Yesterday the Ombudsman of Armenia Karen Andreasyan stated that he wishes to become a mediator between the Armenian National Congress and the Armenian government. “By signifying the role of the Human Rights Watch and the prevention of the violation of human rights and by sincerely believing that in our current political situation we need political dialogue and healthy collaboration I wish to perform my duties as a mediator between the Armenian National Congress and the government,” yesterday in his official statement mentioned the Ombudsman of Armenia. Many people currently speak about the necessity of cooperation of the opposition and the government and especially the ANC with the government. All the sides have been speaking about that for quite time. The last demonstration of that was the statement of the first president of Armenia during the April 8 rally of the ANC. He mentioned that the next rally on April 28 will eight become a day for cooperation of drastic separation. And this statement of Ter-Petrosyan was followed by the order of Serzh Sargsyan to investigate the events of March 1 events with a greater vigor. This was actually a response to one to the demands of the ANC. And the dialog between the government and the opposition gradually gains all kinds of interpretations. Yesterday the political circles of Armenia didn’t consider the statement of Andreasyan an accident or a random act. In our reality the Ombudsman is not so independent to make such statements on his own. Perhaps the order for such a statement was given by the presidential office just like the way his candidacy was nominated. But this is not the actual problem. The key matter is the political context and the actual goal of this statement. Is Karen Andreasyan the right person to be a mediator between the opposition and the ANC? Perhaps this is only a stamen to make the already exiting dialog more declarative. At any rate how do the political forces of Armenia relate to the Ombudsman’s statement? The leader of “Heritage” faction of the parliamentary opposition Stepan Safaryan thinks that the Ombudsman’s suggestion about being a mediator may become a test paper for clarifying how sincere the parties are in their announcements. “If they really go for a dialogue, then the invitation should be accepted, if they don’t, then it will be clear how sincere the parties are in their activity concerning March 1”, he says. At the same time Stepan Safaryan doesn’t consider neither Serzg Sargsyan’s and nor Ombudsman’s announcements sincere enough as in both cases there is no assurance of returning to the individual cases of March 1. Stepan Safaryan mentions that the government’s evaluation grades concerning the March 1 developments are expressed in those cases. “Consequently there is the following question: if those cases aren’t going to be examined and the evaluation grades aren’t going to be changed, what is going their dialogue to be about? It turns out that the topic of the dialogue is quite not March 1. Its topic can be, for example, some agreements during the elections. He says that they’re just going to touch upon the mutual accusations between the government and the opposition which is very figuratively cited in the Ombudsman’s letter, that is to say, who tells what and to whom. In that case, it’s interesting, which is the consensus of those various standpoints”, the deputy asks. And the leader of RPA faction Galust Sahakyan doesn’t think that being a mediator between the government and the opposition is not the Ombudsman’s prerogative. Though K. Andreasyan mentioned in his speech that his mandate gave him such power. “I cannot tell why he made such a statement, but the authorities always used to announce that they were ready to go for a dialogue with any political force on any issue”, Galust Sahakyan says. However, there is some softening in the standpoints or announcements of the authorities or ANC and it is probably the result of that dialogue. Even the Republican Party mentions that there is a dialogue and it is mediated by the international bodies. But Galust Sahakyan doesn’t agree with such opinions expressed by his team either. “I don’t have such information and I don’t think that it will have some efficient results. If the political force has a problem with the authorities, they can sit down, speak and decide”, the deputy president of RPA said. Stepan Safaryan is not only convinced that there is a dialogue but that also it takes place not only at the level of such announcements. He thinks that it is mediated, and it is implemented not only by European bodies, but Russia as well. But he doesn’t understand how that dialogue, mediation or reconciliation will proceed in conditions of ANC’s and authorities’ opposing opinions concerning March 1 and other issues. Stepan Safaryan also adds that this dialogue should not only be between the authorities and ANC but between the whole opposition. “The opposition is not only ANC; ANC just represents a sector of the oppositional society. Consequently let me say that, of course, there is always a necessity for dialogue between government and private sectors. March 1 is a nationwide internal political crisis and there is a necessity to discuss much broader issues. And if the dialogue is between those two, then the responsibility should be divided. That is to say, if they think that March 1 concerns only them, in that case they should accept their primary responsibility in all that”, Stepan Safaryan sums up. Naturally, the other addressee of the Ombudsman’s suggestion, ANC, should have touched upon it. And ANC coordinator Levon Zurabyan yesterday announced that “their demand concerning the official assurance of revealing the cases of March 1 is implemented by the government and we perceive it as a sign that authorities observe the implementation of other demands of their minimal package too”. And then, speaking about the suggestion of K. Andreasyan, he added: “And the announcement made by the Ombudsman today where he already suggests taking the role of a mediator between the coalition and ANC is also a similar sign by authorities. Besides there is some anxiety and consciousness about the intense situation in the country and the sharpness of the political, social-economic crisis in their rhetoric.” And later ANC spread an official announcement that one defender had misunderstood the meaning of the dialogue as it concerned not Congress and parliamentary coalition but Congress and executive government. “There is need of neither an internal and nor external mediator between the government and Congress in the format of a direct dialogue. But if the government finds it rational to include the Ombudsman in its delegation during the negotiations, we see no problem”, is mentioned in the statement of Congress.
