Tweet
ARMENIAN REPORTER
PO Box 129
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: 1-201-226-1995
Fax: 1-201-226-1660
Web: http://www.armenianreporteronline.com
Email: [email protected]
December 2, 2006
1. In a tough neighborhood, a strategy for security: An interview with
Defense Minister Serzh Sargsyan
2. News Analysis: Incoming U.S. Congress presents many opportunities
for progress on Armenian-American concerns, but questions remain: A
roundup of the recent election results
3. Advances in Armenian studies on display at the annual Middle East
Studies Association conference
4. Editorial: President Kocharian's National Agenda
****************************************** *********************************
1. In a tough neighborhood, a strategy for security: An interview with
Defense Minister Serzh Sargsyan
Conducted on September 30, 2006, by Emil Sanamyan
SANAMYAN: Why should Armenia be of interest to international experts?
SARGSYAN: Our country is located in the South Caucasus region, which
may be a relatively small territory, but due to its geographic
location between Europe and the Middle East is of utmost importance.
Parts of this region have also experienced, and some continue to
experience, much instability, and I strongly believe that
establishment and maintenance of peace should be an overarching goal
for this region.
The South Caucasus can only reach its full potential when all regional
countries live in peace and, preferably, are also integrated with each
other. Dividing lines and unresolved conflicts certainly cannot
positively contribute to international security.
SANAMYAN: What are the Armenian Armed Forces today?
SARGSYAN: The Armenian Armed Forces were established on the basis of
volunteer detachments that fought in the Karabagh war (1991-94) with
Azerbaijan, as well as the mostly ethnic-Armenian officers of the
former Soviet Armed Forces.
Our Armed Forces proved to be a capable army which successfully
accomplished its supreme objective: defense of our territory and
independence, our nation's security. Since the signing of the
cease-fire agreement between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh
in 1994, we have continued to develop on the basis of the equipment
and military doctrine inherited from the Soviet state. At the same
time, in the last 12 years we have incorporated new elements from the
relevant experience of other countries into our military, which were
not present in the Soviet force.
The armed forces are organized primarily through the nationwide
military draft, with citizens who have reached the age of 18 and who
do not qualify for either medical or educational deferments serving
for two years. This category comprises three-quarters of the entire
military. The remaining one-quarter are professional officers, NCOs,
and soldiers serving on contract.
Today, our forces are a complex structure with some of the
characteristics of Western militaries. For example, we have a
peacekeeping detachment with soldiers who have deployed with NATO
forces in missions abroad. We are also mindful of the need for further
military reform.
SANAMYAN: You have recently announced a long-term military reform plan
to run from 2000 to 2015. What are the main objectives of this reform?
SARGSYAN: As with any military reform in any other country, the goal
is to improve our military's capabilities. One of the goals is to have
by 2015 a modernized force that is fully interoperable with Western
militaries and conforms to the highest international standards.
In early 2006, President Robert Kocharian established an interagency
commission tasked to prepare a National Security Strategy document. A
preliminary draft has been prepared and published [see www.mil.am].
The strategy includes the list of existing challenges, their
anticipated evolution over time, and ways in which we seek to address
them. This is the core document around which our reform plans are
being designed and implemented.
SANAMYAN: What is your assessment of the Armenian military's ability
to deal with existing threats arising from the conflict with
Azerbaijan, unsettled relations with Turkey, as well as potential
terrorist attacks?
SARGSYAN: Any defense minister would say that certainly his country's
military is battle-ready. In our case, I am heartened that this is
also the assessment of other non-Armenian, nonpartisan experts.
Regarding the threats of the use of force against us made by our
[Azerbaijani] neighbors, I am confident that should the need arise we
will be able to accomplish our tasks without much difficulty.
With respect to nontraditional threats in conditions of globalization
and international integration, certainly no single country, especially
a country of our modest size, can rely solely on its own capabilities.
This is why we are cooperating and integrating with international
security systems to address such challenges--particularly terrorism.
SANAMYAN: Armenia and NATO have recently formalized the Individual
Partnership Action Plan (IPAP). [For details, see <www.mil.am>.] What
is Armenia seeking to achieve through IPAP, and what can it offer?
SARGSYAN: Although we are not currently seeking NATO membership, we
consider further expansion of cooperation to be necessary.
Much has already been done. If in the year 2000 there were no more
than 10 joint events, this year there are perhaps 10 times as many.
These events now include regular joint exercises through the
Partnership for Peace program, including the 2006 medical rescue
exercises and the 2003 Cooperative Best Effort peacekeeping exercises,
which were hosted by Armenia.
Our relations with NATO should certainly be viewed together with our
developing relations with the European Union, as well as the United
States. A stable and secure Armenia is certainly in the interest of
Europe. We are also contributing to NATO- and U.S.-led stabilization
operations in Kosovo and Iraq. By next year, we will have a
full-fledged peacekeeping battalion, and by 2015 a full-fledged
brigade which would conform to NATO standards and be interoperable
with its member countries' forces.
SANAMYAN: NATO has long been viewed in Armenia through the prism of
Turkey: the only alliance member bordering Armenia. Turkey has long
refused to establish normal diplomatic relations with Armenia, and
keeps the border closed. Has Turkey tried in any way to obstruct
Armenia-NATO cooperation?
SARGSYAN: Unfortunately, it is indeed the case that our public views
NATO mainly through the prism of our unsettled relations with Turkey.
In the NATO framework, however, I have not seen this specifically
reflected in the Turkish approach towards Armenia. During the recent
discussion of progress in Armenia-NATO relations, a Turkish
representative remarked that he was satisfied with Armenia's
fulfillment of its commitments to NATO. I believe we will continue to
fulfill the obligations we have voluntarily undertaken in our
relations with the alliance.
SANAMYAN: The unsettled nature of relations with Turkey has also
resulted in Armenia seeking to maintain a Russian military presence in
Armenia. What are the long-term prospects of Russian-Armenian military
cooperation?
SARGSYAN: The Russian military base in Armenia was created in
conditions of a real external threat to Armenia's security, and to
some extent this base served as a deterrent against this threat.
Unfortunately, to this day this threat has not entirely disappeared,
since there has been no significant improvement in our relations with
Turkey. Turkey continues to blockade Armenia, which in its essence is
a hostile action against us. Turkey has also sided with Azerbaijan in
the Karabagh conflict, and has made the improvement of
Armenian-Turkish relations dependent on the whims of Azerbaijan.
We have strategic relations with Russia. We have a joint military
force which includes one of our army corps and the Russian military
base in Armenia. There is joint training, exercises, and we have plans
for continued cooperation.
SANAMYAN: What can you say about Armenia's bilateral cooperation with
the United States? How do you view the expansion of U.S. military
assistance to Azerbaijan, such as the Caspian Guard initiative and the
reported plans for a Train and Equip program, which many commentators
link to the ongoing standoff with Iran?
