Armenia

Nessuna, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Hetq Online 2006
Having just returned from watching the Italy-France football match at a cafe with some friends, Nessuna has more over at di cavoli e di re. Incidently, the French Ambassador was at the same cafe so kudos to Nessuna for showing up from time to […]

With tomorrow marking the anniversary adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of Armenia, statements about the inviolability of the document as the basis for the State abound. First up is the Armenian Prime Minister, Andranik Markarian.
“The Organic Law helped to realize the fundamental principles of independent Armenia and was the guarantor of its […]

Azerbaijani Prisoner of War (PoW), Stepanakert, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 1994

RFE/RL reports that the Armenian Foreign Ministry has welcomed Montenegro’s 21 May referendum to determine whether it should declare independence from Serbia. The statement comes just days before the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents are due to meet once again in the hope that a framework agreement to resolve the long standing conflict over Nagorno Karabakh can be agreed upon.

Central to the current proposal on the table is a similar referendum that would be held in Karabakh 10-15 years in the future.

For official Yerevan, the Montenegro referendum sets another important precedent of the principle of self-determination of peoples superseding that of territorial integrity of states. Leaders of some of Armenia’s main political parties said last week that its outcome will make it easier for the Karabakh Armenians to win international recognition of their secession from Azerbaijan.

The Armenian Foreign Ministry statement said: “In this peaceful separation, Armenia considers particularly important the fact that the Montenegrin people’s right to self-determination was expressed by means of a referendum, which proves that in international relations referendum remains a universally accepted and civilized way of resolving such problems.”

The statement clearly referred to an international peace plan currently considered by the parties to the Karabakh conflict. The plan reportedly calls for a referendum on Karabakh’s status within 10 to 15 years from the start of a gradual Armenian withdrawal from six of the seven Azerbaijani districts surrounding the disputed enclave. The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan seem to be facing growing international pressure to accept this formula.

Meanwhile, according to RFE/RL’s Press Review, the government controlled Hayastani Hanrapetutyun newspaper says that 77 percent of Armenians believe that a speedy solution to the Karabakh conflict is “very important,” although some political forces consider that the idea of a referendum without appropiate security guarantees is fraught with danger.

Only 2 percent of 1,200 respondents believe it is unimportant. Seventy-two percent said Karabakh must become a part of Armenia, while the remaining 28 percent would agree to the region’s full independence. The paper says none of the respondents backed the idea of restoring Azerbaijani control over Karabakh.

“Hayots Ashkhar” is less than enthusiastic about the peace plan which Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliev are expected to discuss in Bucharest early next week. The paper says the deal would give a mere “promise of a referendum written on paper” to the Karabakh Armenians and an “uncertain military-political situation not guaranteed by anyone” to Armenia. The paper quotes a spokesman for the Dashnaktsutyun party, Giro Manoyan, as saying that the mediators should specify what will happen if Azerbaijan rejects the referendum after signing the peace deal.

“Hayastani Hanrapetutyun” quotes the speaker of the Karabakh parliament, Ashot Ghulian, as indicating in an interview with a Russian online publication that he is not against the referendum option. “I am sure that our people would vote in the same way as they did 15 years ago,” says Ghulian.

Certainly, the momentum for peace is still there with the international community stressing the need for a resolution in an almost unprecedented manner. RFE/RL’s Emil Danielyan has written an article on this generally accepted conclusion for the Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor. Incidently, I’d like to stress that I place great value and importance on Emil’s work in general so it’s always worth paying attention to his analysis.

The United States, Russia, and France are stepping up pressure on Armenia and Azerbaijan in a last-ditch attempt to secure a framework agreement settling the Karabakh conflict this year. The three powers co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group have set the stage for yet another Armenian-Azerbaijani summit that could prove decisive in eliminating the number one source of instability in the South Caucasus.

