Tweet
An interview on Yerkir website
Yerkir/arm
February 18, 2005
The Yerkir weekly website has initiated a series of interviews with
politicians, statesmen, and public leaders. You can ask your
questions, by visiting www.yerkir.am
On February 5-14, the readers passed their questions to the director
of the Noravank foundation, editor of the XXI Century Journal and
political scientist Gagik Harutiunian. Below you can find an excerpt
from the interview. The full text will be installed on the website on
February 21.
Karakhanian: Do you think the permanent revolutions that seem to
impulse the activities not only in the post-Soviet countries but also
in many other `hot spots' of the planet, may influence our region, and
namely the upcoming developments in Armenia?
Harutiunian: As you know, the concept of permanent revolutions was
well-implemented in Georgia and Ukraine and by that it already has
influenced Armenia. Note that the notion of `revolution' has recently
assumed anew, non-traditional implication. The modern permanent
revolutions are quite artificial and their link to wide public support
is quite conventional. And in this respect it is more proper to use
the term of `overthrow.' This kind of an`overthrow' is a political
technology, which follows certain geopolitical and geo-ideological
goals. It is noteworthy that being just an overthrow, which results
in change of the non-principal upper elite and re-shuffle of property,
these developments do not positively tell upon the living level of the
bulk population or the prospect of the country's development. In
addition, such abrupt developments `import in dark colors' the recent
past, break the succession of development, which is very dangerous
from spiritual and national security prospects. It is characteristic
that a big part of the youth that carried out the `revolution' in
Georgia has beenleft out of the game. As to Armenia, we must note
that here the situation is very different from Georgia in 2002. I
believe the main difference is that our nation has a rich political
culture, somehow different mentality, which will not let us be take up
non-constructive activities. Of course, there is a number of unsolved
social and economic issues, however, the tendencies and changes are
inspiring. Thus, we can positively say the core social-economic
tension is behind. The authority factor is important. Unlike Armenia,
Kuchma's and Shevarnadze' s regimes were demobilized and could not
expose a political will to defend themselves. The lists of comparisons
in favor of Armenia can be continued. The above-mentioned factors are
due but not sufficient to exclude the chance ofa permanent revolution
in Armenia, especially taking into account the huge financial
infusions provided for that event. The public psychological situation
is very important, as well as the factor of skills and abilities of
the youth being employed (which is today a real issue), ideological
unity, etc. There is still much work to be done in thisfield and this
issue deals with the point we laid about informational, psychological
and spiritual security.
Shamil Rashidov, Istanbul, professor on Eastern studies: After the
collapse of the USSR, huge geopolitical changes covered not only the
post-Soviet territory but the whole world. Last century, your country,
like many other not big countries, was sacrifices to the benefits of
bigger states. Do you think this tendency can be repeated, given that
the abilities of small countries are quite limited? Thank you in
advance for an answer.
Harutiunian: Mr. Rashidov, being a professional, You have very
accurately noticed the strong states carry out the geopolitics and
small (sometimes the big ones, too, like it happened to
Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empires at the beginning of the 20th
century) countries are often sacrificed to their benefits.
In this respect, certain processes still take place. In terms of
complying states to modern geopolitics, (which is also contributed by
your Western colleagues from the USA, like Bertrand Lewis) the Middle
East is undergoingan attempt of re-modification: autonomies are being
set up for all kinds of ethnic and religious groups.
On the example of Iraq, we see that Kurds have gained an autonomy akin
to independence, Shiites and Sunnis are being divided. There are
projects, designed for the whole region. I believe, all this does not
need special comments. I dare express the opinion that these new
geopolitical and geo-ideological challenges increase risks also for
You and do not add to optimism.
At the same time, I have an impression that the Eurasian countries
have recently started more reaching for each other. I see the
aspiration of these countries to rely on their own resources and
finding common benefits with their neighbors. Possibly, this tendency
will help all of us avoid negative scenarios of the future.
