Day: June 5, 2024

This has proven to be one of the more difficult columns to write. The current events in our global Armenian nation are intersecting with my core values, creating moral dilemmas and difficult choices. Similar to most American-Armenians, we were raised to love our heritage and encouraged to contribute to its prosperity. When Armenia became an independent nation in 1991, it was the fulfillment of a dream for the diaspora and our brethren in the homeland. The early years of the Republic were anything but ideal from an economic and quality of life perspective, as Armenia made the painful transition from an oppressed state to a democracy with a market economy. As domestic policies have matured, national security has dominated the political landscape. I find it painfully ironic that while much of the diaspora advocated for Armenia to align itself with the West, it has also become the most ardent critic of the current government in the homeland. We seem to cling to our independence in the diaspora. The duplicity of the diaspora in the United States, as it advocates for the homeland while publicly attacking its government, raises an interesting question: what is the role of the diaspora as it relates to advocacy? Is it an independent, parallel entity that can add significant value to the homeland while resisting the temptation to act as a remote critic? 

The current environment gives us a clear view of this challenge. Most of the advocacy work in this country is viewed as foreign policy content by the United States government and the Republic of Armenia. If we in the diaspora are working on behalf of the homeland, how do we manage disagreements? It is clear that some members of the advocacy community have been harsh critics of Armenia’s policies, and their views have been quite public. My question is: does the U.S. government respect the Armenian community when we lobby for U.S. taxpayer funding for Armenia yet advocate for regime change? I am certain that we are tolerated by the U.S. but perhaps not respected. We are all entitled to our opinions, but activist criticism of the Armenian government from outside of Armenia is troubling. Do we really have a vested interest in the impact of this activism, or are we confusing impact with an attempt to protect our “investment”? It is an important question, because the messaging is mixed. It suggests that we in the diaspora expect some level of influence in the policies of the sovereign Republic of Armenia. We would be wise to separate our emotional bonds as Armenians with the rights of a sovereign republic. One of the most significant obstacles to a stronger relationship between the diaspora and the homeland is the perception that the diaspora seeks to influence Armenia in return for its advocacy. Even if this is merely a perception, public criticism of Armenian politics feeds that perception. How can we in the United States profess our commitment to Armenia when large segments of our advocacy community have an estranged relationship with Armenia’s embassy in Washington? One would think it would be a major area of interface, but the lack of visible interaction tells a different story. 

The vast majority of us do not live in Armenia and are not citizens. We have strong and passionate ties, but we must understand the definition of sovereignty. The examples of the Aurora Initiatives and The Future Armenian offer us a different approach. Certainly there are concerns about the state of Armenian society, but these organizations practice a refreshing, forward-thinking approach that avoids the perception of public meddling. What we do for Armenia, we must do for love, which includes disagreeing on policy. Protesters in Armenia are within their rights as citizens, according to Armenia’s laws in a functioning democracy, but legally we are foreigners. The citizens of Armenia have the responsibility to determine the future of their country. This is a very difficult concept for us to embrace, given our compassion for Armenia and our willingness to wantonly express criticism. Supporting Armenia and expecting nothing in return is a noble concept, but our willingness to do so is tested in times of disagreement. It is not our responsibility to be remote critics who contribute to instability. We need to pause when we contribute to disunity. Our enemies are skilled at taking advantage of our weaknesses. The Turks have often targeted the diaspora in an effort to create or exploit discord. We need to have a more strategic mindset and move beyond opinions outside the realm of our responsibility.

Another area in our global domain in dire need of a dose of pragmatism is the “Tavush for the Homeland” movement. What started as, I believe, a sincere response to a very emotional issue along the border of Tavush has evolved into a magnet for every “opposition” group. These groups have little in common with each other, except their opposition to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. While I believe in the right to free expression in a democracy, we must ask ourselves…what is the end point for this campaign? We have a primate of the Armenian Church who launched local protests that transitioned into a march to Yerevan. He has preached nonviolence but has advocated for acts of civil disobedience. The latter can be peaceful but challenge authority and openly push the limits of tolerance. This can lead to troubling circumstances. Anyone leading such public activity grounded in peaceful values has a responsibility to outline a path forward. All we know is that Bagrat Surpazan has stated that he is the opposition candidate for Prime Minister. Why? How? What are his qualifications? As tensions rise, with the opposition forces challenging authority and lines becoming blurred, the protesting leadership should be responsible and tone it down. Armenia does not need internal instability while trying to maintain its sovereignty and national security. It is very easy to criticize, but it would be wise to offer solutions. I have not heard any. 

