[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 117 (Wednesday, July 19, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1471-E1473]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               ELECTIONS IN ARMENIA--REPORT OF OBSERVERS

                                 ______


                       HON. GEORGE P. RADANOVICH

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, July 19, 1995
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the Republic of 
Armenia held national elections. The country's citizens were called to 
the polls to decide both who would serve in their National Assembly and 
whether they would adopt a new constitution.
  Because this was Armenia's first post-Soviet election for these 
purposes--a president was democratically-elected in 1991--there was 
widespread international interest. Additionally, controversy occurred 
in electoral preliminaries that prompted a widespread wish that the 
process be internationally monitored.
  At the request of the Armenian Embassy, I was invited to join as an 
observer. Although commitments in my own schedule precluded personal 
participation, two members of my senior staff agreed to my request that 
they take part.
  My decision to be so represented in the Armenian electoral process 
had a particular basis in my constituency. California's San Joaquin 
Valley, and especially the community of Fresno, much of which I 
represent, is the home of many American citizens whose forebears came 
to this land from Armenia. Thus, the term, ``diaspora,'' is heard to 
define the settlement of Armenians in the 19th Congressional District 
and other parts of America.
  The report prepared by my staff members, Mr. Speaker, I believe is 
worth of being examined by our colleagues, and I ask that it be entered 
in the Congressional Record accordingly. In doing so, I also want to 
add my appreciation to the individuals and institutions that their 
report notes afforded assistance in conducting their mission.
  Finally, I wish to offer special thanks to the Lincy Foundation for 
covering the costs of travel and lodging for my staff members. By doing 
so, as is permitted by House ethics rules, the Foundation made it 
possible for an important international undertaking to go forward 
without its having to be a burden on the public purse.
                       Report to the Congressman

   (By Will Dwyer II, Counsel and Steve Samuelian, District Director)


                              Introduction

       The maxim that the past is prologue certainly helps an 
     understanding of modern Armenia.
       More than two millennia ago, the then kingdom of Armenia 
     controlled an empire that stretched from the Mediterranean to 
     the Caucasus. But, it fell first under the Byzantine Empire, 
     followed by the Muslim Turks, then the Mongols, the Ottomans, 
     and the Soviets.
       Subordination to and maltreatment by foreign powers 
     produced an intense national sensibility. Indeed, the 
     Armenian-American author, playwright, and novelist William 
     Saroyan (born in Fresno in 1908) captured that consciousness 
     in perhaps his most famous quotation about his ancestors, 
     ``When two of them meet anywhere in the world, see if they 
     will not create a new Armenia.''
       In this century, Armenia and her people have been put to 
     tortured tests. An estimated 1,750,000 Armenians were 
     massacred or deported by the Turks in and around 1915. 

[[Page E 1472]]
     With the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Armenia was briefly independent 
     from 1918 until it was occupied by the Red Army in 1920, 
     ultimately being incorporated into the USSR in 1936.
       The so-called ``glasnost'' or openness policy that was 
     adopted by the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s saw Armenian 
     national identity reawakened. A declaration of independence 
     was made in August 1990 but it was ignored by Moscow.
       Armenia boycotted the March 1991 USSR referendum on the 
     preservation of the Soviet Union, and held its own referendum 
     in September 1991. After 94% of the Armenian people voted for 
     secession from the USSR, independence was formally 
     proclaimed.
       By March 1992, Armenia had joined the new Commonwealth of 
     Independent States, been accorded diplomatic recognition by 
     the USA, been admitted into the Conference on Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and become a member of the 
     United Nations.
       What democracy has added to Armenia, two neighboring 
     countries and nature, itself, have been busy subtracting.
       Energy supplies and raw materials do not flow readily into 
     Armenia because its traditional foe Turkey imposes a border 
     blockade on the west as does Azerbaijan on the east. Those 
     embargoes aggravate the national need to rebuild from an 
     earthquake that hit Armenia on December 7, 1988, destroying 
     48 villages, and leaving 25,000 people dead and more than 
     half a million homeless.
       The Armenian conflict with Azerbaijan is rooted in many 
     centuries of Christian Armenian and Shiite Muslin Azeri 
     enmity over Nagorno-Krarabakh, an autonomous region in 
     southwestern Azerbaijan. Eighty percent of the enclave's 
     total population of 193,000 are ethnic Armenians.
       Since 1988, Nagorno-Karabakh has been in rebellion against 
     the Republic of Azerbaijan. The conflict has claimed more 
     than 15,000 lives and left an estimated 1 million people 
     homeless. In 1994, Azerbaijan allowed Russian troops into its 
     territory to help bring an end to the fighting.