Yerkir/arm
February 18, 2005
The Yerkir weekly website has initiated a series of interviews with
politicians, statesmen, and public leaders. You can ask your
questions, by visiting www.yerkir.am
On February 5-14, the readers passed their questions to the director
of the Noravank foundation, editor of the XXI Century Journal and
political scientist Gagik Harutiunian. Below you can find an excerpt
from the interview. The full text will be installed on the website on
February 21.
Karakhanian: Do you think the permanent revolutions that seem to
impulse the activities not only in the post-Soviet countries but also
in many other `hot spots' of the planet, may influence our region, and
namely the upcoming developments in Armenia?
Harutiunian: As you know, the concept of permanent revolutions was
well-implemented in Georgia and Ukraine and by that it already has
influenced Armenia. Note that the notion of `revolution' has recently
assumed anew, non-traditional implication. The modern permanent
revolutions are quite artificial and their link to wide public support
is quite conventional. And in this respect it is more proper to use
the term of `overthrow.' This kind of an`overthrow' is a political
technology, which follows certain geopolitical and geo-ideological
goals. It is noteworthy that being just an overthrow, which results
in change of the non-principal upper elite and re-shuffle of property,
these developments do not positively tell upon the living level of the
bulk population or the prospect of the country's development. In
addition, such abrupt developments `import in dark colors' the recent
past, break the succession of development, which is very dangerous
from spiritual and national security prospects. It is characteristic
that a big part of the youth that carried out the `revolution' in
Georgia has beenleft out of the game. As to Armenia, we must note
that here the situation is very different from Georgia in 2002. I
believe the main difference is that our nation has a rich political
culture, somehow different mentality, which will not let us be take up
non-constructive activities. Of course, there is a number of unsolved
social and economic issues, however, the tendencies and changes are
inspiring. Thus, we can positively say the core social-economic
tension is behind. The authority factor is important. Unlike Armenia,
Kuchma's and Shevarnadze' s regimes were demobilized and could not
expose a political will to defend themselves. The lists of comparisons
in favor of Armenia can be continued. The above-mentioned factors are
due but not sufficient to exclude the chance ofa permanent revolution
in Armenia, especially taking into account the huge financial
infusions provided for that event. The public psychological situation
is very important, as well as the factor of skills and abilities of
the youth being employed (which is today a real issue), ideological
unity, etc. There is still much work to be done in thisfield and this
issue deals with the point we laid about informational, psychological
and spiritual security.
Shamil Rashidov, Istanbul, professor on Eastern studies: After the
collapse of the USSR, huge geopolitical changes covered not only the
post-Soviet territory but the whole world. Last century, your country,
like many other not big countries, was sacrifices to the benefits of
bigger states. Do you think this tendency can be repeated, given that
the abilities of small countries are quite limited? Thank you in
advance for an answer.
Harutiunian: Mr. Rashidov, being a professional, You have very
accurately noticed the strong states carry out the geopolitics and
small (sometimes the big ones, too, like it happened to
Austria-Hungary and Ottoman Empires at the beginning of the 20th
century) countries are often sacrificed to their benefits.
In this respect, certain processes still take place. In terms of
complying states to modern geopolitics, (which is also contributed by
your Western colleagues from the USA, like Bertrand Lewis) the Middle
East is undergoingan attempt of re-modification: autonomies are being
set up for all kinds of ethnic and religious groups.
On the example of Iraq, we see that Kurds have gained an autonomy akin
to independence, Shiites and Sunnis are being divided. There are
projects, designed for the whole region. I believe, all this does not
need special comments. I dare express the opinion that these new
geopolitical and geo-ideological challenges increase risks also for
You and do not add to optimism.
At the same time, I have an impression that the Eurasian countries
have recently started more reaching for each other. I see the
aspiration of these countries to rely on their own resources and
finding common benefits with their neighbors. Possibly, this tendency
will help all of us avoid negative scenarios of the future.