Official Baku and Yerevan announced last week that Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharian will meet for a second time in less than four months on the sidelines of a high-level forum of Black Sea states that is scheduled to take place in Bucharest on June 4-6. All signs suggest that the two leaders are as close to striking a compromise deal as ever. Their failure to do so would be an enormous setback that would keep the bitter territorial dispute unresolved at least until 2009.

High-ranking French, Russian, and U.S. diplomats underscored this reality as they paid an extraordinary joint visit to the Azerbaijani and Armenian capitals on May 24-25. (Such trips are usually made by lower-level diplomats representing the two states.) In a statement issued after talks with Aliyev and Kocharian, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin, and a senior French Foreign Ministry official, Pierre Morel, emphasized that “now is the time for the sides to reach agreement on the basic principles of a settlement.” The conflicting parties, they said, are now “at the point where a mutually beneficial agreement is achievable.”

We should know more within the next week. Until then, Emil’s article is here.

While RFE/RL reports that Armenia has been prevented from attending a meeting of Defense Ministers from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the French President is reported to have urged his Azerbaijani counterpart to accept the latest peace plan mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group.

French government official said that president of France, quoting, ‘confirmed the principles of joint statement made by three co-chairs of Russia, the US and France may 25 in Yerevan, which states that the time has come for both the parties to come to an agreement on basic principles of the confliict settlement’.

Staying in Europe, Armenia appears to have scored a rare public relations victory over Azerbaijan. Although too late to change anything, the European media has now turned its attention towards the ancient Armenian cemetary of Jugha in the Azeri exclave of Nakhichevan after a EU delegation was refused entry. The paper I used to work for, The Independent, has more.

Most of original 10,000 khachkars, most of which date from the 15th and 16th century, were destroyed by the early 20th century, leaving probably fewer than 3,000 by the late 1970s.

According to the International Council on Monuments and Sites (Icomos), the Azerbaijan government removed 800 khachkars in 1998. Though the destruction was halted following protests from Unesco, it resumed four years later. By January 2003 “the 1,500-year-old cemetery had completely been flattened,” Icomos says.

Witnesses, quoted in the Armenian press, say the final round of vandalism was unleashed in December last year by Azerbaijani soldiers wielding sledgehammers.

[…]

Some MEPs believe that, boosted by its oil revenues, Azerbaijan is adopting an increasingly assertive stance in the region. Charles Tannock, Conservative foreign affairs spokesman in the European parliament, argued: “This is very similar to the Buddha statues destroyed by the Taliban. They have concreted the area over and turned it into a military camp. If they have nothing to hide then we should be allowed to inspect the terrain.”

[…]

Hannes Swoboda, an Austrian socialist MEP and member of the committee barred from examining the site, said he hopes a visit can be arranged in the autumn. He added: “If they do not allow us to go, we have a clear hint that something bad has happened. If something is hidden we want to ask why. It can only be because some of the allegations are true.”

And he warned: “One of the major elements of any country that wants to come close to Europe is that the cultural heritage of neighbours is respected.”

The Independent’s article is here.

Police block a side road leading to Parliament, A1 Plus Protest Rally, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2002

In the continuing saga that perhaps best represents the way the authorities have destroyed freedom of speech in the broadcast media, A1 Plus has once again been denied a broadcasting frequency. The TV station, considered to be the most independent and popular for its news, was taken off the air in a controversial tender for new frequencies in April 2002.

RFE/RL reports on yet another blow to press freedom in a country that Freedom House considers “Not Free” when it comes to the media.

The National Commission on Television and Radio, a regulatory body appointed by President Robert Kocharian, rejected the A1+ station’s application for one of two radio frequencies put on a tender. The commission voted unanimously to give both frequencies to two little-known companies.

Its chairman, Grigor Amalian, insisted that A1+ was again denied a frequency because its competitors submitted stronger bids. “This was an absolutely just decision,” he said.

A1+ representatives dismissed the explanation, saying that Amalian and seven other members of the body simply upheld a political decision made by the authorities. “Today’s decision was not unexpected,” said journalist Karine Asatrian. “I would be surprised if they gave us a frequency.”

