Understanding the Armenian world view when dealing with the Artsakh Conflict

Despite the world having witnessed our recent history, we are still asked by International mediators to be reasonable in our demands (our demands to preserve what is left of our nation)

 it would be really nice if, for once, the international community, the Turks and the Azeris would care to understand the Armenian case: We are a nation of people who’s contribution to the world is quite disproportionate to our size, and yet have constantly been marginalised by larger interests, seen as disposable problems, to the point where our plight has even been refered to as “the armenian QUESTION“, as if we were a problem that the world was trying to effortlessly wash its hands of. For most of our recent history, we have been criticised as a nuisance by larger powers in the grand scheme of World Affairs, because we complained about our lands being taken from us, our people murdered, our sovereignty being violated, or culture compromised time and time again. Yet, we have constantly been asked to compromise on these things which we have held dear by the same powers who asked us to sacrifice for the greater good, to appease our aggressive neighbours, or for future compensation.

Today we live in a Republic that is one tenth the size of the state we were legally promised in 1919, which itself was only two thirds the size of the land we have historically lived in; which didn’t bother Stalin who decided to disect us even further.

Different Armenias

 We do not have the luxury of having a Sprachbund stretching from Blugaria to China like our neighbours do, our closest kin have long since been assimilated into other cultures, there is no where else for us to go. We have nothing left to give, and yet we are still being told by the International community that we are being unreasonable, that we must compromise…This is not an irrational call for romantic nationalism, or irredentism, this is a very real, pragmatic issue for us. IT is an issue that intails the very survival of our nation as a relevant, independent state in the modern world. We collectively share the pain of the Azeris who suffered in the early nineties, but it was a necessary pain, Just as the pain of the Indian-born Britons who left for a land of their ancestors that they had never seen, when India received it’s independence.

It should be noted, however, that despite the fact that the Armenian nation has already lost so much, for the sake of peace, the Armenian negotiators at the Kazan conference offered a compromise that was so humiliating for the Armenian side that some of the points have still not been publicly revieled. This very reasonable proposal was turned down by Aliyev. In other words, no matter what we offer, they will still ask for more.

Should Azeri refugees be alloud to return to their homes? Absolutely. Should we allow Azeris free passage through Armenia/Artsakh, as part of a pledge to allow all of mankind the right ot freedom of movement, and dignity they deserve as fellow human beings? Definately. Should we dream of the day where we could one day trade freely with Azerbaijan and look towards eventual regional economic integration? We are more than willing…Yet, to give up even an inch of land for which we have fought and bled for? NEVER.

Advertisements

“Pro-Azerbaijani letter is an outrage”- a letter to the Baltimore Sun

This letter was originally published on September 12th, 2012 as a response to the letter “The U.S. should back off its criticism of Azerbaijan’s handling of the Safarov case” by Emil Israfilbek in the Baltimor Sun. the Publication could be found here.

 

In his letter “The U.S. should back off its criticism of Azerbaijan’s handling of the Safarov case” (Sept. 10), Emil Israfilbek displays very concerning signs of lack of compassion and understanding for human rights, by writing that he is unable to understand why Armenians would be (rightfully) insulted by the Hungarian government’s decision to extradite convicted murderer Ramil Safarov back to his home country after having served a mere fraction of his sentence, despite international condemnation of the event. Furthermore, his letter tries to masquerade a blatant incident of racism as a call for non-interventionism.

To clarify: The Nagorno-Karabakh War was sparked by a vote in the historically Armenian region of Nagorno-Karabakh (which had been detached from Armenia, and transferred to the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic as part of a Stalin-era ploy to foster relations with Azerbaijan’s powerful ethnically related neighbor, Turkey) for reintegration into the Armenian SSR. This caused violent backlash in Baku, culminating in the Baku and Sumgait pogroms in which dozens of Armenians were systematically sought out and murdered by their Azeri neighbors in a blood-bath that lasted until the Soviet Army intervened (which the Azeris cynically now commemorate as “black Friday”).

