THE CRITIC IS NOT THE ENEMY
By Avedis Kevorkian

6 December 2008

There are very few people I have ever met who can match the passion
and zeal, and the boundless energy, of Bagrad Nazarian when it comes to
matters-Armenian. To add to these, he has put his money where his mouth
is (to use an apt, but clumsy, cliché) and has invested in Artsakh.

Having worked with him for many years, during my time in London, I can
attest that keeping up with him was a challenge–but one undertaken
with joy.

Thus it is with heavy heart, and no joy, that I respond to his
comments about my recent essay and also, it would appear this
web-site’s policies.

My essay was about corruption in Armenia and I used as the peg on
which to hang the essay the petition on this web-site protesting the
threat to freedom of the press in Armenia and I expressed my view
that it will have no affect on the crooks and thieves and thugs who
are ruining Armenia. (I say, again, however, if there are among you
those who think such petitions will do any good in Yerevan, please
sign and send the petition.)

To those of you who have just joined us, permit me to suggest that
you read both the petition’s text and my comments.

As a journalist, I am aware more than most about the threats to
journalists aro und the world–and, especially, in Turkey. But I
wasn’t commenting about the threats around the world. I am aware,
also, that corruption exists elsewhere, but I wasn’t writing about the
universal corruption (though my essay in July, "The Remittance Curse"
touched on the world-wide corruption and the role the diasporas play
in abetting corruption in "homelands").

For Bagrad to suggest that Armenians in the Diaspora remain silent
about the corruption in Armenia because it exists elsewhere is to
suggest that because starvation exists in Zimbabwe, for instance,
people elsewhere should not eat anything.

Whatever shortcomings may exist in America and its press, rest assured
that investigative journalists in America win Pulitzer Prizes,
and my own organization–the Society of Professional Journalists,
to which I have belonged for more than 60 years–awards prizes for
excellence in investigative journalism and other aspects of journalism,
as do many state-based journalism associations. The only case of a
murdered investigative journalist I can recall was about 40 years
ago, and the reaction was such that journalists from throughout the
country descended on Arizona and continued the investigative work of
the slain journalist and not only helped expose the corruption he was
investigating but also helped find the murderer–who was arrested,
tried, and convicted. Our press may not be perfect, but we don’t beat
journalists as20is done in Armenia.

Neither the petition nor the essay touched on the matter of recognition
of the fact of the Armenian Genocide, so there was no need for this
web-site or me to be criticized.

What I find interesting is that after I wrote about corruption in
Armenia, earlier this year (for which I received nasty comments,
which I chose to ignore), there followed shortly thereafter a damning
report which showed that Armenia had slid down the scale of corrupt
countries. Now, following my essay under challenge, there appears
on this web-site a truly obscene report about the poor housing for
some young people in which corruption has played a hand. Would I be
considered immodest if I were to say quod erat demonstrandum?

While reading that report, I could not help but think about other
reports of the huge, luxurious villas that house the government
officials. The land on which these villas stand were more than likely
stolen from poor Armenians who could not fight back, and the money
to build these villas came from money that was supposed to have been
spent on the poor Armenian people.

Dare I ask, "Where did their money come from?"?

This is not the time or the place for me to relate my sad record
of failure to help Armenia and Artsakh during and following my two
visits to the former. But I will mention that after I narrated to
someone who =0 Aknew how things worked in Yerevan my disappointment
over the failure to get anywhere with any of the projects, I was
asked, "But after you finished your proposals, did you also say,
‘and, of course, we will give you. . .

.’?" I said "No. It was his job." He laughed so hard and so long,
I feared he would die of a heart attack.

In his reaction to my essay, Nazarian also is critical of Bruce
Tasker. I did not recognize the name nor why he should be criticized,
until I noticed his name attached to a recent essay on this web-site. I
had read it, but failed to note the name. Re-reading it, I can
understand why he, too, is on Nazarian’s "nasties" list. Tasker is
critical of things in Yerevan.

Nazarian is not a spokesman for Armenia, and there was no need for
him to be so aroused, but knowing him as I do, I am not surprised;
he will not tolerate any criticism of Armenia. (He should hear and
read my criticism of this country!) However, I would have hoped that
he would have kept his remarks private.

This is not an apology, for I have no reason to apologize, but I must
say that because I criticize the shortcomings in Armenia does not mean
that I am an enemy nor that I am encouraging the enemies of Armenia
(as someone has accused me–in private).

Armenia’s most dangerous enemies are in the Armenian government.

–Boundary_(ID_/RfaGGHK/VZcbm/8T57V4Q )–