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/2008/11/28/putting-people-above-profit-an-interview-with-dr-ara-khanjian/feed/ 1