On February 13, 2011 the AYF brought legendary singer and poet, Ruben Hakhverdyan, to downtown Los Angeles’ famous Orpheum Theatre for a one-night only performance. Nearly 2000 fans crowded into the halls of the Theatre for what was one of Ruben’s largest and most memorable performances.

A few days after the concert, we had the chance to sit down with Ruben for an exclusive interview with Haytoug, covering everything from the concert to his music to his thoughts on culture and politics.

HAYTOUG: It’s been six years since your last visit to Los Angeles. How does it feel to be back and what are your impressions of life here?

RUBEN HAKHVERDYAN: You know, I haven’t really gotten out much since coming here. I just visited a few friends so I can’t really give you much of any impression. I came here to sing, which is my job, and then I’ll be going back home.

I can’t really comment on how things are here because I feel one has to actually live here to really understand both the positives and negatives. Like I said, my job is to sing and I really haven’t gone out too much.

H: Is there a difference between performing in a Diaspora community like Los Angeles as opposed to in Armenia?

R.H.: None whatsoever. It has never made a difference for me where I’m performing. I have even sung in France for a French audience and it made no difference at all. They received me with the same warm welcome. The translations were displayed on the screen while I performed so they understood the meaning of my songs.

I have sung for the Czechs in the Czech Republic, for Serbs in Serbia, and so on. For me, it doesn’t matter who is in the audience. The most important thing is to make sure that, whenever I perform, the audience is left pleased.

Ruben Performing Live in Los Angeles

H: At the concert here in Los Angeles, you sang a song you mentioned you had written when you were 18. Can you tell us a little about when you began writing these songs and what motivated you to become a singer-song writer?

R.H.: When I was young, the guitar was a very popular instrument and many of us back then wanted to be like our favorite bands of the time. We looked up to the Beatles, or solo artists like Johnny Cash, Joni Mitchell, James Taylor and other famous—mostly American— singers. These artists were some of my favorites and they were my first inspirations.

I started when I was around 18 years old, learning little by little here and there. We all learned something from each other as friends and then took it from there.

H: During your performance, you also referred several times to the bandukths, those Armenians who continue to leave their homeland for lives abroad.

R.H.: Yes, I touch upon that theme a lot in my music but I usually don’t sing about it during my concerts. You know why? Because it is almost as if emigration has become our nation’s destiny, especially these last couple of years.

H: What do you think are the main reasons for this emigration?

R.H.: People leave Armenia because they can’t find work there, because life is not very pleasant. It has to do with social injustice and economic hopelessness. Another key reason is that the people have been disappointed by all three ruling regimes in Armenia since independence. They feel as if all three administrations came to power only to rob their own people.

H: There are some who feel it is this generation’s responsibility to go back to Armenia in order to be in the homeland and improve the situation. What do you feel about the concept of repatriation and Tebi Yergir?

R.H.: In every nation, there is a segment driven by ideals. Usually, these people make up around 5-10% of the population. Being ideological is a good thing if your convictions are truly your own, not something strained around your neck from above. It is positive because it makes you stand out from the rest of the crowd that simply follows a preset path.

I consider myself closely associated with, and have many friends within, the ARF-Dashnakstutsyun. Even there, however, there aren’t that many individual thinkers. I would say again, in my opinion, they make up about 5-10% within the party.

I place the most importance on the rank and file members and supporters of the ARF, including especially the youth, because they are searching for their national roots within this party—nothing else.

I don’t give too much importance to the leadership because it can always change. The ideals of the party, on the other hand, always remain the same.

From what I’ve seen, the most patriotic youth I’ve come across belong to this party.

H: While you’ve shown support for the ideology of the ARF, you’ve also expressed disappointment with the party. Could you explain what it is exactly that has disappointed you?

R.H.: For me, it was them joining and leaving the coalition. I was opposed to it from the very beginning. But since I’m not a member of the party, it is not my business to meddle. Nevertheless, they should never have joined the coalition knowing who they were going to be partners with.

H: Getting back to your music, you spoke during the concert about the state of Armenian music, criticizing the lack of art and meaning today. What do you think the implications of this are for Armenian culture?

R.H.: There are only a few artists today who belong to a narrow genre I call “poetic music,” where the lyrics actually have meaning. Now, if you look at popular artists today who fill up stadiums, most of their lyrics have no meaning. In a lot of cases, they steal their ideas from one place or another and use artificial melodies.

But I actually don’t blame the artists who sing these foolish songs. It’s the fault of the people who want to hear that type of music. It’s the consumer’s fault, not the producer’s—just like the bribe-giver is as guilty as the bribe-taker. I believe our society is really quite backwards in this regard. My only hope is our youth because what we need are new minds and new thinkers who can present new ideas completely different from what is the norm today.

H: What role do you see music having in the larger context of preserving Armenian language and culture in the 21st century?

R.H.: My art is a bit different in the sense of preservation. For example, I tell the story of my generation. I paint a picture in time of the Armenia of my era. I sing this type of music, not so people won’t be disappointed in our language which is our fatherland, but so they will return to our language lovingly. Because our fatherland is indeed our language.

For instance, for your generation, your fatherland is not necessarily Armenia because you don’t live there. Armenia for you is the Armenian language. So, for me, the Armenian language holds more importance than, say, paintings of scenery and mountains or rivers.

H: You’ve said both in interviews and alluded to in your songs that what we see today in Armenia is the continuation of the Soviet experience. That the new leaders are following in the footsteps of the old. Why do you think this is?

R.H.: It’s not the fault of the leaders themselves. Most of them lived the majority of their lives under the Soviet regime and that mentality has been rooted deeply within them. That’s why I say we need new thinkers and new plans. The older ones need to be forgotten because they are the same Communists as before. There is no difference with the past. In fact, you could say leaders today are actually worse. Communists who have no rules or laws can steal as much as they want.

H: Do you think the dashing of people’s hopes and aspirations after independence has contributed to this cycle and the disillusionment of people toward change?

R.H.: That hope during independence died because we didn’t have any truly national figures. Those who we did have went on to turn patriotism into a business for themselves, with each one concerned only with filling their own stomachs. We don’t have selfless leaders; we don’t have national figures. That’s the most painful thing about today.

H: Whether it’s your songs, your concerts, or your interviews, you always seem to speak your mind without any fear. What makes you so outspoken?

R.H.: I speak openly like this because I feel an obligation towards our youth. I feel obliged to encourage them to think and speak freely, because the true concept of a homeland requires having such freedoms. Why would I be afraid to speak out?

