Center for Social Sciences/Tbilisi State University

Center for Social Sciences/Tbilisi State University

MASTER’S THESIS

ARMENIAN PUBLIC DISCOURSE ON EUROPE

1918-1920 AND 2001-2006

By Tigran Matosyan

Supervisor: Dr. George Welton

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………...... 3

Chapter I.

Public Perceptions on Europe in 1918-1920 Armenia………...... 8

Chapter II.

Public Perceptions on Europe in 2001-2006 Armenia………………..17

Conclusion…………………………………………………………….41

References…………………………………………………………….44

INTRODUCTION

Historical developments of 20th century presented Armenians with two opportunities to create their own independent states, i.e. the FirstRepublicin 1918-1920 and the present one established in 1991. Along with many different functions characterizing a sovereign state, the first and third republics had to embark on an independent course of foreign policy making in which the European vector was given a central place. In their meetings with European counterparts Armenian politicians and decision makers of past and presenthave been trying to demonstrate that Armenia was and is an integral part of Europe, if not geographically, at least culturally. In the meantime, these officialshave been definingEuropeas anaspirational model, using a rhetoric directed both to the outer world and domestic audience. This tendency has become much stronger during the ThirdRepublic, more specifically with the advent of the processes of broader European integration. Socio-economic, political and other spheres of European life have been referred to as models which not only should be praised but also followed and applied in the Armenian society.

However, there is a need to note that the elitist discourse on the Europeanness of Armenia andnecessity to follow the European pattern used to be and is currently accompanied by another discourse, namely apublic one. It goes without saying that publicdiscourse – being produced by different interest groups in a society– can be expected to be not only identical with but also different and even opposing to the rhetoric used by the people in power. Therefore, a natural question arises as to what the extent of similarities or discrepancies has been between the rhetoric of Armenian decision makers on the one hand and public discourse makers on the other with regard to Europe.By answering this question a more holistic and more objective picture of the perceptions of Europe in Armenia can be gained.

Drawing upon the study of the Armenian public discourse of the two periods, i.e. 1918-1920 and 2001-2006, my thesis will draw the following conclusions.

a.In the period between 1918 and 1920 the Armenian public discourse on Europe was mostly in line with the one produced by politicians wielding power. Europe with its socio-economic and political organization of life as well as culture and value systemwas depicted as a model for internal emulation and replication.

b.Public discourse generated around the topic of Europein the period between 2001 and 2006 is similar but not identical with the one used by the elites.Being Eurocentric in its essence, the former contains conceptual layers of negative character which are missing in the official discourse. Negative elements of the modern discourse on Europemainly refer to critical interpretationsof present European culture and cautious attitude toward certain European valuesand processes that in the course of further Armenia-Europe integrationmay pose serious threatsto the Armenian identity.

c.Juxtaposition of the discourses of these two periods reveals the existence of a dynamics in circulation of ideas on Europeover time. For example, a set of concepts(which can be defined as essentialist in their nature) used in the period of 1918-1920 reappear in the socio-political context of the events occurred in 2001-2006. Compliments for different aspects of European socio-political life and culture, traditional stereotypes about the European policy toward the Armenian Question, projection of the model of European cooperation as a means of conflict resolution on to the region of the South Caucasus are some of these ideas. In the meantime,the period of 2001-2006 sees of the raising of concepts that are missing in 1918-1920.Some of these concepts are negative in character and, as mentioned above, the product of closer interaction between Armenian and European societies. Some other ideas– like the one of a passive, old Europe falling victim to American expansion – reappear in the modern period in a more elaborated form, with a higher level of intensity.

d. One of the distinguishing features of the discourses on Europe is the fact thatjudgments about Europe in the periods under discussion are made with usual reference to the place of Armenian society, Armenian identity and culture relative to Europe. In general, geographically and culturally Armenia is perceived as located in the middle of Europe and Asia, while the Armenian culture and Armenian identity are considered to be carryingboth European and Asian elements.

This study consists of two parts. The first of themaims at revealing the public discourse around Europe in 1918-1920 Armenia. The main source of information isa set of articles, editorials and speeches in the Armenian newspapers published during this period. Special attention is paid to the aspect of inclusiveness, meaning that the voices of all social movements participating in the public discourse at that time have been taken into consideration. More particularly, official organs of political parties operating in Armenia during this period – Zang and Haraj of Dashnaktsutyun Party (Armenian Revolutionary Federation), Joghovurd of Armenian People’s Party, and so on – have become the object of our study.

