What Should Be Done?

[Aratta-Kingdom]

MosJan, Levon@ mtayin karoghutyun uni jisht gnahatelu pah@. Bayc qani vor inqn ir eutyam dzayr asdijan yesamol e, bacarvum a vor inq@ karoghana vorevice drakan ban ani yerkri hamar. Du jist eir nkatel naxord postum vor@ inqn el yerkar chi mna postum. Mejtegum, ichpes vor du nkatecir..., jogovurdn a tujvelu.

 

Urax em vor verludzelu mijocov karoghanum enq shat himnaharcerum @ndhanur haytarari ganq. Jogovrdi tarber zangvatsner@ arajnordogh koghmer@ yerani nuyn xohemutyamb harcerin motenain...

[Aratta-Kingdom]

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.

 

well said TB. Thank you Sir.

[Ashot]

Explaining himself

 

Before addressing this unfortunate topic itself, I must suggest a few factual clarifications. Although, thanks to the consistent efforts of our wise opponents and to Kocharyan’s Goebbels-style propaganda machine, the label “years of cold and darkness” has come to apply to the entire period of rule by Armenia’s former administration, these years in reality were limited to 1992 to 1994 only. The mere recollection of precisely which years those were reveals an amazing astronomical alignment with the years of the Artsakh war. The war began on May 9, 1992, with the liberation of Shushi, and ended on May 12, 1994, with the establishment of the ceasefire. This fact alone would be enough for any rational person with greater or lesser familiarity with world history to figure out, without tremendous effort, why it would have been dark and cold in Armenia during that period. During World War II, it was dark and cold not only in the entire Soviet Union, but also in England, France, Greece and the rest of the nations involved in the war. In England, for instance, a thousand times more trees were cut down during that period than in Armenia during its own years of cold and darkness; I am not even talking about the horrors of the blockade of Leningrad. Yet, in no other country would it occur to anyone to call the war years “years of cold and darkness” or for some places “years of hunger and epidemics” as well. Such a brilliant idea could only occur in the minds of Armenians, so incredibly proud of our three thousand years of civilization.

 

Our opponents stubbornly reject, or faintheartedly ignore, any connection between the years of cold and darkness, and the Artsakh war. They explain cold and darkness using entirely different reasons. Let us address some of the most commonly referred to among these.

 

The most bizarre view, as always, was expressed by Robert Kocharyan a few years ago. He believes that Armenia’s energy crisis was absolutely not caused by the war and blockades, but was the result of the Artsax Committee’s shortsighted decision earlier to shut down the Armavir Nuclear Power Plant. Though a misconception, this can be excused, given the circumstances. Being outside Armenia, Kocharyan might have been unaware that at the time of the closure of the nuclear station in January 1989, all eleven members of the Artsax Committee, plus Igor Muradyan and Khachik Stamboltsyan, were locked up in Moscow’s Matrosskaya Tishina and Butyrka jails. He might also have been unaware that the decision to shut down the nuclear station had been made by his beloved Nikolay Rizhkov and Suren Harutyunyan. And finally, it is quite possible that some day Kocharyan might just go out and declare that he was the one who reopened the nuclear power station. And don’t be surprised when it turns out that many people are inclined to believe that.

 

The next bizarre view in connection with the energy crisis alleges that during the years of “cold and darkness” Armenia’s authorities deliberately grounded the electricity that was being generated, in order to profit from the sale of fuel oil and candles they had imported earlier. It is understandable when an ordinary person says such a thing. But when a professor at Yerevan State University - a historian with a deserved reputation within the academic community - does so, with a stern face and an attitude of judgment, before thousands of television viewers, one cannot but become completely disillusioned with the Divine Creation. That professor had probably skipped his 6th or 7th grade physics class on the Law of Preservation and Transformation of Energy. Very well -we all have skipped classes. But was it so difficult for that professor to visit the neighboring Department of Physics, and consult any physics professor there, or even a first year student, if you will? The answer, of course, would have been supplied at once: grounding high-voltage electricity lines would have caused all of the safety fuses on Armenia’s power grid to blow out.

