Tweet
ARMY CAN HAVE ONE ORIENTATION
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Feb 7 2008
The presidential candidate Serge Sargsyan states he does not need
to use the army for his election campaign because he has worked with
the army for 15 years and he known the opinion of those people.
Certainly, the question occurs who needed the army to turn the
celebration of the army day on January 28 into election campaign with
"Go Armenia". Has Serge Sargsyan tried to find out why the celebration
of the army day had such an obviously political ending?
Our army is an apolitical and non-partisan structure, isn't it? If
the show dedicated to the army ends with political advertisement
by someone's will, doesn't it worry the prime minster who does
not need that advertisement and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief who
together with him applauds to the campaign at the hall? In fact,
it appears that someone instrumentalizes the armed force for some
political purpose, and does it with the Supreme Commander-in-Chief
and the Prime Minister watching. Who will claim responsibility for
that show during which with the entire society watching the army
which is considered as a common national value was turned into an
instrument for electioneering within a couple of minutes? Who will
claim responsibility for shattering the society's confidence in an
unbiased army? It is not enough to say that there is no pre-election
need for the army. It is necessary to reveal the person to the society
who dared to turn the army into a pre-election team. Otherwise, the
society will hardly believe Prime Minister and presidential candidate
Serge Sargsyan's word that he does not need the army.
And not only this word but also the statement that he has no doubt
about the orientation of the army because he has worked for 15 years
with those people and knows them. An example is enough to disbelieve
his words. For instance, Serge Sargsyan has worked with the ex-deputy
minister of defense Arthur Aghabekyan for many years but before the
parliamentary election of 2007 Arthur Aghabekyan resigned and joined
the election campaign of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun, and now is beside
the presidential candidate Vahan Hovanisyan and states that only
the ARF Dashnaktsutyun's candidate is able to resolve the problems
that Armenia is facing. Two conclusions can be drawn from comparing
Serge Sargsyan's statement and Arthur Aghabekyan's example. Either in
reality Arthur Aghabekyan supports Serge Sargsyan and together with
the ARF Dashnaktsutyun's team has joined this disguised campaign,
or Serge Sargsyan cannot have any confidence in the orientation
of the army because if despite the years of working together Arthur
Aghabekyan nevertheless does not endorse Serge Sargsyan, the same might
be about the rest of the command, high-ranking military officials,
commissioned officers. Is there a guarantee that Arthur Aghabekyan's
examples are not many? Not everyone should necessarily resign from the
army because not everyone has the chance to be member of parliament.
If there were no doubt about the orientation of the army, the minister
of defense Michael Harutiunyan would hardly hurry to state that he
votes Serge Sargsyan, and thinks most part of the personnel will
vote Serge Sargsyan. If there is no doubt, why do they reassert it
once more, questioning the neutrality of the army? Finally, what does
army orientation and army voting mean? In a political process we deal
with the citizens of Armenia rather than one structure or another,
one union of compatriots or whatever patriots or another. As well as
the army where the citizens of Armenia serve, and they elect, not the
army. These citizens may unanimously vote all for one, or 80 percent
or 70 percent for one. But it is the choice of the citizens, not the
army. Even in case of 100 percent unanimous vote, this is not the
choice of the army but the citizens who serve in the army. The phrase
army orientation is itself a violation of the presumption of apolitical
structure, because the army may have only one orientation, and only
in the geographical sense of the word - across the border of Armenia -
from where the security of the citizens of Armenia might be threatened.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Feb 7 2008
The presidential candidate Serge Sargsyan states he does not need
to use the army for his election campaign because he has worked with
the army for 15 years and he known the opinion of those people.
Certainly, the question occurs who needed the army to turn the
celebration of the army day on January 28 into election campaign with
"Go Armenia". Has Serge Sargsyan tried to find out why the celebration
of the army day had such an obviously political ending?
Our army is an apolitical and non-partisan structure, isn't it? If
the show dedicated to the army ends with political advertisement
by someone's will, doesn't it worry the prime minster who does
not need that advertisement and the Supreme Commander-in-Chief who
together with him applauds to the campaign at the hall? In fact,
it appears that someone instrumentalizes the armed force for some
political purpose, and does it with the Supreme Commander-in-Chief
and the Prime Minister watching. Who will claim responsibility for
that show during which with the entire society watching the army
which is considered as a common national value was turned into an
instrument for electioneering within a couple of minutes? Who will
claim responsibility for shattering the society's confidence in an
unbiased army? It is not enough to say that there is no pre-election
need for the army. It is necessary to reveal the person to the society
who dared to turn the army into a pre-election team. Otherwise, the
society will hardly believe Prime Minister and presidential candidate
Serge Sargsyan's word that he does not need the army.
And not only this word but also the statement that he has no doubt
about the orientation of the army because he has worked for 15 years
with those people and knows them. An example is enough to disbelieve
his words. For instance, Serge Sargsyan has worked with the ex-deputy
minister of defense Arthur Aghabekyan for many years but before the
parliamentary election of 2007 Arthur Aghabekyan resigned and joined
the election campaign of the ARF Dashnaktsutyun, and now is beside
the presidential candidate Vahan Hovanisyan and states that only
the ARF Dashnaktsutyun's candidate is able to resolve the problems
that Armenia is facing. Two conclusions can be drawn from comparing
Serge Sargsyan's statement and Arthur Aghabekyan's example. Either in
reality Arthur Aghabekyan supports Serge Sargsyan and together with
the ARF Dashnaktsutyun's team has joined this disguised campaign,
or Serge Sargsyan cannot have any confidence in the orientation
of the army because if despite the years of working together Arthur
Aghabekyan nevertheless does not endorse Serge Sargsyan, the same might
be about the rest of the command, high-ranking military officials,
commissioned officers. Is there a guarantee that Arthur Aghabekyan's
examples are not many? Not everyone should necessarily resign from the
army because not everyone has the chance to be member of parliament.
If there were no doubt about the orientation of the army, the minister
of defense Michael Harutiunyan would hardly hurry to state that he
votes Serge Sargsyan, and thinks most part of the personnel will
vote Serge Sargsyan. If there is no doubt, why do they reassert it
once more, questioning the neutrality of the army? Finally, what does
army orientation and army voting mean? In a political process we deal
with the citizens of Armenia rather than one structure or another,
one union of compatriots or whatever patriots or another. As well as
the army where the citizens of Armenia serve, and they elect, not the
army. These citizens may unanimously vote all for one, or 80 percent
or 70 percent for one. But it is the choice of the citizens, not the
army. Even in case of 100 percent unanimous vote, this is not the
choice of the army but the citizens who serve in the army. The phrase
army orientation is itself a violation of the presumption of apolitical
structure, because the army may have only one orientation, and only
in the geographical sense of the word - across the border of Armenia -
from where the security of the citizens of Armenia might be threatened.