The siege of Erebuni

In this commentary the political editor of commonspace.eu discusses the impact of the siege in Erebuni on the Armenian political scene.

A group of armed men remains holed up in the police headquarters in the district of Erdebuni in the Armenian capital Yerevan, even though they have now released all the prisoners they took when they forcibly occupied the building on 17 July, killing one police officer.

The hostage situation has now become a siege. The building is surrounded by Armenian security forces, although at a distance, sympathisers of the group continue to hold a round the clock vigil of solidarity.

So far the Armenian authorities have proceeded cautiously. Storming the police station is an option, especially now that there are no hostages to worry about. But the government does not want to be seen shedding further blood. The Armenian authorities have even indicated that they will take seriously accusations of police brutality against protestors outside the police station, or abuse of the several hundred detained in the aftermath of the hostage taking, initiating an investigation - even though based on past experience quite where these investigations will lead to is another matter.

On Saturday the armed group emerged to talk to the press - a precondition that they set for releasing their last two hostages. The armed group call themselves Sasna Dzrer and have two sets of demands - the release of political prisoners, particularly the person that they claim is their leader Jirayr Sefilian;  and the resignation of the president, Serzh Sargsyan.

Questions have arisin over the last ten days as to who the armed group really are, and what is their ultimate objective. Throughout the incident, and even during their makeshift press conference on Saturday, the group has failed to articulate their demands coherently. There has therefore been much speculation as to what the ultimate objective of the group is. Some insist that this incident is directly related to the current negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh, and the prospect that Armenia is going to withdraw from some of the territory of Azerbaijan that it has occupied since 1994. Certainly this position fits with the ideas of Jirayr Sefilian.

In July 2010, Sefilian participated in a study conducted by the British organisation LINKS, and was interviewed in his capacity as spokesperson of the Sadarapat Movement. Sefilyan described himself as a former Karabakh veteran and as "the Commander in Chief for a Special Battalion involved in the liberation of Sushi. Up until 1999 he served in the army in several different positions, including senior positions in the Defence Ministry".  

In the interview Sefilian said that the Sadarapat Movement (SM) believes that there is no conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh, only a conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and considers the Nagorno-Karabakh issue already resolved - remaining tensions the result of other unresolved issues with Azerbaijan such as the issue of Nakhijevan. The movement maintains that the de facto union between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh should be legalized as soon as possible with regards to the international law, and considers Armenian policy towards Nagorno-Karabakh since 1992 as wrong since it has treated it as a separate independent state. The SM maintains that the national liberation movement that started in 1988 was aimed at reuniting Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh, which was illegally annexed from Armenia during the Soviet era. The Armenian policy since 1992 has therefore been detached from the national feelings of the Armenia people, and the SM therefore disapproves of it. The SM therefore supports the status quo situation that was established after the cease-fire in 1994 and believes that any kind of change to it is not only against the national interest of Armenia, but also has the capacity to upset the regional security environment in the South Caucasus. (You can read the full interview conducted in 2010 on commonspace.eu here).

Some are questioning whether Sefilian supports the armed group in Erdebuni. Armenian writer, Markar Melkonian, wrote on the website hetq.am that "it is not at all clear that Sefilian, a distinguished patriot who has been in police custody throughout these events, should be held responsible for the ill-considered actions of those who seized the police station on July 17". Melkonian laments the collapse of the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1991 and warns that the siege's ultimate aim may be to break Armenia's close relations with Moscow. (You can read the full text of Melkonia's op-ed on hetq.am here).

And here lies the dilemma for the government. Whilst it needs to be seen putting a swift end to the siege in Erdebuni it realises that a wrong move may trigger a much wider set of reactions, especially from Karabakh veterans who feel they have the moral authority to hold the government to account. President Sargsyan is at the moment under considerable pressure from the Russians, and indeed from the wider international community to make the necessary concessions to unblock the impasse in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace negotiations. Yet as Erdebuni has shown doing so is not going to be a simple matter.

One reason is that veterans from the war in Karabakh in the 1990s remain extremely influential in the political establishment in Armenia, and to a somewhat lesser extent in Azerbaijan. The 2010 LINKS study surveyed 46 political parties in Armenia and Azerbaijan and their attitude towards the Karabakh conflict. It found that veterans of the war occupied key positions in many of the parties, and that most had hardline positions on the issue (You can read the full study here).

The Armenian political scene has been caught in a time-warp for the last quarter of a century. There is plurality and competition, but the participants are by and large all veterans of a war that took place in the last century, and who see politics from the prism of that war.

Erebuni has once again opened up emotional discussions in Armenian society and has once more raised questions on a dysfunctional political system. For every day that it lasts, the siege of Erdebuni reminds Armenians of the siege mentality that predominates in Armenian politics. Many feel that it is now time to move on. For them, Erdebuni is a step backward, not forward.

This is a commentary prepared by the political editor of commonspace.eu

Photo: Member of the armed group under siege at Erebuni police headquarters in the Armenian capital Yerevan emerged to talk to the press on Saturday (23 July). (Picture courtesy of hetq.am)

 

 

 

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Uzbekistan calls for bigger voice for Central Asia in the UN

Uzbekistan calls for bigger voice for Central Asia in the UN

Uzbekistan called for a more effective and representative United Nations on September 23, as presidential administration chief Saida Mirziyoyeva used her address to the UN General Assembly to seek support for the country’s candidacy for a nonpermanent Security Council seat in 2035–2036. Speaking at the Assembly’s 81st session in New York, Mirziyoyeva argued that international cooperation remains necessary despite growing geopolitical divisions. She endorsed UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ UN80 reform initiative and called for an expanded Security Council, arguing that international rules should be applied consistently rather than according to the interests of powerful states. Uzbekistan’s planned chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement in 2027 was presented as another platform for promoting dialogue. Her emphasis on multilateralism also fits a broader Central Asian effort to increase the region’s role in international institutions. Kyrgyzstan, for example, will hold its first Security Council seat in 2027–2028. Mirziyoyeva also highlighted regional cooperation, pointing to improved relations among Central Asian states over longstanding border and water disputes. On Afghanistan, she urged countries not to view it solely as a security threat, stressing the importance of creating conditions for peaceful development. She linked Uzbekistan’s international agenda to domestic reforms, citing economic growth, falling poverty and expanded education. Climate and water security also featured prominently, with the Aral Sea serving as an example of the consequences of poor environmental management. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)