Unity or Cut the Loses

[MJ]

In and outside this forum we frequently hear/pronounce slogans of unity. It is interesting that a nation with about 4000 years history (as we claim it) still has such an issue to resolve.

 

At the risk of repeating myself for the four thousandth time, in this forum, I would like to restate that unity doesn’t just happen. It happens around some cause or an overwhelming idea.

 

To me (and I am not important unless am representative of a very significant chunk of like-minded Armenians), the only unity that can be established is around the aspirations for the future of the Republic of Armenia. No myth of Great Armenia or Western Armenia may unite me with someone who in a classic action of cowardice runs away from the reality of the Republic, however bitter that reality may be, and opts for something mythical and esoteric, which practically never has existed on such capacity.

 

And no “common enemy” may unite us, I think, since for those who are relevant in the context of the future of Armenia, the unity builds around the positive outlook for its future, not the heavy burden of its past.

 

In the view of all this, I am going to opt for disunity amongst Armenians rather than unity, since I think the perimeters of useful unity are defined by the outlook for the Republic for its future, and it is in its best interests to “chop the rope,” the other end of which is the heavy stone dragging it down.

 

This is called “cut the loses.”

[Rubo]

MR. MJ applies that Armenians who advocate the Armenian Genocide reorganization should be “cut the losses” meaning discarded!

Diaspora Armenians should be discarded since most are taking AG seriously.

Diaspora Armenians investments should be refused since they are discarded.

MJ might as well say lets create a republic by a dictator who thinks just like him! Forget the democratic process, the elitists know the solutions! The crap is well evident.

[nairi]

MJ, have you ever heard of The Armenia Diaspora Conference?

 

http://www.armeniadiaspora.com/

 

What do you think they're trying to accomplish?

 

Nairi

[MJ]

Dear Nairi,

 

Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I especially liked the photo.

 

Since you have already read the material, I presume, could you please tell me/us what is it about. Otherwise the list of things that I am referred to keeps growing.

[sen_Vahan]

MJ,

 

I agree with your thought. We should be united for the Republic and its future in minds and actions.

thank you,

Vahan

[MJ]

Thank you for being so informative, Nairi.

[nairi]

Top of page one:

 

"The second Armenia - Diaspora Conference took place in Yerevan, May 27-28 for the purpose of further developing and deepening  Armenia - Diaspora cooperation."

 

Nairi

[Rubo]

Free dive

 

Any person who assumes the role of the infallible self prophesied genius can not resist the temptation of lecturing with a astute beginning like “MJ,At the risk of repeating myself for the four thousandth time ” One gets a distinctive feeling that this very forum must be full of sheep and dupes otherwise does a massage take that many times to deliver? Perhaps it is the delivery or the content is at fault.

Unity? Strange that simple concept gets complicated in the minds of our pundits. Unity is the very inclusive projection to include all Armenians as one entity. We must not exclude our Dashnaks,Hanchaks and other organizations but include them all in the political process. Perhaps it is a difficult idea to some but for me all must address all issues concern to Armenians. If Armenia wants to capitalize the Diaspora resources and lobby power then Diaspora must also be included as political factor. As soon as we project us verses them then it becomes a simple game of tribalism. Democracy! Is our saver!!

[Sip]

Ok not wanting to get involved in the personal attacks and the name calling as it is most likely counter productive ...

 

What is this unity? I can see at least two definitions up there ...

 

1) As I understand, MJ says that unity is achieved when a group strives for a common goal.

 

2) Rubo, on the other hand, seems to suggest that unity (in a the "democratic" sense) is achieved through the power to vote.

 

Well, #1, although is a cool and poetic defition, doesn't seem too practical to me. I don't remember having seen group of people that have had the same "goal". Yes, one can abstract away the goal to a level where everyone seems to agree, but the details are what it comes down to at the end. A "great republic" sounds great at first ... but what does it really mean? (i.e. I think it is too abstract and therefore it can't really unite a group).

