Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Battle for Armenia


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,009 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2017 - 09:59 AM

MediaMax, Armenia
Sept 4 2017
 
The Battle for Armenia

by Areg Galstyan

Five months have passed since I returned to Armenia with a very specific goal – to promote the formation of political meanings that will help the current generation to solve tasks of a national character. The scientific and analytical center "The Armenian Interest" became the tool of our team, around which we seek to collect the Armenian and world intellectual capital. There is an understanding that the implementation of serious goals is always a long-lasting and phased process, taking into consideration the existing international experience and knowledge gained in different centers of power. Comprehension is the first level, on which I would like to focus within this analytical essay. There is no necessity to list the domestic difficulties that exist in the country because they are well known. It is important for me as an analyst to solve a more complicated task – to reveal the root causes of the fundamental issues and try to find appropriate solutions.

The principal problem that needs to be regarded is the underestimation of the state independence. History shows how hundreds of nations throughout the world have waged a fierce struggle for the opportunity to get their nation-state. Unfortunately, we are not one of these nations. The Armenian nobility and aristocracy were focused on the return of lost physical territories at all times. Of course, we must strive to regain our heritage, including the occupied lands. However, we cannot equate these concepts. A state is a nation living in a particular territory and united by a common spiritual and ideological mission. What made the Irish to oppose the British Empire, though belonging to it was for economic reasons more profitable than independence? Why did the Jewish aristocrats abandon the advantageous proposals of the great powers, insisting on their state alongside the sacred mountain of Zion?

The answer is obvious – the political meanings, which are not focused on receiving exclusively material welfare. These nations created benefits for great powers for a long time, seeing their mission in serving the interests of the titular imperial nations. The emperors, kings and tsars allowed individual representatives of small nations to their court for loyal service and devotion. As a rule, it was an artificially created nobility that served the interests of the center and lost contact with its ethnic group. Representatives of the titular nation always had an advantage that was realized in various forms: additional fees, "the right of the first night", bans for small nations to get certain professions, etc. The situation changed when educated organized minorities appeared with political programs aimed at the implementation of the interests of their people. National leaders taught their nations what could and should be done for themselves, without fears of an external overseer with a club in hands. They wrote that being in total dependence on the will of another nation meant condemning oneself to destruction. Hundreds of examples from history confirm it.

The Jewish people created the financial system of Spain and fought for the interests of Imperial Germany. What was the result? It led to the exile of the Jews from the Spanish cities in 1492 and the extermination of most of German and European Jewry during World War II. London "thanked" the Irish with the Great Famine in 1845 for the long-lasting faithful service to the interests of the British Crown, and the Armenians, who had been called "loyal people" for a long time in the Ottoman Empire, were massacred and expelled from their historical motherland. Many nations passed through such trials, but lessons were learned only by those who managed to come to the 21st century as political nations with their meanings, values and state interests. In general, the nations that want to build the future always turn to the history. It is an immortal teacher, who keeps all achievements, and is aware of all failures and mistakes.

History is not a teacher for us, but textbooks that tell us about the exploits of great heroes who have always been on the side of the good and have overcome the superior forces of evil. Undoubtedly, the nation that united hundreds of ancient tribes under its rule, created a vast empire from sea to sea and passed all thinkable and unthinkable trials during five thousand years, deserved the right to be proud of its history and pass it to the whole world. Meanwhile, history has another useful function – an instructive one. However, we are used to turning to this science only in cases when it is necessary to prove our superiority over others, especially over enemies. In other words, we do not know our past well (it means we do not know ourselves). Therefore, we do not realize the practical worth of such concepts as nation, values and state.

We got rid of the status of a small ethnic group serving the empire later than the Jews and the Irish. The Armenian nation obtained a chance to find its civilizational mission only with the collapse of the Soviet Union, getting back the political meanings that are still under the ruins of the Greater Armenia. The big trouble was that the independence was not the result of struggle of the educated Armenian-centric aristocracy, but just another gift of fate. Various kinds of elites also appeared naturally (sometimes they were created artificially by external forces) and did not have long-term strategic programs. It seemed that everything should be vice versa. If the nation was without statehood and dreamed of it for six centuries, it would appreciate the chance and maximally use the nation-wide potential to build a strong country. In our case (then and today), everything happens exactly the other way round.

In fact, the country has been turned into a business object for elites, a territorial unit for the nation that dreams of returning to the familiar role of a small ethnic group serving the interests of the great powers, and an office center for Diaspora groups of influence. All these factors contribute to the preservation of the "survival regime" (since 1915) from which we cannot move to the vital "regime of creation" of a powerful state. Again, history teaches that the Armenian statehood disappeared and the nation was on the verge of total annihilation, when the "elite", which lost contact with the interests of the majority, turned the everyday materialism into an ideological absolute. Do not we see the same today? Is not the money turned into a nation-wide idea? I think that it is pointless to deny it, so the battle for Armenia continues.

