Category: Harut Sassounian

Last week, we were all shocked by the news that Armenia’s National Security Service (NSS) arrested 19 members of the Armenian military on spying charges for Azerbaijan.

The NSS accused the arrested 19 Armenian soldiers of having transferred classified military secrets to Azerbaijan in return for money. The NSS explained that Azerbaijani agents had contacted the Armenian soldiers by setting up fake Facebook pages with photos of attractive females who communicated in the Armenian language. There are plenty of Azeris who speak fluent Armenian since they were born in Armenia and attended Armenian schools before they fled to Azerbaijan after the civil unrest over Artsakh in the late 1980’s.

There are several serious security issues that the Armenian government should pay immediate attention to and take special measures to minimize the repetition of such spying cases. But even with improved counterintelligence, such problems may not be eliminated, but simply minimized, since almost all countries fall victim to foreign and domestic spies.

Here are my thoughts and suggestions:

1) The Armenian government should take immediate steps to appoint competent experts who know how to run an intelligent service. This suggestion is made because Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has appointed to almost all positions inexperienced and incompetent officials purely based on their membership in his ruling party. The most recent example of incompetence was the surprising announcement by the NSS that they learned from reading a newspaper article that the President of Armenia is a dual citizen which is a violation of Armenian law. Imagine Armenia’s intelligence services learning about such a critical issue from a newspaper after the President was in office for four years, instead of being the first to uncover it.

2) The National Security Service, besides needing expert personnel, must also have the most advanced counterintelligence technology.

3) The Armenian government must consult with ally governments on how to improve the training, organization and activities of its intelligence services.

4) The 19 Armenians who were arrested for spying are accused of transferring to Azerbaijan secret information about Armenia’s military personnel, weapons and military facilities. It remains to be seen if they will be found guilty in a court of law since there have been many Armenian officials arrested in the past four years for committing various offenses, but were not convicted.

5) How can the Armenian military allow its soldiers to have Facebook pages since everyone knows that they are vulnerable to hackers and can be co-opted by outsiders?

6) Where was the oversight by Armenia’s intelligent services as the compromised soldiers were transmitting national secrets to the enemy? It would have been best to prevent the transfer of such secrets before they happen, not after the damage is done.

7) It is highly concerning that such a large number of soldiers of various ranks were arrested. The NSS announced that a total of 24 soldiers were involved in these spying activities which means that there are several other suspects who have not been arrested either due to a lack of evidence or because their identities and locations are unknown. We also do not know how long this spy network has been operating before their arrest.

8) Even if the remaining members of this spy network are arrested and charged, it does not mean that the 24 suspects are the only ones involved in this spying Network. There may be dozens or hundreds of others whose identities and activities are unknown. As opposed to Armenia, Azerbaijan seems to have a highly competent and experienced cadre of agents who know what they are doing. They are most probably trained and aided by the highly skilled Turkish intelligence services, the MIT (National Intelligence Organization).

9) One serious aspect of this spying scandal is that some of the arrestees reportedly sold national secrets for a few hundred dollars. There must be something seriously wrong in Armenia’s educational system if an Armenian, born, raised, educated, and serving in the military, is willing to betray his nation to the enemy for a handful of dollars. It is highly concerning that there seems to be a lack of national pride and patriotic sentiments among some Armenians, particularly soldiers.

10) This is not the first time that spies have been arrested in Armenia. There have been several cases of Armenians spying for Turkey in the past 30 years. Some of them were Armenian government officials.

11) Azerbaijan announced in the past the arrest of a number of Armenians and Azeris who had allegedly spied for Armenia. It is not known if they were really spies or not.

12) I fear that the spying problems in Armenia will get much worse with the contemplated opening of the border with Turkey and Azerbaijan. This will allow many more Azeri and Turkish spies to enter Armenia via air and land as tourists or business people.

13) In addition to actual spies, Azerbaijan and Turkey will collect valuable information about Armenia by debriefing their citizens after their return from Armenia. Of course, spying is not limited to these two countries, as other states are also engaged in gathering intelligence on Armenia.