During the Soviet times, I spoke against the Communists and, of course, there were pressures placed on me. They wouldn’t play my songs or allow me to sing. During Levon’s [Ter Petrosyan] administration, I spoke against him, too; during Robert’s [Kocharyan] administration, I spoke against his many mistakes; and during Serzh’s [Sargsyan] administration I speak up against his. It is very important to think freely and be honest, first and foremost with yourself.

H: Where do you see yourself and your music heading in the future?

R.H.: I never think about that. I haven’t thought about that nor do I plan to…

H: But what can people expect from you?

R.H.: From me? Nothing good (laughs) . . . I don’t know. You can expect something that you never expected…

For its Winter 2011 issue, the Haytoug had the opportunity to catch up with Tatul Sonentz-Papazian, a champion of Armenian advocacy in the US who has played a pivotal role in the advancement of the Armenian Cause since as far back as the early 1960s.

After graduating from the Mekhitarist School in Cairo, Egypt, he went on to study graphic design and worked as an illustrator for various newspapers and magazines in Cairo. In 1951, he joined the Foreign Service and worked for the US Information Agency, as an art and publications director. Six years later, he moved to the US, where he was eventually asked to serve as the director of the ARF and 1st Republic of Armenia Archives and editor of the Armenian Review.

He currently directs the Publications Department of the Armenian Relief Society and is working on a book covering the 100 momentous years of the ARS for its Centenary this year.

Tatul Sonentz-Papazian

HAYTOUG: As a veteran Hai Tahd activist, can you take us back to 1965 for a moment and describe the impetus behind the movement that developed during that period? Why was the 50th anniversary of the Genocide such a turning point and what made Armenians suddenly stand up to demand their rights?

TATUL SONENTZ-PAPAZIAN: I was involved in ACIA (American Committee for the Independence of Armenia) activities after its revival by the ARF Bureau in the early sixties. In Vahan Cardashian’s time, this select group of American personalities was trying to secure an American Mandate for Armenia, and it failed because there was no oil in Armenia. Cardashian—the founder of ACIA—was a lawyer married to a wealthy American socialite of New York. Until 1915, he was an attaché on the legal staff of the Imperial Ottoman embassy in Washington DC. When news of the genocide reached the US, he resigned from his post. Being financially secure and well connected, he decided to form a high level lobbying group to promote the Armenian Case. He was the only Armenian on the Committee and served as Executive Director.

As to your question:” what made Armenians suddenly stand up to demand their rights?”Armenians did not suddenly stand up in quest of their rights—there was a period of gradual recovery after the successive traumas of the 1915 Armenocide, the 1920 Kemalist-Bolshevik attack and destruction of the 1st Republic, and the 1930s Stalinist purges amounting to an attempt at “Houshaspanutiun” (the eradication of collective memory, “memoricide”, to coin a word) which almost succeeded in Soviet Armenia—through the re-writing of history, restructuring of the language with the infusion of foreign (Russian) words and changes in orthography, etc.—to wipe out our ancient and more recent memories, replacing them with a contrived history and bogus internationalist values of the “Homo Sovieticus” of a utopian future.

One must also remember Taleat Pasha’s boast in 1915, that he would deliver such a blow to the Armenians, that they would not be able to raise their heads for at least half a century… He was not too far off, was he?  Fifty years later, in 1965, after years of low profile yet continuous Hai Tahd work spearheaded by the Delegation of the first Armenian Republic in Europe, and the ACIA in America, a consensus was achieved among leadership circles in both the Diaspora and Soviet Armenia to come out united in quest of our national rights. The momentum generated by the 50th Commemoration carried us all the way to the 60th Anniversary commemoration—achieved, once more, in unity of effort and purpose—as the armed struggle, although somewhat divisive, marked the start of political activism on a global scale—eventually leading to another united effort to liberate Artsakh, alongside a newly independent, though somewhat battered, Homeland.

H. What do you make of the current state of Hai Tahd activity here in the United States? What direction do you feel we need to go towards as a community in pursuing our Cause in the 21st Century?

TSP: Before getting to that, perhaps we should take a look at the events and the policies dictated by Western imperial interests—particularly those of the United States—in the Near and Middle East which, by the way, haven’t changed much to this day. Accordingly, our argument, presented in 1965 and after, was that by not implementing the resolutions of the Sevres Treaty, the just and logical solutions of festering problems were postponed in order to arrive at short-term, colonial arrangements that, in the long run, would pave the road to far more serious crises in Eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus, Mesopotamia and the Middle and Near East. Serious predicaments, as the present crises in the area demonstrate in such a violent fashion. Now, the Kurdish issue is coming to full view, while the Armenian Cause, now dormant in the “six vilayets”, still awaits final resolution in Karabagh. The main reason is that Turkey, the present Turkish state, was allowed to grab and keep former Ottoman holdings, such as Western Armenia, Kurdistan, Hellenic Pontus and Armenian Cilicia by brutal ethnic cleansing methods of massacre, deportation and forced assimilation. Those lands were no more Turkish than Greece, Bulgaria, Syria or Egypt, all former possessions of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, the present Turkish Republic’s bloated boundaries cannot be regarded as historically justified, legitimate—or permanent, for that matter. Let us not forget, that at the time, the US Congress refused to recognize the Lausanne Treaty because Turkey had ignored President Wilson’s adjudication on the Turkish-Armenian boundaries.

As we know, Hai Tahd activity here in the United States was focused mainly on the genocide recognition issue which has not met with success so far. In my opinion, it should have been focused on putting a stop to the on-going genocidal processes that Turkey implements in Western Armenia to this day, instead of commemorating an on-going genocide, sending the erroneous message to the world, that the Armenian Genocide was a tragedy of the past century, and not a crime against universal human rights being committed unchallenged at this time through forced assimilation and conversion to Islam.

