Armenia’s Architectural Language: Getting Lost in Translation
An Interview with Jane Britt Greenwood, AIA
By Khatchig Mouradian and Jason Sohigian
(Joint Exclusive: Armenian Weekly/Hetq Online)
Hetq.am
April 16, 2007
WATERTOWN, Mass.—Jane Britt Greenwood has seen some of Armenia's struggles first-hand. An associate dean at the College of Architecture, Art, and Design at Mississippi State University, Greenwood and her husband went to Armenia after the earthquake of 1988 to assist in the establishment of the American University of Armenia (AUA).
After leaving Armenia, Greenwood began looking for ways to be involved in the reconstruction of the country she had come to love. As an architect, the rebuilding of Armenia's infrastructure interested her, but she was disappointed to find that the new buildings generally lacked the traditional Armenian character.
Working with the environmental organization Earthwatch Institute, Greenwood is now organizing four 11-day architectural research expeditions that will take international volunteers to Gyumri in June and July 2007.
Volunteers will identify and document the historical architectural elements and patterns in the historic districts, which will contribute to a database of architectural information that can be accessed by planners, architects and designers in Armenia.
For more information about this project or to join as a volunteer, visit: www.earthwatch.org/expeditions/greenwood.html
The following interview with Greenwood was conducted by phone on April 4.
Armenian Weekly/Hetq—How did Earthwatch Institute become interested in the Armenia expedition?
Jane Britt Greenwood—I proposed a project to Earthwatch a few years ago in Haiti related to vernacular architecture. They were interested in that project, but there was a coup in Haiti so it was put on hold. My program manager for that project knew about my interest in Armenia, and he asked me for another proposal that dealt with architecture.
Earthwatch gets a lot of proposals for projects that do things like work with endangered species like turtles and manatees, but they don't have many projects that deal with architecture. When Earthwatch tries to promote sustainability and the environment, they recognize that architecture is a part of the issue of sustainability, so they asked me to write another proposal that dealt with vernacular architecture. Since my interest has been in Armenia for so long, I wrote a proposal for this Armenia project.
AW/H—What specific observations do you have about Armenia's architecture? What are the traditional features and what is being built today?
J.G.—From a scholarly point of view, the information that is being been written has been mostly about churches. That is part of the cultural identity of Armenia, but there are other smaller structures that have just as much to do with establishing the identity of this country. People often don't see the value of smaller buildings such as houses and municipal buildings, but they have a lot to do with placing a country within a context of social and political issues.
In recent years there has been an economic boom in Armenia, especially in Yerevan, and I have seen a homogenization that is taking place within the architecture there. Near the Opera, the buildings are like a mini Times Square where you have billboards that are illuminated and you've got these modern office buildings going up with the horizontal ribbon windows. And when you take photographs of them they could be going up anywhere in the world.
My fear is that—and this is typical for many cultures that are trying to move forward from an economic point of view and trying to position themselves on the world stage—they look at what is being built in other parts of the world and they think, “We need to build glass boxes, we need to be like everybody else.” While that is certainly good, it causes people to not understand the value of their history and their architectural history and heritage.
From my point of view, a lot of that heritage in terms of housing has already been destroyed in Yerevan—you just don't find it anymore. In Gyumri, in the Kumayri Historic District and the old Alexandrapol area, there still are existing examples of Armenian architecture from the early 20th century. And I haven't seen anything like that in other parts of Armenia.
In the long term, I would like to see this project branch out into other areas, because I think Goris has great a vernacular cave typology, and Dilijan has a different type of housing typology. You start to see that the architectural structures are really specific to a location and the different regional influences of the community and the people. From an architectural point of view and a research and an academic point of view, that is information that needs to be documented and preserved.
It would be a terrible shame for Armenia to lose that part of their culture and history.
AW/H—In some historic parts of the U.S., you can't even paint your house a certain color. Yet in a place as old and historic as Armenia, it seems like you can build just about anything. What is going wrong with architecture in Armenia?
J.G.—There are a few factors, from a housing point of view, and at least in Gyumri. People fundamentally want shelter, and they want shelter that is safe, dry and comfortable. In Gyumri, a lot of people are still living in domiks, or in one or two rooms of a house because the rest of house was damaged in the 1988 earthquake. Many of these families don't have the resources to repair the houses, or when they do they are not as concerned with maintaining this sort of historic character. It's not a high priority—and I certainly understand that.
While there is the Ministry of Culture and there are some entities that deal with preservation, I don't know how well standards are enforced. It really has to occur at the local, municipal level, but a lot of people are still struggling with the day-to-day issues of living and surviving, so these issues really aren't in the forefront for them right now.
AW/H—What are you expecting to get out of this expedition? What could it lead to?
J.G.—It is fundamentally an educational process, it's a way to educate citizens of the value of historic structures. There is value in the long term. There can be tourism value, if it can be promoted so people will travel to Gyumri to look at the houses in this historic district.
But we also have to be careful. Through the development of a “pattern language,” I would like to be able to establish design guidelines and a strategy for growth. When people want to build in this area, it's not that everyone has to build like historic Alexandrapol. But there are qualities and components about these buildings—in the way windows are designed, for example—there are sustainability issues that need to be maintained. There is a lot that we can learn from these structures that will help the planning of the future of Gyumri.
If and when the border of Kars and Gyumri opens up, there is going to be a big economic boom in Gyumri. So, that historic district is at risk of being destroyed through this whole notion of economic development, and if we go through this process of education and documentation and look at restoring some of these structures, we can get a foothold in helping people recognize the value of what they have.
AW/H—What are the prospects of getting work done on the ground in terms of implementation? Is there a framework for future suggestions for approaching the government or municipalities?
J.G.—One of my long-term goals is to purchase one of these historic structures and actually go through a preservation/restoration process. This is a way to create jobs in the area, because there are a lot of skills in masonry and ironwork.
Gyumri has a rich history of artists, so there is an artistic culture and crafts culture that is being lost. It's a way to create jobs for people, to create a niche in the country for creating these kids of artifacts, returning to ironwork, stonework, masonry work, and educating the public and educating people with specific skills. Through that we can approach the government, if we can show that we are creating jobs and creating an environment that is becoming pleasing for people.
I think Gyumri is a welcome relief from the heat and smog of Yerevan in the summer. It is a matter of trying to sell the vision of what Gyumri could be. I'm just one architect with these ideas—all I can do is start with my project. And with awareness at the grassroots level people will become more interested in this and we can see where it goes.
The politics in Armenia are very complex and I'm not the person to get into that, but through this project and by raising awareness maybe someone can work from these ideas and help move the government, or at least the Gyumri government, toward these ideas. I know it is not going to happen overnight—it is a very complex problem from a political point of view—but as an architect all I can do right now is try to document, preserve and gather oral histories from people about their lives in these houses, what has been important to them about these houses, what is the social structure of family life as a result of these houses.
AW/H—There is pressure on people if they speak out about these matters and say, for example, that construction projects are destroying the heritage of Armenian cities. The atmosphere in Armenia is difficult in that respect. Do you have local partners in Armenia that are helping you with this work so you can be successful?
J.G.—I have been working in Gyumri with the City Research Center. Over the past 5-6 years, they have been developing a digital database of the buildings—they have been photographing and cataloguing the buildings, which has been great. But they have not been analyzing the buildings, looking at trends, and looking at it from a social behavioral point of view. So my research is trying to take that to the next step. But I have heard that it is difficult if people try to speak out, so all I can realistically do is document it.
AW/H—Are the construction projects in Armenia following any guidelines or do you think they maintain the heritage of the country?
