DOCSLIB.ORG

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S Order Code IB95024 CRS Issue Brief for Congress Received through the CRS Web Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests Updated May 27, 2003 Jim Nichol Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress CONTENTS SUMMARY MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Overview of U.S. Policy Concerns Post-9/11 Iraqi Freedom Obstacles to Peace and Independence Regional Tensions and Conflicts Nagorno Karabakh Conflict Civil and Ethnic Conflict in Georgia Economic Conditions, Blockades and Stoppages Political Developments Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia The South Caucasus’ External Security Context Russian Involvement in the Region Military-Strategic Interests Caspian Energy Resources The Protection of Ethnic Russians and “Citizens” The Roles of Turkey, Iran, and Others Aid Overview U.S. Security Assistance U.S. Trade and Investment Energy Resources and U.S. Policy IB95024 05-27-03 Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests SUMMARY The United States recognized the inde- promote non- proliferation, Trade and Devel- pendence of all the former Soviet republics by opment Agency aid, Overseas Private Invest- the end of 1991, including the South Caucasus ment Corporation insurance, Eximbank fi- states of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. nancing, and Foreign Commercial Service The United States has fostered these states’ activities. The current Bush Administration ties with the West, including membership in appealed for a national security waiver of the the Organization for Security and Cooperation prohibition on aid to Azerbaijan, in consider- in Europe and NATO’s Partnership for Peace, ation of Azerbaijan’s assistance to the interna- in part to end the dependence of these states tional coalition to combat terrorism. In De- on Russia for trade, security, and other rela- cember 2001, Congress approved foreign tions. The United States pursued close ties appropriations for FY2002 (P.L. 107-115) that with Armenia to encourage its democratiza- granted the President authority to waive Sec. tion and because of concerns by Armenian- 907, renewable each year under certain Americans and others over its fate. Close ties conditions. President Bush exercised the with Georgia have evolved from U.S. contacts waiver on Jan. 25, 2002 and Jan. 17, 2003. with former Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, Georgia’s president for the last In the South Caucasus, U.S. policy goals decade. Growing U.S. private investment in have been to buttress the stability and inde- Azerbaijan’s oil resources strengthened U.S. pendence of the states through multilateral and interests there. The United States has been bilateral conflict resolution efforts and to active in diplomatic efforts to end conflicts in provide humanitarian relief. U.S. aid has also the region, many of which remain unresolved. supported democratization, free market re- forms, and U.S. trade. The Bush Administra- Faced with calls in Congress and else- tion supports U.S. private investment in where that the Administration develop policy Azerbaijan’s energy sector as a means of for assisting the Eurasian states of the former increasing the diversity of world energy sup- Soviet Union, then-President Bush proposed pliers, and encourages building multiple the FREEDOM Support Act in early 1992. energy pipeline routes to world markets. In Signed into law in 1992, P.L. 102-511 autho- the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 rized funds for the Eurasian states for humani- terrorist attacks on the United States, the tarian needs, democratization, creation of South Caucasus states expressed support for market economies, trade and investment, and U.S.-led operations in Afghanistan against al other purposes. Sec. 907 of the Act prohibited Qaeda and other terrorist groups. As part of most U.S. government-to-government aid to the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign Operation Azerbaijan until its ceases blockades and other Enduring Freedom, the U.S. military in May offensive use of force against Armenia. This 2002 began providing security equipment and provision was partly altered over the years to training to help Georgia combat terrorist permit humanitarian aid and democratization groups in its Pankisi Gorge area and elsewhere aid, border security and customs support to in the country. Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress IB95024 05-27-03 MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS On May 26, the Armenian Central Electoral Commission issued preliminary results for the legislative election held the previous day. In the party list section of the voting (75 of 131 deputies are elected by party lists), six out of 21 parties running passed a 5% hurdle and won seats. The Republican Party of Armenia (RPA), led by Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan, won 24.63% of the votes, the opposition Justice bloc won 14.03% (led by Stepan Demirchyan), the pro-government Land of Laws Party won 11.78%, pro-government Dashnaktsutiun won 10.46%, the opposition National Unity Movement won 9.66%, and the pro-government United Labor Party won 5.24%. Many seats in individual constituency races were won by party independents. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), said that the election was “less flawed than the recent presidential poll, but still fell short of international standards.” Azerbaijan’s President Heydar Aliyev returned to work on May 26, 2003, after a month-long hospital stay and recuperation after a collapse in April. Despite many health problems, he has stressed that he will run for re-election in October 2003, raising questions among many in Azerbaijan about his stamina for another five-year term. The United States, at the Permanent Council of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), protested on May 8, 2003 against continuing violence against religious minorities in Georgia. At a local trial in late April, representatives of Jehovah’s Witnesses were assaulted in the courtroom, as was an OSCE emissary, and a U.S. diplomat was forced to flee. The final phase of the U.S. military’s “Georgia Train and Equip Program” began on May 24, 2003, to teach mechanized warfare to over 500 infantry, police, and border guards. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia are The Caucasus States: Basic Facts located south of the Caucasus Mountains that Area: The region is slightly larger than Syria: form part of Russia’s borders (see map). The Armenia is 11,620 sq. mi.; Azerbaijan is South Caucasus states served historically as a 33,774 sq. mi.; Georgia is 26,872 sq. mi. north-south and east-west trade and transport Population: 16.03 million, similar to “land bridge” linking Europe to the Middle East Netherlands; Armenia: 3.0 m.; Azerbaijan: 8.1 m.; Georgia: 4.93 m. (Economist Intelligence and Asia, over which the Russian Empire and Unit, 2002 est.) others at various times endeavored to gain GDP: $11.7 billion; Armenia: $2.3 b.; control. In ancient as well as more recent times, Azerbaijan: $6.1 b.; Georgia: $3.3 b. (EIU, oil and natural gas resources in Azerbaijan 2002 est., current prices) attracted outside interest. While Armenia and Georgia can point to past periods of autonomy or self-government, Azerbaijan was not independent before the 20th century. After the Russian Empire collapsed in 1917, all three states declared independence, but by early 1921 all had been re-conquered by Russia’s Red (Communist) Army. They regained independence when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. (For background, see CRS Report RS20812, Armenia Update; CRS Report 97-522, Azerbaijan; and CRS Report 97-727, Georgia.) CRS-1 IB95024 05-27-03 Overview of U.S. Policy Concerns By the end of 1991, the United States had recognized the independence of all the former Soviet republics. The United States pursued close ties with Armenia, because of its profession of democratic principles, and concerns by Armenian-Americans and others over its fate. The United States pursued close ties with Georgia after Shevardnadze, formerly a pro-Western Soviet foreign minister, assumed power there in early 1992. Faced with calls in Congress and elsewhere for a U.S. aid policy for the Eurasian states, then-President George H.W. Bush sent the FREEDOM Support Act to Congress, which was signed with amendments into law in October 1992 (P.L. 102-511). U.S. policy toward the South Caucasus states includes promoting the resolution of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Azerbaijan’s breakaway Nagorno Karabakh (NK) region, the Georgia-Abkhaz conflict, and other regional conflicts. Successive U.S. Special Negotiators have served as co-chair of the Minsk Group of states mediating the NK conflict and taken part in the Friends of the U.N. Secretary General consultations and efforts of the Secretary General’s special representative to settle the Abkhaz conflict. Congressional concerns about the NK conflict led to the inclusion of Sec. 907 in the FREEDOM Support Act, which prohibits U.S. government-to-government assistance to Azerbaijan, except for nonproliferation and disarmament activities, until the President determines that Azerbaijan has taken “demonstrable steps to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and NK” (on the new waiver authority, see below). U.S. aid was at first limited to that supplied through international agencies and private voluntary and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), but provisions in FY1996, FY1998, and FY1999 legislation eased the prohibition by permitting the provision of humanitarian aid to the Azerbaijani government, support for democratization, Trade and Development Agency (TDA) guarantees and insurance for U.S. firms, Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) operations, aid to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) activities, and Export-Import Bank financing. Notwithstanding these exemptions, the State Department argued that Sec. 907 still restricted aid for anti-corruption and counter-narcotics programs, regional environmental programs, and programs such as good business practices, tax and investment law, and budgeting.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Party Politics in Armenia: a Primer
    Section I. An Introduction to the Armenian Party System Introduction Political parties are vital for the functioning of a healthy democratic political order. In the strictest sense this is only an assumption, albeit one that most political scientists would agree with. Larry Diamond’s observation is apt: “Political parties remain important if not essential instruments for presenting political constituencies and interests, aggregating demands and preferences, recruiting and socializing new candidates for office, organizing the electoral competition for power, crafting policy alternatives, setting the policy-making agenda, forming effective governments, and integrating groups and individuals into the democratic process” (1997:xxv). Like party politics in other postcommunist states, on the surface, Armenian party politics can be somewhat confusing, especially to the uninitiated. Hopefully this essay can clear the ground a bit. It examines party politics in Armenia and assumes, like Diamond, that the consolidation of a functional party system is crucial to Armenia’s continued transition to democracy. It also assumes that the reader knows little, if anything, about Armenia politics or political parties. The essay is, by design, rather long, as it is intended to be a fairly comprehensive source of information for Armenian party politics. A few notes about the essay are appropriate before the subject matter is addressed. First, because the essay is intended for a general, as well as a scholarly audience, citations have been kept to a minimum and are included in footnotes (rather than in text). Along these lines, I have avoided the common practice of using acronyms or abbreviations for party names, so as to avoid confusion.
