Deception and Plunder
Robert Kocharyan, the second president of the Republic of Armenia, announced the foreign policy he would pursue during his presidency with a single goal: To achieve international recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
Parliamentarians from different countries were inculcated by lobbies to bring the resolution to their parliaments for a vote.
We have to admit that this strategy has had some success. The parliaments of the countries put the proposal to a vote and, to a large extend, achieved according the expectations. Among these parliaments, the session that took place in Germany, in the Bundestag, has historical and symbolic significance. Cem Özdemir, whose family roots go back to Turkey, brought the motion to the agenda. Another feature of the resolution here was the clear statement of the responsibility of the German diplomacy of that period for the 1915 massacres. For the first time, a state was making a clear admission on this issue.
On the other hand, in the same years there were those who approved the proposed resolution as well as those who rejected it. For example, when we look at the French parliament, the issue was brought up several times before the last meeting, and each time it was rejected in exchange for some statements in the form of bribes provided by Turkey. Sometimes these proffers were for the investment in a cement factory, sometimes for the purchase of military helicopters.
Eventually, it is possible to say that the Europeans have avoided defining what happened in history in a fair, realistic and accurate way in a favor of their own interests. We should also say that the memory of the innocent victims of the Armenian people is hurt with every rejection that amounts to denial.
On the other hand, during Kocharian's presidency, the so-called emigration phenomenon reached its highest point. The Armenian parliament shooting, the March 1 events and the murder that the presidential bodyguards had done at the Arakast restaurant had led to the complete disillusionment of the people of the country. Especially educated and qualified people were leaving their homeland en masse in the hope of building a new life abroad.
During the presidency of Kocharyan and later Serzh Sargsyan, corruption, which has been traditional since the Soviet era, also took a major step forward. Althought, during the Armenia-Armenian diaspora conferences, Armenians from the diaspora were urged to invest in the country, those who heeded the call were however forced to give significant shares to those close to the ruling circles.
The politics of international recognition of the genocide has only served to obscure corruption and even banditry in the country.
The Velvet Revolution expresses the great reaction of the Armenian people against this system of deception and robbery. After nearly 30 years, the people could have brought a change of power against the accumulated corruption.
Unfortunately, political parties with 100 years of tradition are not capable of interpreting international developments. On the contrary, with the naivety of a teenage boy, they are pinning their hopes on the stumbling of the Turks. They seem to have failed to realize that wishing evil on anyone cannot help Armenians.
It would be a significant loss, if the glimmer of hope created by the success of the Velvet Revolution dims.
(Translation: Delaram Ghivi)