This new approach in the prosecution of Hai Tahd can be based on arguments presented below:

• It is a universally accepted dictum, that denial is the last stage of genocide; as such, it is the continuation of the genocidal process. Indeed, the Genocide started by the Ottomans in the 19th century and brought to its “Final Solution” stage by the chauvinistic adventurers of the Ittihadist government in 1915, has never truly ceased and—through a process of denials (denial of historical facts, denial of the right to use and teach the mother tongue, denial of the right to practice one’s professed religion, denial of ownership of inherited religious and cultural edifices and monuments) —continues to be implemented to this day against Armenian, Kurdish, Assyrian and other minorities, in the very heart of these peoples’ Turkish-controlled homelands. The denial policy, as you can see, has many facets that need selective attention.
• Armenians, by commemorating the 1915 – 1921 Genocide, by setting an on-going annual ritual in remembrance of a 6-year Yeghern, create the impression—both for their own people and the world community—that the Genocide has ceased , and all that remains to be done is to prove to the whole world, that a six year long genocide was indeed committed, ignoring the fact, that cloaked behind a consistent curtain of denial, the genocide—through forced assimilation—was still going on against the forcibly converted surviving Armenians and their descendents still on their native soil, coerced to hide their true identity behind Islamic Kurdish or Turkish names.
• Decades ago—particularly during the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, in order to keep Turkey on the defensive, and out of that conflict—the Armenians should have brought up the issue of the human and civil rights of their persecuted fellow countrymen in Eastern Anatolia, throwing a searchlight on Turkey’s total disregard for the numerous articles of the Lausanne Treaty—as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights —to which the Turkish State was and is signatory.

H. Some argue that, now that we have an independent Armenia, we should focus less on the Genocide and more on strengthening Armenia’s economy and statehood. What are your thoughts on this argument?

TSP: Those who bring forth this argument base it on a strictly state-, as opposed to nation-oriented strategic approach. The Armenian nation, at this date some nine million strong, 1/3 of them living within the landlocked and belligerently blockaded boundaries of the 3rd Republic, the remaining majority of 6 million scattered throughout a constantly shifting and unsettled Diaspora, simply cannot accept its present status imposed on it by the Genocide and its aftermath. A status based on  multiple crimes of stunning proportions perpetrated against our nation by powers both within and outside the law—by untenable treaties signed under duress with and between rogue powers, often unrecognized, or outlawed at the time, by that same international community that today swears by the ‘sanctity’ of  borders shaped by that very lawlessness…

Under such circumstances, the fate of an entire nation takes precedence, in our case, not at all at the expense of the security and welfare of the state, but precisely having that security and welfare in mind. The present landlocked Armenian Republic with its steadily diminishing population in its truncated boundaries, surrounded by predatory neighbors, can hardly be considered a viable haven for the future of the Armenian nation, whose just Cause is very much alive at this juncture of history, when global changes are taking place and the destinies of many nations are to be decided. In such circumstances, it would be nothing short of tragic to give up the fight for our legitimate national rights that have to be secured in order to guarantee the freedom, security and normal progress of Armenia, as a nation state.

H. Over recent months, there seems to be a growing rift between the governments of Turkey and Israel, as well as a strain in relations between Ankara and Washington. What do you make of these developments?

TSP: As I just stated, the world, as we know it, is changing at a great pace towards a destiny as yet unknown. Mighty powers are being brought to their knees while lesser or emerging national entities are maneuvering for their place in the sun. In all these changes there are geographic and demographic invariables to which geopolitics remain anchored.

The rift between erstwhile close allies, Israel and Turkey is the result of the latter’s recently mapped “Neo-Ottoman” posture, where Israel must play the role of perceived ‘enemy’ to give the new ‘Caliphate’s geopolitical image some Islamic credibility in the eyes of the Arab Middle East. Israel is receiving the blows meant for the Western powers—particularly the United States (for its present Kurdish policies), too important a Turkish ally to be openly pummeled by the latter.  If all things proceed normally, this new Turkish gambit for hegemony will be checked in time by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran. In all probability, Turkish-Israeli relations will return to their former level, since they remain anchored to geopolitical invariables which, so far, remain unaltered.

Based on the above analysis, I see no permanent impact (aside from shallow diplomatic maneuverings to give credence to a grossly overreaching Turkish gambit) on the basic tenets of the regional politics involving the Armenian Cause.

H. You’ve spoken in the past about the importance for us as Armenians to be socially conscious. How do you strike a balance between, on the one hand, struggling for your national rights and dedicating yourself to your people, and on the other, working for the betterment of all of humanity and showing solidarity with other causes?

TSP: There was a short lived movement initiated by a small group of idealists in the ranks of the ARF, after the establishment of the 1st Independent Republic, to drop the “A” from the initials of the name and to call it Federation of Revolutionaries (“Heghapokhakanneri Dashnaktsutiun”) uniting the efforts of all revolutionaries of neighboring nations and ethnic groups to bring about needed changes in the socioeconomic conditions in the region. Even then, some nationalists had come to understand, that there could be no real—and lasting—progress for one nation when neighboring nations were denied their basic human rights. This truth transcends time and remains valid also today.  In that context, in order to work for the betterment of all humanity, obviously, one must show active solidarity with other causes struggling for recognition and justice. The loftiest ideals of mankind are universal in nature, and recognize no racial, religious or cultural boundaries.

H. Is there anything you would like to add or discuss regarding the Armenian Cause that we did not address?

TSP: I’d like to say, that the 1965 recovery of a nation that was left for dead in the sands of the Syrian Desert was predestined beyond the cynical prediction of Taleat. What followed the 50th and what will come tomorrow were, are and will be the fruits of our own efforts exerted under our own responsibility. We went through the crucible and learned a few things. The future will be ours only if and when we learn our lessons well and plan accordingly. We must learn to rely on our own potential—those who rely on handouts from the mighty and powerful will, inevitably, lose their freedom.

Mine was the first generation born in the post-Yeghern Diaspora. Although educated in westernized or western institutions, we still had some immunity against a total absorption by Western cultures and values. Western “liberal” values, particularly in the United States, tend to confuse nationalism with racism, or chauvinism, at best. They tend to promote an “internationalism” that, in essence, refutes the necessity of culturally distinct nations thereby rendering the very concept of internationalism meaningless. My generation, being brought up by survivors of the Yeghern, took a stronger stand on principles that we considered historically essential for our nation’s survival in a world society of many cultures existing in harmony. These issues were relevant then and will remain so if we are to prevail in our present struggle to build a viable future for our presently scattered nation.

Ours was a firm conviction, that the Armenian identity, along with its distinct language and culture, not only had to be preserved, it had to have its place in the sun, not relegated to the dusty corners of libraries and museums, condemned to eventual oblivion. Preservation, “Hayabahbanoum” alone, without development, without rubbing shoulders with the rest of the world, would leave us behind, frozen in time as relics.

We believed, that after all those millennia, there was more than enough energy in our unique culture, as expressed in our language, literature, music, art and architecture, to give us a place of honor in the 20th century and beyond.  Today, standing beyond the threshold of the 21st century, I do believe that we have managed to pass that self-assurance, that faith in our destiny, to the coming generations.