    [Show full text]
  • 5195E05d4.Pdf
    ILGA-Europe in brief ILGA-Europe is the European Region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans & Intersex Association. ILGA-Europe works for equality and human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans & intersex (LGBTI) people at European level. ILGA-Europe is an international non-governmental umbrella organisation bringing together 408 organisations from 45 out of 49 European countries. ILGA-Europe was established as a separate region of ILGA and an independent legal entity in 1996. ILGA was established in 1978. ILGA-Europe advocates for human rights and equality for LGBTI people at European level organisations such as the European Union (EU), the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). ILGA-Europe strengthens the European LGBTI movement by providing trainings and support to its member organisations and other LGBTI groups on advocacy, fundraising, organisational development and communications. ILGA-Europe has its office in Brussels and employs 12 people. Since 1997 ILGA-Europe enjoys participative status at the Council of Europe. Since 2001 ILGA-Europe receives its largest funding from the European Commission. Since 2006 ILGA-Europe enjoys consultative status at the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) and advocates for equality and human rights of LGBTI people also at the UN level. ILGA-Europe Annual Review of the Human Rights Situation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex People in Europe 2013 This Review covers the period of January
    [Show full text]
  • Political Party Mapping in Lebanon Ahead of the 2018 Elections
    Political Party Mapping in Lebanon Ahead of the 2018 Elections Foreword This study on the political party mapping in Lebanon ahead of the 2018 elections includes a survey of most Lebanese political parties; especially those that currently have or previously had parliamentary or government representation, with the exception of Lebanese Communist Party, Islamic Unification Movement, Union of Working People’s Forces, since they either have candidates for elections or had previously had candidates for elections before the final list was out from the Ministry of Interior and Municipalities. The first part includes a systematic presentation of 27 political parties, organizations or movements, showing their official name, logo, establishment, leader, leading committee, regional and local alliances and relations, their stance on the electoral law and their most prominent candidates for the upcoming parliamentary elections. The second part provides the distribution of partisan and political powers over the 15 electoral districts set in the law governing the elections of May 6, 2018. It also offers basic information related to each district: the number of voters, the expected participation rate, the electoral quotient, the candidate’s ceiling on election expenditure, in addition to an analytical overview of the 2005 and 2009 elections, their results and alliances. The distribution of parties for 2018 is based on the research team’s analysis and estimates from different sources. 2 Table of Contents Page Introduction .......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections 2007 Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections Volume 41
    Couverture_Ang:Mise en page 1 27.3.2008 14:33 Page 1 Print ISSN: 1994-0963 Electronic ISSN: 1994-098X INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION CHRONICLE OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS 2007 CHRONICLE OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS VOLUME 41 Published annually in English and French since 1967, the Chronicle of Parliamen tary Elections reports on all national legislative elections held throughout the world during a given year. It includes information on the electoral system, the background and outcome of each election as well as statistics on the results, distribution of votes and distribution of seats according to political group, sex and age. The information contained in the Chronicle can also be found in the IPU’s database on national parliaments, PARLINE. PARLINE is accessible on the IPU web site (http://www.ipu.org) and is continually updated. Inter-Parliamentary Union VOLUME 41 5, chemin du Pommier Case postale 330 CH-1218 Le Grand-Saconnex Geneva – Switzerland Tel.: +41 22 919 41 50 Fax: +41 22 919 41 60 2007 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.ipu.org 2007 Chronicle of Parliamentary Elections VOLUME 41 1 January - 31 December 2007 © Inter-Parliamentary Union 2008 Print ISSN: 1994-0963 Electronic ISSN: 1994-098X Photo credits Front cover: Photo AFP/Pascal Pavani Back cover: Photo AFP/Tugela Ridley Inter-Parliamentary Union Office of the Permanent Observer of 5, chemin du Pommier the IPU to the United Nations Case postale 330 220 East 42nd Street CH-1218 Le Grand-Saconnex Suite 3002 Geneva — Switzerland New York, N.Y. 10017 USA Tel.: + 41 22