J.G.—My impression is that there are some guidelines but they are not being followed. But it is the complexity of the political system and the building codes. And you find that in the U.S. as well, so it is not something that is specific to Armenia. Even developers in the U.S. know there are rules but they try to get around them, and it really depends on how strong the entity is that is trying to monitor it. If you don't have a strong municipal government or preservation group, you really don't have a way to find out if the preservation guidelines are being followed.
Quite often money speaks louder than anything, especially in a country that has been deprived of economic development for so many years. And it is hard to argue with that—I understand that. So it is a matter or trying to take one step at a time so we can document this. These buildings could be destroyed by earthquakes—and a lot of the buildings have been damaged by water over the years. There may be a point where someone says it is not financially responsible or feasible to maintain the buildings. Even in the U.S. when they look at restoring a structure there is a financial bottom line.
AW/H—You mentioned earthquakes—is it true that some of the new buildings going up begin to crumble before they are even finished? Is the new construction being built to withstand earthquakes?
J.G.—It is my understanding that things are supposed to be built to meet earthquake standards, but whether or not they are, I can't answer without speaking to architects and building inspectors there. But that's what I find interesting about these historic buildings. A lot of the buildings in the Kumayri Historic District have withstood two earthquakes, while those built after the Second World War didn't. There are a lot of things we can learn about the way those buildings were constructed—there are thermal qualities to those buildings, and there are a lot of lessons we can learn from that to help guide us in the future.
AW/H—How is this expedition being promoted in the international community? How are you trying to recruit volunteers for the trip?
J.G.—Earthwatch has an aggressive marketing strategy for all of their projects. They are contacting people like yourself and other Armenian media, promoting the expedition among their own volunteer networks internationally, and there is information about the expedition on their website, www.earthwatch.org. In Armenia, we are going to distribute material at hotels around Gyumri and Yerevan, and we are hoping to do a TV spot when we get there in the summer.
AW/H—If this trip is successful, is there potential for other Earthwatch expeditions in Armenia?
J.G.—Absolutely. There are plenty of archeological areas that could be investigated. Earthwatch has expeditions that document flora and fauna. From my point of view, Armenia has some beautiful flowers and wildflowers. There is a lot of opportunity for Earthwatch to be involved in Armenia—it is just a mater of finding other individuals like myself who are interested in trying to do something like this.
AW/H—How did you get interested in Armenia?
J.G.—My husband and I were living in Boston and he was teaching and saw an ad in the Chronicle of Higher Education about an American university [American University of Armenia] that was being initiated by the Diasporan community in California. His background is in business and engineering, and those are two areas in which they were starting programs, so we went over in 1992.
The Armenian government had given AUA some property in Abovian to build a new American style university, and they hired me to be the university architect. So I was the liason with architects from the University of California.
There were a lot of changes. The original site we looked at was a munitions storage area, and the site literally blew up the day after I went to look at it, so we spent a lot of time looking for another site. My final recommendation was that they stay in downtown Yerevan because transportation was an issue for people and no one knew what the future would look like.
Being there for a year and a half, I found the people to be very warm and everyone makes you a part of their family. It is a beautiful country, with so many different facets—it is so small with a varied landscape. I really fell in love with it and was fascinated with it, and I was looking for some way over the years to get involved architecturally with what was going on there.
I left in 1993 and I didn't return until five years ago, and I have been going back every summer since then to develop partnerships and look for projects. And I finally connected with the City Research Center in Gyumri (www.alexandrapol.org). I have a real passion for the country and the people and I am interested in learning about the culture that built this architecture.
AW/H—In the Earthwatch Institute's catalogue you say, “Join me on this exciting expedition to Armenia—it will truly be a life changing experience.” How do you think people's lives will change if they participate in this expedition?
J.G.—They will have a better appreciation of another country and they will learn a lot about themselves. Going to Armenia was a life changing experience for me at many levels—I realized I was stronger than I thought I was both emotionally and physically, and I think other people will find this as well. It is still a hard life in Armenia, and people will understand from a sustainability point of view that, for example, you don't need to take a shower for 15 minutes and use that much water.
Those sorts of life experiences are what I mean—and with architecture we talk about sustainability, green design and waste—but when you can experience another culture that really does so much with so little, then people will understand that you can do a lot with a little, and there are a lot of things we can cut back on in our lives in the U.S. or in the UK or Australia or wherever you are from, and you can still have a rich and fulfilling life.
Volunteers will learn about themselves from this experience, and they will learn about Armenia and architecture. It will make them look at their environment in a different way. It will make them realize they can make a difference in their own environment. Any time you have an educational process, if you can reach one or two of your students each semester, you have done a good job because they can go and reach other people. Whatever little progress we make will be a big step toward change somewhere down the line. I may never see it, but someone else might see the work we are doing and carry on from there.
You have to start somewhere, and I think this is that start.
Khatchig Mouradian is the editor of the Armenian Weekly (www.armenianweekly.com).
Jason Sohigian is deputy director of Armenia Tree Project (www.armeniatree.org).
Showing posts with label Armenia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Armenia. Show all posts
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
An Interview with Vahan Hovhannesian
Dual Citizenship: An Interview with Vahan Hovhannesian
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
August 11, 2007
On February 26, the Armenian National assembly passed a law allowing dual citizenship. In this interview, conducted in Washington on April 23, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly Vahan Hovhannissian discusses the importance of that law.
Khatchig Mouradian—My first question goes beyond the legalities of the dual citizenship law. In a sense, the dual citizenship law could bring the two divided wings of the Armenian nation together. What are your thoughts on this matter?
Vahan Hovhannisian—First, I must say that the passage of the dual citizenship law will be considered one of the greatest victories of the ARF in this term of the National Assembly. As you know, the law wasn’t passed easily. But at the end, it passed more or less the way we wanted it to. In the beginning, constitutional obstacles to dual citizenship were removed, and then the law itself was passed. Now the third act remains: the implementation of the law on the ground and the coordination of details. How do people apply? What documents will they need to present? How will the applications be processed?
You are right to point out that the law has many different layers. On the one hand, it has a huge moral significance. As we all know, the Armenian diaspora was not the result of emigration, it was the result of the genocide when people were forced to leave their homeland. Thus, if the homeland, though not complete, has been able to achieve independence, then it is forced to give all of its children the right to citizenship. In our opinion this law should have been passed as early as 1991, as soon as Armenia became independent. Due to various political reasons, that was not accomplished. But at least now we have been able to bring this process to its end, and now any Armenian who would like to receive Armenian citizenship can do so, thus gaining the rights of any citizen, not limited to voting.
Here I must emphasize that I hope the number of applications will be plentiful and the number of Armenian citizens will grow. In the international theater, a country with a population of three million and another country with a population of five million carry different weight. The dual citizenship law must strengthen Armenian’s position.
Aside from that, the introduction of dual citizenship in Armenia will encourage investments. It is one thing to make investments in Armenia out of a feeling of moral obligation toward the homeland. It is an entirely different thing to be a citizen and a full participant of the civic life of the nation, whether in politics, in the social sphere, or in other spheres.
In one word, the law will create new waves of Armenians heading toward Armenia. Thus, the law will have far-reaching positive results.
K.M.—Perhaps this was more widely felt in the past, but there are some in Armenia who say that the diaspora did not go through the difficult times that Armenians in Armenia had to endure in the last decade, and claim that this should be taken into consideration when thinking about dual citizenship. What do you think?
V.H.—Such thinking easily crumbles in the face of criticism, since a large section of the Armenian population did not go through those difficult days either, and did not participate in the war. The Armenian authorities back then shielded their sons from military service, had electricity and heating, and did not share the people’s suffering. Can we take away their citizenship because of this? I think this line of thinking is madness, especially since there is a price to pay for becoming a dual citizen of Armenia—that is, a dual citizen cannot run for the presidency or for a seat in the National Assembly. I think from the point of view of fairness, this law is perfect.