 

At first glance, the other accusation raised against former leadership in connection with the energy crisis may seem to be more credible. It alleges that the “years of cold and darkness” were the result of the embezzlement that was “uncovered” of several hundred millions of dollars in the power generation sector during the so-called “fuel oil guzzling”, to put in parliamentary Latin. As proof, it is cited that Armenia generated equal amounts of electricity in 1993 and 1996, but there were scheduled shutoffs in 1993, whereas no such shutoffs occurred in 1996. And our opponents aren’t satisfied with the explanation that from 1992 to 1994 the lion’s share of the electricity generated in Armenia was supplied to industry; that under the scheduled supply, the low-cost electric power was carelessly used not just for lighting, but for heating and powering various consumer appliances as well; that in 1996 the Nuclear Power Station was back in operation and unlike in 1993, huge volumes of energy commodities - gas, oil, diesel fuel-were being imported to Armenia; that in 1996 heating had been restored to most of the apartment complexes in the nation’s major population centers, energy reform had been carried out, and illegal power lines had been done away with, and so on. Not to tire you, I will not go into further detail on these events and realities. They have been exhaustively addressed by former Prime Minister Hrant Bagratyan in numerous articles and interviews, and not only have his conclusions not been disproved by expert economists-they haven’t even been disputed.

 

Where, then, do these rumors of hundreds of millions of dollars of embezzled wealth in the power generation sector come from? Well, it turns out from nowhere but the conclusions of the special commission established by the previous convocation of the National Assembly. These conclusions were submitted to the Prosecutor’s Office, with a recommendation to launch corresponding criminal proceedings. The Office of the Prosecutor General thoroughly investigated the case, and not only found no corpus delicti in the actions of the previous authorities, but it did not even establish that any crime had occurred at all.

 

In any civilized nation, the rules of decency would require that the Prosecutor General and the members of the commission offer the former leadership, particularly Prime Minister Hrant Bagratyan, an official apology. That hasn’t happened, which indicates that Armenia is not a civilized nation yet. Instead, the esteemed commissioners and politicians linked to them have continued to insist to this day on the same allegations against the previous authorities, contrary to the Prosecutor’s decision. Meanwhile, logic would have demanded that they sue the Prosecutor General of the Republic for covering up the “monstrous crime” committed by the former authorities, and if unsuccessful, go on an indefinite hunger strike, setting up camp right on the carpet in his office. Why is it that His Holiness Vazgen I and Victor Hambartsumyan, say, could go on a hunger strike in Moscow (I talked them out of it, by the way) in support of a just resolution to the Artsakh problem, but the brave members of the parliamentary commission are incapable of a similar sacrifice? I’d rather not expand further, but willingly or not, this matter keeps moving all the time from the legal and political arena to the realm of morality.

 

An in-depth look at the issues at stake makes it obvious that the sole purpose of these allegations is to obscure the true causes of the energy crisis that befell Armenia, namely-the Artsakh war and the blockades. From 1992 to 1994, Armenia’s leadership directed whatever limited resources were available toward ensuring the survival and security of Artsakh, taking the risk of putting the citizens of the Republic through an ordeal, and, driven by the conviction that the principal economic objective of the nation was to support the war effort, ensuring the supply of arms, ammunition, diesel fuel, and medicine, the establishment of an air defense system, and the provision of food and clothing for the troops. Although everyone is left with the impression that the war was happening in Nagorno Artsax, the truth is Armenia too was directly involved in an undeclared war. For two years, Armenia’s entire border zone with Azerbaijan and Nakhijevan was subject to almost daily shelling, shooting, and destruction. Along the entire zone, from Voskepar to Meghri and to Yeraskh, every village saw its share of dead and wounded. Azerbaijan had essentially declared war against Armenia’s external communications as well. In the period of 1992 to 1995, the gas pipeline entering Armenia was blown up 42 times, and the Armenian-Georgian railway 21 times. There is no need to say what the extra cost of restoring communications was.