    [Show full text]
  • News Discourse and Narratives of the Past and Present
    The London School of Economics and Political Science Reframing the Armenian Question in Turkey: News Discourse and Narratives of the Past and Present Bengi Bezirgan A thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, London, September 2015 Declaration I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 86,370 words. I can confirm that my thesis was copy edited for conventions of language, spelling and grammar by James Pavitt. 2 Abstract The problematical notion of the ‘Armenian question’ has become a political and linguistic tool for the official genocide denial ever since the foundation of the Turkish Republic, and has come to stand for the controversy that exists around the denial and recognition of the Armenian Genocide at both national and international levels. This research explores how the ‘Armenian question’ in Turkey opens up a discursive space in which various forms of Turkish nationalism are constructed and reproduced, and addresses multifaceted narratives from members of the Armenian community.
    [Show full text]
  • ARMENIA This File Contains Election Results for the Armenian National
    ARMENIA This file contains election results for the Armenian National Assembly in 2007 and 2012. Year and Geography YEAR Election Year DISTRICT Constituency Turnout in Single-Member Constituencies S_ELEC Number of Electors S_BALLOTS Ballots Cast S_INVALID Invalid Ballots Votes by Party in Single-Member Constituencies S_ARFD Armenian Revolutionary Federation S_PCL Rule of Law (or Country of Legality) Party S_CPA Communist Party of Armenia S_DFP Democratic Fatherland Party S_DWP Democratic Way Party S_HER Heritage Party S_LIB Liberal Party of Armenia S_MPA Marxist Party of Armenia S_PANM Pan-Armenian National Movement Party S_PAP Prosperous Armenia Party S_PP People’s Party S_REP Republic (Hanrapetutyun) Party S_RPA1 Republican Party of Armenia First Candidate S_RPA2 Republican Party of Armenia Second Candidate S_SDHP Social Democrat Hunchakian (Henchak) Party of Armenia S_ALL Dashinq (Alliance) Party S_AMP Armenians’ Motherland Party S_BND Bloc of National Democrats S_CDU Christian-Democratic Union of Armenia S_CRU Constitutional Right Union Party S_FSVU Freedom Struggle Veterans’ Union Party S_HAY Hayreniq Party S_LPP Liberal Progressive Party of Armenia S_NUP National Unity Party S_PUCP Progressive United Communist Party of Armenia S_YPA Youth Party of Armenia S_IND1 First Independent Candidate S_IND2 Second Independent Candidate S_IND3 Third Independent Candidate S_IND4 Fourth Independent Candidate Candidates by Party in Single-Member Constituencies C_ARFD Armenian Revolutionary Federation C_PCL Rule of Law (or Country of Legality)
    [Show full text]
  • Public Funding and Party Survival in Eastern Europe
    Get a Subsidy or Perish! Public Funding and Party Survival in Eastern Europe Fernando Casal Bértoa & Maria Spirova Department of Political Science Leiden University f.casal.Bé[email protected] [email protected] The Legal Regulation of Political Parties Working Paper 29 February 2013 © The author(s), 2013 This working paper series is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC research grant RES-061-25-0080) and the European Research Council (ERC starting grant 205660). To cite this paper : Fernando Casal Bértoa and Maria Spirova (2013). ‘Get a Subsidy or Perish! Public Funding and Party Survival in Eastern Europe’, Working Paper Series on the Legal Regulation of Political Parties, No. 29. To link to this paper : http://www.partylaw.leidenuniv.nl/uploads/wp2913.pdf This paper may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. ISSN: 2211-1034 The Legal Regulation of Political Parties, working paper 29/13 Introduction 1 Much has been written about the state financing of political parties, its characteristics and its consequences for party behavior. Research has centered heavily on the effects party financing has had on issues of corruption, accountability, and transparency, and for the most part has focused on the regulation of private financing (Roper 2002, 2003; Protsyk 2002; Nassmacher 2004; Pinto-Duschinsky 2002, Smilov and Toplak, 2007). Similarly, studies have investigated the effects high dependence on public financing has had on the development of organizational structures and the internal shifts of power within individual parties (van Biezen 2003, 177–200).
