Tweet
DUMANIAN TO APRAHAMIAN, YEKIKIAN: THE DIASPORA SHOULD STOP KIDDING ITSELF
By Henry Dumanian
Armenian Weekly
January 12, 2010
Editor's note: The letter below, sent to the Armenian
Weekly, is a response to an article titled "In Whose
Interests? The Political Economy of Armenian-Turkish
Relations" by Serouj Aprahamian and Allen Yekikian
(www.armenianweekly.com/2010/01/11/apraha mian-yekikian-in-whose-interests-the-political-eco nomy-of-armenian-turkish-relations).
***
Serouj Aprahamian and Allen Yekikian co-authored an interesting op-ed
published in Asbarez and the Armenian Weekly recently. Under a huge
picture of a distastefully built Greco-Roman mansion, which they
claim belongs to one of Armenia's oligarchs, Aprahamian and Yekikian
argue (quite correctly) that the opening of the Armenian border will
only serve the interests of the oligarchic establishment in Armenia,
and not the population at large. According to them, the chief motive
behind President Serge Sarkisian's support of the protocols is the huge
personal profit to be made (by him and the court nomenklatura) once the
border opens: "In the end, the protocols and the ensuing establishment
of relations between Armenia and Turkey are a direct reflection of the
interests of this tiny set of powerbrokers within Armenia." They also
go on to suggest that Levon Ter-Petrosyan's opposition bloc, the ANC,
despite denouncing the government, is quite supportive of Sarkisian's
approach to Armeno-Turkish relations: "Ter-Petrosyan has praised the
Sarkisian regime's policy on Turkish-Armenian relations and has even
expressed his desire to establish cooperation with the ruling regime."
These last two assertions are as false as that oligarch's mansion
is ugly.
(First, if anybody is interested-the mansion belongs to a
parliamentarian whose mafioso name is "Shinanyuti Sergeyi." When we
drove by on our way to Vanadzor last summer, it was guarded by armed
men and high walls-perhaps to keep the will of the masses out).
But before I begin my critique of those two points, I want to
put their article in context. Between 1998, when Robert Kocharian
became president, and last fall, when the protocols were announced,
there has never been such a great and detailed examination (and with
it denunciation) of the Kocharian-Sarkisian-sponsored oligarchy in
the Armenian American community as there seems to be now. And more
appropriately, there has never been such open hostility against them
from people like Aprahamian, who is a staunch ARF sympathizer. This
is not to say that they haven't addressed the issue in the past. In
November 2008, for example, Aprahamian posted an interview with Dr.
Ara Khanjian on the huge gap between the rich and the poor. Nowhere
in that long interview, however, does one see the word "oligarchy."
Instead, it is presented much in the same way it would be in
America-rich vs. poor, capitalism vs. socialism, taxes vs. credit
lines. I encourage people to read the new Aprahamian/Yekikian
article-it is quite a detou r from their past opinions (emotions
would be a more suitable word, I think).
It is important to note this complete shift in emphasis because it
has political motives behind it. Oligarchs are sponsored by and under
the largesse of the ruling regime-sanctioned by the most powerful
politician in the country, the president. They don't belong in
political science textbooks-they are real people with names and faces
(and those seem to change depending on your political party). In the
long ago pre-protocols era, "oligarchs" were a far away phenomenon. If
anyone was to blame, it was certainly not the "ruling regime," and
most certainly not President Sarkisian (or Kocharian). That's Levonite
talk! In fact, the worst the Kocharian-Sarkisian regimes have done
is been negligent. Look at Khanjian's response to a question about
creating greater economic equality in Armenia: "With our focus on
poverty, we [the ARF] were able to influence the government and make
it more aware of the needs of the poor. During the opening ceremony of
the ARF's 30th World Congress, one of the first concerns mentioned by
Prime Minister Dikran Sarkisyan in his speech was the fight against
poverty. This was not a coincidence. Prime Minister Sarkisyan knew
that the ARF cares about the poor; therefore he explained to the
ARF World Congress delegates that he also is concerned with the
conditions of the poor. In addition, the government of Armenia,
similar to many other developing countries, with the cooperation of
the World Bank, has adopted a Poverty Reduction Strategic Paper, PRSP,
which is a long-term plan for reduction of poverty in Armenia." Does
that sound like a government to blame for oligarchy? Nope. In fact,
the government seems to be quite cooperative and responsive. Now,
it seems like Aprahamian and the gang have discovered what many of
us have long been saying: Robert Kocharian and Serge Sarkisian are
the main reason why oligarchs thrive.