 

I am not in a position yet to declassify state secrets, but be assured -the funds spent on the war, procurement of arms, ammunition and diesel fuel, supplying the troops, defending Armenia’s border areas, and restoring disrupted communications would have been fully sufficient to ensure the round-the-clock supply of the population with power and heat. Serzh Sargsyan was Armenia’s Defense Minister from 1993 to 1995; he has full knowledge of these secrets, and cannot fail to confirm them all. To journalists present at this rally, I suggest: Ask him when you have the chance, and see what he says.

 

It may sound strange, but I am happy that the majority of our people consider the period of 1992 to 1994 years of “cold and darkness.” This means they did not experience the horrors of the war close to home. Yet for thousands of volunteers from Armenia and their families, as well as the population of our border zone, these were years of blood, dead and wounded, bombardment, and destruction - that was the sacrifice that it took to liberate Artsakh. What I just said about the unreserved commitment of the people and government of Armenia to the cause of Artsakh, as well as their hardship and suffering, is not an idle statement, but the truth, supported by the candid assessment made in the past by the Artsax leadership.

 

Thus, President of the Nagorno Artsax Republic Robert Kocharyan wrote to me the following on January 9, 1995: “The grateful people of Artsakh shall never forget your personal contribution to our heroic struggle for survival. We have always felt the backing and support of Mother Armenia, the Republic of Armenia.” (Archives of the First President of Armenia, January 9, 1995) On another occasion in 1996, Robert Kocharyan expressed the same idea more eloquently: “Today the NKR is an established republic, with its own economy, combat-capable military, and domestic stability, and the advantage of respect of the international community. It is clear to us that all of this could hardly have been accomplished, if it weren’t for the backing of the Republic of Armenia… I would like to underscore the role of the President of the Republic Levon Ter-Petrossian in all of our accomplishments. Without his clear-cut position, without our mutually coordinated political steps, we would hardly have what we have. Everyone in Artsax understands this, and I believe they do so in Armenia and the Diaspora as well.” (Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, January 19, 1996) In order not to give the impression that this is just the opinion of one person, allow me also to quote Arthur Tovmasyan, former Chairman of the NKR National Assembly: “It is undeniable that our successes depend on Armenia’s able diplomacy and balanced policy. And of course, President Ter-Petrossian plays an important role in this difficult mission.” (September 19, 1996). And Leonard Petrosyan, Prime Minister of the Nagorno Artsax Republic, stated the following in 1996: “If the Armenians of Artsakh had the opportunity to participate in the presidential election of the Republic of Armenia, the absolute majority of them would vote for the candidate for President of the Republic of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrossian.”(Hayastani Hanrapetutyun, September 19, 1996)

 

Future generations, I am convinced, will refer to the years of “cold and darkness” as the years of heroic struggle and victory in war. I realize, however, that my lengthy explanations are not going to ease everyone’s suspicions in any case. Therefore, it remains only to ask for our people’s forgiveness for the sufferings caused in the name of delivering Artsakh. I am profoundly sorry to have had to speak so openly about the connection between Armenia’s energy crisis and our victorious war. In a normal country, that would have been such a taboo that each person would have felt offended to be reminded of it.

[Anoushik]

I am not a supporter of Mr. Ter-Petrossian, just because he is an intelligent person (I don’t think anybody disputes the fact that he is much more well-read than anybody in current Armenian leadership). I just support his liberal ideas. I see Armenia developing to become a beacon of democracy not a pariah state. It’s imperative for us to have open communications with our neighbors, even if we have to agree to some form of settlement of Artsax issue, where the region is a federal republic within Azerbaijan. If Armenia is not capable of populating the occupied territories, it has to come to realization than those lands are better off in the hands of Azerbaijan (it’s a bitter truth that’s hard to swallow), with appropriate security guarantees. Armenia’s economy can develop with a different trajectory if borders are open. The country needs access to world markets and Turkey provides it. Armenia needs Turkey more than Turkey needs Armenia. The population of Republic of Armenia is less than half than the population of Istanbul and the economy is less than 3% of Turkey’s.

