Tweet
TROUBLE BREWING FOR ARMENIA
Azg/arm
15 Jan 05
There is real cause for concern when the major news media in the West
begin to focus on Armenia and dwell on the woes that the country is
experiencing at this time. The articles published in the December 9,
2004 and December 26, 2004 issues of The New York Times and signed by
Susan Sachs don't seem to be coincidental. At the risk of being blamed
for conspiratorial mentality, we will venture to classify this sudden
surge of attention as one of the plots being hatched in that part of
the world.
Ms. Sachs' very titles indicate what she is up to - "For young
Armenians, a promised land without promise", "Armenia's isolation
grows only deeper". Her conclusion cannot be construed as a Freudian
slip, as she says, "The prospects appear grim without outside
intervention". "Outside intervention" is the buzzwords about the
impending dangers that the country should anticipate. The fact that
Armenia's economic liberalization has put the country on the higher
gear of growth has not impressed the writer enough so that she has
taken the pains to interview some destitute and disgruntled youth to
substantiate her grim predictions about Armenia. We have no reason to
doubt the veracity of the complaints. But ignoring the growth of
Armenia's domestic product (13% in 2002 and 15% in 2004), which placed
the country among the fastest growing economies of former Soviet
Republics, to draw a desperate picture certainly has a political
motivation behind. On the other hand, Azerbaijan, with all its oil
resources, lives in abject misery under a medieval despotic rule, yet
it fails to attract the attention of The New York Times; nor has
neighboring Georgia, which, despite its "rose revolution", has been
torn in three directions and has plunged into an energy crisis.
Those New York Times articles only echo and complement another article
signed recently by David Phillips in The Wall Street Journal
pontificating that Armenia can live in peace and prosperity ever after
at the tender mercies of neighboring Turkey by removing the Russian
military bases from its territory.
These two influential publications, which have shown sudden interest
in Armenia's plight failed to report the demonstration of ten thousand
European Armenians, who recently converged to Brussels to protest
Turkey's accessiontalks with the European Union. That huge
demonstration was not deemed newsworthy.
To complete the mosaic of the political machinations we should also
refer to another initiative, which took place recently, when the
former President Levon Ter-Petrossian was pulled out of his
self-imposed isolation to rub shoulders with incumbent and former US
Presidents at the inauguration of President Clinton's library. That
was also a not so subtle message to the rulers in Yerevan.
It is very obvious that post-Cold War new world order is being set on
two different levels; by force or by subversion. Yugoslavia was
dismembered under false pretense and Iraq was occupied to serve
Israel's political needs â=80` at the cost of American money and
blood. On the other hand, colorful "revolutions" began burgeoning in
different parts of the world: Thus the "rose revolution" propelled an
inexperienced young lawyer to the presidency of Georgia (after
"peacefully" smashing the parliament gates). The "orange revolution"
brought Yushenko to power in Ukraine by cutting Russia to size. The
Cold war is continuing under a different guise. Yet still the name of
the game is to contain Russia into its ever-shrinking territory.
Unfortunately, Armenia is caught in this geo-strategic chess game, and
hopefully any revolution that is being concocted in the dark will not
turn out to be a "red revolution".
Recently the Kocharian administration was cornered to test the
validity of its "complementarist" foreign policy by forcing it to send
a symbolic number of troops to Iraq to join the occupation forces,
which have a fig leaf called "the coalition".
Armenia's government was caught between a rock and a hard place. Since
Azerbaijan was being lavishly rewarded for its participation in, and
position on the Iraq war, Armenia was challenged to match Baku's
commitments to the West. Therefore, the government in Armenia
grudgingly agreed to participate in the occupation of Iraq, with the
full knowledge that it was jeopardizing the lives of Armenians living,
not only in Iraq, but also in the entire Muslim world. Even before the
Armenian contingent set foot in Iraq, the warning shots were already
heard when the Armenian churches were bombed. We need to brace for
further trouble in the Arab world, where Armenians were received with
open arms in the aftermath of the Genocide.
All those developments seem to be components of a similar design to
drive Armenia to further concessions vis-Ã -vis Turkey and Azerbaijan
or drive the country to extinction. This, by no means, must be
construed as extreme pessimism, since The New York Times article has
made a specific reference in that direction. Indeed, Ms. Sachs has
found a young male activist in the town ofGumry who has conveniently
stated, "If nothing changes, Armenia will be left as an
island...everyone will forget Armenia".
The New York Times editor has gleefully quoted the young man's
statement, which is very much in tune with the thrust of her articles.
All these articles and other developments seem to be the tip of the
iceberg. Much seems to be in store yet.
Hopefully, the future is not that grim. We cannot allow it to be grim.