Run a search on the word "oligarchy" on the Asbarez website, for
example. One of the results is an article about the protocols (and
only but once mentions oligarchy); one is a story from Radio Free
Liberty on Armenia's human rights ombudsman; one is about the ARF's
road-to-nowhere-map on regime change; and only one search result seems
to be doing the issue justice. That's a total of four articles, two
of which only mention oligarchies once, and one is from Armenia itself.
Of course, this oligarchic system is the root Armenian-made cause
of the diaspora's proportionate distrust of all things Hayastan and
Armenia's problems as a whole. It is hindering intellectual, economic,
social, cultural, and democratic development. Yet in the diaspora,
it has received nowhere near the amount of time and focus it should
be getting. If genocide recognition is an immediate community goal,
oligarchies in Armenia should be getting the second most amount of
attention (or even the third).
Aprahamian, to his credit, is actually one of the few people who has
tried to address the issue in the past. Therefore, it is no surprise
that this recent article was co-written by him.
Indeed, this new article is quite impressive: It includes names,
dates, what they make, how much they make, and how they made it (even
I learned something new), and it is also wrapped around rhetoric about
justice, history, and of course, azgasirutsiun (patriotism). It also
advocates a fierce crackdown on oligarchs. This is in strike contrast
to the previous "solutions" we have been offered by Aprahamian and the
like in the past: bank loans to the poor, adjustments to government
services, anti-corruption campaigns, etc. Before, it was a polite
conversation about abstract concepts like monopolies, democracy,
socialism, etc. Now, it is advocating the almost militant overthrow
of individuals (like our most trusted president). Moments after it
was published, Aram Hamparian, the director of the ANCA, posted a
link to the article on his Twitter feed. In fact, he even commented
on Khanjian's article about the economic situation in Armenia
(also recently published). He asked, "Where is the intellectual
pro-protocols argument that 1) most Armenians (not just a handful)
will benefit, and 2) the benefits outweigh the costs? Those who
believe in ratification, if there are any left, should stand up and
publicly offer their views." Any brief look at the reaction from the
community at large paints a similar picture. From Facebook pages
to comments on Asbarez, the Armenian Weekly, and Armenian blogs,
"the criminal oligarchs have to go" has become a common rallying
call. The contrast between the then and the now is undeniable.
Why, then, have these people suddenly decided that Armenia's oligarchs
lay at the root of our nation's precarious situation? Weren't these
oligarchs eating away at the heart of the people of Armenia in, say,
2006 or 2005? Aprahamian's article would have been as potent a few
years ago as it is now. Research, for example, how Robert Kocharian
sold national assets to the Russian government at below-market prices
(essentially making the taxpayer pay for the difference). And he
wasn't selling away wine factories; he sold things that are tied to
our national security: energy generators, power plants, and the like.
It is clear there is one, and only one, reason behind the massive
diaspora-public outrage at Sarkisian's oligarchy: the protocols,
nothing more and nothing less. It is a good reason, if for no other,
to oppose them. A defeatist organization like the Armenian Assembly,
for example, can argue that the protocols are a good step in the right
direction, but they cannot argue that it will only help the (now)
criminal ruling elite (at least without looking like they're from
another universe). There is much force behind such accusations. It is
a knockout punch (to the already credible case) the ARF community has
for the Armenian Assembly folk and the broader community. Getting
rid of the oligarchy used to be a much broader issue; now it is
tied to getting rid of Sarkisian. If the Armenian Assembly wants
to get rid of the oligarchy, they must fight against Sarkisian. If
they are fighting against Sarkisian, they are fighting against the
protocols. At the very least, it makes supporters of the protocols
look like they are in bed with Sarkisian by ignoring the plight of
the poor, miserable people of Armenia (which they are).
It also validates this new gung-ho attitude the Tashnag community has
against Sarkisian. They are no longer fighting against the protocols
and the rights of the "nation," but they are fighting for the people
of Armenia on a very practical and local level. Genocide recognition
will make us all better in a much more abstract pan-national way. The
fight against the oligarchy will help a single mother in Armenia put
food on the table for her kids. Take that, open border advocates! Who
cares about the real wellbeing of the people of Armenia now?
>>From all of this, important questions emerge: If our glorious
president had never signed the protocols, would Aprahamian, Yekikian,
and the hundreds of people I have heard curse Sarkisian, really
stand up against this oligarchy? Would we really be talking about
how they are robbing the people of Armenia of a future? Or would we
be on the path we were on before the protocols, namely, a silent, yet
honest acknowledgement of the issue, followed by ignoring it, and an
unwillingness to attack it as it should be when it is addressed-with
names, pictures, and addresses, with unforgiving anger, and most
importantly, with honesty. I think you all know the answer to that
question.
>>From that, a more important question for the people of Armenia:
Are these really the people you want to stand alongside in your long
and dangerous battle for regime change? The protocols are the only
reason they are with you. Are these the people Vartan Mamigonian took
to Avarayr? In the middle of the battle, if Sarkisian gives in to
their demands and rips apart the protocols, will Aprahamian, Yekikian,
Hamparian, and Khanjian leave your side? Will they leave you to the
mercy of Sarkisian's thugs and brutality much as they did on March 1?
How convinced can you be that you are out on the streets, protesting,
for the same reasons? Apparently, not very convinced indeed.
(I am aware that the Armenian Assembly has made the case that an
open border will get rid of the oligarchy. I have chosen to ignore
their arguments because, quite frankly, they are idiotic. I am also
aware that the ARF community in America was fiercely critical of the
"autocracy" of Levon Ter-Petrosyan in the late 1990's. But this is
the exception that proves the rule. Their criticism emanated from
their partisanship (as it does now), not an honest condemnation of
the oligarchs. Upon joining the coalition with Kocharian in 1998,
they toned down their criticism as described above. Also, although
I'm sure he doesn't mind, my apologies to Yekikian for concentrating
more on Aprahamian-I am simply more familiar with his views and work
than yours).
By Henry Dumanian
Armenian Weekly
January 12, 2010
Editor's note: The letter below, sent to the Armenian
Weekly, is a response to an article titled "In Whose
Interests? The Political Economy of Armenian-Turkish
Relations" by Serouj Aprahamian and Allen Yekikian
(www.armenianweekly.com/2010/01/11/apraha mian-yekikian-in-whose-interests-the-political-eco nomy-of-armenian-turkish-relations).
***
Serouj Aprahamian and Allen Yekikian co-authored an interesting op-ed
published in Asbarez and the Armenian Weekly recently. Under a huge
picture of a distastefully built Greco-Roman mansion, which they
claim belongs to one of Armenia's oligarchs, Aprahamian and Yekikian
argue (quite correctly) that the opening of the Armenian border will
only serve the interests of the oligarchic establishment in Armenia,
and not the population at large. According to them, the chief motive
behind President Serge Sarkisian's support of the protocols is the huge
personal profit to be made (by him and the court nomenklatura) once the
border opens: "In the end, the protocols and the ensuing establishment
of relations between Armenia and Turkey are a direct reflection of the
interests of this tiny set of powerbrokers within Armenia." They also
go on to suggest that Levon Ter-Petrosyan's opposition bloc, the ANC,
despite denouncing the government, is quite supportive of Sarkisian's
approach to Armeno-Turkish relations: "Ter-Petrosyan has praised the
Sarkisian regime's policy on Turkish-Armenian relations and has even
expressed his desire to establish cooperation with the ruling regime."
These last two assertions are as false as that oligarch's mansion
is ugly.
(First, if anybody is interested-the mansion belongs to a
parliamentarian whose mafioso name is "Shinanyuti Sergeyi." When we
drove by on our way to Vanadzor last summer, it was guarded by armed
men and high walls-perhaps to keep the will of the masses out).
