US embassy cable - 03YEREVAN2903

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 YEREVAN 002903 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/CACEN, EUR/PPD, EUR/ACE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, PREL, AM 
SUBJECT:  ARMENIAN STUDENTS DISCUSS GEORGIA, POLITICS, 
FOREIGN AFFAIRS 
 
1. (U) Sensitive but unclassified.  Please protect 
accordingly. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
2. (U) PAS invited 11 students from the political 
science department of Yerevan State University to the 
Embassy November 26 to discuss their perceptions of the 
'velvet revolution' in neighboring Georgia with poloff 
and econoff.  The students provided an interesting 
commentary not just on events in Georgia, but also on 
the Armenian political opposition, Armenia's relations 
with the rest of world, and generational gaps in 
political consciousness.  The students generally 
favored stability over striking political change, and 
argued that Armenia's future would necessarily be 
linked to Russia's.  End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
THE STUDENTS: REPRESENTING A SMALL BUT DISTINCT GROUP 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
3. (U) We invited 11 undergraduate students majoring in 
political science at Yerevan State University to the 
Embassy November 26 for a roundtable discussion on the 
recent events in Georgia.  The students were all 
proficient English speakers, and 10 had spent some time 
in the United States (the other had lived and studied 
in Moscow for seven years), eight in the FSA-funded 
FLEX program (for high school students) and two in the 
Undergraduate Program.  They described their parents as 
educated, and agreed that their families belonged to 
the emerging Armenian middle class.  They asserted that 
their foreign language skills and time spent abroad did 
not separate them from the majority of other students 
studying similar coursework at Yerevan State.  On all 
the issues discussed, from the political opposition in 
Armenia to relations with Turkey, the students held 
generally uniform views that they claimed were 
representative of their peers at the university. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
GOOD FOR THE GEORGIANS, BUT WHAT ABOUT OUR ECONOMY? 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
4. (U) The students' initial comments about the 
situation in Georgia focused on its strategic impact on 
Armenia.  The students pointed out that any sustained 
period of instability in Georgia could have 
"catastrophic" consequences for the Armenian economy. 
They argued that even a short-lived crisis could have a 
dramatic impact on Armenia's supplies of everything 
from power to consumer goods.  Some students 
hypothesized that if Georgia were to descend into 
chaos, the United States would be forced to place 
substantial pressure on Turkey to open its border with 
Armenia to avert a humanitarian crisis.  When pressed, 
the students addressed their perceptions of the "velvet 
revolution" in Tbilisi.  They all agreed that they were 
"proud" and "glad for" the Georgians, who, they felt, 
were living in an incredibly corrupt and "failed" 
state.  One student observed that "all the 
preconditions for revolution" were in place in Georgia. 
 
------------- 
WHY NOT HERE? 
------------- 
 
5. (SBU) The students also agreed that the situation in 
Armenia after the presidential and parliamentary 
elections earlier in the year was completely different 
than that in Georgia.  While the students acknowledged 
that there were clearly some falsifications in the 
Armenian elections, they believed the outcomes were not 
seriously altered.  Unlike Georgia, Armenia had 
registered substantial improvements in the standard of 
living over the past four to five years, and the 
students argued that most people did not see the need 
for the government to deviate greatly from its current 
policies.  Most important, however, was the lack of a 
viable opposition.  The students stated that aside from 
not having an effective agenda, the opposition in 
Armenia did not have effective leaders.  The students 
could point to no one, in politics or not, who they 
found either inspiring or a worthy challenger to the 
current political elite.   The students concurred with 
one of their colleague's statement that "Stepan 
Demirchian (head of the opposition Justice Bloc in the 
National Assembly, and failed candidate for president) 
would be no one if he didn't look like his father" 
(former National Assembly Speaker Karen Demirchian 
assassinated in 1999, who remains a hero in the hearts 
and minds of the opposition). 
 
------------------ 
GENERATIONAL SPLIT 
------------------ 
 
6. (U) The students stated that they and their friends 
in the university felt Armenia was generally on the 
right track, and by definition they were "pro- 
stability" and not active in politics.  All but one of 
the eleven students voted for incumbent President 
Kocharian in the March 2003 run-off election, and they 
laughed when the one dissenter declared she voted for 
Demirchian because "he wasn't as corrupt." (Note: The 
student who voted for Demirchian said that she did not 
attend any opposition rallies, as those were for the 
"unemployed."  End Note.)  They agreed that their views 
were generally representative of their classmates, but 
diverged from those of educated Armenians 10-15 years 
older.  Armenians in their thirties, whose formative 
experiences included the break-up of the Soviet Union 
and the difficult early transition years, were more 
likely to be active in the political process and have a 
more reformist outlook than students currently studying 
in the university, they maintained.  The students felt 
that the mentality of the slightly older educated 
generation remained shaped by the political idealism of 
the late 1980's and early 1990's. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
"RUSSIA IS A TRUE FRIEND" 
---------------------------------------- 
 
7. (SBU) The students agreed that Russia was Armenia's 
"best friend."  When asked what it meant to be "pro- 
Russian", one student stated that it was a recognition 
of the cultural ties between Russians and Armenians and 
the "strategic reality" of Armenia's geography and 
current political isolation.  They said that most 
professors in the university espoused this philosophy, 
which was reinforced by parents at home.  The students 
hoped that Russia would move ideologically "westward" 
and consequently help pull Armenia into Europe, but 
claimed that Armenia could not independently decide 
upon that path.  The students voiced substantial 
resentment of Turkey owing to the economic hardships 
imposed by the Turkish blockade rather than the events 
of 1915.  They viewed the United States as guilty by 
association, having chosen to align itself with Turkey, 
and therefore having decided not push too hard for the 
opening of the border.  While the students seemed to 
respect American ideals, they felt a much closer bond 
with Russia and Russians who had shown unwavering 
support for Armenia. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
8. (SBU) The roundtable discussion with the students 
exposed two interesting, and perhaps surprising, 
characteristics that they claimed were also 
representative of their peers at the university. 
First, the students were politically conservative. 
They generally approved of the current state of affairs 
in Armenia and stressed the importance of continued 
stability in the country.  Instead of noting that the 
Armenian opposition had legitimate concerns over the 
conduct of the 2003 elections, the students expressed 
relief that demonstrations and protests were short- 
lived and not destabilizing.  Even more significant, 
despite their experiences in the United States, the 
students described themselves as "pro-Russian."  They 
did not feel that the strategic need to be strongly 
aligned with Russia had any notable negative effect on 
Armenia, nor did it contradict with integration into 
Euro-Atlantic structures.  These two opinions, if 
widely held, indicate that Armenians who will be 
expected to fill leadership positions in 15-20 years do 
not hold views on domestic or foreign policy that 
differ significantly from those of the current 
political leadership. 
 
ORDWAY