Twilight Bark

So, what's your price? It has to be understood that when we make the choice to emigrate out of Armenia or (for those who weren't born there) refrain from relocating there, we are implicitly assigning a price on national dignity and strength, unless the true motivation is completely non-material (say, you want to do some research or study an art form that has no realistic chance of existing in Armenia, or just can't imagine stomaching the nonsense the country has been mired in for two decades, in which case the price is in terms of non-material barter). And how many of us can really claim that? Most everyone living outside of Armenia has a price. This is not meant to be accusatory. Or rather, I am not accusing anyone any more than I am accusing myself. Just some food for thought, and hopefully a humbling one.

It's not as if there are 10-lane highways connecting Armenia to Turkey, and oh shucks, it's just that darn closed border that's preventing a tsunami of trade and transport. Why do the transport routes have to be "narrow" through Georgia and Iran? Are the borders physically only a few meters wide, and present some sort of a physical bottleneck? Why is it that Armenia will start financing the construction of suitably wide transport routes only when it involves the countries that would rather it didn't exist as an entity? Is there something in the water? Is it malnutrition? What is it that prevents people in Yerevan from thinking straight? Why is it so hard for the so-called "analysts" to see that the LTP and his surrogates' promoting of dependency on Turkey has little to do with a sincere wish for economic progress, and is little more than a sugar-coated poison pill?

Along the lines of thought expressed in this thread, one should perhaps assign a monetary, or barter value to national dignity and preservation of a meaningfully distinct identity. Would you trade those "intangibles" for any or some of the following? How about more of similar incentives? * a big raise * beautiful "I have arrived" trophy wife (husband), preferably European looking * cheaper luxury cars * bigger, shinier malls * 20% tax cut * bigger house * larger TV * cheaper food etc. Although it sounds like a rhetorical question, I would like you to reflect carefully on the choices you have made so far in life to guide you. Answer honestly, if not publicly. So, what is your national dignity and pride worth? $10,000? $50,000? $1,000,000? What would it take to sway you? What if these sums were paid every year, directly or indirectly? Please take it seriously, and don't go for a reflexive answer. Assume that a serious-looking behavioral economics researcher is conducting a survey.

* EU subsidies, and the careful, intelligent groundwork on the part of Ireland resulted in its boom, not "liberalism" per se. Economic liberalism is useful only after the correctly directed groundwork is done. Same can be done in Armenia. I'd rather see it done through the "subsidies" (i.e. investments) of an activated and inspired diaspora, rather than the EU bureaucracy. * I am very, very, well acquainted with Turks and their culture, even as I am irritated by Armenians' preoccupation with them. The obsession becomes dangerous when it is combined with an imperfect and superficial understanding. I am not assuming that Armenia would become a Turkish protectorate. I KNOW that it would. This doesn't come from a prejudice against Turks. It reflects my dim view of Armenians when it comes to their dealings with Turks and Turkish culture; from painful first-hand observation. We have a very weak culture at the moment. It is in need of emergency treatment and tender love and care. Throwing it to the winds of "liberalism" of all sorts is irresponsible. I am saying this with shame, and not as some hot-headed "nationalist". * If you cannot differentiate between the Irish-British case and the Armenian-Turkish case, I can only suggest further reflection. One point, among many: British culture has accepted that it is not an imperial culture anymore. It does not see itself as an ascending power with a natural right to rule others. Turks have never got over losing their empire. They feel it is "unfair" to be prevented from ruling a big chunk of the world. Also, they are still a very active assimilation machine. To a typical Turkish male, a european woman represents a prize both in the "usual" sense, and also a small victory, "another christian womb conquered". Laugh and dismiss if you want. Or listen to your charming Turkish friends (and they can be quite charming in person). It won't change facts on the ground. * Ireland has no neighbors other than Nothern Ireland. Its succes is not due to its intense trade with Belfast. It has ports through which it imports and exports. How many ports does Armenia need? How difficult is it to put together "an offer Georgia cannot refuse"? Georgia is a poor country; that should not have been difficult. But it takes imagination, love, and the right internal dynamics to do all that. * What we lack is not "open borders". It is imagination, love, and drive.