QUESTION: Let’s begin with a simple but important question.  What is Javakhk and where is it located?

ANSWER: The name Javakhk can be understood in two ways.  Samtskhe-Javakheti is a province within the Republic of Georgia in the South Caucasus – an administrative division.  But Javakhk is also understood as a smaller region in the southeastern corner of the country – an historical entity.

The name Javakhk is a phonetic derivative of Zabakha, a name used since the 9th century BC.  The region was ruled by Armenians, Iranians, Iberians and others over the centuries, always maintaining its Armenian identity.  During the time that the Kingdom of Armenia existed – that is, from 200 BC to 400 AD – Javakhk was part of the province of Gugark.

Moving on to the modern era, we find Javakhk being a battleground between the Persians and Ottomans for several decades until Ottoman hegemony over the area was established in 17th century.  From that point onward, the population was subjected to massacre and forced conversion to Islam, but foreign immigration was so low that an Ottoman census shows the majority of the population remaining Armenian.

Soon afterward, it was annexed by Tsarist Russia and the Armenians of not only Javakhk, but Tbilisi as well, flourished economically and culturally.

Village life in Javakhk

Q: What is the Armenian population in the region?

A: Over half the population is ethnically Armenian, and the remaining 40% or so are largely Georgian, Turkish and Azerbaijani.  The primary cities (Akhalkalak and Akhaldzkha) and many villages are almost exclusively Armenian; in Akhalkalak, for example, we make up 95% of the population.  Outside of Samtskhe-Javakheti, an additional 200,000 live in the capital, Tbilisi.

Q: How would you summarize the major challenges faced by Armenians in Javakhk?

A: The biggest problem we have is with our youth, but there are political, social, religious and economic issues, too.  The government puts great pressure on us to forget our language, our cultural treasures and to leave our homeland.  Using Armenian is illegal here, for example.

We’re facing a growing age gap.  A large portion of Javakhktsi youth leave for Yerevan to study and end up staying there after securing their diplomas.  Those that don’t leave for Armenia pursue post-secondary education in Tbilsi and settle there, or immigrate to Russia to find work.

Here is another facet to the age problem: it’s normal for men and women here to get married between the ages of 18 and 21.  So by the time they reach a point where they’ve attained the necessary amount of maturity and experience to be able to have a positive and meaningful impact on the region and its problems, they’re already preoccupied with securing a family.  So the pool of young, capable Javakhktsis remains meager.  We need to find ways of keeping them here and ameliorating the situation.

Q: You mentioned that the use of Armenian is illegal.  So you can’t speak your mother tongue when you’re out on the street or in public?

A: No, we can speak it in the street, but legal documents have to be in Georgian – they can’t be in Armenian.  We can’t import Armenian language newspapers into Javakhk; we are made to organize our own press, which requires funding.  Because we’re an ethnic majority, we’re allowed to teach Armenian in our schools, but the number of hours of Armenian-language class has been decreased from 8 hrs per week roughly 6 years ago to only 4 hours this coming term, while the length of Georgian classes has increased.  There was a law passed recently mandating that all schools be renamed to follow a generic numbering system; so a school that was called Haik Nahabed Secondary School may now be known as Georgian Secondary School Number 13.  In this way, they lose their connection with their fundamental Armenian identity.  The use of imported Armenian-language texts is barred; instead, the government has decided we’re to use books translated from Georgian by them.  But the translations are so inaccurate that they sometimes don’t make sense.  So how are our sons and daughters supposed to learn?  Those that teach Armenian are underpaid, too, thereby discouraging people from pursuing that career path.  They’re playing a zero-sum game here; they’re not only making it harder for our Armenian teachers to work, they’re also making it so that there is increased demand for Georgian teachers to take their place.

Q: What types of religious problems are there here?

A: What we see in Javakhk is a clear attempt at erasing the Armenian character of our churches, which have been here for centuries.  They destroy or remove cross stones (khachkars) and the Armenian writing engraved on church walls, then seek to Georgify them by bringing the building under the ownership of the Georgian Orthodox Church.  Clerics will come and announce to the village that this is now a Georgian church, etc.

Our Church currently operates outside the proper legal framework in Georgia.  It does not have any de jure legitimacy here because the government does not accredit it the proper legal recognition it deserves.  These are our major problems.

Are steps being taken to afford our churches proper de jure standing, or is that something that has already been tried and failed?

That’s unfortunately something our religious leaders here would be able to answer in greater detail than I.

Q: If they’re able to completely erase the Armenian character of the churches, what would the consequences be for the Armenians living here?

Sunday mass at the Armenian church of Akhalkalak

A: If this were to happen, we would become witness to the same situation we see in Western Armenia, which has been taken from us.  Javakhktsis consider themselves a people indigenous to this region.  It’s well known that there were waves of immigration in the 1830s and 1840s, but there was a large population living here before then.

Today’s Georgian historians give us a different official account than their Armenian counterparts and these may be interpreted as two subjective readings of history.  But the physical things we see around us have to bear witness to the truth, right?  And what we see is that in the 5th century, Armenian churches were built.  So there was Armenian life here, an Armenian faith.  This is what we see.  And we haven’t even spoken out our fortresses and walled cities yet, which further solidify this “version” of history as the truth.

Q: And despite the fact that the majority of the population is Armenian, you aren’t able to make your way into the political arena to solve these issues?

A: There are a small number of Armenians in local government, but it appears that that’s not sufficient.  They only represent 10% of the governing body and aren’t able to bring about meaningful change through the positions they occupy.  The true power lays higher up, at echelons we don’t have access to.

Q: So, at the federal level.

A: Yes, at the federal level.

Q: Although all these problems exist, it seems that the Georgian government hasn’t made a clear effort at keeping Javakhk underdeveloped the way we see in southeastern Turkey, for example.  The roads are well-paved, there is running water and there are new construction projects all around.  These are things that even Armenians living in Armenia don’t always have.  What explanation is there for this dichotomy?

A: Look, we are living, after all, in the 21st century.  The days of not having running water or electricity are behind us.  But there are several important points to make here.

A ruined Armenian church in a village near Akhalkalak

The primary land routes linking Georgia to Turkey and Armenia run through Javakhk, so keeping the roads in good repair is an important economic asset to Tbilisi.  The country also received $300 million as part of the US’ Millennium Challenge program.  A third of this amount was earmarked for road repair projects between the capital and the borders with Turkey and Armenia.