K.M.—Naturally the passing of this law was welcomed by the diaspora. The question in the minds of diaporan Armenians is when and how will this law be implemented? Can applications only be filed in Armenia or will embassies also be accepting them?
V.H.—We didn’t get to discuss the concrete steps to implement the law because the elections are upon us and naturally the Assembly is on a hiatus. But I think this will be one of the first issues discussed after the elections. A committee has already been established that is dealing with the details, including how one applies, what documents are needed, how applicants will have to prove their Armenian origin, etc. There are some points that need to be fine-tuned, and some time will be needed, but I think it is a matter of weeks and that it will be resolved quickly after the elections.
In reality, there are no obstacles for applying now. Meaning, just like before, any individual who wants Armenian citizenship must apply to the President of the Republic. It is natural, of course, that under the circumstances a new process for the applications must be created. It is also not a secret that the security services will need to review applications, as some will attempt to abuse the system.
K.M.—What are the expectations from those who will benefit from the dual citizenship law? What are their duties and what will they gain?
V.H.—As far as the Armenian government is concerned, dual citizens are first and foremost citizens of Armenia. Where their other citizenship was issued is of no interest to us. As such, they have the same duties toward the Republic as any Armenian citizen would. That includes serving in the military and other duties. Of course, when an individual is a citizen of Armenia and another country, we cannot allow him or her to become an Assembly member or President. But that doesn’t mean dual citizens will never be able to serve in those posts. After living in Armenia for 10 years, they may give up their other citizenship and receive full rights. There is one problem: How are people to pay taxes? There are international tax agreements and Armenia has signed such agreements with many countries. These will ensure that the individual doesn’t pay the same tax twice in two separate countries. And of course, those who have served in another army for 12 months will not have to complete compulsory military service in Armenia. Also, those who are past the age of 27 will not have to serve in the military, Dual citizens are also completely under the jurisdiction of the Armenian government. For example—and this is a rather bad example—if an individual commits a crime, the Armenian authorities will consider him as an Armenian citizen, and the individual won’t be able to claim, say, that he is a citizen of the U.S., or Syria, or France, and that he would like to be tried in those countries under their penal codes. As far as the authorities are concerned, a dual citizen of Armenia is a citizen of Armenia, and so if you were to commit a crime in Armenia, the Armenian authorities would prosecute you based on the Armenian penal code. The Armenian government’s approach to dual citizens is identical to the approach used by the United States. The U.S., too, recognizes dual citizenships, but treats all of its citizens, including its dual citizens, the same way. Armenia will do the same.
K.M.—In your view, what will the future bring and are there concerns for possible obstacles? Is it possible that the law will be transformed into an internal political tool?
V.H.—I don’t think that’s a concern, because in essence no one was opposed to the concept of dual citizenship. People’s hesitance had much more to do with voting rights—that is, there was the impression among many that diasporan Armenians, by becoming citizens of Armenia, were mostly going to vote for the ARF. This view, by the way, is far from the truth. I don’t think that kind of vote will be large enough to have any effect on today’s political landscape. On the other hand, if we really want the diaspora to be a political presence in our country, if we really want to create one nation in one state, and if we truly want to attract Western Armenians—the diaspora—into our political life, we must allow for their political preferences. So yes, all of those political parties that have come alive in Armenia over the last few years should start taking into consideration the interests of the diasporans, so they can gain their votes. This is a very normal process and there shouldn’t be any problems, especially since in the future the flow towards Armenia should be large. But I don’t think there will be enough applications in the next few months or enough citizenships granted that there will be a political imbalance in Armenia. I don’t think it will happen and I think the fears that it will are not grounded in reality.
K.M.—You said that this law would allow the Diaspora to inch closer toward Armenia. As for the opposite effect—how will it move Armenia closer to the diaspora?
V.H.—Here the issue is dual. If citizens of Armenia today were to gain citizenship in another country, they would not be immune from their obligations, such as serving in the Armenian army. This is one serious problem. The second problem is the issue of the Armenian population in Russia, who have close ties to Armenia, yet value their ties with Russia. We must work with the Russian authorities and come to some kind of agreement regarding the status of the Armenian population there, since it is the largest Armenian population outside of Armenia.
As for the rapprochement between Armenia and the diaspora, I think that’s going to take some time because the division between Western and Eastern Armenians, which was forcefully and artificially created by our enemies, was performed a long time ago. The division has been made. In that rapprochement between Eastern and Western Armenians, whole mentalities have to be reconciled with each other. And the issue is not just economic, it’s not about investing in Armenia or buying a house in Armenia. It is about Armenian grammatical rules, the literary language of Western Armenians and Eastern Armenians—which Armenian children in both Armenia and the Diaspora should start studying in equal amounts. These are very serious and far-reaching issues that need to be resolved. This rapprochement won’t be easy. For example, Armenia can’t just move a magic wand and pass a law forcing classical orthographic rules down peoples’ throats, because that means whole libraries will have to be corrected and a whole generation that doesn’t know the rules will become illiterate. Instead, this change requires long-winded efforts as well as a government plan. We have had a few Armenia-Diaspora summits to find solutions to these issues. Unfortunately, the solutions have not yet been found. The Armenia-Diaspora rapprochement, unfortunately, has not yet occurred.
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
August 11, 2007
On February 26, the Armenian National assembly passed a law allowing dual citizenship. In this interview, conducted in Washington on April 23, Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly Vahan Hovhannissian discusses the importance of that law.
Khatchig Mouradian—My first question goes beyond the legalities of the dual citizenship law. In a sense, the dual citizenship law could bring the two divided wings of the Armenian nation together. What are your thoughts on this matter?
Vahan Hovhannisian—First, I must say that the passage of the dual citizenship law will be considered one of the greatest victories of the ARF in this term of the National Assembly. As you know, the law wasn’t passed easily. But at the end, it passed more or less the way we wanted it to. In the beginning, constitutional obstacles to dual citizenship were removed, and then the law itself was passed. Now the third act remains: the implementation of the law on the ground and the coordination of details. How do people apply? What documents will they need to present? How will the applications be processed?
You are right to point out that the law has many different layers. On the one hand, it has a huge moral significance. As we all know, the Armenian diaspora was not the result of emigration, it was the result of the genocide when people were forced to leave their homeland. Thus, if the homeland, though not complete, has been able to achieve independence, then it is forced to give all of its children the right to citizenship. In our opinion this law should have been passed as early as 1991, as soon as Armenia became independent. Due to various political reasons, that was not accomplished. But at least now we have been able to bring this process to its end, and now any Armenian who would like to receive Armenian citizenship can do so, thus gaining the rights of any citizen, not limited to voting.
Here I must emphasize that I hope the number of applications will be plentiful and the number of Armenian citizens will grow. In the international theater, a country with a population of three million and another country with a population of five million carry different weight. The dual citizenship law must strengthen Armenian’s position.
Aside from that, the introduction of dual citizenship in Armenia will encourage investments. It is one thing to make investments in Armenia out of a feeling of moral obligation toward the homeland. It is an entirely different thing to be a citizen and a full participant of the civic life of the nation, whether in politics, in the social sphere, or in other spheres.
In one word, the law will create new waves of Armenians heading toward Armenia. Thus, the law will have far-reaching positive results.
K.M.—Perhaps this was more widely felt in the past, but there are some in Armenia who say that the diaspora did not go through the difficult times that Armenians in Armenia had to endure in the last decade, and claim that this should be taken into consideration when thinking about dual citizenship. What do you think?
