Caught between the Diaspora on the one side and the Russian Federation on the other, Armenia held a Presidential election on 19th February 2008. The current Prime Minister, Serzh Sarkissian, a descendant of Karabakh, took 52.8% of votes in the first round and was elected as the new President of Armenia. The first President of Armenia, Levon Ter Petrossian, who represents a "new approach" in Armenia and who has the support of an important fraction of the international community, was disappointed by only getting 21.5% of votes. The debates and demonstrations that were initiated by the opposition resulted in the imposition of martial law by President Kocharian on 1st March. The events that took place leading up to the imposition of martial law resulted in the death of eight people, including one policeman, and the injury of more than 450 people. The armed clashes in Karabakh and the turmoil within Armenian domestic politics have given rise to the question "is a new conflict in Caucasia on its way?" At the end of a troubled month, Sarkissian was sworn in as President on 9th April despite all the debates about its legitimacy. Now, the whole world, especially the Armenian people, are wondering about Sarkissian's domestic and foreign policies. The significance of Armenia arises from: (1) its borders being protected by Russia, (2) diplomatic relations with Turkey being severed and the borders closed and (3) the inconceivable pressures from the Diaspora, who have mostly settled in the West.
The "Pro-West" Wing and Domestic Pressure
Actually, the last election has a different meaning for Armenia. As a matter of fact, Armenia is experiencing economic and political stagnation, thus both the Armenian people and the international community are asking whether or not the country would initiate a new approach. Indeed, the person elected in the last election was important in the sense that this would determine the policy and the future of Armenia, the shape of relations with Turkey and the other Caucasian states and, consequently, restore stability in the region. At the same time, the election is a litmus paper for whether or not the new President could save the country from the problems it has gone through since independence.
The first thing that can be said by just looking at the results of the election is that the government won, although by a slight margin, and the "Pro-West" wing, which is represented by the first President Ter Petrossian, having hopes of winning in the second round, lost. A careful evaluation is necessary in order to be able to predict where this result would take Armenia in the short term. Especially if you take into consideration Sarkissian's declaration that the Kocharian era policy will continue from the very first day. However, some doubts arise whether or not Sarkissian, who is experiencing a legitimacy crisis, will be able to pursue existing policies. Furthermore, certain steps should be taken for the resolution of these problems. In fact, the post-election turmoil that Armenia has fallen into is the most striking reflection of this. Sakissian can't shut his ears to domestic and international demands.
"The Karabakh Clan"
Armenia has been experiencing difficulties in domestic politics for approximately a year and going through a very eventful period. After the parliamentary election on 12th May 2007, the Armenian Republican Party came to power under the leadership of Serzh Sarkissian, who is considered to be a member of the Karabakh group, clan or gang as it's sometimes referred to. This was considered a victory for the Karabakh group, who dominated Armenian politics. After the end of Ter Petrossian's government, the influence of Karabakh born or descendent politicians in Armenia increased rapidly. Sarkissian came into office following the death of a Yerevan descendent Prime Minister Makarian, whose death signalled the Karabakh group's completion of establishing their rule over all higher offices. This group while stating that the Karabakh problem is independent from Armenia, at the same time continued to conduct the policy of transforming Karabakh into an integral part of the Armenian history and identity. In this sense, Armenia has tied itself to the Karabakh problem.
The events that took place after the Presidential election were expected, but also feared, by experts. Protests, after the elections, continued peacefully for ten days, but on 1st March, it turned into a state of tumult, in which guns were fired. These events are considered as the bloodiest in Armenia's post-Soviet history. The state's response to the anti-government protest that came on the same day was to declare a state of emergency for 20 days. The political turmoil seems to have subsided following the declaration of a state of emergency with the aid of a letter from the first President of Armenia Levon Ter Petrossian and, following continued pressure, Sarkissian's messages of compromise. However, the causes behind the turmoil are still on the table and unresolved. Important questions that should be asked of Armenia, whose domestic politics is shaped by ultra nationalism and political violence, are where this process is leading to, whether a civil war will occur, how the balance in domestic politics will be established and how all of the above factors affect Armenia's foreign policy. This article will evaluate the process of events and their effects on Armenia's foreign policy, including its relations with Turkey.

