A SAD INDEPENDENCE CELEBRATION

Armenia has marked one of its main public holidays - Independence Day, the anniversary of the founding of an independent Armenia in 1918. But in Yerevan on this day they preferred to pay greater attention to the "victory in the Battle of Sardarabad" rather than focussing on the proclamation of independence as such: according to the version of local historians, on that day the Armenian regular units defeated the Turkish troops. In Yerevan they did moreover prefer to celebrate the battle of Sardarabad itself rather than the proclamation of independence. It is precisely in Sardarabad and not in Yerevan that the main celebrations are taking place, attended by President Serzh Sargsyan and guests of honour, including the leadership of Armenia and also the Catholicos of All Armenians, Garegin II.

The transfer of the celebrations from Yerevan to Sardarabad appears to be extremely symbolic, considering what actually happened in the history of the first Armenian republic.

In actual fact, all three independent states that emerged in the Southern Caucasus in May 1918, namely Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, did not last long, and were soon, as the authors of Soviet history textbooks delicately put it, "Sovietised". But it is not without reason that the experts advise avoiding stereotypic approaches, no matter what the subject is, whether it is music, natural sciences, history or political analysis. No matter how similar the fates of the three independent states in the Southern Caucasus in 1918-1920 might be, fact remains fact: by 1920 Armenian statehood in the Southern Caucasus was on the verge of collapse. The Dashnak war unleashed against Turkey and Azerbaijan was shamefully lost. The peace treaty of Alexandropol had already been signed, which can hardly be said to have done Armenia any honour. Although making conjectures along the lines of "how would things have turned out, if only…", is considered in bad taste in historical science, the phrase "history does not tolerate piles of subjunctives" was obviously not invented without reason: it was precisely the "Sovietisation" of Armenia, which had been artificially created in the Caucasus thanks to the resettlement policy of the Russian Empire, that allowed it to be retained on the map of the world altogether. 

It is no accident that the newspaper "Voice of [Regions of] Armenia", quoted the opinion of the Catholicos of All Armenians, Vazgen I, whom, even by its own admission, the newspaper found difficult to suspect of particular sympathies for the Soviet Union: "A happy turn of events saved the Armenians from complete annihilation: the establishment of Soviet law and order brought our people and country to the banks of salvation and security. Had Soviet Armenia not been founded, had there been no 29 November, the 28 May would have remained solely a date on Armenia's gravestone." There is no getting away from it, this is an eloquent remark.

But the problem is that today's Armenia is essentially repeating the same mistakes in a new historical context, and, as a result of these mistakes, Armenian statehood may once again fall victim to the aggressive policy of Armenian circles. In Yerevan they are already admitting that the day of the first republic is a celebration that "leaves a bitter taste in the mouth". The political landscape in today's Armenia has already turned out to be too cheerless and not at all festive; as a result of its own aggressive policy, Armenia has become cut off, both from very promising economic and transport projects, as well as from its own natural regional partners, first and foremost Azerbaijan and Turkey. Back in 2010 the Russian "Birzhevoy lider" ["Stock Exchange Leader"] referred to Armenia as the "poor relation of Transcaucasia" and, in the course of these years, if the situation has changed for Yerevan, it has only changed for the worse.

In actual fact, it would be most exact to refer to the country's economic situation as poverty-stricken. By the most modest estimates, more than one third of the population lives below the poverty line. In the number of poor people in its population, Armenia ranks alongside such countries as Afghanistan (36 per cent of the population below the poverty line), Bangladesh (31.5 per cent), Colombia (34.1 per cent), Kyrgyzstan (33.7 per cent), Mongolia (39.2 per cent), Paraguay (32.4 per cent) and Venezuela (31.9 per cent). World Bank data is evidence of this. This country occupies first place in the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] in its 18-per-cent level of unemployment, which the experts are warning can only get higher.

Many experts acknowledge that Armenia does not have much chance of "ironing out the situation". The volume of investment in Armenia's economy keeps going down. Thus, Russian investments in Armenia's economy, and that is taking into account Yerevan's declared willingness to join the [Russian] Customs Union, went down by 29.7 per cent in 2013 and amounted to 86.25m dollars. Not a very generous figure. France is also cutting down its capital investments in Armenia's economy. The historical ties, the statements by politicians about traditional friendship and so forth are one thing, but actually making investments is quite another. The investors are not interested in the popularity of Charles Aznavour, but in the realistic profits per dollar of investments, where "squeezed" Armenia simply does not have anything to offer potential partners.

Even Yerevan itself now recognises that there are no opportunities for ironing out the situation, even with the help of foreign loans. Taking into account the crisis in the Eurozone, the mortgage crisis in the USA and so forth, there is little spare cash on the world financial market. So, it is all the more unlikely that it would be handed out from philanthropic considerations. Armenia's economic situation is such that the repayment of loans cannot be counted upon. Plus the fact that, whereas the authorities acknowledge the country's foreign debt as 37 per cent of GDP, the experts in the opposition camp refer to a much more alarming figure of at least 50 per cent. And this, the economists stress, is a critical level. All the gold reserves have been sold. Armenia's new government headed by Hovik Abrahamyan, is, according to independent sources in Yerevan, facing an everyday shortage of money.

The most unpleasant and natural outcome is that, as result of this policy, the Armenian population is systematically decreasing; its citizens are not simply leaving, they are fleeing. Former Prime Minister Hrant Bagratyan, commented that they were even following the railway lines on foot. 

The newspaper "Erkramas" writes, "We will of course celebrate. But one has to agree that there is a certain lack of satisfaction. But where should we get it from, when more than 20 years after our country acquired independence, the republic's population is decreasing. Potential emigrants are packing their suitcases, and this means that all our achievements are under threat; it means that everything is very far from in order in our beloved state." This is a state, which like the First Republic, can most exactly be referred to as one that never was.