Tweet
THE PRESIDENT OF AN ESTABLISHED STATE AND THE DEFENSE MINISTER OF A FAILURE STATE
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 20 2006
On November 17, while discussing the Strategy of National Security
with the scientists at the National Academy of Sciences, the defense
minister of Armenia, the secretary of the Council of National
Security Serge Sargsyan made several statements which contradict to
the statements of the president of Armenia.
Serge Sargsyan stated that he disagrees that Armenia is an established
state. He this disagreed with the scientists who proposed including
the fact of being established in the Strategy. "Perhaps I will be the
happiest person in the world when already the entire society and also
the world rather than individuals state that the Republic of Armenia
is an established state," Serge Sargsyan announced. As a point of
view, his words are not strange, and even if we go deeper into it,
we will find out that the defense minister is right, and Armenia
is far from being an established state. After all, this is also the
state built by Serge Sargsyan, and he surely knows what kind of state
he was building. But the problem is the state, the defense minister
considers a failure state, whereas the president considers it as an
established state.
"Armenia is a country with sustainable development... The Diaspora has
had an invaluable contribution to the establishment of the state,"
this is an extract from the address of the president on the 15th
anniversary of the independence of Armenia. It becomes clear from
Robert Kocharyan's words that the president considers Armenia as an
established state, otherwise he would not describe the contribution
of the Diaspora to having an established state as invaluable. In
addition, the president emphasizes the role of the Diaspora in the
Present Perfect Tense, and since the defense minister used to study
philology at the university, he cannot have difficulty perceiving.
Even if one is not a philologist, it is evident that the president of
Armenia and the defense minister have a major controversy regarding
governance in the state they are ruling. And the issue is a core one.
The problem is the problems the state is facing. An established
state has other problems than a failure state. And the difference
between the problems gives rise to a difference in their solution and
approaches to governance in general. Consequently, if the two persons
in charge of the security of the state have such opposite opinions,
it is at least strange what problems each of them is attending to.
The logic is that public officials with different ideas and
consequently different approaches should be unable to work together
in the top government for many years. It means that either Robert
Kocharyan fails to implement his ideas in government or Serge
Sargsyan. Or if they have been working together and without complaining
from each other for so many years, it is interesting to know what
brings them together. If they have different ideas on the state,
perhaps they shared personal problems. In the long run, the problems
connected with the future of the state did not hinder Serge Sargsyan
and Robert Kocharyan to work together because they did not try to
understand these problems and solve them because otherwise they would
have realized the major difference in their ideas. It means that the
formula of their work is to consider state inferior to their private
life. In terms of the private life, Robert Kocharyan and Serge Sargsyan
have perhaps pursued the same problem - to remain in power for life.
In this respect, it is interesting that in September Robert
Kocharyan awarded Serge Sargsyan and said, "Therefore, stressing the
reinforcement of the statehood, we have to mention the persons who
have their personal contribution to the establishment of the Armenian
statehood..." Serge Sargsyan was awarded for contributing to the
established state. Meanwhile, considering that the defense minister
considers the state as a failure state, the president awarded him for
something he did not do. Even if we suppose that Robert Kocharyan
thinks otherwise, it's all the same - Serge Sargsyan should have
rejected the award and say he cannot be awarded for something he did
not do. If neither Robert Kocharyan, not Serge Sargsyan acted so,
it means the award was given for something else than state building.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 20 2006
On November 17, while discussing the Strategy of National Security
with the scientists at the National Academy of Sciences, the defense
minister of Armenia, the secretary of the Council of National
Security Serge Sargsyan made several statements which contradict to
the statements of the president of Armenia.
Serge Sargsyan stated that he disagrees that Armenia is an established
state. He this disagreed with the scientists who proposed including
the fact of being established in the Strategy. "Perhaps I will be the
happiest person in the world when already the entire society and also
the world rather than individuals state that the Republic of Armenia
is an established state," Serge Sargsyan announced. As a point of
view, his words are not strange, and even if we go deeper into it,
we will find out that the defense minister is right, and Armenia
is far from being an established state. After all, this is also the
state built by Serge Sargsyan, and he surely knows what kind of state
he was building. But the problem is the state, the defense minister
considers a failure state, whereas the president considers it as an
established state.
"Armenia is a country with sustainable development... The Diaspora has
had an invaluable contribution to the establishment of the state,"
this is an extract from the address of the president on the 15th
anniversary of the independence of Armenia. It becomes clear from
Robert Kocharyan's words that the president considers Armenia as an
established state, otherwise he would not describe the contribution
of the Diaspora to having an established state as invaluable. In
addition, the president emphasizes the role of the Diaspora in the
Present Perfect Tense, and since the defense minister used to study
philology at the university, he cannot have difficulty perceiving.
Even if one is not a philologist, it is evident that the president of
Armenia and the defense minister have a major controversy regarding
governance in the state they are ruling. And the issue is a core one.
The problem is the problems the state is facing. An established
state has other problems than a failure state. And the difference
between the problems gives rise to a difference in their solution and
approaches to governance in general. Consequently, if the two persons
in charge of the security of the state have such opposite opinions,
it is at least strange what problems each of them is attending to.
The logic is that public officials with different ideas and
consequently different approaches should be unable to work together
in the top government for many years. It means that either Robert
Kocharyan fails to implement his ideas in government or Serge
Sargsyan. Or if they have been working together and without complaining
from each other for so many years, it is interesting to know what
brings them together. If they have different ideas on the state,
perhaps they shared personal problems. In the long run, the problems
connected with the future of the state did not hinder Serge Sargsyan
and Robert Kocharyan to work together because they did not try to
understand these problems and solve them because otherwise they would
have realized the major difference in their ideas. It means that the
formula of their work is to consider state inferior to their private
life. In terms of the private life, Robert Kocharyan and Serge Sargsyan
have perhaps pursued the same problem - to remain in power for life.
In this respect, it is interesting that in September Robert
Kocharyan awarded Serge Sargsyan and said, "Therefore, stressing the
reinforcement of the statehood, we have to mention the persons who
have their personal contribution to the establishment of the Armenian
statehood..." Serge Sargsyan was awarded for contributing to the
established state. Meanwhile, considering that the defense minister
considers the state as a failure state, the president awarded him for
something he did not do. Even if we suppose that Robert Kocharyan
thinks otherwise, it's all the same - Serge Sargsyan should have
rejected the award and say he cannot be awarded for something he did
not do. If neither Robert Kocharyan, not Serge Sargsyan acted so,
it means the award was given for something else than state building.