14) There have been several cases where Armenians, who have immigrated to Turkey in recent years due to lack of jobs at home, have been approached by Turkish intelligence to gather information on Armenia upon their return home for which they were handsomely compensated.

In conclusion, antagonistic actions are carried out not only during the war, but also at peacetime by recruiting domestic and foreign agents. The Armenian government must approach this problem very seriously and allocate the necessary resources and personnel to counter such intelligence gathering activities.

The Washington-based International Republican Institute’s public opinion poll, conducted November 22-December 5, 2021, measured the Armenian population’s views on political, economic, and security issues. The survey was funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The poll revealed a key finding: 46% of the population thinks that “Armenia is headed in the wrong direction,” while only 34% thinks that the country is headed in “the right direction.” This indicates that Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s often-repeated boast that he enjoys “the people’s mandate” is not necessarily so. This is a significant shift from the 54% of the votes the Prime Minister’s political party received in the June 20, 2021 parliamentary elections. More importantly, the number of those who think that Armenia is headed in the wrong direction increased from 20% in May 21, 2021 to 34% in July 2021 and 46% in December 2021.

However, on another important question, “Do you believe that you or people like you can influence decisions made in our country,” 66% said yes, while 33% said no. This is definitely a positive indication for the authorities.

The next question: “Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way democracy is developing in our country?” the country was almost evenly split: 51% yes and 47% no.

To the question: “Do you consider our country to be governed in the interest of the majority of people or in the interest of some groups?” 61% said it was governed in the interest of “some groups,” while only 31% said it was governed in the interest of “the majority.” This reflects negatively on the current government.

On the positive side, 66% of the people surveyed said they are “not afraid of openly expressing their opinions,” while 31% said they were afraid to do so.

To the question: “How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the work of the following state bodies?” the top approval was given to Pashinyan government’s frequent critic, Human Rights Defender’s (Ombudsman’s) office (68% satisfied vs. 25% dissatisfied); the police (68% vs. 29%); local governments (63% vs. 33%); armed forces (58% vs. 37%); Central Electoral Commission (57% vs. 33%); and National Security Service (50% vs. 41%). The Prime Minister’s office came in 7th place with 49% satisfied vs. 48% dissatisfied. The Armenian Parliament came in 16th place with 31% satisfied and a whopping 67% dissatisfied. This is not surprising as the parliament’s televised sessions frequently show scenes of shouting matches, insults, and physical altercations ending with abrupt orders by the parliament’s leadership representing the Prime Minister’s political party to turn off the TV cameras to hide the disorderly conduct of the rowdy parliamentarians.

Turning to foreign policy issues, those surveyed ranked France on top with 92% as having the best relationship with Armenia. Then came Iran (80%); the United States (77%); China (75%); European Union (69%); Russia (64%); Georgia (58%); UK (47%); other (10%); Turkey (5%); and Azerbaijan at the very bottom with 3%.

When asked “Which two countries were the most important political partners for Armenia?” Russia (57%); France (50%); the U.S. (38%); Iran (23%); European Union (5%); China (5%); Georgia (3%); and India (1%).

In response to “Which two countries are the most important economic partners of Armenia?” Russia again came first with 61%; Iran (40%); (China (29%); the U.S. (16%); France (14%); Georgia (8%); European Union (7%); India (2%); and Turkey (2%).

When asked “Which 2 countries are the most important security partners for Armenia?” the answers were: Russia (64%); France (32%); Iran (31%); the U.S. (26%); European Union (5%); China (4%); Georgia (2%); and India (1%).

“Which 2 countries are the greatest political threat to Armenia?” The survey respondents said: Turkey (90%); Azerbaijan (77%); Russia (15%); UK (3%); Israel (2%); the U.S, (2%); and Georgia (1%).