V.H.—Such thinking easily crumbles in the face of criticism, since a large section of the Armenian population did not go through those difficult days either, and did not participate in the war. The Armenian authorities back then shielded their sons from military service, had electricity and heating, and did not share the people’s suffering. Can we take away their citizenship because of this? I think this line of thinking is madness, especially since there is a price to pay for becoming a dual citizen of Armenia—that is, a dual citizen cannot run for the presidency or for a seat in the National Assembly. I think from the point of view of fairness, this law is perfect.
K.M.—Naturally the passing of this law was welcomed by the diaspora. The question in the minds of diaporan Armenians is when and how will this law be implemented? Can applications only be filed in Armenia or will embassies also be accepting them?
V.H.—We didn’t get to discuss the concrete steps to implement the law because the elections are upon us and naturally the Assembly is on a hiatus. But I think this will be one of the first issues discussed after the elections. A committee has already been established that is dealing with the details, including how one applies, what documents are needed, how applicants will have to prove their Armenian origin, etc. There are some points that need to be fine-tuned, and some time will be needed, but I think it is a matter of weeks and that it will be resolved quickly after the elections.
In reality, there are no obstacles for applying now. Meaning, just like before, any individual who wants Armenian citizenship must apply to the President of the Republic. It is natural, of course, that under the circumstances a new process for the applications must be created. It is also not a secret that the security services will need to review applications, as some will attempt to abuse the system.
K.M.—What are the expectations from those who will benefit from the dual citizenship law? What are their duties and what will they gain?
V.H.—As far as the Armenian government is concerned, dual citizens are first and foremost citizens of Armenia. Where their other citizenship was issued is of no interest to us. As such, they have the same duties toward the Republic as any Armenian citizen would. That includes serving in the military and other duties. Of course, when an individual is a citizen of Armenia and another country, we cannot allow him or her to become an Assembly member or President. But that doesn’t mean dual citizens will never be able to serve in those posts. After living in Armenia for 10 years, they may give up their other citizenship and receive full rights. There is one problem: How are people to pay taxes? There are international tax agreements and Armenia has signed such agreements with many countries. These will ensure that the individual doesn’t pay the same tax twice in two separate countries. And of course, those who have served in another army for 12 months will not have to complete compulsory military service in Armenia. Also, those who are past the age of 27 will not have to serve in the military, Dual citizens are also completely under the jurisdiction of the Armenian government. For example—and this is a rather bad example—if an individual commits a crime, the Armenian authorities will consider him as an Armenian citizen, and the individual won’t be able to claim, say, that he is a citizen of the U.S., or Syria, or France, and that he would like to be tried in those countries under their penal codes. As far as the authorities are concerned, a dual citizen of Armenia is a citizen of Armenia, and so if you were to commit a crime in Armenia, the Armenian authorities would prosecute you based on the Armenian penal code. The Armenian government’s approach to dual citizens is identical to the approach used by the United States. The U.S., too, recognizes dual citizenships, but treats all of its citizens, including its dual citizens, the same way. Armenia will do the same.
K.M.—In your view, what will the future bring and are there concerns for possible obstacles? Is it possible that the law will be transformed into an internal political tool?
V.H.—I don’t think that’s a concern, because in essence no one was opposed to the concept of dual citizenship. People’s hesitance had much more to do with voting rights—that is, there was the impression among many that diasporan Armenians, by becoming citizens of Armenia, were mostly going to vote for the ARF. This view, by the way, is far from the truth. I don’t think that kind of vote will be large enough to have any effect on today’s political landscape. On the other hand, if we really want the diaspora to be a political presence in our country, if we really want to create one nation in one state, and if we truly want to attract Western Armenians—the diaspora—into our political life, we must allow for their political preferences. So yes, all of those political parties that have come alive in Armenia over the last few years should start taking into consideration the interests of the diasporans, so they can gain their votes. This is a very normal process and there shouldn’t be any problems, especially since in the future the flow towards Armenia should be large. But I don’t think there will be enough applications in the next few months or enough citizenships granted that there will be a political imbalance in Armenia. I don’t think it will happen and I think the fears that it will are not grounded in reality.
K.M.—You said that this law would allow the Diaspora to inch closer toward Armenia. As for the opposite effect—how will it move Armenia closer to the diaspora?
V.H.—Here the issue is dual. If citizens of Armenia today were to gain citizenship in another country, they would not be immune from their obligations, such as serving in the Armenian army. This is one serious problem. The second problem is the issue of the Armenian population in Russia, who have close ties to Armenia, yet value their ties with Russia. We must work with the Russian authorities and come to some kind of agreement regarding the status of the Armenian population there, since it is the largest Armenian population outside of Armenia.
As for the rapprochement between Armenia and the diaspora, I think that’s going to take some time because the division between Western and Eastern Armenians, which was forcefully and artificially created by our enemies, was performed a long time ago. The division has been made. In that rapprochement between Eastern and Western Armenians, whole mentalities have to be reconciled with each other. And the issue is not just economic, it’s not about investing in Armenia or buying a house in Armenia. It is about Armenian grammatical rules, the literary language of Western Armenians and Eastern Armenians—which Armenian children in both Armenia and the Diaspora should start studying in equal amounts. These are very serious and far-reaching issues that need to be resolved. This rapprochement won’t be easy. For example, Armenia can’t just move a magic wand and pass a law forcing classical orthographic rules down peoples’ throats, because that means whole libraries will have to be corrected and a whole generation that doesn’t know the rules will become illiterate. Instead, this change requires long-winded efforts as well as a government plan. We have had a few Armenia-Diaspora summits to find solutions to these issues. Unfortunately, the solutions have not yet been found. The Armenia-Diaspora rapprochement, unfortunately, has not yet occurred.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
An Interview with Jeffrey Tufenkian
‘For Current and Future Generations’
An Interview with Jeffrey Tufenkian
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
March 10, 2007
Jeffrey Tufenkian is co-founder and president of Armenian Forests NGO (www.ArmenianForests.am), which focuses on restoring and protecting Armenia’s forests for the current and future generations. According to the website, “Armenian Forests NGO is the outgrowth of his concern and determination to do what is needed to protect and restore Armenia’s threatened forests while helping to create jobs and build the economy.”
Tufenkian is also co-founder of the Kanach Foundation, publisher of the book Adventure Armenia: Hiking and Rock Climbing (www.kanach.org).
In this interview, conducted on March 7, Tufenkian talks about the challenges facing the environment in Armenia today, be they deforestation, illegal logging or the absence of sufficient support for environmental NGOs.
Armenian Weekly—How is the Armenian government dealing with the problem of deforestation? Does it provide support to NGO’s like Armenian Forests NGO?
Jeffrey Tufenkian—The government voices concern about the deforestation problems and pledges to plant millions of trees and thousands of hectares of forests, but very little actually happens. Unfortunately given the current situation of powerful people involved in the cutting, there is not the political will to really stop deforestation from the highest levels of government. Having said that, we have decent relationships with the key ministries and there has been some progress. In recent years, there has been a small amount of money from the state budget put into reforestation and some reduction of cutting, but much more needs to be done.
A.W.—Talk about the problem of illegal logging.
J.T.—Of much greater importance than reforestation—as critical and difficult as that is—is stopping the mass deforestation. Armenia’s forests are being systematically destroyed; unless drastic improvements are made soon, Armenia’s forests won’t have a future. And with the loss of the forests comes the downfall of the fragile ecosystem of which it is the cornerstone—loss of springs, streams and rivers, loss of habitat for endangered animals, loss of biodiversity, increasingly severe weather, landslides, erosion and desertification.