Areg Galstyan - PhD, regular contributor to The National Interest, Forbes, The Hill and The American Thinker. These views are his own.

 

 

 



#2 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,009 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2017 - 10:06 AM

Pay special attention to the last bold paragraph it says it as it is, the sooner we get rid of the leaches who are in it for themselves and not the well being of the Motherland we are doomed for another six hundred years of slavery for other powers. It seems we are programmed in order to serve other powers and do it well, and when it comes to our own nation we become thieving parasites. Very sad indeed! 



#3 Yervant1

Yervant1

    The True North!

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,009 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 September 2017 - 10:20 AM

A1+   “Karabakh clan received permission to plunder Artsakh” (video)
ashot-1-470x265.jpg

26 years ago on September 2nd, 1991, when Artsakh was declaring its independence , it was more independent than today, “Unfortunately, a part of Artsakh, which denied its essence, which we call a Karabakh clan, are those people, who have forgotten who they are; today they are providers, who bring the philosophy of world purse into Artsakh. When we get rid of that clan, the independence will be fully achieved,” says Ashot Manucharyan, member of Karabakh Committee.

The declared independence was confirmed in several months, by the referendum held on December 10, but it hasn’t been recognized by any state. According to Ashot Manucharyan, all this is the result of arbitrariness of big international players, “They dictate us, but we shouldn’t obey; Artsakh can do that, if it is independent, it shouldn’t obey Karabakh clan, as that clan received a permission to plunder Artsakh and for that it must obey their orders.”

For almost 3 decades Artsakh is constantly a military zone, “In the integrity of life as well it is constantly a front, because when your values are taken from you and you are still physically alive, it doesn’t matter you exist or not; you aren’t you.”

Ashot Manucharyan is angry about the reaction of the Armenian side to the main 6 points for the Karabakh conflict resolution process presented by the OSCE Minsk Group former U.S. Co-chair Richard E. Hoagland, “There is concession by three points in that statement, and no political, state figure touched upon it, but no one there is illiterate, simply they understood that it is dangerous, as the seniors, who write those documents, can punish them.”

Ashot Manucharyan doesn’t consider the discussions on deployment of peacekeepers in Artsakh to be serious- at this moment it isn’t beneficial for superpowers.

 

http://en.a1plus.am/1263026.html



#4 onjig

onjig

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ranch in Sierra Nevada Mountains, California, Ranch in Nevada
  • Interests:Family, Armenia, Armenians,skiing, crop, too much to list.

Posted 06 September 2017 - 09:40 PM

openshare.png

 Home | News | Armenian, Assyrian and Hellenic Genocide News

Richard Hoagland is the Wrong American for the Karabagh/Artsakh Talks

by David Boyajian — human rights activist, Massachusetts USA. January 09, 2017.

Posted: Monday, January 09, 2017 at 09:50 PM UT

Richard-E-Hoagland.jpg Richard E. Hoagland

Before leaving office, President Obama apparently couldn’t resist one more terrible appointment.

He just tapped career diplomat Richard E. Hoagland to be the interim American representative to the Karabagh (Artsakh) talks conducted by the OCSE’s Minsk Group (co-chairs: US/Russia/France).  

Hoagland, who would replace the retiring, pro-Azeri James Warlick, is a notorious Armenian genocide denier.  

Senate Rejected Hoagland Ten Years Ago

“As an American, I can’t tell Armenia/Artsakh what do to.  No nation, however, should be forced to deal with a diplomat who aggressively denies its genocide.”

— David Boyajian

Recall that in 2006-7 Pres. George W. Bush nominated Hoagland to be the ambassador to Armenia.  As expected, Hoagland declined to label as genocide Turkey’s murder of 1.5 million Christian Armenians from 1915-23.  But he went much further.

Hoagland cast doubt on the factuality of the Armenian genocide and tried to damage Armenian legal rights.

Among the genocide-denying parasites that inhabit the bowels of the US State Department, Hoagland is one of the more repulsive.

Turkey, said Hoagland, lacked the “specific intent” — required by the UN Genocide Convention of 1948 — to destroy Armenians. 

Yet nearly two dozen countries, the Int’l Assoc. of Genocide Scholars, Raphael Lemkin (who coined the word genocide and initiated the Genocide Convention), a 1951 US State Department filing with the Int’l Court of Justice, President Reagan’s Proclamation 4838 in 1981, and many more have recognized the Armenian “genocide.”

In 2006, Pres. Bush had just kowtowed to Turkey by yanking Amb. John Evans from the embassy in Yerevan because he’d publicly acknowledged the Armenian genocide.  The White House also pressured the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) to withdraw the “Constructive Dissent” award it was to give Evans for his genocide acknowledgement.  Evans was forced to resign from the State Department in September of 2006. 

The above factors led Senators Allen (R-VA), Biden (D-DE) [now VP], Boxer (D-CA), Coleman (R-MN), Feingold (D-WI), Kerry (D-MA) [now Sec. of State], Menendez (D-NJ), Reid (D-NV), Sarbanes (D-MD) and several House members to express deep skepticism about Hoagland.