So, yes, you’re correct in noting that there is a good deal of active construction work in Javakhk, but the companies that are granted these long-term projects are usually either Turkish or Azerbaijani and hire their workforces out of those countries.  These laborers then sponsor their families to join them and end up settling here.  All this happens while Javakhktsis have to emigrate in order to secure an income, thereby weakening our majority in the region.

Q: What has the Diaspora’s role been in Javakhk and in what new ways can the Diaspora help?

A: Unfortunately, we haven’t seen the same level of interest in and support for Javakhk that we’ve been seeing for Artsakh.

Moving forward, the Diaspora can put the Javakhk issue on the agendas of many different organizations and countries around the world.  There are always attempts at silencing this issue when it arises on the international stage and the Diaspora can oppose that.  You can also help us overcome our national, religious and socio-economic hurdles.  And most importantly, our linguistic and cultural issues.

The Armenian youth center of Akhalkalak

We are trying to claim our rights in Javakhk.  According to the Congress of the Council of Europe [in which Georgia holds five seats], as a national minority and as an ethnic majority in Samtskhe-Javakheti, our language must be given official status.  Georgian will remain the official language of the Republic, but Armenian must become a recognised second language.  Especially seeing as how our schools are losing their Armenian character and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to teach Armenian to our children, this is very important.

Q: Considering Javakhk is not part of the Republic of Armenia, do you consider yourself a Diasporan?

A: No.  If you called a Javakhktsi on the street a spyurkahye, they would probably consider it an insult.  The word spyurk doesn’t even fit in Javakhkahye…  Javakhkaspyurkahye?  It’s awkward, it doesn’t make sense.  We don’t accept that label.

Here is a concrete example I can use to demonstrate.  When the Republic of Armenia’s Diaspora Ministry wanted to organize an event here, we refused their invitation.  Look, let them send their Committee of Physical Education and Sports or something different; we would be more than happy to accept their help.  But not the Diaspora Ministry.  We’re not Diasporans.  We’re an ancient people living on historically Armenian soil, regardless of what the Georgian government says.  This is a part of Armenia and we’re Armenians.  We’re not part of the present Republic, but this is still Armenia.  We’re not Diasporans.

Q: Thank you for your time so far.  Do you have any thoughts you would like to share in lieu of closing remarks?

A: Simply that our nation must remain united, because if history has taught us anything, it’s that when Armenians stand united, we have the power to solve problems in ways that are beneficial to us, not others.

By Nyree  Abrahamian

“Wake up. Get ready. Go to work. Tea. Reddit. Chitchat. Reddit… Start work.  This is how I start my average workday. Reddit.com is an addiction, for me and for thousands of people around the world. It’s a social media website where users (Redditors) post interesting links and other users can vote and comment on them. The links that get the most “upvotes” make up the front page of interesting, witty, insightful and comical articles, photos and videos.”

Reddit is the brainchild of Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian, who started the site fresh out of college in 2005. When I first googled Reddit and read this, like any good Armenian, my eye was immediately drawn to the –ian, and I felt proud that I could add another name to my list of brainy Armenians. So when I found out that Alexis Ohanian would be in Yerevan (where I live) for a few months, I knew I had to track him down and talk to him.

Alexis is here on a three-month fellowship with Kiva (kiva.org), an organization that allows people to lend money via the internet to microfinance institutions in developing countries, which in turn lend the money to small businesses. After selling Reddit to Condé Nast in 2006, he has been keeping busy with several projects, his recent connection to Kiva being one of them. He has also founded a new website, www.breadpig.com, “an uncorporation that’s responsible for bringing geeky things into the world”, and in December 2009, gave a TED Talk about the power of social media.

If you haven’t come across it yet, TED.com (another of my online addictions) is a non-profit foundation that holds conferences all over the world in which some of the world’s leading thinkers share “ideas worth spreading,” as the TED motto goes, through short lectures which are broadcast online.

After spending only a few weeks here, Alexis quickly realized that Armenia is a place filled with “ideas worth spreading,” and is now helping organize Armenia’s very own TEDx conference (www.tedxyerevan.com – an independently organized TED event), to be held on September 15, 2010 in Yerevan.

We met, and discussed a range of topics from social media to Armenia-diaspora relations, over hot bowls of spas (yogurt soup).

Nyree Abrahamian: What is Reddit?

Alexis Ohanian: Reddit is basically a news website where readers, not editors, determine the front page. It’s a place where interesting links from anywhere on the internet get submitted by people, and other people vote on them. If they like them, they vote them up, if they don’t like them, they vote them down. The end result is this evolving front page of interesting links.

N.A.: How did Reddit come about?

A.O.: My cofounder, Steve Huffman, and I were trying to solve the problem of not being entertained enough in the morning when we woke up. There wasn’t a good destination to find all the best stuff on the web. And it seemed like there were two possible solutions. One, we get a bunch of people to curate and figure out what the best stuff is, and that was going to be costly and time consuming. Or, we just let all of our readers do that work for us. And in the end, it turns out that all these people (we get about 7 million unique visitors a month) spread out all over the world, can help to find all of the best stuff on the web… certainly better than we could.

N.A.: Why did you decide to volunteer with Kiva? And why in Armenia?

A.O.: I decided to do it because when I first discovered Kiva in 2008, the very first thing I did when I went to their website was search for Armenia, and we weren’t there, and that made me sad. I thought, ‘I know this diaspora pretty well, I mean, I’m a part of it, and they seem to be very keen on the future of Armenia… ‘ And the Kiva model is one that I do believe in, and I thought, ‘Why are they not in Armenia? It’s a no-brainer.’

So I was eventually able to get a hold of the president of Kiva through a friend, and annoyed him, basically, until he finally relented. So long story short, six months ago, Kiva started work here.

N.A.: What are your impressions of Armenia so far?

A.O.:What has really struck me is that… it’s not a country that seems to want help. I don’t know if that sounds right. The perspective from the States is that, here is a country that needs help, and fair enough, that could be true. But there is this… I don’t know if it’s stubbornness, or pride… but everyone I meet seems to be interested in helping Armenia, but doing it in ways in which Armenians help themselves. And that’s valid.

I think it’s given me some good perspective, because now I’m going to go back and probably be more engaged with the diaspora from this experience, but doing it with I guess a more Armenian perspective…

I was always proud of being Armenian but it was just like, that was it. I was proud to be Armenian, but not in connection to present-day Armenia. Now, I would like to be able to keep the relationships I made here, thanks to the internet, and perhaps be a more attuned voice for Armenia.

