Tweet
Armenianow.com
Sept 22, 2004
Coming of Age: Comments on change, as independent Armenia enters the teenage
years
By Aris Ghazinyan
ArmeniaNow correspondent
Thirteen years ago this week (September 21), more than 95 percent of the
electorate voted in favor of Armenia becoming an independent republic.
It was an easy decision, made in difficult times. The soul of society still
mourned the death of 30,000 earthquake victims. The heart of society was at
war over Karabakh. And the psyche of society was challenged by the reality
of "freedom", after 70 years of reliance on Soviet care-giving.
"The proclamation of the independence of Armenia took place in extremely
hard political and economic conditions,'' reminds the head of the Museum of
History and Archeology in Avan Ara Demirkhanyan. "During the process of
acquiring sovereignty none of the former republics of USSR was facing such
hard and urgent problems, which were present in great numbers in Armenia."
The will to build a nation faced odds created by energy crisis (a result of
losing USSR power supplies), by transport blockade (by Azerbaijan since 1989
and Turkey since 1991), and by the influx of 350,000 refugees fleeing
Azerbaijan.
''Of course, the simultaneous coincidence of such serious problems occurring
on such a small and weak country left an influential psychological impact on
the public consciousness of the population, who were not ready for such a
situation,'' says Hayk Manaseryan, of the Academy of Sciences of Armenia.
"We should not forget that, for instance, unlike the Baltic States, Armenia
had never stood for secession from the USSR so zealously, but, first of all
it had always been aiming at the reunification with Karabakh even within the
framework of Soviet Union."
Statehood, independence, reunification have been idealistic struggles for
nearly as long as there has been a modern Armenia.
"Over thousands of years the Armenian nation has developed a natural
characteristic of its development, which is statehood," says Doctor of
Geographic Sciences Hovanes Sahadyan. "By force of historical circumstances
it lost its political independence at least 10 times but every time it was
strong enough to find strength and abilities to revive statehood. There are
few analogous examples in the history of the world. I think this example
demonstrates something.''
Karabakh war veteran Hamik Sahadyan believes it was that history of
political struggle that made the transition to independence less traumatic
for Armenia than for its neighbors. Some face common difficulties, but none
have faced the considerable obstacles unique to Armenia.
''In the beginning of 1990s each Caucasus republic of USSR was up against
precisely such strategic missions and it seemed that the positions of
Tbilisi and Baku looked more preferable,'' Hamik Sahadyan says. "Georgia had
all-powerful water resources and Azerbaijan had fuel. Besides, both
republics took incomparably more advantageous geopolitical positions than
Armenia and had bigger populations. It is important to underline that at the
moment of the collapse of the USSR, the Kremlin was supporting Georgia and
Azerbaijan both in territorial disputes and in politico-military aspects.
However, the question of territorial integrity has never become a unifying
factor neither in Tbilisi nor in Baku.''
History proves that Armenia can survive struggle, war, hardship. But can it
grow to a future of peace and prosperity?
''During the process of historical development, Armenian socio-political
thought has collected sufficiently rich and useful material concerning
national behavior in war and extreme conditions," says Vardan Mkhitaryan, a
cartographer. "However, it hasn't developed an agenda for peacetime, when it
has already become an independent state.''
For just that reason, Mkhitaryan is among citizens who believe that
high-ranking officials and the oligarchs who underwrite them - whose only
understanding of governing is conditioned by a communist past - is no less a
threat to Armenia's growth than the ill intentions of its neighbors. The
Parliament assassinations of 1999 were evidence of that condition, he says.
"Since 1995 the use of rough and rude force for the purpose of achieving
political goals became an integral attribute of the election campaigns,"
says Hayk Manaseryan. "Today a majority of deputies of the National Assembly
of RA are from criminal entities.
"All of this demonstrates a regression of statehood in Armenia and a sharp
weakening of positions of precisely political structures. For this reason,
since the mid-1990s the idea that the Armenian people cannot build a country
for themselves has been prevalent in Armenia. Nostalgia for the 'Soviet Past'
has appeared in Armenian society and is why some have suggested the
necessity for an Armenian membership in the Russia-Byelorussia Union."
The past 13 years (like preceding centuries for Armenia) have proven that
independence may be more a goal than a destination.
Nothing seems to be as hoped. But hope is enhanced by significant signs of
progress.
Against considerable odds not found in most Commonwealth of Independent
States, Armenia has survived, and might even thrive. The well being of the
average Armenian doesn't differ greatly from the livelihood of those in
other post-Soviet countries, whose transition has been less challenged.
"The only factor which can level the wide difference between, for instance,
the biggest country of Europe, the Ukraine with population of 50 million
people, and small Armenia is its socialist inheritance," says geographer
Hovanes Sahadyan.
And that inheritance, he reminds, was spread over 70 years. It will take
more than 13 years for that part of Armenia's heritage to pass.
And while that recent past lingers, reflection on Armenia's entry into the
teenage years of independence comes with a question:
If a referendum were held today, would 95 percent of the population vote in
favor of independence?