 

As far as #2, where is the balance? Surely a diaspporan and a person living in the country itself should not have equal say ... the main problem is going to be striking that perfect balance ... the weights placed on the "votes" ... not a very trivial task at all.

 

Did I understand the definitions of unity correctly?

 

[ August 12, 2002, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]

[Rubo]

) As I understand, MJ says that unity is achieved when a group strives for a common goal. Rubo>At the expense of excluding the Diaspora! Hardly a common goal!

 

Dear Sip

 

Democratic process means just that. I do not see any reason why we as Armenians in Diaspora cannot have duel citizenship. This is in the process by the way and so as Diaspora conference. The whole idea beyond Diaspora conference was to air out our problems and find solutions. Diaspora Armenians do not necessarily want the power to vote but they do want to be part of the process, which can be achieved by special laws and incentives. For example if a Diaspora Armenian buys land in Armenia or establishes a business which would employ thousands of employees then pays taxes follows all rules of the government then why should he or she be excluded from political process. We should not fear our fellow Armenians but except at least in our minds that democracy is the norm and the civilized way.

 

Regards

[MJ]

Seaphan,

 

Unfortunately, no. To the contrary, I think you have missed the entire point. First, because there was no attempt by me to define the concept of unity in my material. Unity as a concept was assumed by me to be well understood by default.

 

The other developments in this thread constitute what one would call in Armenian "mtadzelu kulturaii batsakaiutiu," i.e. "absence of the culture of thinking" and can successfully qualify as an act of continuing verbal diarrhea.

[Rubo]

We should examine why Armenian affluent Diaspora has been a disappointed factor thus far in Armenian economy.

When Armenia did gained independence, we in Diaspora were overjoyed. We desperately wanted to help and contribute but our illusions were shattered by Ter Petrosian’s anti-ARF and Diaspora policies driven by the sense of pleasing the Turks to achieve cessations. We now know that those consations never arrived and our people paid the price both in Diaspora and homeland. Needless to say the initial excitement did vane out until Kocharian’s presidency. Kocharian did remarkably well in foreign affairs putting Armenia on the map but failed thus far again to utilize the Diaspora resources. Israel and China have been successful in utilizing their Diasporas and the lessons learned can be applied to our case as well. Armenians always have been victims of not only foreign invaders but our trivial party divisions as well. Time is ripe in twenty first century to finally apply the lessons of history. I am for inclusion ,even our radicals do have their place since they would only reinforce their own opposition.

Armenian Genocide is a major issue dividing the lines at times. This issue should also be examined collectively and be assessed to see its validity and passé status among all Armenians.

Instead of our issues become the dividing lines I would say let the process for finding solutions be the united goal hence all goals are potentially become united metaphors.

 

Regards to all

[nairi]

That's right. He also advocates that this common goal should be "the future of Armenia". However, what he fails to mention is that this unity and this exact goal are already being worked on, not to mention at the highest level by some of our most experienced people.

 

Seaphan jan, although you are absolutely right, in this case you should look at it from a broader perspective. Yes, not EVERYONE will ALWAYS agree with EVERYTHING the leaders of a group say, but there will always be a large majority that will (re: Dating an Armenian Girl thread). If we take this fact into account then we can conclude that we, Armenians, can likewise form a common goal, in this case a democratic and prosperous future for both Armenia and Diaspora.

 

Nairi

[Rubo]

Nairi> That's right. He also advocates that this common goal should be "the future of Armenia".

I disagree with your conclusion

 

MJ>In the view of all this, I am going to opt for disunity amongst Armenians rather than unity, since I think the perimeters of useful unity are defined by the outlook for the Republic for its future, and it is in its best interests to “chop the rope,” the other end of which is the heavy stone dragging it down.

 

This is called “cut the loses.”

 

“Chopping the rope” represents those issues that are defined by few “experts” on highest level of government then how can those issues represent a common goal. It sounds more like Turkish generals club.