The thesis mainly concentrates on the second part of the researchdue to the abundance of materials relating to this period. The focus of the second part is the public discussions generated by modern processes of integration between Europe and Armenia. The period between 2001 and 2006 has been chosen as a time including at least two major turning points (Armenia’s accession to the European Parliament in January 2001, and inclusion of Armenia into the European Neighborhood Policy, 2004-2006) which produced a considerable body of discourse on Europe. Here too, Europe related articles and interviews by journalists, scholars, political and cultural figures which can be found in a wide range of newspapers and magazines – bothindependent and representing various political streams – became the main source of the research. It is noteworthy that such an independent media as the official organ of the Writers’ Union of Armenia, Literary Newspaper, provided the lion’s share of most valuable materials on the topic. Interviews given to the TV channels, as well as televised discussions and speeches have also added to the understanding of current attitudes towards Europe and European values.

The study of the Armenian public discourse on Europe is quite actual for today’s Armenia, taking into account the current processes of integration between Armenia and European structures. Realization of existing attitudes toward Europe and European values may allow Armenian officials in charge of foreign policy affairs to make more self-critical decisions. In a society governed by democratic principles there is a need to take into consideration the feelings and attitudes of various and even opposing interest groups before making decisions. In addition, the results of this kind of research can positively influencethe decisions of the European institutions leading the integrationist process. By gaining a clearer understanding on real expectations at grassroots levels in Armenia – which often are often different from the aspirations of the elites – these institutions will be given a better opportunity of working out more efficient policies towards the states in the confines of the “Wider Europe.”

Another indirect outcome of this study refers to the understanding of the Armenian past and present identity issues as expressed in the public discourse. As a matter of fact, in the process of discussions, Armenian discourse makers consciously or unconsciously have been definingEurope and European values against their own identity and value system. Hence, their attitude derives from a mental juxtaposition of own and European realities. Besides, taking into account the notion that media representations themselves contribute to identity construction, this study also sheds light upon the process of identity-making in the course of Armenia’s integration into European structures.

It should be mentioned that no research touching upon the issues of the Armenian public discourse on Europe has ever been done in Armenia or abroad. There have been some scholarly publications in Armenian concerning different aspects of Armenia’s integration with European structuresas well as separate surveys examining the attitudes of ordinary people towards European structures and values. These materials too have been used for this research.

Public perceptions on Europe in 1918-1920 Armenia

The short period between 1917 and 1919 was characterized by international and domestic upheavals, affecting the lives of Armenians as well as other peoples of the South Caucasus. Dramatic revolutionary changes in Russia in 1917, the emergence of the three South Caucasus republics in 1918, and the end of the World War I were the determinants shaping the structure of socio-political relations in the region.

After the proclamation of independence in May 1918, accompanied by a quite abrupt severance of political ties with now Bolshevik Russia, the political elite of the Armenian republic had to face the problem of a new orientation, which was vital not only from the point of view of securing the republic’s international safety but also in order to build its domestic life. More specifically, the new-fledging republic was in search of an object for emulation and replication to develop different parts of its social fabric including politics, economy, government and education. As it could be expected, Europe came to be viewed as such an object. Hence, the processes of establishment of new socio-political relations in Armenia were frequently run under the influence of and in conformance with the European standards of the time.

The orientation quest and positive attitude toward European values were also reflected in the accompanying public discourse about Europe. In more or less influential Armenian newspapers published during the relevant time span (in Armenia proper and in Tiflis, Georgia), Europe was depicted as a civilizational model, with its social, economic, cultural, political elements. Consequently, the editorials and the articles made interchangeably unambiguous and implicit judgments about the necessity to follow the European pattern of social organization.

In 1919, Avetis Aharonian, a Dashnak Party (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) functionary, was sent to the Peace Conference of Paris as the head of the Armenian delegation to secure territorial, political, and financial benefits for Armenia. As he writes in his memoirs, during a meeting with Bertlo, France’s Vice-Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Avetis Aharonian mentioned the vital necessity of granting a sea access to Armenians; the French official made a point that Switzerland, for example, lived without a sea to which Avetis Ahahronian replied: “Switzerland is in the heart of Europe, surrounded by civilized countries; your analogy is not convincing…”[1]

In a meeting with J.Herbette, editor of Le Temps,Avetis Aharonian again brings up the topic of the sea passage with a motivation depicting the place of Armenia in terms of geography and culture:

We must have a passage to the Mediterranean by all means. We need it, take this into consideration, please, not for Cilicia’s cotton or for any other wealth but because we are one of the nations of the West: we are located in the Asia, hence our road to the West should be open…[2]

Commonness of the word civilized with which Avetis Aharonyan referred to Europe can be easily backed up by findings in the newspapers of that period. First, articles containing Europe-related discourses often use the qualifier civilized attached to the terms Europe or European states. Further analysis of the content of these articles makes it clear that in practice the concept of civilized Europe is a discursive structure determined by its elements. In other words, it is the diversity of its constituent elements – ranging from the issues of European social security to the ones of European regional integration – that constitute the concept of high civilization.

