Welcoming a new year is a joyous occasion. It offers the opportunity for a fresh start. Unfortunately, there are times when the “baggage” of the old year has to be dragged along, condemning us to the same old, same old for another year.
Christmas tree on Renaissance Square in Stepanakert (Photo by Arevik Danielian, The Armenian Weekly)
The unilateral decision by President Sarkisian to have Armenia forsake the West and align its- self with Russia is unwanted baggage to carry into the new year. No doubt intense pressure was put on Yerevan to weigh the consequences if it spurned this Russian overture. Although Armenia is not as favorably situated geographically as Ukraine, dependence on Moscow should not encourage subservience by our leaders.
It was important that our people demonstrated against this abdication to Russian interests when President Vladimir Putin visited Armenia recently. However, it paled in comparison to the anti-government demonstrations in Ukraine concerning a similar shift away from the European Union toward Russia by President Viktor Yanukovych, and in Turkey in the June Gezi Park confrontation over Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s grandiose redevelopment plans to sacrifice a small remaining bit of nature to more concrete, brick, and steel.
What effect the ongoing demonstrations in Ukraine will have is too early to say. When opposition views are stifled or ignored, it is important for citizens to express their dissatisfaction. In Turkey, Gezi Park served as a catalyst for a more general concern with the administration’s policies. President Sarkisian’s decision to tie Armenia’s future to Russian interests lessens the influence, opportunities, and investments from the European Union that would have been important to Armenia’s development. Now we are aligned with a government in Moscow that is the antithesis of a democracy.
There are some benefits. As one would expect, Russia is the single largest source of investment funds for Armenia and the destination of most Armenians in search of work. It is estimated that some 2.5 million Armenians live in Russia and some $1.5 billion is remitted annually. However, it is the long-term effect of being dominated by Russia that will limit Armenia’s ability to chart its own course into the future. Some may view this as an acceptable trade-off considering we are located in a region with some difficult neighbors. Having spurned a national dialogue, Sarkisian decided that a reduction in the price of imported gas and the ability to buy armaments on the cheap was worth the cost of embracing Russia.
No one can question our need for Russian military support. However, Putin knows that Russia needs Armenia as well. It is a symbiotic relationship. Armenia is the only dependable anchor that Russia has in the south Caucasus. The Bolsheviks made the mistake nearly a century earlier when they believed they could buy Ataturk with territorial concessions to sign on to their new order. Even Ataturk at that early stage preferred looking toward the West. Today Moscow faces a stronger competitor in Ankara with its little cousin from Baku in tow. Turkey has no intention of allowing Russian hegemony in the south Caucasus or Central Asia. Without Armenia and Artsakh, how does Russia plan to project its presence in the south Caucasus?
Putin has adopted the same divide and rule strategy of the old Bolsheviks by maintaining a military base in Armenia to protect the country while it keeps the “conflict” alive by sweet-talking Aliyev and supplying military equipment to both sides. Russia profits from its sales to Baku, and Armenia becomes further beholden to Russia as it seeks to maintain parity with Azerbaijan.
The new year does not lessen concerns about Artsakh’s future. Shudders abound whenever news of a Sarkisian-Aliyev meeting will take place. The principles proposed by the Minsk Group that sets the agenda for negotiations continually stress territorial integrity and the right of self-determination. The only way these two opposing principles can be accommodated at the same time is by granting local autonomy to Artsakh, not independence, and placing the region under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan. Isn’t this why it all began?
The principles suggested by the Minsk Group are so biased against the Artsakh Armenians that a favorable resolution is impossible. It is time for Moscow to provide meaningful support for Artsakh’s independence. That may be expecting too much considering that the Olympics scheduled for Sochi in February 2014 are close to Chechnya and Dagestan, where secessionist sentiment runs high with Doku Umarov lurking in the shadows threatening to disrupt the games.