How can you/I/Armenians not see that giving Karabagh back means that we'll lose our entire country as well?

[alpha]

Ashot, I honestly would love to hear those good things. My research attempts have been futile. If you have accurate facts, please list them.

 

The fact that he was the president of a country that won the war is a major accomplishement.

[Takoush]

There will never be a final peace agreement! Not when Turks and Azeris are involved. If what you are proposing came to realization then the next day the Azeris would organize a genocide against the Armenians! When will we learn from history???

There you go sister. Where there's turks and azeri babboons are involved there will NEVER NEVER be peace. The only peace they know and recognize is the SWORD and nothing but the SWORD!!!!!

 

Alpha, lets bring LTP back and lets give Armenia and Artsax back to the bloody turks and the azeri baboons so that they'll kill all the Armenians in there and see that their bloody dream come true; the panturkism dream, heh... heh????

[Takoush]

Alpha, I hope you understood my grievances and my sarcasm about these matters!!!

 

I am so upset about our Artsaxian lands and what's happening in Armenia these days that I can't communicate about this any more. My eyes are bloodshot with grieving thoughts that I can't discuss about the matter any more.

 

 

Edited March 4, 2008 by Takoush

[vava]

I don't understand why everyone is jumping to conclusions regarding alpha's postings.

He's advocating prioritizing the economy and a peace treaty for Artsakh (in some acceptable form for both parties). I didn't see where he mentioned "giving back Artsakh" - from my understanding, the desire is for a long term settlement, which isn't a bad thing since the current outlook (as we can now plainly see) is not sustainable.

 

Some of you say "there will never be peace" - woe is me... if that's the case than there will never be hope for anything better.

 

[Johannes]

Alpha

What has maximalism got us in the past, loss of Kars and Sevres Treaty. I think lessons from the past should be learned thoroughly

 

We lost those in wars.

One must be blind not to see all good changes. However, what Mr. Sarkissian is offering is maintaining status quo. Does not offer realistic compromises to our neighbors. Does not put forward opening of communication with our neighbors on the forefront of its platform

Ok. Talking about when they are not ready to any kind of compromises shows the weakness. What will they give? Cultural autonomy?

But now, in Artsakh, Armenians has cultural autonomy. What is the guarantee, if Armenians give Artsakh to Turks, they will not attack ROA?

Do you trust a peace of paper?

with appropriate security guarantees

Who will give the guarantee? While now Artsakhtsi soldiers are keeping the guarantee.

Armenia's economy can develop with a different trajectory if borders are open. The country needs access to world markets and Turkey provides it.

Artsakh land is the biggest wealth.

The population of Republic of Armenia is less than half than the population of Istanbul and the economy is less than 3% of Turkey's.

Especially for that reason, turkey is a demographic danger to Armenia.

No it can never become a region of Azerbaijan, like Lenkoran. It can be a federal republic with Azerbaijan, with its own tax collection, police force and other attributes of federalism.

Are you the spokesman of Ilham Aliyev? Does azerpatlcami milli meclis gave you the rights of talking instead of them? How can you be sure about the federation, and where is the guarantee?

Yes and that's an affirmation of the fact that without final peace agreement there will always be clashes

Do you read history? if you, as Hellector said "never trust a turk", because since their appearance in Armenian territories, we never live in peace.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Johannes

[Johannes]

Quote from Vava

 

I didn't see where he mentioned "giving back Artsakh"

 

 

Quote from Alpha

 

http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=17719&view=findpost&p=232454

 

No it can never become a region of Azerbaijan, like Lenkoran. It can be a federal republic with Azerbaijan, with its own tax collection, police force and other attributes of federalism. Our entire country will be lost if we maintain the status quo and the demographic picture does not improve

 

Federal status is the same as California inside USA. As you see Artsakh will have only "Police force", that means there will no be any Armenian Army, no tanks, no planes, and no ironclads.

 

 

[Twilight Bark]

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.

