This is the fourth ARF meeting taking place in Armenia. The speaker is the political party’s bureau member Hrant Markaryan. The speech included issues concerning both internal and foreign politics. We must draw our attention to three points about foreign politics: 1. Armenia-Turkey, 2. Armenia-Georgia, 3. Karabagh conflict.
What does Armenia need today-war or peace? There is a clear answer to this:
Now, more than ever, Armenia needs a peaceful environment which will be established and guaranteed internationally. It needs stability and that can be in two ways. There are two roads to take:
1. Centralization of authorities in the hands of one or a group of political parties that try to remove the other parties from the field through all possible means. This will eventually instill indifference in people, which is stability based on the lack of activities.
2. Formation of democratic authorities through free and fair elections which will be recognized and accepted by the world (for example how Georgian authorities accepted the “Revolution of Roses”) and in this case stability will be based on internal unity.
Of course, Armenia is living in peace , but since that is not strengthened by a contract which would be recognized by the world, the country can break into war at any given time. There is stability which is sort of like the 1st variant mentioned above when it comes to talking about the essence.
What does the ARF think and what suggestions does it have?
a. Foreign politics
1. Armenia-Turkey
In this case, the ARF still goes along with the same orientation-the two remain enemies. The federation strictly goes against reconciliation between Armenia and Turkey, any dialogues and claims that reconciliation with Turkey and opening the border are false agendas due to the fact that Turkey still hasn’t recognized the Armenian Genocide and our right to keep Western Armenia is a necessity. Basically, we must continue to strive for shaping United Armenia. This is extreme nationalism and expressions that blow dust into faces. They fit in with the beginning of the past century and became reasons for explosions later on. We must take into consideration the federation members’ populism and their financing depends on that. However, a political party that announces to be on the side of the president, goes against him because R. Kocharyan claims that Armenia agrees to open the Armenia-Turkey border and establish diplomatic ties. It’s just that Turkey must go along with that without preconditions. Even if we consider it possible for Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide, it is still very abstract to talk about the return of lands of Western Armenia. Opening the border with Turkey will greatly affect us economically and bring us many profits. We will pave a free path towards Europe, trade of products will become easier and there will no longer be a blockade.
2. Armenia-Georgia
The base for the ARF regarding this issue is Javakhk which the federation considers a barrel of gunpowder. At the present, raising the issue of Javakhk will mean developing blockade on Armenia, have bad ties with Georgia through which many exchange routes significant for Armenia pass-starting from cargo all the way to the majority of simple products. Of course, there are Armenians in Javakhk, our compatriots whom Armenia must always keep in the center of attention and support in everything, however, at the present there is no danger facing residents of Javakhk by the Georgian authorities, like for example, the danger facing Karabagh by Azerbaijan in the late 1980s. Bringing up the issue of Javakhk now would mean interfering in Georgia’s internal affairs which does not protect the interests of Armenia and only protects Russia’s interests.
3. Karabagh conflict
Today, Artsakh really is ours and that was made possible through the efforts and decisive politics of the first president of the Republic of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan and his administration. In October 1997, Levon Ter-Petrosyan published an article entitled “War and Peace: Time to get serious” where the president presented to all levels of society his plan for the Karabagh peace settlement. To this day, that plan is the only one that is modern, serious and can be called to life. Ter-Petrosyan’s plan was rejected by the well-known political forces during the Security Council session held in 1998 and in order to not make the situation of the country worse, Ter-Petrosyan resigned from office. Now, when you read the article written by Ter-Petrosyan eight years later and analyze what happened during the past eight years and especially what is going on now concerning the Karabagh conflict, Ter-Petrosyan’s article becomes prophetic.
What does the ARF suggest? By taking into consideration the fact that Karabagh really is ours, they claim that the struggle must continue in order to liberate Shahumyan and Getashen; strive to make the world recognize the joining of Karabagh with Armenia and that the liberated lands form a part of Karabagh’s totalitarianism.
At the present, as the world is pressuring both Armenia and Azerbaijan, coalition member ARF is calling on the people to fight and liberate the lands on the road towards solving the Karabagh conflict peacefully and through compromises (this doesn’t mean making compromises for the security and prosperity of Armenians living in Karabagh). The calls for militarism and liberating lands is nonstructural and is very dangerous for Karabagh and Armenia because the world may take into consideration that the ARF is a part of the coalition, so its viewpoints can be looked at as official viewpoints and change its not too positive orientation towards Armenia. By concluding the ARF’s approaches towards foreign politics, we can say the following: the Dashnaktsutyun (ARF) continues to bring up its regressive, nationalistic point of views. The announcement made by one of the members recently, claiming that “Armenia has three fronts and one border” (referring to Iran), this doesn’t differ too much from the one made in the beginning of the last century when the ARF declared “there shall be a sea to sea Armenia” and that “we must turn Istanbul into a sea of blood”. As for the terrible consequences that these expressions had for the Armenian people, we all know. Of course, there is another viewpoint which kind of puts things in order. The ARF was not able to make reforms and fit in with the times, it was not able to put aside nationalism and move towards the creation of a civil society and continues to spread its blockheaded, false nationalistic (being nationalist is not a bad thing when it is not extreme, so this is false nationalism) ideas and make them a reality, funding and continuing to exist.