SARGSYAN: We began our security cooperation with the United States in
2000 with the signing of a treaty on the nonproliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. Since then our relations have grown to include
several key agreements, as well as practical cooperation both through
NATO and bilaterally.
Last year, U.S. military experts conducted an official defense
assessment in Armenia, offering suggestions for military reform and
ways in which the U.S. can assist us in that process. There is a good
basis for continued expansion in cooperation. In terms of security
assistance, we certainly would like and expect the parity in U.S.
assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan to be maintained, particularly in
conditions of the unresolved Karabagh conflict.
SANAMYAN. The Karabagh conflict indeed remains unresolved. At the
same, there have been over 12 years of relative peace since the 1994
cease-fire agreement. What are your hopes and expectations?
SARGSYAN: Certainly the conflict must be resolved peacefully and
through mutual compromises.
Unfortunately, policies that Azerbaijan is currently pursuing do not
contribute to such a solution. Today, Azerbaijani officials speak of
military action and resumption of war, having doubled their military
spending over the past year. I am certain that Azerbaijan would be
unable to resolve this issue militarily. Regardless of the outcome,
Armenia would also suffer human and economic losses, and a war would
be a blow for both countries.
Until Azerbaijan reaches an understanding that compromises are
necessary, a threat of new war would persist. When will Azerbaijan
reach this understanding? I don't know. I know that in the early
1990s, when Azerbaijan resorted to military action, it thought it
could win by capitalizing on its tremendous superiority in numbers,
weapon systems, and ammunition inherited from the Soviet Union. In
1992, Azerbaijan had Armenians of Karabagh surrounded, and few
believed that we could succeed. Azerbaijan may hope that through
growing revenue from oil production it can achieve military
superiority over us. But it will not have the type of superiority it
had 14 to 15 years ago, even in as many years from now. Azerbaijan's
military option failed then and, I am confident, would certainly fail
again.
In recent years, through propaganda and disinformation, Azerbaijan has
tried to win the international community over to its side in the issue
of Karabagh. It seems that Azerbaijan no longer expects international
support and now is back to thinking in military terms. I just hope
Azerbaijan desists from this approach sooner rather than later.
Karabagh Armenians made a clear, legal, and democratic choice to live
freely from foreign oppression. They have done this for 15 years, and
will continue to do so.
* * *
Since conducting the interview in September, Mr. Sanamyan has joined
the "Armenian Reporter" as its Washington editor.
***************************************** **********************************
2. News Analysis: Incoming U.S. Congress presents many opportunities
for progress on Armenian-American concerns, but questions remain: A
roundup of the recent election results
by Robert Mosher (Special to the "Armenian Reporter")
Washington, D.C.--As Washington insiders continue to analyze the
results of the midterm election, which resulted in the Democrats
taking control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 12
years, Armenian-Americans have begun looking ahead to the upcoming
congressional session. Questions remain as to how the shift in power
will affect initiatives that would strengthen the U.S.-Armenia and
U.S.-Nagorno-Karabakh relationships.
The Armenian-American community should be pleased by the recent round
of longtime advocates elected to the Senate leadership. Senator Harry
Reid (D-NV) was chosen by the Democratic Caucus to serve as majority
leader next year. In the early 1990s, Senator Reid visited the
Republic of Armenia with the late Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) as part of
a congressional delegation. As a member of the Appropriations
Committee, he has favored increased levels of funding to Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh, and has been repeatedly supportive of measures to
reaffirm the U.S. record on the cataclysmic events of 1915.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), was named minority leader by his
Republican colleagues. Senator McConnell will be required to
relinquish the chair of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Subcommittee on Appropriations. As chairperson, he was able
to help secure over $1.4 billion in U.S. humanitarian, technical, and
economic developmental assistance for Armenia, while fighting for
sustained humanitarian aid to Nagorno-Karabakh. Senator McConnell will
presumably serve as the subcommittee's ranking member next year, while
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is expected to become the chair. In
previous sessions of Congress, Senator McConnell also partnered with
retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) to introduce legislation that
extended permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to Armenia and
to defeat efforts to rescind Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act,
which places reasonable restrictions on U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan
as long as it continues to blockade Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Another member of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Subcommittee on Appropriations and proponent of Armenian issues,
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), was selected Assistant Majority Leader.
Last April, he collaborated with Senator John Ensign (R-NV) to
circulate a letter to the President urging him to properly recognize
the Armenian Genocide in his annual April 24th commemorative
statement. Senator Durbin joined Senator Reid and other colleagues to
support Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act as well.
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) was elected minority whip making him the
second most powerful Republican in the Senate behind Senator
McConnell.
With regard to other important assignments, the Foreign Relations
Committee will be chaired by Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), who has
repeatedly called upon his colleagues and the administration to
acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Responsibilities of the committee
include evaluating all treaties with foreign governments; approving
all diplomatic nominations; and drafting legislation pertaining to
U.S. foreign policy, the State Department, Foreign Assistance
programs, and other associated topics.
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), an ardent and vocal supporter of Armenian
issues, is slated to chair the Armed Services Committee, which
provides comprehensive study and review of issues relating to the
common defense policy of the United States. The Finance Committee,
which helps formulate the framework for multilateral and bilateral
trade will be chaired by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who was previously
helpful in securing passage of legislation that granted PNTR status to
Armenia.
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE HOAGLAND NOMINATION
Last September, the Foreign Relations Committee approved the
nomination of Ambassador Richard E. Hoagland to serve as the next U.S.
ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. When asked numerous times to
clearly define the current policy of the administration on the
Armenian Genocide during his nomination hearing, Ambassador Hoagland
carefully responded by avoiding proper recognition of this crime
against humanity. Due to the current hold placed on the nomination by
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and the continued calls from the
Armenian-American community to sustain it, this matter and other
associated topics may be revisited by the committee next year.
HOUSE LEADERSHIP
On the other side of the Capitol, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
is expected to be voted Speaker of the House in January. The
Congresswoman, who will be the first woman and the first Congressional
Caucus on Armenian Issues member to serve in this capacity, has been a
friend throughout her tenure in the Democratic leadership and as a
former appropriator.
Another Armenian Caucus member, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), has
already been approved as the Majority Leader by his Democratic
colleagues. Like Representative Pelosi, Representative Hoyer, who
currently serves on the Appropriations Committee, has consistently
argued for increased levels of economic and technical assistance for
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Both members have publicly recognized
the attempted annihilation of the Armenian people as genocide and have
encouraged their congressional colleagues and the administration to do
the same.
For the Republican Caucus, Representative John Boehner (R-OH) was
elected Minority Leader, while Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) was
selected to serve as Minority Whip. Other Armenian Caucus members
chosen include Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), who will serve as
the chief deputy whip, and Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI),
was elected the Republican Policy Committee chair.
Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY), a member of the Armenian Caucus, is
likely to become the chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on
Appropriation. The Congresswoman, along with Armenian Caucus Cochair
Representative Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), took part in a fact-finding
congressional delegation to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in August of
1997. Throughout her distinguished career, she has played an
instrumental role in the appropriations process to ensure that
Armenia's funding was increased above the administration's request and
that humanitarian aid was provided to Nagorno-Karabakh; she also
helped defeat attempts to abolish Section 907 of the Freedom Support
Act.
In other important assignments, Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA) is
anticipated to chair the International Relations Committee, which
helps determine U.S. relations with foreign nations generally.
Representative Ike Skelton (D-MO) will chair the Armed Services
Committee, while Armenian Caucus member Representative Duncan Hunter
(R-CA) is expected to serve as the Ranking Member.
The Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade
agreements, will be chaired by Armenian Caucus member Representative
Charles Rangel (D-NY), who was a key cosponsor of legislation that
extended PNTR status to Armenia.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Certainly, the Armenian-American community welcomes the promotion of
supportive members of Congress to leadership positions and
chairmanships. At this early moment, however, it is impossible to
predict how the agenda of the Armenian-American community will be
affected. With current fiscal restraints, the appropriations process
will be even more challenging in the upcoming fiscal year.
Additionally, greater emphasis and attention is being placed on the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, which approved a five-year, $235.65
million compact with the government of Armenia last year. Because of
this generous grant and the continued economic progress, Armenia will
increasingly be held to a higher standard than other nations in the
former Soviet Union.
It is also uncertain whether a slim, 52-seat Democratic majority in
the Senate will be sufficient to pass any substantial legislation
without making compromises across partisan and ideological divides. In
addition, 60 votes will still be required to bring controversial
measures to the Senate floor for a vote, making bipartisan
collaborations between the majority and the minority more critical
with a Republican administration.
In the House of Representatives, the implications of the Democrats'
victory are clearer. Members of the new majority may find it easier
than their Senate colleagues to enact bills of their choosing, but may
be frustrated by the rules that limit and cut off debate on
legislation.
The incoming Congress presents numerous possible opportunities to
advance the agenda of the Armenian-American community. However, the
community will need to work with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to
promote a constructive and substantive agenda that would deepen the
U.S.-Armenia and U.S.-Nagorno-Karabakh relationships. Otherwise,
opportunities to expand our scope and influence will be missed.
**************************************** ***********************************
3. Advances in Armenian studies on display at the annual Middle East
Studies Association conference
by Karen Merguerian (Special to the "Armenian Reporter")
Boston--The annual meeting of the Middle East Studies Association of
North America (MESA) in Boston on November 18-21, 2006, was the
setting for three panels on Armenian literature and history sponsored
by the Society for Armenian Studies (SAS). The three panels treated
Armenian identity and the press, the merchants of New Julfa, and the
Armenian Genocide in fiction and memory.
In all of the work presented, it was clear that Armenian Studies is
benefiting from a number of fortuitous developments.
First, an increase in endowed chairs, scholarships, and mentoring has
produced a crop of talented young scholars, many of whom are
first-generation immigrants with significant Armenian language skills.
Second, the emphasis on interdisciplinary research in North American
universities has encouraged Armenian Studies scholars to take into
account developments outside their own discipline, so their work has
more complex dimensions.
Finally, an increasingly substantial foundation of scholarship from
previous generations is available to build upon.
As a result, Armenian Studies scholars are less likely than they were
a generation ago to work in a vacuum, and can participate in
wide-ranging, productive discussions fueled by common access to a
substantial core of existing research.
Take for example the panel organized by Victoria Rowe (Chuo
University, Japan), entitled "Narrative and Identity in the Armenian
Press, 1850-1923." Ms. Rowe's own paper on the Cairo-based journal
"Artemis" edited by Marie Beylerian and the writings of Zabel Esayan
was clearly influenced by women's studies and feminist history
research.
This was also true of Lerna Ekmekcioglu (NYU), who presented research
on the Istanbul-based journal "Hay Gin" (published 1919-32).
And Lisa Khachaturian (Georgetown University) used Anthony Smith's
theories about nationalism and ethnic identity as a jumping-off point
for her own research on the 19th-century essayist and nationalist
Steppan Nazarian, editor of "Housisapayl" (published 1858-64).
Here we had researchers from all over the world using primary-source
Armenian-language texts and contributions from outside the field of
Armenian Studies to shed light on the press and its historic
relationship to identity-formation.
Incidentally, it was impressive to see that the idea of studying
women's writing was not challenged or treated as problematic. Its
contribution to the formation of ethnic identity appears, at long
last, to be taken for granted in Armenian Studies.
The questions that arose from the floor highlight some important areas
remaining to be examined. How can Ms. Ekmekcioglu compare the
post-World War I feminism of "Hay Gin" to prewar Armenian feminism
when the writing of Armenian feminist history is still in its infancy?
How do we measure the impact of Armenian journals when we know so
little of their circulation and readership? What methodologies are
available for comparing the role of the press in Eastern versus
Western Armenia during this period?
It was at Sunday's second panel, "Circulation and the Global Trade
Networks of Armenian Merchants from Julfa, Isfahan" where
interdisciplinary work was most ostentatiously on display.
Sebouh Aslanian (Claremont McKenna College) opened by situating the
New Julfa merchants firmly in an existing body of research on ethnic
trade diasporas. He reviewed his recently-completed thesis, which
extends the methodology of other trade diaspora scholars to the study
of the New Julfans.
Houri Berberian (California State University Long Beach) captured the
audience's imagination with her examination of the Shahrimanian family
whose trade network extended from Western Europe to the Indian Ocean
during the 17th and 18th centuries.
Francesca Trivellato (Yale University) compared Armenian and Sephardic
trade diasporas, and Bhaswati Bhattacharya (International Institute of
Asian Studies, Leiden) described the Armenian role in the trade
between Madras and Manila.
Panel discussant Razmik Panossian did what all good discussants
should, but rarely do: he highlighted the most controversial elements
of the papers, questioning the panelists directly and stimulating a
lively discussion among all present about culture, religious
conversion, assimilation, and the causes of the collapse of the New
Julfa networks in the 18th century.
No gathering of Armenian Studies scholars would be complete without a
panel addressing current scholarship on the Genocide. Richard
Hovannisian (UCLA) presided over a panel of scholars assembled by
Barlow Der Mugrdechian (California State University Fresno) titled
"Historical Memory and Identity: Exploring the Impact of the 1915-1916
Events in Armenian and Turkish Literature."
Mr. Der Mugrdechian discussed Micheline Aharonian Marcom's "Three
Apples Fell from Heaven," calling attention to its signature poetic
fragmentation and disjunction. Rubina Peroomian (UCLA) presented new
research comparing Armenian Genocide literature of the diaspora with
that written by Armenians in Turkey. (Sadly, James J. Reid has
recently passed away and his paper on genocide and posttraumatic
stress disorder, scheduled for this panel, was not presented.)
