authorities. According to the newspaper, this fact is nothing other than yet another example of the anti-Western campaign against US-funded NGOs.

The Armenian diaspora, which has not been getting on well with the Armenian authorities in recent years, also found it necessary to express their outrage. For example, Canadian film director Atom Egoyan and American rock musician Serj Tankian sharply criticized the current leadership of the country. Expressing thus their own "shock and indignation" about the recent events, they qualify the aforesaid accusations as persecution with a clearly political and deliberate context, which cannot have a positive impact on the process of democratization in the country.

The Kremlin's choice

What we said above allows us to understand that, as an alternative to the current government and the system, Oskanyan does not meet the interests of pro-Russian forces and, in particular, Kocharyan himself. And this is an important factor, given that it is the position of Moscow that will play a crucial role in political developments in Armenia in the next few years and that the real presidential elections will take place outside Armenia.

But it seems that Russia has not yet made a final choice between Sargsyan and Kocharyan. In the heat of the ongoing story with Oskanyan, the media, imperceptibly at first, spoke about the talks between the two countries to review the export prices of Russian gas supplies to Armenia. Although the Federal Regulatory Commission of Public Services played the role of a herald, the specific details of the negotiations were clearly held back.

Moscow understands that an increase in the price of natural gas for Armenia is the defeat of the current administration, and if Russia reduces the cost, Armenia will receive gas at the same price as subjects of the Russian Federation. However, analysts say, Russia is not very worried about the state of the Armenian economy at least in the light of the information that during President Putin's recent visit to Kyrgyzstan, Russia wrote off its debts and extended the deployment of the Russian military base on its territory. However, having a similar base in Armenia, for which Armenia pays itself, Russia has not forgiven Yerevan's debts.

If there is a political confrontation between the West and Russia over the same Kyrgyzstan, with Armenia everything is certainly clear. Russia has long received all it needed from this country: the stationing of the Russian base has been extended for 49 years, the borders of Armenia are protected by Russian border guards and all the infrastructure and mineral resources of Armenia belong to Russia.

Against the background of the events surrounding Oskanyan, the Armenian parliament ratified the protocol on the deployment of military infrastructure facilities on the territory of the CSTO member states, which was signed on 20 December 2011 in Moscow. In accordance with the protocol, the CSTO member states decide to place on their territory the troops (forces) and military facilities of non-members of the organization after emergency consultations (agreement) with other CSTO member states and in the absence of formal objections from them.

In fact, Armenia promises not to allow the deployment of a military facility of non-members of the CSTO without the approval of Belarus, for example.

How this will affect the already contentious sovereignty of Armenia is a rhetorical question

We can also take a sceptical approach to the process of Armenia's integration into the Euro-Atlantic area, of which the country's leadership assures the West every time, given that NATO is the basic though informal military structure of the EU. It's no secret that the road to EU membership lies, in the first place, through membership of NATO. Given that many of the new members and candidates to the European Union have a common border with Russia or border on other anti-Western nations, NATO is a guarantor of the security of these countries while the European Union is a reformer of their political and economic spheres.

On this basis, we can assume that Armenia can no longer count on financial support from the EU - it would be at least strange to give a 500-million-dollar loan to a country that is entirely part of the Russian sphere of influence, but is unlikely to get financial concessions from the "big brother", as we noted above.

Thus, Armenia goes to the polls, neutralizing the last non-pro-Russian politician. Making the final choice in foreign policy, the country's government is waiting for the Kremlin to decide who will be its worthy governor in Armenia.