In the first part of the article we argued for the national aristocracy’s pivotal role as an indispensable requirement for initiating the nation- and state-building process. Being the first and distinct intellectual and ideological platform, through a rigorous analysis of Armenian history and the history of international relations, we have proposed a strategic Doctrine which will evolve the Armenian people towards its next phase of historical development – its transformation into a political nation. Most of our contributions provide substantive coverage of meaningful challenges impeding the pursuit of this purpose. A look at the history of the formation of other small peoples and states leaves no doubt that ultimate success depends not so much on quantitative factors (size, natural resources) as on the ability to recognise, systematise, and deploy one’s qualitative assets (human resources). Politics is the art of the possible, and this formula holds true for all who set great goals and mobilise resources to achieve them.
However, any significant inception comes with a name. The German nation was started by Otto von Bismarck, the Italian nation began with Camillo Cavour, the Zionist aristocracy got its start with Theodor Herzl, the Irish Republican national elite came from Eamon De Valera, the Polish nation was built under the leadership of Lech Wałęsa, and so on. All these men of different origins and of different epochs shared a profound devotion to the idea of establishing, consolidating, and fostering their own nation-state.
Today Armenians, as a people facing an imminent threat of extinction, are in need, more than ever before, of a figure able to assume a responsibility of historic significance – to launch and lead the process of building a national aristocracy. Why does our survival inherently depend on this very matter? Today’s Armenian world is made up of entirely disconnected and meaningless entities. Instead of a Diaspora (a political institution) we have hundreds of large communities, which in turn are divided into thousands of smaller groups, where narrow groups of merchants and manipulators have substituted national institutions and efficient executive leaders.
Those Armenians who possess the necessary professional skills and are guided by dignifying value system are on their own, unable to identify who or where to join in order to accomplish something beneficial for their country. Yet those few figures who are endowed with experience and values are either indecisive or reluctant to accept the risks of possible failure. Our earlier piece touched upon the three most prominent Armenians of this scale – Armen Sarkissian, the former President of Armenia, Ruben Vardanyan, a benefactor and Artsakh’s former Minister of State, and Noubar Afeyan, a philanthropist and entrepreneur. We have paid significant attention to the first two. Armen Sarkissian is still a figure capable of undertaking a global overhaul of the entire Armenian world given the will and determination to do so. This is a manageable task for a man of such stature, as this endeavour would not necessarily have to commence with Armenia itself. In Spyurk (Armenian communities), where the lion’s share of power and influence of the world’s Armenians is concentrated, Armen Sarkissian enjoys immense authority and respect. Ruben Vardanyan, owing to his unforced errors and political short-sightedness, found himself a prisoner of Ilham Aliyev, and his means of participating in the process of the construction of a national aristocracy are obviously severely limited, especially considering ‘the comprehensive support’ he receives from the Turkish collaborators and vassals of the Third Republic.
In current realities, we have identified Noubar Afeyan as the other credible standard bearer. Globally, he is known as the founder of the life sciences investment company Flagship Pioneering and co-founder of the biotech company Moderna, which developed the eponymous coronavirus vaccine. Afeyan is an extremely multitalented person, a recipient of numerous awards and honours, professor emeritus at some of the world’s elite universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Within the Armenian world he is known as a philanthropist who consistently implements novel projects and initiatives. He launched many of them, including Aurora and The Future Armenian, in cooperation with the same Ruben Vardanyan. Only days ago, another project, Afeyan Initiatives for Armenia, was announced. It is not so essential to delve into these initiatives in detail, as each of them is merely a form infused with content that’s questionable from the point of view of political realism. They stand for humanism and optimism, recognition of the Genocide and prevention of other crimes against humanity, establishment of mechanisms to understand Armenia’s needs, etc.
Noubar is a descendant of the victims of the 1915-1923 Genocide, and from a human point of view, his determination to fight for international recognition of this crime is completely understandable. All of us are such victims, having lost most of our historical homeland, therefore remembrance and fight for its recognition is the sacred duty of all identifying themselves as Armenians. Yet a person of such stature should be cognisant of the need to set pragmatic goals in this effort from the perspective of the national interests of Armenia and the global Armeniancy. One person or even a narrow group initiative cannot set such goals by definition, because the Armenian Genocide is not a humanitarian issue, but a political one. This has been apparent since its inception, with all fundamental reasons contributing to it: the First World War, colonial redistribution of the world, the collapse of the Ottoman and Russian Empires and the emergence of new nation-states upon their collapse. Whether we want it or not, whether we like it or not, the Armenian Genocide was and remains a political tool in the hands of global and regional players who exploit it as they see fit at the time and place of their choosing.
Only independent Armenia (as a subject of international relations) and a global Armenian transnational nation (i.e. with institutionalised Diaspora) united around the defence of its interests can alter this status quo. The modern-day Armenia, being occupied by a pro-Turkish faction, has no inclination to confront this issue in earnest; on the contrary, it is meticulously eradicating Armenian history from our memory, which underpins our identity. It strives to destroy the remains of statehood, turning the country into a cheap geopolitical motel named ‘Real Armenia’. Like it or not, such is the harsh reality. If we are conscious of that reality, we then naturally agree that the only relevant action is a determined fight to free Armenia from all the filth that has been plaguing it since 1994 (ever since signing of the Bishkek Protocol). The renewal of Armenia, the systematisation and consolidation of the fragmented Armenian world – that is our mission, and the means to achieve it is through nurturing of a national aristocracy, which will define a specific strategic roadmap (with objectives and means to achieve them). There is not and cannot be any other path, as we are not the first nor will we be the last to face such a situation.
Georgia is the fresh and geographically closest example for us. It wasn’t a long time ago when Bidzina Ivanishvili emerged on its political scene. He had started as a classic philanthropist who wanted to assist his country somehow to become stronger and more successful. It was for these well-intentioned reasons that he financed the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003, which brought Mikheil Saakashvili to power. Later, the young ‘reformer’ (steered by external actors) brought the country to the brink of extinction with his ill-considered steps. His military misadventure of August 2008 led to the recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Russia, one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council. Later, Ivanishvili would admit his mistake. This and other such mistakes would compel him to work on them and remedy the situation. He took the lead in overthrowing Saakashvili, a process resulted in partial restoration of the country’s sovereignty. Thereafter, Ivanishvili engaged in building a Georgia-centric national aristocracy, which significantly weakened the influence of deeply entrenched pro-Turkish, pro-Azerbaijani, pro-Western, and pro-Russian groups of influence in the country. And the political shape in which which Georgia (of course not devoid of issues and mistakes) has confronted the systemic global crisis of international relations is a clear indicator of a well thought out strategy under the pragmatic and skilful leadership of Bidzina Ivanishvili.
As we noted in the past week’s article, Noubar Afeyan has an advantage: he has been clearly shown how not to do things and what specific examples to follow. Noubar not only does not conceal, but takes pride in his Armenianness. Many Armenians are employed in leadership positions at his numerous businesses. His global thinking coupled with the honourable core values make him a likely and worthy standard-bearer of the nation-building cause. With astuteness and political mastery, provided there is ambition, will, and determination, it can happen before long.
Armenian Republic has been performing comprehensive analyses of Armenia, Armenian world, and international relations since the very first day of its existence. This work, apart from its educational and enlightening contribution, pursues a very specific and practical objective – to facilitate the process of formation of national Armenian aristocracy. We are committed to providing full support to those who recognise the critical importance of this goal and are braced for real, pragmatic, and decisive action.