But the flashpoint of the panel was the work of two Turkish scholars,
literary historian Hülya Adak and anthropologist Ayse Gül Altinay
(both from Sabanci University in Turkey), with Altinay substituting
for Fatma Müge Göçek as discussant.
Ms. Adak surveyed literary responses to the Armenian Genocide (which
she refers to as "the Armenian Deportations") since World War I, and
reviewed some recent literature published in Turkey that openly
discusses or alludes to the Genocide.
Ms. Altinay gave an overview of the emerging national dialogue in
Turkey on the Armenians, and credited the 2005 conference in Turkey on
Ottoman Armenians, and the publication of memoirs such as Fethiye
Cetin's "Anneannem" (My grandmother) with bringing freer debate into
the Turkish press and academy.
Both scholars appeared tentatively optimistic about the opening of a
new space of reconciliation for discussion of the events of 1915 in
Turkey. This optimism was somewhat belied by hostile questions from
the audience (e.g. "Who is paying attention to what the Turks
suffered?"), though the discussion remained essentially respectful.
Outside of the three SAS panels, Armenians were to be found at
numerous other MESA events. Joseph A. Kéchichian, SAS president and an
expert on Gulf politics, chaired a roundtable discussion on U.S.-Saudi
relations featuring Prince Turki Al Faisal, ambassador of Saudi Arabia
to the United States.
Armenian scholars participated in panels on Lebanon, on the Assyrians,
on Turkey, and on missionary history. All MESA papers and participants
are listed in the program on the MESA web site
(http://www.mesa.arizona.edu). The SAS will eventually publish the SAS
panel papers in the Journal of Armenian Studies.
If there is any significant work to be done in the field of Armenian
Studies, aside from adding to basic research, it would seem to be
building bridges between scholars in the diaspora and those from the
Republic of Armenia, few of whom were at MESA. Otherwise, Armenians
should be proud of the engaging, professional scholarship in Armenian
Studies on display at MESA this year.
* * *
Karen Merguerian is library web manager in the Systems Department of
Northeastern University in Boston, Mass.
****************************************** *********************************
4. Editorial: President Kocharian's National Agenda
President Kocharian delivered a major speech in Berlin on November 16.
He provided an upbeat and realistic assessment of Armenia's progress
over the 15 years since the former Soviet republic declared
independence in 1991. He also described his vision for Armenia's
future. (The full text of the speech appeared in the Nov. 25 edition
of this newspaper, and is available online at
<www.armenianreporteronline.com>.)
A NATION OF ENTREPRENEURS
One of the key points the president made was that Armenia's greatest
natural resource is its people.
The people of Armenia are widely viewed as hard working and
entrepreneurial, the president asserted. They are motivated to start
private businesses, he said. The government must "establish a
favorable environment for business-oriented people" and it must
"provide safeguards for investments," he acknowledged. "This entails
the liberalization of the economy and of trade regimes, the
establishment of competitive conditions, and the minimization of the
state's interference in business affairs."
The president was pleased with Armenia's progress in this area: "Fully
85 percent of GDP is produced in the private sector, with over 40
percent in small and medium businesses. We are particularly proud of
this last figure. The middle class is in the process of formation."
The president's pride was tempered by the realization that there are
major obstacles yet to be overcome. He specifically pointed to
corruption and problems in tax collection and customs administration.
He also noted that Armenia's financial-services sector is still far
from adequate.
The president rightly noted, however, that Armenia requires more than
institutional change. "In the difficult period of transition,"
President Kocharian said, "the need to invest in people was neglected,
and currently we are trying to bridge that gap."
A KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
Indeed, Armenians have pinned great hopes on Armenia's universal
literacy, on the large proportion of Armenians who receive a
university education, and on the significant number of Armenians who
pursue graduate and specialized degrees. President Kocharian did so
too when he summarized his vision for Armenia's future: "We intend to
develop a knowledge economy. Already, information technology accounts
for two percent of our GDP."
But Armenia's human potential cannot be taken for granted, as the
president noted. Fifteen years have passed since the collapse of the
Soviet Union. A whole new post-Soviet generation is coming up. This
generation has opportunities previous generations did not enjoy. They
enjoy greater freedom of thought and expression. They have a greater
variety of choices in higher education, and are exposed to a greater
variety of schools of thought. Programs like the United States
government's Muskie Graduate Fellowship and the Future Leaders
Secondary School Exchange Program (FLEX) allow Armenia's best and
brightest to live and study in the United States on the condition that
they commit to return to Armenia.
But for these opportunities to be meaningful, Armenian children need a
firm elementary and secondary education. Moreover, the colleges that
most undergraduates are eligible to attend must be affordable and in
tune with the times.
Armenia has already begun investing more heavily in its people. It is
changing its educational system to conform to international standards.
And, the president promises, the government is "developing a
comprehensive reform strategy for the pure and applied sciences."
These are positive developments.
DEMOCRACY FROM BELOW
President Kocharian took the view that aside from economic benefits,
the development of small and medium business in Armenia will also
shore up democracy. The owners of these businesses, on the one hand,
and engaged citizens ("civil society"), on the other, are the "capable
stakeholders" without whom democratic institutions "would be rapidly
corrupted and altered," the president said.
The president clearly recognizes the crucial role of a vibrant--and
civically active--middle class as guarantors of participatory
democracy.
President Kocharian went so far as to assert, "sustainable democracy
is strongly dependent on the state of the economy." We would add that
the dependence is mutual. The development of small and medium
business, on the one hand, and civil society, on the other, requires
faith in the state's willingness to be led from below. Thus we welcome
the president's further assertion, "We are strong believers in
democracy from below."
EMBRACING DEEPER REFORMS
The president gave his speech in Berlin. But the speech should not be
seen as a set piece for foreign consumption. In its realism, its
candor, and its vision, President Kocharian's address sets the stage
for government officials and opposition politicians alike to outline
their plans for reform.
As the president rightly concluded, Armenia's "vitality is rooted in
its capacity to comprehend the need for change and its readiness to
transform itself." We welcome President Kocharian's challenge and look
forward to actions that fulfill his vision for a more prosperous,
transparent, fair, and empowered society.
As we in the Armenian-American community consider steps we might take
to support the next generation of reform in Armenia, now is the time
to plan for increased support for Armenian-American organizations that
are already part of the solution in Armenia; to be even more active in
American civic action; and to consider growing Armenia's vital middle
class by investing our expertise and financial resources.
President Kocharian's challenge was meant for us, as well.