“Which 2 countries are the biggest economic threat to Armenia?” Survey respondents said: Turkey (68%); Azerbaijan (52%); Russia (17%); Georgia (10%); Iran (4%); the U.S. (1%); China (1%); and European Union (1%).

“Which 2 countries are the greatest security threat to Armenia?” Survey respondents said: Turkey (88%); Azerbaijan (81%); Russia (11%); Iran (2%); the U.S. (2%); Israel (2%); Georgia (1%); France (1%); and UK (1%).

“The relationship with which 2 countries needs to be improved for the development of Armenia?” The survey respondents said: Russia (53%); the U.S. (35%); Iran (29%); France (25%); China (15%); European Union (9%); Georgia (7%); Turkey (5%); Azerbaijan (4%); India (1%); and UK (1%).

The survey then asked if the respondents agreed or disagreed with the following three questions:

1) 73% agreed and 25% disagreed that “Armenia should start a dialog with Turkey and normalize bilateral relations, while pursuing the agenda of recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey.”

2) 70% agreed and 27% disagreed that “Armenia must establish bilateral relations with Turkey by putting forward its own preconditions such as Turkey’s non-hindrance of peace in Artsakh.”

3) 44% agreed and 53% disagreed that “Under no circumstances Armenia should pursue normalization of relations with Turkey.”

Most survey respondents disagreed with Pashinyan that opening roads with Azerbaijan is beneficial to Armenia. When asked: “How will the opening of transport routes with Azerbaijan impact Armenia’s economic development?” 27% gave a positive answer; 59% negative.

The same is true for Turkey. When asked: “How will the opening of transport routes with Turkey impact Armenia’s economic development?” 35% gave a positive answer; 53% negative.

When asked: “How important is the resolution to the Artsakh conflict for the future of Armenia in the next 10 years?” The overwhelming 96 % said “important”; 3% “unimportant.”

The survey asked: “What would be an acceptable solution of the Artsakh conflict?”

— 35% said: “Recognition of Artsakh as an independent state.”

— 34% said: “The unification of Artsakh with Armenia as a region of the Republic of Armenia.”

— 16% said: “Establishment of the status of the Artsakh Autonomous Region within Armenia.”

— 11% said: “Establishment of the status of Artsakh within Russia.”

— 1% said: “Maintaining the current status quo.”

When asked: “Is Armenia able to independently defend its borders with Azerbaijan, without the help of any other country?” 46% said yes; 53% no.

Finally, when asked: “Which country would you prefer to assist Armenia in defending its borders?” 47% said Russia; the U.S. (18%); France (14%); Iran (8%); China (2%); European Union (1%); all three Minsk Group countries of Russia, the U.S., France (1%); and NATO (1%).

Whether we agree or disagree, these are the answers that the people of Armenia gave. It reflects their current mindset.

It is simply amazing that every time Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan opens his mouth, he makes a new and bigger blunder. To be convinced of this, all one has to do is follow his speeches, press conferences, contradictory statements in the Armenian Parliament, Facebook postings, flawed decisions and unqualified nominations. To make matters worse, he does not seem to learn from his errors. Pashinyan neither realizes nor admits his mistakes. He seems to be incorrigible.

On January 24, 2022, the Prime Minister gave another one of his so-called press conferences. No reporters were present to ask questions and challenge his misstatements. It was a poorly-orchestrated show to mislead the public. A young lady read the questions supposedly sent by the media. When one of the journalists complained later that his question was presented in a garbled manner, the young lady honestly confessed that she had simply read the questions given to her by the Prime Minister’s aides.