I fully agree that Armenia needs to be a place that provides a bright future for its children. That's not negotiable. However, if the physical well-being of individual Armenians is the only issue of overriding importance, Armenians are already achieving that in "California". What difference does it make if they assimilate, or lead pointless (from a national perspective) lives, in "California" versus in the geographical region of Armenia, the Turkish protectorate? Preserving the geographical name "Armenia" on the map without any real substance behind it is a pointless activity. Having nasty neighbors does not, DOES NOT, mean that you have to make your well-being more dependent on their good will than it needs to be. In fact, in means the opposite. And Turks will be nice, I agree, once Armenians give up their dignity and sense of identity. Is it worth the price? Current residents of Armenia must decide. But they should note that Armenia is not surrounded by Turkey. Yet. Even if time is indeed running out in that department (which I am afraid it might be), I don't see the point of acting as if it already happened. Why are Georgian relations so neglected? Shouldn't we work on Georgia full-press before turning over the keys to Turkey? Why are we so obsessed about Turkey, one way or the other?

I am not going to dwell on personality-based politics. That's not my vision of democracy. But I'll chime in about "liberalism", open borders, etc. While freedom and liberty IS an end in itself for individuals, "liberalism" is not an end in itself for societies or countries. It is a TOOL for economic progress. However, even if we assign infinite priority to economic progress over national dignity, security or safeguarding of culture and identity, economic liberalism can be a complete disaster if introduced prematurely. If the economy is not nurtured very intelligently, and the right "high value added activities and industries" are not allowed to take root under protection, two things will happen. First, under unconstrained competition, the economy will specialize in activities that more advanced economies see as low-value added (therefore low-wage) "industries". The country will specialize in being poor. Forever. Second, which is a consequence of the first effect, will be a constant emigration out of the country, since the economy will never rise significantly above an "agrarian" level, and will be unable to support a population above a certain level. Current population is basically at that level. So the main export of the country will be its people. If you notice, this is EXACTLY the same result as have been achieved so far, particularly under LTP, but also after him, under very different circumstances. In other words, very little will change by introducing unconstrained "liberalism". And all this, assuming that economic considerations are infinitely more important than cultural and national ideological considerations. So the above is not even accounting for what kind of "compromise" will be required in terms of what it is that makes a nation. What is the point of a nation like Armenians? Are they just like any other nation? Are they simply a bunch of consumers who happen to temporarily use a funny language with squiggly characters, before they join the great melting pot of nations? What are we? What is our purpose? We cannot chart a course without a clear understanding and a rough consensus about these fundamental issues. Economic reliance on Turkey will mean colonization of Armenia. Furthermore, and apart from economic colonization, the preconditions that Turks have for having open borders clearly mean that Armenians must give up their dignity and accept being second-class, below the Turks. I am not saying this out of some irrational hatred of Turks. I am saying it as a rational observation. If being an irrelevant appendix of Turkey is the vision of most Armenians, and that they prefer to be "consumers" (not Armenians) on what will be called "Armenia" as a geographical term for a small region in south Caucasus, and effectively a Turkish protectorate, that's their choice and prerogative. I mean it. It just means that I will be free to finally cure myself of being Armenian and will do my best to steer my descendents from caring about a bunch of unthinking "consumers" in an obscure, pointless land. But that's just me. Of course, an accelerated EU membership artificially handed to Armenia as a prize for burying its national consciousness under a heap of useless consumer junk would trump all of the above. It is a tiny country, and what amounts to an EU-subsidized "economic progress" can be achieved without EU taxpayers feeling the burden. But the ultimate price is the same: trading "nationhood" for "consumerhood". I think people living in Armenia have the right to make that choice. And my personal reaction would still be basically the same as I indicated in the preceding paragraph. Finally, I want to submit this: It is not necessary to trade nationhood for economic success. It is not an unavoidable choice. Both can be achieved simultaneously, without unconstrained trade and reliance on Turkey. But such a feat is definitely more difficult to achieve than the "deal" (not really yet) presented by Turkey or the EU. Nothing worthwhile can be achieved without hard and smart work.

