THE YEAR 2014: HOPE FOR CHANGE OR SAME OLD, SAME OLD?
By Michael Mensoian // December 18, 2013 in Featured, Headline, Opinion
Welcoming a new year is a joyous occasion. It offers the opportunity
for a fresh start. Unfortunately, there are times when the “baggage”
of the old year has to be dragged along, condemning us to the same old,
same old for another year.
Christmas tree on Renaissance Square in Stepanakert (Photo by Arevik
Danielian, The Armenian Weekly)
The unilateral decision by President Sarkisian to have Armenia forsake
the West and align its- self with Russia is unwanted baggage to carry
into the new year. No doubt intense pressure was put on Yerevan to
weigh the consequences if it spurned this Russian overture. Although
Armenia is not as favorably situated geographically as Ukraine,
dependence on Moscow should not encourage subservience by our leaders.
It was important that our people demonstrated against this abdication
to Russian interests when President Vladimir Putin visited Armenia
recently. However, it paled in comparison to the anti-government
demonstrations in Ukraine concerning a similar shift away from the
European Union toward Russia by President Viktor Yanukovych, and in
Turkey in the June Gezi Park confrontation over Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan’s grandiose redevelopment plans to sacrifice a small
remaining bit of nature to more concrete, brick, and steel.
What effect the ongoing demonstrations in Ukraine will have is
too early to say. When opposition views are stifled or ignored,
it is important for citizens to express their dissatisfaction. In
Turkey, Gezi Park served as a catalyst for a more general concern
with the administration’s policies. President Sarkisian’s decision
to tie Armenia’s future to Russian interests lessens the influence,
opportunities, and investments from the European Union that would
have been important to Armenia’s development. Now we are aligned with
a government in Moscow that is the antithesis of a democracy.
There are some benefits. As one would expect, Russia is the single
largest source of investment funds for Armenia and the destination
of most Armenians in search of work. It is estimated that some 2.5
million Armenians live in Russia and some $1.5 billion is remitted
annually. However, it is the long-term effect of being dominated by
Russia that will limit Armenia’s ability to chart its own course into
the future. Some may view this as an acceptable trade-off considering
we are located in a region with some difficult neighbors. Having
spurned a national dialogue, Sarkisian decided that a reduction in
the price of imported gas and the ability to buy armaments on the
cheap was worth the cost of embracing Russia.
No one can question our need for Russian military support. However,
Putin knows that Russia needs Armenia as well. It is a symbiotic
relationship. Armenia is the only dependable anchor that Russia
has in the south Caucasus. The Bolsheviks made the mistake nearly
a century earlier when they believed they could buy Ataturk with
territorial concessions to sign on to their new order. Even Ataturk
at that early stage preferred looking toward the West. Today Moscow
faces a stronger competitor in Ankara with its little cousin from
Baku in tow. Turkey has no intention of allowing Russian hegemony
in the south Caucasus or Central Asia. Without Armenia and Artsakh,
how does Russia plan to project its presence in the south Caucasus?
Putin has adopted the same divide and rule strategy of the old
Bolsheviks by maintaining a military base in Armenia to protect the
country while it keeps the “conflict” alive by sweet-talking Aliyev
and supplying military equipment to both sides. Russia profits from
its sales to Baku, and Armenia becomes further beholden to Russia as
it seeks to maintain parity with Azerbaijan.
The new year does not lessen concerns about Artsakh’s future. Shudders
abound whenever news of a Sarkisian-Aliyev meeting will take place.
The principles proposed by the Minsk Group that sets the agenda for
negotiations continually stress territorial integrity and the right of
self-determination. The only way these two opposing principles can be
accommodated at the same time is by granting local autonomy to Artsakh,
not independence, and placing the region under the jurisdiction of
Azerbaijan. Isn’t this why it all began?
The principles suggested by the Minsk Group are so biased against
the Artsakh Armenians that a favorable resolution is impossible. It
is time for Moscow to provide meaningful support for Artsakh’s
independence. That may be expecting too much considering that the
Olympics scheduled for Sochi in February 2014 are close to Chechnya
and Dagestan, where secessionist sentiment runs high with Doku Umarov
lurking in the shadows threatening to disrupt the games.