[alpha]

Armenia is a country with actual people who want to have decent jobs and good prospects of future for their kids. It’s not a fortress that is at a constant war with it’s neighbors. Turks are our neighbors and nothing can be done about it. Armenians and Turks have to learn to live next to each other and tolerate each other. Federalism has multiple levels, California is one example. Other examples of federative states noteworthy of mentioning is Switzerland or former Soviet Union.

 

I am a proponent of change and listed a lot of reasons in my posts yesterday and today for it. My vision of Armenia. The opposite of my view is the status quo. I am open for a discussion why should the status quo be maintained. How will it solve the problems of people living in Armenia? What’s the vision of Armenia the status quo leads to.

 

[Twilight Bark]

Armenia is a country with actual people who want to have decent jobs and good prospects of future for their kids. It’s not a fortress that is at a constant war with it’s neighbors. Turks are our neighbors and nothing can be done about it. Armenians and Turks have to learn to live next to each other and tolerate each other. Federalism has multiple levels, California is one example. Other examples of federative states noteworthy of mentioning is Switzerland or former Soviet Union.

 

I am a proponent of change and listed a lot of reasons in my posts yesterday and today for it. My vision of Armenia. The opposite of my view is the status quo. I am open for a discussion why should the status quo be maintained. How will it solve the problems of people living in Armenia? What’s the vision of Armenia the status quo leads to.

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?

[alpha]

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.

 

TB,

The model of development that you have described (closed borders, nurturing a few high margin industries), is very similar to the Korean model of development through choebols, where the economy is closed for number of years and effectively a number of industries are nurtured within before opening it up to competition. Armenia is a small country it does not have the markets for following that path of development. Take a look at the Irish model of development. Liberalism and EU subsidies got Ireland to be one of the fastest growing economies in EU. They have disputes in Northern Ireland and bloody history of dealing with English. That did not hinder achieving peace in their region and did not make Ireland a British protectorate. Why do you assume that open borders with Turkey will turn Armenia into a Turkish protectorate? With no borders with Russia Armenia has effectively become a Russian protectorate. Open borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan gives alternatives to trading routes, opens consumer markets, just to name a few of the advantages. Turkey is going through a lot of changes. There are a lot of conflicts within the Turkish society as well. It was only a year or so ago when hundreds of thousands of Turks gathered in Istanbul and chanted “We are Armenians”. Open borders will increase human interaction and we will change our perception of Turks from genocide committers to fairly normal people. Change of status quo also means change in our perceptions of our neighbors. Georgians embrace Turks, even though they dislike them as well. I don’t think it’s a secret to anyone that Greeks passionately hate Turks, but that doesn’t hinder development of normal relations. I don’t agree with the assumption that developing normal relations with Turkey and opening of borders will turn Armenia into a Turkish colony. I don’t see any basis for it.

Edited March 4, 2008 by alpha

[Aratta-Kingdom]

Alpha

[/font]

We lost those in wars.

 

You mean to say Wilsonian Armeina was lost in wars? How much do you know about the deal between Lenin and Ataturk?

 

 

[Aratta-Kingdom]

1. Do you believe in nationalistic ideals set forth by Njdeh in the beginning of 20th century, which serve as the guiding force behind the ideas of the Republican Party? If you do, then don't you think that most if it is outdated with current developments in the world? Nationalism took a severe blow after the WW II.

 

 

Is that a line from a fairy-tale book? If the earth is our common home, and if 'nationalism took a sever blow after the WW II', then nothing should justify the Holocaust of the Palestinian people and the creationg of the state of Israel. Have you seen the reaction of the French people when you try to speak English with them? Every time the president of U.S. opens his mouth his speaks of 'National Interests" and 'National Security'. In every parts of the world the people from China, Korea, and Japan will [almost] never give you a business unless you are one of them. In Russia nationalis is at rise. Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' is the best selled book in Turkey in a time when the turks almost never read a book.

 

Every country you go to people talk about their national interests and fight for it. Even twince who grow up in the same family grow up to become two different people with two different character.