[nairi]

Dear Rubo, perhaps you're right. I may have misinterpreted MJ. But here's what I found:

 

And,

 

Finally, this:

 

What the "heavy stone dragging it down" is, remains a mystery to me. You claim it's the "handful" of Armenian experts, but there's no concrete reference to it as far as I can see. Perhaps MJ can clarify this himself.

 

Nairi

[Rubo]

But, nevertheless, Iraq is the week nerve of the region, and the regional geopolitics is going to spiral around Iraq, in the near future. So far as the issue of Iraq exists, Turkey is going to be irreplaceable for the US, for example. The positioning of Iran in the region in this context is most unclear. So, I would predict a lot of realignment in the region in the coming decade.

 

And in this context and in this period, God forbid Armenia is under the control of schizophrenics.

I am just having some fun MJ, relax. Lets see where logically your statement goes.

 

If Armenia were to be control by schizophrenics then majority of Armenians did vote them in power hence majority of Armenians in Armenia are schizophrenics. Logically it is impossible for the majority of people to be mental patients, therefore your statement has no validity furthermore it only reinforces the elitist outlook. MJ your profile is all over this forum.

[MJ]

OK...

 

So, our Village has two idiots now....

 

Astvadz errordits heru pahi..

[Rubo]

MJ (jan) Idiot is what idiot says. Your blunders are all over this forum. The problem is that since you are such a conceited individual you will never admit that you were wrong on any issue. That is something you must work on your character. Nobody is infallible, real human beings who have an ounce of integrity can at times say 'I am wrong”

People who know me well can testify my generosity of spirit and I have on many occasions admitted my wrongs. Real knowledge begins when one realizes the mortality of life and transitory face of all knowledge and ideas. To take one’s self so seriously and to frown on other people like Hagarag calling him Khojda and crap hardly elevates one to morally superior status. That is all. Stop your insults and I will do more paintings and less ripping your statements.

[Harut]

MJ, please eli.

[MJ]

Please don't paint... As idiotic as it is, you'd better continue your routine here. Let’s keep the Art for Artists.

 

Sorry, Harut. Couldn't resist the temptation...

[-e-]

WHO THE HELL IS THIS rubo CHARACHER, AFTER ALL!?! HE RUNS AROUND CALLING PEOPLE NAMES AND PLAYING A JUDGE FOR US.

 

I second with you MJ. Unity must come with sharing the same values that will lead us to build a future.

[Sip]

Dear Eduard, Rubo and MJ have been going at this for some time. It is definitely starting to cross the line of acceptable behavior policies of the forum. If you would like to know personal details about Rubo, Personal Message is probably the best way to find out.

 

---

 

Please guys (Rubo and MJ in specific) ... It is obvious that you two have strong disagreements on certain topics (which is FINE .. this is a discussion forum after all). But at some point, the discussion stops and the "name calling" starts. If you really feel the need to attack each other and call names, then please use the PM feature of the board. Otherwise, you leave basically no choice for the moderatros than to start to delete/edit posts, give warnings, and/or other actions.

[MosJan]

lets say that this was a friendly reminder, from the Moderators.

 

MOvses

[Rubo]

History has more brown nosers then honest people. People who think for themselves are far few and between.

Chauvinists talking about unity are equitable as hyenas becoming vegetarians

[nairi]

Dear MJ jan, what I expect from a convincing critic is constructive criticism, not vague philosophies. This means CONCRETE examples of what we are doing, where we are going, what is wrong with it and what we should do instead. To claim that no one is doing anything, or to say that what is being done is wrong regardless, without giving concrete examples and constructive arguments, is a baby's reaction.

 

Allow me to give you a concrete example of what I mean by constructive criticism:

 

*************************************

ARMENIA SURELY MOVES TOWARDS VIOLENCE IN POLITICAL LIFE UNDER COUNCIL

OF EUROPE'S ALERT EYE

 

By David Petrosyan

 

July 15, 2002

 

A series of events whose real meaning will become evident only in

a few months occurred in Armenia in the first half of July. However,

one can make a series of assumptions in connection with the latest

events already today.

