Defining Nation and State

One would think that this nation, which, against all odds has maintained its unique culture through several centuries of foreign rule, having finally gained its own independent sovereign state, would double up on its genetic capacity to survive, to struggle, to fight for a high national purpose, rather than succumb to the pressure to turn its rare and precious Statehood into a sterilized generic entity void of national character and historical context.

And yet, that is the path that the Armenian government seems to have adopted. At least all the telltale  signs seem to be pointing in that direction, the most direct and ominous being the government’s adopted position that its sole responsibility is whatever lies within the 29,800 sq km area that it recognizes and accepts as the territory of the Republic of Armenia (never mind that Armenia’s most immediate and aggressive enemy, Azerbaijan, has yet to recognize the same area as sovereign Armenian territory, part of which it still occupies). Everything beyond that area — which includes some of the richest and most valuable Armenian historical and cultural legacy — is deemed to fall outside the scope of responsibility of the Armenian state, and therefore irrelevant to it. The first direct casualty of this approach was Artsakh, a millennia-old Armenian homeland.

One of the standard practices of the Soviet authorities aimed at stifling national sentiments in Armenia was to drive a wedge between the local population and the diaspora. Contact with compatriots aboard was strictly controlled and monitored. The policy was applied especially strictly toward repatriated Armenians who had relatives abroad. They were treated with suspicion, and many were exiled to Siberia for the crime of being nationalistic. But both local intellectuals and diasporan organizations fought this policy. Armenian literary magazines and periodicals published in the diaspora were regularly smuggled into Soviet Armenia, and treasured by local intellectuals, passed from hand to hand and read with a passion.

Narrowing the government’s focus from the nation to the current Republic achieves the result which the Soviet authorities sought, without coercion and without wagonloads of exiles to Siberia. It alienates a substantial portion of the nation that live outside of the 29,800 sq km area but has a profound attachment both to the country and to the nation at large. Specific policies and some declared intentions that formalize and deepen the schism between the country and the nation include: changing the Armenian History course to The History of Armenia in schools, rewriting history books to appease the whims of Azerbaijan and Turkey, admitting that sections in the Constitution of the Republic Armenia are offensive to Azerbaijan and therefore need to be rewritten, succumbing to pressure from Turkey to discard Genocide recognition as a State objective (when Erdogan himself recently proudly and publicly bragged about Turkey’s massacre of the Greek population of Smyrna), questioning the appropriateness of the country’s Coat of Arms to the Republic that was formed in 1991, and teaching schoolchildren that those who say Ararat is our highest mountain are not talking about Armenia but about something else.

While the Armenian nation fought back successfully, albeit with major sacrifices, when the Soviet Union tried to dissolve its national identity into a communal political notion, the current move in the same direction is more elusive and dangerous, because it is being stirred from within the country and is being led by the government, with significant prompts and encouragement from outside. National identity and character face the same threat of an amorphous global anonymity, whether it comes from Communism, Open Society, or direct demands from Turkey and Azerbaijan to tone down patriotic rhetoric in Armenia.

Fortunately, the now infamous 7^th-grade history book has met serious resistance from teachers and historians. Some teachers have gone as far as advocating a boycott of the book. Veteran academicians and historians have also come out with their public criticism both of the 7th grade history book and of changing the name of the course from Armenian History to The History of Armenia. This is encouraging, but the uproar needs to be more broad-based to attract the attention of the populist government in Yerevan. Parents concerned with the education of their children must join the fight, not just by opposing the new history book, but also by organizing and introducing proper history instruction at home, to emphasize their lack of confidence in the curriculum of the government.

It is important to realize that ultimately, all of this boils down to national security. National security is about all the factors that makes a nation willing and able to defend its homeland. A modern, competitive army is obviously at the very core of the system and the main active ingredient. But even if Armenia had that today (which it does not) it would not be enough. The first orbit of enabling factors around that core includes military intelligence, military reform, competence in legal, diplomatic and information campaigns, economic security, and global competitiveness. A second, outer, orbit or shield is less tangible but equally critical:  Sense of nationhood, historical legacy and context, national dignity, social justice, balanced education system, demographic management, national strategic vision, national values, ownership a unique culture, keen sense of national identity and of national historic rights. Once that outer layer is pierced, it becomes increasingly difficult to keep the rest of the national security apparatus functional.

While a state must have a defined geographic area recognized by the international community, its defense cannot be understood purely in geographic terms. Armies defend a homeland, not just real estate. What any soldier fights for cannot be measured by square kilometers. What makes that homeland is all the factors listed above as part of the outer orbit of national security. Decoupling the government agenda from a national agenda in the name of “saving the state,” which necessitates forsaking the pursuit of historic national rights, is internally contradictory and self-defeating, and puts the interests of both the state and the nation at great risk.

The Armenian nation does not need just a state. It needs a nation-state. Most of the diaspora, as well as most of the current citizens and residents of Armenia, have much better options than the Republic of Armenia if all it had to offer was a non-national state where they could live in peace and earn a living. Armenians can live in peace better and earn a better living in any country in Europe, the US, Canada, or the Middle East. Some would do better even in today’s Russia. What attracts them to Armenia is that it is a nation state — that is what differentiates Armenia from all other countries and fills a need that no other country, no matter how prosperous and free, can fill. If the Armenian State decides to rid itself of its national content, it will no longer have anything to offer to the Armenian population either in Armenia or in the rest of the world.

Anyone who takes a careful look at the map of Armenia and the region, will see that the Republic of Armenia cannot be defended without the entire Nation that gave birth to it. This is what any governing body of the Republic must understand. Today’s government not only does not understand this but outright rejects the premise. It needs to take a better look at the map and its nation’s history. As mentioned earlier, the first direct casualty of this failure was Artsakh, an integral part of the Armenian homeland, which was recently subjected, in in full view of the world, to complete ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan. This could indeed be the precursor or more heavy losses if the government fails to chart a new course.

(Vahan Zanoyan is a global energy and security specialist. Over a span of 35 years, he has advised 15 different governments on economic development policy, energy sector strategy, national security, and global competitiveness. He has also served as a consultant to numerous international and national oil companies, banks, and other public and private organizations.  Author’s Note: This article discusses issues and critiques specific policies of the government of Armenia. It intentionally does not name any Armenian government official, and does not use derogatory adjectives, in order to remain faithful to the recommendations of another article on literate and consequential public political discourse.)