HEATED PAN-ARMENIAN PASSIONS

Lragir.am
17 June 06

Armenians would no way succeed in implementing minor or major
pan-Armenian projects. Quality is meant because formally there are
innumerable pan-Armenian programs. In particular, a strange process
began after the telethon of Armenia Fund in the fall of 2005, namely
a series of mutual accusations between the leadership of Karabakh
and the fund.

Quite recently the prime minister of Karabakh was asked why the
reconstruction of infrastructures in the region of Martakert has not
started in 8 months after the telethon on November 25, raising about
7.5 million dollars. Anushavan Danielyan gave a marvelously simple
answer, something like "ask Armenia Fund," and added that as far
as he knew 5 million dollars had been raised. The fund will surely
explain why Martakert has not received the first "consignment" of
millions. There is not much to explain. Either the millions were not
raised in reality, or were raised but the problem of their management
has not been solved yet, so nobody wants to start without being sure
that they will be the director of work. It should not be forgotten
that over 7 million dollars are concerned. This number will be growing
because donations for the reconstruction of Martakert will go on.

Perhaps the battle for leadership is the reason why the prime minister
of Karabakh places the responsibility on Armenia Pan-Armenian Fund,
for the NKR prime minister could have explained why the work has
not started yet. Throughout his career Anushavan Danielyan has had
to explain a lot of things, and an explanation would hardly take
him much effort. But if he had told that the money was not raised,
his words would have lost their meaning. Whereas when it is said "ask
Armenia Fund," the question of responsibility for donations is raised.

The leadership in Karabakh is said to be interested in replacing the
executive director of Armenia Fund. It may be a little surprising,
because the executive director used to be member of the same NKR
leadership, namely minister of foreign affairs. Hence, it seems
that the executive director could not have been more "their man."
Though, on the other hand, proxies appeared to be defiant in most
cases in history.

What could have happened? The executive director of Armenia Fund Naira
Melkumyan bought an apartment in Yerevan thanks to the government of
Karabakh, on the NKR state budget. Soon after having a budget under her
disposition Naira Melkumyan probably forgot about her former bosses.

Formally the Fund has an executive director, who is accountable to the
Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is headed by the president
of Armenia. The NKR president is a member of the Board, so are the
second and third persons of Armenia and NKR. The Board of Trustees of
Armenia Fund is perhaps the only organization where the leadership of
Armenia and NKR do not have a deciding role. The majority of members
of the board are those rich people, who guarantee fund-raising. And
if their vote were ignored, the funds would decline. Consequently,
the board is the only organization where the leaders of Armenia
cannot impose their will, or they persuade rather than impose. But if
persuading is concerned, a government post will stop being important,
because the ability to persuade is like a gift. And unlike a post,
a gift is innate.

An effort to highlight someone else’s power at the expense of one’s
own power can be considered highly gifted, considering the reality
when everyone wants to highlight their own power. And maybe this is
the reason why NKR President Arkady Ghukasyan persuaded rich people in
the United States to donate money to the Fund for the reconstruction
of Martakert. Why was he persuading if afterwards the prime minister
of Karabakh would be placing the responsibility on the fund? Why did
Ghukasyan assume the responsibility of persuading rich people them? By
the way, after the telethon Naira Melkumyan announced that unlike
the previous years less money was raised because the millionaires
had donated little. It appears that Naira Melkumyan stated indirectly
that Arkady Ghukasyan had not worked well, that is he had failed to
persuade the rich people. But who knows, maybe he had persuaded?

HAKOB BADALYAN