Once covering 35 percent of Armenia’s current territory, forest coverage is at a historical low, covering only 7-8 percent. It has already lost many springs and even rivers due to deforestation, and according to the government, over 80 percent of the land is under some level of desertification.
Despite this bleak and worsening situation, oligarchs and other powerful people in Armenia cut trees not only to sell in Yerevan and elsewhere as fuel and other internal uses (construction, furniture, etc.), but actually export wood to countries including Spain, Italy, Iran and even Turkey. This is an outrage that should not be tolerated. In fact, there is still no process for legal productive cutting of forest trees in Armenia. Trees being cut now are done by permission as “sanitary” or other cutting aimed at protecting the health of the forests. Under the guise of this, they are taking many times more trees and healthy ones rather than getting the sick trees out of the forests. Almost by definition, any valuable wood cut in Armenia is illegal.
Export of wood from Armenia is something that would have been unthinkable in Soviet times. In the last half of the Soviet period, there was mass reforestation (up to 7,000 hectares per year) and proper care of the forests as they imported wood for domestic use and would never have cut for export. The limited forest territory Armenia had was recognized as critically important and therefore given a “protected” status.
Although Armenia needs to import wood and does not have supplies internally to justify export, there are both customs fees and taxes to import wood, but to export it there are neither. Armenia should immediately stop exporting wood and change the laws to provide incentives for import of wood such as at least eliminating the fees and taxes charged to bring it in.
A.W.—How does Armenian Forests NGO coordinate with other environmental NGOs. Is duplication a problem?
J.T.—I must say that one of our priority approaches—one we put a lot of time and effort into—is cooperating with and forming coalitions with others including local NGOs—and it has been paying off. When we arrived on the scene in 2002, it was difficult to get more than two NGOs in a room at the same time and have constructive results working together, but there has been a real shift, and I think that the environmental sector is now a place where such cooperation among NGOs is really working and bringing good results. It is not surprising that in this individual-oriented society where everyone has his own organization rather than join someone else’s and there is fierce competition for limited funding, NGOs would be suspicious and fearful about cooperating. In this context, our first attempts at establishing a coalition was nearly a complete failure. But we and others kept at it and things really shifted in 2005 when the local WWF organization sounded the alarm about Shikahogh. We jumped in with about 40 local organizations to help lead a successful campaign to stop the government’s decision to put a major highway through the flagship nature reserve called Shikahogh—the last unspoiled forest of Armenia. This was not only a great win for the environment of Armenia, but an unprecedented win for civil society as these groups really set aside their individual egos and cooperated in an excellent way to bring this success.
We have been monitoring another situation and just this month publicly launched a new campaign—with many of the same NGOs from Shikahogh—to attempt to get a proposed mining operation at Teghut near Aleverdi in Lori Marz to stop until it complies with national laws and international conventions, and does not pose an undue danger to the environment and people. The current exploration violates 11 national laws and 7 international conventions; if approved, it would poison the water basin for this whole area, and destroy over 1,200 hectares (2,964 acres) of forests and its natural ecosystem as they would remove an entire small mountain and fill a valley with the unused rock and soil. Increased pollution from the smelter would further impact the already toxic zone of Aleverdi where birth defects and respiratory diseases are rampant.
A.W.—The mining issue has attracted a lot of attention in the past year. Mining also provides a lot of jobs. How are the environment NGOs planning to deal with that? Are there models providing a better alternative?
J.T.—Yes, there’s been lots of attention on mining in Armenia and lots of mining activity recently. I personally am still in a learning curve to get a grasp on the details of this industry and what alternatives are possible to allow for this industry without poisoning the water, air and devastating the natural environment for decades to come. Armenia is a small country with limited, threatened natural resources. Any major mining operation can potentially have a huge negative impact on current and future generations.
Armenia clearly needs more jobs and opportunities for income generation, and of course, the mining interests like other industries are promising lots of jobs. Unfortunately, as with much hype, the picture may not be as rosy as they try to paint it. The high paying jobs will likely be filled by people from Yerevan or from out of the country, the majority of the jobs will be low-paid, and many of the local villagers will have to gamble by sacrificing their land—which now provides consistent income and food—for a chance of a low-paying job. Unfortunately, even if they get one, it may not make up for the loss of productive fruit trees and land, and they’ll have less money, polluted water and a devastated environment, as well.
I personally am hoping that a couple of the more responsible international mining outfits can be models of an environmentally and socially responsible approach. Unfortunately, the current prevailing mode here is a “least common denominator” approach of paying off officials, paying lip service to health and environmental concerns, grabbing as much as possible and getting out, leaving destruction and little if any remaining benefit for the country and its people.
A.W.—What do you say to those in the Diaspora who ask: What can I do to help?
J.T.—There are things Diasporans can do. I believe starting and investing in businesses—especially those that pay off not only in profits and improved social wellbeing through more jobs, but have a positive payoff for the environment—could be the most important and helpful approach for Armenia now. Armenians are smart and creative, and they can use their expertise and financial investment to take advantage of business opportunities. It’s also great to donate to a good organization, and I realize easier for most than starting or running a business in Armenia. To that end, I can say we are happy to accept contributions. Armenian Forests NGO is doing outreach in the U.S. this spring with the other Tufenkian Foundation branches to raise support for some of our key projects aimed at protecting forests of the homeland.
An Interview with Jeffrey Tufenkian
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
March 10, 2007
Jeffrey Tufenkian is co-founder and president of Armenian Forests NGO (www.ArmenianForests.am), which focuses on restoring and protecting Armenia’s forests for the current and future generations. According to the website, “Armenian Forests NGO is the outgrowth of his concern and determination to do what is needed to protect and restore Armenia’s threatened forests while helping to create jobs and build the economy.”
Tufenkian is also co-founder of the Kanach Foundation, publisher of the book Adventure Armenia: Hiking and Rock Climbing (www.kanach.org).
In this interview, conducted on March 7, Tufenkian talks about the challenges facing the environment in Armenia today, be they deforestation, illegal logging or the absence of sufficient support for environmental NGOs.
Armenian Weekly—How is the Armenian government dealing with the problem of deforestation? Does it provide support to NGO’s like Armenian Forests NGO?
Jeffrey Tufenkian—The government voices concern about the deforestation problems and pledges to plant millions of trees and thousands of hectares of forests, but very little actually happens. Unfortunately given the current situation of powerful people involved in the cutting, there is not the political will to really stop deforestation from the highest levels of government. Having said that, we have decent relationships with the key ministries and there has been some progress. In recent years, there has been a small amount of money from the state budget put into reforestation and some reduction of cutting, but much more needs to be done.
A.W.—Talk about the problem of illegal logging.
J.T.—Of much greater importance than reforestation—as critical and difficult as that is—is stopping the mass deforestation. Armenia’s forests are being systematically destroyed; unless drastic improvements are made soon, Armenia’s forests won’t have a future. And with the loss of the forests comes the downfall of the fragile ecosystem of which it is the cornerstone—loss of springs, streams and rivers, loss of habitat for endangered animals, loss of biodiversity, increasingly severe weather, landslides, erosion and desertification.
Once covering 35 percent of Armenia’s current territory, forest coverage is at a historical low, covering only 7-8 percent. It has already lost many springs and even rivers due to deforestation, and according to the government, over 80 percent of the land is under some level of desertification.
Despite this bleak and worsening situation, oligarchs and other powerful people in Armenia cut trees not only to sell in Yerevan and elsewhere as fuel and other internal uses (construction, furniture, etc.), but actually export wood to countries including Spain, Italy, Iran and even Turkey. This is an outrage that should not be tolerated. In fact, there is still no process for legal productive cutting of forest trees in Armenia. Trees being cut now are done by permission as “sanitary” or other cutting aimed at protecting the health of the forests. Under the guise of this, they are taking many times more trees and healthy ones rather than getting the sick trees out of the forests. Almost by definition, any valuable wood cut in Armenia is illegal.