N.A.: You gave a Ted Talk in December. How did this opportunity come about?

A.O.: I was invited to my first TED (TED Global – Oxford) just under a year before and was hooked.  Heard about TED in India at TED Global and almost immediately started checking my calendar.  When I arrived, they were doing a (routine, I believe) open call from TEDsters (attendees) for anyone interested in giving a talk.  The big TED mantra is that the attendees are all as interesting as the speakers, so why not let some of them just spontaneously come up and share something.

They asked for a brief pitch and a video of a past talk, I believe, which I had thanks to YouTube, and I told them something they liked, so they asked me to give a TED Talk.  I only had a couple days’ notice to get slides and a talk together, but thankfully it was only supposed to be about four minutes.  I’ve never rehearsed more for a talk in my life. And my rehearsal time to talk time ratio was absurd, but I think it all paid off.

N.A.: What did you gain from the experience?

A.O.: I was ‘sighted’ for the first time in my life by a busboy in San Francisco who’d seen my TED Talk, which was pretty awesome.  Most importantly, I’ve gotten plugged into the TED network, which has allowed me to host the TEDx we’re having in Yerevan this September.

N.A.: TEDx Yerevan – why did you decide to go for this? What can we expect?

A.O.: Because I kept meeting so many potential TEDsters, basically, a lot of motivated and smart people with ideas worth spreading.  We – and I should stress the we because I’m only one of a team of about 6 people bringing TEDx to Yerevan – are aiming to make this a premier event for anyone interested in world-changing ideas and implementing them.  We’re assembling the best speakers to talk on topics suggested by visitors to the TEDxYerevan website (version 2 is on the way) and want to invite attendees who are themselves full of ideas worth sharing.

I hope this conference is a starting point for countless great Armenian innovations, projects, and partnerships.

Below we present the interview in its entirety.

HAYTOUG: Since at least the 1970s, the world has been undergoing a form of free-market economic integration commonly referred to as neo-liberal globalization. What is the extent to which Armenia itself has become a part of this process since its independence and what do you feel have been its main impacts on the country?

KHATCHIK DERGHOUGASSIAN: Armenia has fully embraced the neoliberal model. As in Russia—and, in fact, all of the former Soviet republics—it applied the “shock-therapy” approach to liberalize the economy and privatize everything. In the immediate aftermath of independence, more precisely between 1991 and 1994, the parliamentary faction of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) argued for an alternative approach, advocating for a gradual liberalization and a central role for the state in strategic decisions, as well as healthcare, education and social security. It was consistent with the ARF’s other main objective concerning the Constitution: creating a parliamentary system rather than the risk of concentrating too much power within the hands of the executive through a strong presidency.

The debate ended with the crackdown on the ARF by the end of 1994, a move that was necessary to open the way for the implementation of the “shock-therapy” model and a strong presidential system. The result has been a twofold concentration of wealth: geographical and oligarchic/monopolistic. The central perimeter of Yerevan is a developed urban zone with a high standard of living, whereas the periphery of the city (not to mention outside of Yerevan) is almost completely underdeveloped—with here and there extravagant residences usually built by the new capitalist class, Diaspora Armenians, or some wealthy person living in Russia. This is the typical landscape of the so-called “creative destruction” type capitalism which was applied. And, indeed, as a consequence of the “shock-therapy” style privatization, a small oligarchy has become virtually the owner of the country.

The country’s economic policy follows closely to the orthodox guidelines of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, maintaining a straight fiscal discipline. Social concerns, including jobs, are non-issues as the free-market dogmatic belief is that growth is the magical solution to every challenge. The main objective of the Central Bank of Armenia is to ensure the flow of money, the only bloodline for the economy. This is broadly how Armenia became “part” of neoliberal globalization.

The tragic part is that once the model had been implemented successfully and structured the economic system, no real critical or alternative thought emerged. It seems as if everyone accepted it as the only possibility. Of course, Armenia’s bubble economy and double-digit—or at least high-level—growth from 2002 to 2008 could have been the main cause of this; while certainly no one predicted its inevitable decline (if not crash), at least not as strongly as to start formulating an alternative approach and build consensus and public support. No one really cared about the unfair income redistribution, the growing social discontent, the precarious conditions in the job market, the heavy dependence on remittances, the lack of value-added production, and the despair of the educated youth seeking to emigrate in hopes of finding a decent job and future.

Moreover, when the global financial crisis broke in September 2008, government officials in Armenia publicly expressed their faith in the strength of the Armenian economy, which was, supposedly, pretty well protected against the impact of the crisis. We are now witnessing how the crisis is strongly hitting Armenia and, yet, the measures taken to face the crisis are exactly the same ones that are at the root of the current debacle.

H: What sort of effect, if any, do you feel the current process of globalization is having on the Armenian Diaspora? How do you feel we can properly adapt to these changes associated with globalization and move forward more effectively into the 21st century?

K.D.: The Diaspora has always been a global reality. Nevertheless, up until the late 1980s, the dominant narrative of Diaspora awareness was the conviction that, as the phenomenon did have a start—the Genocide—then it necessarily should also have an end—going back home. In this sense, I think that perhaps the most important impact of globalization on the Diaspora has been the emergence of a new Diaspora awareness based on a different narrative; one that accepts this transnational reality as a strong, and perhaps a strategically necessary one.

But I would say that globalization came as a later impact; the reality of the Diaspora underwent a structural change earlier,  in the late 1970s and early 1980s, with the massive immigration of Armenians from the Middle East—Lebanon, Syria and Iran—to the West—Europe, Canada and the United States. This “westernization” of the Armenian Diaspora gave a strong blow to the old center-periphery frame of the Diaspora, whereas the hope, or myth, of returning to the homeland vanished in the air with the independence of Armenia.

We are still trying to rationalize this structural change. We’ll see if anything practical will actually come out of it.

H: Over the last two decades, the world has also seen the growth of an active global justice movement struggling against the damaging effects of neo-liberalism. Participants in this movement come together in gatherings such as the World Social Forum (WSF) which you have participated on behalf of the ARF. Can you tell us a little bit about your experience at such gatherings, and why you think it is important for Armenians to engage ourselves in this broader global justice movement?

K.D.: The interest for the WSF emerged during the ARF Bureau’s July 2002 seminar in Yerevan aimed at designing and implementing a socialist program in Armenia. But it wasn’t until January 2005 that, for the first time, a joint Armenian National Committee-Armenian Youth Federation delegation with ARF and AYF members from Armenia, California, Argentina and Brazil participated in the WSF in Porto Alegre, Brazil. The following year, in 2006, a delegation from Argentina and Brazil went to Caracas, Venezuela where the Forum was planned to take place. AYF delegations also participated in regional forums in the Americas and Europe.