Although Washington continually expresses friendship with the
Armenian people, its pro-Turkish/anti-Russian agenda is to have
Artsakh returned to Azerbaijan and see the signing of the protocols
without preconditions. Should this happen, it would mean goodbye to
our Artsakh, where 7,000 azatamartiks sacrificed their lives. Goodbye
to any meaningful recognition of the genocide by Turkey. And goodbye
to Hai Tahd. In return for Yerevan’s total capitulation, Washington
will gladly offer a few hundred million dollars in aid, maybe a
billion dollars, but much of which will line the pockets of those
who continue to bleed our country dry. This is a small price to pay
considering the untold billions of dollars that have been lavished
on Ankara by Washington for its “cooperation.”
Will 2014 see the beginnings of a well thought-out plan not only to
challenge the administration’s policy, but to prepare for the important
parliamentary and presidential elections? The change required is not
structural, but in the mind-set, the philosophy if you will, of those
who hold the reins of power. Those who govern have the responsibility
to provide an environment in which order, equality, opportunity, and
justice prevail for all citizens, not a favored or well-connected few.
For a time, it seemed that change might be had when Raffi Hovannisian,
leader of the Heritage Party, appeared on the scene. Unfortunately,
it was short lived. Raffi reappeared a few months later in August
2013, but disappeared again. It raises a serious question: Has the
primary burden been left to Raffi Hovannisian and his Heritage Party,
by gun-shy opposition leaders, to challenge the policies and confront
the corruption and favoritism that have permeated the economic,
political, and judicial systems of our country?
After welcoming in the new year, voters and opposition political
leaders should take time to consider where Armenia may be at the
end of Sarkisian’s term in 2018 if his present course is maintained
(and there is no reason to believe that it will change). Given that
certainty, does anyone really believe that the 2017 parliamentary
elections will reduce the Republican Party’s majority? And does anyone
really believe that the handpicked successor to President Sarkisian
in the 2018 presidential election will lose? Given the likelihood of
this scenario, can Armenia afford to continue on the same path for
another five years?
Opposition leaders cannot allow voter fraud and voter intimidation or
the existence of system-wide corruption and favoritism to circumscribe
their efforts to vigorously challenge the existing power structure.
Their unforgivable failure to act is a disservice to those who are
unemployed; to the elderly pensioners or those living in poverty;
to the young, energetic men and women who lack opportunity; to the
would-be entrepreneurs who are prevented from entering the marketplace;
and to those who are forced to leave the homeland to earn a living.
If there is cause for change (how could that be denied?), those
affected must be galvanized into action by believing that change
is possible. If they believe that change cannot be had, mobilizing
support will be impossible and mediocrity will become the acceptable
standard. It is sad to say, but people can become accustomed to
hardship. This cannot be where our people are at. For any movement to
succeed, a genuine effort must be made by the leadership to interface
with representative sectors of the electorate, however they may be
defined strategically. Any serious movement for change is a full-time
day-in, day-out effort. Relying primarily on an election platform
containing a laundry list of objectives to garner voter support
completely misses the mark. Most voters will view this effort with
skepticism, if not cynicism. The voter must accept the party (or a
coalition) and its candidate as committed to their concerns by what
has been and is being done to support their concerns. The electorate
must have faith in their candidate and his ability to bring about
change that will improve their quality of life.
Armenia cannot afford to continue along its present path. The
achievements that may be attributed to the administration cannot
compensate for the debilitating conditions that the present unholy
alliance of politicians and oligarchs has created. The existence of
high rates of unemployment and poverty; of young people frustrated
by a lack of opportunity; individuals and families leaving either
permanently or temporarily to achieve a better life; and the inability
of an energetic and creative entrepreneurial class to develop are
sufficient to indict those holding the reins of power.
Change in Armenia will not come overnight. Neither will it come by way
of any “Armenian Spring.” Violent upheavals are counterproductive and
invariably result in system-wide instability and a fractured society
that is neither easily nor quickly, if ever, healed. The euphemistic
term “Arab Spring” is anything but that. It is a textbook example
of how change should not be pursued. It is time for the opposition
parties to put aside their philosophical differences, petty interests,
and concerns as to who gets the glory and come to the aid of Armenia
and its citizens. Ignoring the hardships faced by our people can
never be an acceptable response. Let’s not abandon the majority of
our people by accepting the same old, same old for 2014.