• am
  • ru
  • en
print version
21.05.2010

STRATEGY OF DEVELOPMENT

   

Gagik Harutyunyan

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”.

2Հայկարամ Նահապետյան, «Արդյոք Միացյալ Նահանգները չի՞ ճանաչել Հայոց ցեղասպանությունը», Գլոբուս. Ազգային անվտանգություն, #2 (12), էջ 19, 2010, http://noravank.com/arm/articles/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=4631

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.

4Александр Владимиров, «Государство и война», Политический класс, #2 (50), с. 95, 2009.

5The example illustrating this phenomenon is that the only one of its kind in the region «H2 ECOnomy» 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.

7Գագիկ Հարությունյան, Ռուսաստան-Գերմանիա. հնարավոր սցենարներ տարածաշրջանային անվտանգության համատեքստում, Գլոբուս. էներգետիկ և տարածաշրջանային անվտանգություն, #3 (9), էջ 15, 2010։


Return
Another materials of author