Tweet
EXPECTING CHANGE OF POWER IN ARMENIA WITHIN COMING SEVERAL DECADES IS HOPELESS
David Stepanyan
ArmInfo
2010-12-23 14:00:00
Interview of one of the initiators and heads of the Karabakh movement
in 1998, a well-known analyst Igor Muradyan with ArmInfo News Agency
Mr. Muradyan, you often visit foreign countries and has contacts with
the analytical community. Which trends do you currently trace in the
world power centers with respect to Armenia?
We are getting the impression that the attitude to Armenia
significantly changed over the last 15 years. Different big capitals
have always treated the Armenians differently. Some sympathized,
the others loved, the thirds were interested and the fourths were
not interested in Armenia at all, and, finally, there were those
who perceived Armenia as a barrier for them or a useless element in
politics. Today, contacting the colleagues from abroad, I experience
none of these sensations. this is caused by the fact that Armenia
has lost its place in geopolitics and in the world politics in general.
However, the problem is not even in losing this place. The problem
is that we are just out of discussion and nobody discusses us. Some
parallel events are discussed at best, for example, the Karabakh and
Armenian-Turkish processes but truly not Armenia.
Let us speak of the reasons...
When speaking of the reasons, everything must be projected for
complementarity and tolerance which has been playing a determining role
in Armenia's foreign policy for many years. Our authorities have not
been saying "no" but "yes" to anyone for a too long period of time. As
a result, it has been found that this is the most dangerous of what
could happen with us. We have not been saying "no" to anyone on the
Karabakh issue for 15 years, we just agreed to all the proposals by
OSCE MG on Madrid principles introducing some limitations. Today
I do not see even these limitations. Of course, one may say that
Armenia has not yet agreed to implement the provisions fixed by the
principles, however, there was Aquila statement of the "Great Three"
which is the whole world's stance anyway. It does not happen that
one agrees to the cochairmen's proposals for 15 years and finally
refuses from them. The OSCE MG cochair countries activated a huge
process and reported the whole world on it, drew up their policy,
including with respect to Armenia, as well as rendered financial
aid to it, including a military one. All this was done based on the
fact that Armenia takes just this and no other position. This is an
extremely important circumstance which is ignored in our country, even
by the prepared people. It is groundlessly considered in Armenia that
these are no more than words. Well, it does not happen so, and our
position is too dangerous, since the great powers have already made
a statement in favour of their stance on Karabakh, at least once,
while we just thanked them in response and marked the statement as
"valuable". I am sure that currently there is even no hint that we
shall have to implement these "valuable" ideas.
Nevertheless, what is our omission in the process?
The parties to the Karabakh process have their arguments. Azerbaijan's
arguments are known to everyone: 20% of territories, one million
refugees, Khojalu etc: What does Armenia have? A doubtful principle
of the peoples' right to self-determination in the UN Statute,
which is, in its turn, doubtful, at least because it is not clear
where the UN Statute is part of the international law or not. No
one in the world wants even to speak of the people's right to self-
determination principle now. Armenia constantly raises that principle
after well-known Galina Storovoytova planted in on Armenians 20
years ago in exchange for the Karabakh Committee's refusal from the
national liberation movement. That principle does not work and cannot
work inherently.
But why? And what about Kosovo?
It was the geopolitical expediency, not the self-determination
principle that snapped into action in case of Kosovo. At least I have
seen not a single document on Kosovo referring to this principle. At
the time of Levon Ter-Petrosyan's tenure the following undisputable
arguments were rejected in the Karabakh negotiating process, like
refugees, the territories where they had to live, northern part of
Karabakh - Shaumyan region, Sumgait, Old Jugha, Magara and Baku.