One of the frequency winners, Ulis Media, is based at the Yerevan premises of the Armenian Public Radio. Its chief executive, Norayr Mukhoyan, said the company simply rents office space there and has no ties with the government-controlled broadcaster. “I am happy that we won. The tender was definitely fair,” he told RFE/RL.

Reports in the Armenian press have linked the other winner, Radio Pro, with Prime Minister Andranik Markarian’s Republican Party.

A1+, the only national channel that was not loyal to the Kocharian administration, was forced off the air in April 2002 just hours after losing a first-ever frequency tender administered by Amalian’s commission. It has since participated in 11 other biddings and lost all of them.

The commission’s decisions have been denounced as politically motivated by Armenian and international media watchdogs. They as well as the Council of Europe consider A1+’s de facto closure as a serious blow to press freedom in Armenia.

A1 Plus has more on its web site, and quotes its Director Mesrob Movsesyan in saying that Grigor Amalian, the rather shifty looking head of the National Commission for Television and Radio, who at least seems to be able to afford better suits of late, is merely a puppet with the Armenian President pulling the strings.

By putting “A1+” “bad” and its rivals “good” marks Grigor Amalyan once more announced they have made an “impartial” decision this time giving licenses to “Ulyss - Media” and “Radio-Pro” LTDs which are quite unfamiliar to the public. By rating polls “A1+” gained only 22 points whereas its rivals got 29 points. When one of the journalists asked why he put a “bad” mark to “A1+” Grigor Amalyan was surprised that such question might occur to their minds. By the way, the representatives of “Radio-Pro” weren’t even present in the NCTR to know the results of the competition; probably they were sure of their victory.

“I am glad that we won the contest and I think that it was just and fair,” Norayr Mkhoyan, chief producer of “Ulyss - Media” LTD announced after the contest. The representative of the company located on 5 Alek Manoukyan once more refuted their connection with Aleksan Haroutyunyan, the Council of Public Television and Radio Company and “Ulyss” LTD of the “Nairi-Cinema” as “they rented premises in the Radio House on contract bases,” though he couldn’t give reasons for the question whether one can rent premises in the Radio House without “corresponding acquaintances and ties.”

[…]

“The matter is not connected with Amalyan; what can he do? He is merely a tool and must do whatever he is ordered,” said Mesrop Movsesyan on this score. The question must be put in other way; will “A1+” be given a license while the president of the country is Kocharyan? Of course, not. Kocharyan’s attitude to “A1+” is the same, it is invariable though he tries to convince the West that he has missed “A1+” and needs it.

Kocharyan’s hypocrisy is no longer in effect either there or here. At present the time works against them. Amalyan is a puppet, a marionette in all this matter, which will open his mouth each time they pull the thread and will keep silent each time the thread is left but in this case he will bite his tongue.”

The station also reports that the Director of Human Rights Watch is less than satisfied with the response of the Armenian Foreign Ministry to its new reports on human rights practices in the country, and which specifically mention the lack of an independent broadcast media in Armenia. It’s interesting to note that A1 Plus case is currently being examined by the European Court of Human Rights, as was recently reported by the BBC.

The European Court of Human Rights is studying an appeal by an Armenian TV station against a government decision to close it down.

The court’s judgement could have far-reaching implications for freedom of expression and human rights in Armenia and across the southern Caucasus.

In April 2002, the Armenian government took A1+ off the air.

The TV station, which was the most popular independent news channel at the time, has since reapplied ten times for a licence to broadcast. Each time it has been refused.

[…]

When the A1+ signal died, almost four years ago, thousands gathered on the streets of Yerevan to protest.

Those protests lasted for more than a week. It was a show of public support that convinced the A1+ president, Mesrop Movsesyan, that he must find other ways to continue delivering news to the people of Armenia.

“The sheer scale of the public protest, when ordinary people realised that freedom of expression was being attacked through the silencing of A1+, persuaded us that we had a duty to continue to operate as a news organisation, even though our transmitters had been turned off,” he said.