Perhaps the most significant concern is the role of the church, overtly involved in the political process. The Surpazan is leading a political protest with aspirations for governance. Announcing that he has suspended his spiritual responsibilities while maintaining his rights and status as a senior clergyman creates questionable circumstances. The prime minister was duly elected according to the Armenian Constitution. Unless the prime minister voluntarily resigns or there is a mass defection from the ruling Civil Contract majority, the Surpazan’s candidacy is a non-starter. Also, the Archbishop is a dual citizen of Canada (where he was primate) and Armenia. The Armenian Constitution currently bars candidates for prime minister from holding dual citizenship. Bagrat Surpazan also operates with the full blessing of the Catholicos of All Armenians Karekin II. It is well known that the relationship between the church and the government is challenging. The church has a perceived reputation for being corrupt by many and has been strangely silent during the last several years of oppression in Artsakh and border instability. Where was the church when the heroes of Artsakh were being starved, blockaded and deported? There was no visible presence protesting Azeri crimes and supporting Artsakh in their time of need. I love our church, but the support of Holy Etchmiadzin after months of invisibility looks like a shallow power play. The vision of a “non-partisan transitional” government is not a vision or even a functional concept. Who in Armenia with the skills to govern is “non-partisan”? Does anyone really believe that some of the “opposition” forces that have lent support to Bagrat will be satisfied with a “non-partisan” government? 

A “Tavush for the Homeland” gathering (“Tavush for the Homeland,” June 3, 2024)

Armenia does not need an escalation of internal conflict. Cooler heads in the opposition need to prevail before this spirals out of control. This is beginning to resemble an amateur and dangerous campaign. It takes much more than protests to govern. Too often critics offer general statements that advocate for reversing public challenges but offer little in terms of a pragmatic direction. Anyone with open criticism should be watching the reaction of Western democracies, Russia, Turkey, Iran and Azerbaijan. At least two of those countries would rather see Armenia depopulated and called “Western Azerbaijan.” Russia will look for any opening to reassert its hegemony in the South Caucasus. While the Armenian government courts Western democracies such as France and the United States, instability can easily halt their support. Each of these countries can seriously impact the sovereignty of Armenia. This is a time when optimizing resources is essential. It is easy to concede nothing when you are not governing and simply have the freedom of opinions. This is why I believe that anyone in opposition should be evaluated on the quality of their solutions. The absence of such is irresponsible.

These are difficult times, and there are no easy answers. The solutions may be revealed sooner if we choose to desist from internal conflict and focus on finding common ground. I have found that power and egos are obstacles, but true patriotism can help us work together. If the Catholicos feels inclined to lead, then he should bring us together. This past week, we remembered those pivotal times in late May 1918 when our civilization hung in the balance. I cannot think of a more inspiring moment from a single leader than Catholicos Gevorg V’s refusal to leave Holy Etchmiadzin as the Turkish armies advanced. Such moments are called miracles. Armenia has always lacked a “loyal opposition” in its political order. Most of the political parties in Armenia hold no seats in the parliament. As a result, opposition forces operate like outsiders, relying on protests and insults to make their voices heard. In a way, it is not very different from the manner in which our Congress has been dysfunctional over the last few decades. In the case of Armenia, the people found the Civil Contract alliance a better alternative than returning to the past. If we respect the institutions of democracy, there must be value in that reality. We need to all take a step back from the edge and think through our actions. How do they help Armenia? Are we contributing to a solution? Do we understand our role in the diaspora?

Author information

Stepan Piligian

Columnist

Stepan was raised in the Armenian community of Indian Orchard, MA at the St. Gregory Parish. A former member of the AYF Central Executive and the Eastern Prelacy Executive Council, he also served many years as a delegate to the Eastern Diocesan Assembly. Currently , he serves as a member of the board and executive committee of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR). He also serves on the board of the Armenian Heritage Foundation. Stepan is a retired executive in the computer storage industry and resides in the Boston area with his wife Susan. He has spent many years as a volunteer teacher of Armenian history and contemporary issues to the young generation and adults at schools, camps and churches. His interests include the Armenian diaspora, Armenia, sports and reading.

|

The post What is the end point? A call for pragmatism… appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

On May 30, high school juniors Alex Kebadjian and João-Cameron Hopkinson delivered a presentation to their peers at Winchester High School in Massachusetts about why, in Kebadjian’s words, Mount Ararat is “more than just a mountain” for Armenians. 

The presentation was the culmination of several steps taken by the students to repair the harm inflicted by an anti-Armenian incident on campus two months earlier.

On March 28, Kebadjian was leaving his morning class, when a classmate stopped him to point out a drawing on the whiteboard. “Look at that. What do you think about that?” Kebadjian recalls the classmate saying. 

A mountain drawn in marker had a Turkish flag hoisted on its peak and the words “Ararat (In Turkey)” scribbled above it. In large, block letters, “ARMO” was written at the top of the whiteboard, along with “WELCOME Armos” further down with an exclamation mark and smiley face. 

“I was surprised. It didn’t feel good. I felt kind of attacked, I guess. There was no sense in what he did,” Kebadjian told the Weekly. 

While it was not the first time that this student had targeted Kebadjian for his Armenian identity, the drawing was an unexpected escalation. Kebadjian says that this student had teased him for months, deploying the term “Armo,” short for “Armenian,” in a derogatory manner and making light of the Armenian Genocide of 1915. This included jokes about Kebadjian’s family specifically, who descend from genocide survivors, including Karnig Panian, Kebadjian’s great-grandfather and author of the genocide memoir Goodbye, Antoura. 

The teasing especially struck a nerve with Kebadjian, considering his deep involvement in his local Armenian community. He graduated from St. Stephen’s Armenian Elementary School in Watertown, Massachusetts, where he attends church every Sunday. He is also a member of the Armenian Youth Federation and spends his summers at Camp Haiastan. 

“I come home and speak Armenian with my parents and grandparents. It always plays a big role in my life personally. My life is built around the Armenian community, and I think it’s going to stay like that,” he shared.

Drawing found on a whiteboard at Winchester High School on March 28, 2024

After a friend of Kebadjian reported the incident to the school administration, the student responsible for the drawing eventually came forward. The Winchester High School administration took prompt action, suspending the student. It reported a “possible hate incident” to the Winchester Police Department, and the school’s Dean of Student Life launched an internal investigation.

According to a formal report from the Winchester Police Department, the student told the administration that they had “no intention of being hateful towards others and was drawing it for students who were with” them. 

“At this time no students have come forward stating they are threatened by the writings on the whiteboard,” the police report reads. The Winchester Police Department stated that there are “no charges pending” but forwarded the incident to the Director of Racial Justice Initiatives at the Middlesex District Attorney’s Office. 

In a forthright message shared with students and their families, Winchester High School Principal Dennis Mahoney called the “hateful graffiti directed towards the Armenian community…unequivocally unacceptable.” “Winchester High School has zero tolerance for hate speech, hate symbology and or acts of bigotry in any format, period, and we condemn hate speech, hate symbology and acts of bigotry of any kind in the strongest terms possible,” Mahoney said. 

The administration then approached Kebadjian and Hopkinson, who are co-officers of the school’s World Cultures Club, and asked them to organize a presentation about the significance of Mount Ararat to the Armenian community. According to Hopkinson, the administration said it is “worried that there is a growing trend of hatred, and we want to educate people about this so it doesn’t happen again.” 

In the presentation, which the students called “Armenian Day of Awareness,” they explained that the “graffiti depicted a mockery of the sacred Mt. Ararat, demeaning it with a Turkish flag (making fun of the Turkish seizure of this biblical site in Armenia). It also contained a hateful Armenian slur written twice on the board, which is commonly used to demean Armenian-Americans.” 

The presentation, which the school’s Armenian club helped craft, described Mount Ararat as a “sacred national symbol for Armenian heritage and aspirations” and a “symbol of the centuries long journey for independence.” It summarized the history of the Armenian Genocide, its continued denial by Turkey and advocacy efforts for genocide recognition.  

The drawing is the latest in a series of anti-Armenian incidents targeting Armenian schools and churches. In September 2023, a note reading “Artsakh is Dead” and “Karabakh is Azerbaijan” was found on the community board at Kebadjian’s church, St. Stephen’s Armenian Apostolic Church in Watertown, Massachusetts. In July 2020, KZV Armenian School in San Francisco was vandalized with hateful, pro-Azerbaijan graffiti. Previously in January 2019, two private Armenian school campuses in Los Angeles were draped with Turkish flags.

