by The Armenian Mirror-Spectator
By Dr. Arshavir Gundjian, C.M.
It is now obvious that a seriously disquieting situation characterized by political vicissitudes prevails throughout the world. Under these conditions, our small Armenia, in addition to its extremely unfavorable geopolitical position, must be able to cope with the additional challenge of introducing new and sometimes difficult changes to its already complex strategic positions.
This much is clear to everyone, and it should especially be clear to every alert Armenian, both in Armenia and in the diaspora.
Read also
It is against this backdrop that the two meetings of Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia
While those present at the Zurich gathering had the opportunity to have a few exchanges with the prime minister, in the case of Washington, the prime minister alone spoke for about 20 minutes. Those present simply listened with exemplary politeness to the prime minister’s speech, which was delivered only in Armenian, considering that some of them were only English speakers and naturally could not follow his thoughts. Finally, just as appropriately, this meeting was closed with polite applause, as was the case with the Zurich meeting.
The purpose of this article is to emphasize that in both of these meetings, and especially during his one-sided conversation in Washington, the prime minister wanted to specifically point out that his goal was to keep those present informed that these days, in Armenia, under his own direction and with special importance, an effort is being made to introduce changes in the ideologies of homeland and patriotism.
The prime minister, with long and repeated expressions, and yet not in a clear and explicit language, tried to explain to those present in particular the idea he had recently formulated of the “Real Armenia,” which, however, remained vague and subject to all kinds of interpretations. The prime minister also emphasized that a “change of ideology” would take place in Armenia. This time, perhaps wanting to impress those present more vividly, he used the Latin Armenian qualifications “Transformation” and “Isolationism” with an emphasised pronunciation, supposedly to better explain these “new ideologies.”
Despite his efforts, however, the uncertainty left by the prime minister’s words and the extremely worrying thoughts engendered by that confusion, after these two presentations of Washington and Zurich, understandably created strong negative reactions in the Armenian world.
Dear Mr. Pashinyan, if the purpose of your aforementioned pair of reports was to keep the diaspora informed about the important new positions being promoted in Armenia with your encouragement, we would like to stress that on the contrary, in the case of both speeches, and especially in the case of the one in Washington, the long and repeated phrases you used, not being explicit, have remained incomprehensible even to those who have a sufficient command of the Armenian language, such as, for example, the author of these lines.
What is even more worrying is that due to this lack of explicitness, your listeners have been necessarily led to approximate and assumed conclusions, which are certainly very worrying and completely unacceptable to the broad Armenian majority.
In this present article, our serious concerns include our desire to express our thoughts on the issues you raised in a completely transparent and clear manner, knowing that they also correspond to the thinking of a wide range of deeply alarmed circles.
First of all, it is clear – and this is not new for us – that in any period of history, the “real Armenia” is that region which is clearly defined by its borders on the maps adopted at the international level during that period as “Armenia,” where the vast majority of the population of that region is composed of Armenians, and those borders are secured by Armenians and or their true allies, and when the order prevailing in the country is managed by an administrative machinery composed of Armenians. We would like to emphasize that all this is regardless of the coloration or political philosophy of the regime ruling there.
This was our unchanging position during the period of Soviet power, when we did not agree with the ideology followed by that regime, but we tried to ensure that the Armenian diaspora maintained its spiritual connection with the “real Armenia” of those days and, within the limits of realistic possibilities, assisted it with humane and economically beneficial measures.
This is also our position today, when we are a warm supporter of the democratic conditions prevalent in our country, though we also often criticize disturbing phenomena that occur there.
This clear understanding of ours of the “real Armenia,” though, is never a reason to forget or deny our entire history, during the course of which our country was much more extensive and even at certain points stretched from sea to sea. We can gain the goodwill of no one, not friends, and especially not our natural enemies, if we suddenly forget or deny this historical reality and even today’s dream. On the contrary, the manifestation of unilateral and permanent political concessions on our part will surely lead to the gradual, complete collapse and disappearance of the “real Armenia” itself.
It is with this same resolute thought that we consider Mount Ararat the uncompromising symbol of the Armenian people. The sacred Armenian Mount Ararat, with the indisputable confirmation of the Bible, remains the symbol of Armenia regardless of who owns today the territory where it is located. Just as Jerusalem is the heart of the Christian world, whether it is under the control of the Arabs or the Jews, so too, Mr. Prime Minister, Ararat is forever and ever the inseparable heart and symbol of the Armenian people.
During your aforementioned talks, you made an unexpected allusion to the highly sensitive subject of the Armenian Genocide. The authenticity of the Armenian Genocide, which left its indelible mark on our people, and the indisputable full responsibility of Turkey in its implementation have now been internationally recognized. Not only has it been recognized at the state level by more than twenty important countries, but it has even been recognized by the Turkish judiciary itself, in the wake of the First World War. In this presentation, as always, we consider it necessary to remain within the limits of restrained vocabulary in our expression. Therefore, we will suffice by saying that any efforts to find the traces of Armenian responsibility in the terrible crime committed against humanity through the Armenian Genocide, is tantamount to seeking the responsibility for the Jewish genocide or Holocaust in the Jewish people. Therefore, in our case, it should be expected that such an act can only be met with the unforgiving condemnation and condemnation of the Armenians, even prior to it being subjected to the application of severe international sanctions, as is the case of the Jews.
These few key hypersensitive issues mentioned above are sufficient to explain why Prime Minister Pashinyan’s sometimes clear but often vague allusions to sensitive issues during his two interviews have deeply upset many knowledgeable circles in both the diaspora and Armenia.
It cannot be denied that, as we mentioned at the beginning of this article, the exceptionally complex challenges facing the international and national arenas of today force the Armenian people to seriously seek and strive to refine the best and most effective nationally acceptable paths for their strategy.
Faithful to his constant stance of being constructive, the author of these lines once again suggests referring to his article recently published in our press, where the creation of a national structure for an Armenian strategy of national survival is proposed, which, although initiated by the current government, would include representatives of all of those structures and intellectuals who are indisputable parts of the intellectual and organizational centers of the Armenian people.
It is through such a serious national structure, Mr. Prime Minister, that subtle old or new ideas and ideologies can be proposed, refined and, if necessary, reformed. Only the thoroughly debated conclusions of such profound discussions are likely to be adopted by the majority of Armenians. If, on the contrary, new proposals are formulated by ignoring such centers of serious thinking, it is very likely, Mr. Prime Minister, that these efforts will remain ignored and in vain.
Considering the upcoming general elections in Armenia, as a constructive step that contributes to the supreme national interests, we call on you once more, Mr. Prime Minister, to take the initiative to create such a platform as a means of exchanging important ideas and formulating practical proposals.
(This article is a translation of the original Armenian published in Baikar.)