Export of wood from Armenia is something that would have been unthinkable in Soviet times. In the last half of the Soviet period, there was mass reforestation (up to 7,000 hectares per year) and proper care of the forests as they imported wood for domestic use and would never have cut for export. The limited forest territory Armenia had was recognized as critically important and therefore given a “protected” status.
Although Armenia needs to import wood and does not have supplies internally to justify export, there are both customs fees and taxes to import wood, but to export it there are neither. Armenia should immediately stop exporting wood and change the laws to provide incentives for import of wood such as at least eliminating the fees and taxes charged to bring it in.
A.W.—How does Armenian Forests NGO coordinate with other environmental NGOs. Is duplication a problem?
J.T.—I must say that one of our priority approaches—one we put a lot of time and effort into—is cooperating with and forming coalitions with others including local NGOs—and it has been paying off. When we arrived on the scene in 2002, it was difficult to get more than two NGOs in a room at the same time and have constructive results working together, but there has been a real shift, and I think that the environmental sector is now a place where such cooperation among NGOs is really working and bringing good results. It is not surprising that in this individual-oriented society where everyone has his own organization rather than join someone else’s and there is fierce competition for limited funding, NGOs would be suspicious and fearful about cooperating. In this context, our first attempts at establishing a coalition was nearly a complete failure. But we and others kept at it and things really shifted in 2005 when the local WWF organization sounded the alarm about Shikahogh. We jumped in with about 40 local organizations to help lead a successful campaign to stop the government’s decision to put a major highway through the flagship nature reserve called Shikahogh—the last unspoiled forest of Armenia. This was not only a great win for the environment of Armenia, but an unprecedented win for civil society as these groups really set aside their individual egos and cooperated in an excellent way to bring this success.
We have been monitoring another situation and just this month publicly launched a new campaign—with many of the same NGOs from Shikahogh—to attempt to get a proposed mining operation at Teghut near Aleverdi in Lori Marz to stop until it complies with national laws and international conventions, and does not pose an undue danger to the environment and people. The current exploration violates 11 national laws and 7 international conventions; if approved, it would poison the water basin for this whole area, and destroy over 1,200 hectares (2,964 acres) of forests and its natural ecosystem as they would remove an entire small mountain and fill a valley with the unused rock and soil. Increased pollution from the smelter would further impact the already toxic zone of Aleverdi where birth defects and respiratory diseases are rampant.
A.W.—The mining issue has attracted a lot of attention in the past year. Mining also provides a lot of jobs. How are the environment NGOs planning to deal with that? Are there models providing a better alternative?
J.T.—Yes, there’s been lots of attention on mining in Armenia and lots of mining activity recently. I personally am still in a learning curve to get a grasp on the details of this industry and what alternatives are possible to allow for this industry without poisoning the water, air and devastating the natural environment for decades to come. Armenia is a small country with limited, threatened natural resources. Any major mining operation can potentially have a huge negative impact on current and future generations.
Armenia clearly needs more jobs and opportunities for income generation, and of course, the mining interests like other industries are promising lots of jobs. Unfortunately, as with much hype, the picture may not be as rosy as they try to paint it. The high paying jobs will likely be filled by people from Yerevan or from out of the country, the majority of the jobs will be low-paid, and many of the local villagers will have to gamble by sacrificing their land—which now provides consistent income and food—for a chance of a low-paying job. Unfortunately, even if they get one, it may not make up for the loss of productive fruit trees and land, and they’ll have less money, polluted water and a devastated environment, as well.
I personally am hoping that a couple of the more responsible international mining outfits can be models of an environmentally and socially responsible approach. Unfortunately, the current prevailing mode here is a “least common denominator” approach of paying off officials, paying lip service to health and environmental concerns, grabbing as much as possible and getting out, leaving destruction and little if any remaining benefit for the country and its people.
A.W.—What do you say to those in the Diaspora who ask: What can I do to help?
J.T.—There are things Diasporans can do. I believe starting and investing in businesses—especially those that pay off not only in profits and improved social wellbeing through more jobs, but have a positive payoff for the environment—could be the most important and helpful approach for Armenia now. Armenians are smart and creative, and they can use their expertise and financial investment to take advantage of business opportunities. It’s also great to donate to a good organization, and I realize easier for most than starting or running a business in Armenia. To that end, I can say we are happy to accept contributions. Armenian Forests NGO is doing outreach in the U.S. this spring with the other Tufenkian Foundation branches to raise support for some of our key projects aimed at protecting forests of the homeland.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
An Interview with Raffi Hovannisian
An Interview with Raffi Hovannisian
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
March 31, 2007
The following interview was conducted at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., on March 15.
Armenian Weekly-Rooting out corruption is one of the main challenges facing Armenia today. How do you perceive the solution to this issue?
Raffi Hovannisian-Important in the challenge to root out the disease of corruption is giving legitimacy to the government. A legitimacy earned by election. So far in Armenia, authority has never been transferred. It has always been reproduced.
I have not seen in any of the administrations the willingness to apply the law from the president to the last citizen in the Republic of Armenia. It is the administration’s responsibility to provide options and alternatives to the nation, and any president, past or president, acting or incumbent, legitimate or illegitimate, is not entitled to say, “There’s no alternative to me. L’etat c’est moi.”
Diplomacy and the ability to realize foreign policy objectives are directly related to our domestic demeanor, our conduct in our house. Armenia’s democratic integrity, human rights credentials, respect of the rights of each and every individual is critical. And if we knock on the world’s door demanding justice for our collective and historic rights, we have to live up to the very same standards in our country. For there to be justice in the world there must be justice at home.
Let no one speak to us of “haygagan mentalitet,” Armenian mentality. Our benchmarks and traditions are the opposite of that and there is no reason for us to demand any less from our own republic. When people, whether in government or the opposition, confuse national interests with less than national concerns or interests, you have a major catastrophe. I draw a parallel between each and every tree and the forest at large. We can run into a very respectable debate on the forest and the trees. We can argue that Armenia is newly democratic, it has only been independent for 15 years and that the western democratic nations took centuries to achieve their level. That’s no consolation to me as an Armenian, because we both know what potential we have.
A.W.-What difficulties is your party facing during this pre-election period?
R.H.- Sometimes we have to run the marathon alone. Despite all the difficulties and tribulations and the unnecessary treatments to which I have been subjected, the Heritage movement will take part in the parliamentary elections.
First, there is the campaign finance issue. Obviously there are those who spend millions of dollars in their campaigns. There are parties whose sole offices are closed down, and only when we come close to elections and I give a press conference and there is some interest by ambassadors of foreign countries do they come and open the door. Also, when we try to rent halls in the public domain, we are being told that all the halls are taken, while other political parties are using those halls all the time. I have to note that my access to Armenian sources of information has been limited not only in Armenia but also in the Diaspora. This is the first time that the son of the Diaspora is participating in the democratic process in Armenia. I think that this is something that might be of interest to those who are interested in the mustering of our worldwide resources in the strengthening and democratization and perpetuity of our homeland.
In Armenia, what I say is not covered. We are now entering the election cycle and I have not been shown on TV for two years now. The coverage, or rather the lack of coverage, by [Diasporan] newspapers of my activities speaks to a lack of strategic vision and a lack of a grasp of what’s necessary to run any legitimate broad based medium of information, even partisan. This is one of the challenges of your generation of Armenian analysts and writers.
