“Aravot” scoffs at the stated efforts by an ad hoc commission of the Armenian parliament to investigate opposition claims that bodyguards of several wealthy government-connected individuals were handed military uniforms and equipment to confront opposition protesters in Yerevan on March 1, 2008. Three members of the commission visited a military warehouse near Yerevan and claimed to have found no evidence of those claims this week. In an editorial, the paper says that nobody in Armenia is naïve enough to think that the Armenian military would admit illegally arming government loyalists.
“Chorrord Ishkhanutyun” says that President Serzh Sarkisian’s controversial agreements with Turkey are at odds with his past reputation as a pro-Russian politician. The pro-opposition paper says that opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian is right not to seize upon the apparent pro-Western tilt in Sarkisian’s political orientation and seek Moscow’s backing for his bid to return to power. “Levon Ter-Petrosian has some principles and doesn’t want to resort to that step,” it says. “Naturally, that is making some of his teammates nervous. They, you see, went out of their way to gain power and all of a sudden are thwarted by the principled stance of their boss.”
In an interview with “Zhamanak,” Arman Grigorian, one of Ter-Petrosian’s foreign policy aides, defends the former Armenian president’s belief that official Yerevan should not raise the genocide issue in its dealings with Ankara. “In the past, Robert Kocharian and Vartan Oskanian came up with two brilliant counter-arguments,” he says. “First, the more we demand from the Turks they more they will give us. Secondly, exploitation of the genocide would force the Diaspora to reach deeper into its pockets. It is really hard to say anything polite about these counter-arguments.”
“It is no secret that Washington is the main godfather of the August 31 Turkish-Armenian protocols,” writes “Azg.” “In these circumstances, the eagerness of some Armenian circles and even organizations having structures in America to lambaste their own national government, in connection with some unfavorable points of the announced protocols, seems odd. We really need to clarify our targets. The biggest of those targets is Washington, rather than our government, with its reputation for not fully assuming responsibility.”