These barbarous acts, as well as similar acts of intolerance toward other minority groups in the former Soviet republic, solidified the resolve of the ethnic-Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh to declare its independence, in line with the Soviet Constitution. This, in turn, triggered a full-fledged invasion of the territory by the Azerbaijani Army, which was defeated after a bloody four-year conflict. This humiliating defeat for Azerbaijan has been manipulated by the country’s ruling elite in order to foster blind hatred against the Armenian people in what many analysts consider to be an attempt at distraction by a kleptocratic ruling family to hold on to power.

One of he more perturbing aspects about Mr. Israfilbek’s letter is the fact that he tries to justify a particularly heinous murder by saying that condemnation of the murderer’s actions is uncalled for, because Mr. Safarov was simply retaliating for childhood war trauma. In other words, in Mr. Israfilbek’s mind, the rest of the world should not concern itself, because killing any Armenian around the world is OK. His letter describes “a deadly fight,” when in reality Mr. Safarov murdered a fellow officer at a Partnership for Peace conference in his sleep. Mr. Israfilbek treats this as something akin to a commendable act because Azerbaijan found itself on the losing side of a post-Soviet secessionist conflict, even though this man was rightfully convicted of murder.

Mr. Israfilbek conveniently omits the fact that every single ethnic Armenian family living within the NK enclave lost family members in the war as well, some through well documented war crimes, and yet, by contrast, none of them have shown similar contempt for the lives of Azeris, or glorified arbitrary murderers. Furthermore, none of the 8 million or so descendants of Armenian genocide survivors have shown a similar attitude toward Turks. Why does Mr. Israfilbek believe that the law shouldn’t apply when an Azeri kills an Armenian, and yet, in the same breath call for the U.S. Congress to condemn the Nagorno-Karabakh struggle for independence as a “genocide” of Azerbaijanis?

For once, the U.S. government policy toward the region can be qualified as commendable, since the president was able to uphold American values of human rights and justice instead of strategic interests which have been sustaining Azerbaijan’s power-elite (namely, its vast oil reserves).

 

The Cost of the Diaspora’s aid: Why the Diaspora should push for free-markets, not Charity as a generator of development in Armenia

This article was originally presented to the first annual convention for “Armenian Students for Liberty” September 2013

With independence, Armenia found itself inheriting a vast amount of socio-economic problems stemming from the collapse of the Soviet collectivist economy. These problems were further exasperated by the 1988 Spitak Earthquake, the war with neighbouring Azerbaijan over the Karabakh enclave as well hyperinflation of the newly introduced Dram. These alarming conditions lead a concerned Armenian Diaspora to pool its collective economic strength together in order to  set up a series of badly-needed emergency funds. This was the birth of the Diaspora-sponsored charity campaign; exemplified by organisations like the “Hayastan” All-Armenia Fund.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the now wide-spread practice of fundraising and donation-based foreign aid by the Armenian Diaspora, though initially helpful in the early years of Armenian independence, is harming healthy development more than it is helping. Furthermore, It should be argued that a much better approach at promoting financial prosperity and development by the Diaspora would be to invest politically and financially into the institutions of free-markets, and rule of law.

Since Independence, the “Hayastan” All-Armenia Fund alone has collected over a quarter of a billion dollars in direct aid to Armenian infrastructure reconstruction projects.    Added to that are the billions of dollars collected by a myriad of charitable organisations, including roughly two billion USD in aid and development assistance by the American Government.

Diaspora generously gives back to to the Fatherland

Economists agree that this sort of “development” aid has been largely wasteful and ineffective in achieving the desired effect. Christopher Coyne, professor of economics at George Mason University argues that: “Those Involved in humanitarian efforts are unable to promote societal economic progress because they suffer from the “planner’s problem,” meaning they are unable to access the relevant knowledge to best allocate resources in the face of a variety of competing, feasible alternative uses.”