Although Washington continually expresses friendship with the Armenian people, its pro-Turkish/anti-Russian agenda is to have Artsakh returned to Azerbaijan and see the signing of the protocols without preconditions. Should this happen, it would mean goodbye to our Artsakh, where 7,000 azatamartiks sacrificed their lives. Goodbye to any meaningful recognition of the genocide by Turkey. And goodbye to Hai Tahd. In return for Yerevan’s total capitulation, Washington will gladly offer a few hundred million dollars in aid, maybe a billion dollars, but much of which will line the pockets of those who continue to bleed our country dry. This is a small price to pay considering the untold billions of dollars that have been lavished on Ankara by Washington for its “cooperation.”
Will 2014 see the beginnings of a well thought-out plan not only to challenge the administration’s policy, but to prepare for the important parliamentary and presidential elections? The change required is not structural, but in the mind-set, the philosophy if you will, of those who hold the reins of power. Those who govern have the responsibility to provide an environment in which order, equality, opportunity, and justice prevail for all citizens, not a favored or well-connected few.
For a time, it seemed that change might be had when Raffi Hovannisian, leader of the Heritage Party, appeared on the scene. Unfortunately, it was short lived. Raffi reappeared a few months later in August 2013, but disappeared again. It raises a serious question: Has the primary burden been left to Raffi Hovannisian and his Heritage Party, by gun-shy opposition leaders, to challenge the policies and confront the corruption and favoritism that have permeated the economic, political, and judicial systems of our country?
After welcoming in the new year, voters and opposition political leaders should take time to consider where Armenia may be at the end of Sarkisian’s term in 2018 if his present course is maintained (and there is no reason to believe that it will change). Given that certainty, does anyone really believe that the 2017 parliamentary elections will reduce the Republican Party’s majority? And does anyone really believe that the handpicked successor to President Sarkisian in the 2018 presidential election will lose? Given the likelihood of this scenario, can Armenia afford to continue on the same path for another five years?
Opposition leaders cannot allow voter fraud and voter intimidation or the existence of system-wide corruption and favoritism to circumscribe their efforts to vigorously challenge the existing power structure. Their unforgivable failure to act is a disservice to those who are unemployed; to the elderly pensioners or those living in poverty; to the young, energetic men and women who lack opportunity; to the would-be entrepreneurs who are prevented from entering the marketplace; and to those who are forced to leave the homeland to earn a living.
If there is cause for change (how could that be denied?), those affected must be galvanized into action by believing that change is possible. If they believe that change cannot be had, mobilizing support will be impossible and mediocrity will become the acceptable standard. It is sad to say, but people can become accustomed to hardship. This cannot be where our people are at. For any movement to succeed, a genuine effort must be made by the leadership to interface with representative sectors of the electorate, however they may be defined strategically. Any serious movement for change is a full-time day-in, day-out effort. Relying primarily on an election platform containing a laundry list of objectives to garner voter support completely misses the mark. Most voters will view this effort with skepticism, if not cynicism. The voter must accept the party (or a coalition) and its candidate as committed to their concerns by what has been and is being done to support their concerns. The electorate must have faith in their candidate and his ability to bring about change that will improve their quality of life.
Armenia cannot afford to continue along its present path. The achievements that may be attributed to the administration cannot compensate for the debilitating conditions that the present unholy alliance of politicians and oligarchs has created. The existence of high rates of unemployment and poverty; of young people frustrated by a lack of opportunity; individuals and families leaving either permanently or temporarily to achieve a better life; and the inability of an energetic and creative entrepreneurial class to develop are sufficient to indict those holding the reins of power.
Change in Armenia will not come overnight. Neither will it come by way of any “Armenian Spring.” Violent upheavals are counterproductive and invariably result in system-wide instability and a fractured society that is neither easily nor quickly, if ever, healed. The euphemistic term “Arab Spring” is anything but that. It is a textbook example of how change should not be pursued. It is time for the opposition parties to put aside their philosophical differences, petty interests, and concerns as to who gets the glory and come to the aid of Armenia and its citizens. Ignoring the hardships faced by our people can never be an acceptable response. Let’s not abandon the majority of our people by accepting the same old, same old for 2014.