[…]

As well as being unable to broadcast, A1+ journalists are forbidden from attending government news conferences and are refused interviews with ministers.

If they are seen on the streets of Yerevan interviewing members of the public, police move them on.

Boris Navasardian, president of the Yerevan Press Club, says the continued existence of A1+ angers many in power, including politicians, business leaders and members of the judiciary.

He says many want to see the media organisation destroyed and that anger extends to the current government, which, Mr Navasardian says, feels that any alternative point of view should be silenced.

Of course, even if the European Court ruled in favor of A1 Plus, nobody expects that the station would return to the air in time for the 2007 parliamentary elections, or even presidential elections scheduled for 2008. Instead, Public TV as well as Gerard Cafesjian and Bagrat Sarkisyan’s Armenia TV will continue to fulfil the role expected of them in covering up any electoral falsification, and the same will be true for every other TV or radio station allowed to broadcast.

The decision to deprive A1 Plus of the right to broadcast was and still is political as its Director said in an interview I conducted with him the day after the station was taken off the air in April 2002.

The decision to close A1 Plus was taken in November during a private meeting between the Armenian President, Robert Kocharian, the Defense Minister, Serzh Sarkisyan, and the National Security Council. Although we have no evidence, only oral testimony, we believe that the idea to close the station came from that meeting.

[…]

Officially, they argued that our package was bad, and insufficient funding may have been another reason, but it is only a cover for the real reason which is political.

The full interview is available online here.

Liberty Square, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2002

Police block a side road leading to Parliament, A1 Plus Protest Rally, Yerevan, Republic of Armenia © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 2002

As a few of the Armenian blogs becomes active in support of Armenia’s first entry to the Eurovision Song Contest, more and more cultural and political disagreements are beginning to emerge in the Diaspora, and also in Greece. Over at Cilicia.com, much of the reason for this is because some ethnic Armenians consider that the entry by local singer Andre sounds too “Turkish” rather than Armenian, and I have to admit that he does sound like a Tarkan wannabe.

It is hardly possible to associate Armenia with Europe with that song contrary, it is easier to associate Armenian with Turkey or Azerbaijan as many people currently do. I tried to do my best (unsuccessfully) to listen to that song from start to end . Not only it has nothing to do with Armenian or Armenia ( lyrics are in English, music 99% Turkish) but it is also out of date i.e. it is a copycat of past Turkish Eurovision songs.

Still, in the comments section of the post in question, Raffi Kojian makes the valid point that both Armenian and Turkish culture have borrowed heavily from each other as well as other cultures. Indeed, with the exception of Komitas, is there any such thing as pure Armenian music anyway? Morever, has any country really developed a musical tradition that is pure and free from other influences?

Is it possible to say ANYTHING without being subjected to scorn? Turkey’s milked the European/Asian thing forever now, is it ok if we do too? Is it ok if Europeans realize we’re right here in their backyard and decide to come by and check out our country in person? Is it ok if Andre - whos song I have never even commented on - sings something that actually borrows from neighboring countries who influence the music here, just as we influence theirs?

At the same time, Harmick over at Blogrel has created a site to support Andre and is urging Diasporans in Europe to vote for Armenia’s entry in order to wave the flag. The argument is that a victory for Andre will publicize Armenia and push the country closer to Europe even though some commentators over at Cilicia.com argue that it would instead create the impression of close cultural ties with Turkey and the Middle East.

Ha-ha, can’t agree more with Anna! Who gives a damn about this Eurovision contest, anyway? When Raffi described it as some kind of Super European Cup, my jaw dropped. Come on, neither critics of the song (ya, I heard a clip and was not impressed) nor the supporters should make it an ARMENIAN question, almost an IDENTITY question: it is exactly “just a cheesy song competition”! One day a good song will be presented, another day - a not so good one, not a big deal…

We’ll grow out of it, of course, but it is so amusing to watch this “national battle” now and recall it in, say, 10 years!