A.W.-The opposition is extremely weak, disunited and unorganized, and many of its leaders suffer from their own problems of credibility. There have been attempts by some to receive support from Western governments and create a colored revolution in Armenia. Others speak of unfathomable concessions in Karabakh and Turkish-Armenian issues to garner foreign support. How do you explain the failure of the opposition?
R.H.-First and foremost, it is the government coalition that bears the responsibility for the policies. There are different takes on why this particular coalition is together. I was hoping that at least one of the parties represented [in the coalition] would have long ago turned to the conscience of the nation as opposed to being in a situation where one might read complicity into their position. I think the future is before us, and we might see certain-I will not say unexpected-developments in that respect in the months and years to come.
On the other hand, the opposition should accept its own share of accountability and responsibility. But as you know very well, the conditions in Armenia are very uneven. The opposition has failed be come together and become a viable democratic alternative to the powers that be. The people in the opposition have not done enough to deliver to the Armenian constituents a viable ethical response to the challenges.
A democratic systemic change is important, not only in model but in application. It is clear that evolution as understood by the West will not transform Armenia. On the other hand, I think it is pretty clear to everyone concerned that xeroxing a revolution from another state or situation and circumstances is not ipso facto an alternative for Armenia. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the relations between the state and its citizens. The Armenian national machine, based on national interest, national debate and a critical discussion of options, has to keep working regardless of who wins and who loses in the elections. That has not happened so far. We are in a very dangerous situation. The average Armenian citizen is apathetic, and is only open to a situational solution: taking a vote bribe, whether it is money, free fertilizer, potatoes or whatever. This constitutes a disdain of the Armenian citizen. That is not what the Armenian citizen is all about, and that is what your generations has to work on. Armenia is a small nation, landlocked, long on culture, and short on statecraft, and the role of international actors is important, but clearly it is the role of any sovereign government to pursue national interests.
A.W.-You blamed the presidency and the governing coalition for the state of affairs in Armenia. But do you think the current situation in Armenia supports something else?
R.H.-You raise an issue of strategic and existential importance: Can the system as it is support something else? As I said, on the one hand straight revolution and on the other hand xeroxed resolutions are not the answers to Armenia’s national democratic transformation. There has to be some other intersection of circumstances and values to bring Armenia to graduate beyond this parochialism and regionalism and become a viable nation-state that has a strategic role in the region.
I have to criticize the Armenian administration for their very weak policy vis-a-vis deals with Russia that have given them part of our energy system-industry pockets of Armenian sovereignty. I would say that is dangerous for Armenia. While I would want our strategic partner to have acted differently, I don’t blame Russia. I blame ourselves. There is no way that a self confident government would approve the ceding of such sovereignty in any direction, and this myopic, parochial approach jeopardizes the future of the country. And whatever government comes into power, it is going to inherit major problems.
There is a very rational progression of these values and we should not expose our compatriots, our fellow citizens, to a situation where they have to choose between supporting our national interest and being a proponent of democracy and the rule of law.
A.W.-How do you view Armenia’s relations with its neighbors and its regional foreign policy?
R.H.-I think there is little change in our foreign policy from 1992 until today. The delivery or presentation might have changed in accent or hue, but the policy has undergone very little qualitative change. Everything is based on the strategic relationship or the lack thereof in the Turkish-Armenian relationship. All other issues-including Karabakh’s self determination and ultimate recognition of the sovereign republic and the entire peace process connected with it-are derivates of the Turkish-Armenian relationship. This might not be a majority view, but I think that Turkish-Armenian relations are key, if the dividing lines in the Caucasus are ever to be overcome.
If Turkey and Armenia are to ever find themselves on the same security page in a larger partnership of values, they have to find a way to resolve the entire breadth and depth of the relationship through a diplomatic agenda that takes on all issues, contemporary and historic, and comes forth with a normalization of relations. It requires political courage and ethical fortitude on both sides of the frontier. In their history, the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey have not signed agreements of any kind. There are different previous formulations of agreements between previous republics and the Ottoman Empire, the Bolshevik republic and nationalist Turks, but never between two sovereign republics. I think that Turkey’s desire for European integration is an important development and Armenia stands to gain from a truly European Turkey-a new and transformed Turkey that not only faces its history, but also knows how to respect historic heritage and provide for the right of return, which have to be negotiated with Armenia. There are all kinds of issues that must be resolved there.
Turkey should enter the EU only after having fully normalized relations with Armenia. It should not be able to enter the EU with an unregulated relationship with Armenia. I’ll go further and say that if Armenia gets its democratic act together, there is no reason for Armenia to be the odd man out. It could become a member of the EU if not before then at least in synchronization with Turkey, if Turkey ever gets in. European leaders who will be deciding on Turkey’s entry in 10 years are now in schools and universities. We’ll see how that plays out, but I think European integration offers great opportunities.
Regarding Karabakh, I believe there will be no solution to the issue without the participation of the Karabakh Republic. Karabakh should be part of the peace process and the exclusion from that process is not a positive trend.
BIO
Raffi K. Hovannisian is the founding director of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS), and was the first foreign minister of Armenia.
Hovannisian was born in Fresno, Calif., in 1959. He studied at the Georgetown University Law Center (JD awarded in 1985); the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University (MALD awarded in 1982; fields of specialization included international law, diplomatic history and foreign policies of communist countries, civilization and world affairs); University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles (BA, summa cum laude, awarded in 1980 in history and Near Eastern studies; Justin Turner Prize for Outstanding Honors Thesis).
Hovannisian held the position of executive chairman of the “Hayastan” All-Armenian Fund (1998); chief of the department of information and publications, Republic of Armenia (March-April 1998); minister of foreign affairs, Republic of Armenia (1991-1992); project director of the Armenian Assembly of America Earthquake Relief (1990-1991); founder and director of the Armenian Bar Association (1989-1990); international lawyer and civil litigator in the firms of Hill, Farrer and Burrill, Whitman & Ransom, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, and Coudert Brothers (1985-1989); lecturer of Armenian history, Tufts University (1981-1982). His treatises, monographs, essays and articles have appeared extensively in Armenian, Russian, American, European and Middle Eastern publications. He is married and has five children.
By Khatchig Mouradian
The Armenian Weekly
March 31, 2007
The following interview was conducted at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., on March 15.
Armenian Weekly-Rooting out corruption is one of the main challenges facing Armenia today. How do you perceive the solution to this issue?
Raffi Hovannisian-Important in the challenge to root out the disease of corruption is giving legitimacy to the government. A legitimacy earned by election. So far in Armenia, authority has never been transferred. It has always been reproduced.
I have not seen in any of the administrations the willingness to apply the law from the president to the last citizen in the Republic of Armenia. It is the administration’s responsibility to provide options and alternatives to the nation, and any president, past or president, acting or incumbent, legitimate or illegitimate, is not entitled to say, “There’s no alternative to me. L’etat c’est moi.”
Diplomacy and the ability to realize foreign policy objectives are directly related to our domestic demeanor, our conduct in our house. Armenia’s democratic integrity, human rights credentials, respect of the rights of each and every individual is critical. And if we knock on the world’s door demanding justice for our collective and historic rights, we have to live up to the very same standards in our country. For there to be justice in the world there must be justice at home.
Let no one speak to us of “haygagan mentalitet,” Armenian mentality. Our benchmarks and traditions are the opposite of that and there is no reason for us to demand any less from our own republic. When people, whether in government or the opposition, confuse national interests with less than national concerns or interests, you have a major catastrophe. I draw a parallel between each and every tree and the forest at large. We can run into a very respectable debate on the forest and the trees. We can argue that Armenia is newly democratic, it has only been independent for 15 years and that the western democratic nations took centuries to achieve their level. That’s no consolation to me as an Armenian, because we both know what potential we have.
