The Ideological Basis of Armenian Statehood
deological-basis-of-armenian-statehood/
By Contributor on Sep 25th, 2009
By Ara Papian
Ten days of discussion have already passed from the forty (of
traditional mourning) granted to that dark pair of protocols. It is
evident that the `internal discussions’ are not working
out. Naturally, they would not come to pass, given the
circumstances. The current situation makes nothing work, and nothing
will work in this scenario.
Due to my own circumstances, I am participating in these discussions
as Vladimir Ilyich once did, in the form of `Letters from far
away’. Even with some hindrances, this does have its advantages. I am
free from the influence of any faction and can act solely in
accordance with my own beliefs, which have been formed as a result of
years of inquiry.
Comprehensive research and experience in the diplomatic world have
lead me to the following conclusion: The solution to the Armenian
Question lies in the singular opportunity of consolidating the
Armenian State, which is the only way for the Armenian people to
endure. A question may immediately crop up: what is meant by `the
Armenian Question’ and also its `solution’ at this stage?
Commencing as an issue of the individual and collective security and
dignity of the Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire, it gradually
grew into an issue of Armenian statehood and the reaffirmation of the
rights of that statehood. Today, the Armenian Question is the
re-establishment of the territorial, material and moral rights by
international law pertaining to or retained by the current Republic of
Armenia.
One must have the courage to view the bitter truth and be clearly
aware that we find ourselves without any options. The Republic of
Armenia, as a singular and dignified political entity, can either
exist only by the affirmation of its unalienable and permanent rights,
or it cannot exist as such.
This is the very perspective from which one must analyse the current
processes and the pair of protocols that go along with it. Is it that
signing the protocols benefit the consolidation of the existential
factors of Armenian statehood and increase the strength of the nation
and state, or can it, as an opposing expectation, have a destructive
effect?
I may immediately say that, in my opinion, the end result will be
negative. The current protocols include clauses whose official
recording will render settling the Armenian Question impossible even
in future. We must not forget that both the struggle for Artsakh
(Nagorno-Karabakh) and that of international recognition of the
Armenian Genocide have never been separate and the majority of
Armenian society has viewed and continues to view it, whether
consciously or not, as components of resolving the Armenian
Question. The desire to settle the Armenian Question has been the
greatest goal of Armenian survival for more than a century
now. Regardless of inconsistent opinions that are sometimes raised
nowadays, it remains the only national goal of the Armenians.
Giving up on the demand for Armenian rights with regards to Turkey,
which is indicated in the two documents, implies giving up on the sole
goal which brings Armenians together, which in turn would result in a
core weakening of the Republic of Armenia, and its eventual
destruction. In order not to resemble the many witch-doctors who are
concocting their potions under the Armenian sky nowadays, let me
present my thoughts scientifically.
Political science has long since developed a formula to measure the
strength of a given state. This is known as the Jablonsky formula in
American political science.1
Pp = (C+E+M) x (S+W)
In this formula, Pp is Perceived power, C is critical mass (population
+ territory), E is Economic capability, M is Military capability, S is
Strategic purpose and W stands for the Will to pursue national
strategy.
It is clear from the formula that the strength of a state depends as
much on the presence of long-term goals and the state’s goal-oriented
practices, as the population, territory, economic and military
strength. The strength of a state is not merely the sum of some
indicators, but it is the product of tangible, material indicators
with the sum of the goal and the willingness to achieve it. Regardless
of territory, population, economic or military prowess, if the state
does not have a goal, and consequently the will to attain it, the
strength of the state would then be nothing, as any number multiplied
by zero is zero.
Today, the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is not considered to be a
pan-national goal, due to some disputable and not-so-disputable
circumstances. The political process to get recognition of the
Armenian Genocide, as a pan-national goal, cannot essentially serve as
a goal of the state, because there is an absence of a clear path to
reach some core result through this goal.
Therefore, not only is settling the Armenian Question a singular
opportunity to strengthen Armenian statehood and the only way for the
Armenian people to endure, but also the very goal-oriented process of
resolving the Armenian Question, that is to say the presence of such a
goal and the political will to act on it, is an indispensible factor
in consolidating the strength of Armenian statehood.
We must not take steps which could weaken Armenian statehood and
deprive it of its preservation simply because the Homeland, which does
not have a goal in itself, is merely a place to live.