Personally, I also don’t care. If people think the song is good then let them vote for it regardless of who the singer is and where he comes from. However, given that Georgia pulled out of Eurovision because it would require a financial commitment of over $500,000, I would still like to know how much Armenia’s entry has cost the country and where the money came from.

Georgia will not participate in musical contest “Eurovision-2006″. This was declared by general director of “Eurovision-Georgia” company Vano Tarhishvilli.” Georgia can not take part in contest because organizers couldn-t gather a sum of 500 thousand euro necessary for preparation of Georgia participation in “Eurovision” contest”, - announced Tarhinshvilli.

“A sum of 500 thousand euro for preparation expenses was determined by the necessity to order a song appropriate for “Eurovision” standards”, to make a video and to record mini-album, to demonstrate hit during concert tours and then perform it on a contest with dignity”, - pointed out Tranhishvilli.

On the other hand, that’s also because in the UK we generally take the competition as a joke and certainly not representative of real contemporary musical culture in Europe. Don’t think I’ve been able to stand more than 15 minutes of watching it, to be honest.

The credibility of the show has been called in to question in some countries - (UK for example sees it as a comedy show but nonetheless keeps good viewing figures, Italy has declined to enter since 1997); conversely “new Europe” nations see it as a chance to showcase their nation and culture. This may or may not have a bearing on “Political and Regional Voting Patterns” as described above.

Meanwhile, some other more serious concerns are emerging now that Andre is in Greece. According to A1 Plus, after Azerbaijan protested his inclusion in the competition, some unexpected political concerns have been raised by members of the Greek-Armenian community.

“A1+” received a letter from the Greek information agency “Hayastan” which on behalf of part of the Armenian community living in Greece complains of the activity of Vahram Kazhoyan, RA Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to Greece. According to the agency, “because of him the Armenians in Greece live in a tense atmosphere.”

The letter explains that the reason of the tense atmosphere is that with the support of Ambassador Kazhoyan Andre participates only in events held for the members of the Dashnaktsutyun (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) party.

“The singer is practically isolated from the local Armenian community and all its cultural and educational centers with the exception of those which operate under the sponsorship of the Dashnaktsutyun,” the letter says. “The two cases which caused much indignation were the following. On May 14 the Armenian Embassy organized a concert for the Armenian community with the participation of Andre and a number of singers from Armenia at which only the members of the Dashnaktsutyun party were allowed to be present. The second case was that Andre did not visit the ‘Galpaqyan’ college of the AGBU, whereas he visited the schools operating under the sponsorship of the Dashnaktsutyun party.”

According to several sources the staff of the Armenian Embassy in Greece is also displeased with the attitude of Ambassador Kazhoyan which causes problems in the Armenian community.

Well, culture can often be political, and this seems particularly true in the case of Armenia. So, while I don’t particularly care about this competition, I do see it representative of the chaos and politically-linked sponsorship of contemporary culture in the Republic. Whatever. Soon this contest will be over, and I don’t particularly care what the outcome is.

A1 Plus reports that Orinats Yerkir is pulling out of the three-party coalition government in Armenia. The move comes after its leader Artur Baghdasarian reportedly angered President Robert Kocharian by suggesting that the 2003 presidential election was falsified and that Armenia’s future direction lies in integration with European and NATO structures.

Parliament speaker Artur Baghdasarian on Tuesday stood by his reported calls for Armenia’s eventual accession to NATO, contradicting official Yerevan’s foreign policy and prompting criticism from his coalition partners.

Baghdasarian stressed that he would rather pull his Orinats Yerkir Party out of the governing coalition than disavow bombshell statements which were attributed to him by a leading German newspaper.

“Armenia’s future lies in the European Union and NATO,” “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” quoted him as saying in an interview published on April 19. He added that “Russia must not stand in our way to Europe.”

[…]

Kocharian likewise said through a spokesman last week that he is “surprised” with Baghdasarian’s statements. Kocharian must also be unhappy with the speaker’s implicit remark, also made in the German newspaper interview, that Armenia’s 2003 presidential and presidential elections were rigged.

