Special for the Armenian Weekly
On Nov. 26, the two Houses of the Bolivian Parliament (the Plurinational Legislative Assembly of Bolivia) unanimously approved measures recognizing the Armenian Genocide. The resolutions express solidarity with the Armenian cause and condemn “all denialist policy regarding the Genocide and crimes against humanity suffered by the Armenian nation.”
Khatchik Der Ghougassian
In an exclusive interview with the Armenian Weekly, Khatchik Der Ghougassian, professor of international relations at Universidad de San Andrés in Argentina, discussed the passage of the resolution and outlined the potential for strengthened Armenian-South American relations in the coming years.
***
Rupen Janbazian: The Buenos Aires-based “Agencia Prensa Armenia” reported that on Nov. 26, 2014, the two houses of the Bolivian Parliament unanimously approved measures to recognize the Armenian Genocide with the approval of the Bolivian Foreign Ministry. It is interesting that this resolution passed in Bolivia, a country with no major Armenian population, or even any Armenian diplomatic representation. How did this resolution come about? Was the greater South American-Armenian community involved in any way?
Khatchik Der Ghougassian: Not only does an organized Armenian community not exist in Bolivia, but I also doubt if there are any Armenians actually living in the country. While there may be some Armenians involved in business in Bolivia, it is evident that the idea for the resolution came from the Bolivians themselves. Two members of the Argentine-Armenian community traveled to La Paz during the last phase of the initiative to help write the final resolution. One of them, Roberto Malkasian, is an expert in law and, as far as I know, had a big part in putting the resolution into words. It must be emphasized, however, that the initiative came from the most progressive sector of the ruling party in Bolivia, and not from Armenians. It is also very interesting that the resolution is unique in the fact that it emphasizes aspects of the Armenian cause that have not appeared in similar resolutions in other countries.
R.J.: The Bolivian Parliament is dominated by political allies of President Evo Morales, who has been in power since 2006. How does the passage of this resolution fit into the foreign policy agenda of President Morales and his Movement for Socialism Party?
K.D.G.: To understand the initiative and the way it fits into the foreign policy agenda of President Morales, we have to consider the importance of ethical considerations for small countries like Bolivia and Uruguay in taking positions in international affairs. This sounds a little bit naive, as foreign policy is usually based on more practical and “material” interests. But the Movement for Socialism Party came into power with a strong commitment for justice. For almost 500 years, the native Bolivians were enslaved—first by Spanish conquerors, then by the ruling elite after independence. Bolivia was and continues to be a country rich in natural resources. For centuries, conquerors have looted the silver of Potosi and left the population in poverty. In the 1980’s, Bolivia became the first country where [U.S. President Ronald] Reagan’s so-called “war on drugs” policy was first implemented, using the military to repress ethnic communities. It was also where, in the 1980’s, the neoliberal policies of “shock therapies” were applied for the first time, leading to further concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a minority.
‘Unfortunately, Armenian diplomacy in South America has not been as strong as it should have been over the past decade…[when there were] important breakthroughs in Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela, and Chile. While focusing on Moscow, Washington, and Brussels, Yerevan has ignored the south in general and South America in particular, even though Argentina was among the first countries where Armenia had diplomatic representation right after independence. … Armenia has never considered the potential of alternative strategic alliances with emerging powers like Brazil, or champions of human rights and anti-imperialism such as Argentina, Uruguay, or Venezuela.’
However, Bolivia is also a country with a rich tradition of popular uprisings and a quest for justice. Ernesto Che Guevara was killed in Bolivia; leading guerilla figures, such as the current vice president, Alvaro Garcia Linera, were also well-known intellectuals. Neoliberal policies in the 1990’s were particularly harmful for the people. It was at this time that Evo Morales, a simple peasant, rose as a representative of the emerging social protest. He was harassed and his candidacy for presidential elections was “vetoed” by Washington. The final episode of the privatization process came in 2003, when the then president, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, wanted to sell Bolivia’s natural gas to a Californian firm, prompting popular protests and what became known as the bloody “gas war,” which eventually led to the president’s resignation and exile to the United States. It is this strong alliance of progressive intellectuals and popular leaders that came into power in 2006, when Bolivia joined the “left-turn” process in South America, despite foreign pressure. Morales received strong support from Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Nestor Kirchner of Argentina, and Inacio Lula Da Silva of Brazil. Since then, not only has he been consistent in addressing centuries-old injustices, but has also put the country on the developmental path and sustained a principled approach in international affairs. The ethical commitment to just causes shapes Morales’ Bolivia’s identity.