******************************************* ********************************
Direct your inquiries to [email protected]
(c) 2006 CS Media Enterprises LLC. All Rights Reserved
--Boundary_(ID_obG6AVQurQBUJxZr2Oh5Pw)--
PO Box 129
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
Tel: 1-201-226-1995
Fax: 1-201-226-1660
Web: http://www.armenianreporteronline.com
Email: [email protected]
December 2, 2006
1. In a tough neighborhood, a strategy for security: An interview with
Defense Minister Serzh Sargsyan
2. News Analysis: Incoming U.S. Congress presents many opportunities
for progress on Armenian-American concerns, but questions remain: A
roundup of the recent election results
3. Advances in Armenian studies on display at the annual Middle East
Studies Association conference
4. Editorial: President Kocharian's National Agenda
****************************************** *********************************
1. In a tough neighborhood, a strategy for security: An interview with
Defense Minister Serzh Sargsyan
Conducted on September 30, 2006, by Emil Sanamyan
SANAMYAN: Why should Armenia be of interest to international experts?
SARGSYAN: Our country is located in the South Caucasus region, which
may be a relatively small territory, but due to its geographic
location between Europe and the Middle East is of utmost importance.
Parts of this region have also experienced, and some continue to
experience, much instability, and I strongly believe that
establishment and maintenance of peace should be an overarching goal
for this region.
The South Caucasus can only reach its full potential when all regional
countries live in peace and, preferably, are also integrated with each
other. Dividing lines and unresolved conflicts certainly cannot
positively contribute to international security.
SANAMYAN: What are the Armenian Armed Forces today?
SARGSYAN: The Armenian Armed Forces were established on the basis of
volunteer detachments that fought in the Karabagh war (1991-94) with
Azerbaijan, as well as the mostly ethnic-Armenian officers of the
former Soviet Armed Forces.
Our Armed Forces proved to be a capable army which successfully
accomplished its supreme objective: defense of our territory and
independence, our nation's security. Since the signing of the
cease-fire agreement between Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh
in 1994, we have continued to develop on the basis of the equipment
and military doctrine inherited from the Soviet state. At the same
time, in the last 12 years we have incorporated new elements from the
relevant experience of other countries into our military, which were
not present in the Soviet force.
The armed forces are organized primarily through the nationwide
military draft, with citizens who have reached the age of 18 and who
do not qualify for either medical or educational deferments serving
for two years. This category comprises three-quarters of the entire
military. The remaining one-quarter are professional officers, NCOs,
and soldiers serving on contract.
Today, our forces are a complex structure with some of the
characteristics of Western militaries. For example, we have a
peacekeeping detachment with soldiers who have deployed with NATO
forces in missions abroad. We are also mindful of the need for further
military reform.
SANAMYAN: You have recently announced a long-term military reform plan
to run from 2000 to 2015. What are the main objectives of this reform?
SARGSYAN: As with any military reform in any other country, the goal
is to improve our military's capabilities. One of the goals is to have
by 2015 a modernized force that is fully interoperable with Western
militaries and conforms to the highest international standards.
In early 2006, President Robert Kocharian established an interagency
commission tasked to prepare a National Security Strategy document. A
preliminary draft has been prepared and published [see www.mil.am].
The strategy includes the list of existing challenges, their
anticipated evolution over time, and ways in which we seek to address
them. This is the core document around which our reform plans are
being designed and implemented.
SANAMYAN: What is your assessment of the Armenian military's ability
to deal with existing threats arising from the conflict with
Azerbaijan, unsettled relations with Turkey, as well as potential
terrorist attacks?
SARGSYAN: Any defense minister would say that certainly his country's
military is battle-ready. In our case, I am heartened that this is
also the assessment of other non-Armenian, nonpartisan experts.
Regarding the threats of the use of force against us made by our
[Azerbaijani] neighbors, I am confident that should the need arise we
will be able to accomplish our tasks without much difficulty.
With respect to nontraditional threats in conditions of globalization
and international integration, certainly no single country, especially
a country of our modest size, can rely solely on its own capabilities.
This is why we are cooperating and integrating with international
security systems to address such challenges--particularly terrorism.
SANAMYAN: Armenia and NATO have recently formalized the Individual
Partnership Action Plan (IPAP). [For details, see <www.mil.am>.] What
is Armenia seeking to achieve through IPAP, and what can it offer?
SARGSYAN: Although we are not currently seeking NATO membership, we
consider further expansion of cooperation to be necessary.
Much has already been done. If in the year 2000 there were no more
than 10 joint events, this year there are perhaps 10 times as many.
These events now include regular joint exercises through the
Partnership for Peace program, including the 2006 medical rescue
exercises and the 2003 Cooperative Best Effort peacekeeping exercises,
which were hosted by Armenia.
Our relations with NATO should certainly be viewed together with our
developing relations with the European Union, as well as the United
States. A stable and secure Armenia is certainly in the interest of
Europe. We are also contributing to NATO- and U.S.-led stabilization
operations in Kosovo and Iraq. By next year, we will have a
full-fledged peacekeeping battalion, and by 2015 a full-fledged
brigade which would conform to NATO standards and be interoperable
with its member countries' forces.
SANAMYAN: NATO has long been viewed in Armenia through the prism of
Turkey: the only alliance member bordering Armenia. Turkey has long
refused to establish normal diplomatic relations with Armenia, and
keeps the border closed. Has Turkey tried in any way to obstruct
Armenia-NATO cooperation?
SARGSYAN: Unfortunately, it is indeed the case that our public views
NATO mainly through the prism of our unsettled relations with Turkey.
In the NATO framework, however, I have not seen this specifically
reflected in the Turkish approach towards Armenia. During the recent
discussion of progress in Armenia-NATO relations, a Turkish
representative remarked that he was satisfied with Armenia's
fulfillment of its commitments to NATO. I believe we will continue to
fulfill the obligations we have voluntarily undertaken in our
relations with the alliance.
SANAMYAN: The unsettled nature of relations with Turkey has also
resulted in Armenia seeking to maintain a Russian military presence in
Armenia. What are the long-term prospects of Russian-Armenian military
cooperation?
SARGSYAN: The Russian military base in Armenia was created in
conditions of a real external threat to Armenia's security, and to
some extent this base served as a deterrent against this threat.
Unfortunately, to this day this threat has not entirely disappeared,
since there has been no significant improvement in our relations with
Turkey. Turkey continues to blockade Armenia, which in its essence is
a hostile action against us. Turkey has also sided with Azerbaijan in
the Karabagh conflict, and has made the improvement of
Armenian-Turkish relations dependent on the whims of Azerbaijan.
We have strategic relations with Russia. We have a joint military
force which includes one of our army corps and the Russian military
base in Armenia. There is joint training, exercises, and we have plans
for continued cooperation.
SANAMYAN: What can you say about Armenia's bilateral cooperation with
the United States? How do you view the expansion of U.S. military
assistance to Azerbaijan, such as the Caspian Guard initiative and the
reported plans for a Train and Equip program, which many commentators
link to the ongoing standoff with Iran?
SARGSYAN: We began our security cooperation with the United States in
2000 with the signing of a treaty on the nonproliferation of weapons
of mass destruction. Since then our relations have grown to include
several key agreements, as well as practical cooperation both through
NATO and bilaterally.