However, A1 Plus says that there are other issues involved.

Late in the evening the enlarged session of the political council of the party “Orinats Yerkir” adopted a decision to quit the coalition. This presupposes the resignation of Arthur Baghdasaryan from the post of the RA NA President. The decision was made unanimously: all the nine members of the political council voted for it.

More than 40 members of the administration of the party also participated in the session. According to the official statement, their main disagreement with their colleagues from the coalition was not only their approach towards the 2001-2003 privatization program but also their concern about the privatization of the Metsamor nuclear power station.

The coalition memorandum presupposes that the structure leaving the coalition must call back all its members in the government, that’s to say all the Ministers will resign too.

Tomorrow at 02:00 PM Arthur Baghdasaryan will render a press conference to inform details about his resignation and the decision of the party.

Earlier in the day, RFE/RL reported that such a move was on the cards, and not least since it has been reported that Kocharian has been seeking to punish Baghdasarian for his remarks and growing independence within a government that is merely one in name only under the direct control of the president.

The way in which Kocharian is seeking to punish Baghdasarian and Orinats Yerkir also illustrates how political corruption functions in Armenia.

Three more wealthy lawmakers defected from Orinats Yerkir late Wednesday and early Thursday, reducing to 11 the number of parliament seats controlled by Baghdasarian. His party had 20 seats as recently as last month, boasting the second largest faction in the 131-member National Assembly.

The wave of defections, which began last week, is reportedly part of President Robert Kocharian’s efforts to force Orinats Yerkir out of the ruling coalition. Government sources have said Kocharian has lost patience with its 37-year-old leader’s regular and embarrassing attacks on his cabinet.

[…]

All of the defectors are wealthy businessmen with close government connections, a necessary condition for engaging in large-scale economic activity in Armenia. Yet another Orinats Yerkir deputy, Tigran Yeganian, was expected to follow their example later on Thursday. Yeganian, 28, is the youngest member of the National Assembly. His father is the owner of a big and expensive restaurant near Yerevan which is popular with senior government officials.

Bisharian stopped short of explicitly blaming the defections on Kocharian. But she did deplore the strong dependence of Armenian businessmen on the government. “Regardless of whether a businessman is a member of Orinats Yerkir, a Republican or a Dashnak, they are facing this danger [of losing their assets],” she said. “This could happen to any political force and businessman.”

Baghdasarian, popular in European circles and especially among the political elite in France, is no stranger to incurring the wrath of his government partners. In April 2004 when the state security apparatus came down hard on opposition supporters in central Yerevan, Baghdasarian departed from the official line by criticizing the heavy handed action of riot police in the early hours of 13 April.

Parliament speaker Artur Baghdasarian criticized on Friday the Armenian government’s continuing crackdown on the opposition and made what appeared to be a last-ditch attempt to avert another violent confrontation between the two mutually hostile camps.

“You just can’t open a criminal case against a political party. I don’t know what opposition actions provoked it,” Baghdasarian, referring to the ongoing criminal investigation into the opposition Artarutyun bloc’s campaign for President Robert Kocharian’s resignation.

Several senior members of the alliance, including former Defense Minister Vagharshak Harutiunian, have been arrested and charged with calling for a “violent overthrow of constitutional order” and “publicly insulting” senior government officials as part of the inquiry.

“The guillotine is not the best means of treating dandruff,” Baghdasarian said. He specifically denounced police raids on the offices of major opposition parties following the violent dispersal of the April 13 overnight street protest in Yerevan.

While Orinats Yerkir has been no stranger to controversy in the past, its possible move from government to opposition certainly opens up the possibility for a real battle as 2007 approaches with political figures such as Raffi Hovhannisyan, Aram Sargsyan and now Baghdasarian offering a real alternative to those who represent nothing but corruption to most Armenians.

