STRATEGY OF DEVELOPMENT
Gagik Harutyunyan
"Noravank" Foundation
21 May 2010
The stirring up of the issue connected with Armenian-Turkish relations
and the approximation of the centenary of the Armenian Genocide
occasioned to take new view of the current problems of the Armeniancy,
to turn to our political history and possible prospects. This tendency
should be perceived positively because both among us and in the
world the changes, which demand the elaboration of strategy adequate
to the new realities, are taking place. It is desirable, of course
that the discussions on the issues of the nationwide importance will
be of permanent character. Back in the 19th century English thinker
John Stuart Mill expressed the idea that the absence of the serious
discussions on fundamental principles corrupts and distorts that
very ideas and principles, and it is difficult to disagree with this
statement. It is obvious that without new approaches the solution of
the all-Armenian issues (and there many of them) is at least doubtful.
Let us try to cover some of them briefly.
Diaspora: traditions and new imperatives Even if you cast a glance
at the situation in the Diaspora it becomes clear that alongside with
the separate achievements there are really serious problems and losses
in that sphere. The general impression is that the strategy directed
to the survival of the "Armenian communities" is not enough today to
respond adequately to the various challenges faced by the Armenian
communities. The formed mode of life is breaking up under the influence
of different external and internal factors and it is not possible to
soften, not to say to avert that influence. It is not a secret that
those realities are partially characteristic of the situation in
the RA, NKR and Javakhq too. One can state that its is time for the
Armenian elite to try to reconsider both existing traditional formats
and content of family, communal, partisan, religious self-organization
and to elaborate new national concepts. At the same time if there
are political innovations carried out in the mentioned directions,
we should avoid the "destroy the old, build the new" Bolshevik
principle (especially in case when there are obscure ideas of that
"new", and when there are no preconditions for passing to that "new"
formed). Such quasi-revolutionary approaches cause the so-called
"gaps" in the national spiritual and intellectual sphere which hamper
the development of the society.
Particularly, today the opinions can be heard that the Genocide issue
has been "settled" and it is time to unite Armeniancy not round the
events of the "tragic past" but round the "timely and positive" ideas.
Such a statement of the question is, of course, dilettantish. It
is necessary to differentiate clearly the issue of the national
memory, political processes of the international recognition and the
elaboration and implementation of the new all-Armenian projects.
>>From the spiritual point of view the Genocide and "depatriation"1
(and probably it would be useful to put that term into circulation
and, alongside with the "genocide", to give its political and
judicial evaluations) are a part of the national consciousness and,
according to that formulation, they cannot be a point at issue (if,
of course, there is no total "brainwashing" through the manipulative
technologies). Let us also mention that from the psychological point
of view the memories of that tragedy contain the motivation for the
compensation processes and one of its manifestations is the political
process of international recognition.
The issue of the recognition of the Genocide This process is not
only of moral but also of political significance for Armeniancy. The
approaches regarding this issue formed within the international
community affect the "rating" of Turkey and its ally Azerbaijan
characterizing them "genocidogen" countries. Thus, the international
recognition of the Genocide is a kind of "restraint jacket" which
increases the level of the national security of Armenia in case of
the probable Turkish-Azerbaijani encroachments. This factor once
more substantiates our stance at the negotiations on the NKR issue
and within the framework of the recent Armenian-Turkish diplomatic
developments the international discussion of the issue at some
extent favoured policy carried out by Armenia. It should also be
mentioned that the derivatives of the processes of the recognition
of the Genocide, i.e. the issues of the preservation of the cultural
heritage and the trials on separate property and material values,
as it is known, are rather efficient and deserve special attention.
At the same time, up till now the political factor of the Genocide is
more used by others. E.g., the long-awaited word "genocide", as it can
become clear from the article by H. Nahapetyan2, was pronounced by the
US president back on April 22, 1981. In the US President’s Proclamation
4838 Ronald Reagan mentioned: "Like the genocide of the Armenians
before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it —
and like too many other such persecutions of too many other peoples —
the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten". Such a statement
implied the logic of the Cold war and was directed against the USSR,
because support of the national movements which began to rise in
the Soviet period in Armenia (as well as in other republics) was in
the national interests of the United States3. Today the situation
is different, and in the near future the US president would hardly
pronounce word "genocide" because it contradicts to the policy of
the United States.