A.W.-What difficulties is your party facing during this pre-election period?
R.H.- Sometimes we have to run the marathon alone. Despite all the difficulties and tribulations and the unnecessary treatments to which I have been subjected, the Heritage movement will take part in the parliamentary elections.
First, there is the campaign finance issue. Obviously there are those who spend millions of dollars in their campaigns. There are parties whose sole offices are closed down, and only when we come close to elections and I give a press conference and there is some interest by ambassadors of foreign countries do they come and open the door. Also, when we try to rent halls in the public domain, we are being told that all the halls are taken, while other political parties are using those halls all the time. I have to note that my access to Armenian sources of information has been limited not only in Armenia but also in the Diaspora. This is the first time that the son of the Diaspora is participating in the democratic process in Armenia. I think that this is something that might be of interest to those who are interested in the mustering of our worldwide resources in the strengthening and democratization and perpetuity of our homeland.
In Armenia, what I say is not covered. We are now entering the election cycle and I have not been shown on TV for two years now. The coverage, or rather the lack of coverage, by [Diasporan] newspapers of my activities speaks to a lack of strategic vision and a lack of a grasp of what’s necessary to run any legitimate broad based medium of information, even partisan. This is one of the challenges of your generation of Armenian analysts and writers.
A.W.-The opposition is extremely weak, disunited and unorganized, and many of its leaders suffer from their own problems of credibility. There have been attempts by some to receive support from Western governments and create a colored revolution in Armenia. Others speak of unfathomable concessions in Karabakh and Turkish-Armenian issues to garner foreign support. How do you explain the failure of the opposition?
R.H.-First and foremost, it is the government coalition that bears the responsibility for the policies. There are different takes on why this particular coalition is together. I was hoping that at least one of the parties represented [in the coalition] would have long ago turned to the conscience of the nation as opposed to being in a situation where one might read complicity into their position. I think the future is before us, and we might see certain-I will not say unexpected-developments in that respect in the months and years to come.
On the other hand, the opposition should accept its own share of accountability and responsibility. But as you know very well, the conditions in Armenia are very uneven. The opposition has failed be come together and become a viable democratic alternative to the powers that be. The people in the opposition have not done enough to deliver to the Armenian constituents a viable ethical response to the challenges.
A democratic systemic change is important, not only in model but in application. It is clear that evolution as understood by the West will not transform Armenia. On the other hand, I think it is pretty clear to everyone concerned that xeroxing a revolution from another state or situation and circumstances is not ipso facto an alternative for Armenia. There needs to be a paradigm shift in the relations between the state and its citizens. The Armenian national machine, based on national interest, national debate and a critical discussion of options, has to keep working regardless of who wins and who loses in the elections. That has not happened so far. We are in a very dangerous situation. The average Armenian citizen is apathetic, and is only open to a situational solution: taking a vote bribe, whether it is money, free fertilizer, potatoes or whatever. This constitutes a disdain of the Armenian citizen. That is not what the Armenian citizen is all about, and that is what your generations has to work on. Armenia is a small nation, landlocked, long on culture, and short on statecraft, and the role of international actors is important, but clearly it is the role of any sovereign government to pursue national interests.
A.W.-You blamed the presidency and the governing coalition for the state of affairs in Armenia. But do you think the current situation in Armenia supports something else?
R.H.-You raise an issue of strategic and existential importance: Can the system as it is support something else? As I said, on the one hand straight revolution and on the other hand xeroxed resolutions are not the answers to Armenia’s national democratic transformation. There has to be some other intersection of circumstances and values to bring Armenia to graduate beyond this parochialism and regionalism and become a viable nation-state that has a strategic role in the region.
I have to criticize the Armenian administration for their very weak policy vis-a-vis deals with Russia that have given them part of our energy system-industry pockets of Armenian sovereignty. I would say that is dangerous for Armenia. While I would want our strategic partner to have acted differently, I don’t blame Russia. I blame ourselves. There is no way that a self confident government would approve the ceding of such sovereignty in any direction, and this myopic, parochial approach jeopardizes the future of the country. And whatever government comes into power, it is going to inherit major problems.
There is a very rational progression of these values and we should not expose our compatriots, our fellow citizens, to a situation where they have to choose between supporting our national interest and being a proponent of democracy and the rule of law.
A.W.-How do you view Armenia’s relations with its neighbors and its regional foreign policy?
R.H.-I think there is little change in our foreign policy from 1992 until today. The delivery or presentation might have changed in accent or hue, but the policy has undergone very little qualitative change. Everything is based on the strategic relationship or the lack thereof in the Turkish-Armenian relationship. All other issues-including Karabakh’s self determination and ultimate recognition of the sovereign republic and the entire peace process connected with it-are derivates of the Turkish-Armenian relationship. This might not be a majority view, but I think that Turkish-Armenian relations are key, if the dividing lines in the Caucasus are ever to be overcome.
If Turkey and Armenia are to ever find themselves on the same security page in a larger partnership of values, they have to find a way to resolve the entire breadth and depth of the relationship through a diplomatic agenda that takes on all issues, contemporary and historic, and comes forth with a normalization of relations. It requires political courage and ethical fortitude on both sides of the frontier. In their history, the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Turkey have not signed agreements of any kind. There are different previous formulations of agreements between previous republics and the Ottoman Empire, the Bolshevik republic and nationalist Turks, but never between two sovereign republics. I think that Turkey’s desire for European integration is an important development and Armenia stands to gain from a truly European Turkey-a new and transformed Turkey that not only faces its history, but also knows how to respect historic heritage and provide for the right of return, which have to be negotiated with Armenia. There are all kinds of issues that must be resolved there.
Turkey should enter the EU only after having fully normalized relations with Armenia. It should not be able to enter the EU with an unregulated relationship with Armenia. I’ll go further and say that if Armenia gets its democratic act together, there is no reason for Armenia to be the odd man out. It could become a member of the EU if not before then at least in synchronization with Turkey, if Turkey ever gets in. European leaders who will be deciding on Turkey’s entry in 10 years are now in schools and universities. We’ll see how that plays out, but I think European integration offers great opportunities.
Regarding Karabakh, I believe there will be no solution to the issue without the participation of the Karabakh Republic. Karabakh should be part of the peace process and the exclusion from that process is not a positive trend.
BIO
Raffi K. Hovannisian is the founding director of the Armenian Center for National and International Studies (ACNIS), and was the first foreign minister of Armenia.
Hovannisian was born in Fresno, Calif., in 1959. He studied at the Georgetown University Law Center (JD awarded in 1985); the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University (MALD awarded in 1982; fields of specialization included international law, diplomatic history and foreign policies of communist countries, civilization and world affairs); University of California, Berkeley and Los Angeles (BA, summa cum laude, awarded in 1980 in history and Near Eastern studies; Justin Turner Prize for Outstanding Honors Thesis).
Hovannisian held the position of executive chairman of the “Hayastan” All-Armenian Fund (1998); chief of the department of information and publications, Republic of Armenia (March-April 1998); minister of foreign affairs, Republic of Armenia (1991-1992); project director of the Armenian Assembly of America Earthquake Relief (1990-1991); founder and director of the Armenian Bar Association (1989-1990); international lawyer and civil litigator in the firms of Hill, Farrer and Burrill, Whitman & Ransom, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, and Coudert Brothers (1985-1989); lecturer of Armenian history, Tufts University (1981-1982). His treatises, monographs, essays and articles have appeared extensively in Armenian, Russian, American, European and Middle Eastern publications. He is married and has five children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)