Tweet
Immature romanticism is the source of "orientation"
September 6 2014
Lessons of history according to Leo In our journalistic texts, the
phrase about British armor-clads and the Armenian mountains has become
an oft-repeated saying. Sometimes it is forgotten who and why this
idea was made. According to historian Leo, it was said by the British
Prime Minister, Robert Salisbury, after the massacre of the Armenians
in 1895 by the hand of Abdul Hamid. "He (Salisbury - A. A.) suggested
exerting a collective pressure on the Sultan, but Russia, following
him, as well as France, opposed this suggestion. At that time,
Salisbury announced that England alone can do nothing, that the
British armor-clads cannot climb the mountains of Armenia," writes
Leo. Britain, France and Russia were, the so -called "co-chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group" (the United States was less influential at the time)
that were "sponsoring" the "reforms" in Armenian-populated Turkish
vilyets, a program giving some autonomy to Armenians and facilitating
their situation. Naturally, the aforementioned countries were pursuing
exclusively their own interests. We, Armenians, were fool were
thinking that Abdul Hamid would ever implement such programs under the
pressure of any country, Fedayeen combat or even under the influence
of terrorism. We were double fool thinking that Russia, France or
Britain were interested in such reforms. I would not recall this
famous history, if our political thought had not appeared in the same
trap 120 years later, and the politicians and publicists had not
argued with each other about which of the superstates runs an
"Armenophile" policy, and with whose intervention we are more
successful in resolving our national problems. The answer is evident:
neither one. "Giving an advantage of one imperialist predatory state
over another one, this was a miserable infantile," says Leo, talking
about Henchaks in this specific case, but it certainly applies to all
of us. The formulas of "Cheer up! The West will help us," and "We are
lost without Russians" are equal for me. Considering one predator
"better" as compared to the other and arguing about it with a foam in
the mouth is truly infantile. Now more than 120 years ago, because at
that time there was no independent Armenian state with its established
army, and today, fortunately, we have all of it. Indeed, it is clear
that such a small state like ours should have powerful allies. But we
always have to consider that at the moment of danger, any ally can
leave us alone and will not even blink the eye at seeing us destroyed.
And in this sense, our destiny is not absolutely "unique". The
powerful ones have "betrayed" and keep "betraying" many other nations,
at this moment, for instances, the Yezidis. Simply, the word
"betrayal" is not inappropriate here. Nations and states do not
married to each other to betray later, and breaking the written or
oral promises is an overall, I would say, a "world-spread" phenomenon.
Understanding it, hoping for some brotherly feelings, is an immature
romanticism. In the end, another quote from Leo: "Khrimian
Catholicos(in the summer of 1895, after the massacres in Sasun - A.A.)
returned empty-handed from St. Petersburg, whereas Lobanov-Rostowsky
(Russia's foreign minister -A.A.), who had donated several fake smiles
of a diplomat, made his political motto of "Armenia without
Armenians". The Armenian land was necessary for the cannibal tsarism
but not the Armenian people."
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2014/09/06/166796/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
September 6 2014
Lessons of history according to Leo In our journalistic texts, the
phrase about British armor-clads and the Armenian mountains has become
an oft-repeated saying. Sometimes it is forgotten who and why this
idea was made. According to historian Leo, it was said by the British
Prime Minister, Robert Salisbury, after the massacre of the Armenians
in 1895 by the hand of Abdul Hamid. "He (Salisbury - A. A.) suggested
exerting a collective pressure on the Sultan, but Russia, following
him, as well as France, opposed this suggestion. At that time,
Salisbury announced that England alone can do nothing, that the
British armor-clads cannot climb the mountains of Armenia," writes
Leo. Britain, France and Russia were, the so -called "co-chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group" (the United States was less influential at the time)
that were "sponsoring" the "reforms" in Armenian-populated Turkish
vilyets, a program giving some autonomy to Armenians and facilitating
their situation. Naturally, the aforementioned countries were pursuing
exclusively their own interests. We, Armenians, were fool were
thinking that Abdul Hamid would ever implement such programs under the
pressure of any country, Fedayeen combat or even under the influence
of terrorism. We were double fool thinking that Russia, France or
Britain were interested in such reforms. I would not recall this
famous history, if our political thought had not appeared in the same
trap 120 years later, and the politicians and publicists had not
argued with each other about which of the superstates runs an
"Armenophile" policy, and with whose intervention we are more
successful in resolving our national problems. The answer is evident:
neither one. "Giving an advantage of one imperialist predatory state
over another one, this was a miserable infantile," says Leo, talking
about Henchaks in this specific case, but it certainly applies to all
of us. The formulas of "Cheer up! The West will help us," and "We are
lost without Russians" are equal for me. Considering one predator
"better" as compared to the other and arguing about it with a foam in
the mouth is truly infantile. Now more than 120 years ago, because at
that time there was no independent Armenian state with its established
army, and today, fortunately, we have all of it. Indeed, it is clear
that such a small state like ours should have powerful allies. But we
always have to consider that at the moment of danger, any ally can
leave us alone and will not even blink the eye at seeing us destroyed.
And in this sense, our destiny is not absolutely "unique". The
powerful ones have "betrayed" and keep "betraying" many other nations,
at this moment, for instances, the Yezidis. Simply, the word
"betrayal" is not inappropriate here. Nations and states do not
married to each other to betray later, and breaking the written or
oral promises is an overall, I would say, a "world-spread" phenomenon.
Understanding it, hoping for some brotherly feelings, is an immature
romanticism. In the end, another quote from Leo: "Khrimian
Catholicos(in the summer of 1895, after the massacres in Sasun - A.A.)
returned empty-handed from St. Petersburg, whereas Lobanov-Rostowsky
(Russia's foreign minister -A.A.), who had donated several fake smiles
of a diplomat, made his political motto of "Armenia without
Armenians". The Armenian land was necessary for the cannibal tsarism
but not the Armenian people."
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
Read more at: http://en.aravot.am/2014/09/06/166796/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress