Armen Aivazian speaks in London
Armenian News Network / Groong, May 8, 2003
Armen Aivazian in London speaks on the strategic consequences of Armenian genocide
On Sunday 27 April 2003, the London-based Campaign for Recognition of Armenian Genocide (CRAG) organised what was an extraordinary meeting. Perhaps more than a hundred people gathered in a west London hall to listen to Professor Armen Aivazian from Armenia speak on the 'Strategic Consequences of the Armenian Genocide'.
More surprising and pleasant than the significant turnout was a healthy representation of younger people, not usually in evidence at Armenian political meetings. But most surprising of all was Armen Aivazian's refreshing speech that contained not a hint of the now routine but soulless laments that debase the memory of the Genocide. The speaker offered instead a dispassionate and novel treatise that sought to measure the consequences of the Genocide 'in the context of political and strategic criteria' that could affect the present and future prospects of the Armenian people.
Among the many points (full text on the CRAG Website - www.crag.org.uk) about the enduring consequences of the Genocide was one that concerns Armenian strategic security deserves underlining and further discussion. In the past, 'if one region (of Armenia) was captured the people could flee to another' to 'regroup and counterattack as soon as the chance offered itself.' The loss of land resulting from the Genocide deprives Armenians from having 'several defensive regions'. Armenia now 'lacks strategic depth' and has no territory 'to retreat and regroup its forces' in the event of hostile attack.
Such concerns are not products of fevered and demented nationalist imagination. Dr. Aivazian noted that since Armenian independence the
Turkish state has refused to recognise the Armenian Republic. The pretexts have changed in time behind them is an unyielding opposition to the very existence of an Armenian state. Quoting a former Greek ambassador as well as senior Turkish and Azeri politicians the speaker showed that Turkish state threats against a struggling Armenia are very real.
This was the context in which Dr. Aivazian argued that 'the recognition of genocide by the international community would reduce the possibility of any direct Turkish aggression against the Republic of Armenia' and recognition by Turkey 'could serve as a rudimentary confidence-building measure in Armenian-Turkish relations.' There is of course a measure of truth in such a claim. But it is a very small measure. No powerful and determined state has ever been held up in its predatory ambitions by paper declarations. The international community, dominated by major world powers, has furthermore proved itself a pathetic guarantor of small nations.
Besides genocide recognition there are other political and diplomatic measures that could serve, however minimally to safeguard Armenian security. But none could have any weight without a stable and strong
Armenian state enjoying the support of its people as well as an energetic government acting on behalf of the people. Both are absent factors in Armenia.
It needs to be stressed that Armen Aivazian did not propose genocide recognition as the main axis of Armenian defence. Rather he argued for a social, intellectual, cultural and economic revival as the foundation of a strong Armenia. Here he suggested a massive immigration that could bring 'a completely new and vigorous impetus to the on-going struggle for social justice and equal rights', a struggle that certainly could contribute to the development of a firm Armenian state.
The healthy discussion highlighted the central weakness in the current Armenian journey towards a strong independent state. The Armenian government and elite and many of its major institutions remain indifferent to the urgent issues confronting the Armenian people. But as Armen Aivazian noted in the absence of effective government leadership the people have to act.