Tweet
ROBERT KOCHARYAN'S CAMEL IN FRONT OF SAAKASHVILI'S DOOR
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
09-11-2007 11:21:57
When the Armenian foreign minister Vardan Oskanyan states that Armenia
is interested in stability in Georgia, it is quite logical. When the
only path connecting with the world passes across the land of one's
neighbor, one need not be a good diplomat to realize that stability
and welfare in the neighboring territory is in one's interests. In
the given case, however, Armenia is like a man who can leave the house
through the neighbor's yard only and says stability and welfare of the
neighbor is important but in the evening he looks through his window
and smiles to himself on seeing how the yard is being ruined. The way
how the official propaganda of Armenia presents the events and the
situation in Georgia is like watching through the window and laughing.
The reason is clear. What is underway in Georgia is an excellent
opportunity to show what a bad thing the so-called color revolution is,
and what consequences it may have. This opportunity was like heavenly
manna for the Armenian official propaganda, especially in view of the
home political situation in Armenia, which has sent the government
into sheer panic.
In reality, the official propaganda machine, which uses the events in
Georgia to praise indirectly stability in Armenia, cannot imagine that
it is not what it may seem to be at first sight. If we view the problem
in deep, we will see that what is underway in Georgia has nothing to
do with a revolution. The point is that it is the contrary. Mikhail
Saakashvili had started to deviate from the values of the revolution,
and now he has got the first yellow card. The problem is not the
Georgian opposition, the source of its funding, whether the West
or Russia provoked unrest or the public is really disappointed with
Saakashvili. The problem is that Saakashvili has formed a government
which steadily leads the country toward development but it gradually
shortens the rights and freedoms of the society. In this sense,
the kind of government was gradually forming in Georgia which now
is in Armenia. In other words, European integration and democracy
were gradually turning into a declaration, and the economic growth
and stability were gradually turning into the heavy artillery of the
state propaganda machine, and everyone who opposes to it is considered
as a foe of Armenia (i.e. Georgia) and a foreign agent. If in the
case of Armenia blames Turks or Azerbaijanis, Georgia blames the
Russians. In both cases the factor of the external foe is used to
mobilize the society. The person who breaks stability for rights and
freedoms is accused of serving the foe, endangering the resolution
of the Karabakh issue; in Georgia they mention Abkhazia, Ossetia,
efforts against the territorial integrity of Georgia.
It turns out that when the official Armenian propaganda is grinning
or laughing at the situation in Georgia out of the home political
conjuncture, it is laughing at the situation in Armenia in reality. It
is showing how the government leading to an organized state ends,
which Saakashvili attempted to do. What is underway is not the
consequence of the color revolution. The color revolution is the
consequence of the government which was starting to form in Georgia
like in Armenia. It was not accidental that after his election
Saakashvili first visited Armenia, and when he was leaving, the
emotion of his speech at the airport showed how impressed he was by
the government of Armenia. It is not a surprise that it would affect
the presidential activities. And it is not a surprise that one day
Saakashvili would hold on to power through the truncheon. But unlike
the Armenian government Saakashvili is trying to stop on time, and
the decision to hold an early election is evidence to it. Although
Robert Kocharyan might have had to draw a similar conclusion had the
opposition been better organized and consistent.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir.am
09-11-2007 11:21:57
When the Armenian foreign minister Vardan Oskanyan states that Armenia
is interested in stability in Georgia, it is quite logical. When the
only path connecting with the world passes across the land of one's
neighbor, one need not be a good diplomat to realize that stability
and welfare in the neighboring territory is in one's interests. In
the given case, however, Armenia is like a man who can leave the house
through the neighbor's yard only and says stability and welfare of the
neighbor is important but in the evening he looks through his window
and smiles to himself on seeing how the yard is being ruined. The way
how the official propaganda of Armenia presents the events and the
situation in Georgia is like watching through the window and laughing.
The reason is clear. What is underway in Georgia is an excellent
opportunity to show what a bad thing the so-called color revolution is,
and what consequences it may have. This opportunity was like heavenly
manna for the Armenian official propaganda, especially in view of the
home political situation in Armenia, which has sent the government
into sheer panic.
In reality, the official propaganda machine, which uses the events in
Georgia to praise indirectly stability in Armenia, cannot imagine that
it is not what it may seem to be at first sight. If we view the problem
in deep, we will see that what is underway in Georgia has nothing to
do with a revolution. The point is that it is the contrary. Mikhail
Saakashvili had started to deviate from the values of the revolution,
and now he has got the first yellow card. The problem is not the
Georgian opposition, the source of its funding, whether the West
or Russia provoked unrest or the public is really disappointed with
Saakashvili. The problem is that Saakashvili has formed a government
which steadily leads the country toward development but it gradually
shortens the rights and freedoms of the society. In this sense,
the kind of government was gradually forming in Georgia which now
is in Armenia. In other words, European integration and democracy
were gradually turning into a declaration, and the economic growth
and stability were gradually turning into the heavy artillery of the
state propaganda machine, and everyone who opposes to it is considered
as a foe of Armenia (i.e. Georgia) and a foreign agent. If in the
case of Armenia blames Turks or Azerbaijanis, Georgia blames the
Russians. In both cases the factor of the external foe is used to
mobilize the society. The person who breaks stability for rights and
freedoms is accused of serving the foe, endangering the resolution
of the Karabakh issue; in Georgia they mention Abkhazia, Ossetia,
efforts against the territorial integrity of Georgia.
It turns out that when the official Armenian propaganda is grinning
or laughing at the situation in Georgia out of the home political
conjuncture, it is laughing at the situation in Armenia in reality. It
is showing how the government leading to an organized state ends,
which Saakashvili attempted to do. What is underway is not the
consequence of the color revolution. The color revolution is the
consequence of the government which was starting to form in Georgia
like in Armenia. It was not accidental that after his election
Saakashvili first visited Armenia, and when he was leaving, the
emotion of his speech at the airport showed how impressed he was by
the government of Armenia. It is not a surprise that it would affect
the presidential activities. And it is not a surprise that one day
Saakashvili would hold on to power through the truncheon. But unlike
the Armenian government Saakashvili is trying to stop on time, and
the decision to hold an early election is evidence to it. Although
Robert Kocharyan might have had to draw a similar conclusion had the
opposition been better organized and consistent.