Susanna Petrosyan, Yerevan. Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza
The starting point for many of Armenia's problems today were the events of March 1, 2008, which became a continuation of presidential elections. It is interesting that some Russian media resources attempted to present it as if some Western countries were plotting the next "orange revolution" to take place in Armenia and bring the opposition to power. These misconceptions were proven wrong when memos of the United States Embassy in Yerevan were published by the Wikileaks website and it turned out that the Americans in fact supported the government, not the opposition.
Clashes between police and peaceful protesters on Liberty Square, and later clashes between police and opposition protesters around the monument to Alexander Myasnikian, in which 10 people were killed and more than 200 injured, marked a distinctive dividing line between the public and the opposition.
Six and a half years ago, representatives of the government hastened to assure Armenian society that the page of March 1 had been turned. However, their statement was premature, since the people guilty of the events which took place on March 1 have not been found yet. All attempts by the opposition to prompt a fair investigation into the events by Western institutions and especially by the Council of Europe were unsuccessful. Meanwhile, according to the logic of what is happening in the world, a "March 1" might happen any time now.
The March events had a significant impact on the political situation in Armenia. Over time, the former allies of the ruling Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), the Prosperous Armenia Party (PAP) and Dashnaktsutiun (ARF), as well as the Rule of Law party have done everything to distance themselves from the authorities.
The March events also remained relevant in the context of foreign policy. As a result of the March 1 events, the Armenian government, which is barely legitimate, proved to be extremely vulnerable in the face of external players.
In particular, the United States, one of the most important goals of which in the South Caucasus is Armenian-Turkish relations, exploited the vulnerability of the Armenian authorities and of President Serzh Sargsyan, putting pressure on them to sign the Armenian-Turkish protocols in October 2009, which caused an uproar in Armenia and among the Armenian Diaspora. Armenian society and the Diaspora consider it unacceptable to establish a joint commission on the study of history, which was provided by the agreements. By signing these documents, the Armenian authorities gave their permission for the Turkish side to discuss the 1915 genocide.
Although the protocols have not yet been ratified by the legislatures of both countries and the process has been frozen, the protocols do exist and have been signed by the Armenian authorities. The plan of the United States was to weaken the influence of Russia in Armenia and in the region as a whole by the protocols.
Another important indicator of the influence of internal problems on Armenia's foreign policy was Yerevan's indecisiveness in choosing its direction of development. The vulnerability of the authorities dictated a whimsical position in terms of a geopolitical vector. Thus, Yerevan had been flirting for 3 years with the West and the EU "Eastern Partnership" program before it turned 180 degrees in the direction of Russia. On September 3 last year Sargsyan announced that Armenia was going to join the Customs Union. There is no direct evidence that Moscow pressured Yerevan, but it is clear that its powerful neighbor helped Yerevan to "clarify" its own position.
A decision about Armenia's membership in the Eurasian Economic Union will be taken on October 10. So far, it is unclear what will happen to this process. Armenia's accession to the Customs Union and the EEU is delayed by controversies between the members of these associations. Meanwhile, only the Heritage party is openly against Armenia joining the EEU. Other parties generally support this move.
Armenian society remains indifferent to the question of Armenia's accession to the EEU or any other entity. The question of Armenia's geopolitical choice seems insignificant against the background of the socio-economic problems faced by the vast majority of Armenian citizens, high migration rates and 35% poverty. Independent protests against the country's accession to the EEU gather only up to 50 people and generally find no support in society.