But it is clear that even if the whole world recognizes the Genocide,
it does not mean that the Western Armenia will be returned to the
Armenians. In this issue, nevertheless, it is necessary to refuse
from the overestimating the Jewish precedent. The recognition of
the Holocaust and repatriation by Germany were determined by its
defeat – the armies of the allies were in Berlin. It should also be
mentioned that the Jews "prepared" the creation of their state by
committed intellectual and ideological and organizational-economic
activity which had been carried out for centuries. In our case the
recognition of the Genocide by Turkey (this is more than hypothetical
scenario and it is not associated with the current authorities of
that country), most probably, will approximately look like the regret
which was expressed by the Serbian parliament concerning the actions
implemented against Bosnian population. Ankara would agree to make
concessions only if it has a status of the disorganized state.
Thus, it can be stated, that the process of the international
recognition of the Genocide, having a positive meaning in general,
has some restrictions and it cannot be an ultimate goal for Armenia
and Armeniancy. In other words, if the Armenian Genocide is totally
recognized, the further political strategy of the Armeniancy after
that becomes rather obscure. The absence of a definite answer to that
question proves that there are no necessary resources of the strategic
thinking in our society; meanwhile those resources directly correlate
with the notion of the National Security (NS).
The contemporary interpretations of the national security Today,
the notion of the NS is being transformed and, further to the old
concepts about the resources necessary for the national security
provision, the possibility for the development of the society has
become one of important criteria of the NS4. Particularly, it is
supposed that the "challenge-adequate response" system which was
believed to be efficient, under current situation is not enough and
the usage of that very principle may bring to a dead end. According
to A. Vladimirov’s fundamental work the new approaches assume that
"the paradigm of the development and security coordination maybe
implemented within the dialectics of "security through the development
and development through the security" principle". Scrutinizing the
issues of the security with the help of such a methodology one can
come to a rather simple conclusion that the human being and the human
society are "the responsible" or in other words are the critical
substructure of the process of the development (i.e. the security).
And the level of their development (in our interpretation the ability
to organize, to acquire knowledge and to implement it) determines
the security of the nation and state. It follows from this that
the development is one of the manifestations of the strategy which
supposes both the strategy of the "small steps" and strategy of "leaps"
(after the accumulation of the critical quantity of the achievements by
"small steps") which, according to the Chinese formulation, provides
"the conquest of the future and its usage for your own purposes".
Considering the issue of the future of the Armenia and Armeniancy in
the aforementioned context, we should respond that we have serious
problems from the point of view of the development. It is known that
the intellectual potential of Armenia has reduced for the recent twenty
years and the projects of the development of that sphere are not very
optimistic and, furthermore, they are of theoretical character. The
worst situation is in the Diaspora where the acknowledgments of the
national science necessity, the appropriate thinking and culture
have not been formed yet5. As it is known there are thousands of
social and political organizations working abroad, which, however,
(and the exception is the Galouste Gulbenkian Foundation) rarely turn
to the scientific and educational sphere (here we do not consider
the communal and Sunday schools which activity is mostly directed
to the preservation of the Armenian identity but which have also
appeared in rather critical situation). Let us also mention that
other nations, which have Diaspora, have created many foundations
sponsoring scientific and educational activity.
In our opinion the aforementioned strategic oversight is conditioned
not by the comparative scantiness of the means but by the conceptual
vision of the Armenian elite6. Very often the process of the
recognition of the Genocide is perceived as the ultimate priority,
and for its lobby – for example in the US – rather vast means are
spent; great importance is attached to the building of the churches
and monuments. Of course, indisputably, it is very important but at
the same time such things of paramount importance as the formation
and the development of the human capital are overlooked, i.e. our
national security is endangered. At the same time here the question
to what definite purposes the strategy and development of the national
security should serve is grounded.
