– Mr. Ambassador, I know that you have great work experience in the former Yugoslavia and the Balkans. In fall of 2004, you headed the OSCE Observation Mission during the elections in Ukraine. Would you, please, tell us whether you see any trends, related to elections, which are characteristic of the states of the former Soviet camp?
– What I see is a certain difference between Yugoslavia on one side and the former Soviet Union on the other. Somehow in Yugoslavia development has gone relatively far. I was a Head of the observation mission in Serbia a year ago and there we could say that the elections met OSCE commitments, which is a very positive statement. On the other hand, on the side of the former Soviet Union there were also countries that have made great progress, for example, the Baltic States. I have not been in these states myself, but I know that the situation there is quite good.
I always hesitate a little bit in comparing different countries too closely, because each country has a different set of conditions, under which it conducts the elections. And that is also true for Armenia. I mean if you look at the external situation, you have four neighbors, with one there is a ceasefire line, with another one there is a closed border, then there is Georgia and Iran. And you are certainly very interested in coming out of these elections with a good reputation that Armenia was able to conduct good election that meets the OSCE commitments. And I think internally this would also be very important.
The Armenian government and the President and everyone from the officials have given assurances that this will happen, but of course, we will have to measure the factual development up against the OSCE commitments, what we have seen so far is in the interim report, much as a first report, that is always highly descriptive, but I would rather look at Armenia as a case just for Armenia, and not as a typical case of the port-soviet developments, because you really have differences.
You mentioned Ukraine in 2004, it was a totally different situation, and also a very different country, because of this strong East-West difference inside one country, which you do not have here.
– On January 30, the first interim report of your Mission was published. How righteous is the impression that the basic concern of the Mission is related to the non-balanced coverage of the candidates by broadcast media before the start of the official campaign?
– I would not say that this is the basic concern, but this is one concern, which we could express on the basis of facts, which we have established ourselves and with the head of our media monitoring unit, so that we were able there to base our statement on what we had seen ourselves.
I will not hide from you that there is also quite a big concern on election day and the night after the election counting, tabulation, but not in a sense that I now expect irregularities, I cannot predict anything, but normally the election day and the day after the election is half the election, and we will see how that will develop. And we have of course mentioned that there were quite a few stories which we hear about certain beliefs and a very low degree of confidence in the elections, so that I have in my talks with the government and also election administration structures said that one might do a little bit more particularly as regards the protection of the secrecy of the vote. It seemed to me quite a few people in this country believe that somehow others can control how they vote.
– During your first news conference in Yerevan you said that “media sometimes play a decisive role in securing democratic elections”. How applicable that notion is for today’s Armenia?
– Well, this again is country specific. I would say that in countries, like my own Germany, the role of the media cannot be overestimated. It is very great. Here in Armenia it is still very important, but maybe not so decisive, at least that is what some of the candidates themselves have told us. They did not think that the media situation is their greatest concern in the election campaign.
– What is your assessment of how responsible the Armenian presidential candidates carry out the campaign? What is your assessment of the statement of one of the candidates, according to which in case the given candidate is elected, Armenia will choose the “salvation path”, and in case another candidate wins the elections – the “path to inevitable catastrophe”?
– In the West, when you have election campaigns, you hear a lot of things, and campaign is campaign, that goes sometimes very far, so that I think a high degree of tolerance in principle is necessary. Of course, we do observe also the conduct of the elections by the election headquarters of the different candidates, but will certainly not now give any notes to how the candidates have so far conducted the campaigns, but of course, there are certain rules that should not be overlooked.
– How sincere are the authorities in their statements on the striving to hold free and democratic elections? The opposition argues that the authorities have already started using administrative resource to secure the victory of their candidate in the first very round.
– I mean you have now defined the whole task. And we are working on it. It is too early to say something about it. I just told you that the government made these assurances and they have an interest in good elections, on the other hand we hear a lot of criticism from candidates to different degrees, some candidates more than others, but this is now our task to measure the elections up to the OSCE commitments and see how far one or the other is right.
– Head of pre-election staff of presidential candidate Artur Baghdasarian stated that she regularly hands over to your Mission facts of violation of the electoral legislation. Would you be able to share with us information on some of those facts?
– I have met Mr. Baghdasarian yesterday [January 31, 2008] and we had a very interesting conversation and we have asked him if he has also criticism against the conduct of the elections, that he should, please, let us know, and what we always need is evidence. We cannot act on just some stories or rumors or sometimes we are being told not necessarily by Mr. Baghdasarian, also from others that the people are not prepared to give evidence, because they are afraid to do so.
But this makes for us difficult and I indeed have asked Mr. Baghdasarian to provide us with evidence cases, if there are any, but right now I could not give you any such cases, because we are just in contact about this. He mentioned certain things, but the point for us is that we have to verify them.
– Some of the candidates crossly react to the data of the polls, which are carried out regularly by Gallup on the order of USAID. What is your attitude towards those surveys? Do they contribute to the process of holding free and fair elections, or maybe they are creating an atmosphere of additional mistrust between the society and the candidates, and among the very candidates?