                              The Election

       Against this backdrop of history, culture, and economic 
     tribulation, the adult (18 and older) members of the 3.6 
     million Armenian population, a third of whom live in the 
     ancient capital city of Yerevan, were called to the 1,590 
     polling places of this landlocked, Maryland-sized country on 
     July 5, 1995. (The official number of eligible voters was 
     stated to be 2,189,804.)
       Voters made their decisions on three ballots:
       1. A referendum ballot regarding adoption or rejection of 
     the Constitution (adoption requires a simple majority as long 
     as the votes in favor equal at least one-third of all listed 
     voters).
       2. A candidate ballot on the ``majoritarian'' system 
     providing for the election on 150 National Assembly Deputies 
     (one candidate is elected in each district provided he or she 
     receives a majority of the votes cast in the district and the 
     total votes received is at least 25 percent of the total 
     votes cast).
       3. A bloc ballot for political public organization on the 
     ``proportional'' system providing for the country-wide 
     election of 40 additional National Assembly Deputies (votes 
     are cast not for individuals but for a political party that 
     has selected a list of candidates to fill any seats won by 
     it, based on a percentage share of all votes cast as long as 
     their bloc receives a minimum of five percent).
       Post-election reports by the Armenian government relate 
     that ``an estimated 65 percent of the eligible voters cast 
     ballots for about 1,500 candidates who were campaigning for 
     150 majoritarian seats of the 190-seat parliament.'' 
     Preliminary figures indicate the pro-government Hanrapetutiun 
     (Republic) bloc gained ``a clear majority'' of the 
     parliamentary seats. The same reports also say that the 
     Constitution was favored by 68 percent of the voters, 
     assuring its adoption.
       The fairness and freeness of Armenia's election are likely 
     to be debate sources for some time to come. There is little 
     doubt that during the run-up to Election Day, the banning of 
     a leading opposition party, closing of the newspapers, the 
     disqualification of several of the opposition parties, and 
     other deprivations of human rights raised serious questions 
     about fair play.
       In addition, we share a concern that even if the government 
     has evidence of wrongdoing on the part of several Dashnak 
     party leaders (as the government claims) that may not be 
     sufficient justification for banning the entire party from 
     participation in elections. It certainly is not justification 
     for the closing of several newspapers, many of which were not 
     even Dashnak, but the newspapers of other opposition parties 
     that are not included in the government's allegations. It 
     also needs noting that one of the newspapers closed is the 
     undisputed leading newspaper in the Republic of Armenia with 
     the most circulation and readers.
       Where one observed actual balloting played a part in 
     judging how well or poorly the system functioned. At some of 
     the precincts we monitored, voting seemed to proceed 
     smoothly. At others, objections were heard over procedural 
     shortcomings in polling place practices. For example, Steve 
     was witness to posters on the doors of several polling 
     stations urging a ``yes'' vote on the government supported 
     constitution.
       We believe that general unfamiliarity with conducting 
     elections contributed to difficulties of a mechanical kind. 
     We also are of the view that lack of training and 
     organization contributed to the election-day problems.
       We share the concern issued by the U.S. State Department on 
     January 18 about the pre-election closing of newspapers and 
     banning of parties. Furthermore, we share the concern that 
     many international organizations have expressed that the 
     jailed opposition party leaders have been held for over six 
     months without any evidence being brought forth by the 
     government. As well, the fact that the prisoners have not 
     been allowed visits by their lawyers or family members is a 
     cause for concern. These actions do not seem to accord with 
     democratic principles of due process.
       Let it also be said that we recognize that Armenia is a 
     young nation and that its current government faces difficult 
     circumstances that include two unjust blockades and an 
     economy that has been burdened for over seventy years with 
     socialist policies. In addition, the tradition of closed 
     elections in Armenia makes it difficult for the Armenian 
     government to immediately and instantly make Armenia a 
     Western U.S.-style democracy. The government has made some 
     notable progress on economic reforms towards private property 
     ownership and a market economy; it deserves recognition for 
     these achievements.
       Our observer work leads both of us to endorse, without 
     reservation or condition, the content of the two-page press 
     release issued by the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly delegation 
     in the wake of the election. We also are aware that many of 
     the monitors with whom the two of us collaborated during our 
     Armenian activity also accept this statement as constituting 
     an objective evaluation worthy of broad appropriation. To 
     that end, we incorporate it in our report hereat:
                         [Press Release 6-7-95]

