Tweet
DISCUSSION OF ARMENIA'S GEOPOLITICAL STANDPOINTS IN DIASPORA
25.12.2014
Anna Zhamakochyan
Senior Expert at the Noravank Foundation's Center for Information Studies
In the recent years the Republic of Armenia (RoA) has been involved in
geopolitical integration processes. Since 2010 the RoA was involved
in the negotiation process for Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade
Agreement with the EU, while in 2013 the RoA president announced
about Armenia's readiness to join the Customs Union of Russia,
Kazakhstan and Belarus (and in future also the Eurasian Union). In
such situation the intra-public discussions are important in grasping
and defining our ideas about the vision for development of the country
and achieving a public partnership and agreement for at least the main
directions for the country's future and fundamental values. Given
the factor of Armenian Diaspora, apart from discussions occurring
inside Armenia, the opinions and standpoints of various segments of
Armeniancy regarding Armenia's future position and role are also
important. It is pertinent to study the Armenia-Diaspora dialogue
and Diaspora's involvement in discussions on the future of Armenia
and related political problems. This article presents a generalized
review of the data obtained by a study1 of 18 Diaspora media2.
In the discourse of Diaspora's media on Republic of Armenia's
geopolitical orientations, it is visible that the discussions on
integration processes of the Republic of Armenia are mostly based on
opinions and comments found in the media-space of Armenia.
The decision to join the Customs Union and later also the Eurasian
Economic Union has been discussed in Diaspora media both in positive
and negative lights, in terms of RoA national interests, impacts
on economy, energy and security issues. At the same time it has to
be noted that among the materials of Diaspora media dedicated to
political/economic developments in Armenia there are very few expert
analyses. The circulating materials are more descriptive in nature,
and sometimes are simply emotional.
It has to be noted that regardless of the pro or con stance on the
policy of integration adopted by the RoA, the Customs Union as an
ideologeme is usually perceived in the media-texts not as an idea of
a union between members or equal entities, but rather is directly
associated with Russia, sometimes even with the personality of the
Russian president. The discourse of groups expressing themselves
for and against RoA membership in Customs Union is most clearly
manifested in several key topics, such as security of the RoA and NKR,
socioeconomic situation and development (including energy problems)
in Armenia, and concerns over the RoA sovereignty loss.
By and large, the membership in the Customs Union is viewed not so
much in perspective of its positive effects, but in the context of
averting the negative ramifications in case of non-membership. This
is especially evident in the ideologized and value-ascribed notion of
"security" for the RoA and NKR. Generally, the process of Armenia's
integration in CU/EEU is expected to maintain the "status quo" both
in the areas of security and economy/energy. Consequently, adoption
of this geopolitical course by Armenia is often viewed as the "least
of all evils".
The media-image of Russia is mostly that of an "inevitable ally",
the relations with which are highly asymmetric and which may easily
wield leverages to achieve desirable effects. Interestingly, the
rules of the game and such relationships between the entities are
not seen as something that may change. Hence, the military, political
and economic future of Armenia is contemplated in the context of this
situation and is viewed in relation to Russia and its projects. The
membership in EU is looked upon as something unrealistic/illusional,
or is considered only in the domains of cultural, civilizational,
legal, social, and values developments, leaving out the military one.
If one reviews not only articles related to the researched topic,
but also the general media coverage, then it can be noted that the
traditional agenda of the Diaspora formed around the matter of the
Armenian Genocide continues to reflect this main issue and those
associated to it. It is mainly the relations with Turkey that get local
in the Armenia-Diaspora future prospects. Hence, the Armenian-Turkey
relations and their possible developments are a dominating topic in
analytical publications. As a result, as far as the internal political
problems and/or external challenges of Armenia are concerned, Diaspora
mostly assumes the role of a distant observer.