The following editorial ofZang newspaper places its emphasis on the role of high level of European cultural development and statehood thinking as a determinant of social care issues. In the meantime, it expresses the need to transmit European good practice to the Armenian reality:

As the evidence of social life in European countries shows, a special care is taken not only after homeless orphans but also after foundlings…

The care after the foundlings in England is not an act of plain humanism, it is an outstanding example of high perception of statehood…

This attitude is typical of culturally developed peoples educated in the spirit of statehood; we should make efforts to get the same results.[3]

In the same newspaper, an article titled “The Work-school” follows the model of reference used in the editorial mentioned above. The author of the article, Irazek, criticizes the present passive way of education used in the schools in general and praises the reformist movements launched in the civilized world:

It is a well-known fact that the present school not only in Russia but also in all civilized states – including the United States and the classic school country Germany – is of a theoretical, inverbal nature; it is a school of book…

Recently, as we know, the civilized states… saw an unprecedented fomentation of ideas with regard to pedagogy, both theoretical and practical…

What do the proponents of a new school mean by demanding to radically reform and renew the old school? They say that the present school of book should be turned into a work-school, where the practical work should enter and substitute the dry and abstract theory.[4]

Thereafter, the author regrets, saying that since the war started the Armenians were deprived of the possibility to follow these reformation trends deserving admiration:

Today we do not know what the proponents of the new school are doing in Western Europe and in the New World because the war does not allow their voice to reach us. However, we are sure that they must not have resorted to idleness. We are sure that they shall not give up fighting…[5]

The need of replicating a successful model – as it could be seen from the previous examples – was acutely felt especially in the political life. Armenian political elite who had no experience in the independent organization of political institutions directed their gaze toward European democracy. Representatives of the public discourse accompanied them.

In his article “The Trinity of Salvage”published in the political-cultural daily newspaper Mshak in January 1918, Norayr Poghikian reproaches the way the Armenian political parties treat each other in the time of need and refers to the European political life as an aspirational model:

The roots of the discord among our political parties are not in Socialism or in the class struggle. The best evidence to it is all prominent European countries during this war. Take Belgium, for example, where Socialist Vandervelde, with his friends, cooperates with the representatives of bourgeoisie; or England where Henderson, the leader of laborers, does not shun working in the same government with Conservatives; or France where the orthodox Marxist Jules Guesde stretches his hand to ideological rivals. In Europe, they observe the most elementary rule of politics which dictates us to cooperate with the closest ideological adherent against the furthest one…

Part of the Armenian politicians, that always refer to Europe, history, experience, and wisdom, in this case forgot Europe, history, experience, and wisdom all together and cooperated with the furthest, with the enemy.[6]

This kind of attitude toward Europe is felt also with regard to another aspect of the political life – the legislative body, the Armenian parliament.

In one of the 1918 editions ofZang newspaper, the editorial was blaming an intolerant and impatient attitude of Armenian political parties toward the government declarations. It simultaneously implied that this negative practice was a result of the Russian influence as opposed to the European one. Effectively enough, these ideas are outlined in the very first sentence of the editorial: “The experience of the Russia’s State Dumas taught people – who are not familiar with the life of parliaments operating in normal conditions of Europe; and these people are too many among us – to express a certain attitude towards the examination of the government’s declarations.”[7]

It is very interesting to note that the same newspaper used to publish materials self-criticizing the big brushes of the Armenian political emulations. Contemporary Armenian feuilleton writer Ler Kamsar personified that critique. In the feuilleton titled “The Parliament” the author satirically writes that, “…the name parliament is not used by all nations. Only the English, the French and we use this word. The remaining small nations have their unique names.”[8]

A satirical article by the same author, titled “National Notes,” can be used as a prologue to another rubric – Europe as a liberator, as the hope of Armenian national aspirations. It should be said that due to its long and complex prehistory, this topic naturally contains controversial evaluations of European politics and diplomacy toward the Armenian cause.