Negative socio-economic impact of Aid

The negative consequences of development aid include a deligitmisation of the National Government, perpetuates the sense of learned-helplessness amongst the population, and abets corruption by officials. Since the primary role of Government in Armenia is to preserve the rules of the game by enforcing contracts, preventing coercion, and keeping markets free, yet as the same time the government budget sets aside funds for the construction and rehabilitation of state infrastructure; Diaspora-funded project only serve to remove the responsibility that  elected government officials should have vis-à-vis their electorate in regards to the spending of their tax money. This, in turns, allows for irresponsible spending by both the Diaspora organizations, and the government.

The politics of Foreign Aid also has a direct negative impact on the communities they are trying to help by disrupting the organic development of civil society when dealing with issues. Thus, instead of communities forming committees to deal with problems that affect them all on a grass-roots level, they are instead encouraged to simply wait for help from the diaspora.

Foreign aid encourages corruption in Armenia. Diaspora donors act in a very peculiar way when donating to such charities. They essentially allow themselves to contribute to the tax revenues of a country of which they are not a citizen of, and with no say on how the money should be spent; which is ironically the exact same confrontation on which the United States of America was founded (“No taxation without representation”). They do not, in anyway demand accountability, or transparency from the local contractors when funding projects. This has lead to widely publicised scandals where Armenian government officials used a system of kick-backs, bribery and fraud in order to augment their income. Because most development projects usually require cooperation with the local government. This increased exposure amplifies the opportunities for fraud and corruption.

Causations of Diaspora Behaviour

The Diaspora’s Foreign Aid mentality has been shaped by the image of a far-away, desperate Armenia of the 1988 earthquake, as well as five decades of post-colonialist, and structuralist views towards the benefits of Marshal-era Aid policies. The sense of duty towards a homeland, the naiveté of donors towards the on-site partners, as well as the self-gratification when doing good generally has the effect of obscuring the real needs of the target beneficiaries. In many cases, projects can fall pray to corruption, mismanagement  and failure to achieve longterm sustainability.

Solutions:

Aside from small-scale, and pinpointed projects, large-scale aid and development projects are simply obsolete. The only true path to sustainable economic development for Armenia, as well as all nations, is good governance. In their book, “Why Nations Fail” (2013) Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson conclusively show that it is man-made political and economic institutions that underlie economic success (or the lack of it). For Acemoglu and Robinson, nations that progress socially and economically usually have states which: “Secure property rights, the law, public services, and the freedom to contract and exchange all rely on the state, the institution with the coercive capacity to impose order, prevent theft and fraud, and enforce contracts between private parties.”

Thus, the Armenian Diaspora needs to shift its focus from providing relief aid, and large-scale infrastructure development aid, to ensuring the development of healthy, transparent, and inclusive institutions. This would mean pushing for a government which secures basic individual liberties, does not obstruct the free exchange of goods, services and ideas.

 This can be done in the following ways: 

 Diaspora aid organisations could change their focus from donations to venture capital management. They could contribute rationally to sustainable development by promoting good business practices in Armenia, and to finance the Armenian private sector in the country. Such groups could hire on-site risk management professionals who could analyse the business plans for local entrepreneurs, while helping those who’s ideas need to be further cultivated with sound business consulting.

Furthermore, in order to protect the interest of Diaspora, repatriate, as well as foreig ninvestors who could potentially breath fresh air into the the country’s business sector, against government provocation, harassment, nepotism and kickbacks. they can also engage in reverse-lobbying in Armenia. In other words, as Armenian Diaspora organisations revamp themselves as investment groups, they can threaten to withhold funds from the cash-strapped government until it submits to a number of legislative changes which would help create a link between : These would include abolishing the customs agency, reducing personal income and corporate taxes to a 15% flat tax rate, create tax-free zones in the provinces to encourage foreign direct investment, to form an independent judiciary branch, and to severely cut down the size of government.