Among the Prime Minister’s biggest blunders was his reply to a question about Armenian historical demands from Turkey. Pashinyan stated that “the Republic of Armenia has never conducted a policy of the Armenian Cause. Never.” I seriously doubt that he knows the meaning of “the Armenian Cause.” His comment is no different than what a Turkish official would have said. It is shameful that after the horrendous genocide that was committed against Armenians in 1915-1923, killing 1.5 million innocent men, women and children, and dispossessing them of their historic homeland, the Prime Minister so casually dismisses Armenians’ just demands and acts as if nothing had happened. This is exactly what the Turkish leaders want — that Armenians forget about the past and drop their demands. Furthermore, the Prime Minister falsely stated that Pres. “Robert Kocharian in 2005 publicly announced that Armenia does not have territorial demands or territorial expectations from Turkey.” I recall reporting about Kocharian’s statement back in April 2005, when a Yerevan State University student asked him about Armenia’s demands for land from Turkey. Kocharian cautiously responded: “This issue would have to be taken up by a future President.” It is clear that at a time when Armenia had its hands full dealing with the conflict with Azerbaijan over Artsakh, it was not in Armenia’s best interest to open a second front with Turkey over Armenian territories. Kocharian did not say that Armenia had no territorial demands from Turkey. He simply said that the resolution of that issue has to be taken up at a later date. It is a shame that Prime Minister Pashinyan repeated what the Turkish media had falsely reported rather than what was actually said by the previous President of Armenia.

Going from one distortion to the next, Pashinyan falsely added that Pres. “Serzh Sargsyan had made a reference to Kocharian’s statement.” I do not recall Sargsyan making such a reference. Pashinyan continued by stating that “Armenia never placed in doubt the Armenia-Turkey border. You will not find a single leader or government of the Armenian Republic who put in doubt the Armenia-Turkey border. We have not resigned from this policy.” In reality, until Pashinyan, no Armenian President or government had accepted the current Armenia-Turkey border nor stated that Armenia did not have territorial demands from Turkey.

Coming to the issue of the Armenian Genocide, Prime Minister Pashinyan wrongly stated: “We must register that the locomotive behind the process of the recognition of the Genocide has always been the Diaspora and Diaspora organizations.” This is exactly what the Turkish government would want the Armenian leader to say. There are several things wrong with the Prime Minister’s statement.

1) Pashinyan is once again splitting the Diaspora from Armenia.

2) The Armenian Genocide is not exclusively a Diaspora issue. The descendants of Armenian Genocide survivors constitute today over one-third of Armenia’s population. That is why every year on April 24 over one million Armenians march to the Armenian Genocide Monument in Yerevan.

3) All previous Armenian governments have pursued the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide. In fact, Armenia’s Declaration of Independence, issued on August 23, 1990, declared the following: “Aware of its historic responsibility for the destiny of the Armenian people engaged in the realization of the aspirations of all Armenians and the restoration of historical justice,” and “The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.” Significantly, the Declaration used the words “Western Armenia,” which is now being abandoned by the Prime Minister. Later, Armenia’s Constitution included a link to the Declaration of Independence.

4) The pursuit of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide is a pan Armenian issue which concerns both the Diaspora and Armenia. Therefore, there must be a coordinated division of labor between the Diaspora and the Armenian government. What the Diaspora is able to do is different from what the Armenian government can do and vice versa.

The Prime Minister also made many other misstatements in his over two-hour-long so-called press conference. However, an entire book has to be written, not just an article, to expose all of his misstatements.

I woke up Sunday morning to the shocking, yet not unexpected, news that the President of Armenia, Armen Sarkissian, announced his resignation while abroad, most probably London, after nearly four years in office.

The President is someone I have known for 30 years. He is a highly-educated man with multiple accomplishments: physicist, computer scientist, successful businessman, diplomat and politician (former Prime Minister and President of Armenia).

Sarkissian, a native of Armenia, graduated from Yerevan State University with advanced degrees in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics. He then became Associate Professor of physics at his alma mater. In 1982, he moved to the UK and became a professor at the University of Cambridge. He subsequently served as the Head of the Department of Computer Modeling of Complex Physical Phenomenon at that university.

In 1991, shortly after Armenia’s independence, Sarkissian became the country’s first Ambassador to London. He served as Armenia’s Prime Minister from November 1996 to March 1997. After recovering from a bout with cancer, he was appointed as Special Advisor to the President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and as a Governor of EBRD from 1998 to 2000. He served on the Dean’s Board and Advisory Board of Harvard and Chicago universities and several prestigious international organizations.