                      OSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY


                  paraliamentary elections in armenia

       A delegation of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly monitored 
     the parliamentary elections in Armenia on 5 July 1995 at the 
     invitation of the Supreme Council of the Republic of Armenia. 
     The Delegation, which was led by Annette Just, Member of the 
     Parliament of Denmark, included 13 parliamentarians from 
     eight countries and four members from the International 
     Secretariat. Countries represented in the delegation include: 
     the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, the 
     Netherlands, Romania and Sweden.
       During their visit to Armenia, the OSCE Parliamentary 
     Assembly delegation met with representatives from registered 
     and unregistered political parties, the mass media, the 
     Chairman of the Central Electoral Commission, the President 
     of the Supreme Council, the President of Armenia, the 
     Chairman of the Supreme Court, the Minister of Foreign 
     Affairs, members of national minority groups, and non-
     governmental organizations.
       On election day, members of the Delegation visited 15 
     administrative regions of Armenia, including Yerevan, and 60 
     polling stations, including their opening and closings.
       The Delegation congratulates the government of Armenia for 
     holding its first multi-party elections and recognizes this 
     effort as a first and vital step towards democratic 
     development. The Delegation also strongly encourages the 
     citizenry of Armenia to participate in any subsequent rounds 
     of voting that may be necessary to seat the new Parliament. 
     In order for Armenia to take further steps in the 
     democratization process, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly 
     delegation believes it is vital for the population of the 
     republic to continue to participate fully and peacefully in 
     all aspects of the electoral process. If election results or 
     procedures are disputed, they must be protested through the 
     appropriate legal channels and exhausted in the appeals 
     process.
       It is the opinion of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly 
     delegation that a lack of democratic traditions (both in 
     governmental bodies and in the politically active population) 
     in Armenia may have caused some difficulties in the electoral 
     process in the republic. However, these were not determined 
     to be the sole reason for all of the problems which were 
     observed. The delegation considers that the elections, while 
     generally well run in terms of procedures on the day of the 
     elections, were also seriously marred by other pre-election 
     conditions. Therefore, the delegation believes that the 
     elections may only be considered by international standards 
     as generally free but not fair.
       The government is to be commended for allowing large 
     numbers of domestic monitors to be an integral part of the 
     election process. Inviting international monitors to observe 
     elections is also an important step in opening up the 
     electoral process. The following areas were highlighted as 
     significant problems by Delegation members calling into 
     question the fairness of the overall process (particularly in 
     the pre-election period):
       (1) Level Playing Field--(a) A six--month ban on the 
     activities of an entire political party (as opposed to 
     individuals accused of crimes) resulted in the removal of a 
     major opposition voice from the elections process.
       (b) A significant number of accusations of violence and 
     intimidation against independent candidates (to encourage 
     their withdrawal from the election) were heard by the 
     delegation from a sufficient number of sources to raise 
     reasonable speculation that such instances occurred.