The experience was very rich and important. Unfortunately, we failed to reach the wider circles of the AYF and ARF to convince them about the importance of continuing such contact. Nor were we able to create a space of our own in the WSF, despite that in both Porto Alegre and Caracas the issues that we put forward—Genocide, Karabagh and Javakhk self-determination, social justice in Armenia, etc.—generated a great deal of interest and received support from known intellectuals and militants.

This may be because the WSF is mostly a Global South phenomenon—Latin America, Africa, some Middle Easterners, and India/South Eastern Asia, with an important intellectual/militant input from progressive sectors in Europe, Canada and the US—and that Eastern Europeans and former Soviet Union countries, including Armenia, find it too distant from a conceptual perspective. It is a pity because the “other world” that the WSF aims at is precisely where Armenia needs to see itself in order to start thinking about a radical reform of its deeply unfair and expulsive social order, the political institutions that perpetuate and legitimize this order, and the economic infrastructure that sustains and recreates it.

H: What can Armenian activists learn from mass movements in Latin America, where we have seen in recent years a rise in popular mobilization, empowerment of marginalized groups, and electoral victories for candidates who reject the policies of neo-liberalism?

K.D.: The widely known “left-turn” phenomenon in South America is a very rich and ongoing experience that Armenian activists should study. They should study the way parties and social movements built alliances, worked first to build a wide social consensus for their program and then rose to power through a vast majority vote; the way social safety nets were constructed in order to face economic hardships after the collapse of the neoliberal model; the way workers occupied abandoned industrial plants and started to produce in a cooperative manner; the way private multinational companies came under scrutiny for investment promises they made but failed to accomplish; the way the doors were shut to the IMF and its policies; the way private and public capital created highly successful companies; the way the social agenda received priority; the way nationalization stopped being synonymous with failure; the way the power of the people stopped the privatization of their country’s natural resources; the way zero-hunger became an objective and food security programs were designed and implemented. All of these and many other developments have already generated a vast literature, documentary movies, research programs and so forth that Armenian activists should study to produce a critical/alternative thinking about the dominant, and failing, neoliberal model.

The most important characteristic of the South American “left-turn” is the commitment to democracy. Change took place peacefully, without military intervention, and without a call for arms or revolutions as was usually seen in the past. It is the power of the people that allowed South American leaders to implement long-term radical reforms, the aim of which ultimately would be to replace the dominant model of the Market Economy with the alternative model of the Working Society.

Armenia needs a radical reform of its political, economic and social system, including a constitutional shift to a parliamentary regime, progressive taxation to promote wealth redistribution and laws protecting jobs, insuring universal healthcare, education and social protection; not some so-called “color revolution,” whatever that means.

Haytoug sat down with Marashlian to discuss the contemporary reasons why securing justice and reparations for the Armenian Genocide are important for the survival of the Armenian nation.

HAYTOUG: In addition to the killings and massacres, you’ve written extensively about the Turkish government’s systematic effort to rob Armenians of their wealth and possessions during the Genocide. What would you say to those who argue that the modern Republic of Turkey bears no responsibility for these crimes since they were committed under the Ottoman Empire?

LEVON MARASHLIAN: There’s an ethical and legal dimension to this question. Legally, there’s a statute of limitations for most crimes. I don’t know what it is internationally but, based on most statute of limitations laws, Armenians are late. At some point, you can no longer try to get justice. But when the crime is genocide, they don’t have to necessarily be limited to a statute of limitations. That’s the legal aspect.

That’s one of the reasons why the “g-word” is so important for Turkey. Once it’s genocide, it opens up the possibility for negating statute of limitation laws. Again, I can’t speak on that in detail; you need a lawyer for that. But it does open up the possibility.

The ethical aspect is, if a new government is not liable for the deaths of the previous government, then why does it get the assets of the previous government? So a new government does have a liability. In fact, this is often written in treaties. For example, if one country gets a piece of another country after a war, in the treaty they will include something like, “The country that gets this territory now has to take on the obligations of that part of the old country.” So, if someone in that section of the country you got owes something—let’s say, to a foreign company for building a bridge—now that you’ve got that land, you are going to pay that company for the bridge they built fifty years ago.

There’s a continuity of responsibility and a continuity of benefit. So, that’s not a good argument.

H: You mentioned the ethical and legal aspects. In the past, you’ve also discussed the importance of reparations in terms of survival and security for the Armenian Republic. Can you talk to us about that and explain how reparations can help ensure Armenia’s viability?

L.M.: It seems that more and more people seem to think that an apology from Turkey is enough. Especially after Armenia became independent, the number of such people seems to have increased. Their argument essentially goes like this: Now we have a Republic and it is poor; it has problems. Spending all of this energy and money on Genocide recognition is preventing us from helping Armenia more, and asking for Genocide recognition is contributing to keeping the border closed. We should forget the past and downplay the issue so that we can better assist Armenia.

So, for some Armenians, the Genocide issue becomes a liability for Armenia. One of the people who thinks this way, for example, is Alexander Arzoumanian, the previous Foreign Minister of Armenia. He thinks that we keep pushing these resolutions and it just hurts us, so we should focus instead on developing the country.

What people who think this way are missing is that some kind of reparation from Turkey is primarily needed by Armenia. That Armenia needs a huge influx of resources is undeniable. The aid they get from the Diaspora and the investments are not enough. Armenia needs a huge amount of money from outside. Resolving the Genocide issue the right way could bring Armenia the financial resources it needs. Without those financial resources, my fear is that Armenia doesn’t have a very bright future.

And Turkey knows that very well. One of the purposes of the Genocide was to make Armenians irrelevant in that region. If Armenia stays in its present situation, it will become increasingly poorer. It will depend more and more on Russia. Eventually, it might become a country that is independent just in name. It is already heading in that direction with Russia taking ownership of so many strategic industries such as hydroelectric plants, and so on. Armenia needs something big, something concrete—whether that’s territory or financial.

So, for Armenians who think the way of Arzoumanian, the answer is, on the contrary, rather than being a liability, justice for the Genocide issue may be Armenia’s only salvation.

