Questions That Need Answers: The Diaspora was loud, forceful and often not even civil when it delivered its message to President Serzh Sargsyan during his five-city visit intended to explain the government’s position on the protocols and ostensibly to rally support.
What began inauspiciously in Paris continued in New York, Los Angeles and Beirut, and concluded in Rostov, albeit more mildly. At the end, one thing is clear. The organizers miscalculated. The content and the intensity of the reactions, responses and reception were different from what was customary and what was expected.
As a result, the government’s – more specifically, the president’s – message was not effective. The consequence of all of this is that the Diaspora is not on board. The Armenian public was already not collectively on board. Yet this is a policy and an action that requires solid support from a people who have lost much and who therefore believe they have much to lose still.
At the end, there are several old, and several new questions that the Armenian government must be able to answer regarding the signing of these protocols:
Does the Armenian government truly believe that any opening with Turkey is necessary at all cost?
Is the economic incentive of an open border truly so great and so realistic that it outweighs the strategic and political concessions inherent in these documents?
Is there the will to postpone the process, set aside the odd, artificial time line and re-negotiate a document that indeed sets us on a path to the future?
Is there the will to address the Diaspora, again, this time with a view to removing the chasm that now exists?
The Diaspora was loud, forceful and often not evenQ civil when it delivered its message to Q Serzh Sargsyan during his five-city visit intended to explain theQ government’s position on the protocols and ostensiblyqqwdsdWhat began inauspiciously in Paris continued in New York, Los Angeles and Beirut, and concluded in Rostov, albeit more mildly. At the end, one thing is clear. The organizers miscalculated. The content and the intensity of the reactions, responses and reception were different from what was customary and what was expected. As a result, the government’s – more specifically, the president’s – message was not effective. The consequence of all of this is that the Diaspora is not on board. The Armenian public was already not collectively on board. Yet this is a policy and an action that requires solid support from a people who have lost much and who therefore believe they have much to lose still.
At the end, there are several old, and several new questions that the Armenian government must be able to answer regarding the signing of these protocols:
Does the Armenian government truly believe that any opening with Turkey is necessary at all cost?
Is the economic incentive of an open border truly so great and so realistic that it outweighs the strategic and political concessions inherent in these documents?
Is there the will to postpone the process, set aside the odd, artificial time line and re-negotiate a document that indeed sets us on a path to the future?
Is there the will to address the Diaspora, again, this time with a view to removing the chasm that now existsQuestions