This experience has been transformative for Kebadjian and Hopkinson. They are both still grappling with the complicated emotions triggered by the drawing. 

“This was the first incident of this nature that I’ve witnessed, such a direct action of hate,” Hopkinson reflected. “It’s been pretty eye-opening. It’s been an unfortunate situation, but I’m glad we’ve been able to make the most out of a bad situation and educate people.”

“You hear stories about things like this a lot, lots of hate crimes on the news, but actually being on the receiving end is a completely different situation. It’s a lot more intense. I’m glad we were able to turn it around and do something positive with a bad situation,” Kebadjian concluded.

Author information

Lillian Avedian

Lillian Avedian is the assistant editor of the Armenian Weekly. She reports on international women’s rights, South Caucasus politics, and diasporic identity. Her writing has also been published in the Los Angeles Review of Books, Democracy in Exile, and Girls on Key Press. She holds master’s degrees in journalism and Near Eastern studies from New York University.

| Twitter |

The post Anti-Armenian drawing at Winchester High School prompts two students to take action appeared first on The Armenian Weekly.

On June 18, People’s Power, an offshoot of the ruling Georgian Dream party, issued yet a lengthy statement, criticizing yesterday’s U.S. Congressional hearing on Georgia and claiming that NATO’s Article 5 does not guarantee military assistance to Allies in the event of an attack, and that the Georgian-language translation of this Article 5 of the Washington Treaty is “deliberately falsified,” leaving out the part that gives individual members of the Alliance the agency to decide “whether or not to use military assistance as they deem necessary.”

“In the Georgian version, it is presented in such a way that in case of an attack on a NATO member country, all countries are obliged to engage in military confrontation and protect the ally from military aggression,” the statement said, accusing the “Global War Party” of misleading the Georgian people for years.

The statement says that “until now, the Georgian society was constantly deceived that we should do everything to join NATO and that this is the only salvation for our country” and goes to state that “for dozens of years we have been hearing false promises that we have to do more, more work is needed, and so on.”

It then says: “As for the fifth article directly, the question of whether NATO is Membership one hundred percent security guarantee, the direct directly answer is no.”

According to the People Power, its version of the Georgian translation of the Article 5 reads as follows: “An attack on the Alliance is considered an attack on all NATO member states. And these other states have the right to help the object of aggression in the way and in the form they deem necessary, and to use their armed forces only if they deem it necessary”.

The statement also claims that the same “Global War Party” has been using the NATO and EU issues to manipulate Georgians. “And since they managed more or less successfully to make the public believe that our salvation lies only in joining these unions, they more or less successfully use this instrument, against the government, to manipulate people.”

In the statement, the People’s Power also attacks Ivane Chkhikvadze, EU Integration Program Manager at the Civil Society Foundation and Georgia Country Consultant at the European Endowment for Democracy and Natalie Sabanadze, Senior Fellow at Chatham House and former Georgian Ambassador to the EU for testifying before the United States Congress on supporting Georgia’s sovereignty and democracy, amid the Foreign Agents Law controversy. The statement calls those individuals “Georgians with no homeland.”

The People’s Power also lashes out at William Courtney, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the RAND Corporation and former U.S. Ambassador to Georgia, who testified before the Congress yesterday, accusing him of “threatening us with a revolution and with our country’s entanglement in the flames of war.”

Tornike Parulava, Director of the Department for Security Policy and Euro-Atlantic Integration at the MFA, reacted to the People’s Power statement on Facebook, saying that “the disinformation narrative presented is quite old” and has been repeated many times over the years. He drew parallels between the People’s Power statement and Russian propaganda about NATO’s Article 5.

In the same Facebook post, he also provided an “unofficial” but, in his opinion, correct translation of Article 5 into Georgian, adding that “in general, it seems that learning foreign language remains a challenge among us.”

The Information Center on NATO and EU – the Legal Entity of Public Law (LEPL) under the Foreign Ministry – declined to comment on the People’s Power statement when Civil.ge’s contacted it and referred us to the Foreign Ministry for comment. The Information Center was established in 2005 to raise awareness about the EU and NATO and the process of Georgia’s integration in these organizations, as well as to counter the anti-Western propaganda and narratives in the country.

Civil.ge approached MFA for an official comment but it has not responded at the time of publication.

Also Read:

• 20/04/2024 – People’s Power Attacks West over “Foreign Agents” Bill Criticism