In 2018, Pres. Serzh Sargsyan recommended Armen Sarkissian to the Parliament to be his successor, shortly before current Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan came to power who had been critical of his nomination.

Sarkissian became the President of Armenia under the amended constitution which gave him a ceremonial role with no political decision-making power. He had the choice of either approving appointments proposed by Pashinyan and laws passed by the Parliament or submitting them to the Constitutional Court for its determination.

As President, Sarkissian was entrusted with ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Constitution. He had to navigate delicately through Armenia’s highly charged political atmosphere and severely divided society. Despite the limitations of his office, he used his extensive international political and business contacts to promote relations with Armenia and encourage investments from overseas. He visited over a dozen countries, holding high-level meetings during his tenure.

Meanwhile, Sarkissian was subjected to relentless criticism by Pashinyan’s partisans who never missed an opportunity to undermine his reputation and actions. He was also attacked by opposition groups. Much less understandable was the constant drumbeat by conspiracy-minded Armenians who accused him of being a British spy, without any basis of fact. These individuals must have forgotten that Great Britain is no longer a great power. It lost its vast Empire where the sun never set. Nowadays, Great Britain is a country with its multiple political and economic problems, and not in a position to meddle in Armenia’s internal affairs.

During a private meeting I had with Pres. Sarkissian in his office in 2019, he confided to me the constant criticisms and continued attempts to undermine his activities by his detractors.

We all recall that Pres. Sarkissian found out from the following day’s newspapers about Pashinyan signing the statement of capitulation at the end of the Artsakh War on Nov. 9, 2019. Pashinyan did not have the minimum courtesy of letting the President of Armenia know about his grave decision neither before nor after signing that statement.

Pres. Sarkissian tried to overcome the obstacles created by three separate groups: Pashinyan’s partisans in power, the opposition, and the conspiracy-minded crowd. He was severely criticized for objecting to certain orders submitted for his signature by Pashinyan or laws passed by the Parliament’s ruling majority. The biggest outcry was raised in the fall of 2020, shortly after the devastating Artsakh War, when he publicly urged Pashinyan to resign.

In his resignation statement, Pres. Sarkissian complained that he and “sometimes his family are targeted by various political groups. They are not so much interested in the achievements of the presidential institution for the benefit of the country as in my past, various conspiracy theories, and myths. This ‘concern’ for me goes beyond morality, ultimately directly affecting my health.”

Furthermore, in his resignation statement, Pres. Sarkissian pointed out the “paradoxical situation when the President has to be a guarantor of statehood without actually having any real tools. The Constitution also presupposes the supremacy of one institution over another, creates obstacles for well-known Diaspora specialists to participate in the management of state institutions of the historical Homeland, etc…. We are a parliamentary republic in form, but not in content. The purpose of my proposal was not to move from one form of government to another (parliamentary to semi-presidential or presidential), but to create a state system based on checks and balances.”

Explaining his inability to deal with “the current national crisis” in Armenia due to his limited powers, Pres. Sarkissian concluded his statement with a warning that Armenia will find itself “in the margins of history. We have no right to make mistakes anymore!”

According to the Constitution, Alen Simonyan, the Speaker of the Parliament, is now the Acting President until elections are held for a new President, no earlier than 25 days and no later than 35 days from Sarkissian’s resignation.

The Constitution also outlines the process of electing a new President by the Parliament: At least 25% of the Parliament Members has the right to nominate a presidential candidate. Whoever receives at least 75% of the votes of the Members of Parliament is elected President. If no candidate receives 75% of the votes, a second round of elections is held, during which all the candidates who participated in the first round can run. In the second round, the candidate who receives at least 60% of the total number of the Parliament’s votes is elected President. If not, a third round is held, in which the two candidates with the most votes in the second round can run. The candidate who receives the simple majority of the votes of the Parliament is elected President.