Thus, the Armenia-Diaspora relations appear to remain in
"stereotypical" frames of the Genocide, lost homeland, traditional
Armenian culture and genetic memory. Such models of viewing each other
in no way help modernizing the relations and noticing the changes
that occur in Armenia and various segments of Diaspora. Moreover,
they prevent timely assessment of pending urgent problems, and
building a common discourse arena. Perhaps, this is the reason
why during a research often a general feeling appears that one is
dealing with archives. For instance, the Moscow-based Â"Ð~]оев
Ð~ZовÑ~GегÂ", often uses media language that abounds with
unequivocal veneration of "force", mythologized glorifications,
and "must be done" formulations. The traditional Diaspora media,
especially the cultural and community oriented mass media, often leave
an impression of archived material, because there so are numerous
references to the past. The contexts of the past and present are often
hardly differentiated: the history is not presented with a due regard
to its place and time. Consequently, viewpoints of Diaspora on many
issues (including future prospects of Armenia) are substantiated
by mythologized perceptions and remain in the purely emotional
domain. Perhaps, this is a manifestation of a common "mythological"
thinking, which can be observed in Armenia, too.
In this respect, among the researched media Asbarez.com, Masis
Weekly and Â"Ô±Õ¬Õ"O~DÂ" differ significantly from others, where the
"rational" political language is a norm, especially with regards to
the issue of the RoA integration.
As for the survey we conducted with 20 Diaspora experts regarding
their opinions on the RoA integration policies, most of them found
it desirable to have "deep cooperation" with both CU/EEU and EU, but
"not full membership" in either.
Characteristically, in the expert opinions an evident relation can
also be traced between the expressed viewpoints and experts' country
of residence. In particular, the opinions of ethnic Armenian experts
that are Russian residents or nationals differ from others. Given
this circumstance, some questions were viewed from the perspective of
the experts' country of residence. CU/EEU membership prospects for
Armenia's future were one thing for which the experts' perceptions
were clearly different depending on the groups of their permanent
residence countries. For instance, the overwhelming general majority
considered that after joining the CU/EEU, the chances for sustainable
development of the country, its attractiveness for Diaspora as a place
to live and invest, and peaceful resolution of the Karabakh problem
would be less likely or unlikely. Similarly, Armenia's chances of
becoming an influential country in the region were seen as less
likely in such case, while the chances of the country to remain in
the same sociopolitical condition were assessed to be high. However,
very few of the experts living in Russia shared this opinion. They
have been mostly a lot more optimistic about the expectations from
Armenia's membership in CU/EEU. They anticipated that after joining
the CU/EEU the future Armenia will have high chances of becoming
a sustainably developing country, attractive for Diaspora to move
to and invest in, better chances to resolve the Karabakh problem
favorably for Armenians, as well as although somewhat smaller, but
still a likelihood for sociopolitical changes to come.
The balanced approaches of Armenian Diaspora's public figures and
experts in the West regarding RoA integration processes are evidenced
not only by our research, but also by their publications. For example,
after the agreement to join the Eurasian Economic Union was signed on
October 10, 2014, Harut Sassounian, Publisher, The California Courier
(www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com) published an article3, where he viewed
the RoA-RF relations in the context of "geostrategic and economic
interests" and "realities". He noted that there are some "compelling
reasons for Armenia's decision to join EEU", at the same time adding
that "no one should conclude that Yerevan has to remain exclusively
in the Russian economic zone." He also calls on the West to help
reduce Armenia's dependence on Russia by applying tax privileges
and other incentives: "Western countries would be better served to
use carrots rather than sticks to help steer Armenia toward a more
balanced relationship between East and West."
In summary, the results of the research of a segment in Diaspora
media and a survey of some experts/community leaders show that the
expectations of Diaspora for improvement of socioeconomic situation
in Armenia are not high with regards to Armenia's membership in CU/EEU.
On the other hand, generally it is considered that this membership will
help maintain the status quo in Armenia and the region, will increase
the security of the RoA, which however, does not imply any significant
positive effect in resolving the problem of Karabakh conflict.
1 The study includes a quantitative content analysis of thematic
articles published in September-December 2013 in 18 Diaspora
mass media a qualitative analysis of the articles published in
January-October, 2014 and a remotely conducted survey of 20 Armenian
Diaspora experts. The results will be published in December 2014 as
a book. The field investigations and primary analysis of the study
were conducted by by Arpi Manusyan, Diana Galstyan and Lilit Hakobyan,
experts of the Noravank Foundation's Center for Information Studies.