Possible scenario: "In the third cold war" In modern history the key
events for Armenia and Armeniancy were connected with geopolitical
shifts. World War I and revolution caused the Genocide and loss of the
Western Armenia, creation of the First and the Second Republics. After
World War II there was a big possibility of the collision between the
USSR and Turkey which could have mostly solved the Armenian issue. As
a result of the Cold war and the collapse of the two-polar world the
RA and NKR were created.
Meanwhile at present the political situation, which may cause
new global shifts conditioned by the formation of the multi-polar
system, is formed. According to some analytical viewpoints based on
the tendencies, which are outlined today, the current processes of
"division" will be followed by the formation of the new associations
based on civilizational characteristics. In some schematic scenario
developments, in particular, the formation of Europe-Russia military
and political association (in some versions together with the US)
directed against the expected dangers from the East is not excluded7.
In case of this "Third Cold War" with new features most probably the
place of Armenia will be in the conventional Europe-RF block and the
place of our Turkish speaking neighbours in the conventional "East".
In this case Armenia may acquire the status of a "boarder" state (the
one of Israel in the Middle East) with all the risks and advantages
deriving from it. In case of some positive developments for us those
"advantages" may include the breakup of Turkey and at least partial
reclaiming of Western Armenia.
Of course the aforementioned scenario is of theoretic character but
one should always remember that back in 1980 it was almost impossible
to imagine that in a decade a war would outbreak and two Armenian
republics would be formed. At the same time it is known that the
implementation of any "positive scenario" is possible only in case of
being prepared to those developments in advance and making efforts for
the implementation of the advantageous scenarios which, in its turn,
is possible only under the strategic development.
1Some researchers offer term "patricide".
2Õ~@Õ¡Õ ;µÕ¯Õ¡O~@Õ¡
 5;´ Õ~FÕ¡Õ°Õ¡Õ ºÕ¥Õ¿ÕµÕ&# xA1;Õ¶, Â"Ô±O~@Õ¤Õµ ;Õ¸O~D
Õ~DÕ"Õ¡O ~AÕµÕ¡Õ¬ Õ~FÕ¡Õ°Õ¡Õ ¶Õ£Õ¶Õ¥O~@Õ ;¨ Õ¹Õ"Õ~^ Õ³Õ¡Õ¶Õ¡&# xD5;¹Õ¥Õ¬
Õ~@Õ& #xA1;ÕµÕ¸O~A O~AÕ¥Õ²Õ¡Õ½ ;ÕºÕ¡Õ¶Õ¸O ~BÕ©ÕµÕ¸O~BÕ&#x B6;Õ¨Â",
Ô³Õ&#x AC;Õ¸Õ¢Õ¸O~BÕ&# xBD;. Ô±Õ¦Õ£Õ¡&# xD5;µÕ"Õ¶ Õ¡Õ¶Õ¾Õ¿&# xD5;¡Õ¶Õ£Õ¸O~B& #xD5;©ÕµÕ¸O~BÕ¶ , #2
(12), Õ§Õ" 19, 2010, ;nid= 2429
3On this occasion it is necessary to mention that the availability of
the national movement patronized from "abroad" in the Second Republic
mostly contributed to the success in Karabakh conflict.
4Ð~PÐ"еРºÑ~Aанд Ñ~@ Ð’Ð"адÐ& #xB8;миÑ~@о& #xD0;²,
Â"Ð"о& #xD1;~AÑ~CдаÑ~@&#x D1;~AÑ~Bво и войн&# xD0;°Â",
Ð~_оР"иÑ~BиÑ~G
 0;µÑ~AкиР9; кÐ"аÑ~AÑ ~A, #2 (50), Ñ~A. 95, 2009.
5The example illustrating this phenomenon is that the only one of its
kind in the region Â"H2 ECOnomyÂ" laboratory established under the
patronage of American Armenian Gafeschian and dealing with hydrogen
energy and fuel cells was closed due to the "low profitability".
6Let us mention that the scantiness of the material resources is also
conditioned by the underdevelopment of the scientific and educational
sphere of the Armeniancy. In particular, the Armenian capital (both
in Diaspora and in Armenia) is poorly presented in the sphere of
high-tech which is supposed to be the most profitable today.