 

First of all, let's single out the changes in the law on the

Regulations of the National Assembly under which on the basis of the

results of the interim parliamentary commission's work one issue or

another in fact cannot be brought up for deputies' discussion without

preliminary voting. It is quite clear that the goal of this change was

to block the very possibility of raising the issue of the president's

impeachment on the basis of the summary work of the interim

parliamentary commission on the Oct. 27 case. It is from this

perspective that the opposition was seeking the raising of the

impeachment issue at the beginning of June. However, as is known, the

law is not retroactive. Thus, formally the opposition will consider

that the issue about the impeachment of the president has already been

put on the agenda. No doubt, this circumstance is one of the political

mines set so as not to be "neutralized".

 

In a move coordinated with the president, with the support of the

Parliament's majority, the government also made changes in the NA

Regulations, which the opposition press has already branded as a

"strait-jacket" for deputies. It is obvious that changes in the

regulations were dictated from the presidential palace so as to avoid

the very possibility of the repetition of the situation when the

opposition can seize the Parliament's rostrum. Thus, a deputy, in the

opinion of the Parliament's leadership, who violates discipline may be

deprived of the right to participate in 4 meetings of Parliament, as

well as staying in the territory of the NA for a period of 6 days. The

law does not particularize the cases in which punishment must be

applied. Thus, following the letter of the law, the NA leadership may

make a decision on banning access of an ordinary deputy to the

Parliament's meeting if he, for example, failed to end his speech in

the time set by the regulations or for his talking over a cell

phone. The new regulations do not stipulate any punishment for the NA

leadership, the President or Cabinet members who may violate/are

violating the prescribed order. In the changed regulations, the

obligation to maintain order in the NA is put on mythical "bodies

ensuring security" (probably, "parliamentary police", which exists in

many countries). However, in the changed regulations, in the list of

rights and obligations of the parliament speaker and his deputies

(articles 18 and 19) there are no powers under which they could give

an instruction to "bodies ensuring the security of the NA" to apply

corresponding sanctions against a delinquent deputy. The changed

regulations do not foresee any order of appealing against austerities

against a deputy or a group of deputies.

 

The current regulations do not contain a word not only about

"bodies ensuring the NA's security", but also about their punitive

powers. It remains for one to suppose that these functions (even

temporarily) may be put on law-enforcement bodies and special services

of the country. The last-mentioned circumstance will entail not only

the violation of the principle of "separation of powers", but also the

suspension of the effect of article 66 of the country's Constitution,

in which it is expressly stated that people's representatives enjoy

immunity.

 

Under the government's new variant, it is also foreseen to conduct

an open ballot on the decision about Parliament's application to the

Constitutional Court concerning the issue of the president's

impeachment (the Parliament's Chairman and his deputies are elected

and re-called by secret ballot). Imagine American congressmen making a

decision on the president's impeachment in an open ballot!

 

All changes in the regulations adopted under pressure by the

government, the president and the parliament majority at the

extraordinary session of the NA in fact led to restrictions on the

application of article 66 of the Basic Law. The decision made by an

absolute majority of votes, however paradoxical it may be, politically

boomeranged not the parliament opposition (it did not participate in

the vote), against which it was foreseen, properly speaking, but those

who voted "for" the changes -- majoritarian deputy Gevorg Hakobian,

who was brutally beaten by representatives of Yerevan's law-enforcement

bodies on July 9. Thus, it took less than a week for the public to

make sure that article 66 of the Constitution is no longer applied.

We little doubt that in the visible future the leadership of Armenia

will furnish more convincing facts confirming this stern reality.