Absolutely nothing was said about all this. They do not say even
about the ruined cemeteries of the Old Jugha. The Council of Europe
has not yet managed to send its delegation there to watch this act of
vandalism. And at present after 20 years of silence we have started
agitating caps and speaking about all these things. At present they
have suddenly started speaking about patriotism and remembered all
these things, but the time to speak about it has already passed. Who
will listen to it? Nobody. Sumgait, Magara, Shaumyan and Old Jugha
did not find room in the and the Karabakh process, as they were
not involved in it by Armenia from the very beginning. Actually,
the Karabakh peace process was based on oblivion of a number of
extremely important events, it was based on a horrible and illogic
thing, according to which there are some borders of the Nagorno-
Karabakh autonomous region. If these borders exist, it is first of
all necessary to acknowledge that these are borders of a state,
but this is also missing in the Madrid Principles. So what do we
have then? A vague promise to hold a referendum? And against this
hopeless background some people have suddenly took up patriotism. To
be honest, I do not know how to come out of this situation. Earlier
I knew when there were goals, arguments, tasks, but now I don't know
what to do. Shall we restart the process? Perhaps, we should.
It is necessary to have a new power to restart the process ...
Armenia will never have a new power. I mean the current generation's
life. The sociocultural regime, our public, political culture and
culture in general allow speaking of this with confidence. I doubt
that in Armenia there is national culture except "duduk", "khash"
and "dolma". Change of power requires sociocultural prerequisites. We
should see how new political class is formed. However, I do not see
that and there is no such process. Therefore, we still live in a
provincial country. But, our public does not care for that.
Then what is considered essential?
Today resignation of mayor, beating of an official by another official,
various crimes are considered essential in Armenia, but no one cares
about why all this takes place. The Armenian nation has no political
status, it is apolitical and lacks political culture. All this is
reflected in our national features. That is why, other nations do
not like us. They cannot like a nation just for priority features,
talent, for instance. It is not a temporary phenomenon. It is not a
temporary phenomenon. There are many people in Armenia who deserve
lead political culture, but they do not represent the Armenian nation,
unfortunately. Instead, people who do not care for the statehood and
policy of Armenia represent our nation. They need nothing but feeding,
even money, because money should work. Within the coming decades
nothing new will be in Armenia. Twenty years for reform in Armenia is
too long in the modern age of Internet and high communications. Three
presidents replaced each other in Armenia over that period of time
and the efforts to change anything proved useless. What was created
in Armenia over decades bears nothing in common with the Armenian
culture, it was the Soviet culture.
From: A. Papazian
David Stepanyan
ArmInfo
2010-12-23 14:00:00
Interview of one of the initiators and heads of the Karabakh movement
in 1998, a well-known analyst Igor Muradyan with ArmInfo News Agency
Mr. Muradyan, you often visit foreign countries and has contacts with
the analytical community. Which trends do you currently trace in the
world power centers with respect to Armenia?
We are getting the impression that the attitude to Armenia
significantly changed over the last 15 years. Different big capitals
have always treated the Armenians differently. Some sympathized,
the others loved, the thirds were interested and the fourths were
not interested in Armenia at all, and, finally, there were those
who perceived Armenia as a barrier for them or a useless element in
politics. Today, contacting the colleagues from abroad, I experience
none of these sensations. this is caused by the fact that Armenia
has lost its place in geopolitics and in the world politics in general.
However, the problem is not even in losing this place. The problem
is that we are just out of discussion and nobody discusses us. Some
parallel events are discussed at best, for example, the Karabakh and
Armenian-Turkish processes but truly not Armenia.
Let us speak of the reasons...
When speaking of the reasons, everything must be projected for
complementarity and tolerance which has been playing a determining role
in Armenia's foreign policy for many years. Our authorities have not
been saying "no" but "yes" to anyone for a too long period of time. As
a result, it has been found that this is the most dangerous of what
could happen with us. We have not been saying "no" to anyone on the
Karabakh issue for 15 years, we just agreed to all the proposals by
OSCE MG on Madrid principles introducing some limitations. Today
I do not see even these limitations. Of course, one may say that
Armenia has not yet agreed to implement the provisions fixed by the
principles, however, there was Aquila statement of the "Great Three"
which is the whole world's stance anyway. It does not happen that
one agrees to the cochairmen's proposals for 15 years and finally
refuses from them. The OSCE MG cochair countries activated a huge
process and reported the whole world on it, drew up their policy,
including with respect to Armenia, as well as rendered financial
aid to it, including a military one. All this was done based on the
fact that Armenia takes just this and no other position. This is an
extremely important circumstance which is ignored in our country, even
by the prepared people. It is groundlessly considered in Armenia that
these are no more than words. Well, it does not happen so, and our
position is too dangerous, since the great powers have already made
a statement in favour of their stance on Karabakh, at least once,
while we just thanked them in response and marked the statement as
"valuable". I am sure that currently there is even no hint that we
shall have to implement these "valuable" ideas.