This would protect the interest of Diaspora or repatriate, as well as foreign investors who could potentially breath fresh air into the the country’s business sector, against government provocation, harassment, nepotism and kickbacks.

Such emphasis on laissez-faire policies would allow the armenian economy to shed its soviet legacy of inefficiency, while kickstarting a vibrant and competitive economic presence on  the world market. With such policies,  Armenia  would become a very attractive place for investors, and could find its competitive advantage, while building a niche for export products and services.

source: https://i1.wp.com/farm3.staticflickr.com/2607/3934658340_35216ae67b_z.jpg

Armenia should be encouraging high-skilled, high-income repatriation

The Armenian Diaspora could also pressure the Armenian government to greatly simplify the repatriation process, especially for investors, by allowing for alternate military service, tax breaks for certain types of professionals, and so on. 

For the Diaspora organisations adamant on preserving the Benevolent/development-oriented nature of their organisations, it is also possible to transform the organisation into a sort of independent (form the RoA government) development foundation, providing grants and real support to social-business start ups and so on; following a structure similar to the US-Government-funded “Enterprise Development & Market Competitiveness Project”

Conclusions

Since funding massive aid projects is an obsolete way of solving Armenia’s problems with economic stagnation, oligarchy, corruption and emigration, the main goal that the Armenian Diaspora should be more invested in implementing the right conditions for long-term, and sustainable socio-economic growth in Armenia, by lobbying for what Coyne describes as “The conditions underpinning economic freedom—protection of property rights, private means of production, and free trade in labor and goods—provide an environment free of coercion in which people can engage in the process of discovery and experimentation necessary for economic development. This process is messy and will often appear misguided to outsiders, but it is the only way to achieve society-wide development.”

Works Cited:

 “”HAYASTAN” ALL ARMENIAN FUND | Www.himnadram.org| Rural and Infrastructure Development Projects in Armenia and Artsakh. Schools, Hospitals, Roads. Charity. Donate Now.” “HAYASTAN” ALL ARMENIAN FUND | Www.himnadram.org| Rural and Infrastructure Development Projects in Armenia and Artsakh. Schools, Hospitals, Roads. Charity. Donate Now. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2013.

2 “From Relief to Development.” USAID / Armenia :. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Aug. 2013.

3  Coyne, Christopher J. Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails. May 2013 Print.

4 “The Role of Government in Education,” by Milton Friedman. From Economics and the Public Interest, ed. Robert A. Solo, copyright 1955 by the Trustees of Rutgers College in New Jersey. Reprinted by permission of Rutgers University Press.

5 Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson. Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. New York: Crown, 2012. Print.

6 “EDMC.” www.EDMC.am Web. 25 Aug. 2013.

7 Coyne, Christopher J. Doing Bad by Doing Good: Why Humanitarian Action Fails. May 2013 Print.

The post-soviet role of the State in anti-LGBT propaganda legislation

The Armenian Police Department retracted a draft law proposal banning “Propaganda” promoting non-traditional family relationships in Armenia a day after it had been proposed, citing the need to specify certain elements of the bill.

However, much like the NGO bill, the Yerevan beautification project and a host of other “brilliant”, yet far from original ideas, this one seems to be a calque from an identical bill passed in Russia recently. It is rumoured that the Armenian Police are rewriting the bill in order to specify what could be considered “non-traditional” sexual behaviour. We can expect the Armenian government to throroughly research the various sexual positions which will be considered legal and illegal.

The question thus arises, why is the government worried about its citizen’s sex lives?Are there not more important things for governments to legislate? Where does the role of government end? Today, more than ever, the quote “There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation” remains relevant for the citizens of Armenia.

Aside from the obvious consequences of a useless bill in a country where LGBT rights are often regarded as a non-issue, especially considering the many pressing issues, why would such a bill be drafted at all? what do you think? The answer, however, remains clear: Good government = less government.