I don't want to step on your toes too much Ashot, but I have to say that you are not being self-consistent. You say here that this topic is not for discussing who is the better or worse president, but for "what should be done". And then you proceeded to post about LTP's virtues (or lack of vices, or some such). You also chide everyone for talking while not being in Armenia. But your profile next to your posts indicate that you are in California. That's confusing to say the least. By the way, these are alright by me. I have no problem about going tangentially off the formal topic, or people discussing the politics of the homeland even if they have to live outside of it for one reason or another. However, I prefer to see self-consistency (or an honest change of heart) in people. But that's just me. Maybe others enjoy the anarchy. Anyway, I hope I haven't upset you too much with this nitpicking.

I tend to think people get the leaders that they deserve. Therefore, the effort should focus on changing ourselves. Good leaders at every level will emerge after that. On the other hand, a rare event may occur and a great leader may emerge to lead an undeserving people to a great future. I suppose you believe in the latter, and LTP is that leader. And the performance and nature of his administration was tragically misunderstood. Is that a fair description?

That's OK. Facts and their implications are immune to such things. They are for something. They just aren't for somebody, and for good reason. I did mention what I am for, by the way. When the "leaders" are worth the term. Since they are not, your belief is in vain. I kind of did, but you didn't find it worth commenting on. Not the worst possible vision, but far short of true ambition. Democracy, as it is practiced in most countries, including Europe, is a tool rather than an end. It serves to give people the illusion of control over their destiny. Republican form of government is like that. Therefore, being a "beacon of democracy" should not be an end in itself. I personally favor something closer to direct democracy. But that's far away at the moment. And LTP is a "strong leader", comparable to Obama? Is that your implication? Armenia needs to do the hard thing and build a strong economy and culture with minimal dependence on Turkey. Buying candy and chewing gum from Turkey is fine. Open borders for tourism and such are also fine. But there should be absolutely no vital dependence on Turkey. Turkey is not the only neighbor. Export/import routes through Iran and especially Georgia need to be expanded drastically. It's a short distance from Armenia to the Black sea coast of Georgia. I am aware of the problems, but "dependence" on Georgia is qualitatively different from dependence on Turkey. I am as liberalist as one can reasonably be, both socially and economically, but I cannot agree with a dependence on a Turkey that has not radically and fundamentally transformed itself. And capitulation on the part of Armenia would have as much success in reforming Turkey as its declining population would have in controlling the overpopulation problem of the world. Food for thought.

I don't know. I can only hope. That must be the case, although I could think of half a dozen better ways to do that than what they have done, including voting for a deluded disater of a "president" like LTP. Thanks. Times like these bring people out of the woodwork, don't they?

Sorry for butting in, even though I am not a supporter of any candidate, even in theory. As far as I know, they are either thugs, delusional mediocrities, or at best uninspiring. Your questions imply a binary and rather simplistic view of things. If you object to an LTP comeback you must be a Sarkisian supporter. If you dislike LTP's brand of "liberalism" (assuming he actually means it) you must be a nasty (it is implied) and outdated chauvinist (I object to the catch-all use of the term "nationalism" to mean chauvinism or jingoism or xenophobia). As far as nationalism and "what it led to in 1920", your implication is dead wrong. Armenians suffered not from an excess of nationalism but from a lack of it. Armenians at the beginning of the 20th century were not nationalistic enough. Put another way, there weren't enough nationalists among Armenians. That's true for both sides of the Ottoman-Russian border. To add to your quote, only European "Nationalism took a severe blow after the WW II". Europeans slaughtered each other and others on the planet on an industrial scale with little remorse for centuries both before and after their supposed "invention" of "european nationalism". They only came to their senses after an unprecedented orgy of killing and near-total destruction. And now they (or their surrogates) are in a position to lecture Armenians about Armenian nationalism? Huh! Armenians should surely appreciate and learn about the intellectual accomplishments of western science, arts, and philosophy. They should, in fact, be better at these activities than the "west" itself. But to buy western self-delusion wholesale would be a big mistake. European style nationalism (which is closer to chauvinism than a true nationalism) is not the only way to develop a national ideology. Being lectured by europeans on nationalism is akin to a sexually active, healthy man being lectured by a supposedly reformed rapist-murderer on the benefits of voluntary castration.