The presidential candidate must: Be at least 40 years old, solely an Armenian citizen for the last six years, permanently resided in Armenia for the last six years, has the right to vote, and speaks Armenian. The term of the President is seven years. He or she cannot be reelected.

The new President will be chosen by the Prime Minister’s party members in Parliament as they hold the majority of the seats. My fear is that an unqualified person will be chosen to be the next President just like the other appointments made by Pashinyan, thus confirming once again his preference for partisan politics over national interests. Rather than establishing much needed governmental checks and balances, the choice of a pro-Pashinyan President will further consolidate the absolute power enjoyed by one man, the Prime Minister. He confirmed our worst fears when during his press conference on January 24, 2022, he said: “the President, government, and majority in Parliament must have a political harmony.” In other words, rather than checks and balances, Pashinyan prefers single-handed rule.

I will attempt to provide a comprehensive analysis of the upcoming “Armenia-Turkey normalization talks” on January 14, 2022 in Moscow. Armenia may be bungling these negotiations once again!

— To begin with, Armenia does not need to negotiate with Turkey to have the border opened. Such negotiations took place shortly after Armenia’s independence in 1991, when Armenia and Turkey opened their mutual border, until Turkey shut down its side of the border in 1993. Since Turkey is the one that closed its border with Armenia unilaterally, it can now open it also unilaterally. I fear that Turkey’s intent to hold such unnecessary negotiations is aimed at extorting concessions from Armenia.

— After its overwhelming loss during the 2020 war, Armenia’s defeated leader will be negotiating from a position of weakness. A devastated leader cannot have the mental and moral fortitude to negotiate properly with such a problematic and cunning enemy. New leaders must first come to power in Armenia so they can start the discussions, if necessary, from a non-defeatist attitude.

— There is a fundamental problem with Armenia normalizing its relations with Turkey, a nation that committed genocide, killing 1.5 million Armenians in 1915. A century later, Turkey still lies about its mass crimes and denies their occurrence. An unrepentant genocidaire cannot be a trusted party with which one can negotiate in good faith.

— In addition to its past crimes, Turkey outrageously participated in a new massacre of Armenians, killing and wounding thousands of young Armenian soldiers in the 2020 Artsakh war. To make matters worse, Turkey recruited Jihadist terrorists from Syria and arranged for their transportation to Azerbaijan during the war. How can Armenia’s Prime Minister engage in discussions with an enemy with such recurring hostility? Just imagine if Germany, a country that committed genocide against six million Jews, would attack today’s Israel and kill thousands of Israelis. Do you think Israeli leaders would then sit down with today’s German leaders and negotiate with them as if nothing happened? Every Jew in the world would be up in arms over such a prospect. Armenia’s leaders seem to be oblivious about Turkey’s past and present crimes. They are more than happy to negotiate with the criminals in Ankara with a callous attitude. If the Armenian leaders won’t defend their nation’s rights, how can they expect outsiders to care about Armenia more than them?

— Prime Minister Pashinyan came to power rejecting the rule of former President Serzh Sargsyan with the slogan “Merjir Serzhin” (Reject Serzh). Why is Pashinyan then copying Sargsyan’s flawed policies with Turkey? Armenians in and out of Armenia were up in arms over the previous president’s ill-fated 2009 Armenian-Turkish Protocols. It does not look like Pashinyan has learned anything from that failed experiment.

— “Negotiations without preconditions” is another mantra repeated by Armenian’s previous and current leaders. But the fact is that, rather than Armenia placing preconditions on Turkey, it is Turkey that is advancing preconditions. During the 2009 Protocols negotiations, Turkey said it did not have any preconditions, nevertheless, several Turkish preconditions ended up in the agreement. Pres. Erdogan’s spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, confirmed such Armenian concerns when he said at the end of December while visiting Chicago: “we want the border to be opened and diplomatic relations to begin. For this, certain conditions must be met and certain issues must be negotiated.”