b. Internal politics
Hrant Markaryan started his speech about internal politics with the following statement:
“After October 27, 1999, we reestablished recruitment of the president of our country…” This is a very important, interesting nuance that must be paid attention to. Why is the ARF speaker mentioning the period after the events that took place on October 27, 1999 when speaking about the internal affairs of Armenia? After all, the Dashnaktsutyun (ARF) was free to carry out its activities in the beginning of 1998 and if we recall, back in 1998 the ARF members were saying that “change of power is not completely over” and did not say this anymore after the events of October 27, then we can come to very interesting conclusions. One of those conclusions is that, by being set free to carry it out its activities in 1998, the ARF did not become (perhaps in contrast to its expectations) the primary force in Armenia’s internal politics, it had minimal opportunities to make an impact on the solutions of inner and foreign political problems. In spring 1990, when the National Assembly elections took place and the formation of a new government was underway, the ARF did not form a majority and did not get called on as part of the government. Of course, this situation was not satisfactory for the ARF and it felt shy. It went on like this until the terrorist acts of October 27, 1999 after which there were some changes in internal politics. The ARF, which was continuing to be on the president’s side, started to act more freely and joined the coalition after the 2003 National Assembly elections and formed a part of the authorities. It is quite possible that, if Vazgen Sargsyan and Karen Demirchyan were not shot, the ARF would not be presented to the authorities.
The speaker continues to express opinions about the politics led by the president in his speech. First, he emphasizes the fact that they are on the president’s side through thick and thin, however, he immediately starts criticizing the president by stating that he places importance on the oligarchs, anti-political and economic elements as part of the country’s internal politics and that, since he did not take any decisive steps, he let corruption and injustice develop in the country. After all this, the ARF speaker continues to state that the political party supported the president during the 2003 presidential and National Assembly elections in shaping the political field of Armenia. He claims that they are certain that the country needs a president elected by the people in free and fair elections, a president which will be strong, take serious actions and will have the opportunity to work freely. However, some people did not need that kind of a president and they went along with fraud because they understood that it would be necessary during the National Assembly elections in a couple of months and the fact that it would be bad if there was no fraud during the presidential elections. We face many questions when it comes to this. Why didn’t the ARF stop supporting the president before the presidential elections, when it claims that the president is strengthening the oligarchs, the anti-political and economical elements and lets corruption and injustice develop? Why didn’t the ARF go with its separate candidate during the 2003 presidential elections instead of standing up for the existing one who is being criticized now? If, according to them, the president is not leading good politics, what hopes did the ARF have by moving towards free and fair elections with that candidate?
In regard to the 2003 National Assembly elections, H. Markaryan said that some went to those elections by the road leading to demagogy and public meetings; others took the road of turning the wealth acquired by the people and the state into electoral bribes, while others used their sources, loops and claimed that there were many electoral violations, everyone was disappointed and the people missed out on the opportunity to improve the situation of the nation. First of all, we must say that the ARF is still in a trance and doesn’t realize that the people no longer care about the fantasies of being the chosen nation. As for the roads taken for the pre-election process of the National Assembly elections, it is not hard to comprehend that this also refers to the “Republican” and “Rule of Law” political parties. So, why did the ARF join the coalition of those political parties after lashing the election campaign of those two political parties?
The answer to this is also quite simple. By taking into consideration the fact that it does not have the support of the people and society, the ARF understands that it can be considered a part of the authorities only by standing next to the present day authorities and accepting all that they can give. In regard to the events that happened after the elections, the ARF says that becoming a member party of the coalition was the decision of the president and that they are doing everything they can in order to establish prosperity and justice in the country, however, they are not successful in doing that due to the fact that they are not presented in the legislative and executive branches and claim that they have nothing to do with the problems in the country. They are just victims of all the negative phenomena which other forces create. Once again-dual standards: to stay in the coalition, criticize it, throw the whole blame on the coalition and throw dust into the eyes of the members with whom the ARF has signed a contract to be responsible for everything. Of course, the ARF was not supposed to go along with this orientation and stay in the coalition, but in any case, getting out would be looked at as more moral than staying after everything that has happened. But the ARF remained in the coalition because, as mentioned above, it does not have resources to fight alone. As we conclude the 29th ARF general meeting, we can say the following: the ARF didn’t change; it did not make reforms to fit in with the times and stayed as the political party of our times with the same ideas and blockheadedness.
The ARF does not trust anyone. Its main goal is to establish good authorities in Armenia after which it will try to turn its extremely aggressive and nationalistic ideas into reality-something which will put Armenia into a deep crisis and may cause cosmopolitan disasters.
After this meeting, the words of federalist and former Prime Minister of the First Republic of Armenia Kajaznuni sound true and contemporary: “The ARF can’t do anything anymore.”