A few points: * Looking to Ter-Petrossian as a representative of "liberal" ideals is misguided at best, and is probably just dim-witted. Supporting passionately one kleptocrat over another is moronic, and apparently an awful lot of people in the homeland are just that. The current thugs in power at least leave open the possibility of a slow, painful evolution over time towards something sensible and beyond. In the best of worlds, Ter-Petrossian's "vision" is to turn Armenia to the equivalent of Lesotho at the time of apartheid South Africa: A kind of harmless ghetto. More probably, though, just a different set of thieves would (re)take their turn, and as a "bonus" Western Armenians would re-assume their status as "foreigners" and "aliens". * Whenever someone says "European" this, "European" that in "improving" Armenia, I immediately discount what they have to say to the B.S. category, unless a true gem of a thought is contained in there somewhere, which it never does. It takes too long to explain why. Just learn and think. And unlearn a lot too. It takes a while. * The political culture is so hopeless that the only reasonable thing a person with resources can do is to do his/her part in laying down the foundations of an educated, well-trained, and intellectually hyperactive population and institutions. In other words, the salvation will come from the ground up. * Unfortunately, when it comes to Armenians, money and vision repel each other. Apparently, the Armenian context with its complicated history and emotionally confusing elements is too complex to allow someone to understand it well enough and accumulate enough wealth to do something about it in one lifetime. Either that, or we are just not that bright. Best wishes to all, TB P.S. In case you are confused about the last point: Yes, I do think it takes a lot of money coupled with the right vision to correct the current course. At this point in our evolution, only cold, hard cash, and lots of it, will be listened to, and get the attention and respect necessary for getting things done. And barring divine intervention, it can only come from an "outside" Armenian.

I said "near-infinite". And the rest of your post simply confirms that even useless land has huge cache. "Real" land is pretty much non-negotiable. And trading sovereignty for economic or diplomatic advantage is as old as history. Nothing new about it. And we were not discussing the degrees or limitations of "sovereignty".

Another exceedingly accurate, piercing observation. I am not particularly interested in your "analyses" that indeed contain some obvious truisms in addition to some hopelessly wrong interpretations of them. It's just that I sometimes get irritated by them when they involve Armenia's future. You seem to enjoy saying "you are wrong", "you are lying" at the drop of a hat. You really don't like me, huh? I wonder why. As for the rocks, it doesn't take great observational powers to realize that they always have some "strategic" value. If there isn't one currently, then they will invent one as a possibility for the future. The underlying "value" is pride. They can't back down, because they will lose face, and they invite further bullying in the future. Not because the low-margin business of fishing or deep-sea mining is so critical to their existence. My intention here is not to convince you; you are just another clannish peasant that is going to turn into "somebody" by the power of a "diploma", in the absence of true competition. My intention was to prevent others from being misled. Not without a quasi-genocidal campaign first. I will refrain from discussing this issue further today, as I have no time left. Maybe later, but hopefully not. Regards to the readers.

Presumably that number does not include Armenian men in the Ottoman army, who were conveniently liquidated and did not need to be "relocated". Also, it cannot include the extensive slaughter carried out during Kazim Karabekir's campaign against Armenia. He is known in Turkey as a great humanitarian for converting the orphans of the massacred Armenians (who naturally, though strangely, go unmentioned) into Turks (as opposed to killing them off as well, I suppose; but then again accumulating more warm bodies with malleable minds for the new nation was not exactly altruistic). Anyway ... This stinky subject of genocide really needs to be given a proper burial. I hate it, and yet cannot avoid it. It's bleeding intellectual life out of both "Turks" and Armenians, and indirectly from the region. It is acting like salt in the spiritual soil of both nations. It paralyzes "Turks" into a primitive mindset that they cannot get away from without facing up to it, and is giving Armenians all too easy a way to be "righteous" without trying.

