Tweet
EPISTOLARY STYLE AS A TRIAL BALLOON
by Ashot Safaryan
Friday, October 18, 02:06
With the passions over Armenia's decision to join the Customs Union
still being high, a new thing has happened in the country to cause a
new wave of anti-Russian hysteria (sometime quote reckless): publicist
and one of the ideologists of the Karabakh Movement Zoriy Balayan
wrote a 17-page letter to Russia's President Vladimir Putin, where
he told the history of Nagorno-Karabakh starting from the Treaty of
Gulistan of 1813 and gave facts disproving Azerbaijan's claims to that
region. In the end, Balayan invited Putin to visit Nagorno-Karabakh
so as to see that what he said was true and that the decisions passed
by the Soviet authorities in 1921 were illegal.
The letter was followed by flood of charges in the press and the
Internet. People were accusing Balayan of treason, Russophilia,
intention to cede Nagorno-Karabakh to Russia. Deputy Chairman
of Heritage Party Armen Martirosyan believes that the letter was
the order of the ruling regime, otherwise, the RPA would have also
condemned Balayan for his collaborationism.
Balayan parried by asking the accusers to show any line in his letter
saying that he wants to cede Nagorno-Karabakh.
The logical question here is - Who was this whole fuss for?
Political scientist Sergey Shakaryants sees no sense in accusing
Balayan. "He just wanted to draw the attention of his Russian
colleagues, who are planning to mark the 200thanniversary of the Treaty
of Gulistan without him. Besides, epistolary style is not by far the
best way to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem," Shakaryants said.
Some people from the ruling Republican Party also tried to defend
Balayan. The party's Spokesman Eduard Sharmazanov said that Balayan's
letter presented the firm historical foundations of the struggle
for Nagorno-Karabakh's independence. "In his letter he proved that
historical Artsakh is much bigger than the territory of the former
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous District," Sharmazanov said.
All this has shown that there are lots of political forces, mass
media and public figures in Armenia who defy the regime's curtseys
to Russia. And the decision to join the Customs Union was a kind of
last drop for them.
Paradoxical as this may sound, the growing negation of Russia in
Armenia comes mostly from the situational, mostly senseless and not
always politically pragmatic behavior of the Armenian authorities,
who are ready to do anything just to show their love and loyalty to
the Kremlin and to thereby earn own welfare and reproduction.
Just remember the words of Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan, who said
some two years ago that unless allowed to emigrate (mostly to Russia),
protesters might cause a revolution in Armenia. He later said it was
some kind of English humor.
Whatever the case, if we also take into account the multimillion
transfers sent by Armenians from Russia, as well as the exchange
fluctuations that line the pockets of oligarch-monopolists and their
patrons (government officials), we will see that Russia is really
a strategic partner, but it is a partner of the incumbent power and
maintains the latter's strength. As a result, all the arrows of the
angry "patriots" are directed against Moscow and their rageful articles
and publications disclose the "imperial moves" of the Russian bear.
Such a situation plays into the hands of the authorities. If there
is a vengeful crowd of "patriots" with anti-Russian sentiments, it is
somewhat easier for the power to negotiate with Moscow and strengthen
its own positions. The logic of the authorities is " we want to be
friends with Russia, but our society objects to our friendship, and it
is only our devotion that helps maintain these relations". It should
be noted that once David Hakobyan, the chief Marxist of Armenia,
said that President Serzh Sargsyan complained how hard it was to
hold a dialogue with Vladimir Putin himself. Apparently, to make
the dialogue easier, a "projectile is lobbed" into the society: the
Armenian President congratulates the re-elected mayor of Moscow and
the well-known publicist writes "letters to the Russian czar". Both
go beyond the international protocol.
Some experts think that the authorities have given Balayan a carte
blanche to launch "separate talks" with Moscow in the epistolary
style. Nevertheless, Balayan has said nothing new. The Armenian
newspapers of the early 1990s contain an immense number of serious,
scientifically grounded publications about the origins of the Artsakh
problem and the danger of dissemination of pan-Turkism ideas, first
of all, for Russia itself.