2 The fillowing mass media were studied: Â"Ô±Õ¬Õ"O~DÂ",
Â"Ô¼Õ¸O~BÕµÕ½Â", Â"Ô±O~@Õ¡O~DÕ½Â" weekly, Â"Ô±Õ¦Õ¤Õ¡Õ¯Â",
Â"Ô±O~@Õ±Õ¡Õ£Õ¡Õ¶Õ£Â", Gibrahayer (Armenian Cypriots)
weekly, Â"Ô±Õ¦Õ¡Õ¿ O...O~@Â", Â"Ô³Õ¡Õ¶Õ±Õ¡Õ½Õ¡O~@Â" weekly,
Â"ÔµÕ¾O~@Õ¸ÕºÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡Õ Õ¡Õ´Õ½Õ¡Õ£Õ"O~@ Â"Õ~UO~@Õ¥O~@Â",
Â"Ô±ÕÕ¡Õ¬O~AÕÕ¡ÕµÕ" Õ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Õ¯Õ¡Õ¿Õ¾Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¡ÕµO~DÂ",
Â"Õ~@Õ¸O~@Õ"Õ¦Õ¸Õ¶Â" weekly, Â"Ð~]оев Ð~ZовÑ~GегÂ",
Â"Ð~UÑ~@кÑ~@амаÑ~AÂ", Analitikaua.net, Nouvelles d'Arménie,
Â"Õ~@Õ¡ÕµO~@Õ¥Õ¶Õ"O~DÂ", Â"Õ~DÕ¡Õ½Õ"Õ½Â" weekly, Asbarez.
3 The article can be found at
http://www.azatutyun.am/content/blog/26636167.html
"Globus" analytical bulletin, No. 11-12, 2014
Return ________________________________ Another materials of author
ARMENIA'S VALUE ORIENTATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF INTER-CULTURAL
RESEARCHES[29.07.2013] CONTENT ANALYSIS AS A METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
OF MEDIA-TEXTS[23.05.2011] INFORMATION POLICY OF THE AZERBAIJANI
ARMENIAN-LANGUAGE TV CHANNELS[17.03.2011] ANTI-ARMENIAN INFORMATION
POLICY OF AZERBAIJAN[09.11.2009]
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=13091
25.12.2014
Anna Zhamakochyan
Senior Expert at the Noravank Foundation's Center for Information Studies
In the recent years the Republic of Armenia (RoA) has been involved in
geopolitical integration processes. Since 2010 the RoA was involved
in the negotiation process for Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade
Agreement with the EU, while in 2013 the RoA president announced
about Armenia's readiness to join the Customs Union of Russia,
Kazakhstan and Belarus (and in future also the Eurasian Union). In
such situation the intra-public discussions are important in grasping
and defining our ideas about the vision for development of the country
and achieving a public partnership and agreement for at least the main
directions for the country's future and fundamental values. Given
the factor of Armenian Diaspora, apart from discussions occurring
inside Armenia, the opinions and standpoints of various segments of
Armeniancy regarding Armenia's future position and role are also
important. It is pertinent to study the Armenia-Diaspora dialogue
and Diaspora's involvement in discussions on the future of Armenia
and related political problems. This article presents a generalized
review of the data obtained by a study1 of 18 Diaspora media2.
In the discourse of Diaspora's media on Republic of Armenia's
geopolitical orientations, it is visible that the discussions on
integration processes of the Republic of Armenia are mostly based on
opinions and comments found in the media-space of Armenia.
The decision to join the Customs Union and later also the Eurasian
Economic Union has been discussed in Diaspora media both in positive
and negative lights, in terms of RoA national interests, impacts
on economy, energy and security issues. At the same time it has to
be noted that among the materials of Diaspora media dedicated to
political/economic developments in Armenia there are very few expert
analyses. The circulating materials are more descriptive in nature,
and sometimes are simply emotional.
It has to be noted that regardless of the pro or con stance on the
policy of integration adopted by the RoA, the Customs Union as an
ideologeme is usually perceived in the media-texts not as an idea of
a union between members or equal entities, but rather is directly
associated with Russia, sometimes even with the personality of the
Russian president. The discourse of groups expressing themselves
for and against RoA membership in Customs Union is most clearly
manifested in several key topics, such as security of the RoA and NKR,
socioeconomic situation and development (including energy problems)
in Armenia, and concerns over the RoA sovereignty loss.