Before I go to the second stage of hell, as ordered by herr Armen, let's analyze this stuff for a moment. First, if one is going to pretend to speak with expertise, then one is duty-bound to use precise terms and sentences. Because all too often one relies on the "metaphorical", approximate, "you-know-what-I-mean" sense of a statement, while at the same time using its face-value meaning for other, contradictory purposes. Having one's cake and eating it too is reserved for hypocrites with armies and memory-holes. It's not a privilege taken to be granted by internet pundits. Second, the empirical observation is that countries will go to war over a stupid bunch of rocks. And that includes quite "civilized" ones as well. I will not attempt to analyze why that is so. But the relevant "market" still functions in such a way as to assign a near-inifinite value to territory. While it is not rational, it is nevertheless the case. It is a rare occasion where a country lets go of territory in order to avert civil war. And it is much rarer still to find a country that will simply back down and give away some stupid piece of land or a barren bunch of rocks with no resources under them without a bitter fight. You will not hear them say "oh it's not worth the life of one young man; it's got no resources". They should say that; but they don't. Third, we are not really talking about the planet, but our own neighborhood. Armenia is surrounded by countries that would readily sacrifice a sizeable chunk of their own and others' populations for a small piece of worthless land, especially if it involves losing it. Much more so in the case of Turkey. So let's stop the BS about territory having lost its "value", because the evidence simply doesn't bear it. And that's all the more reason why Armenia+Artsakh should focus on only its own territories for the foreseeable future, as the price of extracting territory from anyone in the neighborhood is quite high, as it already has learned. So the outcome, namely what Armenia should focus on, is still the same as in the case of territory "having lost its value". But getting the reasons right is still quite important. Even if it comes from someone you unjustifiably dislike for a rather stupid reason.

Better people. Better men in particular. But considering the facts, never mind. I give up. Good bye.

Did I mention "nastiness towards one another"? Thank you for displaying a fine example. And who needs to go to hell, when I can see that the "best and the brightest" of our homeland, with "leadership" ambitions are nasty know-it-all midgets, and that there is negligible chance that they can turn the place into something our descendents would consider connecting to. Nice going, Mr. Geopolitics; you see, I already am in hell.

Without expressing an intention to enter a "backyard-geopolitics-debate-over-barbeque-on-a-pleasant-saturday-afternoon", let me just make an empirical counter-observation, and suggest a thought-experiment. If territory has lost value, countries would start eliminating their armies, scale back their weapons purchases to nearly zero, or drastically change their armed forces into mobile, covert forces to defend their "economic interests". Also, demands for independence would be met with a yawn, and a "oh, whatever, if that's what you want". None of that is happening. It seems that anybody that counts disagrees with that assessment. A thought experiment: If territory has no value, let's give away the current republic. It would make Armenians instantly the citizens of a "normal" country that unenthusiastically takes over, without us losing anything valuable; after all it's just territory. If that sounds absurd, it's only because territory becomes valueless or a negative asset if you have "too much" of it, not because it lost its value recently. What constitutes "too much" entirely depends on whether diasporans return or whether they dutifully donate their descendents to their host countries. Having said all that, I think territory should be the last thing on our minds right now, when we are in the grip of pervasive apathy, incompetence, lack of creativity, nastiness towards one another, and corruption in the "homeland". And I said I would stay out of wisdom-peddling business. Huh!

Just a quick reply, as I don't have the time or inclination to argue about it. * What i said has nothing to do with Azeri nonsense. * I am referring to the Republic proper, and not Artsakh. * As far as I know, before the influx back from Persia, almost all of historically Armenian areas, including what is now the Republic of Armenia, had their Armenian populations reduced to critical levels. If you have statistics and census data that contradict this, and show that "Eastern Armenia" had a significantly higher density of Armenians than the "Western Armenia", please do so. I am not emotionally attached to what I said. I am simply stating what I think is true historically. * When a murderous bunch of bandits chase out half of the residents of a village, and kill half of what's left, and then later declare that the village was essentially a bandit location at a certain time, it doesn't give the bandits any moral ground. And the relatives of the chased and murdered villagers should not feel any discomfort in simply acknowledging the existence of such a period of time. There is nothing shameful in taking back what is rightfully yours from "uninvited guests".