 

If it wasn't for Njdeh, we would have been in complete blockade by the turks. Don't forget he was fighting not only against the turk, he was also in a fight against the Red-Army and the bolsheviks who wanted to inject the idea of Universal Brotherly love among the people. What the hell happened to your brotherly love? Why are the turks shooting to the armenains at this very moment? If national interests have no role in your life, why the hell the turks still live with the dream of Pan-Turkism?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Twilight Bark]

* 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.

 

 

 

TB,

The model of development that you have described (closed borders, nurturing a few high margin industries), is very similar to the Korean model of development through choebols, where the economy is closed for number of years and effectively a number of industries are nurtured within before opening it up to competition. Armenia is a small country it does not have the markets for following that path of development. Take a look at the Irish model of development. Liberalism and EU subsidies got Ireland to be one of the fastest growing economies in EU. They have disputes in Northern Ireland and bloody history of dealing with English. That did not hinder achieving peace in their region and did not make Ireland a British protectorate. Why do you assume that open borders with Turkey will turn Armenia into a Turkish protectorate? With no borders with Russia Armenia has effectively become a Russian protectorate. Open borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan gives alternatives to trading routes, opens consumer markets, just to name a few of the advantages. Turkey is going through a lot of changes. There are a lot of conflicts within the Turkish society as well. It was only a year or so ago when hundreds of thousands of Turks gathered in Istanbul and chanted “We are Armenians”. Open borders will increase human interaction and we will change our perception of Turks from genocide committers to fairly normal people. Change of status quo also means change in our perceptions of our neighbors. Georgians embrace Turks, even though they dislike them as well. I don’t think it’s a secret to anyone that Greeks passionately hate Turks, but that doesn’t hinder development of normal relations. I don’t agree with the assumption that developing normal relations with Turkey and opening of borders will turn Armenia into a Turkish colony. I don’t see any basis for it.

 

[Nazarian]

Here is my take:

 

First about the clashes. No one can convince me that people are so stupid that they will risk their lives and stand under the bullets after numerous warnings from the authorities if there were nothing at stake.

 

How about the future of the country being at stake. Have you ever thought of that?

 

Do you want to live in a country governed by the RK-SS duo? I certainly don't.

[Nazarian]

Is that a line from a fairy-tale book? If the earth is our common home, and if 'nationalism took a sever blow after the WW II', then nothing should justify the Holocaust of the Palestinian people and the creationg of the state of Israel. Have you seen the reaction of the French people when you try to speak English with them? Every time the president of U.S. opens his mouth his speaks of 'National Interests" and 'National Security'. In every parts of the world the people from China, Korea, and Japan will [almost] never give you a business unless you are one of them. In Russia nationalis is at rise. Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' is the best selled book in Turkey in a time when the turks almost never read a book.

 

Every country you go to people talk about their national interests and fight for it. Even twince who grow up in the same family grow up to become two different people with two different character.

 

If it wasn't for Njdeh, we would have been in complete blockade by the turks. Don't forget he was fighting not only against the turk, he was also in a fight against the Red-Army and the bolsheviks who wanted to inject the idea of Universal Brotherly love among the people. What the hell happened to your brotherly love? Why are the turks shooting to the armenains at this very moment? If national interests have no role in your life, why the hell the turks still live with the dream of Pan-Turkism?

 

You seem to be confusing national interests with nationalism. It is possible for nationalism can be contrary to the national interests.

 

A national interest is to have a strong country. Nationalism is an ideology of national superiority. These are completely different things.

[DominO123]

Nationalism is an ideology of national superiority.

 

Clarification?

[Aratta-Kingdom]

You seem to be confusing national interests with nationalism. It is possible for nationalism can be contrary to the national interests.

 

A national interest is to have a strong country. Nationalism is an ideology of national superiority. These are completely different things.

 

in a time of hardship its all the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Nazarian]

Clarification?

