Professor at McGill University in Montreal, Chairman of the Central Board of the Ramkavar Azatakan Party, Dr. Arshavir Gyonjyan, addressed the Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan:
“H.R. Dear Prime Minister Mr. Pashinyan, in Zurich and Washington, introduced you to the “Real Armenia”,
“Changing Ideology” and other statements are frankly confusing and not understandable. Please express yourself in clear language, perhaps to try to mitigate the great confusion and widespread protest that would otherwise have been created.
It is now obvious throughout the world that a situation characterized by political ups and downs prevails and is seriously worrying. Under these conditions, our small Armenia, due to its extremely unfavorable geopolitical position, must be able to cope with, in its already complex strategic positions, sometimes new and difficult the additional challenge of making changes. This much is clear to everyone, especially it should be confidently clear to every conscious Armenian, both those living in Armenia and those in the Diaspora.
It is against this panorama that the events of H.H. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s two consecutive speeches in the past few weeks, first in Zurich and then in Washington, were with a small number of distinguished individuals invited by him and qualified as representatives of the community. While those present at the Zurich gathering had the opportunity to have several exchanges with the Prime Minister, in the case of Washington the Prime Minister gave a single speech lasting about 20 minutes (the Armenian minute).
The audience simply listened with exemplary courtesy to his speech, which he delivered only in Armenian, which, considering that a certain number of them were exclusively English speakers, naturally could not follow the thoughts he expressed. At the end, he also, appropriately, with polite applause the meeting was closed,as was the case at the Zurich meeting.
As indicated in the title of this article, our goal is to underline that in the case of both of these meetings, and especially during his one-sided conversation in Washington, Mr. Prime Minister wanted to specifically point out that his goal was to keep those present informed that in these days in Armenia, under his own direction and with special importance, an effort is being made to introduce changes in the ideologies of homeland and patriotism.
Mr. The Prime Minister, with long and repetitive expressions, but not in clear and unambiguous language, tried to explain to those present, in particular, the idea of the “Real Armenia” he had recently created, which, however, remained vague and subject to all kinds of interpretations.
The Prime Minister also emphasized that an “Ideological Change” would take place in Armenia. This time, perhaps wanting to impress the audience more vividly, he used the Latin Armenian terms “transformation” and “isolationism” with an emphasised pronunciation, presumably to better explain these “new ideologies.”
Despite his efforts, however, the uncertainty left by the Prime Minister’s words and the extremely worrying thoughts that were raised in that uncertainty, obviously, after the pair of talks in Zurich and Washington, understandably created a negative storm in the Armenian world. Reactions: Dear Mr. Pashinyan, this is why we clearly pointed out in the title of this article that if the goal of your aforementioned pair of reports was to keep the Diaspora informed about the main new positions being promoted in Armenia with your encouragement, we would like to underline that on the contrary, in the case of both reports, but especially in the case of Washington, the long and repetitive phrases you used were not clear, and they remained somewhat incomprehensible even to those who have a sufficient command of the Armenian language.such as, for example, for the author of these lines. It is even more worrying that, due to this lack of disclosure, your listeners are forcibly led to approximate and presumed conclusions, which are certainly very worrying and completely unacceptable for the vast majority.
It is within the framework of these serious concerns that we would at least like to express our thoughts on the issues you have raised in a completely transparent and clear manner, knowing that they also correspond to the thinking of a wide circle of deeply disturbed people.
First of all, it is clear, and it is not news to us, that in any period of history, the real Armenia is the region that is clearly defined by its borders as “Armenia” on the maps adopted at the international level during that period, and when, likewise, the vast majority of the population of that region is made up of Armenians, and when those borders are secured are Armenians and or their real allies, and when the order and apparatus prevailing in the country is counterbalanced by an administrative machine composed of Armenians, and all this we would like to emphasize, regardless of the color or political philosophy of the regime prevailing there.
Such was our firm position during the Soviet period, when we did not agree with the philosophy followed by that government, but we tried to ensure that the Armenians of the Diaspora maintained their spiritual connection with the “real Armenia” of those days and, within the limits of our possibilities, assisted it with human and economic beneficial measures.
Such is our position today, when, while we are a warm advocate of the democratic situation prevailing in our country, we also often criticize the harmful phenomena that appear there. “Our clear understanding of the “real Armenia” is never a reason, however, for us to forget or let's break our entire history,during which our country was much more extensive and even stretched from sea to sea. We can gain the goodwill of no one, neither friends nor our natural enemies, if we suddenly forget or deny this historical reality, much less today's dream.
On the contrary, the manifestation of unilateral and permanent political concessions on our part will surely lead to the gradual, complete destruction and disappearance of the very "Real Armenia". It is with this same firm thought that we consider Mount Ararat the uncompromising emblem of the Armenian people. The Armenian Mount Ararat, consecrated by the indisputable confirmation of the Bible, remains our emblem, regardless of what borders it is located within today. Just as Jerusalem is the heart of the Christian world, regardless of where it is located Under Arab or Jewish rule?
Likewise, Mr. Prime Minister, Ararat is forever and ever the inseparable heart and symbol of the Armenian people. During your aforementioned talks, you also made an unexpected allusion to the highly sensitive subject of the Armenian Genocide. The authenticity of the Armenian Genocide, which left its indelible mark on our people, and the indisputable and complete Turkish responsibility for its implementation, have now been internationally recognized. In fact, not only has it been recognized at the state level by more than twenty important countries, but it has even been recognized by the Turkish judiciary itself, on the immediate eve of the First World War.
As always, in this case too, we consider it necessary to remain restrained in our expressions, within the limits of the use of vocabulary.
Therefore, we will suffice by saying,that any attempt to find traces of Armenian responsibility in the terrible crime against humanity committed by the Armenian Genocide is equivalent to seeking Jewish responsibility for the Jewish genocide. Therefore, in our case, too, it should be expected that such an act can only be met with the merciless curse and condemnation of the Armenians before it is subjected to the application of severe international sanctions, as is the case with the Jews.
These few key hypersensitive circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to explain that, Mr. Pashinyan’s sometimes clear and often vague allusions to sensitive issues during his two interviews have deeply angered both the Diaspora and the Armenian intelligentsia.
It cannot be denied that, as we mentioned at the beginning of this article, the exceptionally complex challenges facing the Armenian people these days, both international and national, are forcing the Armenian people to seriously seek and strive to refine the best and most effective ways of their national strategy.
True to his constant stance of being constructive, the author of these lines once again suggests referring to his article that recently appeared in our press, where the creation of a national structure for the national survival strategy is proposed, part of which form, alongside the current government, representatives of all those structures and intellectuals who are indisputable parts of the conscious Armenian people. It is within the framework of such a serious national platform, Mr. Prime Minister, that old or renewed ideas and ideologies can be proposed, refined and, if necessary, reformed.
Only the conclusions that have passed through such deep discussions are likely to be adopted by the majority of Armenian reality.
On the contrary,When new proposals are formed in defiance of such centers of serious thinking, it is very likely, Mr. Prime Minister, that these efforts will remain in vain. Considering the upcoming general elections in Armenia, as a constructive step that contributes to the supreme national interests, we call on you, esteemed Mr. Prime Minister, to take the initiative to create such a platform as a means of exchanging important ideas and formulating practical proposals.
DOCTOR ARASHAVIR KEONJIAN, Order of Canada State Medalist.