    [Show full text]
  • Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S
    Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: Political Developments and Implications for U.S. Interests Jim Nichol Specialist in Russian and Eurasian Affairs February 20, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33453 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia Summary The United States recognized the independence of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia when the former Soviet Union broke up at the end of 1991. The United States has fostered these states’ ties with the West in part to end their dependence on Russia for trade, security, and other relations. The United States has pursued close ties with Armenia to encourage its democratization and because of concerns by Armenian Americans and others over its fate. Close ties with Georgia have evolved from U.S. contacts with its pro-Western leadership. Successive Administrations have supported U.S. private investment in Azerbaijan’s energy sector as a means of increasing the diversity of world energy suppliers. The United States has been active in diplomatic efforts to resolve regional conflicts in the region. As part of U.S. global counter-terrorism efforts, the U.S. military in 2002 began providing equipment and training for Georgia’s military and security forces. Troops from all three regional states have participated in stabilization efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The regional states also have granted transit privileges for U.S. military personnel and equipment bound to and from Afghanistan. Beginning on August 7, 2008, Russia and Georgia warred over Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russian troops quickly swept into Georgia, destroyed infrastructure, and tightened their de facto control over the breakaway regions before a ceasefire was concluded on August 15.
    [Show full text]
  • ESS6 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed
    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS6 - 2012 ed. 2.1 Albania 2 Belgium 3 Bulgaria 6 Cyprus 10 Czechia 11 Denmark 13 Estonia 14 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Israel 27 Italy 29 Kosovo 31 Lithuania 33 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 43 Russian Federation 45 Slovakia 47 Slovenia 48 Spain 49 Sweden 52 Switzerland 53 Ukraine 56 United Kingdom 57 Albania 1. Political parties Language used in data file: Albanian Year of last election: 2009 Official party names, English 1. Partia Socialiste e Shqipërisë (PS) - The Socialist Party of Albania - 40,85 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Partia Demokratike e Shqipërisë (PD) - The Democratic Party of Albania - 40,18 % election: 3. Lëvizja Socialiste për Integrim (LSI) - The Socialist Movement for Integration - 4,85 % 4. Partia Republikane e Shqipërisë (PR) - The Republican Party of Albania - 2,11 % 5. Partia Socialdemokrate e Shqipërisë (PSD) - The Social Democratic Party of Albania - 1,76 % 6. Partia Drejtësi, Integrim dhe Unitet (PDIU) - The Party for Justice, Integration and Unity - 0,95 % 7. Partia Bashkimi për të Drejtat e Njeriut (PBDNJ) - The Unity for Human Rights Party - 1,19 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Socialist Party of Albania (Albanian: Partia Socialiste e Shqipërisë), is a social- above democratic political party in Albania; it is the leading opposition party in Albania. It seated 66 MPs in the 2009 Albanian parliament (out of a total of 140). It achieved power in 1997 after a political crisis and governmental realignment. In the 2001 General Election it secured 73 seats in the Parliament, which enabled it to form the Government.
    [Show full text]
  • CSESII Parties and Leaders Original CSES Text Plus CCNER Additions (Highlighted)
    CSESII Parties and Leaders Original CSES text plus CCNER additions (highlighted) =========================================================================== ))) APPENDIX I: PARTIES AND LEADERS =========================================================================== | NOTES: PARTIES AND LEADERS | | This appendix identifies parties active during a polity's | election and (where available) their leaders. | | Provided are the party labels for the codes used in the micro | data variables. Parties A through F are the six most popular | parties, listed in descending order according to their share of | the popular vote in the "lowest" level election held (i.e., | wherever possible, the first segment of the lower house). | | Note that in countries represented with more than a single | election study the order of parties may change between the two | elections. | | Leaders A through F are the corresponding party leaders or | presidential candidates referred to in the micro data items. | This appendix reports these names and party affiliations. | | Parties G, H, and I are supplemental parties and leaders | voluntarily provided by some election studies. However, these | are in no particular order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> PARTIES AND LEADERS: ALBANIA (2005) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02. Party A PD Democratic Party Sali Berisha 01. Party B PS Socialist Party Fatos Nano 04. Party C PR Republican Party Fatmir Mediu 05. Party D PSD Social Democratic Party Skender Gjinushi 03. Party E LSI Socialist Movement for Integration Ilir Meta 10. Party F PDR New Democratic Party Genc Pollo 09. Party G PAA Agrarian Party Lufter Xhuveli 08. Party H PAD Democratic Alliance Party Neritan Ceka 07. Party I PDK Christian Democratic Party Nikolle Lesi 06. LZhK Movement of Leka Zogu I Leka Zogu 11. PBDNj Human Rights Union Party 12. Union for Victory (Partia Demokratike+ PR+PLL+PBK+PBL) 89.
    [Show full text]
  • Explaining the Pattern of Russian Authoritarian Diffusion in Armenia
    Explaining the pattern of Russian authoritarian diffusion in Armenia Abstract The literature dealing with the international dimensions of authoritarianism suggests that regional hegemons may exploit linkage and leverage to counter democracy and diffuse authoritarian ideas and practices. However, there is a need for more research on whether authoritarian diffusion is actually happening, including the circumstances under which linkage and leverage are translated (or not) into policy convergence. This article addresses these shortcomings by examining the high-value case of Armenia – a country with growing levels of dependence on Russia following its rejection of the EU’s Association Agreement in 2013 and accession to the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union in 2015. Drawing on a combination of original elite and expert interviews this article argues that although there is evidence of Russian authoritarian diffusion, there is limited evidence of policy convergence. Instead, material incentives and concerns over legitimacy continue to privilege democratic norms and make the costs of Russian-style restrictive legislation prohibitive for incumbents. Key Words: Russia; Armenia; authoritarian; diffusion, agency; NGOs Sean Roberts, University of Portsmouth Ulrike Ziemer, University of Winchester 1 Introduction The last decade has seen increasing scholarly focus on the international dimensions of authoritarianism and the way negative external actors or ‘black nights’ exploit asymmetric relations, including linkage and leverage to counter democracy and diffuse authoritarian ideas and practices. In particular, Russia has been named as one of the key suspects, possessing both the means and the motives to influence regional political systems, either bilaterally or through authoritarian multi-lateral organisations (Ambrosio 2008; Bader, Grävingholt and Kästner 2010; Jackson 2010; Koesel and Bunce 2013; Tansey 2016; Von Soest 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Political Parties of the Republic of Armenia Participating in the National Assembly Elections 2007
    FOUNDATION FOR CIVIL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORS AND EDITORS Samvel Mkhitaryan, Chairman of the Foundation, Project Initiator and Leader Mkrtich Anushyan, Executive Director of the Foundation, Project Coordinator Vakhtang Margaryan, Project Manager Arthur Hambardzumyan, Head of Project Staff Work and expert group Ara Hambardzumyan Karine Mkhitaryan Roman Melikyan Lusine Muradyan Evgenya Danielyan Anush Grigoryan POLITICAL PARTIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA PARTICIPATING IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS 2007 VOTER’S GUIDEBOOK YEREVAN, 2007 1 “POLITICAL PARTIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA PARTICIPATING IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS 2007” VOTER’S GUIDEBOOK “FOUNDATION FOR CIVIL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT”, YEREVAN, 2007 – 120 pages. Authors and Editors Samvel Mkhitaryan , Mkrtich Anushyan , Vakhtang Margaryan , Arthur Hambardzumyan , Ara Hambardzumyan , Karine Mkhitaryan , Roman Melikyan , Lusine Muradyan , Evgenya Danielyan , Anush Grigoryan This Voter’s Guidebook presents brief, unbiased, comparative information on activities, objectives, goals and program fundamentals of political parties participating in RA National Assembly elections 2007. This Guidebook is developed on the basis of responses as provided by parties in the questionnaire developed within the scope of the grant project ''Political Parties of the Republic of Armenia Directory and Voter's Guidebook'' implemented by the Foundation for Civil and Social Development, non-commercial organization (Foundation) and fundamentals included in parties' official public documents. This Guidebook is designed to be widely disseminated among NGOs and international organizations, political parties, education institutions, foundations, state authorities and the general public. Publication of this Guidebook was made possible by the support of Counterpart International’s Civic Advocacy Support Program (CASP), and the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under Cooperative Agreement No.
    [Show full text]