Bolivia’s Palace of Congress in La Paz
Following the passage of the resolution, the head of Bolivia’s Senate, Zonia Guardia Melgar, was invited to Buenos Aires by the Argentine-Armenian community. While there, she spoke at the Saint Gregory Church and mentioned Che Guevara as an example of commitment to just causes, and in her interview to Prensa Armenia, gave full support to Armenians and Kurds in their struggle.
R.J.: While relations between Turkey and Bolivia are limited, trade volume between the 2 countries totals about $8 million. Do you believe the passage of the resolution will affect relations between the two countries?
K.D.G.: Actually, both Turkey and Azerbaijan have been actively promoting investment and economic cooperation in the field of energy and other sectors of Bolivia. Considering the lack of Armenian diplomatic representation in the country, Turkish and Azeri activism has been successful in lobbying in Bolivia, though this has been based on mostly empty promises and falsifications. For example, they have pushed to pass a resolution on the so-called “genocide” in Khojaly [Karabagh], as they did in Mexico. However, they must have underestimated the commitment to righteousness of the ruling party.
While it is true that Turkey has some trade with Bolivia, the volume is actually very small. Still, it is important, considering that Armenia has no trade whatsoever. I do not think that the resolution will have any impact on the trade relationship of the two countries. Moreover, the Turkish-Azeri neo-denialist strategy will probably promise to invest even more into the country—perhaps try to buy political will, seduce some soccer team, etc. In other words, they will try to do more to try to show that Bolivia’s real interests lie with them, not Armenia and the Armenians.
R.J.: Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian has issued a statement commending the passage of the resolutions. What does the recognition of the genocide mean for Armenia-Bolivia relations and Armenia-South America relations in general?
K.D.G.: Nalbandian’s statement was much appreciated in Bolivia and is a good starting point for relations. Unfortunately, Armenian diplomacy in South America has not been as strong as it should have been over the past decade. During this time, there have been important breakthroughs in Uruguay, Argentina, Venezuela, and Chile. While focusing on Moscow, Washington, and Brussels, Yerevan has ignored the south in general and South America in particular, even though Argentina was among the first countries where Armenia had diplomatic representation right after independence. Diplomatic protocols have always been properly respected; however, Armenia has never considered the potential of alternative strategic alliances with emerging powers like Brazil, or champions of human rights and anti-imperialism such as Argentina, Uruguay, or Venezuela.
South America has been very important for Armenia’s economy, especially when considering the Argentine businessman Eduardo Eurnekian, who is the first individual investor in Armenia. Unfortunately, Yerevan never considered the relationship as a means to open doors in South America to look for new opportunities. While I understand that serious material limitations may exist, I am sure that strategic planning can overcome these limitations. The situation has seemed to change since 2011-12. Azerbaijan has been pursuing an aggressive diplomatic campaign, investing their petrodollars in the social, economic, and political sectors of countries from Mexico to Argentina, all while their representatives publically declare that their objective is to counter-balance the presence of organized Armenian communities in the region.
Today, Armenia has embassies in three Latin American countries, and President [Serge] Sarkissian’s visit to Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile last July was a great success. Nevertheless, there is still a lot that could be done. Bolivia’s passage of the resolution proved that it is possible to think outside of the box when it comes to their foreign policy.
R.J.: Leading up to the Centennial of the Armenian Genocide, do you foresee any other countries in the area taking similar steps recognizing the genocide?
K.D.G.: It all really depends on how active Armenia’s diplomacy is in the area. There is much to capitalize on considering the important political and juridical successes that local Armenian communities have achieved over the years.
One thing I am sure of is that Turkey’s policy of denial will be very active in the area over the coming year, and they will surely combine their efforts with Azerbaijan. We already see a sort of division of labor in this respect: While Azerbaijan remains in charge of the “hard” denial, such as questioning the historical existence of Armenia, Ankara promotes a “softer” brand of denial, such as [President Recep Tayyip] Erdogan’s offerings of condolences of a so-called “common suffering.” Moreover, Turkish organizations, such as the Gulen movement, which are falsely branded as humanitarian initiatives, are very actively penetrating civil society and promoting a false image of a tolerant Ottoman past with important investments in the educational field. While the relations between the Gulen movement and the ruling party seem to have been turbulent in recent days, they are both actively working to deny the Armenian Genocide.