But before I begin my critique of those two points, I want to
put their article in context. Between 1998, when Robert Kocharian
became president, and last fall, when the protocols were announced,
there has never been such a great and detailed examination (and with
it denunciation) of the Kocharian-Sarkisian-sponsored oligarchy in
the Armenian American community as there seems to be now. And more
appropriately, there has never been such open hostility against them
from people like Aprahamian, who is a staunch ARF sympathizer. This
is not to say that they haven't addressed the issue in the past. In
November 2008, for example, Aprahamian posted an interview with Dr.
Ara Khanjian on the huge gap between the rich and the poor. Nowhere
in that long interview, however, does one see the word "oligarchy."
Instead, it is presented much in the same way it would be in
America-rich vs. poor, capitalism vs. socialism, taxes vs. credit
lines. I encourage people to read the new Aprahamian/Yekikian
article-it is quite a detou r from their past opinions (emotions
would be a more suitable word, I think).
It is important to note this complete shift in emphasis because it
has political motives behind it. Oligarchs are sponsored by and under
the largesse of the ruling regime-sanctioned by the most powerful
politician in the country, the president. They don't belong in
political science textbooks-they are real people with names and faces
(and those seem to change depending on your political party). In the
long ago pre-protocols era, "oligarchs" were a far away phenomenon. If
anyone was to blame, it was certainly not the "ruling regime," and
most certainly not President Sarkisian (or Kocharian). That's Levonite
talk! In fact, the worst the Kocharian-Sarkisian regimes have done
is been negligent. Look at Khanjian's response to a question about
creating greater economic equality in Armenia: "With our focus on
poverty, we [the ARF] were able to influence the government and make
it more aware of the needs of the poor. During the opening ceremony of
the ARF's 30th World Congress, one of the first concerns mentioned by
Prime Minister Dikran Sarkisyan in his speech was the fight against
poverty. This was not a coincidence. Prime Minister Sarkisyan knew
that the ARF cares about the poor; therefore he explained to the
ARF World Congress delegates that he also is concerned with the
conditions of the poor. In addition, the government of Armenia,
similar to many other developing countries, with the cooperation of
the World Bank, has adopted a Poverty Reduction Strategic Paper, PRSP,
which is a long-term plan for reduction of poverty in Armenia." Does
that sound like a government to blame for oligarchy? Nope. In fact,
the government seems to be quite cooperative and responsive. Now,
it seems like Aprahamian and the gang have discovered what many of
us have long been saying: Robert Kocharian and Serge Sarkisian are
the main reason why oligarchs thrive.
Run a search on the word "oligarchy" on the Asbarez website, for
example. One of the results is an article about the protocols (and
only but once mentions oligarchy); one is a story from Radio Free
Liberty on Armenia's human rights ombudsman; one is about the ARF's
road-to-nowhere-map on regime change; and only one search result seems
to be doing the issue justice. That's a total of four articles, two
of which only mention oligarchies once, and one is from Armenia itself.
Of course, this oligarchic system is the root Armenian-made cause
of the diaspora's proportionate distrust of all things Hayastan and
Armenia's problems as a whole. It is hindering intellectual, economic,
social, cultural, and democratic development. Yet in the diaspora,
it has received nowhere near the amount of time and focus it should
be getting. If genocide recognition is an immediate community goal,
oligarchies in Armenia should be getting the second most amount of
attention (or even the third).
Aprahamian, to his credit, is actually one of the few people who has
tried to address the issue in the past. Therefore, it is no surprise
that this recent article was co-written by him.
Indeed, this new article is quite impressive: It includes names,
dates, what they make, how much they make, and how they made it (even
I learned something new), and it is also wrapped around rhetoric about
justice, history, and of course, azgasirutsiun (patriotism). It also
advocates a fierce crackdown on oligarchs. This is in strike contrast
to the previous "solutions" we have been offered by Aprahamian and the
like in the past: bank loans to the poor, adjustments to government
services, anti-corruption campaigns, etc. Before, it was a polite
conversation about abstract concepts like monopolies, democracy,
socialism, etc. Now, it is advocating the almost militant overthrow
of individuals (like our most trusted president). Moments after it
was published, Aram Hamparian, the director of the ANCA, posted a
link to the article on his Twitter feed. In fact, he even commented
on Khanjian's article about the economic situation in Armenia
(also recently published). He asked, "Where is the intellectual
pro-protocols argument that 1) most Armenians (not just a handful)
will benefit, and 2) the benefits outweigh the costs? Those who
believe in ratification, if there are any left, should stand up and
publicly offer their views." Any brief look at the reaction from the
community at large paints a similar picture. From Facebook pages
to comments on Asbarez, the Armenian Weekly, and Armenian blogs,
"the criminal oligarchs have to go" has become a common rallying
call. The contrast between the then and the now is undeniable.