Nevertheless, what is our omission in the process?
The parties to the Karabakh process have their arguments. Azerbaijan's
arguments are known to everyone: 20% of territories, one million
refugees, Khojalu etc: What does Armenia have? A doubtful principle
of the peoples' right to self-determination in the UN Statute,
which is, in its turn, doubtful, at least because it is not clear
where the UN Statute is part of the international law or not. No
one in the world wants even to speak of the people's right to self-
determination principle now. Armenia constantly raises that principle
after well-known Galina Storovoytova planted in on Armenians 20
years ago in exchange for the Karabakh Committee's refusal from the
national liberation movement. That principle does not work and cannot
work inherently.
But why? And what about Kosovo?
It was the geopolitical expediency, not the self-determination
principle that snapped into action in case of Kosovo. At least I have
seen not a single document on Kosovo referring to this principle. At
the time of Levon Ter-Petrosyan's tenure the following undisputable
arguments were rejected in the Karabakh negotiating process, like
refugees, the territories where they had to live, northern part of
Karabakh - Shaumyan region, Sumgait, Old Jugha, Magara and Baku.
Absolutely nothing was said about all this. They do not say even
about the ruined cemeteries of the Old Jugha. The Council of Europe
has not yet managed to send its delegation there to watch this act of
vandalism. And at present after 20 years of silence we have started
agitating caps and speaking about all these things. At present they
have suddenly started speaking about patriotism and remembered all
these things, but the time to speak about it has already passed. Who
will listen to it? Nobody. Sumgait, Magara, Shaumyan and Old Jugha
did not find room in the and the Karabakh process, as they were
not involved in it by Armenia from the very beginning. Actually,
the Karabakh peace process was based on oblivion of a number of
extremely important events, it was based on a horrible and illogic
thing, according to which there are some borders of the Nagorno-
Karabakh autonomous region. If these borders exist, it is first of
all necessary to acknowledge that these are borders of a state,
but this is also missing in the Madrid Principles. So what do we
have then? A vague promise to hold a referendum? And against this
hopeless background some people have suddenly took up patriotism. To
be honest, I do not know how to come out of this situation. Earlier
I knew when there were goals, arguments, tasks, but now I don't know
what to do. Shall we restart the process? Perhaps, we should.
It is necessary to have a new power to restart the process ...
Armenia will never have a new power. I mean the current generation's
life. The sociocultural regime, our public, political culture and
culture in general allow speaking of this with confidence. I doubt
that in Armenia there is national culture except "duduk", "khash"
and "dolma". Change of power requires sociocultural prerequisites. We
should see how new political class is formed. However, I do not see
that and there is no such process. Therefore, we still live in a
provincial country. But, our public does not care for that.
Then what is considered essential?
Today resignation of mayor, beating of an official by another official,
various crimes are considered essential in Armenia, but no one cares
about why all this takes place. The Armenian nation has no political
status, it is apolitical and lacks political culture. All this is
reflected in our national features. That is why, other nations do
not like us. They cannot like a nation just for priority features,
talent, for instance. It is not a temporary phenomenon. It is not a
temporary phenomenon. There are many people in Armenia who deserve
lead political culture, but they do not represent the Armenian nation,
unfortunately. Instead, people who do not care for the statehood and
policy of Armenia represent our nation. They need nothing but feeding,
even money, because money should work. Within the coming decades
nothing new will be in Armenia. Twenty years for reform in Armenia is
too long in the modern age of Internet and high communications. Three
presidents replaced each other in Armenia over that period of time
and the efforts to change anything proved useless. What was created
in Armenia over decades bears nothing in common with the Armenian
culture, it was the Soviet culture.
From: A. Papazian