– This has to do with the attitude of the individual voter towards the elections, for example, in my own country, of I see in an opinion poll certain percentages for certain parties, I would not change my decision anyway. And then, there is of course always this possibility of the accusation that such opinion polls might be manipulated, or very often, exit polls, are being criticized and such points of view, I myself am not in a position to assess the scientific reliability of the opinion poll you might refer to, but at least I would advise every voter in this country to make his decision independently of such opinion polls, because voting is a question of conviction and I would not change my conviction if I hear that another candidate has more to expect than one of his competitors.
– Does the OSCE Observation Mission follow the law observance only by the authorities, or by all the candidates? What is reaction in cases, when the actions of a certain candidate violate the law? For instance, the supporters of one candidate a few days ago held an unapproved car-rally with the participation of over 100 cars in the center of Yerevan and they refused to obey the orders of the policemen.
– In such cases we also first try to establish the facts. I was today [February 1] received by the Mayor of Yerevan and I asked him a few questions about this. Particularly whether there had been an application for this sort of procession, when you go with cars, and he said that there was no such application. I am a lawyer myself, and there is a famous principle for lawyers – always to hear the other side. I have not yet talked with Mr. Ter-Petrosian’s headquarters about this rally. But of course there are certain rules, by which also candidates have to play, and I cannot say on the base of what I know now whether they have been violated or not.
– Mr. Ambassador, despite the good assessments of the past parliamentary elections, in fall of 2007 Armenia joined the initiative of Russia, the essence of which was the proposal on reducing the authority of OSCE/ODIHR observers. There is an opinion that this fact may somehow influence your assessment of the upcoming elections. How righteous is this opinion?
– No, it will certainly not. First of all, I myself am not an employee of ODIHR, because I am one on the list of specialists, should I say diplomats, who could be called upon to lead such a mission like this one, and it is up to ODIHR to call upon us and I can say yes or no. I am a retired German Ambassador and my career is anyway over and I am very independent. I am personally convinced of the principles, correctness of the ODIHR approach and the ODIHR methodology for election observation. One thing is clear, you have to have a long-term observation. You cannot just come three days before the election and then pass a judgment. That would not be serious. And secondly, you have to have a number of observers that somehow corresponds to the size of the country. And I mean, here in Armenia, we have 1923 polling stations and we will have probably 250 short-term observers, plus ourselves, so that it makes altogether maybe 300 or something like that. This would of course by far not cover everything, but we can at least go to certain spots, and try to find out beforehand, where it would be particularly appropriate to go and see certain areas which have a certain reputation that they might need some more observation than others. And I think this is necessary.
And there is one more point: the first assessment given the day after the elections. I think it is necessary, because otherwise you would have a cacophony of many different voices. We try to come and we always came to a unified statement by this mission, and the three parliamentary delegations from the Council of Europe, OSCE and the European Parliament, which would then give a preliminary assessment. But this is of course a preliminary statement.
And I would try to make this very clear, because, as I said, half of the way is the election day and the night after the election, and reports are coming in all night. So, maybe certain developments have not yet been observed, when we come up with the preliminary statement. So, I have a certain tendency of making very clear that it is preliminary, not doing it to early in the day and also be cautious, because one might have to adapt it to later findings and we always have the possibility of having another report before we do two months after the elections the final report, which is a possibility, but I would prefer to avoid that and come up with something that can stand beyond the day after the elections.
– Despite all the differences, it is obvious that the recent elections in Georgia, which were far from being ideal, will be considered a precedent for Armenia. The authorities, for example, may state that, as opposed to Georgia, in Armenia TV-Companies were not closed. Besides, Saakashvili’s victory with minimal advantage in the first round will also be used as a precedent. Maybe the international community should have reacted to the violations during the elections in Georgia more strictly to rule out the establishment of such a precedent?
– What I just told you about what my ideas are about our preliminary statement the day after the elections. It also takes into consideration certain developments that might have taken place in Georgia. I was not in Georgia, I have not observed these elections. But I think it would be wrong to look too much to that one election in Georgia. I myself have observed two elections in Azerbaijan and one in Georgia, more than a year ago, that was the local elections, when already a little bit you could see certain developments, but I would certainly not be influenced in assessment of these Armenian elections by Georgian events.
My method is that I have always tried to be careful not to forget that the first statement is preliminary, not to go over the top by saying something. I think we should not look too much to Georgia and one would also have to see how these different statements came about.
– You have been here for already 20 days, a little more than 2 weeks are left before the start of elections. I assume that you came to this country with positive expectations. So, not, if you compare those expectations with the ones you have now, do you see any change in your moods regarding the quality of the elections?
– Not really. What I see very positively is, first of all, the team, which we have here, and the Armenian colleagues, whom we have here, they are all very good and they understand what this mission is about. This is not something which goes by itself. It shows a high degree of awareness also. This is one point. The second point is that our working conditions are good, so that you feel that you are being accepted as a mission. It is of course clear, that all of those players have certain expectations, and the government would only be too happy if the we come up with a report that says there was rather progress, and some opposition figures might be very angry if we overlook certain things that may have indeed happened. And this puts a heavy responsibility on us, and that is why I think it is very good to move cautiously and only to take up points that we have seen ourselves, or that we have seen proofs, but that we will do when we do well our job.
www.mediamax.am
weekly political-economical review