Violence and Uncertainty
The declaration that was crafted during an Armenian Parliament session after the declaration of martial law has some conspicuous statements such as, "The events of 1st March is the provocation of known suspects, which resulted in the loss of life and property, implemented for ill purposes, it has damaged the country's stability and international image". In the declaration, restoration of stability and the return to normal conditions in Yerevan, the elimination of threats towards the security of life and property, resolution of political problems through dialogue and the initiation of studies to resolve, especially, issues related to the election system in the framework of the constitution and laws were demanded. The declaration, which expressed the necessity and lawfulness of the President's decision to implement martial law, also stated that all citizens should help towards ending the turmoil in the country and the return back to normal conditions. An interesting event was the absence of 50 MP's in this special session of Parliament. The prediction was that these MP's were taken into custody because of the events that took place. Even though the atmosphere seems to have settled down, the political future of Armenia and the country itself is doubtful when, it is accepted within their political tradition that political crimes such as the shooting of the Head of Parliament, the Prime Minister and eight Ministers, in other words the whole cabinet, during a parliamentary session, and who accepts the use of violence as normal. Especially the claim that the Karabakh clan brought in a 300-strong special force instead of the police and army, who were refusing to shoot at civilians, in order to suppress the protests, will have some consequences. Even if this is a rumour, this claim should be seen as an example of the division and fictionalisation of politics in the country. In fact, the resignation of a high-ranking general from the office of Minister of Defence Assistant on 2nd April makes it look like the claim has some basis in truth. In this respect, the continuing custody of protestors together with many old bureaucrats and politicians will be raised as an issue after the withdrawal of restrictions on the media and internet as well as independent reporting.
Foreign Dynamics
While these events and political bargaining are happening inside Armenia, the outside world tries to respond quickly. The European Union (EU) and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which find the elections valid despite some problems, were quick to respond. Following a phone call with Kocharian, Javier Solana, EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) sent Peter Semneby, the EU's Special Representative for the South Caucasus responsible for mediation, to get a grasp of the situation. In addition, the OSCE General-Secretary appointed the former EU representative Heikki Talvitie as Special Representative and sent him to Yerevan. The British MP John Prescott represented the European Council. The United States appointed Matthew Bryza, who was also appointed to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. Furthermore, the threat of cutting the 250 million dollars funding of Washington based Millennium Challenge Corporation was the United States' most solid and strongest international response. The Russian Federation, on the other hand, did not openly present its stance. When the relationship with the existing government is taken into consideration, Russia's behaviour makes sense as it would not want to lose its only military base in Caucasia. Turkey follows events cautiously.
Actually, the occurrence of these events in Armenia has been expected for a long time. The election turned into an existential struggle between the pro-West, pro-change group, represented by Ter Petrossian and the government. Sarkisian's declaration of himself being the second man of the government and his statement about the continuation of the Kocharian era policy has been instrumental in bringing the struggle to this point. Public pressure on Armenia's transformation and normalisation, demands for the breaking of Russian dependency and constructing healthy relations with the Western World and Sarkissian's lack of statements on the issue of corruption have all resulted in this outcome. Sarkissian, despite having made a statement on 26th February that he would cooperate and even form a coalition with the opposition, was not found to be convincing. Appointed Prime Minister and the former Head of the Central Bank Tigran Sargsyan's government is important in this respect. Preliminary judgment about the government indicates that the economic agenda will be prioritised. This leads to the conclusion that the Armenian public is expecting direct and radical change and Sarkissian is aware of this.