— The Protocols failed in 2009 because Azerbaijan objected to Turkey opening its border with Armenia. That helped save Armenia’s interests that were supposed to be protected not by Azerbaijan, but by the President of Armenia! The current negotiations may fail also, unless Pashinyan is ready to concede whatever Erdogan asks for. Turkey is now demanding that Armenia accept the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan by signing a peace treaty, thus giving up Artsakh and Nakhichevan for good, and allowing the so-called “Zangezur Corridor,” not just a road, linking Azerbaijan East with Nakhichevan. Finally, if Turkey comes to the table with preconditions, Armenia should be prepared to walk away or counter with its own preconditions: Recognition of the Armenian Genocide, restitution for consequent Armenian losses, and return of occupied Western Armenia.

— Before signing the 2009 Armenia-Turkey Protocols, Pres. Sargsyan made a half-hearted attempt to visit several Diaspora communities ostensibly to hear their views. Pashinyan has made no such attempt. He has not consulted with anyone from the Diaspora. Pashinyan should realize that relations with Turkey are a pan-Armenian issue, not solely a domestic matter of the Republic of Armenia. He should take into consideration Diaspora’s views, even if he is the one who makes the final decision. Moreover, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu recently stated that “extremist groups” in the Armenian Diaspora “should not put pressure on Yerevan,” to disrupt the Armenia-Turkey relations. In addition, Erdogan’s spokesman Kalin said in Chicago recently: “the current Armenia-Turkey normalization process will destroy the Armenian community of the United States.” Such a statement is an unwelcome interference in intra-Armenian affairs. Turkish officials’ unwarranted statements should galvanize all Armenians to reject their unacceptable intervention.

— The qualifications of the person conducting the negotiations on behalf of Armenia are extremely important. Erdogan appointed as Turkey’s negotiator the seasoned diplomat, former Turkish Ambassador to the United States, and notorious genocide denialist Serdar Kilic. Pashinyan, on the other hand, in line with his many other unqualified appointments, named Ruben Rubinyan, a young neophyte with zero diplomatic experience. His only claim to fame is that he is a member of Pashinyan’s political party and Deputy Chairman of the Armenian Parliament. Amazingly, when questioned about Rubinyan’s qualifications, Pashinyan and his political colleagues claimed that Rubinyan’s party affiliation is much more important than his inexperience, thereby putting their party’s interests ahead of that of the nation. Thus, the outcome of the upcoming negotiations is crystal clear since the wolf will be facing the lamb! There must be more competent and experienced Armenian diplomats who can conduct such sensitive negotiations.

— Pashinyan keeps repeating proudly that the leaders of Russia, the United States, and France support his plans to negotiate with Turkey. Let’s not forget that Azerbaijan and Turkey also support this initiative. All of these countries are simply advancing their own interests, not that of Armenia.

— Finally, Pashinyan’s much touted claim of economic benefits to Armenia as a result of opening the Armenian-Turkish border is a dubious expectation. Already, without the border being open, Turkish products have flooded the Armenian market. The opening of the border would mean that the cheaper Turkish products will destroy Armenia’s domestic production. A tiny country with a small population cannot compete with Turkish products which enjoy the advantage of “economies of scale” (higher volume at lower cost). To make matters worse, Pashinyan just threw away the only bargaining chip Armenia had by lifting the temporary ban on the import of Turkish goods, thus depriving Armenia of its trump card in these negotiations.

Turkey, a destitute country with a failing economy, collapsed Lira, 12% unemployment, 36% inflation, and raging coronavirus (7th highest number of infections in the world), is desperate to ameliorate its domestic dismal conditions and mend its damaged ties with the United States, Europe, Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. An astute Armenian negotiator, realizing the Turkish eagerness to impress the world, would attempt to extract more favorable terms for normalizing relations with Turkey.

No one opposes negotiations with Turkey as long as the negotiator representing Armenia is a competent person who is able to bring benefits to Armenia’s interests.