Last year, U.S. military experts conducted an official defense
assessment in Armenia, offering suggestions for military reform and
ways in which the U.S. can assist us in that process. There is a good
basis for continued expansion in cooperation. In terms of security
assistance, we certainly would like and expect the parity in U.S.
assistance to Armenia and Azerbaijan to be maintained, particularly in
conditions of the unresolved Karabagh conflict.
SANAMYAN. The Karabagh conflict indeed remains unresolved. At the
same, there have been over 12 years of relative peace since the 1994
cease-fire agreement. What are your hopes and expectations?
SARGSYAN: Certainly the conflict must be resolved peacefully and
through mutual compromises.
Unfortunately, policies that Azerbaijan is currently pursuing do not
contribute to such a solution. Today, Azerbaijani officials speak of
military action and resumption of war, having doubled their military
spending over the past year. I am certain that Azerbaijan would be
unable to resolve this issue militarily. Regardless of the outcome,
Armenia would also suffer human and economic losses, and a war would
be a blow for both countries.
Until Azerbaijan reaches an understanding that compromises are
necessary, a threat of new war would persist. When will Azerbaijan
reach this understanding? I don't know. I know that in the early
1990s, when Azerbaijan resorted to military action, it thought it
could win by capitalizing on its tremendous superiority in numbers,
weapon systems, and ammunition inherited from the Soviet Union. In
1992, Azerbaijan had Armenians of Karabagh surrounded, and few
believed that we could succeed. Azerbaijan may hope that through
growing revenue from oil production it can achieve military
superiority over us. But it will not have the type of superiority it
had 14 to 15 years ago, even in as many years from now. Azerbaijan's
military option failed then and, I am confident, would certainly fail
again.
In recent years, through propaganda and disinformation, Azerbaijan has
tried to win the international community over to its side in the issue
of Karabagh. It seems that Azerbaijan no longer expects international
support and now is back to thinking in military terms. I just hope
Azerbaijan desists from this approach sooner rather than later.
Karabagh Armenians made a clear, legal, and democratic choice to live
freely from foreign oppression. They have done this for 15 years, and
will continue to do so.
* * *
Since conducting the interview in September, Mr. Sanamyan has joined
the "Armenian Reporter" as its Washington editor.
***************************************** **********************************
2. News Analysis: Incoming U.S. Congress presents many opportunities
for progress on Armenian-American concerns, but questions remain: A
roundup of the recent election results
by Robert Mosher (Special to the "Armenian Reporter")
Washington, D.C.--As Washington insiders continue to analyze the
results of the midterm election, which resulted in the Democrats
taking control of both chambers of Congress for the first time in 12
years, Armenian-Americans have begun looking ahead to the upcoming
congressional session. Questions remain as to how the shift in power
will affect initiatives that would strengthen the U.S.-Armenia and
U.S.-Nagorno-Karabakh relationships.
The Armenian-American community should be pleased by the recent round
of longtime advocates elected to the Senate leadership. Senator Harry
Reid (D-NV) was chosen by the Democratic Caucus to serve as majority
leader next year. In the early 1990s, Senator Reid visited the
Republic of Armenia with the late Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) as part of
a congressional delegation. As a member of the Appropriations
Committee, he has favored increased levels of funding to Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh, and has been repeatedly supportive of measures to
reaffirm the U.S. record on the cataclysmic events of 1915.
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), was named minority leader by his
Republican colleagues. Senator McConnell will be required to
relinquish the chair of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related
Programs Subcommittee on Appropriations. As chairperson, he was able
to help secure over $1.4 billion in U.S. humanitarian, technical, and
economic developmental assistance for Armenia, while fighting for
sustained humanitarian aid to Nagorno-Karabakh. Senator McConnell will
presumably serve as the subcommittee's ranking member next year, while
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) is expected to become the chair. In
previous sessions of Congress, Senator McConnell also partnered with
retiring Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) to introduce legislation that
extended permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) status to Armenia and
to defeat efforts to rescind Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act,
which places reasonable restrictions on U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan
as long as it continues to blockade Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh.
Another member of the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs
Subcommittee on Appropriations and proponent of Armenian issues,
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), was selected Assistant Majority Leader.
Last April, he collaborated with Senator John Ensign (R-NV) to
circulate a letter to the President urging him to properly recognize
the Armenian Genocide in his annual April 24th commemorative
statement. Senator Durbin joined Senator Reid and other colleagues to
support Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act as well.
Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) was elected minority whip making him the
second most powerful Republican in the Senate behind Senator
McConnell.
With regard to other important assignments, the Foreign Relations
Committee will be chaired by Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), who has
repeatedly called upon his colleagues and the administration to
acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. Responsibilities of the committee
include evaluating all treaties with foreign governments; approving
all diplomatic nominations; and drafting legislation pertaining to
U.S. foreign policy, the State Department, Foreign Assistance
programs, and other associated topics.
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), an ardent and vocal supporter of Armenian
issues, is slated to chair the Armed Services Committee, which
provides comprehensive study and review of issues relating to the
common defense policy of the United States. The Finance Committee,
which helps formulate the framework for multilateral and bilateral
trade will be chaired by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), who was previously
helpful in securing passage of legislation that granted PNTR status to
Armenia.
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE HOAGLAND NOMINATION
Last September, the Foreign Relations Committee approved the
nomination of Ambassador Richard E. Hoagland to serve as the next U.S.
ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. When asked numerous times to
clearly define the current policy of the administration on the
Armenian Genocide during his nomination hearing, Ambassador Hoagland
carefully responded by avoiding proper recognition of this crime
against humanity. Due to the current hold placed on the nomination by
Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and the continued calls from the
Armenian-American community to sustain it, this matter and other
associated topics may be revisited by the committee next year.
HOUSE LEADERSHIP
On the other side of the Capitol, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
is expected to be voted Speaker of the House in January. The
Congresswoman, who will be the first woman and the first Congressional
Caucus on Armenian Issues member to serve in this capacity, has been a
friend throughout her tenure in the Democratic leadership and as a
former appropriator.
Another Armenian Caucus member, Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), has
already been approved as the Majority Leader by his Democratic
colleagues. Like Representative Pelosi, Representative Hoyer, who
currently serves on the Appropriations Committee, has consistently
argued for increased levels of economic and technical assistance for
Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. Both members have publicly recognized
the attempted annihilation of the Armenian people as genocide and have
encouraged their congressional colleagues and the administration to do
the same.
For the Republican Caucus, Representative John Boehner (R-OH) was
elected Minority Leader, while Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) was
selected to serve as Minority Whip. Other Armenian Caucus members
chosen include Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), who will serve as
the chief deputy whip, and Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI),
was elected the Republican Policy Committee chair.
Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY), a member of the Armenian Caucus, is
likely to become the chair of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on
Appropriation. The Congresswoman, along with Armenian Caucus Cochair
Representative Joe Knollenberg (R-MI), took part in a fact-finding
congressional delegation to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in August of
1997. Throughout her distinguished career, she has played an
instrumental role in the appropriations process to ensure that
Armenia's funding was increased above the administration's request and
that humanitarian aid was provided to Nagorno-Karabakh; she also
helped defeat attempts to abolish Section 907 of the Freedom Support
Act.
In other important assignments, Representative Tom Lantos (D-CA) is
anticipated to chair the International Relations Committee, which
helps determine U.S. relations with foreign nations generally.
Representative Ike Skelton (D-MO) will chair the Armed Services
Committee, while Armenian Caucus member Representative Duncan Hunter
(R-CA) is expected to serve as the Ranking Member.
The Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over trade
agreements, will be chaired by Armenian Caucus member Representative
Charles Rangel (D-NY), who was a key cosponsor of legislation that
extended PNTR status to Armenia.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Certainly, the Armenian-American community welcomes the promotion of
supportive members of Congress to leadership positions and
chairmanships. At this early moment, however, it is impossible to
predict how the agenda of the Armenian-American community will be
affected. With current fiscal restraints, the appropriations process
will be even more challenging in the upcoming fiscal year.
Additionally, greater emphasis and attention is being placed on the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, which approved a five-year, $235.65
million compact with the government of Armenia last year. Because of
this generous grant and the continued economic progress, Armenia will
increasingly be held to a higher standard than other nations in the
former Soviet Union.
It is also uncertain whether a slim, 52-seat Democratic majority in
the Senate will be sufficient to pass any substantial legislation
without making compromises across partisan and ideological divides. In
addition, 60 votes will still be required to bring controversial
measures to the Senate floor for a vote, making bipartisan
collaborations between the majority and the minority more critical
with a Republican administration.
In the House of Representatives, the implications of the Democrats'
victory are clearer. Members of the new majority may find it easier
than their Senate colleagues to enact bills of their choosing, but may
be frustrated by the rules that limit and cut off debate on
legislation.
The incoming Congress presents numerous possible opportunities to
advance the agenda of the Armenian-American community. However, the
community will need to work with Congress on a bi-partisan basis to
promote a constructive and substantive agenda that would deepen the
U.S.-Armenia and U.S.-Nagorno-Karabakh relationships. Otherwise,
opportunities to expand our scope and influence will be missed.
**************************************** ***********************************
3. Advances in Armenian studies on display at the annual Middle East
Studies Association conference
by Karen Merguerian (Special to the "Armenian Reporter")
Boston--The annual meeting of the Middle East Studies Association of
North America (MESA) in Boston on November 18-21, 2006, was the
setting for three panels on Armenian literature and history sponsored
by the Society for Armenian Studies (SAS). The three panels treated
Armenian identity and the press, the merchants of New Julfa, and the
Armenian Genocide in fiction and memory.
In all of the work presented, it was clear that Armenian Studies is
benefiting from a number of fortuitous developments.
First, an increase in endowed chairs, scholarships, and mentoring has
produced a crop of talented young scholars, many of whom are
first-generation immigrants with significant Armenian language skills.
Second, the emphasis on interdisciplinary research in North American
universities has encouraged Armenian Studies scholars to take into
account developments outside their own discipline, so their work has
more complex dimensions.
Finally, an increasingly substantial foundation of scholarship from
previous generations is available to build upon.
As a result, Armenian Studies scholars are less likely than they were
a generation ago to work in a vacuum, and can participate in
wide-ranging, productive discussions fueled by common access to a
substantial core of existing research.
Take for example the panel organized by Victoria Rowe (Chuo
University, Japan), entitled "Narrative and Identity in the Armenian
Press, 1850-1923." Ms. Rowe's own paper on the Cairo-based journal
"Artemis" edited by Marie Beylerian and the writings of Zabel Esayan
was clearly influenced by women's studies and feminist history
research.
This was also true of Lerna Ekmekcioglu (NYU), who presented research
on the Istanbul-based journal "Hay Gin" (published 1919-32).
And Lisa Khachaturian (Georgetown University) used Anthony Smith's
theories about nationalism and ethnic identity as a jumping-off point
for her own research on the 19th-century essayist and nationalist
Steppan Nazarian, editor of "Housisapayl" (published 1858-64).
Here we had researchers from all over the world using primary-source
Armenian-language texts and contributions from outside the field of
Armenian Studies to shed light on the press and its historic
relationship to identity-formation.
Incidentally, it was impressive to see that the idea of studying
women's writing was not challenged or treated as problematic. Its
contribution to the formation of ethnic identity appears, at long
last, to be taken for granted in Armenian Studies.
The questions that arose from the floor highlight some important areas
remaining to be examined. How can Ms. Ekmekcioglu compare the
post-World War I feminism of "Hay Gin" to prewar Armenian feminism
when the writing of Armenian feminist history is still in its infancy?
How do we measure the impact of Armenian journals when we know so
little of their circulation and readership? What methodologies are
available for comparing the role of the press in Eastern versus
Western Armenia during this period?
It was at Sunday's second panel, "Circulation and the Global Trade
Networks of Armenian Merchants from Julfa, Isfahan" where
interdisciplinary work was most ostentatiously on display.
Sebouh Aslanian (Claremont McKenna College) opened by situating the
New Julfa merchants firmly in an existing body of research on ethnic
trade diasporas. He reviewed his recently-completed thesis, which
extends the methodology of other trade diaspora scholars to the study
of the New Julfans.
Houri Berberian (California State University Long Beach) captured the
audience's imagination with her examination of the Shahrimanian family
whose trade network extended from Western Europe to the Indian Ocean
during the 17th and 18th centuries.
Francesca Trivellato (Yale University) compared Armenian and Sephardic
trade diasporas, and Bhaswati Bhattacharya (International Institute of
Asian Studies, Leiden) described the Armenian role in the trade
between Madras and Manila.
Panel discussant Razmik Panossian did what all good discussants
should, but rarely do: he highlighted the most controversial elements
of the papers, questioning the panelists directly and stimulating a
lively discussion among all present about culture, religious
conversion, assimilation, and the causes of the collapse of the New
Julfa networks in the 18th century.
No gathering of Armenian Studies scholars would be complete without a
panel addressing current scholarship on the Genocide. Richard
Hovannisian (UCLA) presided over a panel of scholars assembled by
Barlow Der Mugrdechian (California State University Fresno) titled
"Historical Memory and Identity: Exploring the Impact of the 1915-1916
Events in Armenian and Turkish Literature."
Mr. Der Mugrdechian discussed Micheline Aharonian Marcom's "Three
Apples Fell from Heaven," calling attention to its signature poetic
fragmentation and disjunction. Rubina Peroomian (UCLA) presented new
research comparing Armenian Genocide literature of the diaspora with
that written by Armenians in Turkey. (Sadly, James J. Reid has
recently passed away and his paper on genocide and posttraumatic
stress disorder, scheduled for this panel, was not presented.)