The Caucasus Effect
First evaluations in the light of recent events indicate that Sarkissian will not have an easy, controlled and potent rule. Under these circumstances, Sarkissian will be under continuous pressure of both his supporters and the opposition. Steps toward satisfying demands made by the public could shake and even break the balanced, complex and close relationship with the Armenian business world, security institutions and state bureaucracy that has carried him through to rule. The Karabakh group is not expected to make this process easier. On the other hand, satisfying the demands of this group will empower and harden opposition, thus weakening his rule. Another issue at this point is that of whom Sarkissian will share his rule with. The expectation, before and just after the election, was that of Kocharian's possible appointment as Prime Minister. Events made this very difficult and show that Kocharian's prime ministry will intensify the conflict. A moderate name has been chosen to prevent the country from falling into the most feared civil war. On the other hand, power sharing with the opposition is probably seen as a weakness of Sarkissian and places him in a weaker position. In short, when evaluated from the domestic politics perspective, difficult days are ahead for Sarkissian and Armenia.
The effect of these events on the region will be direct. The unhealthy peace and stability that already exists in Caucasia could become unrecoverable in the case of Armenia's failure to keep domestic peace and stability. The rise of conditions for civil war in Armenia could radicalise the government as well as initiate frozen conflicts. These types of events forcefully attract regional powers, especially Russia and Turkey, to itself. On a global level, events could lead to a new power conflict, in which global actors also become involved. For the sake of preventing this, concrete and constructive processes should be initiated in the first place. The EU's and OSCE's involvement and efforts by sending their representatives to Yerevan during the days of turmoil should be considered in this way. The involvement of Russia, even covertly, to this process is not surprising in the context of Russian-Armenian relations. Deterioration of balance and order in Armenia appears to be in no one's interest in this period.
The Turkey Factor
The effects of the events taking place in Armenia on Turkey are not only important for Turkey, but also important for the West. As a key country, mostly held responsible for Armenia's problems, Turkey's stance has become significant to the issue of whether or not Armenia can escape domestic (in)stability since independence, its frozen foreign policy process and economical stagnation. The claim made that Turkey is blocking Armenian's connection with the rest of the world, may cause Turkey to be held responsible for Armenia's failure to survive the problems mentioned above. The radicalisation process of the civil war environment may cause the above responsibility to be attached to Turkey and serve to make relations even worse. Especially, the aggressive stance towards the other, for the sake of continuing a suppressive regime under the above circumstance can cause an even worse image of Turkey to be constructed, independent of Turkey's actions. Transformation in accordance with a solution and cooperation would mean Sarkissian's and the Karabakh group's losing power. Questions like "would this loss of power push Armenia closer to the West and does Russia take a tougher stance against Armenia" can be answered according to the progress of events. The level of stability that these events, which can be seen as the pro-West wing winning a political base that was lost after elections, can bring to Armenia, is important for regional and global stability as well as for Turkey. Efforts to analyse whether or not President Gul's congratulatory message to Sarkissian signifies a transformation appears to be hopeless at this point. In the message, President Gul expressed his hope or expectation of "constructing an environment for the normalisation of relations between the Turkish and Armenian people, who had lived together in peace and harmony for centuries" and states his wish for the "development of an atmosphere, which will help peace and stability in the region, depending on mutual trust and cooperation through joint efforts". The proof for the above point is that neither the regional nor the international community have talked about the reply given to this message.
The resumption of the secret diplomacy between Turkey and Armenia that was conducted in Europe in the past should be expected in the coming days. Pressure applied by Brussels on Ankara in the accession process, forces the Turkish government to follow a new policy. Turkey's unilateral decision to open its borders, without any steps from Armenia, seems impossible at the moment. Moreover, sensitive domestic balances point out that the Turkish government cannot make such a move. Commissars in Brussels are as aware of this situation as the Turkish government. Yerevan does not want to pay the price for being stuck between Moscow and the Diaspora anymore. The Armenian people have already started to ask "How long are we going to live in isolation?".
Any pressure applied by the people of Armenia on their government would cause normalisation of relations between Turkey and Armenia. Despite the closed borders, it shouldn't be forgotten that the lives of thousands of Armenian's financially depend on Turkey as they work legally and illegally in Istanbul. Stability in Armenia cannot be mentioned as long as the "Karabagh Clan's" stubbornness continues. The first reflection was the protests, however, do not forget that hawks make the peace.

*Dr. Mitat ÇELİKPALA Department of International Relations, TOBB ETU