 

Meanwhile, changes made in the regulations were a mere element of

a big political bargain between the president, prime minister and

defense minister. In exchange for changes in the regulations the

supporters of Prime Minister Andranik Margarian pushed through

Parliament the variant of the "Electoral Code" suitable for them. In

particular, 3 of the 9-member CEC (and correspondingly commissions of

lower level) will be appointed by the president, and the rest 6 - will

represent parliamentary factions that overcame the 5% hurdle at the

previous elections ("Miasnutiun"/"Unity", Communist Party,

ARF-Dashnaktsutiun, "Right & Unity", "Orinats Yerkir"/"Country of Law"

and National-Democratic Union). The decisions at electoral commissions

will be made by 2/3 of votes. Taking into account the real line-up of

political forces in the country, one cannot exclude that the new

"Electoral Code" prepared with the assistance of Council of Europe

experts, will, for example, promote the realization of the 1995

parliamentary elections scenario in Armenia. Those elections are known

to have been evaluated by the mission of UN/OSCE observers as

"... free but not fair". We would remind you that over 700 independent

candidates and candidates from the opposition in single-mandate

constituencies were denied registration, and registration was denied

for party lists of four opposition political organizations

(Monarchists, Race-Worshippers' Party, "Women of Armenian Country" and

"National Progress") and one opposition bloc of four organizations

("National Union - Dashnaktsutiun"). Opposition ARF-Dashnaktsutiun,

then banned, did not participate in the elections either. The results

of the elections under the proportional system were in fact summed up

not according to the results of the vote, but according to protocols

filled in office rooms. Six members of the CEC from the opposition

refused to put their signatures to the summary protocol. On the

contrary, most of the CEC members controlled by the president got

considerable posts in law-enforcement bodies (for example, Gagik

Jhangirian became the country's military prosecutor). Something like

this is likely to be getting prepared now as well.

 

Besides, the leadership of the Republican Party and deputies

elected from single-mandate constituencies resorted to a breach of

political agreement reached two years ago between parties/unions

represented in the NA. The agreement envisaged the distribution of

seats in the future Parliament between deputies elected under the

majoritarian and proportional systems in the ratio of 37:94. Now this

ratio will be 56:75. This decision was opposed by all party factions

represented in Parliament, including those supporting the president:

ARF-Dashnaktsutiun and "Orinats Yerkir".

 

Thus, the political deal between the president and the prime

minister drawn up by the vote at the NA on changes in the regulations

and "Electoral Code" challenges the positions of ARF-Dashnaktsutiun in

the system of the "ruling party". It is not ruled out that Kocharian

has decided to get detached from the very inopportune guardianship of

ARF-Dashnaktsutiun after the real rating of the party was publicly

called into question in by-elections to Parliament in constituency

N67 and elections of the head of the administration of Yerevan's

Malatia-Sebastia community (the candidate from ARF-Dashnaktsutiun got

5.5 times fewer votes that the incumbent prefect). In the current

situation the president opted for closer relations with the prime

minister and, partly, with the defense minister. In its turn, trying

to take a revanche in constituency N 67, ARF-Dashnaktsutiun obviously

overdid with pressure on local authorities and voters, which provoked

a scandalous situation leaving Dashnak candidate Hakob Matilian

unrivaled. And that happened after one of his opponents (V. Makeyan)

could prove his point in the Constitutional Court! For the first time

in recent years the opposition presents a bill not to the leadership

of Armenia but to ARF-Dashnaktsutiun, which, in their opinion, is

dealing with its opponents using the same illegal methods that were

used against it in the 1990s.

 

All mentioned above only confirms the opinion of those local

observers who think that Armenia is swiftly moving to the border

beyond which violent and criminal methods in politics will become a

rule rather than exception. Let's especially underline the

circumstance that all events are covered by electronic mass media

fully controlled by the president and his team. And the CE with its

experts, keeping track of events and assisting the creation of

"democratic legislation", maintain a veritably Spartan composure,

assuring the Armenian political beau-monde that generally the country

is successful in fulfilling its obligations. Can it be credited?

 

"The Noyan Tapan Highligts", N28 July, 2002

 

***********************************************

 

Capiche?

 

Now you try.

 

Nairi

 

[ August 13, 2002, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: nairi ]