Balayan's letter to Putin might be aimed at solving two problems. On
the one hand, it demonstrates Armenia's loyalty and devotion
to Russia; on the other hand, it introduces some tension in the
Armenian-Russian relations as a trial balloon, which has turned out
to be very successful, since only the laziest political force in
Armenia would fail to play the ball into the political rivals' pocket.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=5D3D2BA0-3778-11E3-AF7A0EB7C0D21663&view=displaypageArticleWithCommen t
by Ashot Safaryan
Friday, October 18, 02:06
With the passions over Armenia's decision to join the Customs Union
still being high, a new thing has happened in the country to cause a
new wave of anti-Russian hysteria (sometime quote reckless): publicist
and one of the ideologists of the Karabakh Movement Zoriy Balayan
wrote a 17-page letter to Russia's President Vladimir Putin, where
he told the history of Nagorno-Karabakh starting from the Treaty of
Gulistan of 1813 and gave facts disproving Azerbaijan's claims to that
region. In the end, Balayan invited Putin to visit Nagorno-Karabakh
so as to see that what he said was true and that the decisions passed
by the Soviet authorities in 1921 were illegal.
The letter was followed by flood of charges in the press and the
Internet. People were accusing Balayan of treason, Russophilia,
intention to cede Nagorno-Karabakh to Russia. Deputy Chairman
of Heritage Party Armen Martirosyan believes that the letter was
the order of the ruling regime, otherwise, the RPA would have also
condemned Balayan for his collaborationism.
Balayan parried by asking the accusers to show any line in his letter
saying that he wants to cede Nagorno-Karabakh.
The logical question here is - Who was this whole fuss for?
Political scientist Sergey Shakaryants sees no sense in accusing
Balayan. "He just wanted to draw the attention of his Russian
colleagues, who are planning to mark the 200thanniversary of the Treaty
of Gulistan without him. Besides, epistolary style is not by far the
best way to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem," Shakaryants said.
Some people from the ruling Republican Party also tried to defend
Balayan. The party's Spokesman Eduard Sharmazanov said that Balayan's
letter presented the firm historical foundations of the struggle
for Nagorno-Karabakh's independence. "In his letter he proved that
historical Artsakh is much bigger than the territory of the former
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous District," Sharmazanov said.
All this has shown that there are lots of political forces, mass
media and public figures in Armenia who defy the regime's curtseys
to Russia. And the decision to join the Customs Union was a kind of
last drop for them.
Paradoxical as this may sound, the growing negation of Russia in
Armenia comes mostly from the situational, mostly senseless and not
always politically pragmatic behavior of the Armenian authorities,
who are ready to do anything just to show their love and loyalty to
the Kremlin and to thereby earn own welfare and reproduction.
Just remember the words of Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan, who said
some two years ago that unless allowed to emigrate (mostly to Russia),
protesters might cause a revolution in Armenia. He later said it was
some kind of English humor.
Whatever the case, if we also take into account the multimillion
transfers sent by Armenians from Russia, as well as the exchange
fluctuations that line the pockets of oligarch-monopolists and their
patrons (government officials), we will see that Russia is really
a strategic partner, but it is a partner of the incumbent power and
maintains the latter's strength. As a result, all the arrows of the
angry "patriots" are directed against Moscow and their rageful articles
and publications disclose the "imperial moves" of the Russian bear.
Such a situation plays into the hands of the authorities. If there
is a vengeful crowd of "patriots" with anti-Russian sentiments, it is
somewhat easier for the power to negotiate with Moscow and strengthen
its own positions. The logic of the authorities is " we want to be
friends with Russia, but our society objects to our friendship, and it
is only our devotion that helps maintain these relations". It should
be noted that once David Hakobyan, the chief Marxist of Armenia,
said that President Serzh Sargsyan complained how hard it was to
hold a dialogue with Vladimir Putin himself. Apparently, to make
the dialogue easier, a "projectile is lobbed" into the society: the
Armenian President congratulates the re-elected mayor of Moscow and
the well-known publicist writes "letters to the Russian czar". Both
go beyond the international protocol.
Some experts think that the authorities have given Balayan a carte
blanche to launch "separate talks" with Moscow in the epistolary
style. Nevertheless, Balayan has said nothing new. The Armenian
newspapers of the early 1990s contain an immense number of serious,
scientifically grounded publications about the origins of the Artsakh
problem and the danger of dissemination of pan-Turkism ideas, first
of all, for Russia itself.
Balayan's letter to Putin might be aimed at solving two problems. On
the one hand, it demonstrates Armenia's loyalty and devotion
to Russia; on the other hand, it introduces some tension in the
Armenian-Russian relations as a trial balloon, which has turned out
to be very successful, since only the laziest political force in
Armenia would fail to play the ball into the political rivals' pocket.
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=5D3D2BA0-3778-11E3-AF7A0EB7C0D21663&view=displaypageArticleWithCommen t