By and large, the membership in the Customs Union is viewed not so
much in perspective of its positive effects, but in the context of
averting the negative ramifications in case of non-membership. This
is especially evident in the ideologized and value-ascribed notion of
"security" for the RoA and NKR. Generally, the process of Armenia's
integration in CU/EEU is expected to maintain the "status quo" both
in the areas of security and economy/energy. Consequently, adoption
of this geopolitical course by Armenia is often viewed as the "least
of all evils".
The media-image of Russia is mostly that of an "inevitable ally",
the relations with which are highly asymmetric and which may easily
wield leverages to achieve desirable effects. Interestingly, the
rules of the game and such relationships between the entities are
not seen as something that may change. Hence, the military, political
and economic future of Armenia is contemplated in the context of this
situation and is viewed in relation to Russia and its projects. The
membership in EU is looked upon as something unrealistic/illusional,
or is considered only in the domains of cultural, civilizational,
legal, social, and values developments, leaving out the military one.
If one reviews not only articles related to the researched topic,
but also the general media coverage, then it can be noted that the
traditional agenda of the Diaspora formed around the matter of the
Armenian Genocide continues to reflect this main issue and those
associated to it. It is mainly the relations with Turkey that get local
in the Armenia-Diaspora future prospects. Hence, the Armenian-Turkey
relations and their possible developments are a dominating topic in
analytical publications. As a result, as far as the internal political
problems and/or external challenges of Armenia are concerned, Diaspora
mostly assumes the role of a distant observer.
Thus, the Armenia-Diaspora relations appear to remain in
"stereotypical" frames of the Genocide, lost homeland, traditional
Armenian culture and genetic memory. Such models of viewing each other
in no way help modernizing the relations and noticing the changes
that occur in Armenia and various segments of Diaspora. Moreover,
they prevent timely assessment of pending urgent problems, and
building a common discourse arena. Perhaps, this is the reason
why during a research often a general feeling appears that one is
dealing with archives. For instance, the Moscow-based Â"Ð~]оев
Ð~ZовÑ~GегÂ", often uses media language that abounds with
unequivocal veneration of "force", mythologized glorifications,
and "must be done" formulations. The traditional Diaspora media,
especially the cultural and community oriented mass media, often leave
an impression of archived material, because there so are numerous
references to the past. The contexts of the past and present are often
hardly differentiated: the history is not presented with a due regard
to its place and time. Consequently, viewpoints of Diaspora on many
issues (including future prospects of Armenia) are substantiated
by mythologized perceptions and remain in the purely emotional
domain. Perhaps, this is a manifestation of a common "mythological"
thinking, which can be observed in Armenia, too.
In this respect, among the researched media Asbarez.com, Masis
Weekly and Â"Ô±Õ¬Õ"O~DÂ" differ significantly from others, where the
"rational" political language is a norm, especially with regards to
the issue of the RoA integration.
As for the survey we conducted with 20 Diaspora experts regarding
their opinions on the RoA integration policies, most of them found
it desirable to have "deep cooperation" with both CU/EEU and EU, but
"not full membership" in either.
Characteristically, in the expert opinions an evident relation can
also be traced between the expressed viewpoints and experts' country
of residence. In particular, the opinions of ethnic Armenian experts
that are Russian residents or nationals differ from others. Given
this circumstance, some questions were viewed from the perspective of
the experts' country of residence. CU/EEU membership prospects for
Armenia's future were one thing for which the experts' perceptions
were clearly different depending on the groups of their permanent
residence countries. For instance, the overwhelming general majority
considered that after joining the CU/EEU, the chances for sustainable
development of the country, its attractiveness for Diaspora as a place
to live and invest, and peaceful resolution of the Karabakh problem
would be less likely or unlikely. Similarly, Armenia's chances of
becoming an influential country in the region were seen as less
likely in such case, while the chances of the country to remain in
the same sociopolitical condition were assessed to be high. However,
very few of the experts living in Russia shared this opinion. They
have been mostly a lot more optimistic about the expectations from
Armenia's membership in CU/EEU. They anticipated that after joining
the CU/EEU the future Armenia will have high chances of becoming
a sustainably developing country, attractive for Diaspora to move
to and invest in, better chances to resolve the Karabakh problem
favorably for Armenians, as well as although somewhat smaller, but
still a likelihood for sociopolitical changes to come.
