Tweet
OUTPOST OR A STATE?
October 16 2013
Zori Balayan is interesting not by himself, but by the fact that he
is the expression of our political thought in some direction. This
direction, in its turn, reflects some of the sentiments of our people.
More precisely, as follows: for decades, Russian and Soviet Empire
were conducting certain advocacy through such writer-publicists. This
advocacy was directed not only to Armenians but also all the peoples
of the empire, simply in our case, due to a variety of reasons, it
fell on a fertile ground and formed the mood of part of Armenians,
which, in turn, gives a certain social order to our figures. The
connection, as they say, is dialectical. This sense of this advocacy,
manner of thinking, and direction political mind is the following:
we need to explain to superstates (not necessarily to Russia) that
we are good and fair, that we have suffered in vain throughout the
history, that looking at us with "a good eye" generates from the
interests of superstates, and we, will, as a compensation to it, will
serve it to our best, and will be its outpost. Naturally, under this
logic, it is necessary to write open letters to all the mighty of
the world, first and foremost, of course, to the Russian tsars. The
history has repeatedly proved the bankruptcy of this approach, the
absence of having your independent game (of course, which takes into
account the realities, of course, "with the size of your blanket")
results in your becoming a very uninteresting to everyone. As, in the
present case, if Artsakh is Russia's problem, the Azeri and others
should have to deal not with us, but Russia. In other words, you are
voluntarily depriving yourself from being a factor. Fortunately, in
1988-1994, the "Karabakh" Committee was far from that delusion. It
seems that the Republican Party should be the most to rebel against
Zori Balayan's approaches. Ashot Navasardayn was even criticizing the
"Karabakh" Committee and the Armenian National Movement for not being
sufficiently independent. It is obvious, however, that the Republican
Party has nothing to do with Ashot Navasardyan, nor with Nzhdeh's
ideas, current Republicans mind their money, and business, and have
no viewpoint about any issue. But those who do not agree with Zori
Balayan's viewpoints, who are followers of a healthy, pragmatic and
state approaches should blame not so much on the writer-publicist
or the Republican Party, as much as on them. In other words, on all
of us. In 22 years, we could not inject state dignity, a sense of
responsibility for your own destiny in our people, the society. If
you could, no one would have paid attention to Zori Balayan's letter.
Aram Abrahamyan
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/10/16/162042/
October 16 2013
Zori Balayan is interesting not by himself, but by the fact that he
is the expression of our political thought in some direction. This
direction, in its turn, reflects some of the sentiments of our people.
More precisely, as follows: for decades, Russian and Soviet Empire
were conducting certain advocacy through such writer-publicists. This
advocacy was directed not only to Armenians but also all the peoples
of the empire, simply in our case, due to a variety of reasons, it
fell on a fertile ground and formed the mood of part of Armenians,
which, in turn, gives a certain social order to our figures. The
connection, as they say, is dialectical. This sense of this advocacy,
manner of thinking, and direction political mind is the following:
we need to explain to superstates (not necessarily to Russia) that
we are good and fair, that we have suffered in vain throughout the
history, that looking at us with "a good eye" generates from the
interests of superstates, and we, will, as a compensation to it, will
serve it to our best, and will be its outpost. Naturally, under this
logic, it is necessary to write open letters to all the mighty of
the world, first and foremost, of course, to the Russian tsars. The
history has repeatedly proved the bankruptcy of this approach, the
absence of having your independent game (of course, which takes into
account the realities, of course, "with the size of your blanket")
results in your becoming a very uninteresting to everyone. As, in the
present case, if Artsakh is Russia's problem, the Azeri and others
should have to deal not with us, but Russia. In other words, you are
voluntarily depriving yourself from being a factor. Fortunately, in
1988-1994, the "Karabakh" Committee was far from that delusion. It
seems that the Republican Party should be the most to rebel against
Zori Balayan's approaches. Ashot Navasardayn was even criticizing the
"Karabakh" Committee and the Armenian National Movement for not being
sufficiently independent. It is obvious, however, that the Republican
Party has nothing to do with Ashot Navasardyan, nor with Nzhdeh's
ideas, current Republicans mind their money, and business, and have
no viewpoint about any issue. But those who do not agree with Zori
Balayan's viewpoints, who are followers of a healthy, pragmatic and
state approaches should blame not so much on the writer-publicist
or the Republican Party, as much as on them. In other words, on all
of us. In 22 years, we could not inject state dignity, a sense of
responsibility for your own destiny in our people, the society. If
you could, no one would have paid attention to Zori Balayan's letter.
Aram Abrahamyan
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2013/10/16/162042/