Author: Lara Antonian

Former president Robert Kocharian on Thursday announced that he will be re-entering Armenia’s political arena days after being released from pre-trial custody where he was remanded on charges of breaching Armenia constitutional order in relation to the March 1, 2008 post-election standoff when eight civilians and two police officers were killed.

Kocharian, once again, sat down with Yerkir Media’s Gegham Manukyan, his second since being charged, and said that he had no other choice but to enter the political arena, because he believes that the current government is too inexperienced to traverse what he called the complicated geopolitical realities facing Armenia.

“They don’t understand,” said Kocharian referring to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and his administration. “They don’t fully comprehend that challenges facing Armenia” in the current geopolitical situation.

He also told Yerkir Media that his attorney crushed his case in court on last week, because, he said, the entire case against is “based on lies.”

Armenia’s Criminal Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had remanded into custody until his trial. The charges are still pending against him.

He lamented the fact that he was unable to speak about the specifics of his case, and wondered why there was a shroud of secrecy surrounding the charged.

“I wish I could speak about the specifics of the case, because then I could outline the fabrications on which it is based,” Kocharian told Yerkir Media.

He also went to reiterate his concerns about the so-called inexperience of the government to deal with the Karabakh conflict resolution process.

He said that Pashinyan allegedly announced that he would not take part in the peace talks, when in fact, Pashinyan, from the time he assumed the leadership of government, has insisted on the inclusion of Artsakh at the negotiating table, which was how the talks proceeded until Kocharian became Armenia’s president.

The former president also boasted about the economic growth in Armenia during his tenure, and said the widespread corruption that is being attributed to his administration was exaggerated.

“There is corruption in the United States,” said Kocharian to illustrate his view that the practice of looting the national wealth was commonplace all over the world.

In discussing an upcoming rally in Yerevan on Friday called by Pashinyan, who has said that he will report on the first 100 days of the government, Kocharian was dismissive.

“So what if 100,000 people gather at Republic Square. Is that a big percentage of the population?” Kocharian pondered during the interview.

BY GAREN YEGPARIAN

It seems most times when I write a piece that I think is of great importance, the response is… crickets. Yet, I feel compelled to keep addressing such issues, even though they tend to be nerdy, wonky, geeky, etc. All the things that many people don’t care to read, but here goes…

This discussion is meant to be internally, that is Armenian-oriented. Great power games, Turko-Azeri foolishness, economics, etc. should be far from the focus of our thinking. It is born of a recent discussion with my two college roommates. It is only the very roughest of outlines, beginnings, in addressing the issues at hand. And even more, it is a series of inquiries, perhaps even probes. But, it may be that this matter is the most important long-term item on the Armenian agenda, our conclusions impacting us well into the future, probably for at least a century or two.

First, for clarity, let me define what I mean in this discussion when I use the terms Armenia, Diaspora, and Armenian (except if it refers to the language). Armenia refers to it all, the whole kit-and-caboodle – Greater and Lesser Armenia plus Cilicia. Diaspora means every Armenian living outside of Armenia as defined. Armenian means every human who says, in one way or another, “I am Armenian”.

Let’s proceed under the assumption that all Armenians want to persist as such, passing on what we have created over thousands of years so each future generation can add to that legacy.

The question becomes: how is that to happen?

One approach is that we must all, in time, reassemble in Armenia. Of course this means liberation from Turkish occupation at least that part of Armenia which has come to be known as Wilsonian Armenia. This has largely been the approach adopted by almost everyone to date.

Yet, because this approach associates nation with land and borders, it is seen as nationalist. The argument is that nationalism as “invented” in Europe through the 19th century is now a passé ideology, in part because it required borders defining a homeland for a nation. An alternative approach to Armenianness in this case is that each of the many diasporas (note the plural usage which seems to be ever more prevalent in scholarly circles) persists and develops in response to its own locale’s particular conditions.

Quick-and-dirty criticism of each of these approaches:
1- Exceedingly few Armenians have any interest in ever moving from their current places of residence to Armenia, so that cannot be an organizing principle. The reality of Armenians living scattered the world over is being disregarded.
2- If multiple diasporas are to evolve, what makes them Armenian? What connects them to one another and Armenia? When do the differences become so large as to make each one no longer Armenian? Why would any human living in country X want to be anything but a member of the local nation unless there is some greater purpose?

In either case, where and how do our irredenta and pursuit of reparations come into play? Who determines how to proceed? How do the Diaspora(s) and Armenia (especially with Artzakh being a separate republic threatened, albeit indirectly, by the occupying power –Turkey) coordinate on these crucial matters? What becomes of our language? Does the current direction and pace of technological development hold out the hope of answers?

I have some pretty well formed opinions about this fundamentally important matter, but it’s going to take a lot more discussion, both by experts and “mere mortals” before we can come to a consensus as to what our multigenerational direction should be.

What’s your thinking on this? Please contribute your thoughts.