Why, then, have these people suddenly decided that Armenia's oligarchs
lay at the root of our nation's precarious situation? Weren't these
oligarchs eating away at the heart of the people of Armenia in, say,
2006 or 2005? Aprahamian's article would have been as potent a few
years ago as it is now. Research, for example, how Robert Kocharian
sold national assets to the Russian government at below-market prices
(essentially making the taxpayer pay for the difference). And he
wasn't selling away wine factories; he sold things that are tied to
our national security: energy generators, power plants, and the like.
It is clear there is one, and only one, reason behind the massive
diaspora-public outrage at Sarkisian's oligarchy: the protocols,
nothing more and nothing less. It is a good reason, if for no other,
to oppose them. A defeatist organization like the Armenian Assembly,
for example, can argue that the protocols are a good step in the right
direction, but they cannot argue that it will only help the (now)
criminal ruling elite (at least without looking like they're from
another universe). There is much force behind such accusations. It is
a knockout punch (to the already credible case) the ARF community has
for the Armenian Assembly folk and the broader community. Getting
rid of the oligarchy used to be a much broader issue; now it is
tied to getting rid of Sarkisian. If the Armenian Assembly wants
to get rid of the oligarchy, they must fight against Sarkisian. If
they are fighting against Sarkisian, they are fighting against the
protocols. At the very least, it makes supporters of the protocols
look like they are in bed with Sarkisian by ignoring the plight of
the poor, miserable people of Armenia (which they are).
It also validates this new gung-ho attitude the Tashnag community has
against Sarkisian. They are no longer fighting against the protocols
and the rights of the "nation," but they are fighting for the people
of Armenia on a very practical and local level. Genocide recognition
will make us all better in a much more abstract pan-national way. The
fight against the oligarchy will help a single mother in Armenia put
food on the table for her kids. Take that, open border advocates! Who
cares about the real wellbeing of the people of Armenia now?
>>From all of this, important questions emerge: If our glorious
president had never signed the protocols, would Aprahamian, Yekikian,
and the hundreds of people I have heard curse Sarkisian, really
stand up against this oligarchy? Would we really be talking about
how they are robbing the people of Armenia of a future? Or would we
be on the path we were on before the protocols, namely, a silent, yet
honest acknowledgement of the issue, followed by ignoring it, and an
unwillingness to attack it as it should be when it is addressed-with
names, pictures, and addresses, with unforgiving anger, and most
importantly, with honesty. I think you all know the answer to that
question.
>>From that, a more important question for the people of Armenia:
Are these really the people you want to stand alongside in your long
and dangerous battle for regime change? The protocols are the only
reason they are with you. Are these the people Vartan Mamigonian took
to Avarayr? In the middle of the battle, if Sarkisian gives in to
their demands and rips apart the protocols, will Aprahamian, Yekikian,
Hamparian, and Khanjian leave your side? Will they leave you to the
mercy of Sarkisian's thugs and brutality much as they did on March 1?
How convinced can you be that you are out on the streets, protesting,
for the same reasons? Apparently, not very convinced indeed.
(I am aware that the Armenian Assembly has made the case that an
open border will get rid of the oligarchy. I have chosen to ignore
their arguments because, quite frankly, they are idiotic. I am also
aware that the ARF community in America was fiercely critical of the
"autocracy" of Levon Ter-Petrosyan in the late 1990's. But this is
the exception that proves the rule. Their criticism emanated from
their partisanship (as it does now), not an honest condemnation of
the oligarchs. Upon joining the coalition with Kocharian in 1998,
they toned down their criticism as described above. Also, although
I'm sure he doesn't mind, my apologies to Yekikian for concentrating
more on Aprahamian-I am simply more familiar with his views and work
than yours).