Indeed, some would argue that as the 2007 parliamentary election approaches and more new pro-government parties are created, this is perhaps the last chance for Armenia to follow a genuine path of democratization. On the same day that Orinats Yerkir apparently decided to quit the coalition, for example, came news of yet another new pro-government party setting its sights on the National Assembly.

To be totally frank, such parties can only come to power through vote-buying, intimidation and outright falsification.

A new pro-establishment party which is reputedly sponsored by Armenia’s influential Prosecutor-General Aghvan Hovsepian revealed on Thursday far-reaching political ambitions, saying it will seek to win next year’s parliamentary election and enter the government.

[…]

Similar ambitions are harbored by another pro-establishment party that was unveiled in January by one of Armenia’s richest businessmen, Gagik Tsarukian. The Prosperous Armenia Party has already enlisted thousands of public sector employees and other people in Tsarukian’s de facto fiefdom that encompasses the town of Abovian and surrounding villages. However, the oligarch is far less influential in other parts of Armenia.

Interesting days, and I’m told by some foreign workers here that the West will not tolerate another set of falsified elections in Armenia. I can only hope that’s the case because the alternative is unthinkable and the beginning of the end.

By Nessuna

It was a major effort to open my eyes in the morning, especially as I had the day off from work, but I knew that I couldn’t miss the lecture “Democracy and the Future of South Caucasus” by Dr. Daniel Warner. Even so, because of problems with directions and the taxi driver, while I did leave in time I only managed to catch the second part of the lecture, but that’s a different story. Anyhow, even though I only made it to for the questions & answers session, it was worth it.

Highlighted are the main points from the lecture.

The Cold War between the former Soviet Union and the United States was not merely a political one. It was also an ideological one dealing with how society should be organized. In 1992, after the collapse of the former Soviet Union, Francis Fukuyama wrote an article that made him famous. Dr. Warner admitted that he was jealous of that man, but that is not the reason he disagrees with Fukuyama. The End of History claimed that the ideological argument as to how people should live is over.

There is no more thesis and antithesis — democracy and capitalism are the answer to that question. The end of Soviet Union was not just the end of the Cold War. It was the end of history.

The way the West is trying to promote the democracy is just that, and based on the fact that it “won the Cold War”. For the West, “democracy is neither an end nor a means. It is propaganda, because it shows they won the war.” The West is a seller, and it sells democracy. However, the question remains whether countries want to buy it, and if yes, how and why? Another question, that begs to be answered is whether Georgia better off now than before the rose revolution? Is Ukraine aso better off today than before the orange revolution?

Everybody is watching China now, because if China succeeds in its modernization without democratization, it will prove Francis Fukuyama wrong. And while talking about Dick Cheyney’s last remark on Russia, Dr. Warner said it was simply intended to antagonize Russia. The same is true for George W. Bush’s visit to Georgia. He said that “you can’t antagonize Russia, because it’s a huge and important country that is going through a different phase trying to realize that they are not an empire anymore.”

If you only have a political system without a political culture it won’t work, and the main point to consider is what do we start with? Dr. Warner is more interested in building the culture first, and that’s what he is doing — trying to encourage people to build such a culture. Many people in the South Caucasus would agree.

Dr. Daniel Warner is the author of 9 books and over 30 publications, most of which are available in English here.

By Nessuna

On Friday, May 5, I had the pleasure to be present at a lecture entitled “Globalization and Transition to Market and Democracy: The Lessons from Polish Experience.” The lecture lasted two hours longer than scheduled, and it was probably one of the most interesting and informative lectures I have been to.

The lecturer was “a key architect of Polish reforms”, who used to hold the position of the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance in Poland in 1994-97 and 2002-03 who now works as the Director of TIGER as well as being a professor at the Leon Kozminski Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management in Warsaw.

He is also the author of 35 books and over 300 articles and research papers that are published in 23 languages around the globe.