By the way, when I say this to most people in Armenia, they agree. Every person I’ve talked to says, “Yeah, that makes sense but what are we going to do.” And my answer is, I don’t know what we’re going to do to get there but that has to become the focus. It’s not easy to get something from Turkey but once you reach the premise that without something, you don’t have a future—or at least a good future—then you have to focus on getting something. The danger is when people think that trying to get something is bad for Armenia. That is wrong.

H: What are your thoughts regarding the applicability of the Treaty of Serves today, since many people have that on their minds when they think of Armenia’s legal and national claims against Turkey?

L.M.: The Treaty of Sevres has a very important value. Whether it’s valid legally or not, you would have to ask an international lawyer. But even if it is not legally valid, it still has a very important validity because what it says is, in 1920, the opinion of the world—not just the opinion of Armenians but that the of the Great Powers and all of the countries connected to them (Japan, the US, France, Italy, Britain, and the Ottoman government)—was that justice requires that Armenians get so much. That’s a compelling statement isn’t it? It’s the opinion of the most powerful countries of the world and those countries exist today.

It’s also the opinion of the US State Department. That is perhaps the strongest value of the Treaty of Sevres. It’s not like Armenians were dreaming that this is what we deserve. [The borders demarcating Armenia were] the opinion of experts in the Geographic Department of the US State Department, on the order of the US President.

If the Treaty of Sevres didn’t mean anything, then Turkey would not have internally what is called the “Sevres Syndrome.” Every year, in August, they write articles in Turkey . . . they actually go into a frenzy. One Turkish author, a few years ago, wrote about this asking, “Why is it that every year we go crazy?” The Turks call it our “Sevres Syndrome.” Why do they have this syndrome if the Treaty has no value? If the Turks thought that financial reparation and territorial reparation is impossible, why would they worry so much?

The worry because they know it has value. I should mention here that when they have “Sevres Syndrome,” it’s not just with Armenia. It also includes Kurdistan and other matters. So it opens up a lot of issues for Turkey.

Now obviously, Armenians have to be realistic. Armenians cannot now imagine they could get everything in the Treaty of Sevres. That’s unrealistic to expect that. But my feeling is that it is realistic to expect something. I won’t even define what that something is because then you begin sounding like a dreamer. But something, no matter how small, will be helpful to Armenia.

H: What are the incentives, if any, for the Turkish government and people to come to grips with the crimes committed against Armenians and pay the just compensation they owe?

L.M.: Most Turks will react to this issue with hostility. If they don’t want to admit to the Genocide now, they’re not going to want to have reparations. As far as what I think Turks can gain if they made reparations, I think they would get a lot out of it. I’m not saying they would do it but they would certainly get a lot out of it.

Let’s just imagine that they recognize the Genocide and give some kind of reparations. That would make them look great. It would give them prestige. Their image would skyrocket in the world. Think of how it would look: “Turkey Apologizes and Makes Compensation.” What will happen to their image? They will go from being the “Terrible Turk” to the being the “Generous Turk.”

It’s like Germany. The Germans hold their head up high now. They know what happened, they’ve admitted it and, now, you don’t have constant Jewish resolutions against Germany every year or demonstrations against Germany. They’re not reminded constantly about the Holocaust. Sure, there are films on the Holocaust and educational projects but they’re not constantly attacked wherever they go.

Turks, on the other hand, have this burden that they’re carrying. They have this albatross around their neck. And it’s rotten, it stinks. It would be good for them to get rid of it.

H: Do you have any message or final words to our readers, especially the youth, when it comes to this issue of reparations for the Armenian Genocide?

L.M.: My suggestion is that if young people hear their fellow youth or adults, such as their parents, say something like, “Forget any kind of compensation. We should just push for Genocide recognition, get the Turks to admit it, apologize, and move beyond it.” If they hear something like that, my suggestion to young people is to correct them and to tell them how important some kind of compensation is for the survival of Armenia.

Getting compensation is correct morally also; it’s correct ethically. But it’s not as if Armenia is so wealthy that a few dollars from Turkey is not going to make much difference and we just want it solely for justice. Armenia desperately, desperately needs huge amounts of money. Anybody who goes to Armenia knows what is needed.

Especially if older, more mature Armenians hear this from young people it can make an impact. It might even make them feel embarrassed.

Photo captions:
MarashlianPlazaVaquero: Professor Levon Marashlian
Apostles2: The ruins of the Church of the Holy Apostles in historic Ani
Gen_1: Genocide vicitim mother and child

Dr. Ara Khanjian

For its Fall issue, the Armenian Youth Federation’s Haytoug publication sat down with Dr. Ara Khanjian for a candid discussion on the socio-economic realities in Armenia and how the nation could overcome the challenges that have relegated many of the country’s population to a life of poverty and social inequality.

Dr. Khanjian is a Professor of Economics at Ventura College and a Lecturer in Money and Banking at California Lutheran University, Thousand Oaks. In 1991, he worked at the Economic Institute of the Economic Ministry of Armenia, developing economic legislation, such as labor laws. He currently serves on the Executive Board of the Armenian International Policy Research Group (AIPRG) and is the former editor of the Armenian Journal of Public Policy.

Haytoug: Armenia has been recording steady levels of economic growth and expansion for several years now. How much of this growth has trickled down to the average population and those at the very bottom of the economic totem pole?

Haytoug: What specific policies aimed at reducing poverty and increasing economic equality has the ARF advocated or implemented since joining the coalition government?

Haytoug: The official political coalition agreement of the current Armenian government and much of the statemen’s coming from President Serj Sarkisyan acknowledge the need for the state to fight corruption, combat the shadow economy, promote jobs, reduce inequality, alleviate poverty, and so on. In your view, what are the prospects for the current coalition government to effectively tackle these socio-economic issues in Armenia and what role does the ARF play in these efforts?

Haytoug: How much of the disillusionment and dissatisfaction that exists in Armenia–as witnessed during the post-election turmoil in late February and early March–do you think is attributable to social inequality and real or perceived injustice in the economic sphere?

Haytoug: The Armenian government’s budget has reportedly seen a 35% increase in tax revenue in the first half of this year and the government has promised to increase spending on social programs as a result. How best do you think increased tax revenue should be used to alleviate economic hardships in Armenia?

Haytoug: Is there anything you would like to add in sum of our discussion on economic issues facing Armenia?

Editor’s Note: This interview appears in the Fall issue of Haytoug, the Armenian Youth Federation’s
official publication. The Fall 2008 issue can be found at community
centers, schools and local bookstores. Pick up a copy or download it in PDF format.

]]> http://www.haytoug.org/14/putting-people-above-profit-an-interview-with-dr-ara-khanjian/feed 1