An aside from what little I know: The reason for the extreme similarity of Persian-Armenian and "Yerevan" Armenian is that the bulk of the Armenian population of "Russian Armenia" had come "back" from Persia (and adjacent regions of Ottoman empire) relatively recently (in the 19th century), for the supposed advantages of living under the tyranny of fellow Christians versus the tyranny of Muslim overlords (turned out pretty well, considering the ultimate Russian plans to have an Armenia without Armenians after the game was over). Before the Russian conquest of the area, Eastern Armenia was arguably even more Turkified/Tatarised than Western Armenia. So Eastern Armenian is essentially an offshoot (if that) of the Persian-Armenian dialect. Western Armenian was the dialect developed under the Ottoman empire, and its phonetics and to some extent its grammar have been a little influenced by Turkish, just as the Persian dialect was likely influenced by Persian (though perhaps less detectable since both are indo-european languages unlike Turkish). OK, can't stay. Bye.

From what little I know: The victory is not exaggerated; it was indeed an unlikely, emotionally meaningful victory, showing that Armenians, when motivated enough, could fight off a much superior Turkish army. The exaggeration comes when it is supposed that it had any effect whatsoever on the political or diplomatic fate of the Armenians. All had been decided before that "victory", and a token Armenian "state" was what Turks considered in their interest for the very short term. The battle of Sardarabad did not force them to recognize the Armenian state. One theory is that the Armenian state was basically engineered by the Turks to show that Armenians did not disappear ( "See they have a state; they are fine") in case they got badgered by the west about a complete annihilation of Armenians (although the western diplomats privately couldn't care less about what was to them a pesky, useless people, their public opinion was still sufficiently interested in Armenians for it to have appeared to the Turks as a potential diplomatic problem). It was cheap insurance, considering that they were confident they could overrun the new "state" whenever they felt like it at a more opportune time (i.e. after negotiations with the western powers were over).

In line with my self-imposed moratorium on offering wisdom, and lack of time, I will only offer an unflattering generalization in response to this article and the one about orthography in another thread. It seems that the "thinkers" in/from RoA that have the ability to be published are breathtakingly unintelligent and basically have a silly understanding of history, governance, statehood, and most bafflingly, our own history and character. The louder they are, the more pedestrian their "revolutionary" thinking. It must be malnourishment or something. Not that we have any real thinkers in the "west" to compare them with. So where does that leave us? Perhaps "integration" is deserved after all, for reasons entirely different from those concocted by the author, and probably explained in Jared Diamond's latest book, which I still haven't had time to read.

Dear Arpa, The emotions you verbalize are understandable, and can be related to. However, the state of Armenian cultural monuments is simply an indicator of our collective energy and imagination, and weeping over their demise is not a cause of any hardship in the Republic. The lamentation over their demise is not a distraction from our "real" problems. It is a lamentation over the same state of mind, the lack of energy, the lack of resolve, the lack of imagination that lies under the "real" problems. To me, the news is not about the Georgians. It is about us. I disagree with you that worrying about the faraway places is a distraction. If we had the extraordinary energy, coherence, and resourcefulness necessary to turn our little nation into a great one, the reasons for the lamentation above would not exist. The Georgians would restore, embellish, and present them to us as proof of their friendliness to their powerful neighbors who have powerful friends near and far. But their neighbor is not worth sucking up to because its aim in life is low-grade mediocrity. And the first step toward making mediocrity one's ultimate goal is to think hyper-realistically, as displayed by the sentiments you expressed. Those that cannot think big are unlikely to think up anything worthwhile. Don't get angry at the caring. Do get angry at the reasons. TB P.S. You see Boghos, I can't resist peddling wisdom. After all, things are much easier said than done.

Arpa added: That Pole has a significant Armenian component. You know, that big Armenian community that quickly disappeared after their church leadership was taken over by "worldly", "business" oriented types that thought conformism was the way to go. And indeed it was. The descendants of those Armenians are citizens of European Union and on their way to join the most prosperous of the planet. There is one little problem from the Armenian perspective though: They are no longer Armenian. Navigating the world landscape of today with perpetual preservation of Armenian identity as a primary goal requires flexibility, imagination, and resourcefulness, not a simple-minded recipe of conformism or going with the "winners". A not-insignificant part of that struggle includes using every opportunity, even silly ones, to make being Armenian more special, more enjoyable, and warmer than the mainstream culture into which our children are daily threatened to be dissolved away. Working on more substantial aspects of that distinct Armenian identity, and making it a fundamentally compelling one is of course a different if somewhat related discussion. [sorry Edward, you'll probably hate the structure of my sentences in this post ]