Then-Senator Obama (D-IL), not surprisingly, favored Hoagland.

In any case, the Senate refused to confirm Hoagland in 2006-7.   

Hoagland’s Hypocrisy

As Deputy Ambassador to Pakistan, Hoagland held an event that opens a window into hypocritical aspects of his character and US policy.

In 2011, he hosted an “LGBT pride celebration” at the American Embassy in Islamabad.  Hoagland, whose sexual orientation is no secret, is a founder of the Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies.  Naturally, the event greatly offended traditionalist Pakistani religious and political groups.  

Richard-E-Hoagland-at-the-Turkic-America Richard E. Hoagland (center) at the 2016 Turkic American Convention.

One wonders, does Hoagland disrespect Turks as he does Armenians and Pakistanis?  We know this: Hoagland heaped only praise on Turks when he spoke at the annual Turkic American Convention last year.

While laboring on behalf of those whom, like himself, he believes are treated unfairly, Hoagland tries to undermine Armenian legal rights.  Thus, he and the US hypocritically cherry-pick the human rights issues they wish to advance.

Armenian and Diasporan Passivity

As far as we know, Armenia lodged no protest against Hoagland in 2006-7.   Nor have Armenia/Artsakh done so now.  Such passivity is a mistake.

The Armenian Assembly of America (AAA) questioned Hoagland’s nomination in 2006-7, but the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) vehemently opposed it.

Last month, however, ANCA said that while it notes Hoagland’s “denial of the Armenian Genocide,” it nevertheless expects “a constructive relationship with Ambassador Hoagland and looks forward to working with him” on Artsakh.  It’s hard to see how “working with” an unrepentant genocide denier can be “constructive.”

AAA has yet to take a position on Hoagland’s Minsk Group appointment.  Silence, in this case, is definitely not golden.

As an American, I can’t tell Armenia/Artsakh what do to.  No nation, however, should be forced to deal with a diplomat who aggressively denies its genocide.

Indeed, countries often reject diplomats who are insulting or abusive. Armenia/Artsakh could continue to confer with the Minsk Group’s Russian and French representatives but not Hoagland. 

The United States and OSCE would understand and — even if they say otherwise — agree that Hoagland’s appointment was an insult and blunder.  Armenia/Artsakh would gain a new respect.

The people of Armenia/Artsakh have responded strongly to Azeri military provocations.  But their governments are too often diplomatically passive.

For instance, when Azerbaijan flagrantly violates the ceasefire, the OSCE habitually fails to blame the obvious aggressor: Azerbaijan.  Armenia/Artsakh protest, but tepidly.  And they continue to meet with Minsk Group and Azeri representatives as if nothing had happened. 

This demoralizes the Armenian people and encourages Azerbaijani aggression and disrespect by the Minsk Group.

But is it relevant which diplomats the US appoints?  Don’t they all have to follow US policy anyway?  Actually, no.  Diplomats can diverge from US policy in positive and negative ways both in and out of office.

John-M-Evans-Truth-Held-Hostage-978-1909 Truth Held Hostage
America and the Armenian Genocide.
What then? What now?
by John M. Evans

Diplomats Matter

John Evans, the US Ambassador to Armenia (2004-6), made a difference with his open acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide.  He exposed the US State Department’s hypocrisy and its extortion of the AFSA. 

Ever since, Evans has repeatedly spoken out and written about the Armenian genocide.  He’s an advisor to the board of the US-based Children of Armenian Fund (COAF).  He sailed across the Atlantic with three crewmates to raise funds for Armenia’s children.  His wife Donna sits on COAF’s board.  Contrast the principled John Evans with the pro-Turkish, pro-Azeri Matthew Bryza.

Bryza was Washington’s representative to the Mink Group (2006-9) and served as American ambassador to Azerbaijan (2010-11).  He now sits on the board of Turcas Petrol, an affiliate of SOCAR (State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic).  Bryza lives in Istanbul with his Turkish-born wife Zeyno Baran.  She has worked for “Azerbaijan Focus: Journal of International Affairs,” a quasi-government publication, while Bryza’s writings continue to reflect his pro-Azeri sentiments.

Hoagland himself, being pro-Turkic and a Minsk Group mediator, is in a position to draft some very dangerous “peace” proposals for Armenia/Artsakh.  Even as an ambassador to Armenia, he would not have had such power. 

Richard Hoagland is the wrong man for America.  His appointment should be withdrawn now.

Otherwise, Armenia, Artsakh, and the Diaspora should rightly declare him persona non grata.

David-Boyajian.jpgDavid Boyajian is an Armenian American freelance journalist. For his activism and writing on the ADL issue he has been honored by Armenian American organizations, and has won commendations from the Massachusetts Governor’s Council, Watertown (MA) Town Council, and the Newton Tab newspaper.  Many of his articles are archived at
http://www.armeniape.../David_Boyajian





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users