The balanced approaches of Armenian Diaspora's public figures and
experts in the West regarding RoA integration processes are evidenced
not only by our research, but also by their publications. For example,
after the agreement to join the Eurasian Economic Union was signed on
October 10, 2014, Harut Sassounian, Publisher, The California Courier
(www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com) published an article3, where he viewed
the RoA-RF relations in the context of "geostrategic and economic
interests" and "realities". He noted that there are some "compelling
reasons for Armenia's decision to join EEU", at the same time adding
that "no one should conclude that Yerevan has to remain exclusively
in the Russian economic zone." He also calls on the West to help
reduce Armenia's dependence on Russia by applying tax privileges
and other incentives: "Western countries would be better served to
use carrots rather than sticks to help steer Armenia toward a more
balanced relationship between East and West."
In summary, the results of the research of a segment in Diaspora
media and a survey of some experts/community leaders show that the
expectations of Diaspora for improvement of socioeconomic situation
in Armenia are not high with regards to Armenia's membership in CU/EEU.
On the other hand, generally it is considered that this membership will
help maintain the status quo in Armenia and the region, will increase
the security of the RoA, which however, does not imply any significant
positive effect in resolving the problem of Karabakh conflict.
1 The study includes a quantitative content analysis of thematic
articles published in September-December 2013 in 18 Diaspora
mass media a qualitative analysis of the articles published in
January-October, 2014 and a remotely conducted survey of 20 Armenian
Diaspora experts. The results will be published in December 2014 as
a book. The field investigations and primary analysis of the study
were conducted by by Arpi Manusyan, Diana Galstyan and Lilit Hakobyan,
experts of the Noravank Foundation's Center for Information Studies.
2 The fillowing mass media were studied: Â"Ô±Õ¬Õ"O~DÂ",
Â"Ô¼Õ¸O~BÕµÕ½Â", Â"Ô±O~@Õ¡O~DÕ½Â" weekly, Â"Ô±Õ¦Õ¤Õ¡Õ¯Â",
Â"Ô±O~@Õ±Õ¡Õ£Õ¡Õ¶Õ£Â", Gibrahayer (Armenian Cypriots)
weekly, Â"Ô±Õ¦Õ¡Õ¿ O...O~@Â", Â"Ô³Õ¡Õ¶Õ±Õ¡Õ½Õ¡O~@Â" weekly,
Â"ÔµÕ¾O~@Õ¸ÕºÕ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¶Õ¯Õ¡Õ Õ¡Õ´Õ½Õ¡Õ£Õ"O~@ Â"Õ~UO~@Õ¥O~@Â",
Â"Ô±ÕÕ¡Õ¬O~AÕÕ¡ÕµÕ" Õ¿Õ¥Õ²Õ¥Õ¯Õ¡Õ¿Õ¾Õ¡Õ¯Õ¡Õ¶ Õ¯Õ¡ÕµO~DÂ",
Â"Õ~@Õ¸O~@Õ"Õ¦Õ¸Õ¶Â" weekly, Â"Ð~]оев Ð~ZовÑ~GегÂ",
Â"Ð~UÑ~@кÑ~@амаÑ~AÂ", Analitikaua.net, Nouvelles d'Arménie,
Â"Õ~@Õ¡ÕµO~@Õ¥Õ¶Õ"O~DÂ", Â"Õ~DÕ¡Õ½Õ"Õ½Â" weekly, Asbarez.
3 The article can be found at
http://www.azatutyun.am/content/blog/26636167.html
"Globus" analytical bulletin, No. 11-12, 2014
Return ________________________________ Another materials of author
ARMENIA'S VALUE ORIENTATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF INTER-CULTURAL
RESEARCHES[29.07.2013] CONTENT ANALYSIS AS A METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
OF MEDIA-TEXTS[23.05.2011] INFORMATION POLICY OF THE AZERBAIJANI
ARMENIAN-LANGUAGE TV CHANNELS[17.03.2011] ANTI-ARMENIAN INFORMATION
POLICY OF AZERBAIJAN[09.11.2009]
http://www.noravank.am/eng/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=13091