Observers: Worries Not Over for Armenia's Radio Liberty

Local observers believe opposition from the international community led to the failure of a controversial bill that could have restricted Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's broadcasts in Armenia. Despite the vote outcome, however, they argue that the legislation's implications for freedom of media still linger on.

Sixty-six votes were necessary to pass amendments to two laws that would have imposed stiff fees for the retransmission of foreign broadcasters' materials via public radio and television. Opposition members of parliament and several independent parliamentarians boycotted the July 3 vote. Only 63 votes for the amendments were cast by pro-government MPs, with two parliamentarians abstaining.

"It was proof that it is quality rather than quantity that matters. The minority beat the button-pressing majority," commented independent MP Victor Dallakian, who worked with the opposition Heritage and Country of Law Parties on the boycott. "This is our first victory, the success of free speech."

The Armenian service of the US-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a past target for criticism by senior government officials, is currently the only broadcaster to make use of this service. [For details, see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The ruling Republican Party of Armenia and government, however, have denied that the amendments were aimed at RFE/RL.

Opposition members say that they expect fresh amendments in the fall.

"The law, no doubt, needs changes; especially there is a need for that ahead of the upcoming presidential elections since we need to have a law that would protect free speech and meet international standards," said Stepan Safarian, a political analyst and member of the opposition Heritage Party parliamentary faction. "However, legislative changes must be made with complex discussions and not in an unprepared way, which happened in this case."

Opponents of the legislation say that the international community's strong condemnation of the amendments discouraged pro-government lawmakers from showing up in sufficient numbers to pass the proposed bills. Such criticism jarred with international observers' assessment of Armenia's May 12 parliamentary elections as the first to mostly meet democratic standards.

"This approach contradicts public interests and the serious contribution that independent media have in public debate, as well as in the matter of political pluralism," news outlets reported Swedish Ambassador to the Council of Europe Per Sjõgren, head of the Ago Group, which monitors Armenian and Azerbaijani compliance with Council of Europe commitments, as saying on July 2 trip in Yerevan. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and Human Rights Watch largely echoed those sentiments.

"The authorities did not expect international structures to give such strong-worded assessments," argued Artur Sakunts, chairman of the Helsinki Assembly's Vanadzor office in northern Armenia. "There wasn't such pressure even after the elections."

That criticism, coupled with a July 2 protest action by local civil rights groups, journalists and non-governmental organizations made for "huge" pressure, noted political analyst Richard Giragosian. "[I]t was impossible that all that would not have its influence," Giragosian said.

In response, Parliamentary Speaker Tigran Torosian, who had backed the amendments, stated that " documents" and "an expert study" were necessary before proceeding, according to statements posted on portal panorama.am. The Ago Group's reaction, he said, "responds naturally to the improper noise raised in Armenia."

Helsinki Assembly's Sakunts and other activists, however, say that further wrangles could still be in the works. With a presidential vote next year, commented Sakunts, "I am sure that the story is not over yet."