By Charlotte Vande, 1/11/05
Azg/arm
15 Jan 05
There is real cause for concern when the major news media in the West
begin to focus on Armenia and dwell on the woes that the country is
experiencing at this time. The articles published in the December 9,
2004 and December 26, 2004 issues of The New York Times and signed by
Susan Sachs don't seem to be coincidental. At the risk of being blamed
for conspiratorial mentality, we will venture to classify this sudden
surge of attention as one of the plots being hatched in that part of
the world.
Ms. Sachs' very titles indicate what she is up to - "For young
Armenians, a promised land without promise", "Armenia's isolation
grows only deeper". Her conclusion cannot be construed as a Freudian
slip, as she says, "The prospects appear grim without outside
intervention". "Outside intervention" is the buzzwords about the
impending dangers that the country should anticipate. The fact that
Armenia's economic liberalization has put the country on the higher
gear of growth has not impressed the writer enough so that she has
taken the pains to interview some destitute and disgruntled youth to
substantiate her grim predictions about Armenia. We have no reason to
doubt the veracity of the complaints. But ignoring the growth of
Armenia's domestic product (13% in 2002 and 15% in 2004), which placed
the country among the fastest growing economies of former Soviet
Republics, to draw a desperate picture certainly has a political
motivation behind. On the other hand, Azerbaijan, with all its oil
resources, lives in abject misery under a medieval despotic rule, yet
it fails to attract the attention of The New York Times; nor has
neighboring Georgia, which, despite its "rose revolution", has been
torn in three directions and has plunged into an energy crisis.
Those New York Times articles only echo and complement another article
signed recently by David Phillips in The Wall Street Journal
pontificating that Armenia can live in peace and prosperity ever after
at the tender mercies of neighboring Turkey by removing the Russian
military bases from its territory.
These two influential publications, which have shown sudden interest
in Armenia's plight failed to report the demonstration of ten thousand
European Armenians, who recently converged to Brussels to protest
Turkey's accessiontalks with the European Union. That huge
demonstration was not deemed newsworthy.
To complete the mosaic of the political machinations we should also
refer to another initiative, which took place recently, when the
former President Levon Ter-Petrossian was pulled out of his
self-imposed isolation to rub shoulders with incumbent and former US
Presidents at the inauguration of President Clinton's library. That
was also a not so subtle message to the rulers in Yerevan.
It is very obvious that post-Cold War new world order is being set on
two different levels; by force or by subversion. Yugoslavia was
dismembered under false pretense and Iraq was occupied to serve
Israel's political needs â=80` at the cost of American money and
blood. On the other hand, colorful "revolutions" began burgeoning in
different parts of the world: Thus the "rose revolution" propelled an
inexperienced young lawyer to the presidency of Georgia (after
"peacefully" smashing the parliament gates). The "orange revolution"
brought Yushenko to power in Ukraine by cutting Russia to size. The
Cold war is continuing under a different guise. Yet still the name of
the game is to contain Russia into its ever-shrinking territory.
Unfortunately, Armenia is caught in this geo-strategic chess game, and
hopefully any revolution that is being concocted in the dark will not
turn out to be a "red revolution".
Recently the Kocharian administration was cornered to test the
validity of its "complementarist" foreign policy by forcing it to send
a symbolic number of troops to Iraq to join the occupation forces,
which have a fig leaf called "the coalition".
Armenia's government was caught between a rock and a hard place. Since
Azerbaijan was being lavishly rewarded for its participation in, and
position on the Iraq war, Armenia was challenged to match Baku's
commitments to the West. Therefore, the government in Armenia
grudgingly agreed to participate in the occupation of Iraq, with the
full knowledge that it was jeopardizing the lives of Armenians living,
not only in Iraq, but also in the entire Muslim world. Even before the
Armenian contingent set foot in Iraq, the warning shots were already
heard when the Armenian churches were bombed. We need to brace for
further trouble in the Arab world, where Armenians were received with
open arms in the aftermath of the Genocide.
All those developments seem to be components of a similar design to
drive Armenia to further concessions vis-Ã -vis Turkey and Azerbaijan
or drive the country to extinction. This, by no means, must be
construed as extreme pessimism, since The New York Times article has
made a specific reference in that direction. Indeed, Ms. Sachs has
found a young male activist in the town ofGumry who has conveniently
stated, "If nothing changes, Armenia will be left as an
island...everyone will forget Armenia".
The New York Times editor has gleefully quoted the young man's
statement, which is very much in tune with the thrust of her articles.
All these articles and other developments seem to be the tip of the
iceberg. Much seems to be in store yet.
Hopefully, the future is not that grim. We cannot allow it to be grim.
By Charlotte Vande, 1/11/05