 

Here is a comprehensive explanation of what nationalism is - from its milder forms of self determination as a nation to the more extreme forms like fascism and racism (these were what I meant when I wrote my comment).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

[DominO123]

Here is a comprehensive explanation of what nationalism is - from its milder forms of self determination as a nation to the more extreme forms like fascism and racism (these were what I meant when I wrote my comment).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

 

That article is not credible. I just want a clarification from your own words for: Nationalism is an ideology of national superiority.

[Aratta-Kingdom]

Here is a comprehensive explanation of what nationalism is - from its milder forms of self determination as a nation to the more extreme forms like fascism and racism (these were what I meant when I wrote my comment).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

 

"these where what you meant when you wrote your comment"? i assume you had the wiki defenition memorized before posting that, right?

 

do you alway rely on wikipedia to express your thoughts? do you always give memorizes sppeech?

[elle]

Before I proceed with my comments I’d like to ask the audience to be more respectful and tolerant toward people with different views. Please stop name-calling otherwise the whole discussion will turn into a monologue.

 

How can we achieve normalization of relations with our neighbors a lot of people ask? I don’t think it’s impossible. Armenia can not ignore its neighbor which has 70= million people and $636 billion GDP. (Armenia’s GDP is $17 billion). Turkey is not an ideal democracy, but it’s a far more advanced democracy than Armenia. At least in Turkey it’s possible to change government through elections.

 

Armenian political elite can not close its eyes to the challenges the country faces because of closed borders. It’s imperative for development of the country, which stands at the doorstep of demographic catastrophe to have open communications with all its neighbors. It’s imperative to trade and import to a country which has one of the fastest growing economies of the world. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan ought to reject maximalism. Maximalism caused Azerbaijan to lose 7 regions around Artsax. What has maximalism got us in the past, loss of Kars and Sevres Treaty. I think lessons from the past should be learned thoroughly.

 

The topic here is Mr. Sarkissian vs. Mr. Ter-Petrossian. I’ll try not to deviate from it. Let’s discuss what each one is offering. Mr. Sarkissian is status quo. It’s true under current leadership Armenia’s economy developed rapidly and the quality of life has improved dramatically. One must be blind not to see all good changes. However, what Mr. Sarkissian is offering is maintaining status quo. Does not offer realistic compromises to our neighbors. Does not put forward opening of communication with our neighbors on the forefront of its platform. His political past is too murky. The guy has changed parties 3 times during the last 20 years. I’d like supporters of Mr. Sarkissian to answer the questions I posed in my previous post.

 

I am not a supporter of Mr. Ter-Petrossian, just because he is an intelligent person (I don’t think anybody disputes the fact that he is much more well-read than anybody in current Armenian leadership). I just support his liberal ideas. I see Armenia developing to become a beacon of democracy not a pariah state. It’s imperative for us to have open communications with our neighbors, even if we have to agree to some form of settlement of Artsax issue, where the region is a federal republic within Azerbaijan. If Armenia is not capable of populating the occupied territories, it has to come to realization than those lands are better off in the hands of Azerbaijan (it’s a bitter truth that’s hard to swallow), with appropriate security guarantees. Armenia’s economy can develop with a different trajectory if borders are open. The country needs access to world markets and Turkey provides it. Armenia needs Turkey more than Turkey needs Armenia. The population of Republic of Armenia is less than half than the population of Istanbul and the economy is less than 3% of Turkey’s.

 

Again, it doesn't seem that you understand that without territorial compromise, Armenia won't be able to have normal relations with its neigbors. Also, if Armenia gives anything back, they will demand more! Which part of this issue isn't clear to you? Before you speak about how Armenia should become a democratic country, first answer my questions about whether or not it's worth it for us to give back territories (keeping in mind that they will demand more as the time goes by) any territories that we won by blood? This is the number one issue of Armenia-Azer-Turkish relationship! Before you go into anything else, first state your position on the NK issue before moveing forward because your other issues don't really matter at the end. Again, the relationships are based on territorial compromises on our side. You failed to discuss this and went into repition about Armenian democracy. Armenian national security is the #1 issue here.