[[Page E 1473]]

       (2) Election Law and Implementation--(a) The system to 
     resolve complaints and grievances within the time required 
     was insufficient to address the large number of appeals that 
     were made. This potentially precluded some candidates from 
     participating in the elections.
       (3) Election Management & Conduct--(a) A lack of 
     standardized procedures and training of local polling station 
     workers resulted in disparities in conditions between polling 
     sites. Although this may not have been intentional on the 
     part of authorities, it belied the fact that apparently no 
     effort was made to educate officials on correct procedures 
     for democratic elections.
       (b) Voter lists appeared to be grossly outdated and 
     included large numbers of voters who no longer reside in 
     those districts.
       (4) Voter Information, Media Access & Coverage--(a) 
     Although technical problems and a lack of media sources exist 
     in Armenia, insufficient press coverage resulted in 
     significantly large numbers of voters not knowing anything 
     about candidates, platforms, or referendum issues.
       (b) The heavy involvement of the executive branch of 
     government, through the broadcasting and distribution of 
     biased information to voters and displayed at polling sites, 
     greatly overshadowed opposition points on view regarding the 
     referendum and the campaign.
       The Delegation wishes to note that although procedural and 
     technical violations were witnessed in some polling stations, 
     this generally appeared to be due to poor organization by 
     local officials. Proper procedures at polling stations were 
     observed to be more the rule than the exception. Adherence to 
     the one-man one-vote principle was generally observed, as was 
     the sanctity of the secret ballot. The Delegation also wishes 
     to emphasize that a multiple number of parties and points of 
     view were represented in the election and there appeared to 
     be a definite choice between candidates. This combination of 
     circumstances allowed for generally free election activity on 
     July 5. Pre-election flaws, however, marred overall election 
     fairness.
       Although the conduct of the elections and referendum in 
     Armenia was not perfect, the Delegation urges the Armenian 
     population to continue to strive for the republic's future 
     democratic development through continued high turnouts in 
     subsequent run-off elections.
       The Delegation will immediately send its initial findings 
     to the Annual Session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, 
     currently meeting in Ottawa, Canada, and will present its 
     final report to the subsequent Annual Session of the OSCE 
     Parliamentary Assembly in Stockholm, Sweden, scheduled for 
     July 2-6, 1996.
       Further information can be obtained from Mr. Eric 
     Rudenshiold, Program Director of the OSCE Parliamentary 
     Assembly: Raadhusstraede 1, 1466-Copenhagen K, Tel +45 3332 
     9400, Fax +45 3332 5505
       Congressman, it was an honor to represent you and your 
     constituent interest in officially observing the recent 
     Armenian elections. Thank you for permitting us the 
     opportunity.
       In closing, we add our appreciation to:
       The Lincy Foundation for its generosity in making our 
     mission possible without cost to American taxpayers, 
     especially Jim Aljian for handling details superbly.
       The Armenian Assembly of America, especially Tim Jemal of 
     its Washington office and Edith Khachatourian and her staff 
     in Yerevan for visit logistics.
       The Armenia National Committee of America, especially Chris 
     Hekimian, its Governmental Affairs Director, for so helpfully 
     preparing us with information.
       The Embassy of the Republic of Armenia, especially 
     Ambassador Rouben Shugarian and First Secretary Tigran 
     Martirossian for visa and related help.
       The Armenian Technology Group (ATG), especially Executive 
     Director Varoujan Der Simonian of Fresno and Chairman Dr. 
     Arthur O. Hazarabedian of Lafayette, California for effective 
     examples of assistance.
       The American Embassy in Yerevan, especially Ambassador 
     Harry J. Gilmore, Deputy Chief of Mission Ted Nist, and USAID 
     Representative (Caucasus Regional Office) Fred E. Winch for 
     hospitality and briefings.
     

                          ____________________