According to his biography, the UN, IMF and the WB “have sought his expertise” and “he has accepted invitations for visiting professorships at Yale, UCLA and the University of Rochester, New York.” On top of that all he is “a marathon runner and world traveler who has explored over 120 countries.”

I was surprised to know that even though Professor Grzegorz W. Kołodko had only a few days in Armenia he managed to balance his meetings and lectures with traveling outside of Yerevan. Apparently, he even paid a visit to Tatev monastery, 20 km to the south-west of Goris, which was unfortunately covered in fog.

One can find many of Professor Grzegorz W. Kołodko’s publications online, and that is why I will highlight only some of the key points made during his lecture.

It is believed that Poland has handled the challenges of 15 years of transformation better than other economies. Professor Kołodko disagreed with the term “shock therapy” used with regards to the Polish experience because “it is misleading.” Poland did not undergo shock therapy, but it was rather “shock without therapy” at the beginning and then “therapy without shocks” later.

One of the reasons behind Poland’s “economic miracle” is that it has not only managed to have the “dynamics of growth,” but also to properly distribute “its fruits.” Of course, it isn’t a secret that geopolitical position is also very important. Poland has the most favorable geopolitical position, as opposed to Armenia which has “the most awkward one” in the region. However, and while there is more than a grain of truth that geopolitical position matters, so does policy.

At the same time, the soundness of policy does not depend on institution building alone. It depends on other factors such as economic doctrine or the skills of policy-makers.

Here is an interesting fact for you. According to some American survey, when asked “Do you believe in Hell?” and “Do you believe in Heaven?” more people answered “yes” to the second question. We soon believe what we desire. Yet, how can one believe in the existence of Heaven while denying the existence of Hell? If there is right, then there is wrong — one cannot exist without another.

Yet, there is no Hell and no Heaven, it is the same place. This is to say that “the flow of capital,” for example, can turn into a good or bad experience depending on the policy the government pursues. Yet no policy maker will ever say they are doing badly because they were wrong. Policy-making is indeed more art than science, and somewhere where one has to combine so many things at the same time.

In fact, the point that Professor Grzegorz W. KoÅ‚odko’s emphasized many times during the lecture was that “things happen the way they do because many things are happening at the same time.”

One lesson that Armenia can learn from Poland is that “the main source of development is domestic capital accumulation.” Foreign capital cannot be a substitute for national savings. In other words, having foreigners investing in Armenia is good, but it is much more important to create the necessary conditions for domestic capital accumulation. Tourism is one sector of the economy that Armenia can benefit from. However it requires proper infrastructure, knowledge and management.

Much attention is paid to the question whether democracy facilitates economic growth or not, and while it is generally believed that the answer is “yes”, it was pointed out that this also depends on the decision-making processes that take place. Thus, sometimes enlighted dictatorship works much better in terms of achieving economic growth that democracy can. China is a perfect example of this. However, the question one should ask is do we want economic growth at the expense of democracy?

Quoting Professor Kolodko, “democracy is a value per se, disregarding economic growth.” Interestingly, he also said that in Poland, the market economy works better than democracy.

Speaking of globalization, it was mentioned that this is the only logical path of development, whether we like it or not. It is not always fair, and there are losers and winners, but it is nevertheless “the end of history” as we know it. We can try to impose tariffs, or dismantle McDonalds stores as French farmer Jose Bove did, but the process of globalization is irreversible.

When asked about Armenia and neighboring countries, Professor Kolodko replied that ideally, Armenia should strengthen its ties with Turkey and Azerbaijan, engage in trade, open its market, and integrate to the fullest. However, because of historical and political connotations, this option is not foreseeable in the near future.

At the end of the lecture, Professor Kolodko, promised to visit Armenia again, provided there won’t be any fog in Goris.

I saw this report fromon Groong Lonely Planet - It’s a pretty good picture of Armenia today.

For an unfair first impression of a country, try arriving at an
unrenovated Soviet airport in the middle of the night. Armenia’s
Zvartnots airport looked like a space station from the outside and
a disused factory on the inside. Mercifully, this […]