Sept 22, 2004
Coming of Age: Comments on change, as independent Armenia enters the teenage
years
By Aris Ghazinyan
ArmeniaNow correspondent
Thirteen years ago this week (September 21), more than 95 percent of the
electorate voted in favor of Armenia becoming an independent republic.
It was an easy decision, made in difficult times. The soul of society still
mourned the death of 30,000 earthquake victims. The heart of society was at
war over Karabakh. And the psyche of society was challenged by the reality
of "freedom", after 70 years of reliance on Soviet care-giving.
"The proclamation of the independence of Armenia took place in extremely
hard political and economic conditions,'' reminds the head of the Museum of
History and Archeology in Avan Ara Demirkhanyan. "During the process of
acquiring sovereignty none of the former republics of USSR was facing such
hard and urgent problems, which were present in great numbers in Armenia."
The will to build a nation faced odds created by energy crisis (a result of
losing USSR power supplies), by transport blockade (by Azerbaijan since 1989
and Turkey since 1991), and by the influx of 350,000 refugees fleeing
Azerbaijan.
''Of course, the simultaneous coincidence of such serious problems occurring
on such a small and weak country left an influential psychological impact on
the public consciousness of the population, who were not ready for such a
situation,'' says Hayk Manaseryan, of the Academy of Sciences of Armenia.
"We should not forget that, for instance, unlike the Baltic States, Armenia
had never stood for secession from the USSR so zealously, but, first of all
it had always been aiming at the reunification with Karabakh even within the
framework of Soviet Union."
Statehood, independence, reunification have been idealistic struggles for
nearly as long as there has been a modern Armenia.
"Over thousands of years the Armenian nation has developed a natural
characteristic of its development, which is statehood," says Doctor of
Geographic Sciences Hovanes Sahadyan. "By force of historical circumstances
it lost its political independence at least 10 times but every time it was
strong enough to find strength and abilities to revive statehood. There are
few analogous examples in the history of the world. I think this example
demonstrates something.''
Karabakh war veteran Hamik Sahadyan believes it was that history of
political struggle that made the transition to independence less traumatic
for Armenia than for its neighbors. Some face common difficulties, but none
have faced the considerable obstacles unique to Armenia.
''In the beginning of 1990s each Caucasus republic of USSR was up against
precisely such strategic missions and it seemed that the positions of
Tbilisi and Baku looked more preferable,'' Hamik Sahadyan says. "Georgia had
all-powerful water resources and Azerbaijan had fuel. Besides, both
republics took incomparably more advantageous geopolitical positions than
Armenia and had bigger populations. It is important to underline that at the
moment of the collapse of the USSR, the Kremlin was supporting Georgia and
Azerbaijan both in territorial disputes and in politico-military aspects.
However, the question of territorial integrity has never become a unifying
factor neither in Tbilisi nor in Baku.''
History proves that Armenia can survive struggle, war, hardship. But can it
grow to a future of peace and prosperity?
''During the process of historical development, Armenian socio-political
thought has collected sufficiently rich and useful material concerning
national behavior in war and extreme conditions," says Vardan Mkhitaryan, a
cartographer. "However, it hasn't developed an agenda for peacetime, when it
has already become an independent state.''
For just that reason, Mkhitaryan is among citizens who believe that
high-ranking officials and the oligarchs who underwrite them - whose only
understanding of governing is conditioned by a communist past - is no less a
threat to Armenia's growth than the ill intentions of its neighbors. The
Parliament assassinations of 1999 were evidence of that condition, he says.
"Since 1995 the use of rough and rude force for the purpose of achieving
political goals became an integral attribute of the election campaigns,"
says Hayk Manaseryan. "Today a majority of deputies of the National Assembly
of RA are from criminal entities.
"All of this demonstrates a regression of statehood in Armenia and a sharp
weakening of positions of precisely political structures. For this reason,
since the mid-1990s the idea that the Armenian people cannot build a country
for themselves has been prevalent in Armenia. Nostalgia for the 'Soviet Past'
has appeared in Armenian society and is why some have suggested the
necessity for an Armenian membership in the Russia-Byelorussia Union."
The past 13 years (like preceding centuries for Armenia) have proven that
independence may be more a goal than a destination.
Nothing seems to be as hoped. But hope is enhanced by significant signs of
progress.
Against considerable odds not found in most Commonwealth of Independent
States, Armenia has survived, and might even thrive. The well being of the
average Armenian doesn't differ greatly from the livelihood of those in
other post-Soviet countries, whose transition has been less challenged.
"The only factor which can level the wide difference between, for instance,
the biggest country of Europe, the Ukraine with population of 50 million
people, and small Armenia is its socialist inheritance," says geographer
Hovanes Sahadyan.
And that inheritance, he reminds, was spread over 70 years. It will take
more than 13 years for that part of Armenia's heritage to pass.
And while that recent past lingers, reflection on Armenia's entry into the
teenage years of independence comes with a question:
If a referendum were held today, would 95 percent of the population vote in
favor of independence?