But the flashpoint of the panel was the work of two Turkish scholars,
literary historian Hülya Adak and anthropologist Ayse Gül Altinay
(both from Sabanci University in Turkey), with Altinay substituting
for Fatma Müge Göçek as discussant.
Ms. Adak surveyed literary responses to the Armenian Genocide (which
she refers to as "the Armenian Deportations") since World War I, and
reviewed some recent literature published in Turkey that openly
discusses or alludes to the Genocide.
Ms. Altinay gave an overview of the emerging national dialogue in
Turkey on the Armenians, and credited the 2005 conference in Turkey on
Ottoman Armenians, and the publication of memoirs such as Fethiye
Cetin's "Anneannem" (My grandmother) with bringing freer debate into
the Turkish press and academy.
Both scholars appeared tentatively optimistic about the opening of a
new space of reconciliation for discussion of the events of 1915 in
Turkey. This optimism was somewhat belied by hostile questions from
the audience (e.g. "Who is paying attention to what the Turks
suffered?"), though the discussion remained essentially respectful.
Outside of the three SAS panels, Armenians were to be found at
numerous other MESA events. Joseph A. Kéchichian, SAS president and an
expert on Gulf politics, chaired a roundtable discussion on U.S.-Saudi
relations featuring Prince Turki Al Faisal, ambassador of Saudi Arabia
to the United States.
Armenian scholars participated in panels on Lebanon, on the Assyrians,
on Turkey, and on missionary history. All MESA papers and participants
are listed in the program on the MESA web site
(http://www.mesa.arizona.edu). The SAS will eventually publish the SAS
panel papers in the Journal of Armenian Studies.
If there is any significant work to be done in the field of Armenian
Studies, aside from adding to basic research, it would seem to be
building bridges between scholars in the diaspora and those from the
Republic of Armenia, few of whom were at MESA. Otherwise, Armenians
should be proud of the engaging, professional scholarship in Armenian
Studies on display at MESA this year.
* * *
Karen Merguerian is library web manager in the Systems Department of
Northeastern University in Boston, Mass.
****************************************** *********************************
4. Editorial: President Kocharian's National Agenda
President Kocharian delivered a major speech in Berlin on November 16.
He provided an upbeat and realistic assessment of Armenia's progress
over the 15 years since the former Soviet republic declared
independence in 1991. He also described his vision for Armenia's
future. (The full text of the speech appeared in the Nov. 25 edition
of this newspaper, and is available online at
<www.armenianreporteronline.com>.)
A NATION OF ENTREPRENEURS
One of the key points the president made was that Armenia's greatest
natural resource is its people.
The people of Armenia are widely viewed as hard working and
entrepreneurial, the president asserted. They are motivated to start
private businesses, he said. The government must "establish a
favorable environment for business-oriented people" and it must
"provide safeguards for investments," he acknowledged. "This entails
the liberalization of the economy and of trade regimes, the
establishment of competitive conditions, and the minimization of the
state's interference in business affairs."
The president was pleased with Armenia's progress in this area: "Fully
85 percent of GDP is produced in the private sector, with over 40
percent in small and medium businesses. We are particularly proud of
this last figure. The middle class is in the process of formation."
The president's pride was tempered by the realization that there are
major obstacles yet to be overcome. He specifically pointed to
corruption and problems in tax collection and customs administration.
He also noted that Armenia's financial-services sector is still far
from adequate.
The president rightly noted, however, that Armenia requires more than
institutional change. "In the difficult period of transition,"
President Kocharian said, "the need to invest in people was neglected,
and currently we are trying to bridge that gap."
A KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
Indeed, Armenians have pinned great hopes on Armenia's universal
literacy, on the large proportion of Armenians who receive a
university education, and on the significant number of Armenians who
pursue graduate and specialized degrees. President Kocharian did so
too when he summarized his vision for Armenia's future: "We intend to
develop a knowledge economy. Already, information technology accounts
for two percent of our GDP."
But Armenia's human potential cannot be taken for granted, as the
president noted. Fifteen years have passed since the collapse of the
Soviet Union. A whole new post-Soviet generation is coming up. This
generation has opportunities previous generations did not enjoy. They
enjoy greater freedom of thought and expression. They have a greater
variety of choices in higher education, and are exposed to a greater
variety of schools of thought. Programs like the United States
government's Muskie Graduate Fellowship and the Future Leaders
Secondary School Exchange Program (FLEX) allow Armenia's best and
brightest to live and study in the United States on the condition that
they commit to return to Armenia.
But for these opportunities to be meaningful, Armenian children need a
firm elementary and secondary education. Moreover, the colleges that
most undergraduates are eligible to attend must be affordable and in
tune with the times.
Armenia has already begun investing more heavily in its people. It is
changing its educational system to conform to international standards.
And, the president promises, the government is "developing a
comprehensive reform strategy for the pure and applied sciences."
These are positive developments.
DEMOCRACY FROM BELOW
President Kocharian took the view that aside from economic benefits,
the development of small and medium business in Armenia will also
shore up democracy. The owners of these businesses, on the one hand,
and engaged citizens ("civil society"), on the other, are the "capable
stakeholders" without whom democratic institutions "would be rapidly
corrupted and altered," the president said.
The president clearly recognizes the crucial role of a vibrant--and
civically active--middle class as guarantors of participatory
democracy.
President Kocharian went so far as to assert, "sustainable democracy
is strongly dependent on the state of the economy." We would add that
the dependence is mutual. The development of small and medium
business, on the one hand, and civil society, on the other, requires
faith in the state's willingness to be led from below. Thus we welcome
the president's further assertion, "We are strong believers in
democracy from below."
EMBRACING DEEPER REFORMS
The president gave his speech in Berlin. But the speech should not be
seen as a set piece for foreign consumption. In its realism, its
candor, and its vision, President Kocharian's address sets the stage
for government officials and opposition politicians alike to outline
their plans for reform.
As the president rightly concluded, Armenia's "vitality is rooted in
its capacity to comprehend the need for change and its readiness to
transform itself." We welcome President Kocharian's challenge and look
forward to actions that fulfill his vision for a more prosperous,
transparent, fair, and empowered society.
As we in the Armenian-American community consider steps we might take
to support the next generation of reform in Armenia, now is the time
to plan for increased support for Armenian-American organizations that
are already part of the solution in Armenia; to be even more active in
American civic action; and to consider growing Armenia's vital middle
class by investing our expertise and financial resources.
President Kocharian's challenge was meant for us, as well.
******************************************* ********************************
Direct your inquiries to [email protected]
(c) 2006 CS Media Enterprises LLC. All Rights Reserved
--Boundary_(ID_obG6AVQurQBUJxZr2Oh5Pw)--